{"text":"European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 (amendment of Decision No 573\/2007\/EC). Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1104\/2008) - Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Decision 2008\/839\/JHA) - The establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe report by Mr Tavares, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 573\/2007\/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' and repealing Council Decision 2004\/904\/EC - C7-0123\/2009 -,\nthe report by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1104\/2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - C7-0244\/2009 - 2009\/0136(NLE)),\nthe report by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Decision 2008\/839\/JHA on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - 2010\/0006(NLE)), and\nthe report by Mr Tavares, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme.\nCarlos Coelho\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by reminding you that Parliament has already criticised the enormous delays in implementing the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). On 22 October 2009, we adopted a resolution on the SIS II and the Visa Information System. The European Parliament once again expressed deep concern at the delays in commencing operations and requested information from the Commission and the Council on the results of the technical tests, demanding full transparency regarding the implementation process for the SIS II.\nThe SIS II should have become operational in 2007. We are now in 2010 and no one is able to give a firm answer on when it will be concluded. As regards the package of proposals that we are considering, four fundamental questions arise. First, when is this migration to take place? Before the SIS II can become operational it must be personally tested to check whether the system is capable of functioning in accordance with the technical and operational requirements set out in the respective legal instruments. Only after all these tests have been successfully concluded can migration from the first generation Schengen Information System to the SIS II take place.\nSecond, have these tests been concluded? No. Faced with enormous delays to the project, and because of all the problems and difficulties encountered, the Council decided to carry out two 'milestone' tests: the first in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the second in summer 2010. However, the first test had to be postponed until late January because the prerequisites had not been met. The test took place between 21 and 24 January 2010: apparently the system worked for the first 25 hours, but was notoriously unstable throughout the rest of the test. This test was carried out again between 2 and 5 March, and the final assessment and validation of the second set of tests took place on 6 April.\nAlthough the test conditions were not fully respected by the Member States or the contracted company, and despite the fact that the limited number of transfers did not comply with the required response times, the great majority of Member States concluded that the deviations were insignificant and that the tests' major objectives had been met. The new general timetable and budgetary plan are to be adopted at the next Council meeting in June, or in October 2010 at the latest.\nIt was also thought essential that the following conditions be met before the system becomes operational. The Milestone II test must be successfully carried out and the operating conditions must be fully met. The overall test for which there is provision in Article 55 of the Regulation must also be successfully carried out, and the safety of the network completely ensured.\nThird question: why is it so urgent for these initiatives to be adopted? Although the conditions necessary in order to go ahead with the migration have not all been met, nor is a time foreseeable when that will be the case, the mandate that was granted to the Commission to develop the SIS II will expire again on 30 June 2010. We therefore have to amend the sunset clauses in the migration instruments adopted in 2008 in order to prevent them from expiring.\nFor my fourth and final question, what aspects of the proposals have I sought to amend? First, the insertion of a sunset clause, which the Commission had not proposed. We propose that it be set for 31 December 2013. Given the considerable delays, it is also essential that it be set out in the legal basis that the solution used, whatever it may be, must be based on the available technology, must follow a reasonable timetable and must be acceptable in terms of cost effectiveness.\nThe Global Programme Management Board must also be created, and its management of the SIS II formally integrated. I am absolutely convinced that if this body had existed from the start, we would have managed to be better coordinated, we would have known more, and we would have been more effective.\nFinally, I consider it crucial that the migration process be submitted to parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament is not just responsible for the legal basis: as budgetary authority, it also ensures the supervision of actions financed by the Union budget. That is why I, alongside my fellow Member, Mr Alvaro, have tabled an amendment to place funds in reserve. I have also tabled an amendment alongside my fellow Members Mr Alvaro, Mrs Ludford, Mr Enciu and Mrs Hohlmeir to request an audit by the European Court of Auditors. I would like to thank everyone for being extremely cooperative.\nPresident\nI am unable to give the floor to Mr Tavares right now because he has had some slight transport problems thanks to a certain volcano. As soon as he joins us, I will give him the floor.\nAlexander Alvaro\nMadam President, SIS II is a tale of attempts, failures and new attempts that has gone on for years. These attempts, failures and new attempts have thus far gobbled up a total of EUR 90 million - 90 million which, in many people's eyes, has been completely wasted.\nFrom a budgetary point of view, I can endorse Mr Coelho's every sentence, every word and every effort. We are working very closely and very well together on this. We all have a common interest in SIS II working. Sometimes, however, you have to admit - as with many things in life - when things are not working, and you have to consider alternatives.\nWe, as the European Parliament, are not prepared to give up this project already and we will support Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m, who has accepted this difficult inheritance, in any way we can. It must be clear, however - and we have established this in the Committee on Budgets and are also recommending it to the plenary - that contributions for SIS II be placed in the reserve, so that we can have more control over the use of these funds. Personally, I expect that there is a plan B for the case where we admit, one day, that we are not able to achieve what we wanted to achieve.\nPresident\nIn the absence of Mr Tavares, I give the floor to Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m.\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Coelho and Mr Alvaro for their contributions, and thank you for the very constructive cooperation we have had on this extremely complicated file that I inherited. It is very complicated, but I am determined to work together with you in order to get this right in a transparent way and to see the project completed.\nThe vote tomorrow is very timely for the SIS II project. The Council has confirmed that the Milestone I test was successful and that the development of SIS II should continue on the basis of current technical solutions.\nThe legislative proposals before you contained three substantial elements: Mr Coelho made reference to them, and that will change the development of the project. First, as Mr Coelho said, the initial expiry date of the instruments - 30 June this year - has become unrealistic and will therefore be changed. This will allow the SIS II project to continue in the light of technical requirements and a global schedule which are currently being redefined with the Member States' experts. It will be available for the Council on 3 and 4 June.\nThe rapporteur calls for a specific deadline for SIS II development. I am sorry to tell you that the Commission is not yet in a position to take up that proposal. The Commission's experts, together with all Member States, are in the process of finalising the adaptation of requirements and the new global schedule. Once this is done, the Commission will make appropriate suggestions in the light of the new global schedule to be presented at the next Justice and Home Affairs Council in two weeks.\nSecondly, the Global Programme Management Board is a group of technical experts advising on SIS II development and that should be formalised. The global management board has already proven to be a very good tool of cooperation and technical analysis between the Commission and Member State experts. The proposal will make sure that this will continue whilst streamlining the board's role, composition and procedures. For this reason - it is a purely technical body - it is not appropriate to open the board to MEPs and other parliamentary officials. We will continue to move forward on SIS II in a transparent way with the European Parliament, but we must keep a clear distinction between the technical work and political transparency. But in this spirit, the Commission is open to providing full technical information to the Members of this House by making available the reports of the board to Parliament, in line with what Mr Coelho suggests.\nThirdly, the necessary legal flexibility to carry out the development through an alternative technical scenario would be foreseen and I believe that we all agree on the rationale of this.\nAs regards the budgetary aspects of continuing SIS II development, the Commission shares the rapporteur's aim to make the most efficient use of taxpayers' money. In this context, the report asks to reserve Parliament's right to put funds for SIS II development for 2011 in the budgetary reserve. This is, of course, entirely within the discretion of the budgetary authority. From the point of view of budgetary implementation, I would only ask Mr Alvaro if there could be some sort of clear and efficient de-blocking procedure for the case when we would need the money. I would like to thank the LIBE committee, Mr Coelho and the Budgetary Control Committee rapporteur, Mr Alvaro, for their excellent cooperation on this file.\nI am sorry that Mr Tavares is not yet here. We would have had an opportunity to discuss the EU resettlement programme - an extremely important subject - with him. As you know, a large majority of refugees worldwide are hosted in countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Many of these refugees find themselves in Catch-22 situations: they cannot return to their country of origin, nor can they integrate locally in the country of first asylum, since many of these countries are themselves victims of conflict or poverty. For these groups of refugees, resettlement can be the only solution.\nThrough resettlement, the Member States of the European Union can demonstrate tangible solidarity with these often over-burdened countries of first asylum, at the same time protecting some of the most vulnerable refugees under sustainable and humane conditions. Today, resettlement is carried out, but there is no structural coordination at EU level. The Commission believes that the EU can play a bigger part and be more active on resettlement by strengthening the Union's role globally and showing solidarity with the most affected regions. The proposal tabled in September 2009 aims to improve the situation. We are very satisfied by the very positive response that Parliament and the Council have given to the proposal. I would particularly like to thank Mr Tavares for his sterling work on this, and I welcome the strong political consensus among the different groups on this matter.\nThe idea in the proposal is that the EU, in partnership with the UNHCR, will contribute to more strategic use of resettlement on the basis of an annual decision on the common priorities for resettlement. By pooling the national quotas, the EU can help to alleviate some of the most difficult conflicts in the world and in refugee situations. The programme leaves to each Member State the final choice as regards the number of refugees to be resettled, although it will enable them to coordinate and mutualise experiences and best practices. Through the annual exercise, the EU will be able to be more reactive to evolving challenges and global refugee needs in order to render more efficient the Member States' use of the European Refugee Fund. The programme will also help in a more targeted and practical cooperation project through the Asylum Support Office, working with both national administrations and civil society organisations. I fully support the rapporteur's idea of creating a specialised unit in the office to be established in Malta.\nThe Joint EU resettlement programme is being discussed at a crucial time: since 2007, five Member States - in addition to those which already had the programmes - have decided to start national resettlement programmes. Several other Member States have resettled Iraqi refugees over the past year in response to a commitment agreed at EU level in 2008. It is crucial that we maintain this positive momentum and that the adoption of the proposal is not delayed.\nWe regret, however, that certain divergences and procedural issues are hampering the rapid adoption of this proposal. This proposal is of great political significance. The Commission's decision to establish annual priorities for resettlement is an implementing decision, and forms part of the financial management of the European Refugee Fund. With respect to the 'delegated acts' procedures, we are concerned that the procedure would be considerably delayed, making management of the fund very difficult.\nThis is a first step towards a common approach; there will, of course, be a review of the experience, and there are plans to bring forward more ambitious initiatives as part of the Stockholm Programme.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou\nThank you, Commissioner, for your update. Although Mr Tavares is not with us, I want to thank him for the cooperation which we have enjoyed to date and to express on behalf of our political group our positive position on the resettlement programme.\nWe are talking about a single asylum area and the integrated refugee management policy that we need. Of course, the financing instrument to support this endeavour is the European Refugee Fund which, it is true, we have not sufficiently exhausted to date and there are margins for us to do bigger and better things.\nThe European response to global resettlement requirements has been adequate to date. I would remind you that the Member States participate on a voluntary basis and, so far, together with the two countries which took part in this particular resettlement, only 12 of the 27 Member States are participating in this endeavour and, to date, the figures from it have not been particularly encouraging. In 2009, 6 896 refugees arrived in Europe under the resettlement programme, which accounts for just 8.2% of the total.\nWe therefore certainly need better coordination and what we are trying to do, through this report and the consultation we held, was to give incentives, to explain to the Member States, that we have every reason to proceed with the application and implementation of this programme.\nOf course, protection for human rights and our real solidarity with third countries are a top priority objective. However, we must understand that another argument why all the Member States have reason to participate in this programme is because, through this programme, we can send all those who need it a message that they have every reason to opt for legal channels in their efforts to reach Europe, to reach European territory, for a better future.\nIllegal immigration could also be addressed indirectly through the resettlement programme, given that, if there are such programmes, refugees will not opt for illegal channels and will wait to be integrated into such programmes.\nFinally, I wish to say that we tabled an amendment on the internal resettlement of refugees, which was not accepted. At some point, Commissioner, we expect an initiative from the Commission on this issue. Dublin II has put a burden on certain countries and it is very important that we push forward with the resettlement programme, with the help of the European Refugee Fund.\nAntonio Masip Hidalgo\nMadam President, I would like to thank Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m for being here. I would like to express my support for the report and for the spirit of the work done by Mr Tavares, because his work with the non-governmental organisations, with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and the observance of comparative law from outside the European Union is very important.\nThese experiences are fundamental, and having been a member of a local council, I also believe that all the councils in Europe should make a commitment on this issue.\nThis is because, although we are going through a crisis, the deepest crisis has been the refugee crisis, which has been a crisis of collective amnesia. In Europe, and in rich countries, we have forgotten that the wars that cause refugees are wars for which we are responsible, for which our countries and governments are responsible. We need to overcome this collective amnesia.\nI agree with what Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m said about making a commitment and, of course, we need to make a commitment. A commission from Parliament has visited the Iraqi Palestinians. Of course they have: we need to make a commitment to these refugees.\nI would, however, say the following to Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m, with all due respect: the differences need to be overcome between Parliament - she herself was a Member - and the Commission regarding delegated acts. I would not like this report, which today appears to be generally well received, to end up being blocked because the Commission and Parliament do not agree on delegated acts.\nNadja Hirsch\nMadam President, Commissioner, what we all discussed on this subject was that we simply must convince more Member States to take part in this programme. I believe there is much to be achieved in this regard by explaining the programme and also highlighting its benefits, as those who take part have thus far always said that they will continue to do so and that they welcome the programme.\nIt is very important to make clear which people this relates to. It relates to people who do not, themselves, have the power to come to Europe. These are women, children and the sick, who find themselves in refugee camps outside the EU and need our help. I think it is very positive that we will be deciding to make a larger proportion of the European Refugee Fund available in future.\nAt the same time, I also believe that it is very important that this money, if it is paid to the national Parliaments, the nation states, in other words, must not just disappear into the budget, but it really must be used in order to build a durable structure, that the money, in fact, even has to be passed on to the local authorities and to the towns and cities where the integration actually takes place, where the nursery places and housing are provided. It is a very important point that the towns and cities and the local authorities, as our allies, must be involved in this discussion.\nThe Member States are perhaps more inclined to reject this in the short term than the local authorities on the ground. In the predictability that this brings with it, I see an important element connecting us - the EU - and those on the ground bringing about the integration. All together, this could certainly give a boost to the resettlement programme, something that I think is very positive. Above all, there is one thing that needs to be stated very clearly, which is that the citizens cannot be left behind - people and associations must be found who ease the path of people who want to start a new life locally and who show them how their new town works or where the nearest swimming pool is.\nWe need a cross-society consensus that we want to take part in a resettlement programme, that it is a good solution, and that people will actually bring about integration on the ground.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Flautre\nMadam President, I would have preferred to hear from the rapporteur, Mr Tavares, but never mind; now he has finally joined us in this debate, and that is the main thing. I think that the work that he has managed to do to reach a consensus on the use of the European Refugee Fund, whose job it is to fund and encourage the Member States to develop their refugee resettlement programme, is exceptionally positive work, which Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m is strongly encouraging, and I am delighted to see that.\nWe must nevertheless bear in mind a few figures, which will allow us to put the scope of this fund into perspective. If we were to allocate the entire European Refugee Fund - something that I do not want because it would inevitably be detrimental to the funding of the conditions of reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe - we would barely be able to resettle 20 000 refugees in Europe, a number far removed from the request of the UNHCR, which has established that there are more than 470 000 refugees worldwide in need of resettlement, that is, people who genuinely have specific needs, vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and who cannot possibly return to their country of origin. We must therefore be sensible.\nTo me, the second precaution we must take - because we have experienced this in my country, France - concerns the media coverage of the resettlement of some refugees as a tree of charity hiding a forest of malpractice, because at the same time, this country, France, has just been condemned by the United Nations Committee against Torture for returning asylum seekers to third countries where they risk facing inhumane or degrading treatment.\nI believe - and this is my final point - that these are the precautions that we must bear in mind.\nMarie-Christine Vergiat\nMadam President, I would like to speak about the Schengen Information System. Today, we have to examine the legal framework within which migration from SIS I to SIS II can take place. I would say that the warning lights are all flashing red on the subject. Commissioner, the least we can say is that the tests have been inconclusive in this regard.\nNevertheless, despite the opposition of three of the larger Member States - France, Germany and Austria - the Commission is persisting. As you know, we in the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left are just as persistent, I would say, when it comes to our reservations about the issues of storage and the risks that this involves in terms of data protection. I think we are living in a rather surreal period when the abuses and the risks linked to every aspect of security are increasingly being denounced by experts, who know what they are talking about. We must take precautions in the area of data protection for all citizens, whoever they may be. We must have a minimum commitment on file connection risks. We in France are well aware of the abuses that can result from file connection.\nCommissioner, under the current circumstances, the GUE\/NGL Group cannot support such a migration.\nGerard Batten\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, Britain is not signed up to Schengen, so technically this proposal should not apply to the UK. The old Labour government did not opt in, and the new Lib-Dem\/Con coalition government must stay opted out. Such a scheme would merely encourage more refugees, genuine or not, to come to the European Union.\nImagine if Turkey joins the European Union: we can expect not just 72 million Turks to have automatic right of entry to European countries and Britain, but floods of refugees from places such as Iran and Iraq might cross the border into Turkey and then seek resettlement in Europe! Britain does not have to join this scheme, but watching our new government grapple with such issues will be interesting. One half of it, the Conservative Party, pretends to be Eurosceptic, whatever that means, while the other half, the Liberal Democratic Party, is unreservedly Europhile. However, our new Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, can solve such problems at a stroke as I described here yesterday.\nThe increase in the numbers of Members of this place requires a complete re-ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Mr Cameron can simply choose not to re-ratify it, or he can belatedly uphold his cast-iron guarantee and give the British people the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that they were denied.\nRui Tavares\nLadies and gentlemen, there are refugees in the world who can neither return to their countries because the situation is too unstable, nor stay in a transit country because it has not signed the Geneva Conventions and they cannot, for example, work in that country.\nThe numbers are relatively limited: 200 000 per annum, and the problem has already been solved for some of these refugees - whose only option is to be given a new life in a third country - by actors on the international stage that resettle refugees: 80 000 by the USA and some by Canada, Australia, Brazil and Chile. Who is missing from that list? Europe is missing, that is who.\nDuring the Swedish Presidency, the Council judiciously admitted that it was necessary to greatly increase the number of refugees being resettled in Europe, going so far as to talk about 100 000. The Commission has also judiciously reviewed some statements by the European Refugee Fund to make possible a more vigorous and robust policy for resettlement of refugees.\nI currently have two reports in the name of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: one codecision and one own-initiative. We have four new additions to correct the policies that are currently in place in the codecision; two of these, however, are procedural.\nThe first new addition is a dual approach. The Commission's proposal on which we are working mainly argues for regional priorities and then, within the regional ones, priorities that I would call 'humanitarian'. We saw fit to maintain these priorities but give them autonomy. In other words, we think that Europe must have intervention strategies in terms of resettling refugees, which are very important from a foreign policy point of view. These strategies must sometimes allow for intervention in certain areas of the world, open doors to a given country, or establish trust relationships in certain areas of the world. They must, however, give the Member States freedom to respond to situations in the rest of the world that are priority in humanitarian terms.\nWhat situations are priorities? Victims of torture, women and children who are victims of sexual violence, or people who need to be resettled for serious health reasons, for example.\nThe second new feature is modulation. This aims to move from only 10 Member States that currently resettle refugees at European level, so that we can try to ensure that the other 27 Member States will start resettling them. To achieve this, we proposed increasing the sum to be assigned per refugee to the new Member States in the first year, decreasing it a little in the second and making it the same as the other Member States that resettle refugees from the third year onwards; this was conditional on the increased amount for the first years, which are the years in which it costs most to start a new resettlement programme, being used to develop a sustainable resettlement programme.\nThe other two new features are procedural. One gives the Commission the opportunity to start an emergency procedure to resettle refugees from a given area of the world - where there was a humanitarian disaster or a crisis situation - because the procedure that we had was being carried out on an annual basis and, clearly, disasters and humanitarian crises do not follow a timetable. The fourth new feature was that of the delegated acts, and here I must tell you very clearly, Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m, that Parliament can take care of timetable arguments and procedural arguments very efficiently, and we promise to not take long to respond to delegated acts. We also promise that the prior consultation and debate that we proposed with, for example, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development, can prevent any differences of opinion between Parliament and the Commission regarding the regions that are resettlement priorities.\nWhat we cannot accept is the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, telling us that delegated acts to which it has no legal objection must not be adopted within the framework of this decision, which is so important in foreign-policy and humanitarian terms, simply because the acts seem bureaucratic to the Commission when we say that they are not.\nWhat is happening is that, from our point of view and that of the legal service, this decision is part of the delegated acts, and, as such, we believe that it falls to the Commission to argue for the adoption of the delegated acts here, as guardian of the treaties, and not raise objections that are, currently, merely procedural. Above all, we believe that none of these issues must prevent us from achieving our common goal: that of resettling more refugees in the European Union.\nSimon Busuttil\n(MT) Madam President, this resettlement programme which is being set up is filling a significant, long-standing void. I am, in fact, astonished at how this programme has not existed on a European level before. There are countries which have already set an example, such as the United States, which already operate very efficient resettlement programmes, having garnered considerable experience in this area. We can learn a lot from them.\nThese kinds of programmes are important because they demonstrate the European Union's willingness to show its human side with refugees worldwide. However, their other important objective is to curb the influx of illegal immigrants towards the European Union, including those who require protection.\nTherefore, if the resettlement programme that is to be set up today can be used to resettle international protection seekers in Libya, then these people will doubtlessly have little reason to cross the Mediterranean Sea and risk their lives in the process. In this way, we would be helping both them as well as those European Union countries which are shouldering a disproportionate burden.\nIt goes without saying that this programme must be used in conjunction with another programme, one intended to help European Union countries who are carrying a disproportionate burden due to the current immigration flow. We need to prove to these countries that we are willing to establish a programme that will allow the transfer of people who are granted international protection to other European countries.\nThus far, this is still a pilot project, one that concerns Malta. However, I would like to see this project manifest itself permanently, and to see it extended to the other European Union countries that require it.\nIoan Enciu\n(RO) As rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament for the SIS issue, I am going to speak about this very matter. First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Coelho for the huge effort he has invested in this and, in particular, for the consistency he has shown in finalising these two reports. I would also like to thank Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m because, since she has taken up her post, the Commission has started to show some transparency.\nWhat has caused, and continues to cause, us concern is the failure to meet the deadlines for implementing SIS II. Parliament has expressed its position on several occasions on the delays, especially regarding the Commission's inability to set a precise date for launching its operation. The fact that we do not know for sure even now whether the tests carried out have been successful or not only serves to raise serious doubts about how the project is being managed.\nGiven that it is the European Parliament's duty to monitor the way in which Community money is spent, the proposal to keep in reserve the funds due to be allocated to the development of SIS II during the 2011 budget year is a normal safety measure to take. Parliament must be continually consulted on and informed about the progress of the SIS II project, which cannot be compromised due to a lack of political will or management ability. It must meet current requirements, support data protection and comply with the cost\/benefit principle, with its deployment taking place within the exact timeframes specified for its implementation.\nTatjana \u017ddanoka\nMadam President, I shall also speak on the Schengen Information System. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Coelho for his excellent work, and I would like to stress that my group - from the very beginning - was quite cautious in accepting SIS II, due to many implications concerning data protection.\nNow it seems that the long SIS II saga is far from being finished. We see time delays and cost overruns; we do not have any positive results. We do not even have a consensus about the evaluation of test results - as Austria, Germany and France do not see them as being successful. In our opinion, the approach taken by the rapporteur is absolutely right. We have to be honest and admit that the current project might fail, and we have to discuss the alternatives. We should also carefully examine the reasons behind this failure; if we need to invest an additional EUR 30 million, Parliament should have all the information necessary for an informed consent.\nWe must also maintain a sunset clause. We cannot continue investing money into a lifelong project. Of course, certain flexibility should be there, but we must have clear criteria for evaluation and to react quickly if, again, something goes wrong.\nCornelia Ernst\n(DE) Madam President, first of all, let me say that I believe - and I am referring to the Schengen Information System here - that the EU should not be operating a wish-based policy, but a policy based on the reality. When it comes to the Schengen Information System, that means that we must take account of the fact that the tests - what have been called the 'first milestone' - have failed.\nAfter eight years of tinkering, we know that the aim of the measure proposed by the Commission - the migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II - is unachievable by the Member States, both on technical and legal grounds. That is not my evaluation - it is the evaluation of the Federal Republic of Germany. That is the position back in my home country, and it is a position, by the way, that I fully share. EUR 90 million has so far been squandered on this scheme, and the Commission would like to spend more. We do not want an extension of the deadline to 2013; we want to make that very plain. Instead, we want to abandon this system and start the search for an alternative.\nSecondly, the German Left Party is fundamentally critical of SIS II - I want to point that out, too, at this juncture - as access to the system is being dramatically extended, for example, to the secret services. In Germany, there is a requirement that the secret services and the police are separated. Thus, any mixing of the secret services' and the police's data will mean that the whole system will be brought before the German Federal Constitutional Court. That is something that I needed to mention, at least from the German point of view. We also oppose SIS II because it involves the collection of vast quantities of data and the gathering and recording of biometric data. That is neither purposive nor proportionate.\nSalvatore Iacolino\n(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of defining a framework of consistent strategies with a will to express real solidarity between Member States represents a step forwards in the coordination of Community policies on migratory flows. Yet this measure also represents part of a wider process, whose aim is the international protection of refugees. If civil society can usefully be involved in this process, this measure seems to be closely related to the imminent activation of the European Asylum Support Office.\nWe must immediately establish a list of priorities and aims to be achieved, with a time schedule and specific incentive measures. We must also allocate specific finance to increase the number of members, currently only ten, participating in the programme. Neither must we forget the need for health protection to supplement the social protection offered to people who are often worn out by their state of extreme weakness.\nA computerised database will also allow the traceability of every process implemented to protect the family unit while they are in the process of resettling. In this context, collaboration with Member States may be decisive in ensuring that procedures are streamlined and flexible. We want a fairer and more realistic European Union that takes into account the efforts of southern European Member States in particular.\nWith third countries, it is crucial for the European Union to take responsibility for defining cooperation agreements, as Italy did recently with Libya and Niger. We believe that this is the way, the only possible way, to move on from a form of solidarity which, hitherto, has all too often been just a fa\u00e7ade, to proper solidarity between European Union Member States in the overall management of migratory flows.\nMonika Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1\n(SK) First, I would like to thank Mr Tavares for his work in the area of refugee policy, and at this point, I would also like to express my disappointment that less than half of all European Union Member States have official resettlement programmes for refugees from third countries.\nMoreover, as has been said here many times, these programmes are not sufficiently coordinated, and as a result of the low level of coordination and cooperation between Member States of the Union, the costs associated with resettlement are also high, which naturally makes this idea rather unattractive.\nI firmly believe, however, that given sufficient political will, we Europeans will be capable of creating an effective, fair and unified resettlement programme. To this end, it will be essential to create not only the programme itself, but also a special fund for the resettlement of refugees in the Union. This package would finance the creation of national resettlement programmes where they do not exist already, as well as coordination of activities at the central level. In my opinion, the ideal coordinator appears to be the European Asylum Support Office.\nIndrek Tarand\nMadam President, I wish to thank everyone who has been working very hard on the seemingly never-ending story of SIS II: Mr Coelho and those in the field.\nThe issue of recurring delays and cost overruns is very worrying and, if not this, what else could be more telling about Mr Barroso's management skills in his first Commission? I believe that we should take these lessons which can be learnt here today and project them into the creation of a new IT agency, which could be situated in Tallinn. This would be a win-win situation: while the French colleagues could keep the servers in Strasbourg, the new programming work would be done in Tallinn by competent specialists with low management costs, thus avoiding a monopoly and embracing the idea of EU integration, and also giving a guarantee of data protection.\nFinally, I would like to express my confidence in Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m's ability to resolve these complicated issues.\nAgust\u00edn D\u00edaz de Mera Garc\u00eda Consuegra\n(ES) Madam President, I will explain my position succinctly.\nI would first like to congratulate Mr Coelho. The process was supposed to be completed before 30 September, so the regulatory instruments need to be amended before they expire.\nSecondly, there is no proposal from the Commission setting a deadline or removing the expiry clauses from the original proposals.\nThirdly, a precautionary period should be established for migration which, if necessary, could be extended through comitology.\nFourthly, the process is not subject to control by Parliament, which I think is a very bad thing.\nFifthly, we do not know the results of the tests of the second generation Schengen Information System, and Parliament must be informed.\nSixthly, based on what I have said, I support the rapporteur's proposals and the warning that the Court of Auditors will intervene if the project fails.\nRegarding the reports by Mr Tavares on the European Refugee Fund and resettlement, I would also like to congratulate Mr Tavares. The main problem is a lack of solidarity within the Union. We need to be cautious about financial aid for Member States that take in refugees for the first time, particularly due to comparative injustice. These measures, which I support in principle, Mr Tavares, require a detailed prior financial study.\nSylvie Guillaume\n(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in many respects, it is essential that we vote in favour, tomorrow, of amending the European Refugee Fund, and it is on this subject that I will focus my speech, at the same time as congratulating Mr Coelho and Mr Tavares on their deliberations and their work.\nThe vote on the ERF will shed light on the need for the Member States of the European Union to play their full part in resettlement in order to fill a double gap that exists in terms of the number of countries committed to the programme and the reception capacity of each country. Let us recall that here, we are talking about refugees who are often barely tolerated in the countries that have received them and whose living conditions can sometimes take a tragic turn if solutions are not found quickly.\nThanks to these new means, we can actually provide these particularly vulnerable people with greater security, so long as - and I stress this - each of the Member States involved with the ERF uses the funds concerned correctly and transparently, which is something that I know you are very concerned about, Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m. It will be difficult to take up the challenge when we know the lukewarm reception that the Member States have reserved for this new measure, and here too, Commissioner, I would like to underline your determination.\nFinally, I would like to stress the fact that the integration of refugees is one of the keys to the success of this enterprise. The more we prepare for and explain the arrival of refugees, the greater the chances are that it will be accepted and will take place under the best conditions, and the more the Member States - we hope - will prove their commitment to resettlement. That is why our Parliament must vote overwhelmingly in favour of these amendments to the European Refugee Fund.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Madam President, in many Member States, including my home state of Austria, people no longer know where new asylum seekers can go, and the population quite rightly resists the idea of new reception centres. How can it be that, despite this, the resettlement of refugees in the EU is being promoted? The plan to allow into the EU asylum seekers who have already fled to a bordering third country such as Ukraine because the standard of living here is higher is thus completely incomprehensible. Especially in such times of economic crisis, it is all you can do to shake your head when it comes to proposals like this.\nThe entire EU asylum concept is a disaster, as far as I am concerned. According to the concept, an asylum seeker who is first picked up in Romania can then be sent back there for appraisal and for an asylum process. The idea of granting basic welfare provision to asylum seekers at the same high social security level as to nationals of the Member State in question is unrealistic and unaffordable. The EU should grant the protection of asylum to everyone who really needs it, to those who really are in need, but it should not open the floodgates to economic migrants.\nWhat we need is greater protection of the external borders, quick, unbureaucratic procedures and, of course, a consistent repatriation strategy.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) The basic principle underlying the European Union's involvement in asylum matters is to ensure a higher level of cooperation and solidarity between Member States. This cannot be achieved within individual countries. The adoption of a common European Union initiative is dictated by the increased strategic use of resettlement. A sound, well-targeted programme is required, which will be effective and of good quality. This programme will provide a suitable framework for ensuring that Member States will participate in the refugee resettlement process.\nThe efforts made by Member States to admit refugees must be supported and encouraged with additional financial incentives. These measures will enable us to show greater solidarity from the EU in relation to the global refugee issue. We will also encourage the participation of a significant number of Member States in this process.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu\n(RO) I would first of all like to begin with a comment for my fellow Member from the left. I believe that the converse example is also valid: when an Englishman or Irishman commits a crime in my country, it should be possible to send him back.\nThe process for implementing the second-generation Schengen Information System has been delayed and it seems that this will not take place before the end of 2011. As a result, I would like to ask the Commission about what repercussions this has on the timetable for the countries not yet included in the Schengen area, but which are due to join.\nIt is unacceptable that, at the moment, the Commission cannot give an exact date for the launch of SIS II's operation, thereby raising considerable doubts about the management of this project. The additional costs and the need for new investment, if the migration to SIS II is going to end up failing and be included in the SIS 1+RE emergency plan, mean that much tighter budget control is required, especially for the new agency responsible for regulating and coordinating the implementation of SIS, VIS and Eurodac.\nMorten Messerschmidt\n(DA) Madam President, a year ago, all of the Members of the European Parliament were in the midst of an election campaign and were seeking either to gain or regain our mandates, and I know that in many countries, the issue of the Schengen area in particular played an incredibly important role in the election campaign. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among our electorate, the citizens of Europe, about the way in which the EU deals with these issues: the lack of internal border controls, the severely deficient external border controls, the utterly inadequate control of immigration and the spectre that is lying in wait for us in just under a year's time with regard to whether the Commission will give its approval for Bulgaria and Romania to also join Schengen.\nI hear people saying that we must show solidarity, but, quite honestly, who is it we are to show solidarity with? Who is it that needs to show solidarity? When we see a massive exploitation of the system that both the EU and our Member States have set up, it is perhaps time that we also showed a little solidarity with the citizens, who are living with the failed policy that the Commission and its Member States have pursued.\nRoberta Angelilli\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, creating a common European asylum policy and resettlement policy means ensuring human rights and, at the same time, restricting illegal immigration.\nThank you, therefore, to the speakers and to Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m, as we now have a valuable tool, especially for countries with a Mediterranean coastline: countries such as Italy which, up until now, have not been able to rely either on real solidarity between Member States or on a fair division of responsibilities. These policies must be supported by an appropriate budget, but also by reliable checks on the programmes implemented, with suitable follow-ups and the identification of good practices.\nMy last words on the subject of human rights: we must give priority to those who are most vulnerable, minors, women who are victims of trafficking, of exploitation and of violence, including victims of genital mutilation, but I know that Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m has this properly in hand.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Madam President, at present, the European Union does seem to have access to unbelievable financial resources. After the EUR 750 billion support package we are now, once again, to spend enormous sums on the migration issue, but not, for example, on repatriation measures or even on securing borders - the supposedly secure Schengen borders, in any case, are as holey as a Swiss cheese. No, EUR 6 000 per person is to be provided for the voluntary acceptance of refugees from third countries.\nIf the EU really has the necessary loose change lying around, it should, I beg, support European families - then, perhaps, we would have a rising birth rate. The argument that we need immigration to counter the lack of children would then finally be superfluous. Instead of just opening up the floodgates to immigration, the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees should finally be accurately applied and it, of course, does not apply to the army of economic migrants. If we do want to spend many millions, then they could be spent on the border protection agency FRONTEX, rather than the money pit that is the Schengen Information System.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) I would like to talk about the Schengen Information System. We know that this system has taken relatively long to develop and has cost a lot of money, in addition to which the implementation costs are constantly rising and the results of trials are not known.\nPerhaps it would be appropriate to conduct an audit of the work carried out so far on this system, to consider whether the system is viable and whether we know how to bring it to completion in such a way that it will be useful for Europe, and then decide how to proceed further.\nAs far as the resettlement programme is concerned, I agree that it is necessary to draw up a legislative standard which would restrict illegal immigration into the European Union, and which would establish the conditions for legitimate migration.\nHowever, perhaps we should draw on the experience of our colleagues from developing countries, who say that not all migration, not all the journeys their countrymen make into the European Union, are about the security restrictions faced by these people, but are for economic reasons.\nMartin Ehrenhauser\n(DE) Madam President, I would actually just like to get a couple of comments about the Ma\u0148ka report off my chest. I agreed this earlier on with your colleague. I want to express very clearly my opposition to the increase in the secretarial allowance, especially to the envisaged amount of EUR 1 500. Furthermore, I also oppose any increase in the staffing of this House and, should it be decided after a further evaluation that an additional EUR 1 500 per month for the secretarial allowance is to be made available, that would simply be to mock the taxpayers.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nPresident\nMr Ehrenhauser, I think you are speaking on the wrong subject. This is the joint debate on the Schengen Agreement. I am sorry that you did not get to speak about the Ma\u0148ka report, but I am afraid we have to move on now.\nPiotr Borys\n(PL) Above all, I would like to congratulate Mr Coelho on two more successful reports. Secondly, there can be no turning back from SIS II today. If we want to think about a secure system, SIS II must be introduced, and this is why I think we need to continue these measures and support the Commission on this. I will remind everyone that the new visa code stipulates that biometric data must be shown in the system. SIS 1+ does not give this guarantee. SIS II will enable rapid verification of data in future. So in this area of security, we must not stop work on SIS II. Of course, we might wish that this work could be more effective and more successful.\nI will remind everyone that not so long ago, we also adopted measures which make it easy to travel throughout the Schengen Area with a long-term visa. In relation to this, work on SIS II must be continued. We want to support the Commission on this, in the hope that its work will proceed faster and be more effective, and we should wish the Commission success in this regard. Thank you.\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank all Members for their support and comments on these two different, but very important, subjects.\nStarting with the SIS II, this has of course - and I am the first to recognise this - been a long saga, as somebody said. It is a complex dossier and very difficult. Probably there were things that could have been done better in the past, but since I took up office, I have really tried to deal with this in a very transparent and thorough way. The Commission has followed, to the letter, the roadmap outlined by the Council, and the Council agreed on conclusions at the last meeting. Some Member States were sceptical, but they did agree on the conclusion that the Milestone 1 test was successful. Right now, we are working with the different experts in order to assess and to define the final requirements of Member States to meet their operational needs and to define a more concrete timetable and way forward. I will make this proposal on 3 and 4 June to the Ministers for discussion and there will be a further assessment of this after the summer. We will, of course, be transparent and work with the European Parliament and the rapporteur all the time.\nTo answer the question on the new Member States, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania will be done via SIS I for all. Arrangements for Bulgaria and Romania are being made for that in the meantime.\nWe are preparing for a - hopefully successful - Milestone 2 test on SIS later this autumn. Until that is successfully complete, we have contacts and ways open in order to maintain the contingency plan for the future. We hope it will not be needed but we have made that preparation as well. In the meantime, let me thank all Members, especially Mr Coelho, for your support and assure you of the maximum transparency and engagement on the part of the Commission with the European Parliament on this dossier.\nOn the issue of resettlement, I fully agree with Mr Busuttil, who said that he was surprised that this did not exist before. It is, of course, a very good initiative to pool the resources of the Member States and to encourage further engagement on the global scene in order to alleviate pressure in refugee camps following a crisis or a very difficult situation. We can inspire Member States to make more intelligent use of the funds and to coordinate this with UNHCR. This is, of course, something that could really reinforce our role on the global scene, but also make a real difference for these people who are caught in a very difficult situation. UNHCR estimates there was a need for resettlement, last year alone, for 747 000 people. As Mr Flautre said, what we can do is a help but the needs are enormous. I think there is broad agreement on the aim and the purpose of this fund and I hope we can find a solution to the procedural issues very soon so the proposal can be adopted without delay.\nSeveral Members made reference to internal solidarity. This is, of course, related, but is a slightly different subject. I recognise the need for this as well. The Commission has already made proposals in this regard. We have proposed a temporary suspension mechanism in the Dublin Regulation and we have established the European Support Office that will open in Malta later this year. We have the Malta pilot project and are evaluating this. I agree that we should try to find ways to make it more permanent and to involve more Member States. This is, of course, subject to the willingness of Member States to contribute, but the Commission will look at this and we will also look at a general intra-EU solidarity mechanism and present that next year. So we can come back to this discussion, which is slightly different from the EU resettlement programme but nevertheless very important.\nThank you very much to Mr Coelho, Mr Tavares and Mr Alvaro for your work on these two very important dossiers. I am looking forward to working with you to conclude them as soon as possible.\nCarlos Coelho\nMany thanks for the positive comments by various fellow Members. Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m, I wanted you to know that Parliament is aware that you inherited this process and we have faith in your abilities and your intelligence, to bring it to the best possible conclusion. We also appreciate the efforts you have made towards transparency, which my fellow member, Mr Enciu, did a very good job of highlighting, as a matter of fact.\nAs regards the deadline, we are giving off the wrong signals if the new migration instruments do not have a deadline. After all the delays, indefinitely extending the Commission's mandate does not make any sense. I understand that the Commission is in no position to bind itself to the target suggested by Parliament, but we will set it and, if for any reason, the process has not been completed by that point, you can come back to Parliament to request an extension and explain why it is needed. Extending the Commission's mandate without any deadline is a terrible signal after these delays, both to the European institutions and to the European public.\nI agree with your idea that the Global Programme Management Board must not be an assembly. I therefore understand the Commission's reservations about limiting access to its work: I could not agree more. Parliament's proposal was the result of a less favourable draft of the Commission's original proposal, because the Commission, at the same time as limiting the composition of the Global Programme Management Board, was allowing any other official of the Commission, the Council or the Member States to participate. This raises a legitimate question: why can officials of the Commission and the Member States participate and not those of Parliament? If we restrict this body to its functions, I believe that we will all be in agreement, especially with the guarantees that the Commissioner has given regarding greater transparency.\nRui Tavares\nMadam President, my thanks to the Members who have taken part in the debate and to the Commissioner. I believe that if there is any agreement about what is wanted in relation to the issue of refugee resettlement, it is because we understand that for once, in the debate on immigration - and we all know how difficult that is in Europe, along with the debate on asylum and refugees - what we have is a problem that we can solve. We can resolve it for ourselves and for the refugees, because anyone who has visited refugee camps knows that there are children there losing one, two, three years of study that they could be undertaking in Europe. I think that gives us the right degree of urgency for this debate.\nI also hope that the procedural issues will be rapidly overcome, in accordance with what is written in the treaties, because we all know that what we have is not enough and we all know that just assigning part of the budget is still not a true refugee resettlement programme. It is, in fact, at this type of subject that we aimed the own-initiative report that we are also discussing here today and which is about quality: quality is of vital importance in the integration of refugees and requires a multilateral approach involving non-governmental organisations, local actors and local authorities. This approach must also resolve many of the bureaucratic issues with coordination that we have today.\nIf the process for these children, who are in refugee camps and are not yet studying and who would have the right to be resettled, is taking a long time, we are told by actors in the border agencies of several Member States that it is because it takes a long time for Member States to coordinate to validate transit documentation, for example, which can be done mainly using an instrument which, in the own-initiative report, we suggested should be implemented by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The EASO is a resettlement unit with a reduced number of officials, but with people who work permanently in resettlement, who know how to exchange best practices, who know how to introduce the new Member States to resettlement mechanisms, and who know how to coordinate even with the European External Action Service to facilitate resettlement processes.\nWhen we have already decided that those people will be resettled, there is no reason for us to delay in tackling red tape and bureaucracy, before we can really deal with integrating them on European soil.\nPresident\nThe joint debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at noon today.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nStavros Lambrinidis  \nWe are voting today on the adoption of a joint EU resettlement programme for asylum seekers from problematic third countries in the EU. However, there is another debate which needs to be held. For over ten years, Europe has seen an influx of large numbers of refugees and waves of immigration. The south of Europe has been left to shoulder the entire burden of European humanitarianism and it reached its limits some time ago. While Europe - quite rightly - has a fund ready for third countries, there is no provision for the Member States.\nIf nothing else, the rapporteur's report recognises the problem. Other reports, such as the report on the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office, constitute - at least on paper - an obligation to support states whose asylum and reception systems are under particular pressure, due to their geographical position. One expressly stated objective is to support the development of a solidarity mechanism, such as the transportation of persons entitled to international protection within the EU.\nLet us hope that Europe gradually discovers solidarity. We must bear in mind that any delay here will harm our innocent fellow men.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Ma\u0161t\u00e1lka  \nIn relation to the matter of the Schengen Information System, I would again like to point out the fact that the state authorities in the Czech Republic, as well as local authorities and individual politicians, including MEPs, constantly face complaints from Czech citizens over the gratuitous and humiliating police checks and inspections they are often subjected to when travelling to Germany, both in the vicinity of the state boundary and in the wider German border regions. This approach taken by German police and customs authorities, carried out with great frequency and dexterity, has a significant negative impact, not only on Czech-German relations but, above all, on the attitude of Czech citizens to European integration. Following the accession of the Czech Republic to the Schengen Information System, Czech citizens were told they had free and unhindered movement within the territory of the EU, including Germany, just as the Schengen System anticipates and guarantees. In my opinion, the behaviour of the German state authorities towards persons travelling from the Czech Republic is unfounded in a clear majority of cases and contrary to the declared free movement of persons.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU policy framework to fight violence against women (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Svensson, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on the proposal for a new EU policy framework to fight violence against women.\nEva-Britt Svensson\nMr President, I would like to start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs and my colleagues in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality for their strong commitment to fighting violence against women.\nAhead of the vote tomorrow, and in order to initiate the debate, I could have mentioned the number of women affected and how many women have been murdered as a result of this deadly violence. I am not going to do that, but I will try to convey a few images of this violence ahead of the vote, so that all Members know that they have an opportunity to fight this violence right now by voting yes to the report tomorrow.\nImagine a mother sitting with her children and reading them a good-night story. Suddenly, the door is jerked open and her husband, the children's father, is standing in the doorway. Both she and the children know immediately what is going to happen. The children draw the covers over their heads, putting their fingers in their ears and closing their eyes, trying to shut out what they know will happen. They hear their father shouting, they hear him kicking and striking their mother and they hear their mother's groans. That is one picture of this violence.\nHere is another picture. A woman who has lived for a number of years with threats, insults and abuse finally decides to leave the relationship to build a new life for herself and her children. She flees and is lucky to find sheltered accommodation. After a few days, she leaves her children at the day nursery. The man is waiting outside and stabs the woman with a knife - she dies. Yet another victim of the deadly violence that affects women. This is a type of violence that is inflicted on women precisely because we are women. The lethal violence against women illustrated by that last image occurs when the woman has finally decided to leave the relationship. The most dangerous thing a woman can do is to ask for a divorce from a man who believes that he owns her. She is in a very dangerous situation when the man realises that he is about to lose control and power over her.\nHere are some more images. A young girl is on her way home after a trip to the cinema. She says goodbye to her friend and calls out 'See you tomorrow'. She still has a little way to go. She hears heavy steps behind her, but only has time to register the fact that someone is following her. She is attacked and raped. She survives, but has to live with this for the rest of her life.\nOther problems that we have to face include genital mutilation.\nIn its action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, the Commission stated that during the period 2011-2012 it will issue a communication on this violence and that the communication is to be followed up by an EU action plan. I welcome this and look forward to this action plan.\nAs long as women are affected by gender-based violence - just because we are women - we will not be able to call our society an equal society. Women's lives and their various life choices are restricted by this violence and by the awareness of how widespread it is in society.\nWomen are victims of gender-based violence, but I would also like to finish by saying that sometimes, we have to stop viewing these women simply as victims. These are often strong women who, with well-functioning social support, manage to build a good life for themselves and for their children. It is now up to us in the European Parliament to show that we support these women.\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Thank you very much, Mrs Svensson, for your very moving introduction on this extremely important subject. Combating violence against women is a very high priority for the Commission, as is shown by the gender equality strategy. There is still, as you show, a very big problem of violence against women in Europe, and for that reason, we are working on focused actions to address this issue.\nWe will develop a clear and coherent policy response to tackle this problem in Europe. I welcome your report, Mrs Svensson, and I welcome this important initiative; it provides the possibility to cooperate, exchange views and create synergies between what the Commission is doing and what the European Parliament is doing in order to define future action in this area.\nA number of points that you raise in the report are actually covered by ongoing and planned actions of the Commission on combating violence against women. To maximise our impact, we are focusing on concrete actions in an area where we have a clear legal basis to act in the Lisbon Treaty. In the forthcoming victims' rights package, we will, notably, address the protection of particularly vulnerable victims such as women, but also children. This package will be presented next month.\nEvery victim of crime needs assistance in the aftermath of a crime and to cope with any proceedings that follow. Women are, of course, particularly vulnerable if they have suffered violence in their home - rape or sexual abuse, stalking or other kinds of gender-based violence. They need to be treated with respect and knowledge when they come into contact with people and the justice system. These women also need specialised support and protection and should be given access to justice and compensation.\nThe current legal framework in the EU does not provide for a minimum level of treatment for victims throughout the EU irrespective of where they have been victimised, and that is why the Commission intends to act to strengthen the position of victims in Europe. We are thus presenting, as a first step, a package of legislative measures on the rights, protection and support of victims of crime and the mutual recognition of protection measures. Specific focus in this will be given to vulnerable victims such as victims of sexual and domestic violence.\nThe Commission will also provide for the mutual recognition of protection measures, which will benefit especially victims suffering repeated violence from a spouse, partner or member of their close family. With this package, the Commission will make sure that in Europe, no woman crossing the borders and benefiting from a protection measure - be it of an administrative, civil or criminal nature - is left behind.\nOur package will set out a general framework, which would then be completed in the course of this mandate by other instruments focusing on the specific needs of certain types of victims. For instance, the Commission is concerning taking stronger action to combat female genital mutilation, as you also mention in your report.\nIn parallel with our actions in the criminal justice area, we will work for the empowerment of women, awareness-raising and the collection and analysis of statistics on violence against women. The Commission will draw on the work by the European Institute for Gender Equality, which will collect and analyse data and statistics on this subject.\nTo conclude, I would like to underline that the Commission is currently providing important financial support to prevent and combat violence against women, particularly through the DAPHNE III Programme, the work of European NGOs and public authorities.\nTeresa Jim\u00e9nez-Becerril Barrio\nMr President, on most occasions that I have spoken in Parliament, it has been to denounce violence against women, and I am here again to combat it.\nI must say that not only do I not tire of doing this, but I think that it is essential to continue to speak out in public about this violation of human rights, as you cannot defend a cause without a sounding board. Furthermore, this Parliament is the best loudspeaker available to me to defend all those women who suffer daily from abuse and who need us, as legislators, to compel the Member States to punish the perpetrators of this aggression in a manner that befits the seriousness of the crime, and also to provide assistance to the victims.\nWhen, according to estimates, one in four women in Europe has suffered gender violence at least once in her life, and the same proportion of children, I believe that we cannot but demand greater commitment, as has been recognised by the Commission in its action plan. I believe that we must keep on insisting, time and time again, in order to protect victims, as we did with the European Protection Order, for which I was rapporteur, and I hope that it will come into effect as soon as possible.\nThis report has benefited from a great measure of consensus and support from the outset. This shows that when we tackle domestic violence, which affects all family members, including children, the elderly, women and men, this should not provide the opportunity for political opportunism, as it does us all great credit to be making progress towards finding a solution to this scourge of our society.\nThe first thing we must do is to speak up, and the second is to get down to work, for, although we have spent decades speaking about gender violence, we have not managed to reduce the number of deaths. We must be doing something wrong, and therefore, it is time to leave demagogy aside and to move from words to actions. We must give more genuine assistance and apply the legislation that women need if they are to live in dignity and safety.\nI want all the victims to know that I shall always be here to speak up for them, until the day that, by working together, we manage to defeat this terrible enemy, which sadly ends the lives of so many innocent victims.\nWhat I say is: we have had enough. It cannot go on. I ask all of you to say likewise.\nBritta Thomsen\nMr President, one in four European women are victims of violence. More than one in 10 women are victims of sexual attacks, and our children also suffer violence. Twenty six percent of children report having suffered physical violence during their childhood.\nThese figures show that Europe has a serious problem that requires action. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this, and I simply cannot bear to hear any more stories of women who have had acid thrown in their faces by their husbands or boyfriends, or of women who are disfigured and mutilated. I have heard the most heart-rending stories from many women, and every one of these stories is also a shameful blot on the EU's history.\nThe EU needs to act now and stop this violence. That is why this report on violence against women that we are debating today is so important. We are sending a signal to the outside world that the European Parliament considers gender-related violence to be a violation of fundamental human rights.\nTherefore, the Commission must respond now. We need a directive, we want a directive that will stop violence against women. Putting a stop to violence will require a coordinated and multi-faceted effort. We need to secure the safety of the victims and provide them with the best possible protection, while also ensuring that there is nowhere in Europe where it is possible to avoid punishment for being violent towards women, and, most important of all, we must, of course, make a huge effort with regard to prevention. Violence is not a private matter. We can only end this violence by taking action from a political standpoint.\nAntonyia Parvanova\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Thank you Mr President. Let me first thank the rapporteur for the great work accomplished and all my colleagues for their determination not to give up fighting gender-based violence.\nThis report shows that the European Parliament considers that immediate action to combat violence against women is not only necessary but urgently needed. The Commission must acknowledge that all arguments point to the fact that EU-wide measures and instruments have to be introduced. We know that, throughout the Union, huge discrepancies exist in Member States' legislation to combat violence against women.\nLast year, a feasibility study by the Directorate-General for Justice found differences in access to protection orders, the availability of support services and the expertise and capacity of the responsible public servants. We have seen signs of commitment towards the eradication of all forms of violence and an efficient policy framework at EU level, notably within the Women's Charter which you presented last year, and the communication on the implementation of the Stockholm Programme. Nevertheless, many Member States have failed in implementing efficient legislation to protect women from all forms of violence and discrimination, and we are now seeing that the core values of our Union do not apply to half its citizens.\nTherefore, we now call on the Commission to come up with a dedicated legislative proposal. A set of minimum requirements must be drawn up and incorporated into a legislative act which should be part of a comprehensive strategy addressing all forms of gender-based violence. This strategy and policy initiative should also be complemented by broad awareness-raising activities. I am thinking, in particular, about a European year on combating all forms of violence against women, for which we are currently collecting citizens' signatures.\nFinally, having regained our founding principles laid down in the Treaty, and the commitment from your side which has already been stated, we expect today a clear answer on how and when the Commission intends to propose effective measures at EU level.\nMarije Cornelissen\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I am happy that combating gender-based violence is a priority of both the European Commission and the European Parliament. That gives us a common goal to make real progress in the coming years.\nI hope this report will be considered an important contribution to the victims' package that the Commission has promised us, and that the victims' package will, in turn, be one of the aspects of a Europe-wide comprehensive strategy that includes victim support, but also other aspects of the struggle against violence. For instance, we need a minimum level of assistance services. Every woman should have access to shelters, to free legal aid and to psychological aid. For example, we need to protect migrant women who do not have an independent residence permit and are extra vulnerable.\nThis report includes many important aspects and we, as Greens, hope that we can vote in favour of it. But if recital J and paragraph 19 stay in, which call prostitution a violation of human rights without even distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary prostitution, we will have to abstain. I hope it does not go that far and that we can have a strong and widely-supported report to offer to the Commission and to the Member States as our contribution.\nAndrea \u010ce\u0161kov\u00e1\nMr President, I welcome this own-initiative report of the European Parliament, and I take the view that Member States must introduce the laws which are essential for stopping violence against women. Domestic violence is a very serious form of violence against women. Domestic violence is not a private family matter. The European Conservatives and Reformists are committed to supporting the family and, above all, children. The problem of domestic violence is related to this. Domestic violence has disastrous consequences for all family members, particularly children. Children who repeatedly witness domestic violence often accept violence as a normal form of behaviour. There is a strong likelihood that they themselves will commit these acts in school or later on in life.\nViolence against women, in my opinion, also reflects and reinforces inequalities between men and women, and therefore often determines the position of women in society. Women who are exposed to domestic violence commonly become economically dependent and are exposed to psychological pressure from the perpetrator. We must pay due attention to domestic violence in order to bring it out into the open and help the victims, who are women and children. We must therefore raise awareness of the occurrence of this form of violence. We need to have a social debate on this issue, and we need to mount a prevention and awareness campaign, as women often do not like to speak openly about their traumatic experiences, out of fear for themselves and their children. In connection with this, I also support the introduction of the European Protection Order, which, among other things, may help victims of domestic violence at the European level, as long as it has a sound legal basis.\nIlda Figueiredo\nMr President, this is an important report that proposes a new global political approach against gender-based violence, with concrete measures including, in particular, criminal proceedings and preventive and protective action, drawing attention to the need to guarantee conditions for the emancipation of women, while also combating insecure work, unemployment and poverty, so that women can choose their lifestyles freely. Unfortunately, women are currently unable to make this choice and are often forced into situations of dependency, including prostitution and submission to acts of domestic violence that would otherwise be unacceptable to them.\nIt is therefore time to move from words to actions in order to put an end to this violence, which is clearly one of the most serious forms of human rights violation. This gender-specific violence, which also has a strong negative impact on children, and tends to worsen during periods of economic and social crisis, can no longer be accepted. That is why we are calling on the Commission, as well as on the Member States, to take concrete measures as soon as possible in defence of women's rights and against violence.\nBarbara Matera\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, combating all forms of violence against women is a priority for the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union.\nI therefore call for long-term political, social and legal measures to do away with gender-based violence and to achieve true equality between the sexes. I have been sponsoring, along with other colleagues in this House, the establishment of a 'European year of combating violence against women' in order to raise awareness among European citizens.\nI believe that the European Commission's acknowledgement in the 2010-2015 Action Plan of the need to combat gender-based violence by all means is a significant step which must be translated into specific actions. We still await the strategic plan that the European Commission announced it would be presenting this year. This plan should introduce a package of legal measures and practices to ensure victims of violence are offered adequate protection by national criminal justice systems.\nIn Europe, it is estimated that between 20 and 25% of women have suffered violence at least once in their lifetime. Moreover, it is estimated that half a million women living in Europe have undergone female genital mutilation. These statistics, which are unfortunately on the rise, are certainly alarming and worrying and require prompt action by European institutions.\nViolence against women has negative consequences on the entire family. Mothers can no longer instil a sense of security in their children and children become indirect victims of violence. Violence against women is a phenomenon that is very difficult to monitor, because often the women who are its victims are ashamed and are afraid to report the violence to the authorities.\nThis makes the work of the institutions more difficult yet, at the same time, necessary. So I join my colleague, Mrs Jim\u00e9nez-Becerril Barrio, in saying, 'stop violence against women, stop it immediately!'\nEdite Estrela\n(PT) Mr President, in my capacity as shadow rapporteur, I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report, which deserves my group's support. It has already been said that violence against women represents a serious attack on human rights; a serious violation of human rights. We know that victims of violence are obliged to forego many of their fundamental rights, and that they are vulnerable to further abuse.\nNot long ago, I visited a shelter in my country, Portugal, and spoke to a number of these women. Some described a life of suffering, and it was only because their children put pressure on them that they had the courage to report their attackers. Others described how their children, now grown up, filed charges, because the women themselves did not have the courage to do so. It is unacceptable that they, the victims, should have to leave their homes, taking their children out of the family environment, while the aggressors remain at home.\nI believe that we need to change legislation so that women are respected and so that women do not continue to be victims of violence; victims of situations that have an adverse effect on all of us. I would also like to say that this is an attack on democracy itself, too, as these women are being deprived of their rights as citizens. Let us therefore combat this scourge together.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) Mr President, when discussing how to combat violence against women, we mainly think about violence within families or in personal relationships. It goes without saying that this type of violence constitutes a serious wrongdoing, and the Member States should take firm legal measures to fight it. I agree with the spirit of the Svensson report in this respect.\nHowever I would like to take the opportunity of this debate to highlight a different type of violence not infrequently experienced by women. I am talking about state-imposed violence, entailing removing children from their mothers, which is happening with increasing frequency. Taking away a child is the worst possible violence that can be inflicted on a mother, and this sometimes happens for entirely trivial reasons. I know of dramatic examples in Poland of children being taken away from their mothers, including one case in which a family court removed a 10 year-old boy from his mother because the mother was accused of praying too much. There are situations in which children are removed because the parents are poor. Instead of helping the family, the children are taken away to a foster family or taken into care. There are also dramatic cases in which children are taken from their mothers due to disputes between the parents. Dramatic scenes sometimes ensue when children are taken from their mothers by the police, social workers or court officials.\nThe value of the family is depreciating in Europe, and the state is interfering more and more in family life. This not infrequently results in state-sanctioned violence which harms parents and which, above all, harms children. Taking children from their mothers, and taking mothers from their children - for there are two sides to the matter - should be a final resort for when the child is being abused or suffering violence. Children should not, under any circumstances, be taken away because of poverty. Families and women in families should be given comprehensive support, and we should avoid breaking family ties, because this is not infrequently a medicine worse than the malady.\nJoanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska\n(PL) Mr President, I welcome the fact that the European Parliament will adopt a report during this part-session which sets out a multi-faceted approach to violence against women. I believe that employing such a broad definition of violence against women will help in the fight against this problem. There can be no doubt that tangible results will only be achieved if integrated measures are taken at various levels - political, social, legal and educational. Nevertheless, we are still waiting for a proposal for a directive which is focused exclusively on combating violence, and I hope that the European Commission will put forward a proposal of this kind in the near future.\nI would like to conclude with two more comments. It is of the utmost importance that violence against women should finally be perceived as wrongdoing, and not only from the perspective of the women themselves, or the social unit of the family, but also that we should be aware of the attendant costs which are borne by society as a whole, as is happening ever more frequently. Secondly, during our debate on this problem, we should not concentrate solely on combating violence, but also on the various dimensions of such behaviour. We should fight stereotypes and condemn social acceptance of violence against women, and try to change the way in which children are brought up so that future generations of young people believe in genuine equality between women and men and put it into practice.\nI would like to congratulate Mrs Svensson on her report, which raises an extremely important and sensitive issue for society, namely, violence against women. I believe that today's words will be followed by actions, and that we will not only talk about violence against women but, above all, take action to defend women. Thank you very much.\nEmine Bozkurt\n(NL) Mr President, in the Stockholm Programme, the Commission indicated that it would use all possible means to combat violence against women. There is, however, no comprehensive strategy at the moment, and yet we need to act urgently.\nSafety is an important commodity, especially for the most vulnerable amongst us. This also applies to a large group of women who are still subject to forced marriages, honour killings and genital mutilation. These harmful traditional practices affect many girls and women in Europe on a daily basis. We need adequate resources to tackle this kind of violence. To that end, we need investigations and we need to pay special attention to the victims of such practices.\nTherefore, the Commission needs to set up a European strategy as soon as possible in order to combat violence against women, a strategy which will address traditional harmful practices, in particular. Today, rather than tomorrow, and not just in 2012 or 2013. It is therefore unacceptable that an important instrument such as the European Protection Order has still not come about. Somebody's safety cannot and should not stop at the border.\nTadeusz Cyma\u0144ski\n(PL) Mr President, following on from comments made by previous speakers and from the Svensson report itself, we should, first and foremost, emphasise once again that violence against women is still a feature of our society. One of the main reasons why this phenomenon has persisted is the inferior material status of women and economic discrimination against them during their career, more restricted access to the labour market, lower pay and fewer social security benefits. It is women who accept the consequences of motherhood and who bear the burden of bringing up children. Social security in this respect is insufficient in many European countries.\nDuring women's working lives and, in particular, when they have retired, these factors mean that they are reliant on the goodwill of their spouse and social security systems. This is a grossly unfair situation, and it must meet with universal opposition. This is why it is so important to propose that women be paid in full for the time they devote to motherhood and bringing up children. This is particularly important today, at a time of demographic crisis in Europe.\nMeasures to ensure equal economic opportunities for women may help to eliminate or reduce violence against them. The economic dependence of women on men is one of the many reasons for women's passivity, submissiveness and also, in a certain sense, their consent to the phenomenon of violence. It is high time to put an end to this. The European Parliament has far-reaching opportunities to improve this situation, particularly in countries where women are in a particularly difficult situation due to widespread poverty. This is a very important message, and I am grateful to those who initiated this report for perceiving this problem and for actively taking measures to resolve it.\nEdit Bauer\n(HU) Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur for her report as I believe that it deals with a very important social problem. In Europe, we have become used to the fact that very often, things move when they have economic importance. I would like to emphasise, in particular, that the report points out that violence against women in Europe causes damage in the order of billions each year. Violence is present at all levels: among the poor, the rich, the poorly educated and those with university degrees alike. Moreover, it must also be said that every year, several hundred women are indeed victims of crime within the family.\nA form of violence which has no precedent has also appeared in Europe, as has already been mentioned here. Female genital mutilation and also honour killings are taking their toll in Europe. Obviously, we would like a European norm to be created to overcome violence against women. However, we know full well that this is almost impossible in the absence of a legal basis. Nevertheless, what can be done is to create a common European strategy. Even if we are unable to harmonise legal systems, clearly, exchanging good practices may be of significant help in this area. The report also points out that there are some violent acts which are not recognised as violent acts by certain legal systems. I believe that cooperation may bring some progress in the future, but what may make this cooperation effective is primarily a European strategy, which is very much needed. Thank you very much.\nSilvia Costa\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Svensson. We know that violence against women and children is increasing across Europe. For this reason, we urge the Commission to submit a proposal, as it has already promised, for a strategy on violence against women by 2011. This should be all-inclusive, in the sense that it should cover domestic violence and genital mutilation, but also some more insidious forms. I am thinking of severe discrimination and bullying in the workplace against women who are pregnant or intend to marry and who are called on to resign beforehand, which is something that happens in my country but is no longer a crime as it was in the past. I am also thinking of what can only be described as the incitement to violence perpetrated by the media and advertising.\nAfter the directive on trafficking in human beings and the imminent directive on the victims of violence, announced by Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m, I think that the Treaty of Lisbon has laid the basis for achieving greater legal harmonisation in the way Member States acknowledge the importance of crimes of violence against women and children as specific forms of violence, as well as defining the essential standards of services for consulting, legal assistance and protection for women and children in cooperation with NGOs. It will also lead to consistent and comparable statistics with impact analyses of forms of prevention and enforcement by Member States to ensure a reduction in violence.\nI think, in this respect, that there is a common will by Parliament - I was one of the signatories to the written declaration - to define a year of reflection across Europe on the theme of violence, and I think that Parliament can add its very strong and very influential voice to this.\nRegina Bastos\n(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, violence against women is a serious violation of human rights, as we have all already asserted. It is an old and global problem, affecting countries that are culturally and geographically distinct; that are more- and less-developed. This situation is frequently associated with dysfunctional families; families in the most marginal social and economic strata. Nevertheless, in truth, it is a phenomenon that exists in many families, irrespective of their level of education, economic position or social standing.\nIt is estimated that nearly a fifth of women in Europe have been the victim of acts of physical violence at least once during their adult lives. The priority is therefore to provide support for women who are victims of violence, and this report contains a set of initiatives with this aim: notable among these are legal assistance for victims, stronger and more effective criminal investigation, the important measure of creating refuges for victims and establishing an emergency number, and provision for deterrent penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.\nThe damage to the physical and mental health of women who are victims is incalculable, but society also bears high costs. Combating this phenomenon therefore requires political and social mobilisation. After all, this is a question of ensuring equality and development. For this reason, the organisation of a European year of combating violence against women is to be welcomed, as it will have the effect of raising awareness of this terrible scourge among the European public.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt\n(LT) Mr President, I would like to thank Eva-Britt Svensson for preparing an excellent report. The real violations of women's rights and violence against women highlighted by the rapporteur show once again that these truly are violations of a person's fundamental rights, which know no geographical, economic, cultural or social limits.\nAccording to the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme adopted last year, the Commission should, as a matter of urgency, draw up a strategy for combating violence against women, and I therefore call on the Commission to take concrete action as quickly as possible and to present such a strategy.\nGender-based violence covers sexual abuse, human trafficking, forced marriage and genital mutilation, and such violent crimes have an extraordinary impact on and do irreparable damage to a woman's physical and mental health. I would therefore like to call on the Member States to ensure better training for healthcare providers, social workers, the police and judicial authorities, and well coordinated cooperation, to enable them to respond to all cases of violence against women in a professional manner.\nI would like to thank Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m, although she is no longer present, for the funding and support allocated to non-governmental organisations for combating violence against women, and would also like to recall that during the economic and financial crisis, instances of violence are even more widespread. Consequently, we cannot reduce funding in this area.\nMonika Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1\n(SK) Mr President, although we have been drawing attention to violence against women and the violation of their rights for several decades, it has not proven possible to stop this reprehensible form of criminal activity. The various forms of violence against women damage not only the women themselves, but also their families. Family life often loses its meaning, which is to provide a sense of safety and security. Children who encounter violence at home are, in a sense, also its victims. We must therefore pay attention at the European level to the possible exposure of women and children to domestic violence.\nIn the case of older women or women who are physically or mentally weaker, the problem of self-defence and the protection of their own interests is even more complicated. Women are also exposed to gender-based abuse through various forms of violation of personal freedoms, since human trafficking for sexual purposes in particular, for example, is one of the most serious problems affecting all of society.\nIt is vital, therefore, to press for more effective criminal prosecutions, and to ensure that the subsequent punishments reflect the seriousness of the crime. It is essential to take steps to prevent these serious violations of human rights and freedoms, and to guarantee European women a dignified life.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\n(GA) Mr President, I would like to focus on two points: violence against women and the role of men as workers in hotels.\nThe figure of 25% of women having suffered violence is totally unacceptable. I think it suggests the need for an educational programme amongst young males, in particular, in anger management and respect for females, so that the idea of raising your hand to a female would be absolutely taboo and not the norm, as is often presented in films, in some cultures and, sadly it seems, in some homes.\nThe second point I want to mention is the role of men as workers in hotels. The reason I say that is that there was a friend of mine, a beautiful young girl, Michaela Harte, killed in Mauritius on her honeymoon when she walked in on workers in the hotel who were robbing her room. If it were the other way around, and a male walked in on females, the chances of their being killed would be far less. There is a need to look at that risk and probability. The whole question of males and their access to rooms, especially female's rooms, has to be looked at.\nMarc Tarabella\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the report by our Chair, Mrs Svensson, which highlights the need to view all forms of violence as crimes amenable to criminal law.\nAs a general rule, I particularly appreciate the fact that the European Union is composed of States with diverse and varied national cultures and traditions, but when it comes to violence, I am appalled to see the differences in treatment that exist.\nLet us take one example: rape. Although it is amenable to criminal law everywhere, it is not defined in the same way in all the Member States. As far as Latvia is concerned, marital rape simply does not exist. In Malta, the rape of a man by another man does not exist. In Slovakia, to be raped with an object is not considered rape. Hence, there are women, men and children with shattered lives lying behind all of these definitions. To trivialise the definition of crimes is to trivialise the victims themselves, and their suffering. I therefore call on the Commission urgently to develop an effective road map against all forms of violence.\nGesine Meissner\n(DE) Mr President, it has been very clear in the debate that violence against women is not a trivial offence; it is quite clearly a violation of human rights. It has already been said that even children are sometimes indirect victims of violence against women. They can even be direct victims of violence against women, because the main cause of still births and miscarriages is certainly the effects of violence against women. It is not only a question of domestic violence; there is also forced prostitution, honour killings - where there can actually be no question of honour - human trafficking, genital mutilation and much more besides.\nThe trigger for this report, for which I am very grateful to Mrs Svensson, was, in this case, not only the fact that it was noticed in the context of the report on equality that equality is also put at serious risk as a result of violence against women, but also the fact that, through the Treaty of Lisbon, we now have the opportunity to enact a directive and to establish a common legal framework in Europe. That is urgently needed for us to make significant progress here, because this is a cross-border European problem that we must combat.\nAngelika Werthmann\n(DE) Mr President, violence against women takes many forms, and it remains an international problem with which the international community has still not managed to get to grips. The use of violence compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims. As a consequence, the women concerned are restricted in their opportunities to participate in social life and work.\nMoreover, we just need to consider the costs to see that violence against women is also a social problem, for example, in areas of health and justice. Women are at most risk within their own four walls. The commonest cause of injuries in women is domestic violence.\nViolence against women, whatever form it takes, is not a trivial offence. The EU must also sign the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Mr President, the exposure of an individual to any form of violence has far-reaching destructive consequences for the family and society, and particularly merits condemnation when committed against women and children. However, I consider it alarming that domestic violence is identified as the main cause of miscarriages or stillbirths, and I am therefore pressing for all the available resources of criminal law to be applied to the effective suppression and prevention of physical violence.\nI would like to draw attention to the urgent need to protect women, and especially poor women, from so-called surrogate motherhood. Under the pretext of solidarity, surrogate motherhood exposes women to physical exploitation and even abuse, in direct conflict with the ban on trafficking in human bodies and body parts. A woman's dignity, intimacy and body are degraded in this way, and they become the subject of corrupt rental agreements on the international human trafficking market.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103\n(RO) Mr President, although violent acts against women are the most prevalent in the world, they are still the least likely to be punished, whether committed in conflict zones or democratic countries. There are regions around the world where violence against women assumes every form: rape, sex trafficking, forced marriages, death, abductions for religious or criminal reasons, forced prostitution, not to mention violence within the family or from former partners. In addition, the age of girls being subjected to violence is steadily falling.\nI think that Member States should make additional efforts at EU level to provide comprehensive national statistics which will cover, to a greater extent, gender-based violence, as well as to improve the collection of data on this issue, with the aim of finding the most suitable solutions for punishing the culprits.\nI also regard as useful the proposal for establishing an observatory on violence against women as part of the European Institute for Gender Equality, in close collaboration with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.\nNorica Nicolai\n(RO) Mr President, as shadow rapporteur, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for this report and I will only raise two issues.\nI believe that it is time for us to go beyond the superficial approach to this issue because the lack of statistics, the lack of any consistent regulations on criminalising this issue in Member States, and the lack of concern for this matter, apart from general statements being made, confirm that this is indeed a subject which is handled superficially in the European Union. This is why a directive is necessary.\nThe economic costs have not been analysed in any great depth, unfortunately neither in this report nor in other documents on the subject. This is because this issue, which is currently exacerbated by the economic crisis, incurs quite considerable financial costs for national budgets, amounting to hundreds of millions of euro. I believe that it is time for us to quantify these costs and attempt to respond to this situation using not only financial means, but also suitable legal instruments for tackling this problem.\nKrisztina Morvai\n(HU) Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work. I am proud of the fact that in Hungary, it was I who wrote the first two books on the phenomenon of violence against women about 15 years ago. I am less proud that next to nothing has happened in this area since then. It is a fact that there is no, and neither can there be any, single EU regulation, but a lot of European taxpayers' money goes on prevention and care programmes.\nI would like to address a question mainly to the Commissioner about how the appropriate spending of these funds is checked. I have a suggestion: instead of asking the governments, ask the abused women concerned: for example, women who have been abused and taken refuge in shelters for women should be asked about the help they have received and the attitude of authorities to their cases in general, or girls and women suffering on the streets of Budapest or, say, Amsterdam, and who are hoping to escape from the hell of prostitution, should be asked about the type of help they have received from their state or government.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) Mr President, as is also clearly indicated in the report, the efforts to reduce violence against women must be supported on two fronts: at Member State level and through measures and programmes managed directly by the European Commission.\nI think that it is of paramount importance to continue the Daphne Programme and to encourage the participation of Member States which are faced with a rise in this form of violence in the current difficult economic circumstances. Nowadays, many people are facing psychological problems which sometimes trigger violence. It is vital to provide training to staff working for the European Union's police authorities as a basis for ensuring that investigations are carried out properly, with a good understanding of the issue and of the impact violence has on women. This aspect is also supported as part of the Stockholm Programme.\nFinally, the political effort must be backed up with financial support, and the Daphne Programme can provide a suitable framework for this.\nEvelyn Regner\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, when it comes to equality issues, the European Union was, and is, at the forefront; it is also at the forefront in the fight against violence against women.\nIn addition to the horrific nature of the matter, violence against women is also expensive. The report states that the annual cost of this violence is EUR 33 billion. That should take the wind out of the sails of those who say that the catalogue of measures that has now been established will clearly have a cost, too. This catalogue of measures is necessary, however. Training of police officers, judges, medical personnel - all of this is contained in the report, and I would also like to duly thank the rapporteur for that.\nHowever, I do see one small fly in the ointment and I would like to highlight this. Particular attention should also be paid to violence in the workplace. It is important to provide more specific wording on this issue, too.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, when we see examples in the media of maimed women and children, we always ask ourselves how those around them could have remained ignorant of it for so long. It is therefore necessary that the proposed strategy of the Commission for combating domestic violence includes specific diagnostic mechanisms that are mandatory for health facilities and also for social workers, making it possible to provide genuinely rapid assistance to the victims. Violence motivated through religious rituals must be severely punished, and this, together with a culture of awareness that includes training for judges, will lead to zero tolerance in society of violence against women, including the mutilation of female organs. The strategy should also consider a free legal service and social assistance for victims of violence. I would like to thank Mrs Svensson for a highly detailed report, but I will vote against part of recital J, because it promotes the right of women to kill their foetuses, and I do not agree with that.\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for this very important debate on a subject that is obviously dear to many of us. Again, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her important report, and also the shadow rapporteurs.\nAs I outlined in my introduction, we are planning several measures on this. The victims' rights package is, of course, extremely important and will come next month. We also have the general equality policy for prevention programmes, awareness-raising and so on. We are also following very closely the finalisation, right now, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, in order - when it is ready - to propose to the Council that the European Union adhere to it, which would then make it legally binding in the areas where the European Union has competence.\nI would also like to mention two other proposals that you have adopted: the directive on combating trafficking, for instance, contains a lot of preventive measures but also support for victims, for women and children who are victims of trafficking for sexual and other purposes. Also in the different parts of the asylum package, special notice is taken of vulnerable people in asylum procedures, such as women who have been victims of sexual violence, etc.\nThe problem is, as you have all outlined, enormous, and it is a shame that women and girls in our European Union are afraid on a daily basis. They are afraid of violence, rape and sexual abuse, and often from the people they love the most, whom they should be able to trust the most - husbands, partners, etc. We need to act, and we need to act where we can see concrete results. This is surely one of the most horrendous violations of human rights.\nI would like to congratulate those very few but still brave men who have contributed to this debate, because violence against women is not a women's issue: it is a human rights issue. We can only achieve results here if we work together, men and women, to combat this horrendous phenomenon. We need to work together: we need to achieve a Europe where women and girls do not have to fear violence just because they belong to the so-called 'wrong sex'.\nEva-Britt Svensson\nMr President, I would like to start by thanking my fellow Members for their very wise words during the debate and, above all, for the resolve that I can see that all my fellow Members have to fight this violence. To the Commission, I would like to say that we look forward to the victims of crime package to provide further support for victims, but we also need a directive to combat this violence. It is not necessary to agree with every word in this report, but it is important to vote in favour of it in order to send a strong signal to the Commission that we need a directive. It is important to show all of these women who live in abusive relationships that they should not feel ashamed or guilty. By voting 'yes' to the report, we will show that the guilt is a crime that is committed against them. They must not feel guilt or shame.\nFinally, I would like to say that there are many of us women who have survived as a result of the efforts of society and through the work of shelters for women and women's organisations. It is now high time that these people and organisations did not have to shoulder the responsibility alone for helping women out of the situation that many of them are living in. What is important is that we break the silence and that we show that there is support for these vulnerable people. I would also like to emphasise how important it is to show that this is a problem that cuts across all social groups. There are no particular groups that are affected; it is found throughout society. I appeal to my fellow Members to send out the signal that it is no longer acceptable for women to have to live under these conditions. Women can establish a good life for themselves and their children, but to do so they also need support from us as elected representatives. My thanks once again to all Members for your strong resolve. Together, we will succeed in this fight.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 April 2011.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nNessa Childers\nin writing. - I wish to express support for this report and its recommendations. Research shows that the situation in my own state of Ireland mirrors the problem experienced across Europe. In 2005, the National Crime Council found that one in seven women in Ireland have experienced severe abusive behaviour of a physical, sexual or emotional nature from their partner. In 2009, I became the first ambassador of Rape Crisis North East based in the town of Dundalk. This support and counselling service is one of many across the east of Ireland offering vital support for victims of sexual and domestic violence, yet it has to cope with a very difficult funding environment. What is important is that the EU directs funding for research across Member States to ensure we have a full and accurate picture of the scope of the problem. But there also needs to be support for NGOs and Member State governments to raise awareness about the impact and effects of sexual violence, be it domestic, rape or human trafficking for sexual exploitation.\nCorina Cre\u0163u\nAlmost a quarter of women in Europe have suffered acts of physical violence at least once and more than a tenth have been subjected to sexual violence. As a result of its social consequences, the economic crisis has helped exacerbate the situation in circumstances where poverty and the lack of education are factors conducive to gender-based violence. This is why I think that coordinated measures are required against the causes of this problem, along with legislative harmonisation and closer judicial cooperation between Member States, with the aim of conducting investigations more efficiently.\nIn order to put an end to violence against women, EU Member States and institutions have a duty to initiate as a matter of urgency some of the following actions: information and awareness-raising campaigns, setting up refuges for victims, setting up a single telephone number across the EU for immediate assistance and providing support for highly vulnerable groups of women such as immigrants and asylum seekers.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - In 2008, when I was a member of the Latvian Parliament, I tabled a draft amendment to the Criminal Law of the Latvian Republic, toughening responsibility for domestic violence to women and children. Unfortunately, the amendment did not go through. At the meeting of the specialised commission, when the amendment was being discussed, members of the Latvian Parliament behaved cheerfully. As a result, cases of 'light' injuries of children and women in families remain unpunished. Cases are usually not investigated and sometimes the police refuse to accept applications from victims. The protection of women from domestic violence is not regulated by efficient instruments in the Latvian Republic. The Latvian authorities, the government, keep their eyes closed on obvious violations and are not going to put legislation in order. In the light of this report, I appeal to all members of the European Parliament to pay attention to lawless behaviour towards women that is occurring in Latvia.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\nIt can happen anywhere: on the street, on the underground, in someone's own home - women and children cannot feel 100% safe from attack anywhere. The deadening pseudo-morality found in society should give us pause for thought. The early stages of actual violence, such as intrusiveness, obscene remarks and harassment meted out by many migrants to western women on a daily basis are increasingly regarded as normal. The disregard for women has reached peak levels when a German judge refers to the husband's right of procreation as a decisive factor in her judgment in a Muslim divorce case. By permitting migration, the EU has imported problems from every country of the world, including honour killings, forced marriages and domestic violence in patriarchal family structures. Culture, religion and tradition must not be used to justify acts of violence. That is the only way to break the spiral of violence. The statistics provide no information on the extent to which the recorded increase in reported cases of domestic violence is related to the increased willingness of the victims to stand up for themselves or what proportion of these are immigrants. It is a fact in any case that a large number of migrants are registered in women's refuges. It is also a fact that we need to put a stop to the pseudo-do-gooder mentality that treats crimes committed with a religious or cultural motive with leniency.\nTiziano Motti\nMy commitment to the protection of the weak and women afflicted by violence compels me to vote in favour of legislation to guarantee the protection of victims of violence. Women, like children, are particularly fragile members of our society in some contexts. I therefore think it is important to ensure greater protection to women who claim they have suffered violence. I am thus in favour of free legal assistance to women who are victims of violence. I know there is a risk of inequality when men unjustly accused of violence have to pay court costs while their accusers receive legal aid: I have thought about this carefully. However, I believe that the number of cases of violence, including family violence, should lead us to take the side of those who suffer the most serious damage from lack of support: female victims of violence are statistically a much more dominant share than the few criminals who take advantage of the system to get the better of innocent men. It is difficult for battered women to file a complaint; free legal assistance would encourage the victims and help reduce the number of incidents that have gone unpunished.\nMariya Nedelcheva\nWhen we talk about violence against women, we often lack data, statistics and trends. What we need, above anything else, is to be able to measure this phenomenon at European level, in order to understand the scale of the problem. This will help us to better target needs and hence prevent cases of violence, help the victims and heal the wounds. We must remember the victims at all times. Whether we are talking about sexual abuse, the trafficking of women for prostitution, domestic violence or even violence with a cultural dimension - I am thinking here of genital mutilation and forced marriages - they are still serious crimes. We need to come up with a general European framework to protect women from this type of violence. We must stop being so nervous of the idea of making Europe the protector of women. We need a European legal framework within which to implement concrete measures such as the emergency telephone number, and training programmes for the police, the judiciary and teachers. The EU must offer solutions within Europe, but as a global player, it must also extend the scope of its action to outside its borders.\nSiiri Oviir\nUnfortunately, it has not been possible to stop violence against women in Europe and in the world as a whole, even though the European Union and the UN have stated that combating violence against women is a priority for them. It is true that there has been some progress and that people's awareness regarding this subject has increased somewhat, but the European Union's new political priorities are indispensable for combating violence against women more effectively and for achieving our common objective that women and children should not constantly live in fear of falling victim to violence. The Treaty of Lisbon also provides the legal competence for this. I consider it extremely important for the European Union to pay more attention in its legislation to violence which takes place between people in close relationships, because this is by no means a private matter. Unfortunately, victims all too often fear for their family's reputation and, justifiably, their safety and economic dependence, and so they do not go to the law enforcement authorities. We should therefore also direct particular attention to developing a victim support system and overturning taboos that exist in society - in other words, we should improve people's awareness. The help provided to victims must be genuine and guaranteed. One definite problem is a lack of shelters in Europe designed for women and children who have suffered violence, so the objective to build one shelter per 10 000 inhabitants for victims of crime is an entirely reasonable and necessary one. In order to ensure that protection for women fleeing violence and persecution is improved, even if they change their place of residence in Europe, it is important to implement the directive on protection orders.\nNikolaos Salavrakos\nViolence against women takes various forms, from psychological repression and abuse to rape, sexual violence and the completely illegal and unacceptable ongoing trafficking and abuse of women by inhumane prostitution gangs. These gangs often dupe mainly young women and then force them to work as prostitutes. Many are driven to suicide in order to put an end to their nightmare. We need to examine more closely the countries which are the starting point for trafficking gangs, where traffickers buy silence and consent from government officials, turning these countries into havens for human rights abuses. These gangs could be combated through transnational cooperation between the EU, which is the destination, and these countries, which are the starting point for these illegal gangs. I call on the Commission to take action in this direction. Obviously, the organisations involved in women's rights seriously have their work cut out in this sector.\nOlga Sehnalov\u00e1\nThis report represents the third contribution in recent months towards combating violence against women, following the European Protection Order and the directive on combating human trafficking. Violence against women is unquestionably a serious problem in all sections of society. The data in the report speaks of one woman in four experiencing physical violence in adulthood, with more than 10% of women becoming victims of sexual violence. These are alarming figures, behind which lie individual life stories. At the same time, only one in ten victims of violence seeks professional help. The reason for this is that most of them do not know how to deal with the situation. Violence against women has enormously destructive effects, not only on the women themselves, but also negative consequences for the people around them, and children in particular. I support the proposals leading to greater awareness and training for people who may come into contact with this form of violence in the course of their work. At the same time, it is also necessary to ensure better care and assistance for the victims. I also welcome the report because of the need to send a clear and strong message to society that violence will not be tolerated.\nJoanna Senyszyn\nHuman rights and gender equality are among the EU's priorities. Since violence against women is a brutal violation of human rights and one of the main obstacles standing in the way of equality between women and men, the fight against this scourge should become our main objective. The approach taken to violence against women differs according to national legislation. Some Member States, for example, Spain, have well thought-out regulations in this area. Some do not have any at all. There are also significant differences in terms of the conviction rate for violence against women in the individual Member States. In view of the Member States' differing legal regulations and frequently limited influence in terms of enforcing the provisions of international law with regard to the fight against violence, the need for clear and binding regulations at EU level in respect of the problem is becoming ever more apparent. The various EU actions need to be summarised and presented in a single comprehensive strategy, the aim of which will be to combat violence against women throughout the EU. This strategy should be consistent with other international initiatives and be based on available EU programmes and best practices in the Member States. Work on a joint directive against violence should be completed within this parliamentary term. This is necessary in order to ensure that it can never be said again that even cows enjoy better protection in the European Union than women.\nMonika Smolkov\u00e1\nWe are all aware of violence against women, and we debate it, but when it comes to eliminating or doing away with it, the results are poor. Violence affects women at various times of life, from childhood to adulthood. It happens in school, at work, in peer groups, in public and also in private family life, or life with a partner. It takes many forms - from physical and sexual to mental and social, and even economic violence. It is experienced by women from different educational backgrounds, socio-economic positions, ethnic groups and religions, and by women from both urban and rural environments. It should be emphasised, however, that violence against women is a problem that we must all address. Eliminating it requires not only active institutions, but also active individuals - men and women - who do not turn a blind eye to this unpleasant phenomenon in our society, and who are willing to get involved personally in enforcing the principle of zero tolerance. The individual Member States must play a greater role in this, drawing up action plans for combating violence against women, boosting media awareness and adopting specific criminal laws and measures.\nZbigniew Ziobro\nin writing. - (PL) Unfortunately, despite all our efforts, violence against women, and violence in other areas of life, is still a major problem in Europe. Violent crimes are committed in all Member States, and they affect people from all social strata. This means that the fight against this problem and assistance for its victims must be multi-faceted. In order to prevent this kind of violence, it is important to support families and ensure their harmonious development. With regard to crimes involving violence against women, I believe it would be worth considering the introduction of a single European emergency telephone number, which could be called to obtain support or report a crime of this kind. The EU should aim to ensure that tougher punishments are meted out for violence against women, in particular, in the case of crimes involving sexual violence. Such crimes often remain etched in the minds of the women involved for many years, causing them to suffer and making it impossible for them to function normally. It is also imperative that better protection for the rights of victims in criminal proceedings be introduced at the same time. A key issue referred to in the report is the problem of prostitution and trafficking in women. In order to combat this practice effectively, what is needed is a pan-European agreement involving not only the EU Member States, but also countries outside the EU.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":7}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"13. Public finances in the EMU - 2007-2008 (\n\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Madam President, I have the following request. When we have formal sittings here, there is always a camera in the middle of the seating area. It is not always exactly easy for the camera operators to work there; it is also, however, a problem for Members if there is a camera where we want to work. Could we not amend the allocation of seats if we want to have the cameras here? If not, someone really needs to come up with a better technical solution.\nPresident\nWe will consult the competent authorities.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMadam President, I have been trying to wave to an usher throughout the voting procedure in order to give explanations of vote, but because you conducted votes so brilliantly and we got through them so quickly, an usher has not quite made it too me yet. I am holding a piece of paper asking to give two oral explanations of vote on the McGuinness and Breyer reports. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to do that.\nAvril Doyle\nMadam President, likewise, if I could have the same forbearance. My request is on its way to you as well.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Situation in the bee keeping sector (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission (B6-0480\/2008) by Mr Parish, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the situation in the bee keeping sector.\nNeil Parish\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I would first of all like to thank Astrid Lulling very much because it is very much on her initiative that we are presenting this. As Chair, I will be presenting the report here tonight because we are extremely concerned about the situation regarding bees. What is happening to bees is very important to Europe - to the world, in fact.\nFor the last two years running a third of honey bees in the USA have mysteriously died. In 2007, some 800 000 colonies were wiped out. In Croatia, five million bees disappeared in less than 48 hours. In the UK, one in five honey bee hives is falling and, around the world, commercial beekeepers are reporting losses of up to 90% since 2006.\nWhat is happening and just how serious is it for us and the future of mankind? Albert Einstein predicted that man would only have four years of life left if the bees disappeared from the Earth, so we need to take this very seriously. If you look at honey bees, they are responsible for pollinating plants and flowers which provide about a third of all the food we eat. They are nature's top dog when it comes to pollination and without them we can say goodbye to soya beans, onions, carrots, broccoli, apples, oranges, avocados, peaches and many other foods. There would be no more strawberries. You can imagine how Wimbledon would not be able to survive without strawberries! We would not have lucerne, which is used in cattle feed. We are therefore absolutely dependent on the honey bee. Of course, they also pollinate cotton so we would not have any clothes either. We really do have to take this matter very seriously.\nIn China, for instance, there are virtually no honey bees in some regions and they are having to pollinate a lot of crops by hand. The 90 commercial crops grown worldwide which rely on pollination generate around GBP 30 billion a year. Bees contribute over GBP 100 million a year to the UK economy and around EUR 400 million to the European economy, so you can see quite clearly that there is a huge problem.\nTherefore I would ask the Commission - and if possible I want to be able to hand over some of my time to add to Astrid Lulling's because she was very much the driving force behind this - whether it can draw together more money for research. Having talked to the professional beekeepers and others, we know there is some mystery as to why bees are dying, partly because their condition has been very poor in the last few years and they seem to be dying literally like flies. Also there is a problem with having the right chemicals in place to cure the diseases of bees.\nI think as a Commission you need not only to make money available for research but also to draw together what all the Member States are doing. It is essential that we act now. We cannot wait until all the bees have died out because the problem will be incredibly serious.\nJanez Poto\u010dnik\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, thank you to Mr Parish and, of course, also to Mrs Lulling for this oral question and resolution on the EU beekeeping sector. The Commission clearly recognises the importance that bees play in the EU's ecology and its ecosystem. The Commission is also aware of the reports made in several Member States concerning significant losses in bee colonies.\nLet me go straight to your specific questions - there were quite some of them - and try to point out straightforwardly what the Commission is already doing in this sector.\nAs regards bee mortality and research, in February this year the Commission requested that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) study the mortality in bees and its causes in the European Union. EFSA collected information from Member States and now intends to analyse it in order to provide the Commission with a clearer picture of the epidemiological situation of bee colony collapse, and this would provide the basis for further action in this area. Besides this EFSA action, the Commission is, and will be, supporting a number of research projects relating to honeybees in its Research Framework Programme. If you are interested I can mention some of them later on.\nConcerning ecological pollen zones, despite the fact that it seems difficult to set up zones as such, I would like to remind you that financial support is already granted for the efficiency of moving of beehives. This measure, which is provided for by Council Regulation No 1234\/2007, is intended to assist the management of the movement of hives in the Community and provide locations where high concentrations of beekeepers can gather during the flowering season. This measure may also include enrichment of apicultural flora in certain areas.\nConcerning your third question, I would like to remind you that the placing on the market and authorisation of plant protection products is regulated by Council Directive 91\/414\/EEC. This Directive provides that pesticides may only be used if it has been demonstrated that they pose no significant risk of unacceptable effects to human and animal health, and the environment. Therefore, this assessment also covers the acute and long-term risks to honey bees and their larvae and the tests applied are based on standards developed by intergovernmental organisations such as, for example, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation, in which 47 governments collaborate.\nIt is important to note that the Community legislation is risk based. It is evident that insecticides are, by their nature, toxic to bees. However, their use may still be possible if exposure does not occur or is minimised to levels which do not generate harmful effects.\nClassic examples of such risk mitigation measures are: well adapted agronomic practices, appropriate rates and timing of the applications (for example in the evening after honeybee flight, or outside the flowering period of the crop and possibly other adjacent weeds), direct incorporation of the product in soil, uses in glasshouses inaccessible to bees or treatment of seeds in specialised facilities.\nAs regards the quality of the surface waters, the Water Framework Directive has established protection of all waters; an obligation to achieve\/maintain good water quality for all surface waters and groundwaters, by 2015; plus a prohibition of deterioration of water status; an obligation to establish a monitoring system; an obligation to develop the necessary plans and programmes by December 2009, in broad public consultation with local municipalities, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations.\nConcerning support to apiaries in difficulty, I would like to tell you that the Commission is glad to see that the number of hives increased between 2004 and 2007 - and this not counting enlargement.\nRegarding losses of bees, you should know that, since 2004, a new measure on restocking of hives has been added to the list of eligible measures in the national beekeeping programmes. Therefore, it is now possible to compensate for losses of bees (and production) by funding activities to promote queen production, purchasing of bee colonies, or even purchases of hives.\nI think that the question which you are raising is of course extremely serious and we have to take it with similar seriousness.\nAstrid Lulling\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, when it is dangerous to delay, I can rely on the entire Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and its Chairman, my colleague Mr Parish. I thank them for their quick, effective response to my initiative of an oral question with debate and resolution to the European Commission to deal with the apiculture health crisis.\nIn a situation in which bee colonies are becoming weaker and suffering excessive mortality, it is necessary to analyse all of the factors causing this increased bee mortality and to propose a plan of action to remedy this disastrous trend.\nThe Commission has just read to us a long paper about what it has already done, but I have to say that, in recent years, whilst I have been rapporteur on the apiculture situation - since 1994 - it has needed a lot of persuading to act, whilst with my colleagues I have strived to draw its attention to this alarming situation, which is widely known and which has been perfectly described, especially by my colleague, Mr Parish.\nI do not have the time to repeat all that or to add anything but, as no one now dares deny that bee mortality is a deadly danger for our fruit and vegetable production, which is dependent on pollination, we demand that the Commission acts with greater persistence and more resources. It must contribute to an analysis of the causes of this bee mortality and finally include research into and the fight against apiculture disease in the European veterinary policy.\nIt should promote the measures required to limit and remove the risk of an insufficient pollination and assure sufficient and diversified food production to meet human and livestock needs. It must be understood that apiculture's health crisis is as dangerous to human survival as the financial crisis is to the real economy.\nI will not quote the figures, except for one world figure: the value of pollination to the cultivation which feeds mankind is estimated at EUR 153 billion. The solutions we recommend are much less onerous than those mobilised for the financial crisis, and, even if we were finally to introduce the pollination bonus and financial assistance to beekeepers in difficulty to ensure the survival of bees in Europe, it would be peanuts in comparison with other budget lines. If you have a billion to send to Africa without any checks - as you wish to do - to fight hunger, with all the disastrous consequences that would entail, you should be able to find some EUR 60 million to do something worthwhile here.\nMadam President, as I have the office of rapporteur, may I still say something about the amendments? I have not used up Mr Parish's speaking time...\n(The President cut off the speaker.)\nRosa Migu\u00e9lez Ramos\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Madam President, I want to congratulate Mrs Lulling on the determination that she has shown in getting this issue, which some may feel is relatively minor, onto the agenda of this Parliament, albeit at such a late hour.\nBeekeeping is a farming activity with important economic repercussions and beneficial effects on rural development and the ecological balance.\nIn my country, beekeeping involves around 27 000 producers who manage more than 2 300 000 hives. This makes my country the leading honey producer in the European Union.\nSpanish beekeepers, together with all other beekeepers, are facing problems deriving not only from the reduction in pollen and nectar, but also from the appearance of new diseases which are decimating hives. The Commission should be working on a line of research into the origin of these diseases and, in this respect, a budgetary effort seems vital to us.\nHowever, I want to add that imports - and I am referring to honey imports - must meet the same requirements as our products and offer full guarantees to consumers. In this respect, good labelling of our products is fundamental and the Commission has an important role to play in this.\nA high level must be maintained, in terms of both frequency and number of controls at border inspection points, to guarantee that no beekeeping products containing residues enter the European Union from third countries.\nFor many of our farmers, beekeeping supplements their almost always limited income. It is also work which employs many women. Honey occupies an important place at small fairs and markets and beekeepers have made a major effort to diversify their products, provide labelling, ensure better hygiene and health guarantees, and open new channels of distribution.\nCommissioner, we cannot simply allow all these efforts to go to waste.\nFrancesco Ferrari\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the beekeeping sector is not only a productive operation with age-old origins in the history of our agricultural activities, but currently it is one of the systems that is vital in maintaining the level of productivity of tree and herbaceous crops, thanks to cross-pollination.\nI would like to point out that 80% of plants grown produce fruit because of the pollen carried by bees, also ensuring genetic variation of species in reproduction. It is clear that, at the moment, the beekeeping sector and its operations cannot be replaced and are the only way of maintaining biodiversity on target. The products of the hives must increasingly frequently compete on the global market under competition conditions that lack transparency and through the mass importation of products, including those from outside the EU, which are not guaranteed. It is not always possible to guarantee their quality, partly because of pesticides which are banned in Europe but are used outside. For this reason, it is necessary to carry out labelling and to place the origin of the product on it.\nI also believe it is important to point to the serious consequences for beekeeping operations of the virus, as a result of which over 50% of the European beekeeping sector has been destroyed. I ask the European Commission to make further efforts in terms of scientific research to find a way of dealing with this serious disease, by banning any type of phytosanitary treatment during flowering periods.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\nMadam President, Commissioner, natural wealth is decreasing before our very eyes. Whole species are dying out, decimated by parasites, disease, chemicals and the irresponsible behaviour of humanity. In many regions, ecological equilibrium has been disturbed and major, irreversible losses have occurred.\nWe witness with concern the mass extinction of bees, with hives falling silent one after another, and many species of plants dependent on pollination perishing with them. The status of beekeeping determines the yields of as many as 84% of plant species cultivated in Europe. In this way, bees largely determine the abundance of food on our tables.\nBees are being decimated by disease and pests with which beekeepers cannot cope alone. Additional funds are needed to control and study them. Nor can beekeepers cope alone with protecting their markets and ensuring the viability of their products. We therefore need to protect our internal market from the influx of poorer-quality third-country honey, frequently breaching public health requirements. Beekeepers must also receive aid in the form of subsidies or cheaper sugar as well as large-scale promotional campaigns.\nIn summary, it is high time for us to start working like bees. As a beekeeper, I can only wish that the European Commission would pattern itself on the bee, so that we do not have to wait for fifteen years for a sensible programme which Mrs Lulling has been striving so hard to promote.\nAlyn Smith\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, I would also pay tribute to Mme Lulling, who has been tenacious to say the least in promoting and bringing this issue to the floor of the Parliament. Commissioner, I would also thank you for an impressive list of activities that the Commission is undertaking into this grave issue and, if anything, I think we are looking for a greater degree of funding and coordination as well. There is a risk that different bits of the institutions are doing a lot of good work but we do not necessarily tie it together. I think that is where this debate can shed some light.\nIt is a serious issue. The miners of old took canaries down into the mines with them to warn of poisonous gases. They warned of poisonous gases by dying. That was bad news for the canaries but good news for the miners. Our concern is that the bees of Europe are doing essentially the same sort of service for us. A third of the EU's food - one in three mouthfuls of food - can be linked to bee pollination.\nThere is a catastrophic decline in bees, and we must take action at European level. Scientists are agreed that there has been a decline. We have heard already how severe it has been, but we are less clear as to what has caused it. Is it the use of pesticides? Is it climatic conditions? Is it parasites and mites and other diseases, perhaps beyond our control?\nCommissioner, I would also mention to you specifically the Bumblebee Conservation Trust at Stirling University in Scotland which has done groundbreaking work into this. Europe is not short of expertise. What we need to do is to tie it together. I think the text before us has a number of concrete actions which would take us in that direction - particularly apicultural set-aside, biodiversity zones, even alongside roads and unproductive land, research on pesticides, surface water and consideration of aid.\nAs we have heard already, if we can find a billion euros to inflict on African development, I think we can find money to fund our own research. It is right that we see EU action on this and - dare I say - this does constitute a pretty coherent plan B, where plan A, the common European agricultural policy, has failed Europe's bees. I do think we need to see a greater complementarity of actions already on-going to alleviate that situation.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, beekeepers and bees are experiencing tremendous problems and need help. We are witnessing a dramatic fall in the number of bee colonies, not only in Europe but throughout the world. Unfortunately, the profitability of the profession is falling and, with it, young people's interest in it. There are several issues which we need to address as soon as possible.\nFirst, we need to develop research into the parasites, diseases and viruses decimating these hard-working insects. Second, we need to introduce testing of honeys imported from third countries. All products must meet the appropriate quality requirements. In addition, labels should carry information about countries of origin. Third, we need to launch an information campaign explaining the beneficial influence of bees on the natural environment and of honey and other bee products on human health.\nDue to the scope of the problem, we need to consider providing financial support to apiaries threatened with extinction. The beekeeping community has been calling for cheaper sugar with which to feed the bees. It would be worth considering the introduction of a special support system for the beekeeping sector, in view of its highly beneficial impact on the natural environment.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) Madam President, may I congratulate Mrs Lulling and thank her for her indefatigable and passionate concern for the interests of the European beekeeping industry. It is a good thing that we are debating this problem, because beekeepers in Europe and throughout the world are alarmed and worried by the deaths of their bees.\nInvestigations of the causes of this phenomenon are under way. Among the causes suggested by researchers is the possible impact of biotechnology and more specifically of the cultivation of genetically modified crops, which could have an adverse impact on the functioning of bees.\nI would therefore like to ask the European Commission, which approves the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the European Union, the following question. What are the relevant test results and what, in general, is the understanding of the impact of GMO on the condition of bees in Europe?\nJames Nicholson\nMadam President, let me first of all begin by congratulating Astrid for her work on this issue. As far as I am aware, she has been talking about bees now for quite a long time so I am glad to see that this resolution put forward by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has given Parliament a chance to debate the problem currently facing the beekeeping sector.\nWhile this issue has attracted a lot of attention and publicity, possibly because it is somewhat of a novelty item, we are well aware that in reality, the problems which we are facing are very serious and could potentially have devastating consequences.\nI am sure that I do not need to remind anyone of the importance of bees - and it has already been pointed out here tonight - not only for the production of important by-products such as wax and honey, but also for the role they play in pollination and the maintenance of healthy ecosystems.\nComing as I do from the county of Armagh in Northern Ireland, which was well known within the island as the Orchard County, where bees are very necessary to pollinate the apples, and I can say that it is already telling a tale in that particular area. In this regard, the Commission urgently needs to step up its research on what exactly is causing such a sharp decline in the bee population and hopefully come forward with some solutions. The situation will only deteriorate if we cannot find a way to improve bee health and reduce bee mortality and stop the colonies of bees dying and disappearing. This is a source of great concern to all involved, not only within the whole of Europe, but even in the United States and beyond.\nI recently addressed a beekeepers' conference in my region of Northern Ireland and it reaffirmed to me, as I listened to the many contributions during that morning, the concern that the beekeepers have at the loss of their hives, especially during the winter period. We need extra funds to develop through further R&D in an attempt to assess what is the reason for this calamity hitting the beekeepers. If we are doing something wrong, we need to find it out urgently. Is it pesticides, or some other reason? There may be lots of theories and such speculation, but the truth is we do not have the answer, and we need that and to be given the extra support.\nMairead McGuinness\nMadam President, we know the importance of bees. Everyone has spoken about it. However, one of the issues that has not been addressed in the debate is the reality of a substantial trade in commercial bumblebees. There is literally free movement of bees globally and, as far as I know, there is very little regulation of the movement of bees when there needs to be. We do it in other live categories and in livestock, and we know that it works in terms of disease control. The movement of bees has the potential to import the varroa mite, as has happened in Ireland. There is now the problem of the small hive beetle, which is causing havoc for bee-keepers.\nSo we have a huge problem, to which we do not know the answer. There are at least half a dozen reasons why these things may be happening, and research is absolutely necessary. We need to coordinate that research across the European Union so that we find answers. We also need to address the issue of beekeepers themselves, because it seems they are an ageing population, and we need more of them, not less.\nAvril Doyle\nMadam President, if Mrs Lulling will stay quite long enough for me to congratulate her, I will be delighted to do so on her consistent interest and support for apiculture in the European Parliament for some time now.\nThe decline in bee populations and the frightening implications for plant pollination and biodiversity generally deserve our full attention and we must support research and join with scientists worldwide to try and find the causes. Parasitic infections, climate change, pesticides: we can only speculate at this stage.\nTwenty five per cent of our food depends directly on bees, apart altogether from their contribution to maintaining our grasslands. Regrettably, in Ireland, our only research centre in this area, in Clonroche in County Wexford, was closed down by the Irish government some years ago. Therefore, I am not sure that Ireland can contribute; we have the scientists and the knowledge, but we certainly do not have the support from the government. I look forward to hearing from the Commission on how Europe and the European Union can support the research and what we are doing to date in this area.\nAstrid Lulling\n- (FR) Madam President, as Mr Parish has had to leave, he has asked me to state our position on the amendments which reached us at the last minute.\nThe Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has unanimously adopted the resolution, with all its amendments, which I considered in their entirety. However, the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, which did not offer any sparkling contributions when the resolution was being discussed, is now making a last-minute attempt to restore its reputation by proposing four amendments. The latter not only provide no new material, but would also confuse the text, which is currently coherent and legible.\nAmendment 1 stems from an error in the German translation, since what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf is proposing is exactly what I proposed but, as I said, the German translation of my recital is inadequate.\nAmendment 2 is stating the obvious, Amendment 3 is unintelligible, and Amendment 4 duplicates paragraph 8, which clearly calls for intensified research into the effects of pesticides on bee mortality, and furthermore states that authorisation for such products should be made dependent on this research, as is already the case.\nI therefore suggest that these amendments be rejected, because they add nothing, and they would spoil a text that is clear and properly worded. I insist on a good draft, because this resolution is very important, and we want it to be worded properly. This is why we wish to reject these amendments.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, the beekeeping debate in the European Parliament has attracted considerable interest from beekeepers. As a beekeeper, I have personally met in Pu\u0142awy with beekeepers who had travelled from all over Poland. The asked me to put just one question to the European Commission, and to obtain a definitive answer - what can beekeepers actually count on in the coming years??\nJanez Poto\u010dnik\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I truly believe that this was a very fruitful discussion with many ideas not only for my colleague but for the DG AGRI services, as well as for my services and others. Many of the Directorates General other than DG AGRI are working on the issue we are discussing today: DG SANCO, DG Research and DG Environment. It is really a multidisciplinary issue. When we talk about how much funding is actually committed to this, I think that we will have to look at various other areas as well.\nLet me come first to many of your questions concerning what we are doing, what is in the pipeline and what we actually mean when we talk about research in the bee sector. In the Sixth Framework Programme, a specific target research project on food quality and safety priority was named 'Bees in Europe and Sustainable Honey Production' (BEE SHOP). This gathers together nine European honey bee research groups specialising in honey quality, pathology, genetics and behaviour. Do not be misled: FP6 projects are the ones that are already running; FP7 projects are just starting.\nIn addition, the specific support action 'Bee Research and Virology in Europe' (BRAVE) has enabled the organisation of two large multidisciplinary conferences, involving experts working in fundamental and applied research on bees - experts on virology, diagnosis, immunology and epidemiology - as well as international trade, policy formulation and disease risk assessment. A call for proposals was published on 3 September this year, on the theme of food agriculture and fisheries biotechnology, on the identification of emerging honey bee pests and diseases, and the re-emergence of pathogens, aimed at elucidating the intimate mechanisms and reasons for the increased honey bee mortality. So it is exactly linked to this topic and many of your questions.\nThe environmental aspects, including chronic exposure to pesticides, will also be taken into account. The integrated project ALARM, on assessing large-scale environmental risks for biodiversity, is also funded under the Sixth Framework Programme and includes a module on pollinator loss. ALARM will develop and test methods and protocols for the assessment of large-scale environmental risks in order to minimise negative direct and indirect human impacts. Research will focus on assessment and focus of changes in biodiversity structure, function, dynamism of ecosystems - in particular risk arising from climate change, environmental chemicals, biological invasions and pollinator loss in the context of current and future European land-use betterance will also be assessed. These are all current initiatives.\nOne thing which I would like to underline - since this was also stressed by your colleague - is that Europe is not short of expertise. I think we have to be aware of this and also be fair. At European Union level, we deal with 5% - I repeat, 5% - of European Union public money which is devoted to research. So it is of the utmost important that we join forces and do as much as possible practically. The creation of the European research area, which I fully support, is actually exactly this idea - that we all know what we are doing and that we join the scientific expertise which we already have across Europe. This is certainly a missing element in Europe today.\nI will ensure that the Commissioner responsible for research hears your calls for further research - that is me, but today I am in a different role. One thing which I would also like to mention - because it was perhaps not fully understood in my introduction - is the EFSA full assessment on bee mortality and bee surveillance in Europe. This was published on 11 August 2008, so it is a new thing. It is exactly the analysis of the programme which you are searching for and I think it is important that we all look at what we have before us.\nI must also answer the colleague who asked about GMO crops. The only GMO crop currently cultivated in the European Union is Bt-maize MON 810. Bt-maize, and Bt-toxin in general, have been extensively analysed with regard to the possible impact on bee health. Forced feeding trials, where healthy bees are exposed to high doses of bt-toxin, have not shown any negative effect. Overall, the overwhelming majority of studies show that this bt-maize pollen diet has no impact on bees. I can add to this that the recently observed massive losses of bees, termed 'colony collapse disorder' (CCV), in North America and also in Europe do not appear to be related to the use of GMO crops as they are also reported from other areas where no GMO crops are grown. For example, bee losses observed in southern Germany have been clearly attributed to poisoning by the pesticide Poncho Pro. It also has a Latin name, which is so difficult that I would rather not read it out.\nIn conclusion, Commission actions will certainly continue and be strengthened. They will help beekeepers to face the current difficulties and encourage them to continue their activity. I also hope that will encourage new entrants to the profession since this activity plays an extremely important role, not only for our EU biodiversity, but also economically.\nAs regards my colleague Commissioner Fischer Boel's direct responsibilities, she will continue to make sure that the national beekeeping programmes are used in the most efficient way. However, in the first instance, it is up to the Member States to spend their budgets in an appropriate way. Today we have EUR 26.3 million in European money each year. This is doubled by adding the money from the Member States - but we are not spending it. We are spending 80% of that money. Member States are not spending what is currently at their disposal.\nFinally, the best solution to guarantee a future for the sector is to encourage consumption of EU honey. Since 2004, honey has been added to the list of eligible products for promotion on the internal market and several programmes have been accepted.\nMy answer was longer because I just wanted to make it clear to you that we are taking these actions seriously and that you should count on us - definitely also in my area - to continue to do so. Thank you for your attention and for staying so long.\nPresident\nI have received one motion for a resolution from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday, 20 November 2008.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nBees are important to many different cultures in many different parts of the world. Their universality has not come about by accident. Beekeeping has been an important component of the economy since prehistoric times, that is to say since before the inception of written history. In Spain, honey was gathered 6 000 years ago.\nToday, the efforts of the bees and the beekeepers could go to waste due to the phenomena affecting the natural environment and also, indirectly, humanity. In Europe, we still have people whose livelihood depends on their work and that of their bees. They sell the honey they have themselves produced. We should be happy that this is so. Return to traditional forest beekeeping has also been attempted. In Poland, these attempts were supported by beekeepers who had come from Bashkiria, because no one in our country remembered the ancient methods any more. Beekeeping is of cultural, social and economic importance. This is why we should protect European beekeeping. Sadly, there is a lot to protect it against.\nEconomic threats, such as unfair competition by third countries, and threats to bee health, as well as biological threats such as diseases, parasites, environmental pollution and the unconsidered use of pesticides. The European Commission and Member States should support the beekeeping sector, which is facing major challenges. Beekeepers by themselves may find it hard to save biodiversity, to whose riches bees contribute so much.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"5th cohesion report and strategy for the post-2013 cohesion policy - Implementation of cohesion policy programmes for 2007-2013 - European urban agenda and its future in cohesion policy - Objective 3: future agenda for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation - Increased effectiveness between ERDF and other structural funds (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the following reports:\nthe report by Markus Pieper, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the Commission's fifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy;\nthe report by Miroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the Report 2010 on the implementation of the cohesion policy programmes for 2007-2013;\nthe report by Old\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy;\nthe report by Marie-Th\u00e9r\u00e8se Sanchez-Schmid, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on Objective 3: a challenge for territorial cooperation - the future agenda for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation;\nthe report by Georgios Stavrakakis, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds.\nMarkus Pieper\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, I want to begin by saying that I would very much like to have two minutes speaking time for my closing remarks. Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a Europe of solidarity and it is also the advocate for the European regions. Today, the European Parliament is sending out a strong signal to our regions. We want to help the weakest regions to establish better connections. We are providing support for the border regions, so that Europe can become more cohesive, and we want to use the potential of all the regions to make Europe more competitive.\nEven though the economic and financial crisis has eclipsed many of these activities, European structural policy will continue to provide a strong stimulus for growth and employment. There will be a significant need for action after 2013 because of the challenge of demographic change, the changing structure of the economy, failings in our transport systems, the beginning of the age of regenerative energies and an increase in social discrepancies.\nThe art of structural policy will lie in enabling the regions to innovate in order to meet these challenges and helping them to help themselves. At the same time, Europe needs the regional potential to be able to implement the Europe 2020 strategy and to ensure that it is a success. We must make sure that we have appropriate funding for all these tasks. Therefore, we will oppose all attempts to abolish our successful structural policy, by means of renationalisation, new climate or employment funds or whatever other centralisation measures Brussels may be planning. We want to strengthen the principle of multi-level governance. The responsibility of the regions for implementing European objectives brings added value in itself.\nWe have made a series of proposals in the report as to how Europe can increase this added value even further. We are calling for more resources to improve the infrastructure in our border regions and to strengthen the Trans-European Networks. We want to invest more in the future of our cities and our rural areas and we are calling for the programmes to be better coordinated. It is likely that a majority in Parliament will be in favour of an intermediate category with high subsidy rates for less disadvantaged regions. I would like to advise against this, because it will turn phasing-out into sleeping-out, which the Council cannot afford.\nWe are also introducing improved proposals for more efficiency and transparency. It is very important for us to ensure that tougher conditions are attached to the allocation of funding. EU law must be implemented before EU money is made available. This applies to public procurement and to price regulation. We also want to see significantly stricter controls on the allocation of subsidy funding. If we do not finally and regularly name and shame the Member States where the majority of fraud is taking place, we will lose our credibility.\nWe are calling for greater commitment from the Commission on monitoring the use of funding. Mr Lewandowski, please do not place too much trust in the Member States. Take responsibility yourself for the accreditation of national inspection authorities and Parliament will give you its support.\nFinally, I would like to draw the Commission's attention to a few points which are not made in the report. In contrast to the draft report, we are no longer calling for a reduction in cofinancing, but, and this is the point I would like to make, we are also not calling for an increase. The report also no longer includes our proposal for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Social Fund to be merged. However, please note that we also do not want an independent European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Please take these two examples as proof of the fact that Parliament is much more in favour of reform than the report might suggest. We need reform of our structural policy to ensure that the EU remains strong.\nIn conclusion, I would like to say that I have enjoyed working on the report overall. However, I was annoyed about the many occurrences of self-interested nationalism which unfortunately are also reflected in this report. I am keen to see how this is handled in the vote. Thank you very much for your attention.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\nrapporteur. - Mr President, firstly I would like to thank all the honourable Members concerned for their interesting input, and especially the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation. There were many inspiring and relevant ideas expressed in amendments, as well as in opinions, so I devoted special attention to creating a well-balanced approach that would capture as much of their essence and variety as possible.\nStrategic reporting represents a new feature of cohesion policy, introduced in the current programming period 2007-2013. With the 2010 strategic report, Parliament has the first occasion for analysis and evaluation of the outputs and results of cohesion policy implementation. This is also an opportunity to express Parliament's opinion on Member States' spending priorities, and to highlight areas where more efforts are needed, including the Commission's tackling of cohesion policy implementation and of the strategic reporting exercise itself.\nThe 2010 strategic report focuses mainly on the implementation of programmes during the current programming period and the strategic reporting exercise. However, it also provides several valuable insights into the future of cohesion policy.\nFirstly, regarding implementation of the programmes, the reported financial volume of the selected projects is EUR 93.4 billion, representing more than 27% of available EU resources in the period in question. This can be considered quite reasonable, given not only the context of serious deterioration in the socio-economic situation in 2008-2009 due to the global crisis, but also the reform of the policy for the period 2007-2013.\nNevertheless, progress varies significantly between countries and across themes, with aggregate selection rates at about 40% in the case of nine Member States and below 20% in four Member States. Striking economic, social and environmental disparities between the European regions clearly still exist. On the other hand, there was a more consistent average rate of project selection for the three objectives of convergence, regional competitiveness and employment and European territorial cooperation - and the same applies in the categories geared to the Lisbon Strategy objectives. The higher absorption rates for environmental programmes under the European territorial cooperation objective show the added value of cross-border and interregional cooperation - which should therefore be encouraged in future. On the other hand, more efforts are needed in certain areas, especially to improve implementation, avoid excessive delays, ensure tighter financial discipline and increase synergies with other EU policies.\nSecondly, with regard to strategic reporting itself: this is a tool for reflecting strategically on, and discussing, the thematic dimension of cohesion policy on the basis of concrete evidence provided by Member States. Strategic reporting is also an evaluation of the ongoing process. It is carried out during the programming period in order to provide an overview of the Member States' progress in delivering on the EU's goals, and a useful basis from which to improve performance. The report thus highlights many good practices capable of helping to enhance the quality of the reporting exercise, increasing ownership by stakeholders within the Member States, and ultimately improving the efficiency of implementation.\nI will conclude by mentioning just one of the many good practices, namely the use of core indicators by all the Member States.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\nMr President, I would like to share several points with you regarding the report for which I am the rapporteur, in other words the report on the urban dimension of future cohesion policy.\nThe report focuses on cities and their role in cohesion policy. I would like to begin, however, by emphasising that this does not mean we should forget about rural areas when distributing European funds. On the contrary, there is a need for the synchronised development of both big cities and small rural communities to go hand in hand. I have, incidentally, highlighted these themes in my draft amendments to Mr Siekierski's report on the future of the common agricultural policy.\nI would like to raise several points in my introduction. First, we need to be aware that cities are an important platform for implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, for reasons that include their undeniable importance in the economic development of Europe's regions. It is therefore essential that cities are given a strong mandate in the implementation of the aims of this common European strategy.\nSecondly, I would like to emphasise that we need to develop basic infrastructure in many cities. In my opinion, a good solution would be not only simple renovation, but also modernisation and technological investment in infrastructure, through information technologies. We could then be sure that sharp growth and improved quality of life really will occur in cities. We should prioritise just such growth investments, for reasons that include the principle of concentration.\nThirdly, I would like to mention the theme of partnership. Partnership is often an empty concept. I would therefore like it if we could provide cities with real support, and I therefore call on the Commission to place an obligation on Member States to involve the political representatives of the main cities and federations of local and regional authority bodies in all phases of decision-making within the framework of cohesion policy. Local representatives should have an opportunity to participate in negotiating the national planning agreements for strategic development.\nFourthly, and this is the final main point I would like to mention today from the draft report, there are the financial engineering instruments. Much has already been said on the topic of JESSICA. In the real world, however, not much is happening. I would therefore like us to call on the Commission to evaluate the experience with these instruments and amend their rules to make them competitive in comparison with other instruments on the financial market. At the same time, I think we should call on the Member States to implement the JESSICA initiative at the level of cities, and not of regions or states. Only thus will the cities really own JESSICA, enabling it to have a long-term effect.\nMarie-Th\u00e9r\u00e8se Sanchez-Schmid\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a priority debate on cohesion policy is rare, and today's one is extremely important.\nRegional policy has had many successes during its long history and in 2009 it became the European Union's main item of expenditure, with EUR 350 billion invested in our regions between 2007 and 2013. Today, Parliament is going to vote on the future of this policy and define its priorities in preparation for the forthcoming budgetary and regulatory negotiations for the next financial framework.\nFor my part, I had the honour of working on the future of European territorial cooperation - Objective 3 of cohesion policy - and I should like to thank the shadow rapporteur and the European Commission for their fruitful collaboration.\nWhat is territorial cooperation? What purpose does it serve? What are the issues at stake? How prominent should it be within regional policy? These are the questions we need to answer.\nToday, 196 million European citizens are living in border regions. These regions reveal, through the disparities they are confronted with, our countries' difficulties in adapting to the challenges of open borders, the completion of the European Common Market and globalisation.\nEurope is divided into 27 Member States and 271 regions. As a result, European territory is divided and split by a great many administrative borders which define different political and legal systems. To paraphrase a French sociologist, a border is a political object which creates distance where there is proximity. Conversely, the European Union wishes to create proximity where history had created distance, misunderstanding and sometimes hatred.\nAs a matter of fact, the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome is the common thread in our role as European elected representatives. The aim of the European Union is 'the ever closer union between nations'. Without erasing borders or calling into question their legitimacy, Objective 3, with EUR 8.5 billion, is seeking to reduce the negative impact of borders in the everyday lives of our citizens, in order to turn these dividing borders into connecting borders.\nThat is what makes European territorial cooperation the embodiment of European integration and an extraordinary source of competitiveness.\nWhat future do we want to give it?\nThis report contains concrete and pragmatic proposals, stemming from the demands on the ground, from the numerous stakeholders met and from citizens' expectations.\nFirst of all, an explicit reminder of the added value of European territorial cooperation and of its potential for increased competitiveness. A proposal to increase its funding to 7% of the next budget for cohesion policy. Maintaining the overall structure and the key role of the cross-border dimension in order to meet the local needs of border communities. A provision of funds for each cooperation programme, carried out using harmonised criteria, so as to prevent some Member States from calculating financial returns. A more strategic programming of the funds, in connection with a territorialised Europe 2020 strategy.\nIncentives so that the regional operational programmes play a part in large cross-border or transnational projects, such as the trans-European transport networks. Enhanced coordination between the transnational dimension and the macro-regional strategies, simplified implementation by adopting a separate regulation. A better use of European groupings for territorial cooperation, which are the only purely Community-wide tool for multilevel governance. Finally, improved visibility and enhanced clarity of territorial cooperation among local government and among citizens.\nTo conclude, I would say that territorial cooperation is one of those purely European policies with high added value. It is the simplest, fastest and cheapest way to achieve lively and practical European integration.\nCommissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we have the duty to strengthen the most European objective of the cohesion policy.\nGeorgios Stavrakakis\nrapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the main assumption expounded in the report is that strengthening synergies between the European Regional Development Fund and other cohesion policy funds will help enormously in increasing both the effectiveness and the added value of cohesion policy. At the same time, greater synergies are called for with the development actions of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund. Greater synergies in practice mean that actions financed by the various cohesion policy funds are prepared, designed and implemented within the framework of an integrated common plan, so that each action uses and complements the positive results of other actions.\nExperience from the implementation of cohesion policy programmes now clearly illustrates that the successful outcome of most regional development actions basically depends on the implementation of complementary initiatives. Infrastructure improvements, for instance, do not lead automatically to higher growth if they are not combined with investment in education, enterprise and innovation. We believe, therefore, that effective coordination will bring real benefits from the point of view of efficiency and improvements to sound budgetary management.\nThe main demand formulated in the report in order to achieve this objective is for common rules on management and application to be adopted within the general framework of cohesion policy and with the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund. Apart from the benefits gained from saving resources and making use of complementarity, this would simplify both the use of the funds by beneficiaries and the management of the funds by the national authorities. Finally, the simplification achieved by harmonising rules at all programming levels will facilitate the participation of small agencies in cohesion policy programmes and improve the take-up of funds.\nWithin the framework of the report, we also welcome the initiative by the European Commission to adopt a single strategic framework covering more funds. However, what we in the Committee on Regional Development are calling for is for this single framework and coordination not to be confined to the policy planning stage but to be extended to cover all policy-making stages: planning, implementation and payments, auditing and evaluation.\nI should also like to express my satisfaction at the fact that the main messages of my report were adopted both in the extremely important motion for a resolution by the European Parliament on the future financial perspective of the European Union and in the report on the future of cohesion policy.\nTo close, may I point out, as I emphasised at the start, that the basic principle of my report is that greater synergies between the funds will improve the efficacy of cohesion policy still further. This being so, I should like to express my particular concern at the fact that a tendency towards splitting cohesion policy between various budget lines has emerged recently. We are clearly against any such proposal, because it directly undermines the foundations of cohesion policy itself, especially the partnership and the integrated approach to regional development.\nJohannes Hahn\nMr President, honourable Members, visitors to the European Parliament, cohesion policy is a central pillar of the European integration project and in overall terms it is one of the most successful policies of recent decades. We have genuinely succeeded over this period in reducing the differences in prosperity between the regions of Europe. The changes to the categorisation during the next period will highlight this fact.\nI must emphasise once again that at the same time regional policy has become the central and sustainable investment policy for all European regions. If we want to ensure that Europe 2020 is a success and if we want to turn the strategy that is currently only on paper into concrete activities, initiatives and projects, it is exactly this up-to-the-minute, advanced form of regional policy which needs to be implemented in all our regions, in order to achieve the necessary results in our cities, communities, businesses, research centres and schools.\nI would like to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, the rapporteurs Mr Pieper, Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, Mr Vlas\u00e1k, Mrs Sanchez-Schmid and Mr Stavrakakis for their excellent reports, which will help us to make progress with our work. The wide variety of the discussions held not only in committee but also on a number of other occasions has shown that this is the case. I am working on the assumption that many of these significant and highly constructive contributions will be incorporated into the design of future regional policy. Parliament and the Commission are moving in the same direction when it comes to the main aspects of the future development of regional policy and I would like to thank you for this. I want to make it quite clear that during the discussion about the transitional regions we rather lost sight of the fact that we have so much in common in this area, including shared priorities and very substantial proposals for changes in the future direction of the policy, which will make it even more successful, sustainable and visible and more comprehensible and tangible for the citizens of Europe. We have a common commitment to creating strong links between regional policy and the Europe 2020 strategy and to establishing jointly the necessary conditionality, so that we can help to overcome any difficulties in implementing the policy. We also have a common commitment to ensuring that our policy focuses heavily on results. This will ultimately enable us to find out what this policy could achieve with the targeted use of financial resources in all the individual regions by the end of the period and could therefore contribute to the central objectives of Europe 2020.\nIf I may, I would like to make some brief remarks on the individual reports. Firstly, I want to look at Mr Pieper's report. I would like to emphasise what he said about being prepared to introduce reform and about the agreement in many areas. It is important that we are committed to innovation, to sustainability, to energy efficiency and to exploiting the potential of smart green technologies for the European economy and for safeguarding jobs in a competitive global environment. This has been discussed in this House and I would like to thank Parliament for its substantial support for the proposed creation of a so-called transitional region in the next period. We have had frequent discussions on this subject. It has been covered adequately and I do not need to go into detail about it now. However, I would like to emphasise once again that our concern has always been to produce a proposal to help those areas of regions which were not among the very poorest but which were still well below the average level and to provide support for the catching-up process. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns and misgivings which some people have expressed. I am prepared, and I will even take a proactive approach here, for us to consider towards the end of the next period the opportunities already available for a preliminary evaluation, in order to establish the extent to which the objectives were achieved in the individual regions, to assess whether the failure to meet targets was due to internal or external factors and to identify the conclusions we can draw for the allocation of funding during the period after next. These are sensible and necessary moves which will guarantee political acceptance in future and also the acceptance of the citizens for this type of European policy.\nI would like to thank Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik for the clear commitment in his report to achieving results and for the explicit references to the importance and the future development of the strategic reports, the impact of these reports and the way in which they can be used.\nMr Vlas\u00e1k, who has always campaigned strongly on behalf of the cities, and the entire team also deserve my thanks. Our cities are a central aspect of our key European objectives, although we must not ignore rural areas. I will never get tired of saying that if we are to improve energy efficiency we must begin in the cities. If we want to cut CO2 emissions, we must begin in the cities. The fight against poverty is a struggle to improve the run-down districts found in all the major European cities. Therefore, there are many reasons why we must begin in the cities and, as I have said, we must not forget the rural areas. However, and this concerns Mr Stavrakakis, there is also a need for improved cooperation with the other funds in this area and, in particular, the fund for rural development. It will be necessary to ensure that the coordination with the Framework Programme for Research, in particular with regard to innovation, is effective, sound and transparent. This is because the key decision criterion in the case of research is excellence, which is not determined on the basis of geography. This is obvious from the fact that more than 30% of the research funding goes to 10 European regions which have this concentration. That is why it is important. In the current period we are starting to invest money from the Structural Fund in research infrastructure all over Europe, where the nature of the projects justifies this, and we will be increasing our spending in the next period. This will make it possible gradually to establish a broader base of research activities throughout Europe. In principle, small and medium-sized companies are also responsible for innovations, for example, in product development and in administration, services and marketing, covering a number of different layers. We need this broad base, because it is the small and medium-sized businesses in Europe which ultimately create jobs and safeguard them in the long term.\nI would also like to thank Mrs Sanchez-Schmid for her contribution. We have already discussed territorial cooperation on several occasions. This is an area in all its variety and complexity which is one of the most European of our policies. It enables us to break down the borders which the citizens should not even regard as being borders and to make real progress with the process of European unification and integration. The new approaches, for example, in the area of macroregional strategies, demonstrate the potential of cross-border cooperation.\nThank you once again for your contributions. I am looking forward to the discussion. I can assure you that many of these thoughts and ideas will be incorporated into the proposal on the legal basis that we need for the next subsidy period, which we will be presenting in September this year. Thank you very much also for your ongoing support for European regional policy and for its development.\nDerek Vaughan\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. - Mr President, a strong, well-funded cohesion policy is vital if the EU is to play its part in creating jobs and growth, particularly when Member States are cutting their spending.\nStructural funds are making a difference in places like Wales and, if they are to continue to do so, we need to ensure that the cohesion policy is adequately funded, it is well-targeted, the money is properly spent and the system is made simpler. These two latter points are of course very important to the Committee on Budgetary Control. We want to make life easier and simpler, not just for Member States but for applicants as well. We need to ensure that there is a balance between ensuring that the money is properly spent and making funds easily accessible, particularly for smaller organisations.\nFinally, I would make this point. When considering any move towards a greater focus on urban areas and cities, the creation of a potential new infrastructure fund, and the possible creation of a performance reserve, we need to ensure that all those things do not put at risk or damage the poorer regions in the EU.\nVeronica Lope Fontagn\u00e9\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. - (ES) Madam President, first of all I would like to draw attention to the significant contribution that cohesion policy has made to economic growth and to the integration of the citizens and territories of the EU.\nFor this reason, it was essential that Parliament should have its say on the policy to be followed from 2013 and it would be unfair to fail to mention the work carried out by Mr Pieper in his extensive report.\nWithin cohesion policy the European Social Fund has been and will be a very important tool to assist Member States to adapt their policies to the Europe 2020 strategy and to combat the financial crisis.\nThe Fund must concentrate its efforts on creating employment, promoting lifelong learning, helping in particular low-skilled workers, those outside the labour market, along with the most vulnerable groups, those who suffer discrimination and, of course, SMEs.\nIt should also aim to achieve social inclusion and reduce poverty.\nIn order to achieve these objectives it is imperative for the Social Fund, as part of the Structural Funds, to count on adequate resources and that administrative and procedural burdens are relaxed as much as possible and reduced to a minimum.\nAntigoni Papadopoulou\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. - Madam President, the global economic recession changed the economic landscape in the EU dramatically: it increased unemployment, reduced economic growth and impaired the business environment.\nCohesion policy needs to be an effective tool for responding to the socio-economic challenges brought about by the financial crisis and for reducing disparities between the levels of development of European regions.\nEvaluation of the implementation of the cohesion policy programmes co-financed by the structural funds in the period 2007-2013 should reflect the impact of projects selected within the cohesion policy framework on the recovery of the European economy, particularly in terms of creating new jobs, reducing socio-economic disparities, enhancing social inclusion and improving human capital.\nHowever, at a time when the economic and financial crisis is heightening social inequalities, structural fund allocations to the Member States are in decline. The Commission should boost the effectiveness and public profile of the European Social Fund and, in cooperation with the Member States, should secure strong synergies between the structural funds and relevant European policies, as well as promoting synergies that meet the changing demands of today's labour market.\nAnna Rosbach\nMadam President, when we talk about the towns and cities of the future, we know that the need for greater mobility will increase. Transport will become an even more important part of citizens' lives. Many will move further out into rural areas and commute to work near the towns and cities. However, in order to avoid pollution, traffic jams and time-consuming journeys, we need to find new arrangements, such as free park-and-ride schemes combined with flexible monthly cards for several modes of transport, such as bicycles, motorcycles, car sharing, metros, electric buses, underground rail systems, etc. Without flexible transport options, the towns and cities will die. We therefore need some rapid new thinking. The automotive industry itself knows that we need to think quickly, otherwise companies outside Europe will beat us to it. They are preparing for a future of smarter cars and mixed modes of transport. We as politicians ought to do the same.\nThis is all well and good, but I cannot quite understand why EU funds are to be used for these initiatives, as it is in the regions' own interests to be attractive to citizens. In these times of crisis, I think that we should finally stop asking for more money like spoilt teenagers.\nTadeusz Cyma\u0144ski\nMadam President, the Europe 2020 strategy is supposed to help generate economic growth in a way which will also counteract social exclusion. Cohesion policy, as one of the main tools of Europe 2020, should make a greater contribution in the coming period to a reduction of the phenomenon of poverty in our countries. The work of the European Social Fund should concentrate more on the group of people who need support to help them find employment and integrate into society.\nThis should be helped by the establishment of modern care and education facilities for children and by high quality training for people who are looking for work. These are specific examples of measures which will make it easier to reconcile work and family life. It is these measures which in particular deserve support from the Structural Funds, and it is these measures which will bring about a reduction in poverty among people who are particularly at risk from it.\nIn the next funding period, it is also important that the establishment and implementation of structural programmes be directed above all at people, to simplify the procedures for using the funds. The numerous inspections and audits mean that formal questions related to the implementation of programmes have become the highest priority, and are a hindrance to the effective and efficient use of aid.\nJarom\u00edr Kohl\u00ed\u010dek\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (CS) Madam President, the INTERREG III programme for cross-border interregional cooperation is a complete development instrument. The flexibility under Article 21 of the Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund, in other words the possibility of also providing funds for expenditure outside the scope of the programme is, I believe, an important element.\nIn my opinion, implementation of the programme will be facilitated on the one hand by stabilisation of the rules, and on the other hand by this flexibility. The European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) can, as legal entities, play an important role. I believe their statute will soon be finalised, and this will greatly boost their standing. This may also lead to the greater involvement of private entities, or contributory organisations, and thereby to the more effective use of resources. The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left supports this improved territorial cooperation programme.\nErminia Mazzoni\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon added a territorial dimension to cohesion policy. This development makes it even more urgent to promote a mechanism of real participation. In order to make such an involvement effective and efficient, it is essential to allow a more appropriate use of the available tools.\nThe report by Mr Vlas\u00e1k, whom I thank, on the European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy presents a very balanced vision of the urban dimension within cohesion policy, which takes into account all the positions expressed by the groups during the debate in the Committee on Regional Development.\nApproximately 73% of Europe's total population lives in urban areas. They generate 80% of gross domestic product (GDP) and consume up to 70% of the energy in Europe. Their development is therefore directly related to areas such as employment, social inclusion, environmental protection and the achievement in general of the cohesion policy objectives. The argument put forward by Mr Vlas\u00e1k with regard to this central issue of relaunching urban policy as a platform for development of the Europe 2020 strategy is entirely acceptable, although it is important not to forget rural and peri-urban areas.\nThere are two priorities on which I would like to focus the Commissioner's attention, and these are promotion and enhancement of the multi-level governance system and synergy between the various funds, in other words an integrated vision and approach to funding.\nWith regard to the former, we have shown in the overview that we presented and in the ensuing debate that regional and local authorities and civil society are insufficiently involved in the design, implementation and development of regional planning, that is to say in the use of cohesion policy tools. On the other hand, we have shown the difficulties that arise when funding is rigid. We have therefore asked and ask the Commission now to consider greater flexibility in funding and, specifically, greater integration between the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the Cohesion Fund.\nConstanze Angela Krehl\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (DE) Madam President, cohesion policy is a successful European policy which everyone makes use of, including regions which are not as well developed and those which already have a strong economy. A variety of studies have demonstrated this. However, most importantly, the citizens of Europe can experience its benefits at first hand. This is why we need cohesion policy in future in all the regions of the European Union. Nevertheless, we are under an obligation to make our good policies even better. This is what the European Parliament is aiming to achieve with Mr Pieper's report.\nModern cohesion policy means facing the new challenges, creating up-to-date infrastructure, combating climate change, supporting energy security and efficiency, promoting research and development, providing support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and creating jobs. Of course, we also need to ensure that the funding is used efficiently. Therefore, we are making it clear that cohesion policy must be more transparent and results-oriented and must involve less red tape. The coordination between the various funds and programmes must also be improved, as Mr Stavrakakis said earlier. One very important point is that the partnership principle must be taken to a new and better level. We must involve everyone, including the regions, local areas, both sides of industry and major non-governmental organisations.\nThe new intermediate category remains controversial. We are of the opinion that the intermediate category will help regions which need more support than the classic Objective 2 regions. They will not be funded at the expense of other regions. On the contrary, the result will not be a patchwork of subsidies. Instead the many phasing-in and phasing-out procedures will be standardised and I believe that this is something which we really need in the European Union. Anyone who thinks that we are introducing a permanent subsidy category is underestimating the European Parliament. Over the past few years we have demonstrated often enough that we are able to bring in community initiatives when they are needed. However, we have also worked jointly to remove them again once the objective has been achieved. We are competent enough to be able to judge at the end of a subsidy period whether the results are good and how we should redesign the programme. Therefore, I am calling on my fellow Members to support this new intermediate category when it comes to the vote.\nRamona Nicole M\u0103nescu\nMadam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs for the fine job they have done. I am pleased that Commissioner Hahn is present during this debate on the future of cohesion policy.\nWe need a strong, well-funded EU regional policy and, in the future, one targeted at every European region, which will generate economic growth, innovation and competitiveness. For the future programming period I think that a single strategic approach, supported by a set of common implementation regulations for the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, will produce added value.\nTerritorial cooperation will also play a key role in successfully meeting the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. This is precisely why I think that it must be much more accessible for potential partners in the private sector, who we really need to give the opportunity to become full partners in territorial cooperation projects.\nWe must not forget either the key role played by both national governments and the European Commission in drafting and effectively implementing European policies at national, regional and local level.\nWith regard to the post-2013 regional policy, I endorse the idea of setting up intermediate regions, thereby enabling regions with a GDP between 75% and 90% of the EU average to receive real support, however, through finding suitable solutions.\nLast but not least, I would like to stress the need for the regional aspect to enjoy its appropriate place as part of both the revised EU budget and the future financial framework. Therefore, I expect a suitable proposal to be tabled by the Commission, which will primarily reflect the views of the Committee on Regional Development and the European Parliament.\nPhilip Bradbourn\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, in my view these reports before the plenary today fail to address the fundamental problems with the current system of structural funding.\nIn the wake of the financial crisis and the ongoing need to reduce budget deficits across Europe, Parliament must recognise that the cohesion budget cannot continue to grow, unchecked. It is not business as usual. Our focus should instead be on tackling the unacceptable levels of error in spending highlighted by the European Court of Auditors.\nSimilarly, macro-regional entities are not the answer to increasing the effectiveness of regional spending. They are of highly questionable value and undermine the Member States which, in my view, should remain the primary vehicle for managing cohesion spending. They will not help meet our vision of a smaller and better-targeted cohesion policy that truly helps Europe's most deprived regions.\nThese reports go in completely the wrong direction, and I shall be voting against them.\nElisabeth Schroedter\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mr Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, I have to contradict the previous speaker. The central message for the Commission from Mr Pieper's report is that European cohesion policy brings its own added value for Europe. It is the instrument which holds the EU together at its heart. This is obvious to the citizens in all the regions of Europe and, in particular, in the very disadvantaged regions and the crisis regions. The decentralised and participative structure of cohesion policy allows it to make a decisive contribution to creating a resource-efficient, low-carbon, innovative and social Europe. In contrast to the rapporteur's personal opinion, I believe that the instruments of cohesion policy, together with intelligent investment, can also help to combat climate change and poverty.\nTherefore, we are disappointed that, despite the attempts which the rapporteur has made and is still making, these two aspects were omitted from the report. I would like to say to the Commission that a significant majority of this House is in favour of these two aspects. Unlike the rapporteur, and I am saying this as a German, I am of the opinion that the Commission proposal for an intermediate category will result in a balanced and transparent structure for future cohesion policy in the light of the dramatic problems in some regions.\nIt is ridiculous to believe that savings can be made in this area. It is also important for Germany that the European Union continues to develop in a harmonious way, because this brings benefits for Germany. This is why we in the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance are voting in favour of an intermediate category.\n(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))\nMiloslav Ransdorf\n- (CS) (initially without a microphone) ... agrees with the idea from the Guellec report from the previous period that the current form of cohesion policy is not helping to bring the regions closer together, only the states, and it is the reason why the EU's most dynamic regions are losing their dynamism.\nElisabeth Schroedter\n(DE) I have to disagree with this question. We have tried hard to ensure that the focus in all the reports has been on the regions. Mr Pieper's report in particular strengthens their position. This is especially important for us at this point. It is clear that the major players for the future of cohesion policy are the regions and not the Member States.\nElie Hoarau\nMadam President, I would say that, among the most disadvantaged regions of the European Union are the outermost regions which, as well as lagging behind, combine permanent disadvantages, such as remoteness, smaller markets, insularity and vulnerability to the vagaries of the weather.\nIt is a good job that the fifth report on cohesion has reaffirmed for these regions a specific and special treatment, in accordance with Article 349 of the Treaty of Lisbon. The report also requires that the funds earmarked for them after 2013 be at least equal to those they are receiving in the current programming period.\nAs for creating an intermediate category for regions whose GDP is between 75 and 90% of average European GDP, I am in agreement, provided a double condition is met. Firstly that Objective 1 funds, for the convergence regions, not be reduced - I would even like to see them increased - by the savings made as a result of certain regions no longer being under Objective 1. These savings must benefit the new intermediary regions of course, but also the other regions. The second condition is that this creation be at least as favourable as the phasing-out process for the regions concerned.\nFinally, cohesion policy is one of solidarity and redistribution, to enable regions to get up to speed and to catch up. It cannot replace any other strategy like, for instance, Europe 2020, which should have its own funding, separate from the cohesion funding, even if these two policies must naturally be coordinated and harmonised. It is for this reason that our group, for instance, is opposed to the European Social Fund being separated from cohesion policy.\nJohn Bufton\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, west Wales and the valleys should again qualify for regional funding despite average EU GVA falling, posing serious questions over whether cohesion policy even works.\nIt is my understanding that a significant amount went into developing the public sector, though undermined by widespread domestic cuts across the UK. Some GBP 12 million in corrections was levelled against programmes in Wales from 2008 to 2009, while a total of 35% of funds for the same period was recouped in fines by the Commission. This money is not being used effectively if it remains in Brussels' coffers. With proposals to increasingly narrow cohesion policy and focus upon results-based deliverance, I feel the level of corrections will increase.\nRegional funding is not a gift from Brussels, but meagre remuneration from the billions the UK pays in. Public consultations on the fifth report on cohesion policy reveal an overall desire to pull away from the Brussels-dictated policy. It will be revealing to see whether the Commissioner listened to those concerns.\nThis money is not a freebie from Brussels. It is only a small percentage of the money taken from taxpayers' pockets and then spent on exactly what the Commission wants, with an added threat to publicise that this or that has been given to us by the EU or face a fine. It is cynical propaganda.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Madam President, cohesion policy will only be successful in future if we face up to certain problems now. Firstly, what is happening to the Member States that are permanently in breach of the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact? In these cases, the Structural Funds cannot have the desired effect. Instead, the money simply disappears and the EU degenerates into a transfer union which is also a bottomless pit. Anyone who receives regional subsidies must also adhere to the rules.\nSecondly, the Structural Fund must not be centralised under the aegis of the Commission. This will increase and not reduce the amount of administrative work and the result will be that expensive, new, decentralised agencies will be established.\nThirdly, we need greater efficiency in the use of structural money. There must be clearer objectives and more frequent evaluations and the recipients themselves must take more responsibility. The principle of cofinancing must be firmly established.\nFourthly, in addition to all the cultural, social, religious and foreign policy concerns, the accession of Turkey would place a massive burden on the Cohesion Fund. In realistic terms, it would blow the budget. We know this to be a fact. It is not just something that people say. Turkey has been receiving billions of euros of structural money for years. We need to take a critical look at this approach.\nTo summarise, in future I would like to see regional subsidies ending up where they are really needed, in other words, in innovative projects which produce clear results, in small and medium-sized businesses and, most importantly, with citizens in the regions and the cities.\nNuno Teixeira\n(PT) Madam President, I would like to begin by praising the work carried out by the rapporteur, my colleague Mr Stavrakakis, who has done an extraordinary job of identifying future synergies between the different Structural Funds to increase their effectiveness. His report is also involved in this joint debate on cohesion policy, which is of the utmost importance not only in terms of the issue at stake, but especially because the timing of the debate is opportune.\nWe are currently getting to grips with the Commission's proposal, not only in terms of the new financial perspectives, but also in terms of future cohesion policy, post-2013. Cohesion policy is a key policy for the EU. It is a horizontal policy which, through its instruments par excellence, the Structural Funds, finances projects and programmes in the Member States, seeking to reduce disparities in development levels between the different regions. Experience has, however, shown us the difficulties, in terms of efficiency and results, that arise from the fragmentation and complexity of this policy. Therefore, a single strategy for the different funds, with an integrated and results-oriented approach, should be the starting point for more and better synergies between the different instruments, and for increasing their effectiveness. This is also essential in order for the various sectoral policies to be better coordinated, and for resources to be used more efficiently.\nWe need to make use of the risk of crisis by looking for new alternatives. All the reports being debated today will certainly present us with enormous challenges, and we know that in order to respond to these challenges we also need a sound budget, but we must make a clear distinction between budgetary aspects and policy objectives. The policy objectives are well known. Indeed, it is only by consolidating these objectives that we will be able to offer the regions a future. That being the case, we have to put the budget at the service of the future of the regions and the public, rather than putting the regions and the public at the service of the budget.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\n(FR) Madam President, I welcome this debate a few days from the final deliberation of the College of Commissioners on the next financial perspectives and the revision of the regulations governing the Structural Funds, including the European Social Fund.\nThe Structural Funds are one of the main tools for implementing the economic and social policy of the Union. With pressure on the Community budget that we are all aware of and national budgets squeezed by austerity, it is essential to use these Structural Funds intelligently and efficiently.\nTo achieve this, the review of the Regulation on the European Social Fund will be the opportunity to ensure that this tool is set up for the benefit of the Union's strategy, but also within this strategy of the Union, of course, particularly the objectives for employment and social inclusion. This requires an allocation of funds according to indicators other than GDP on its own and an increased percentage allocated to the European Social Fund.\nRegarding the Pieper report, Madam President, allow me to say a word on paragraph 55 relating to the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the content of which I dispute and which should not have a place in our debate. This Fund provides assistance to employees suffering from the effects of globalisation and of the crisis. The point in hand is the responsibility of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, it is put to you on the initiative of the Committee on Regional Development, and it should be possible to reject it during the separate vote that will take place later on. I am counting on the intelligence and efficiency of my fellow Members.\nRiikka Manner\n(FI) Madam President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent and important reports on cohesion policy. It is good that we should be having this debate together here now.\nThese reports show an understanding of the importance of regional policy as something that builds Europe as a whole and that creates unity, both of which phenomena they deal with excellently. Regional policy has definitely been a success story, having been able to narrow differences between the Member States and, in this way, create stability across Europe generally.\nThe challenges of the future are changing constantly, and regional policy must be able to adapt to this change, as is evident from the discussions here. We need to recognise the problems that there have been with cohesion funds over the years, and that is why regional policy in the forthcoming period must also be made far more effective in terms of its implementation and also made more results-oriented. As has been said, it must also be possible to ease the administrative burden in the next period. In this way we will certainly be in a better position to respond to the challenges that cohesion policy also faces.\nOn the subject of the Europe 2020 strategy, we should remember that cohesion policy is one of the most important and tangible tools for implementing it. For that reason, it is vitally important that in this report Parliament adopts a strong position in favour of budget levels similar to what they are now. On the other hand, it is important that the report also takes account of the special challenges that exist. One example is the areas which, unfortunately, have sparse populations, which also need their own separate aid under Article 71 in the forthcoming period.\nMuch has been spoken of a category of intermediate regions today in connection with these reports. With respect to this, however, I myself would like to ask the Commission this: does creating a new structure always solve the problem itself, or could we in this case respond to similar challenges by developing the existing 'phasing in, phasing out' system?\nTomasz Piotr Por\u0119ba\n(PL) Madam President, there is no doubt that cohesion policy should, after 2013, continue to serve its current function of creating equal development opportunities for the regions, ending poverty and stimulating Europe's development. Therefore, the level of funding in the new budget should be significantly higher, simply to accelerate the development of Europe, the development of the regions and the sustainable development of the European Union.\nThe fact that the Commission's plans include objectives which are slightly different from those which were in the current financial perspective must certainly be disturbing. I am thinking of objectives directed at the fight against climate change and at innovation. These are, of course, important matters, but the new Member States, such as Poland, still need funds for infrastructure development. Without infrastructure, it will simply be very difficult for us to compare with the European Union in terms of level of development.\nThere is one final matter: I think that in future budgetary programmes after 2013 we should very strongly direct our attention to the Carpathian region - one of the poorest and most highly populated regions in the European Union. It seems to me that greater involvement of the European Union in this region will both be profitable for the Union and help raise the level of development of the countries of the Carpathian region, which simply need greater and more intensive European Union action.\nKarima Delli\n(FR) Madam President, cohesion policy must ensure harmonious and above all fair development between all territories. It is for this reason that we support the introduction of a new category of intermediary regions for the allocation of funds, as well as the application of new development indicators and indicators for social justice, well-being and environmental justice. We regret that this does not appear in the Pieper report.\nFor the sake of fairness, cohesion policy must also tackle sub-regional development inequalities to restore meaning to the word 'cohesion', that is to say this solidarity which is the added value of the European Union. To achieve this, it must focus on inequalities, especially within urban areas, which are particularly affected by new challenges - social, environmental - and that is a huge task.\nEnhancing the attractiveness and the environment of these discriminated-against territories is to restore confidence among those living there. It will also promote a new sustainable city, desirable for all, a model that meets the environmental, energetic and socio-demographic challenges, but one which places the living environment and the well-being of its inhabitants at the heart of our concerns.\nI will end with a clear message: after 2013, cohesion policy must have at its disposal much-needed and stable resources to be able to exist.\nCornelia Ernst\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the subject of the intermediate category, I would definitely also have been able to imagine other solutions in the beginning, Mr Pieper, for example a transitional regulation for the regions which have received the highest levels of subsidies until now and which will no longer do so after 2013. However, it emerged from the discussion that we need to take into consideration other regions, in particular those hit by the crisis. We are currently talking about 51 regions. When confronted with so many regions that have been affected, it would be negligent not to establish an intermediate category. This is the only way in which we can create a reliable framework for providing responsible subsidies to these regions which have to compensate for their slow progress in development themselves.\nIn other respects, Mr Pieper's report contains a great deal of light and shade. Among other things, we are critical of the fact that there is no clear commitment to a much more decisive approach to combating poverty. We believe that the wording of the report which makes cohesion policy subject to conditions that force the Member States to implement reforms is unclear and liable to misinterpretation. It goes without saying that cohesion policy must remain an instrument for social balance and solidarity throughout all the regions.\nJuozas Imbrasas\n(LT) Madam President, today we are debating one of the most important areas of European Union policy, ensuring the well-being of our citizens and the competitiveness and growth of the entire Union. Previously, cohesion policy contained some decisive factors in ensuring greater integration and growth of the poorer regions of the European Union, and significantly reducing economic and social disparities.\nToday we have the Europe 2020 strategy, which envisages an even greater role for structural and cohesion policy in order to exit the crisis and contribute to the well-being of our citizens. Clearly we have many obstacles to overcome, relating to globalisation, demographic change and the preservation of resources. However, to achieve this we will have to realise the potential of all the regions of the European Union without exception.\nI believe that future regional policy should be linked to basic European objectives in the areas of innovation, research, environmental and energy challenges, and should, of course, help to create European added value, but only with follow-ups that are as transparent and effective as possible.\nLambert van Nistelrooij\n(NL) Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, cohesion is firmly anchored in European policy and in the Treaty, and has been given an even better footing thanks to the territorial dimension of the Treaty of Lisbon. I am very pleased that, in its fifth Cohesion Report, the Commission has properly stipulated integrated approaches for the future. We are retaining solidarity, but linking in the new objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy by means of those instruments that have proven so useful: a decentralised approach, partnership, linking programmes at different levels and multi-layer management. Then we take a look at these new challenges. That is excellent in itself. It is also a very good thing that these reports are now on the table. All of the building blocks, with an extra emphasis on cross-border collaboration - Objective 3 - are receiving full backing.\nIn truth, there is one lingering point in the debate. We in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) have decided on a free or open vote in our voting list with regard to the intermediate category and I would like to explain to you why that is. It is actually because the proposal that the Commission still has to bring forward can still take so many directions. The Commissioner just said that he wanted to talk to regions of this type about specific assignments, let us call them. It is very pleasing for that to be the subject of discussion, as we still have not talked about it. We do not yet know which regions are involved. We do not know where it will be paid out. We do not know what the cofinancing percentages are. These are all things that could still substantially influence this outcome. I therefore think that we should wait for the Commission to produce its proposal - and I think that will happen very soon - at which point we will actually know what we are talking about. The approach of using transitional mechanisms and instruments is not up for debate. We have done that already. Mrs Manner also said that we have phasing-out and phasing-in, we can implement an integrated policy in respect of the Europe 2020 strategy. We shall do so. That, then, is the reason for the free vote within the PPE group at this point in time.\nKarin Kadenbach\n(DE) Madam President, Mr Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, the importance of regional policy has been highlighted today. Our cohesion and consolidation policy must cover all European regions. By regions, I also mean the people that live in these regions. That is a very important point. In the course of some of our delegations to the regions we have seen how valuable European funding is for regional development, for achieving social cohesion and also for women's policies and gender equality. I can only encourage the European Union to offer more of the programmes in future which are received very positively by the people and which are aimed at precisely these objectives, just as we have established in the process of investigating the implementation. We need people in the European regions to have a feeling of ownership. We are now in a phase where we are discussing intermediate regions. This is very important because Europe has helped to ensure that jobs have been created in these regions. My understanding of growth is that it is primarily sustainable growth if it brings social justice. Cohesion policy lies at the heart of European policy.\nAdam Bielan\n(PL) Madam President, there is no doubt that cohesion policy helps to improve the social and economic environment and stimulates the development, above all, of the regions which receive aid. However, let us also remember that the wide range of investment opportunities also allows the wealthy Member States to profit. According to estimates, the value of all benefits arising from the realisation of cohesion policy in my country of Poland for countries of the 'old' Union may reach as much as EUR 38 billion by 2015. I am hoping that the fact that the deciding phase of the debate on the future of cohesion policy will take place during the Presidency of my country of Poland will help to ensure that the proposals for significant reductions to be made in the area of this policy will not be put into effect.\nUnfortunately, my region of Mazowsze, because of the very strong economic position of the capital of the country, Warsaw, exceeds the ceiling of 75% of EU GDP. It is, therefore, threatened with the loss of support. There are 35 European regions which are in a similar situation. I would like to appeal for adoption of their proposal to create a category of intermediate regions, enabling the withdrawal of aid to be slowed down. If we analyse Mazowsze's economic situation without including the city of Warsaw, we see that the gross domestic product of a significant part of the region is a long way from the established 75% level, and what is more, it is even as low as that of the poorest regions of the European Union, which shows that further assistance is essential.\nFran\u00e7ois Alfonsi\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, cohesion policy is the soul of the European Union's policies, the one that expresses the solidarity effort between its Member States, without which there would be no real Union.\nIts track record in the last 30 years has been excellent. It demands priorities for the future. Firstly, no reduction in budgetary commitments for cohesion policy. To build his 2014-2020 programming, Mr Hahn must be able to rely on the same budgetary amounts as in the past.\nSecondly, we need a renewed framework for this policy, one that is adapted to the new situations and challenges. The creation of intermediate regions is essential for that. They must be eligible for aid that is better targeted and funded, so that each region can remain at the European average, whatever its structural handicap, however far behind it is because of the past, or whatever its exposure to current or future crises.\nIt is a long-term objective of territorial balance that we are pursuing with these objectives of intermediate regions, to prevent too big a gap between developed regions that are completely saturated and regions that are remote, lagging behind and even threatened with depopulation in tomorrow's Europe.\nThirdly, Mrs Sanchez-Schmid's own-initiative report has the great merit of showing how much Objective 3 is likely to generate considerable European added value. In the new cohesion policy, by relying on the macro-regions' impetus, Objective 3 must be considerably strengthened, as called for in Mrs Sanchez-Schmid's report.\nDanuta Maria H\u00fcbner\nMadam President, in recent years the Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament have been working closely on how to further improve the effectiveness of the EU's cohesion policy, its results and the quality of its interventions.\nWe have come to the conclusion that to achieve this, well-designed conditionality and incentives within the policy could be an effective tool. Today, I am convinced that we are well-prepared to introduce into the policy framework conditionality instruments that would increase the return on the investments made.\nConditionality commitments should address the link between policy interventions and progress on institutional, administrative and structural efficiency. In the context of the upcoming negotiations, we should ensure an adequate regulatory framework that will identify success factors for effective growth stimulation through cohesion policy.\nI expect ex ante conditionality to be fully integrated into the programming process. I also expect ex ante conditionalities to be directly linked to the policy and to programme effectiveness, that their number will be limited, and that they will be tailored to the specific context and respect agreed criteria.\nWe must also see to it that conditionality procedures do not generate additional burdens, but rather seek to reduce burdens, and that they produce no delays in the implementation of policy, programmes or projects.\nAndrea Cozzolino\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the structure of the cohesion policy we are debating today is very commendable.\nI would like to focus these few comments on three issues. Firstly, I consider cohesion policy to be one of the fundamental tools for reducing imbalances between and within Member States. It is therefore also one of the fundamental policies for combating the long economic and financial crisis that we have been experiencing for some years now.\nSecondly, I think the idea of involving new regions and citizens in cohesion policy is a sound one. However, we would do well to discuss these issues with a clearer idea of how much this new policy will cost, what effects it will have on general cohesion policy, and how we are going to distribute the resources in the context of the reform of the financial perspective from here to 2020.\nFinally, I think the central role of the urban issue in cohesion policy is decisive. It is important to have made some progress in this direction with Mr Vlas\u00e1k's report, with which I strongly agree, and I believe that this report will allow us to better define the legal framework of the urban issue and also to introduce tools such as the municipal operational programmes as operational programmes capable of giving a new quality to cohesion policy.\nMichail Tremopoulos\n(EL) Madam President, the purpose of the report is to establish if the Member States have transposed European legislation into national law. What we want is a first real analysis of cohesion policy programmes for the period 2007-2013.\nI shall focus on transparency, on which I drafted a report. The rapporteur, Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, referred to the question of transparency when allocating funds, as a basic prerequisite for achieving the overall objectives of cohesion policy. How can we get an overall picture at European Union level, when only 19 countries have provided the basic indicators needed for the purposes of comparison? Although we have asked the Commission to improve the consistency and quality of the information obtained, there is a transparency vacuum, a lack of available data.\nWe need to send out a clear message. Total appropriations for projects selected cannot correspond on average to 27% of total funds available; 9 States cannot take up over 40% and 4 States below 20%. We cannot have a two- or three-speed cohesion policy. The information required therefore needs to be diffused and used.\nJan Olbrycht\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, cohesion policy is the most transparent European policy, which means that its successes can be seen very well and very quickly, but that also very quickly visible are its failures and difficulties, which are a result of the weakness of the Brussels administration as well as very often the weak administration of Member States. In relation to this, it is very easy to come to conclusions and very easy to use different external conditions - such as the crisis, for example - to justify a reduction of spending on this policy in favour of other European policies, which is clearly a mistake.\nWe need to realise that if we were to assume that cohesion policy is a policy only for the poorest, then it should slowly come to an end, which means it should slowly disappear completely from the list of European policies. However, it is not that kind of policy which we are talking about, today, is it? This policy is a policy of reducing disparities - disparities will always exist, and there will be new disparities which we are not yet aware of today. Furthermore, it is a pro-investment policy and a pro-development policy. In relation to this, it is a policy which requires action to be taken which is provided for in the Treaties, but which also requires this action to take new forms.\nIn relation to this, I would like to express my approval of the European Commission's decision to rebuild the internal structure of the policy and adapt it to new conditions. In this regard, I would also like to express my approval of the European Commission's proposals for new measures, including, among others, proposals for creating a category of intermediate regions. I think that work on a new structure will increase effectiveness and allow the policy to be pursued in a way which measures up to the challenges we currently face.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103\n(RO) Madam President, cross-border cooperation in a Europe without borders is beneficial to local and regional authorities because it plays an important role in the ongoing development of the European Union's single market. However, cross-border areas have an important feature, characterised by common multicultural traditions and ethnic diversity, aspects which usually provide a solid foundation not only for interactions between people but also between communities in various areas.\nWe are all aware that one very frequent feature of cross-border areas is a higher than average unemployment rate, however, with significant interregional differences, as well as a high level of hidden unemployment caused by the lack of people out of work signing on.\nTherefore, I think that an integrated approach to the labour market in cross-border areas may be conducive to finding solutions to the structural problems and would bring demand closer to supply. This is why Objective 3 must be significantly enhanced, just as the rapporteur has also maintained.\nIosif Matula\n(RO) Madam President, cohesion policy is an effective instrument for tackling the current major challenges which Europe's regions are faced with, such as globalisation, climate change or demographic trends. Significant progress has been made at EU level in terms of the regions' balanced development, but it is not sufficient. This is why we need an ambitious cohesion policy made available to all EU regions, which will reduce the current inequalities.\nI think that supporting the convergence requirements of less developed areas must remain a priority in the forthcoming programming period so that fair access to the cohesion policy instruments can be guaranteed. This will allow us to apply the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which emphasise that under Objective 1 (convergence) a suitable share must be allocated to the regions most in need, according to the severity of their development problems.\nThe European Union will only be able to compete against its rivals at a global level if cohesion policy can fully tap the development potential not only of urban regions but also of rural areas, with their endogenous potential, and if it can offer a sufficiently flexible response to the challenges and difficulties identified by the Europe 2020 strategy.\nWith this in mind, innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, qualifications and combating poverty are and must remain an integral part of structural and cohesion policy. The new cohesion policy must be clearly results-oriented and specify the necessary reforms, while at the same time reducing the constraints imposed by red tape and simplifying the management of the funds.\nI come from a country which will be dependent, especially during the 2013-2020 period, on how we understand the Union's uniform development. In practical terms, the funds allocated now and in the next 10 years in Romania will provide a long-term investment which is needed for the balanced development of the entire European Union.\nI congratulate my colleague Mr Pieper and all the rapporteurs for the excellent report that was presented.\nMojca Kleva\n(SL) Mr President, at a time of financial and economic crisis, cohesion policy has proved to be the most important tool in reducing the economic and social disparities between regions in the European Union. It is one of our fundamental policies, the positive effects of which can really be seen everywhere; in all corners of the European Union, in all Member States, in virtually every urban or local community of the EU.\nThis is a policy which enables structural reforms and progress. In fact, it offers a solution to the current difficult economic situation, and at no cost at that. The success of the Europe 2020 strategy, too, will largely depend on the success of the EU's cohesion policy, which is why it is extremely important that, in the next seven-year period, these funds remain a priority for the European budget.\nSince the most important issue, that of integrating what is commonly known as the new intermediate category of regions, remains to be resolved, in that regard, I would like to call on the Commissioner and the European Commission as a whole to provide us, as soon as possible, with all the details that remain unclear regarding the creation of this category of region, especially the financial aspects and effects, as this issue concerns the future development of regions throughout the European Union.\nAlain Cadec\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by adopting the Garriga Polledo report, Parliament has asked for a 2014 multi-annual financial framework equal to the budget challenges that await us. In this regard, regional policy must retain financial resources at least equivalent to those of the current period. That is a priority.\nAll European regions should continue to have access to the Structural Funds. We should of course focus our efforts on helping the most underdeveloped regions to catch up through Objective 1.\nFor the sake of fairness, we should also provide appropriate support to regions that do not qualify for Objective 1 but are nonetheless faced with structural difficulties. I am therefore glad that the European Commission has proposed creating an intermediate category for regions where GDP per capita is between 75 and 90% of the EU average. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Hahn for this work.\nThis new instrument will enable us to better cater for the specific characteristics of many regions that are neither poor nor rich. This intermediate category will also be fairer for it will provide similar support to regions which have a comparable level of development. However I wish to reassure the regions that would have qualified for the phasing-out mechanism: there is no question of abandoning them. They will be fully eligible for the intermediate category and will certainly even be the main beneficiaries.\nFinally, I should like to point out that creating this new category will not involve any additional expenditure, thanks to the savings expected by several regions no longer being under Objective 1. It is also out of the question to reduce the aid for those regions eligible for Objectives 1, 2 and 3.\nHowever, if we do not create this intermediate category, we can be sure that the budget for cohesion policy will be cut. By creating it, we will preserve this budget. I think that no one here wishes to see this budget reduced. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, Mr Pieper, for his work.\nSergio Gaetano Cofferati\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, economic cohesion, along with social cohesion and also territorial cohesion, have always been the fundamental principles for defining all the policies of the European Union since its inception.\nIt is therefore very important that these objectives should be emphasised as they are in the texts we are discussing, and it is right that the structural funds should be reviewed and amended to make them more effective in achieving the results they are intended to bring about. Of these, in my view the European Social Fund is fundamental, for a very simple reason, which is that we are in an acute phase of the economic and social crisis that is not yet over, and that is having its most serious effects precisely on work and employment.\nIt is very important that Europe should uphold its social model, and at the same time reiterate the fact that work has an unquestionable social value and that employment is one of the main reference points in the use of resources that economic development should make available. For this reason the Social Fund must be strengthened, its autonomy retained and the available resources increased. Knowledge is the focal point and driver of any model of competition. All of this cannot happen unless there is a significant increase in the quality of jobs. This is why the European Social Fund is as valuable as it has ever been, if not more so.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nMr President, more than ever, the EU needs cohesion policy that promotes real convergence and stimulates growth and employment, while also making a contribution to achieving environmental goals.\nIn view of the current financial situation and the ongoing implementation of the programmes, the Commission should make every effort to promote simplicity and flexibility in rules on the implementation of programmes, and should allow cofinancing rates to be renegotiated within the current regulations, whenever this is necessary and sought by the Member States.\nCohesion policy should be geared towards results by setting clear and measureable objectives and results indicators. Cohesion policy should also promote transparency. In order to monitor this, and so that we have this transparency, I would argue that information relating to the adoption and implementation of projects should be made available in real time by the most detailed classifications of territorial and statistical units possible, so that the entire public is able to access it.\nJan Koz\u0142owski\n(PL) Mr President, at the outset, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on an excellent job. As the rapporteurs have stressed, cohesion policy has proved its importance, including during the crisis, as a policy for development which supports investment and brings benefits directly and indirectly to all regions. For example, for every euro invested in my country of Poland, almost half, or 46 cents, returns to the countries of the 15 'old' Member States.\nSupport for development as well as investment and the importance of cohesion policy for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are the reasons for which this policy should retain at least its current significance, but also its financial support. However, improvement is needed in the integration of the funds and achievement of full synergy between them. In view of the dangers associated with unemployment among young people and with demographic changes it is crucial to achieve full use of the potential of the European Social Fund (ESF), and that requires the creation of conditions to achieve better coordination of the ESF with other instruments at regional and local level.\nMar\u00eda Irigoyen P\u00e9rez\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the current economic and financial crisis that we are experiencing highlights the need for regional policy as the best means of reducing disparities in development between regions and Member States. At the same time, we can restore the positive image of Europe, which recently citizens associate only with tough adjustment programmes and spending cuts.\nFuture cohesion policy, the pillar of solidarity of the European project and of social justice, must take into account the following priorities: firstly, reinforcing social cohesion and incorporating the challenges posed by the Europe 2020 Strategy; secondly, providing for the needs and geographical characteristics of the regions, especially the most disadvantaged regions; thirdly, maintaining a gradual approach to the collection of funds so that the regions do not abandon the objective of convergence, avoiding sudden changes in the receipt of aid; and fourthly promoting an equitable system.\nFinally, ladies and gentlemen, the authorities are applying harsh fiscal adjustment policies. Therefore, EU support is necessary. I hope that the Council will take note of this.\nKristiina Ojuland\nMr President, the Development and Cooperation DG is responsible for managing the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI) cross-border cooperation programmes, and this has led to quite an absurd situation when it comes to cross-border cooperation with Russia - which is neither an ENPI target country nor a recipient of EU development assistance.\nI agree with the rapporteur that overall responsibility for the ENPI should be returned to the Regional Development DG and that the cross-border cooperation programmes should be implemented in a framework similar to that for the Interreg programmes. Regardless of the external dimension, cross-border cooperation programmes should not be pursued under the regulations for development aid. Their nature requires application of the EU territorial cooperation rules.\nEl\u017cbieta Katarzyna \u0141ukacijewska\n(PL) Mr President, cohesion policy is the best tool for creating equal opportunities for development of the European Union's regions and stimulating economic growth.\nIn order to achieve the objectives of cohesion policy, it is important not only to make the fullest use of available means, but above all to use them effectively, reduce bureaucracy and achieve the correct synergy between funds. Something which is very important is effective use of the European Social Fund in a way which gets the unemployed back into work and does not just train them, which is a very common practice. Money for innovation, research and development is important, because this allows for businesses and regions to be more competitive.\nAn important objective of cohesion policy is European cross-border cooperation. So it is important to have harmonious implementation and promotion of cooperation in border areas, both in respect of internal border areas but above all of areas along the European Union's external borders.\nFinally, macroregions are very effective, and here I would like to suggest to the Commissioner that, following the example of other strategies, we create a strategy for the Carpathians, one of the largest regions of the European Union and one of the best endowed in terms of natural riches.\nPatrice Tirolien\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to highlight Parliament's support for the creation of a category of intermediate regions and I would point out that this will in no way - contrary to what some have said - be an additional burden on the Community budget. What we are proposing here is a revolution in the concept of transition with an unchanged budget. Our desire is to move towards a fairer system which helps those regions that have substantial difficulties. This transitional zone between 75 and 90% of European GDP is a real commitment towards a consolidated cohesion policy for the years to come.\nFurthermore, I am delighted that our resolution has confirmed Parliament's commitment towards the outermost regions. The latter are subject to specific and permanent disadvantages which justify this solidarity effort, in order for them to effectively be the Union's interface with the world.\nAnneli J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki\n(FI) Mr President, regional policy and cohesion policy are necessary for evening out differentials in development. It is of major importance for people's well-being and also for European competitiveness. Regional policy at EU level needs, above all, to create added value and produce new enterprises, and, consequently, employment for people.\nWe need to ask whether it is sensible to recycle all current regional aid through Brussels, or whether the money could be spent more effectively if it was allocated directly to the regions in the Member States. The EU's regional policy is dogged by red tape and abuse. There is a good deal of red tape both in the EU and in the Member States, and this has resulted in a situation in which many innovative businesses, new or old, do not apply for money or support because one or two people would have to be employed to deal with the application, and it would take up too much time. We need to think about whether Europe's innovation policy even has a future, if regional policy does not support it.\nMaria do C\u00e9u Patr\u00e3o Neves\n(PT) Mr President, cohesion policy is one of the EU's most emblematic policy areas, and the one that best symbolises the ideal of building the European project. It therefore requires and deserves all the aspects being debated here today to be covered in greater depth, and the participation of this many rapporteurs, all of whom I would congratulate.\nI would like to stress the need for a budget adapted to this policy, with greater flexibility and control, so that European funds really boost development projects that are capable of being sustainable. In view of this, it is important that the regions that are already out of Objective 1 be able to go through an intermediate phase that consolidates the development of which they have already shown themselves to be capable, instead of being abruptly abandoned, thus jeopardising the progress made in the meantime.\nCsaba S\u00e1ndor Tabajdi\n(HU) Mr President, we are now discussing a topic that is essential for the new Member States, including Hungary. There is some alarming information indicating that some of the decision-makers in the Commission intend to cut the cohesion policy budget drastically from 2014. This would be a suicidal step. Such a move would not only make the alignment of the poorer regions impossible, it would also jeopardise the Europe 2020 strategy. The proposal that we should establish a transitional support category is indeed correct and socially fair. However, attaching cohesion support to a system of macro-economical conditions is unacceptable, because we would be punishing the regions for a governmental policy on which they have no influence. Finally, the operational mechanism of cohesion policy is successful and basically sound, transparency must be increased and bureaucracy must be decreased.\nSabine Verheyen\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the importance of interregional cooperation will continue to grow in future. Cross-border collaboration and macro-regional cooperation are immensely important for the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives in a Europe which is becoming more cohesive. Border regions are still faced with particular challenges. Cross-border concepts and projects in areas such as infrastructure, business cooperation, research collaboration, the development of the labour market and training act as the engine for large parts of the European Union.\nWe need clear, simple structures for interregional projects. Different national requirements for the project partners often make cooperation and the implementation of specific, sustainable projects more difficult. The call in Mr Pieper's report to extend the proportion of interregional cooperation, Objective 3, to 7% is an important step forward and I strongly support this.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\n(PT) Mr President, cohesion policy is the key policy area for the future of the European project. In order to function, the establishment of a common area with an internal market and a single currency requires a certain level of convergence between the Member States and their regions. The current disparities in competitiveness and the asymmetries in development have inevitably led to Europe being weakened and to the crisis affecting the euro area. This is why this crucial need for convergence absolutely requires a robust cohesion budget, which cannot be weakened to fund other policies. In order to do more, the EU needs to have more, and this can be achieved by increasing its budget, rather than reducing the cohesion budget, even slightly.\nI would therefore like to ask you, Commissioner, if it is possible that, without any increase in the Union budget, the creation of the infrastructure fund and new innovation policies - which will be linked to cohesion and to regional development, which I support - will become a Trojan horse brought into the cohesion budget?\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, cohesion policy plays an important role in facilitating development of the regions - regions which bring together urban and rural areas and create unity between them. It is a fact that urban areas have an important influence on the acceleration of regional development. They should be given the necessary support in this role. However, we must remember to strive for balanced development of rural and urban areas.\nI would like to observe that cohesion policy is not very visible in rural areas, despite the declarations which have been made on this matter. It is necessary to allocate funds to rural development under cohesion policy, because the second pillar of common agricultural policy is moving its activity to greening, 'ecologicalisation', environmental matters, agricultural development and processing. However, there is a lack of funds for the development of enterprise and technical and social infrastructure in rural areas, and this should be the role of cohesion policy. The construction of technical infrastructure is fundamental for development, but we cannot forget the development of enterprise or of social infrastructure and science and research, which fundamentally affect modern, intelligent and innovative development.\nVictor Bo\u015ftinaru\n(RO) Mr President, today's debate provides the best argument in favour of the need for a robust, well-financed cohesion policy in the future financial framework.\nI am inspired by the excellent speech made by Mrs H\u00fcbner, the chair of our committee, and by an excellent report from Mr Theurer on the lessons from absorption capacity. I would therefore like to ask you, Commissioner, from the European perspective of the future funding cycle, how Romania, the country with the lowest absorption rate, can commit to a so-called administrative reform which has nothing to do with the regional reform, without there being any impact study, without at least going through the motions of consultations with the Directorate General for Regional Policy, which found out about this project in the press, and without having consultations with political actors, local actors and civil society, thereby jeopardising the whole project's stability and predictability.\nMonika Hohlmeier\n(DE) Mr President, I would like to raise two points in relation to cohesion policy and regional policy. The first is the dispute regarding the so-called intermediate category, which runs very much along national lines. I believe it is essential for us to consider the following points in relation to this discussion: regional policy and economic development policy must offer an incentive system so that the relevant regions can develop. If the system is set up in such a way that a dependency on continuous subsidy develops without requiring effort among the regions to obtain the relevant resources, then I believe that such an intermediate category would be an unmitigated disaster because it will always be a bone of contention and offers no rationale. However, I do believe that it makes sense for Objective 1 regions that lose their Objective 1 status to continue to receive special support. I also believe it makes sense that a region that is experiencing financial and economic difficulties for specific reasons should also receive support. What we do not want is a continuous subsidy mentality; instead we should offer help and support to the regions that need it.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) Mr President, cohesion policy is, without a doubt, fundamental to the European Union's development. I believe that its structure underpins European competitiveness. I think that regions must continue to be supported in their aim to fulfil the economic and social cohesion objective. Financial support must be provided, taking into account primarily regional GDP.\nOrdinary citizens must be guaranteed access to the social, educational, health and transport infrastructure. This will enable us to back up the economic development efforts with a high quality of life, which will make our citizens stay at home in Europe.\nFellow Members, SMEs are key to boosting economic competitiveness. They must be given greater encouragement by making the rules for accessing funds more flexible and by promoting them.\nTherefore, I advocate that equal access to the infrastructure and quality services, as well as support for SMEs are basic guiding principles in the regional development policy's structure and that this is the path towards achieving global competitiveness.\nRosa Estar\u00e0s Ferragut\n(ES) Mr President, cohesion policy has undoubtedly contributed to increased productivity in all regions of the EU and to eliminating regional disparities and there is no doubt that it has proved fundamental for all citizens and that it is helping - and will continue to help - to combat the economic and financial crisis Europe is suffering. This is why the fifth cohesion report is so timely.\nThere are three key ideas. The first is that gross domestic product should be supplemented by other indicators on the part of national and regional authorities. The second idea is that there should be an intermediate category so that all regions that do not come under convergence and do not manage to achieve competitiveness can be treated in a similar way when similar situations arise and so that these regions do not ever suffer a sudden change. The third idea is to reinforce Objective 3.\nI wish to make two requests. The maximum distance of 150 kilometres should be removed to enable many regions such as, for example, the Balearic Islands to access cross-border cooperation. My second point is that the report says that the working languages of the EU are French, English and German. That is not so. The 23 languages of the EU are what make us rich and diverse.\nNadezhda Neynsky\n(BG) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs for their work on this particularly important subject.\nAs a Bulgarian politician, I am following with particular interest the developments concerning the intermediate category of beneficiary regions, which is planned to be created in the new 2013-2020 budget framework.\nAs has been emphasised on several occasions today as well during the debate, I think that this issue requires further discussion because, at the moment, a precondition is being established for new divisions and exclusions in the treatment of individual regions, which goes against the European principle of solidarity. The intermediate category contradicts the principle of converging European regions whose development is below the average European Union level. It is not sufficiently clear what basis has been used to select even the 75% and 90% limits or why, for instance, a category was not created for particularly underdeveloped regions.\nI will vote based on the rapporteur's suggestion in paragraph 34, with a reservation about mentioning regions falling under these limits. I will also vote in favour of Amendment 5 for clear, strict criteria, which we regard as being of paramount importance in order to avoid difficulties when implementing the new framework.\nJohannes Hahn\nMr President, honourable Members, firstly I would like to express my thanks for the commitment you have shown in this comprehensive debate involving a large number of speeches. This is evidence of the need to address the issues relating to regional policy and cohesion policy in detail in this House. I would like to begin with something very important to me. It was very important to Parliament in terms of timing, and something that I welcomed myself, that Parliament should have the opportunity to form a detailed, multilayered opinion prior to the publication of our draft regulations, and that this opinion should then also find expression in the relevant regulations. For this reason, I would crave your understanding that at this point I am unable to offer comprehensive proposals in writing because these will be based in particular on the reports now being presented.\nIt is very important that we place greater emphasis on the quality of the work with the regions, particularly when we look at some countries that are experiencing genuine structural problems. In this case it is necessary not just to address the allocation of resources and the identification of objectives, but also to help with the definition of the programmes for identifying objectives and to assist with the formation of clusters in individual regions and parts of regions in order to generate sustainable economic growth.\nAt the risk of repeating what some speakers have already mentioned, I would point out that our proposal will contain a separate chapter on multi-level governance, setting out our stall and calling on all stakeholders to cooperate in the drafting of operative programmes in the regions. At this point, I would also call on those in positions of responsibility in the regions to ensure that local administrations are included. This is because I, like many of you, have heard complaints from the regions that national authorities are not included, while local administrations bemoan the fact that the regional level fails to include them.\nIf we look at the idea of ownership, which has been mentioned several times already, then it is certainly necessary for all of you to lend a hand. Simplification is a much-used, if not to say over-used, word that provides a challenge to us all. However, simplification cannot simply mean that controls are just relaxed. We must use suitable means to try to simplify our business. I place great hope in the work being done by Mr Barnier in the area of public procurement, simplifying the process by further standardising procedures, reducing the margin for error and thereby making a meaningful contribution to simplification. We must play our part in this by making further proposals in relation to flat rate amounts, etc. Here, too, it will be important for the Member States to follow our lead.\nOne of the speakers suggested that the European Structural Fund might perhaps be split away from the structural fund family, but we have no plans in this direction. Much of what needs to happen in rural areas should also be covered by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the purpose of which is not just to support farmers, but also to support rural areas. As we know there are several players and participants in this sector. Here, too, the task is to achieve better coordination between the various funds, which is a general objective for the joint strategic framework.\nConditionality will help us to improve the quality of our work. A lot has been said today about the transitional regions, most of it proper and important. The point is to aid development in these regions, which do not yet reflect the European average. This is the whole point of regional policy. The crux of the matter is as follows: to contribute to growth in qualitative and quantitative terms and to ensure that Europe 2020 objectives are achieved, for example in the areas of energy, climate change, innovation, research, education and training, employment and the campaign to combat poverty. I should like to thank everyone for this highly committed debate, and also for the enormous support that the House has shown for our policies.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\nrapporteur. - Mr President, implementation of the programmes is a continuous and dynamic process that can be influenced by means of identifying frequent shortcomings in the whole process and areas where reforms are needed.\nIn this context, strategic reporting, as a new instrument, increases accountability in delivering policy objectives and shows that cohesion policy should address all European regions and societal challenges in order to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the whole EU.\nCohesion policy relies upon good governance at European, national, regional and local level. Smooth cooperation at all these levels is as highly desirable as the simplification of the whole process. The funds must not, of course, remain unused owing to superfluous bureaucracy or onerous rules and procedures. Well-financed cohesion policy should be closer to EU citizens and should continue to address all European Union regions and societal challenges, both helping the poorer to catch up and delivering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the whole European Union.\nThe strategic report 2010 constitutes a strong incentive to improve the current implementation of the cohesion policy programmes. It also encourages the Member States to correct delays in investing EU funds and to develop more efficient action plans to deliver the agreed results. Therefore, I hope that the result of today's vote on the strategic report 2010 will send that message to the Member States and the Commission.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Stockholm Action Plan (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Council and Commission statements on the Stockholm Action Plan.\nThe previous debate was very interesting, but we have exceeded our allocated time, so I ask all those who are about to speak to stick closely to the time allocated.\nDiego L\u00f3pez Garrido\nMadam President, the European area of freedom, security and justice is one of the European Union's greatest achievements. It is one of the advances in cooperation between Member States, civil cooperation, criminal cooperation and internal security. It is one of the most important results of the European project and one of the results that has come closest to achieving what the European Union always fails to achieve, which is relating to the public.\nIt is definitely this aspect of the Union's policies that its citizens feel adds the most value in the most important aspects of their daily life, in enjoying their freedoms, for example, security. This is undoubtedly one of the great achievements of the area of freedom, security and justice.\nThere were even some decisions adopted by the Council in this area of freedom, security and justice before the Treaty of Lisbon - when the area was practically intergovernmental - which concern the subject we were debating before: the investigation of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes at national level.\nFor example, the Council decisions of 13 June 2002 and 8 May 2003 established the capacity for the Member States to cooperate at national, intergovernmental level to prosecute these crimes, which fortunately - and we all remember the case of General Pinochet - are even part of the legislation in some Member States.\nFor example Spain, not to mention other countries, has what is called universal justice, which means crimes that are so serious that even if they have been committed outside a country they can be tried there, if possible, even if that means going beyond the sacred principle of territoriality in criminal law. This principle has been waived in practice by some states where crimes that are particularly intolerable and deeply damaging to the dignity of humanity itself can be prosecuted even outside the territory in which they are committed.\nOne aspect of this area of freedom, security and justice is what has been called the Stockholm Programme, at a time when the Treaty of Lisbon is already opening up this area not only to the intergovernmental sphere but also to the sphere that is strictly and clearly the EU. It is clearly particular to the EU method and therefore gives Parliament and the Court of Justice leading roles that they did not have before.\nThe Stockholm Programme is extremely important, which is why we welcome its adoption by the Council in December 2009 and subsequently by the European Council. It is a programme that sets out a clear programme of work for the European Union and its Member States, and places the interests and needs of the people at the heart of its priorities for the next few years.\nIt is therefore an extremely important programme. The programme establishes - and if you will allow me I will refer once again to the previous debate - the obligation for the Member States to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in the prosecution of crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, so that they do not go unpunished. This is part of the Stockholm Programme that was adopted at the end of last year under the Swedish Presidency.\nWe are therefore talking about an extremely important programme, which must be implemented and set out in detail. In this respect, we recognise the importance of the communication from the Commission entitled 'Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme', which presents initiatives to help implement the programme.\nThe Stockholm Programme enables us to build on previous achievements and face new challenges, taking advantage of the new opportunities presented by the Treaty of Lisbon. It is a new era. Institutionally, it is probably, to a greater extent, a genuine revolution - if you will allow me to speak so emphatically - because it is a genuine legal and institutional revolution for an area of freedom, security and justice that was previously entirely in the intergovernmental sphere to now clearly move into the EU sphere. This is initially taking shape in the important Stockholm Programme. The Council acknowledges the importance that Parliament has as the colegislator, as an institutional partner, in relation to the majority of the measures that we are going to adopt in the next five years.\nViviane Reding\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, you know it already, but let me briefly present you with the action plan of the Commission, entitled 'Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens', an action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme. This action plan is a guide for very concrete measures to be taken during the next five years.\nBut first let me go back a step: it has been proven by events of the last weeks and months that there is a shared sense of urgency to confront the economic and social situation of Europe, as well as a very clear expectation from our citizens that the EU must act rapidly and decisively. You will recall the adoption of the work programme of the Commission at the end of March, the content of which showed that the Commission not only has the intention but is already taking action. It focused, among other things, on the need for the EU to build a citizens' agenda which puts the people at the heart of European action. The action plan in the area of justice and home affairs is the first strategic initiative of the new Commission in order to put this work programme into practice; it follows very closely the mandates, as well as the broader philosophy, of the Stockholm Programme, and it takes into consideration the proposals and suggestions by Parliament and by the Council.\nThe challenge of ensuring the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, while also integrating and guaranteeing security in Europe, is addressed here in what we think to be a comprehensive way. The set of initiatives laid down are a roadmap - a roadmap to a free and secure Europe. We believe that you cannot separate freedom from security: they are two sides of the same coin; they are all related to the citizens and this is one way of getting citizens more acquainted with Europe.\nThe action plan will guide us in delivering an ambitious set of very concrete measures in a field where the added value of Europe will be very visible to our citizens. It is also a powerful message reiterating what we have been discussing before, that the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are actions for the citizens. As all these actions are interlinked, indispensable and consistent with the scale of ambition which have been fixed in the Treaty of Lisbon and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have to reach this ambitious outcome as quickly as possible in line with citizens' expectations.\nThat is also why Parliament should not view this action plan as being carved in stone; there might be unexpected events, and if there are such unexpected events, the Commission will certainly make use of its right of initiative in order to help solve the problems. That is why we have the intention - and this will be important for Parliament - to submit a mid-term review of the implementation of the Stockholm Programme in 2012, in order to ensure that the programme remains in line with European and global developments.\nBut, as the Minister-in-Office of the Council already has rightly said, this action plan is not only about what the European Commission is going to propose. It is also very much about what the Member States are going to do: how the Member States are going to take their initiatives where subsidiarity is at stake; how they are going to implement European Union decisions in their national law; and how they are going to collaborate with other Member States.\nTherefore, this action plan will only be a success story in the end if all the institutions play their role, and I am very confident that Parliament will help us to advance quickly on the right road.\nAnna Maria Corazza Bildt\non behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Commission for its timely presentation of a very concrete action plan to empower European citizens. I have been very active in the discussions in Parliament because I truly believe that the Stockholm Programme is the best way forward to a citizen-centred Europe: a Europe for citizens, with the people.\nI therefore invite the Commission to stick to the vision of the Stockholm Programme when presenting the specific proposals for the next five years. The programme adopted represents a real balance between providing security to citizens while respecting their rights, freedoms and integrity, and strengthening their citizenship.\nOn the action plan, I particularly welcome the measures presented recently to combat trafficking in human beings and child abuse and to increase the protection of unaccompanied minors - to mention just a few. I also welcome the fact that the action plan includes a strategy to combat female genital mutilation, domestic violence and violence against women. I nevertheless wish that this proposal could have been presented earlier than scheduled, Madam Commissioner.\nWe also need to encourage the participation of citizens during the process and ensure the transparency of decision making and the openness of documents. I hope that the measures will be presented in a user friendly way.\nTo conclude, I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues in Parliament, and with the Commission and the Council, to really deliver an area of freedom, security and justice, and make it a reality.\nKinga G\u00f6ncz\nI would like to make a few general and a few specific remarks regarding the plan. Of course we consider the Stockholm Programme to be very important. It is precisely for this reason that the action plan has been somewhat disappointing, since its ambitions do not truly reflect the importance this Parliament has attached to it or the size of the majority with which it voted on amendments on several topics. We see that the most important or many important points in the plan have been deferred until 2013-2014, and as regards this year, we can already see a certain level of slippage. It seems to be a general problem as well that cooperation between the Commission and Parliament with regard to international treaties has not yet been clarified. Although the feedback has improved considerably, such as the feedback on the SWIFT and TFTP negotiations with the US, there are still some points that have yet to be clarified.\nI wish to make a few concrete proposals: we regret that hate speech does not appear in the draft legislation but only the reports and the framework decision referring to implementation appear among the plans. Likewise, the provision of information on human rights is not sufficiently categorical. We know that implementation is related to the degree to which people are aware of their rights. In connection with immigration, I would like to mention that cooperation has begun but there seems to be an inadequate level of ambition. There are two other important issues. The first concerns reciprocity on visas, where new, effective solutions are needed due to both the reintroduction of the visa requirement and inequalities. The second concerns the free movement of labour where it is important to put an end to the discrimination that continues to exist against new Member States.\nRenate Weber\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the Stockholm Programme is undoubtedly ambitious, but we still need to adopt an action plan that would implement it in the most efficient way. Efficiency means not only a suitable timetable, but it also refers to the content of the legislation that we will adopt in the coming years and to the institutions that will be built upon in the future.\nIf we want the Union to be more coherent, we have to work towards a level of trust and mutual recognition in the judicial area or on police cooperation, similar to the principle which has governed the EU single market. To achieve it, we need to shift our views on our legal traditions, which should no longer be perceived, used or misused to prevent us having minimum standards, particularly in criminal law.\nOur citizens demand and deserve better protection against terrorism and against organised or trans-border crime. It is our duty to provide for this protection, but we have to do it while fully respecting not only the rights of the victims but also those of the defendants as well. This is why minimal procedural standards must apply to all EU Member States and if we need to be bold for these, we shall be. We will be bold when entrusting Eurojust with more power or when we have to protect the data of our citizens or when we will have to regulate on the asylum package.\nMy political group is determined to constructively work with the Commission and the Council and, at the same time, to persistently fight for the protection of human rights.\nJudith Sargentini\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, listening to the Commissioner and the Council representative on the Stockholm Programme, some questions come to mind.\nIt is now close to the end of the Spanish Presidency, with five weeks to go. At the beginning, we heard great ideas from the Spanish Presidency on asylum, migration, the Anti-Discrimination Directive and the emancipation of women, but I must say that, with five weeks to go, I wonder where the concrete results and proposals are.\nThe Commission and Parliament did their work on asylum and migration, and we are really waiting for the Council to act. It is not only - as Commissioner Reding said - the individual Member State that needs to implement its laws. It is the Council that needs to come up with ideas on Dublin, on the Reception Directive, on the Eurodac system and on the Qualification Directive. We really are waiting for it.\nThe Anti-Discrimination Directive is something this plenary voted for and the Greens are really waiting for that. Turning to the Commission on that issue, equality and anti-discrimination are, of course, fundamental basics in the Stockholm Programme, but why did the Commission not choose to make same-sex partnerships a priority for this action plan? You said people would be put at the centre. Organising same-sex partnerships is putting people at the centre. Could you give me an explanation as to why?\nWith regard to Europol, in the pre-Lisbon era, Europol was submitted to a minimum of scrutiny by Parliament, and that is still the case, although we now have the Lisbon Treaty. For example, the competence to enter into negotiations for cooperation agreements with third countries is based on Council decisions that date from a couple of years back. It is rumoured that Europol is now discussing a treaty with Israel, and who knows what other countries are being approached for treaties. The Lisbon Treaty gives Parliament a new role, and I would like the Commission to act upon it.\nMara Bizzotto\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, 170 measures in five years, numbers that are too ambitious for a programme devoid of any real connotation, especially when it comes to certain issues.\nWhere immigration is concerned, the programme is embarrassingly weak when you look beyond the official documents: what is the point of promising to strengthen bodies and agencies if there is then no political strategy? A truly useful strategy that must be based on some firm points: the fight against illegal immigration along the southern border, ensuring that responsibilities for opposing illegal immigration are shared between all European States, a policy of agreements with third countries, especially the recognition that immigration is not a resource at a time of crisis.\nParliament's homepage tells us that more than 20% of young people in Europe are unemployed. On a continent where 25 million people are out of work, the Commissioner for Home Affairs says that the issue of immigration must be based on solidarity. Instead, what is really needed is joined-up reasoning and realism: today, our priority is giving work to our citizens! All the rest is do-gooding rhetoric that does not help immigrants to integrate, and certainly does not help our people.\nAgust\u00edn D\u00edaz de Mera Garc\u00eda Consuegra\n(ES) Madam President, we are talking about more than 360 actions in five years. From my perspective, the presentation of the action plan should have been given more time in Parliament in order to give Members the opportunity to debate and, more importantly, to amend the proposals.\nLet us look at some examples: combating radicalisation; monitoring terrorist funding and the possibility of creating a European Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP); the coordination of the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen), Europol and Eurojust in the fight against terror and organised crime; combating the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes; amending the Frontex Regulation; and the viability of creating a European border guards system. Along with what I have mentioned, there is a great deal more that has been said. These are very important issues that would have been worthy of a different parliamentary format.\nIn addition it is notable that in relation to protecting the victims of crime, the plan only proposes one measure: creating a global instrument for protecting victims, which will include victims of terrorism. I believe - and this would be an amendment that I have not been able to table due to the rules - that the creation of a special instrument to protect the victims of terrorism should be an inalienable priority for the European Union. I would like to stress that this is my view.\nTo conclude, Mrs Reding, with reference to Europol, I would like to know why a Council decision is going to be replaced by a Europol regulation by 2013.\nMonika Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1\n(SK) There are several areas in the action plan of the Stockholm Programme I would like to talk about, and as we have to move on, I will name these problem areas.\nI definitely consider the EU's common asylum system to be a problem area, which we have discussed together at least several times here, where, on the one hand, the Commission talks of the need for legal migrants or immigrants to be successfully integrated into the common system but, on the other, the action plan displays very little ambition in this direction.\nLikewise, it appears that we do not expect a proposal for the unified processing of asylum applications until 2014, and therefore no mutual recognition of the rights of refugees between EU Member States either. Your plans are nonetheless quite concrete in the area of restricting the influx and movement of immigrants or migrants, for example, seasonal workers.\nSo, to be brief, there is no progressive and fair common asylum system in sight, and the plan specifies rather repressive measures.\nI would like to mention at least two more areas. The first is the sad fact that, even in the Commission's own words, progress over the mutual recognition of registered same-sex partnerships within an EU framework is not a priority, and the sidetracking of this topic really concerns me.\nThe final area I would like to mention is the rights of corporations. The Stockholm Action Plan often mentions citizens and their rights, but very clearly emphasises the freedom of business without sufficient regulations, which is at least surprising, particularly in the context of the current financial and economic crisis.\nSarah Ludford\nMadam President, for me, the best bit of the action plan is the list of five concrete measures regarding rights of the individual in criminal proceedings that comprise the roadmap endorsed by the Stockholm Programme.\nI speak as rapporteur on the first of these measures on interpretation and translation for defendants on which, I am pleased to say, I reached provisional agreement with the Spanish Presidency this very morning and I hope that our respective institutions will endorse that result.\nI do thank Commissioner Reding for her staunch support as we drew solidly on the Commission proposal and Commission representatives made a full contribution, so my personal thanks to her.\nWe are finally, a decade overdue, but finally building the mutual trust necessary for mutual recognition. My support for the European arrest warrant is qualified by my dismay and indeed anger at some miscarriages of justice and the way it currently operates such as in the cases of Gary Mann and Andrew Symeou that I am involved in. If we had these measures in place a decade ago, I believe those miscarriages of justice would not be happening.\nSimon Busuttil\n(MT) Madam President, I agree with those who say that the Common European Market, the single market, is probably the largest project the European Union has ever undertaken. I believe that this project, which favours European citizens, is the next big task for the European Union. It is interesting that the single market began in 1992, the same year in which we adopted the Maastricht Treaty that introduced the concept of European citizenship.\nBy means of this action plan, we are now creating a space within which European citizenship can be exercised. This can be done in several areas: human rights, civil rights, access to justice and the right of freedom of movement within the European Union. The European Union can also serve as an example in a number of fields, namely, trafficking, combating paedophilia, children's rights, cyber crime, and of course, immigration and asylum matters.\nNonetheless, I believe that this project requires three things: Firstly, a political stamp will give it importance and meaning for our citizens. Secondly, respecting the subsidiarity principle, because there are certain important areas that cannot relinquish the right to employ subsidiarity. Thirdly, deadlines: these must be honoured in this action plan, otherwise it will all come to nothing.\nJuan Fernando L\u00f3pez Aguilar\n(ES) Madam President, as the Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I was the co-author of the resolution adopted on the Stockholm Programme in November, along with Mr Casini and Mr Berlinguer. I would like to point out that I said at the time that the Stockholm Programme was not going to make Parliament's life easier in the area of freedom, security and justice but, on the contrary, it was going to make it much harder.\nI want to say here that some of the requirements in the resolution that was adopted have not been reflected by being clearly set out in the action plan proposed by the Commission. Therefore, as I am aware of the limitations of parliamentary debate and parliamentary intervention in the debate on the action plan, I do wish to point out that paragraphs 148 to 150 of the parliamentary resolution contained some precise indications regarding extremely important issues.\nMany of these have been stated, from victim protection to the institutions and agencies related to Schengen, Europol, Eurojust, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office and its pending new regulations, but there were also some regulations on substantial and fundamental problems, such as data protection and the clause to combat discrimination. The interdependence of data protection and security has certainly been debated in Parliament, in particular, during the debate on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), and the debate highlighted the need for Europe to make its own commitment to an appropriate balance between security and privacy.\nWhat is really important, however, is that the Commission now has five years of work ahead of it to implement each of the links in the action plan for the Stockholm Programme step by step. I therefore call on it to really work very hard with Parliament to take into account all of the commitments relating to paragraphs 148 and 150 of the resolution, keeping in mind that if the Commission does not work diligently and closely with Parliament, it will be vigilant and it will make proposals. It will, of course, also work with the Council, which can adopt initiatives that might deserve to be considered and dealt with by Parliament.\nNathalie Griesbeck\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr L\u00f3pez Garrido, I, in turn, wish to say how pleased I am to be talking about this action plan, the roadmap, as Mrs Reding called it, for implementing the Stockholm Programme. It deals with a host of fundamental issues, and rather than compile a random list in the very little time I have, I will simply focus on those points that will cause some frustration - one on form and one on substance - to talk about this issue.\nIn terms of form, as we have said in this debate, we have set ourselves some very precise deadlines for the implementation of the measures, and I would like us to try our best to take concrete action, so that we are not simply paying lip service to ideals.\nTo that end, in terms of substance, we must address two main points in order to make a success of this implementation. We must define some priorities. On the question of substance, Mrs Reding spoke of added value. I suggest that we press ahead with some points that we consider more urgent than others: firstly, on legal cooperation, so that we are on the same page in legal terms, with, of course, a kind of Erasmus for judges, but why not a kind of Erasmus for all the legal professions and another for the police professions?\nThen, the second point in terms of substance, and a key priority, is that of taking every possible measure to ensure the rights of children, to protect them, and to combat cyber crime, child pornography and sexual exploitation.\nStavros Lambrinidis\n(EL) The big word missing from immigration programmes is the word 'solidarity'. Today, we voted on the resettlement of asylum seekers from third countries in Europe, but the Commission programme refuses to promote a similar provision for the settlement of asylum seekers from one country of Europe to another or for money. Whatever happened to solidarity?\nOver 100 000 illegal immigrants arrive in Greece from Turkey every year. Whatever happened to the Europe-Turkey agreement on the return of these illegal immigrants? It is being side-stepped and is barely even mentioned in our programme. Whatever happened to the agreement being negotiated by Frontex with Turkey today? Can you assure us that it will not directly or indirectly dispute the sovereign rights of Greece, and hence of Europe, on the borders?\nFinally, of course, there is the huge obligation of solidarity towards immigrants themselves called 'integration'. Without the integration of immigrants, there is no way that 40 million people who have come to live among us will be able to do so on equal terms. We may be building time bombs. Programmes are needed, money is needed and, at the moment, the Commission does not have them.\nRam\u00f3n J\u00e1uregui Atondo\n(ES) (Start of speech with microphone switched off) I feel that a Europe in which the borders have disappeared and in which there is an increasing amount of supranational crime needs to have more ambition from the point of view of responding to the problem of supranational crime.\nI believe that we need to have greater ambition in terms of police coordination, in other words, Europol; judicial coordination, in other words, Eurojust; the European public prosecutor; the technical standardisation of criminal investigations; unifying criminal trial law; and in terms of bringing the respective criminal legal systems closer together.\nLadies and gentlemen, I believe that there is little ambition and too much national resistance, and I urge you, especially in the Council, to overcome the pro-sovereignty tendency of the Member States, and to unify our criminal justice systems in order to effectively combat insecurity and supranational crime.\nSalvatore Iacolino\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the opportunity offered by the Stockholm Programme is definitely an important one: a high number of positive actions that the Commission must implement, carving out a real common space for freedom, justice and security.\nAchieving these aims, however, requires a method of cooperation between European institutions, and between these institutions and the Member States, which are an indispensable instrument of true cooperation. Issues such as the regulation of migratory flows according to objective criteria of fairness, the dignity of people in today's overcrowded prisons, the welfare of those who are rehabilitated after drug addiction, the revitalisation of agencies, the opposition to organised crime at cross-border level, make this genuine cooperation truly necessary.\nThe activities of our Parliament are obviously centred on this challenge, and also provide strong and definite stimulus for the Commission and other Community institutions, as well as for Member States.\nGerard Batten\nMadam President, Dame Sarah Ludford said that she had some concerns about miscarriages of justice in relation to the European Arrest Warrant, in the cases of Andrew Symeou and Gary Mann. That is an understatement if ever there was one! The European Arrest Warrant is a gross miscarriage of justice in itself. Extradition has been reduced to a mere bureaucratic formality. British courts have been stripped of their ability to protect British citizens from unjust arrest and imprisonment when they are extradited to a foreign country. I know because I sat in the appeal court in the case of Andrew Symeou when two Senior Law Lords were unable to prevent the extradition of Mr Symeou, even though it was obvious to everybody in the court that the evidence was either non-existent or fabricated by the police. But of course, that is the whole point, because the court is not allowed to look at the evidence; they have no right. Dame Sarah and the Lib Dems can cry crocodile tears now over cases like Mr Symeou, but they have to bear responsibility for the human misery which they have caused.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou\n(EL) Madam President, it was with real satisfaction that we voted in the Stockholm Programme for provisions which refer to solidarity on immigration issues and in the fight against illegal immigration. I read in the action plan that the Commission will create an instrument in 2011 to evaluate national asylum systems, so that it can provide better assistance to the Member States in terms of each one's capabilities and needs.\nAt the same time, however, we have given the go-ahead in this Parliament for the European Asylum Support Office to start operating in Malta. The question is this: will the European Asylum Support Office have anything to do with this mechanism and, via this mechanism, with the evaluation carried out? Has provision been made for an internal resettlement programme for refugees in order to even out the pressures between the Member States?\nMonica Luisa Macovei\nMadam President, I would like to refer to the mechanism to assess corruption in the Member States - the mechanism that is provided for in the action plan. We have a Council decision for the Stockholm Programme, which refers to this matter, and we have the Commission action plan on implementing the Stockholm Programme. They both refer to an evaluation of the anti-corruption efforts in the Member States. Therefore, we need strong political will and commitment from the Member States for such a mechanism to come into place. I say this because we all know that, so far, the domestic efforts have not been effective in all Member States, to say the least.\nSecondly, the deadline for the communication in the action plan on the Union's policy and mechanism against corruption is 2011. I would like to suggest having it done before the end of 2010. This would better respond to the need of combating corruption in the Union, as corruption is also seen as a cause of the economic crisis. Therefore, it would be a measure to stop and prevent it.\nDiego L\u00f3pez Garrido\nMadam President, what is really at the heart of this debate on the European area of freedom, security and justice is something that I think was rightly said by Mr Busuttil when he was talking about European citizenship.\nWhat we are talking about here is the composition of that European citizenship, which we need to deepen. This is certainly one of the focuses of the new political phase beginning in Europe with the Treaty of Lisbon, and it has, of course, been one of the focuses for the Spanish Presidency.\nThere was a very clear and direct question on this to the Council from Mrs Sargentini, on what had been done by the Spanish Presidency during this period and what is in place for the future.\nI thank her for this very direct question, and I am going to try to structure my response around some points that all relate to European citizenship and the content of rights, freedoms, securities and justice: in short, the status of European citizens in the 21st century.\nWith regard to freedoms, we were talking earlier about accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is one of the Spanish Presidency's priorities. I refer to the extensive debate that we had earlier.\nI also believe that, in relation to freedoms and rights, we need to talk about the directive on rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. As you know, work is under way on this directive.\nWe are waiting for the European Commission to make a proposal in general terms on the very specific directive mentioned by Mrs Sargentini: the non-discrimination directive. This is a very ambitious and very important directive. The Presidency of the Council does, of course, support it, and we are awaiting the Commission's initiative.\nIssues surrounding victims have been a concern and a priority for the Spanish Presidency, especially victims of gender violence. I would like to say to you that during this period, progress has been made on the directive to combat people trafficking. With regard to the directive to combat sexual abuse, we are working on reaching a common position in June. Work is also being done on a legislative initiative to combat gender violence: the European Protection Order, which is currently being debated in various parliamentary committees: the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. Gender violence is undoubtedly the biggest scourge that exists with the greatest number of victims in European societies. The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) also adopted the European Observatory on Violence against Women and the helpline for victims last month.\nRegarding security issues, the internal security strategy was adopted in the March European Council. In relation to this, the constitution has been adopted for the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security. There have been agreements with the United States on security issues, and agreements are in progress: the Toledo Declaration on security and civil aviation; the SWIFT issue, which is very well known to parliament, on which there is a mandate for negotiating a political agreement with the United States as soon as possible. We are also working with the United States on a joint declaration on the fight against terrorism and an agreement on data protection.\nWith regard to civil cooperation, we hope to agree the Rome III Regulation, a law that applies to marriages.\nIn relation to the subject of immigration and asylum, which has also been mentioned in many speeches, it should be said that the Spanish Presidency is responsible for the first evaluation of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which it is going to prepare in cooperation with the Commission. At the same time, also in cooperation with the Commission, a returns programme is under way for unaccompanied minors.\nAlso, in relation to asylum, the Frontex operations are being maintained, and work is being done on a European programme for refugees and on the resettlement of refugees, and also with some countries on repatriation programmes.\nIn addition to those, there is the European Refugee Fund, which should be ready by 2011: the Tavares report from Parliament provides for it to be adopted by then. So, there are various important initiatives under way in relation to immigration.\nI would like to add to this response with a debate that has been taken up very constructively by the Commission - specifically by Commissioner Reding - on the European public prosecutor, which is provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. I think this is a debate that we need to have. It would be very interesting, not only, as the Treaty of Lisbon says, to protect the economic interests of the Union, which is, of course, a very topical subject. It would also be very interesting at a later stage in order to be able to prosecute transnational crimes. It is also a debate that has been launched by the Spanish Presidency of the European Union.\nThese are some of the specific elements that are being launched or have been launched during the Spanish Presidency, in cooperation with the Commission and Parliament. We believe that it is absolutely crucial for us to have credibility in terms of building an open, safe Europe that protects its people. This is the spirit in which the Spanish Presidency wants to continue, along with the trio of presidencies that will be operated by our partners: Belgium and Hungary. This is the Spanish Presidency's intention, and we are, of course, counting on the cooperation of the European Parliament, which we have.\nViviane Reding\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, everybody is talking about the Stockholm Programme. That is a Christmas tree with several hundred wishes. I would like everybody to speak about the reality. How were these Christmas tree wishes treated before the Lisbon Treaty? Behind closed doors, without much consideration for the citizens and what they want, wish for and expect; in the third pillar, where ministers of the interior were asking neither the European Parliament nor the Commission, and where the European Court of Justice had no possibility to intervene.\nThat is where we are starting from: an impossible situation. Where de minimis decisions were not even carried out at national level, where citizens did not have the means or the instruments to go to court, to protest and to seek justice.\nFortunately, we now have the Lisbon Treaty. There is no third pillar any more. There are Commission proposals, codecision, implementation at Member State level, control by the European Court of Justice, but that means also that things cannot be done instantly any more. Rules and proposals have to follow the normal way, under which you parliamentarians have asked the Commission to conduct its work.\nFirst, a thorough analysis of what is feasible, what is good, what has added value. Second, public consultation, in order to know whether the ideas that we put on the table will be accepted or not by civil society, by industry, by the Member States, by the national parliaments, which are now a player in all these questions and which conduct the subsidiarity test. And then, impact assessments, in order to see if what we are doing is the right way. And, only then, we have the definite proposal from the Commission.\nIf you want the Commission to continue to do as has been done over the last number of years, just tell me, and I will come with a proposal every week. And do you know what will happen with those proposals? They will first be blocked in the national parliaments, and rightly so, because we have to come with serious proposals based on the legal assumptions that what we are doing is strong, is feasible and can be implemented in the Member States.\nI do not want the first proposal we make to be challenged before the Court of Justice and before the Court of Human Rights. I would like to lead all of us to the way where the citizens will understand that the added value of what we are doing here is of real benefit to them in practical terms. Yes, as the Commissioner responsible for women's affairs, I have heard this Parliament discussing what we need to do, most of all in order to give legal certainty to women in all our Member States, that when they have a problem of violence, they will get justice and not the illusion that they hope they will get justice and then they get nowhere and end up with nothing. So here we really have to work together.\nThere are hundreds of measures which have to be 'Lisbonised', which have to be taken out of the hole and brought into the light of day, which have to be adapted to the real rules of law - hundreds of measures that do not work.\nThe arrest warrant: Ms Ludford was just speaking about this. Of course it is not carried out in the Member States because the construction around the mutual recognition and the mutual trust, which is at the basis of the mutual recognition, has not been built up. Colleagues, you cannot do all this without having mutual trust. I am sorry, I cannot by decree insert mutual trust in the heads of the judges all over Europe!\nWe have to build this mutual trust with the legislation and with the measures to boost the rights of citizens in all our Member States, so that the judges also implement the rules we have been looking for and, yes, we are advancing very quickly on this.\nAn action plan, well, the colleague is not there any more, but an action plan for combating the violence against women. In 2011, a comprehensive text about protecting the victims, all kinds of victims - for me there is not a victim here, a victim there and a third category of victims - all kinds of victims have to be considered.\nYes, we have been working on data protection; when fortunately you, Parliament, said no to the way things have been working before Lisbon was implemented. We will not continue like this any more and, yes, Chairman of the committee, you know that your committee and the other committees are fully integrated in the way we are preceding.\nWe will have many things to do together: very technical questions, which will have a very important impact on our society. We will have to do something; we will have to explain to the citizens what we are doing. Because that is also a part of the whole thing and it is not the easiest part of the whole issue.\nYes, we have to take measures, for instance, on illegal immigration and asylum and, as you have seen, my colleague, Cecilia Malmstr\u00f6m, has very concrete proposals on illegal immigration, on border controls, on legal migration. Yes, it would be important if the Parliament could, together with the Council, adopt the existing proposals, the asylum package, the simple permit proposal, the joint resettlement programme, the mutual recognition and the just adopted action plan for unaccompanied minors. There is an awful lot in the pipeline.\nIt is not about who is going to do what because certain things you simply cannot do. Here is an example: you asked for the Anti-Discrimination Directive. The Anti-Discrimination Directive, I am sorry to say, is a question that has to be solved by unanimity and it is blocked in the Council. So what do you want me to do - not me, because it was before my time - the Commission has put anti-discrimination on the table, unanimity is blocked in the Council? So speak to the Council; speak with those who are blocking it.\nSame-sex couples: well you know perfectly well that it is the prerogative of subsidiarity, the competence of Member States to regulate the way they treat same-sex couples. Where the European Union comes in is the cross-border treatment of these same-sex couples. But I cannot do the work for France, for Italy, for Poland, for Romania, for Greece and for Luxembourg; that has to be done by those Member States alone. I can see there is no discrimination if those people, from wherever they come, are exercising their rights to cross-border mobility, and that is what we are going to do.\nWe have started already to see that, in terms of mobility, in terms of citizens rights, in terms of collaboration between the legal systems, in terms of eliminating the borders that still exist in this single market, which, sorry to say, is not a single market when it comes to citizens. That is why I am very happy; I have read the report by Mario Monti. There are many elements in this report, which say where we have to move. You know what is my bible? The report, which was drawn up by one of your Members, contains all the elements on the free movement of citizens and all the problems that have to be solved.\nNow what I propose to you is to take them, one by one, and solve them, one by one, in full cooperation with you. When I put on the table a proposal, and you have seen how it goes, you will have so many proposals that you will have to work at night - I do not know if it is permitted under employment rules and human rights, but I will not care for your human rights as Members of Parliament. We will work until we have solved these problems - there are hundreds of problems to be solved and I cannot do it alone. I need your very constructive help. I know I will get this help but help me to work on one element after the other, even if it has to be one element per week. It is going to be on your table. I am willing to come to your committees as often as you call me, Madam President, and we will discuss this over, element by element. In five years' time, with your help, we will have changed this continent.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nPedro Guerreiro \nThe purpose of this Commission proposal is to incorporate into the Community acquis conservation and enforcement measures adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), to which the Community is a signatory. In keeping with the simplification of other legislation, the Commission has taken the opportunity to update and bring together in a single legislative document all of the rules spread across several regulations. The rapporteur has updated these rules with other texts adopted following the Commission's proposal, as part of the regulation on total allowable catches and quotas for 2007.\nThe simplification proposal is, in itself, a good thing. We feel, though, that the consequences of some of the measures incorporated for the long distance fleet, for the fisheries sector and by extension for national economies should be pre-empted and managed.\nI wish to point out that Portugal was one of the founding Members of NAFO, represented by the Community when it joined in 1986. This has not brought us any great benefits - quite the opposite in fact, as evidenced by the difficulties facing the Portuguese long-distance fleet.\nBairbre de Br\u00fan and Mary Lou McDonald \nin writing. We have problems with the SIS and particularly the planned SIS II, which will create enormous databases with too few guarantees to protect the privacy of citizens.\nHowever, this report does not change the nature of the current system, just extends it to new Member States. Without access to SIS, the citizens of these countries will not be allowed to travel freely in the rest of the EU.\nFor these reasons we voted in favour of the report.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik \nThe legislative resolution of the European Parliament on which we have voted today, which Parliament has already adopted and which I also backed, is a major milestone in the enlargement of the Schengen area.\nThis resolution will contribute to the speedy implementation of the acquis communautaire as it applies to the SIS in Slovakia and the other Visegrad Four countries, as well as in the Baltic States and Slovenia.\nSome time ago all of the Members elected from Slovakia urged the Council to refrain from postponing the Schengen area enlargement date until 17 December 2008, which we found unacceptable. It appears that this intervention was a factor in the reassessment and acceleration of a process which will now, I believe, make the Schengen area a reality for Slovak citizens before the end of 2007.\nI welcome the fact that the implementation of technical assistance, as well as the SIS, SIS II and SISone4ALL, will proceed on time; and that the European Parliament has gone to great lengths to ensure agreement during the first reading, thus avoiding risk of Parliament causing any delays in the implementation of SIS II.\nThe citizens of the new Member States are looking forward to the enlargement of the Schengen area, an act generally perceived as the genuine, definitive and complete accomplishment of EU integration.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1 \nin writing. (SK) The free movement of persons in the Schengen area is a visible and practical exercise of the basic rights guaranteed under the European Community Treaty. To our citizens, the free movement of persons, unimpeded by passport checks, is a concrete example of the benefits associated with EU membership.\nThanks to the Portuguese proposal, the European frontier of the Schengen area will, from 1 January 2008, move east from the Czech-German border to the Slovak-Ukrainian one.\nThe interior ministers of the Member States agreed on this enlargement date after many months of negotiations and innumerable discussions. In 2004 the European Commission announced that, due to technical delays, it had to propose a new timetable envisaging an operational SIS II as of 17 December 2008. The risk was that the original enlargement date might be put off until 2009.\nI have voted in favour of the report by the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, on the proposal for a Council decision on the application of the Schengen acquis in respect of the Schengen Information System of the newly acceded Member States. I believe that the new Member States will meet all the essential requirements for securing the external Schengen border as recommended by the EP rapporteur.\nEven though it has not proved possible to launch the new SIS II according to plan, the provisional integration of the new Member States into the current system, SISone4ALL, will provide adequate time to accomplish the SIS II.\nI am convinced that meeting the Schengen area enlargement deadline will contribute to the greater confidence of citizens in the European project as a whole.\nEva-Britt Svensson\nI have chosen to abstain in the final vote on Mr Coelho's report today. The fundamental criticism of the Schengen system continues to be highly valid when it comes, for example, to personal privacy and the ability of refugees to claim asylum. The continued construction of 'Fortress Europe' must cease as soon as possible. I do, on the other hand, of course recognise the right of individual Member States to join the system if the countries in question are anxious so to do.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed colleague, Mr B\u00f6ge of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, with a sum of around EUR 24 million being granted to our Hungarian and Greek friends, following the floods suffered by these Member States and their populations in March and April 2006. Even though we must deplore the delays, many of which were due to the Member States themselves, we should be pleased about the usefulness of this fund, which is endowed with a maximum annual sum of EUR 1 billion.\nPedro Guerreiro \nGiven the deadlock in the Council on reviewing the Solidarity Fund, the mobilisation of the Fund to help the victims of natural disasters in Greece and Hungary in 2006 is an opportunity to reiterate the need to ensure that regional disasters remain eligible for the Fund, and to adapt it so that it corresponds most effectively to what the victims of this type of disaster need.\nIt is also an opportunity to reaffirm our opposition to the ideas of extending the scope of the Fund without raising its financial ceiling and of lowering the threshold to mobilise the Fund, in such a way that the EU Member States with the highest GDP stand to gain the most from it.\nWe should also like to highlight our proposals, adopted by Parliament, aimed at acknowledging the specific nature of disasters in the Mediterranean region - and adapting the Solidarity Fund to timeframes and eligible actions, and to the specific nature of natural disasters such as drought and fire - and at looking into the possibility of setting up a farming disaster fund.\nPedro Guerreiro \nThe purpose of Draft amending budget No 2\/2007 is to mobilise the Solidarity Fund, with a view to granting financial assistance to Hungary and Greece to help repair the damage caused by the floods of March and April 2006 in those countries.\nApart from the delay in activating this EU financial assistance, the cause of which must be investigated, one of the most striking points is the paltry amount in relation to the estimated losses directly sustained. The overall amount of Community financial aid for these disasters is some EUR 24.4 million to a loss totalling almost EUR 900 - EUR 520 million in the case of Hungary and EUR 372 in the case of Greece.\nThis is another example, in other words, of the discrepancy between the volume of losses and the amount offered by the Community. This calls into question the idea of effective solidarity with the people living in the affected regions. The current Solidarity Fund therefore needs to be reassessed in order to adapt eligibility criteria so that the Fund corresponds better to the needs of disaster victims.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Yes, Mr President, I have voted in favour of the European Parliament Regulation on the addition of vitamins and minerals and certain other substances to foods, which lays down the procedures for exercising the executive powers transferred to the Commission, and I support the Council decision of 17 July 2006 in the matter of commitology, which can be summarised as 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny'.\nThe European Parliament has adopted a text enabling the transfer to the Commission of the power to take quasi-legislative measures where necessary, the measures in question being those provided for in Article 2 of Decision No. 468\/1999, as amended by Decision No. 512\/2006, which lays down the procedures for exercising the executive powers that have been transferred to the Commission. In this case the decision is a step in the right direction. In general, however, it still applies that the European Parliament should leave to its Members the power to decide democratically on legislative procedures.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour of the Scheele report because I feel that the excessive ingestion of vitamins and minerals can be harmful to health and because it is crucial that information is easily understood by all consumers.\nThe difficulties raised by various national laws are now reduced by this proposal via harmonisation of the Member States' legal, regulatory and administrative provisions on the addition of vitamins, minerals and other substances.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour of the Bortone report on the proposal for a regulation on nutrition and health claims made on food. It is based on greater information and protection for the consumer, and seeks to ban misleading nutrition and health claims, thus minimising their harmful effects and delivering greater consumer protection.\nFood is the very foundation of health. The concept of health is not solely confined to the absence of disease; it also encompasses the person's physical and emotional well-being. It is therefore essential, in my view, that health claims be scientifically proven following assessment by the European Food Safety Authority.\nAthanasios Pafilis \nin writing. - (EL) Following the vote in favour of the Pr\u00fcm Treaty, the follow-up version of the Schengen Treaty, the SIS II information system and the decision on the uncontrolled and unimpeded collection and exchange of personal data, including on political, ideological, philosophical and religious beliefs, the European Parliament has now approved the Visa Information System (VIS).\nThis system, which legalises the collection, processing and exchange of personal and biometric data on any foreigner applying for a visa for any country of the EU, to which the prosecuting authorities and secret services of each Member State have access, adds yet another link to the chain which the EU is using to throttle individual rights.\nThe EU aims for the VIS to be the biggest biometric database in the world. These measures increase repression and the mechanisms used to impose it to gigantic proportions and institutionalise the potential to keep records on every inhabitant of the planet. The \u0395U is gradually turning into a barrack\/fortress for its peoples and the citizens of third countries.\nHowever, as capital extends measures to repress and throttle the rights of the workers in order to consolidate and safeguard its sovereignty, so too will the waves of resistance and disobedience and the inevitable fight to overturn the power of the monopolies and their reactionary Union.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund \nin writing. (SV) When it comes to the opportunities under this proposal for foreign authorities to get access to data in Swedish registers, we would make it a precondition that such access be preceded by a request to the Swedish authorities and subsequent approval. In the light of this, we are opposed to what is known as a 'hit-no hit' system.\nPhilip Bradbourn \nin writing. Whilst Conservatives support co-operation between police forces, we cannot support bringing the provisions in the Pr\u00fcm Treaty into the EU framework. We have grave concerns, as does the European Data Protection Supervisor, with regard to the requirements on the collection of data on individual citizens who are neither suspected nor who have committed a crime. In addition, the issue of \"hot pursuit\" without authorisation by other Member States police forces is a source of great concern. Conservatives believe that intergovernmental co-operation in the field of counter-terrorism and serious criminal cases is essential but feel that there should be an \"opt-in\" clause to allow Member States the freedom to maintain their traditional systems of justice.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour, because the report is aimed at the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States, which will lead to closer cross-border cooperation between police forces through exchanges of information and research on criminal offences.\nOne of the EU's objectives consists of giving the citizens greater levels of protection, freedom, security and justice. Effective international cooperation by means of exchanging data, while guaranteeing the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, will help meet this objective.\nPedro Guerreiro \nThe Pr\u00fcm Treaty was signed, outside the EU's legal framework, on 27 May 2005, by seven Member States, with the aim, as they put it, of 'cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime'. Since then, nine more Member States, including Portugal, have stated their intention to ratify it.\nThis Treaty forms part of the securitarianism that has been brought in under the cloak of the so-called 'fight against terrorism', entailing serious risks to the citizens' rights, freedoms and guarantees.\nWhat is at stake is the establishment of a framework for police cooperation - joint operations, mutual assistance and even the possibility of the police force of one Member State taking action on the territory of another. The latter appears to have caused controversy in the Council. The exchange of a wealth of information contained in personal data has proved similarly controversial. It is particularly significant that the majority in Parliament rejected our group's proposal, whereby 'it will be forbidden to process personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, membership of a political party or a union or relating to health or sex life.'\nHence our vote against.\nCarl Lang \nin writing. - (FR) On the subject of the fight against terrorism, it is most unusual that it should still be so difficult, today, for the national police forces and the anti-terrorism authorities of the various EU Member States to cooperate together and to exchange information.\nHowever, what we now know for certain is that the attacks of 11 September and those of 11 March in Madrid were planned, at least in part, on EU soil. These attacks demonstrated the ineffectiveness of Europe's instruments and policies for combating terrorism. Terrorism knows no bounds; the fight against terrorism must know no bounds either, and intergovernmental cooperation in this area must be stepped up as a matter of urgency.\nThe same goes for the controls at the Member States' borders: they must be reintroduced as quickly as possible, because they are the bare minimum when it comes to combating terrorism effectively and efficiently.\nAs a final point, I should like to emphasise a reality: that of the Islamic nature of terrorism in its new guise. A new political and religious ideology is gaining ground in Europe and in the Muslim world. It represents a fearsome breeding ground for terrorism.\nMairead McGuinness \nin writing. I voted against amendment 43 relating to so-called 'measures in the event of imminent danger' in the abovementioned report as I believe that measures put forward do not represent an effective means of combating cross-border crime.\n\u0391thanasios Pafilis \nin writing. - (EL) The European Parliament today gave the go-ahead for the integration of the most basic provisions of the Pr\u00fcm Treaty, known as Schengen III, into the so-called acquis communautaire and into the national legislation of the Member States under a simplified procedure, in other words without the signing and ratification procedures required under international treaties. These provisions oblige the Member States to create DNA files and permit the collection, processing and automated exchange of DNA data, fingerprints and other records and information by the repressive mechanisms, including on persons who they suspect will commit a criminal offence or jeopardise public order and security. It expressly provides that the purpose of exchanging such information is to safeguard public order at international demonstrations, especially in the run-up to EU summits. That is why it grants the right for joint operations and full powers, including the use of firearms, to foreign police forces. The Greek Communist Party has condemned the further criminalisation of civil and trade union action, preventive personal records and the stepping-up of the preventive repression of grassroots movements promoted by the provisions of the Treaty. The peoples must condemn this Treaty, which is dangerous to individual rights and democratic freedoms and step up their fight against the stepping-up of autocratic measures and the anti-democratic and anti-grassroots policy of the EU in general.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nThe German Presidency is seeking to transfer some parts of the Pr\u00fcm Treaty to the third pillar. The objectives of this text, which is aimed at combating terrorist threats and protecting the public, are of the highest importance. Consequently, I must highlight the fact that the course of action chosen by the Council - namely demanding an emergency opinion from Parliament - has hampered the normal functioning of interinstitutional relations.\nParliament has always held a clear, responsible position on terrorism and cross-border crime. It has supported the creation of conditions for cross-border cooperation and the exchange of information between bodies responsible for prevention and investigation into criminal offences. This is the only way that we can hope to prevent terrorist threats effectively.\nThe establishment of procedures enabling the exchange of information to be prompt and effective is clearly of the highest importance. I therefore support the report.\nCarlos Coelho \nIt is both urgent and vitally important that this framework decision on data protection be adopted. A new global legal framework on data protection under the third pillar comparable to the rules in force in Community law is a vital factor in guaranteeing the same level of protection.\nI therefore welcome the fact that a political agreement has finally been reached, and I wish to pay tribute to the rapporteur Mrs Roure for her outstanding contribution to achieving this outcome.\nImproving data protection under the third pillar presupposes that this framework decision should apply to the entire pillar, including Europol, Eurojust and the Customs Information System, which already come under the third pillar. As such, I welcome this extension and the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, in particular the insertion of an assessment and revision clause so that the Commission can submit proposals for improving the framework decision after three years.\nI also endorse the 15 general principles presented by Mr Frattini, which reflect the thrust of the acquis in the area of personal data protection processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.\nAthanasios Pafilis \nin writing. - (EL) The Greek Communist Party voted against the report because, despite the individual improvements that it proposes to the new version of the Council's framework-decision, it fundamentally adopts in its entirety its basic philosophy, which is the unrestricted and - in practice - uncontrollable facility for the repressive mechanisms of the EU and the prosecuting authorities both in its Member States and in third countries (such as the USA) and even private individuals to collect, process and exchange between each other all the personal data of every citizen of the EU, including data relating to their political and trade union action and ideological, philosophical and religious beliefs.\nThe sights of the repressive mechanisms are now set on every citizen of the EU, given that the collection and transmission of everyone's personal data is permitted, even if they are hardly even suspected of any act, purely and simply for reasons of public order and security.\nThe addition of 15 guidelines for the protection of personal data is nothing more than a wish-list and expos\u00e9 of ideas, without any possibility of imposing compliance with them in practice by the repressive mechanisms. In reality, there is absolutely no protection, in that the exceptions from this protection are becoming the rule, with the simple and uncontrolled citing of reasons of public security, while data protection is the exception, which it is almost impossible for anyone to impose.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nIn the era of terrorist threats, the balance between privacy and protecting the citizens is becoming a constant challenge that we can only overcome with clear, responsible measures.\nThe rules on data protection used for judicial and police cooperation must be drawn up in such a way as to strengthen the principle of mutual trust between the authorities involved, enabling more effective European cooperation and the highest possible protection for the citizens when it comes to the use of this data. The measures to be taken should therefore be accurate and complete. They should protect fundamental rights and comply with the articles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights covering privacy and the protection of personal data.\nI therefore welcome the political agreement reached with the Council, which will lead to the rapid adoption of this proposal for a framework decision.\nPedro Guerreiro \nCreating the conditions for recovering fish stocks, in this case cod, is vital not only in terms of protecting marine biology resources but also keeping fisheries activity alive.\nThe objective should be to fish less when according to scientific research and to fishermen themselves, stocks are in need of recovery if fishing is to take place - perhaps on a bigger scale - in the future.\nWe must bear in mind, however, that these recovery plans, whereby fishing is restricted, have a serious economic and social impact that must be weighed up and taken into account. Against this backdrop, we support the proposals in this regard contained in the report. What is needed is for the sector to be compensated for the economic and social consequences of this break in fishing, and there should be a Community compensation fund specifically for this purpose. In other words the common fisheries policy must take on its responsibilities.\nOur vote against Amendments 20, 21 and 22 was based on our view that decisions on total allowable catches and quotas should not be automatically linked to the opinions of the Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Other factors, economic and social factors for example, should be taken into account, as evidenced by representation in the Regional Advisory Councils.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nin writing. (PL) Despite the restrictions on fishing quotas introduced in recent years, some Baltic cod stocks are now below acceptable biological limits. The report wisely proposes an 8% reduction of the number of days at sea using fishing gear, more rigorous inspections, and in particular raising to 300 kg the limit above which fishing vessels must obtain permission from the competent bodies at the point of unloading. In addition, it proposes increasing the minimum size of cod fished in the Baltic to 40 cm.\nThe rapporteur also rightly refers to the issue of dividing the Baltic into an eastern and a western area, as these are two quite distinct ecosystems. Different fishing quotas should therefore be laid down for each of these areas of the Baltic. Priority should be given to the east as stocks there are now below acceptable biological limits.\nThe plan to prepare a report on the social and economic impact of implementation of the proposed regulation on the sector deserves our support too. The report should focus in particular on the employment structure and the financial situation of fishermen, ship owners and enterprises involved in cod fishing and processing.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I just wish to say that the Irish delegation and my colleagues in the PPE-DE Group voted in favour of this report. We are happy with its emphasis on the role of producer groups and crisis management.\nHowever, we have a problem with two amendments, 11 and 111, which were voted through together. These two amendments will pose particular problems for potato growers in Ireland who are currently losing significant entitlements to the single farm payment to the national reserve because the land they use for growing potatoes is not eligible for the single farm payment as things stand.\nWe welcome the Commission's proposal to remove this exclusion and to change this anomaly, and we hope that the Commission's proposal is ratified by the Council, not the one as amended here this morning.\nHynek Fajmon\n(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against the Salinas Garc\u00eda report on market reforms in the fruit and vegetable sector.\nThe Commission believes that reform in the sector is needed, and this is a view I share. What the Commission is proposing, though, is not reform. What is needed is to end the unnecessary regulation of the entire sector, to remove export subsidies and to abolish quotas completely. This, however, is not what the Commission is proposing. Instead, it is proposing minor, cosmetic changes that retain the regulatory nature of the whole policy. Neither I nor the other MEPs from the Czech Civil Democratic Party (ODS) support this approach and we have accordingly voted against the report.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the bulk of the report by my fellow Member, Mrs Salinas Garc\u00eda, on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector.\nThis important sector, which represents around 17% of the Union's agricultural production, is, in reality, very varied, fragile and confronted with structural problems, at the same time as being exposed to growing external pressure. It deserves to be supported, not only for producers but also for public health reasons - the health of European consumers - and for our food processing industry. The European Commission proposals are an initial basis for work that will have to be adjusted and improved in many areas. Nevertheless, I welcome the specific attention paid by the Union to this important sector.\nIlda Figueiredo \nFollowing the reform of the CAP, which introduced the principle of single payment and which paved the way for the decoupling of production aid, the Commission now feels it is the turn of fruit and vegetables.\nUsing the old arguments of competitiveness, market forces, the WTO and so on, the Commission has put forward proposals that will, if the governments of the Member States agree to them, lead to more abandonment of production and more unemployment in the future, and will link aid to 'historical' payments and to the single payment scheme, and we are opposed to this.\nIn Portugal, the industrial tomato sector is under threat. It is a sector in which there has been a great deal of investment, one that has developed, that has produced quantity and quality, and one in which the overwhelming majority of production provides work for many small and medium-sized farmers, family farming and many workers linked directly or indirectly to the agri-food industry.\nIf the Commission's proposal were to go through, thousands of jobs in agriculture and industry would be put in jeopardy, even if in the short term there is still a payment to farmers and a transitional period.\nAlthough the report introduced several measures that we welcome, it does not substantially change the Commission's proposal and as such we could not vote in favour.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) The proposed addition to the Commission's proposal put forward by Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is beneath contempt. We firmly reject the proposals to subsidise growers of cherries and berries, mushrooms and fruit, to introduce area payments for garlic, to investigate the possible introduction of an EU quality label, to introduce an EU quality control agency for fruit and vegetables from third countries and to introduce a security fund for the said sector of cultivation and wordings relating to export refunds and the like for processed tomatoes, et cetera.\nThe June List observes, once again, that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU's agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of heavy subsidies to all the various groups within the agricultural industry.\nWe have therefore voted against this report.\nDiamanto Manolakou \nin writing. - (EL) The purpose of the proposed review of the regulation on fruit and vegetables is to adjust to the new CAP, the EU financial perspective and the WTO.\nDecoupling subsidies from production, substantially reducing Community support and abolishing the remaining traces of export subsidies will result in increased imports and a reduction in exports, will shrink the manufacturing industry and turn certain factories into packaging units for imported raw materials and will result in drastic cutbacks or the abandonment of certain crops, the subsidies for which make a significant contribution to farmers' incomes.\nIn Greece, the worst victims are mainly growers of juicing oranges, industrial tomatoes and sultanas, which are our country's main products.\nThe result will be the concentration of the production of fruit and vegetables in few hands, the mass destruction of small and medium-sized farms, using decoupled subsidies as bait, and an increase in the profitability of commercial industrialists, with guaranteed cheap raw materials, both domestic and imported.\nAs far as producer organisations are concerned, their role is being upgraded, even using anti-democratic changes, so that even those who do not want to are forced to join.\nHowever, the unwillingness of farmers to join producer organisations derives from their role as mediation bodies between farmers and commercial industrialists, for the benefit of the interests of the commercial industrialists.\nWe MEPs of the Greek Communist Party have voiced our opposition and voted against the report, because the proposed changes are yet another blow to small and medium-sized farms.\nCarl Schlyter \nin writing. (SV) This report sets right, to a certain extent, the market in fruit and vegetables, which is brim-full of excessively detailed regulation, and phases out export refunds for this sector. I am not, therefore, voting against the report, but the improvements to it are not great enough for me to vote in favour of it, so I am abstaining.\nPeter Skinner \nI voted to abstain and against the amendments proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.\nThese amendments moved away from the principle and practice of reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I abstained where there was no clear implication for UK interests, but where there were clear concerns for continental Member States - 'hot pursuit' being that particular vote.\nI also voted against eight amendments, which, when taken in combination, actually increased funds to fruit and vegetable sectors, which is against the UK Labour Party's view that support spending should be reduced and contradicts CAP reform.\nMarcin Libicki\n(PL) Mr President, Montesquieu remarked that democracies are based on law, monarchies on honour and dictatorships on fear. As we are a democratic institution, I should like to say that I do not agree with legal acts referring to other legal acts that are not binding. I share the view expressed by Mrs Bonde on the subject. In that connection, I should like to point out that I voted against Amendment 25 to the report by Mr Crespo and Mr Brok. If by some mistake it appears that I voted in its favour, please note that my intention had been to vote against.\nSylwester Chruszcz\n(PL) Mr President, I have today voted against the report calling for work on the new Union treaty, the new Constitution for Europe, to begin as soon as possible with a view to adoption of the draft document. The League of Polish Families to which I belong is opposed to the creation of a new European super state and to all measures aimed at depriving nation states of their sovereignty. We trust that the attempt to draft a new treaty based on the draft Constitution for Europe, which has been pushed through so forcibly by certain Members of this House, will end in failure.\nCarlo Fatuzzo\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, contrary to the previous speaker, the Pensioners' Party is highly in favour of the existence of a Europe that is also political and that heralds benefits for citizens, in particular for citizens who want a future, because they are working now, and for citizens who want a present, because they are now retired and have the right to a better life than that experienced by the elderly and retired in the past.\nThus they look to Europe for security, because all too often, if not always, States ignore the real everyday issues that matter to citizens, such as how to survive in a global society that focuses purely on the 'god of money' and not on human beings at all stages of life, from the cradle to the grave.\nWe therefore hope that the European Constitution will be adopted as soon as possible.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund \nin writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of this report, which is basically a sound one. We wish, however, to offer a number of clarifications. We voted in favour of what is stated in paragraph 8 as we are in favour of strengthening the common foreign and security policy. It is important to point out, however, that we are not in favour of common defence.\nPoint 12 highlights issues such as Social Europe and the struggle against climate change that are important to Europeans. However, we are opposed to incorporating the Copenhagen criteria into the Constitution. We believe that the Copenhagen criteria are important, but we do not want them to be written into the Constitution as this would make it harder to continue enlargement. For the same reason, we are also opposed to other obstacles being placed in the path of the candidate countries.\nWe furthermore reject the preferential position proposed under paragraph 18 for religious communities in comparison with the rest of civil society.\nLiam Aylward, Brian Crowley, Se\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain and Eoin Ryan \nin writing. The Constitutional Treaty is a landmark document which provides a blueprint for a more dynamic and effective European Union, strengthens the democratic character of an enlarged Union and enhances our decision-making capacity and ability to act on the world stage. We are committed to preserving to the greatest extent possible the substance of the Constitution.\nWe support this report. We reject the concept of a two-tier Europe.\nHowever, we have voted against paragraph 11 regarding the diminution of the protection of the rights of citizens because of its vagueness. How is this decided and who decides that the protection of rights of citizens has been diminished?\nWe have also voted against paragraph 20, which demands that all Member States coordinate their ratification procedures in order to allow for simultaneous ratification. How can we coordinate between different systems of Member States particularly when some require ratification by referenda and others by Parliament? We need to respect the ratification system of each Member State. Saying this, we encourage governments to come together and decide on as short a timeframe as possible for agreement and ratification of a Treaty according to their national requirements.\nWe voted in favour of CA28 as the language is more reflective of the reality than that of the PSE amendment regarding ratification in France and the Netherlands.\n(Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)\nFran\u00e7oise Castex \nin writing. - (FR) I abstained during the final vote on the Bar\u00f3n-Brok report on the roadmap for the Union's constitutional process.\nIndeed, the rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by two Member States in fact nullifies the proposal submitted for ratification by the Member States in 2005. This established fact must therefore be taken into account by the Heads of State or Government who cannot keep the initial text even 'in a different format'.\nEqually, the process of drafting a new treaty must not take place at the expense of European democracy by means of a mere intergovernmental conference.\nRichard Corbett \nin writing. The Socialist group has approved this resolution by an overwhelming majority. I should add on behalf of the Labour MEPs that the EPLP fully supports the main conclusion of this report, namely \"a commitment to calling an Intergovernmental Conference and the definition of a roadmap containing a procedure, a clear mandate and a clear objective of reaching an agreement before the end of this year\". However, we thought that it was inappropriate to single out some - but not other - elements contained in the Constitutional Treaty as being essential, as the new treaty will only see the light of day if it is acceptable to all 27 member states.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour because I feel it is crucial and increasingly urgent that we find solutions whereby we can overcome the problems and challenges facing the EU, both internally and externally. This report is well-balanced and represents an important contribution to resolving the institutional deadlock in which the Union finds itself at the earliest opportunity. The Union must be given adequate resources to meet the citizens' concerns regarding the challenges of globalisation and climate change, thereby contributing towards strengthening the democratic control over its decision-making processes.\nThe new Treaty, regardless of the name and the structure it is eventually given, must retain the thrust of the text already ratified by a number of Member States and at the same time incorporate the amendments needed to obtain the consensus it cannot do without. With the right legislative and budgetary procedures for giving the EU the maximum amount of decision-making ability and for making its policies as effective as possible, the new Treaty may help resolve some of the serious problems that Europe is facing.\nIlda Figueiredo \nThe adoption of this report is definitive proof of the flagrant disregard for the sovereign decision made by the people of France and the Netherlands, demonstrating once again that Parliament's concept of democracy does not extend as far as respect for the sovereign decisions of people expressed via referendums.\nThis decision taken by the majority in Parliament demonstrates that the 'period of reflection' was nothing more than a means of overlooking the negative result of the two referendums and of preventing others, in which there could be further rejections of the so-called European Constitution, from being held.\nTwo years on, more pressure is being exerted to step up the capitalist penetration of the EU, the neoliberal policies, the ever-faster militarisation and the centralisation of power into the hands of supranational institutions, which are becoming increasingly distant from the citizens and dominated by the major powers.\nIt is unacceptable for Parliament to confer on itself a legitimacy it does not have, which is precisely what it is doing in its attempts to interfere with the timetable and content of the process, that is to say, in the sovereign decision of different countries, and to coordinate ratification processes.\nWe are in favour of a more democratic, fairer Europe that is characterised by solidarity, a Europe that promotes peace and cooperation with people from all parts of the world, a Europe that complies with the principle of sovereign States with equal rights.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) The federalist majority in the European Parliament are not ideologically representative of their electorates as far as matters pertaining to the EU Constitution are concerned. At present, everything possible is being done to avoid asking the voters for their opinions on Europe's future via referendums. We are in favour of arranging referendums on such matters, but we do not believe that the European Parliament is the proper body to push through referendums in the Member States.\nThe federalist majority would now like to secure as much as possible of the supranationalism from the old draft Constitutional Treaty by means of simply changing the title of the draft EU Constitution.\nWe have therefore voted against the report submitted by Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs.\nThe Union needs a treaty that builds on the self-determination of the Member States and through which, together, we regulate how cross-border issues are to be managed.\nPedro Guerreiro \nOne only has to read point 6 to justify rejecting the Resolution. According to Point 6, the Resolution 'reaffirms its commitment to achieving a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the European Union that is based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation ...'\nThese few words lay bare the true intention of the current (cosy) negotiations taking place in the Council - in other words, between the governments run by the Portuguese Socialists, the German Christian Democrat\/Social Democrat coalition, and so on - which are purely and simply an attempt to (re)impose the thrust of the Treaty rejected by France and the Netherlands. This is indicative of deep disdain for the democratic sovereign will expressed by the people of these two countries in national referendums.\nDuring the debate, did anyone actually ask whether they 'take people for fools'? Yet it is precisely because they do not 'take people for fools' that the political forces of the right and the social democrats, in cahoots with one another, negotiate 'behind closed doors' and keep their cards close to their chests so as to preclude the risk of failure.\nThe German Presidency moves full steam ahead, claiming it has a 'mandate' to 'preserve' the content and 'substance' of the so-called 'European Constitution' in the 'new' draft Treaty to be presented by December 2007 (!) and ratified by 2009.\nIn a word, unacceptable.\nDan J\u00f8rgensen \nin writing. (DA) The Danish Social Democratic delegation in the European Parliament has voted in favour of the own-initiative report on the roadmap for the Union's Constitutional Process. We should like to emphasise in this connection that the issue of how and when the individual Member State chooses to ratify a new Treaty should continue to be a matter for itself as a sovereign nation.\nWe think it sensible, however, so to coordinate the ratification process that, irrespective of the forms it might take in individual Member States, it is conducted in such a way that it will be possible formally to complete it in all the countries simultaneously, as indicated in paragraph 20 of the report.\nMarie-No\u00eblle Lienemann \nin writing. - (FR) I believe that the majority of the European Parliament has not sought to respond to the message sent out by the EU populations that rejected the Constitutional Treaty. By rejecting Amendment 1, Parliament has refused to allow the people to be consulted by referendum on any new treaty. The fact is, this element is crucial because the opportunity for them to impose social policies or policies matching their aspirations depends on it. This is a major shortcoming of the European Union. That is why I shall vote against this report.\nMairead McGuinness \nin writing. I voted against paragraph 20 (original text) in the above-mentioned report as I believe that the proposal to hold a ratification process simultaneously across all EU Member States is impractical.\nAthanasios Pafilis \nin writing. - (EL) The report endeavours to resuscitate the European Constitution. The European Parliament is insultingly ignoring the rejection and condemnation of the 'European Constitution', through referenda, by the French and Dutch people and by the other peoples whose governments have deprived them of the right to express themselves.\nThe familiar coalition of the political spokesmen of capital (conservatives, socialists and liberals) and the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance is calling on the governments of the Member States to come to an agreement before the end of 2007, to adopt and enforce the 'European Constitution' before the European elections in 2009, with the same reactionary content, perhaps packaged differently, in order to deceive the peoples.\nThere can be no progressive 'European Constitution' of the imperialist EU of capital. Any 'Constitutional' Treaty will be a treaty which safeguards and promotes the interests and ambitions of big, Euro-unifying business, just like the current treaties of the EU and, previously, of the EEC.\nThe European plutocracy, the imperialists and their servants need a European Constitution, in order to shield their power, in order to safeguard the capitalist system, in order to strike at the rights of the working class and the peoples of Europe, in order to repress the grassroots movements and in order to step up their aggressive policy of intervention and war.\nIt is in the interests of the people to bury the 'Constitutional Treaty' and the EU itself once and for all.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1 \nin writing. (SK) Critics frequently describe the EU as a strong organisation which meddles in too many areas. As an MEP for Slovakia, a new Member State which has only recently acceded to the Union, I feel that we should have a stronger Europe capable of greater action. For this reason I believe it is essential to adopt a revised constitutional document, that is, to have clear rules of the game. The Union needs to reform the founding treaties in a way which would enjoy broad public support.\nI appreciate the efforts by Chancellor Angela Merkel to lead the Union out of its constitutional crisis by introducing a road map offering appropriate solutions for the problems that the European Union is facing both internally and externally, as well as the problems associated with the expansion and deepening of the EU's political dimension.\nAn enlarged EU needs tools and means to operate efficiently, to strengthen its role in the world, and to address the concerns of its citizens against the background of challenges brought about inter alia by globalisation, climate change, the need to ensure energy supply and an ageing population. Many of the issues which provoked some of the greatest concern among the European public, such as the directive on services in the internal market and the financial framework, have since been resolved.\nAs reiterated in the Berlin Declaration on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, we must build the EU on a renewed joint foundation and we must do so before the 2009 elections for the European Parliament. This is why I have voted in favour of the report by the rapporteurs Enrique Bar\u00f3n Crespo and Elmar Brok.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nHad a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty taken place in Portugal, in the wording and circumstances of two years ago, I would have voted 'yes'. Among other things, the institutional stability that would have arisen would have been beneficial to the EU. As events turned out, precisely as stipulated, two countries exercised their right to a veto, which represents a considerable change in circumstances. We must now respond to reality, not in spite of it.\nI still believe that the institutional architecture needs to be adjusted to accommodate the reality of 'Europe' enlarged to 27 and as such I feel that the best solution is the maximalist solution to overcoming the difficulties arising from this new set of circumstances - if only to ensure that the solution reached is a stable one - but a minimalist solution to introducing amendments that, no matter how much the authors of the proposed Treaty would like, were rejected. Realism is no less virtuous than idealism.\nLastly, I feel that as regards the referendum, and the possibility of holding one in Portugal, the further away the solution is from the Constitutional Treaty, the less the need for a referendum; and vice-versa, of course.\nOlle Schmidt \nin writing. (SV) I abstained in the vote on the roadmap for the draft Constitutional Treaty in respect of an amendment stating that all countries 'shall' hold referendums. I am in favour of referendums, but this is something that each Member State must decide for itself. The German constitution, for example, does not recognise the instrument of referendums.\nPeter Skinner \nin writing. I, along with my EPLP colleagues, voted to abstain on critical issues of this report, which, even as an own-initiative endeavour, is inappropriate on certain levels.\nParagraph 5 is an ambiguous reference to the Member States that have not put the text to ratification yet. There are also issues where inappropriate demands are made on a list of issues or concern idle threats to reject Council negotiations. Alongside this is a request to hold simultaneous ratification, which could present serious problems in many Member States.\nHowever, there were other serious issues which could be supported and where I could support them, I did.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna \nin writing. (PL) This is a very significant report, which will enable the European Parliament to make its views on the action plan regarding the European Union's constitutional process heard at the forthcoming June European Council.\nEvery effort should be made to preserve the content of the treaty, whilst at the same time including in the text provisions on the new challenges facing Europe. I could mention climate change, social Europe, the war on terror, inter-cultural dialogue and economic management. It is also important to point out that the so-called mini-treaty does not seem to provide a solution to this difficult situation.\nThe European Council should convene an intergovernmental conference as soon as possible and reach a compromise before the end of 2007, so that decisions on the ratification process can be taken by the end of 2008. This would allow the incoming Parliament elected in 2009 to operate within the framework of the new Constitutional Treaty.\nPedro Guerreiro \nThe debate on the definition of the functions of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) comes through clearly in Parliament's resolution, and in the conclusions of the Council. It is abundantly clear that attempts are being made to control and manipulate the UNHCR.\nIt is in this context that one must understand the criticism and pressure from the EU, regarding, firstly, the manner in which some countries have been elected to the body - the EU opposes the so-called 'clean slate' principle and favours the introduction of eligibility criteria; secondly, the 'special procedure' for increasing the mandates per country and the possibility of creating new mandates by simple majority - and the absence of a 'code of conduct' for this mechanism; and thirdly, the modalities of the 'Universal Periodic Review'.\nIn other words, what is needed is, on the one hand, to continue to monitor the development of the UNHCR, especially given the USA and its allies are known to manipulate it, and on the other hand, to support our proposals to promote fundamental freedoms, rights and guarantees, social progress, peace and solidarity, the rejection of the use of human rights to disguise a policy of interventionism and aggression towards sovereign peoples and States.\nCarlo Fatuzzo\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a representative of the Pensioners' Party I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Gibault on artists' working conditions and pensions.\nThere are artists who become very famous and certainly do not need the European Parliament to facilitate their movement and pension conditions, but there are also excellent artists who unfortunately do not have great success; such artists, and there are many of them, are nonetheless human beings - workers and pensioners who deserve the same respect as all other citizens.\nThere are artists who live a life of work and poverty, unprotected by regulation and without being shown respect. This is all the more serious when the person to whom a lack of respect is shown has a sensitive soul, as artists have.\nThat is why I voted in favour, and I hope that Europe will do more for artists all over Europe and throughout the world.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of Claire Gibault's report on the social status of artists. I want to support her commendable work in this area, as she, an artist herself, cares about European artists' livelihoods.\nWe of course know that many artists today depend for their livelihood on very short-term contracts in different countries in Europe. It is therefore very relevant to ensure that artists in Europe also enjoy proper social status and receive social security, and thus in time a pension, because it is a fact that we in Europe want to promote education and culture. We want to promote the European cultural arena because we know that it is the most important area in decision-making in Europe. If that is healthy, we can then also build both a single market and a foreign and security policy upon it.\nI actually voted in favour of this report as a European, as a Finn and as a member of the Finnish Centre Party, Keskusta, which also represents the Finnish cultural movement.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour of this report because I feel it is important that European artists can benefit from an appropriate level of integration in their professional activities.\nEuropean standards must be applied with a view to having a dynamic and innovative European cultural policy in all branches of the arts, enabling us to offer artists the social guarantees enjoyed by all other European workers.\nIlda Figueiredo \nWe know that this report addresses issues that need to be treated with special care. Yet there are two points that must be made. First and foremost, it is necessary to confer on artists labour and social rights, in view of the specific nature of their activities and in compliance with the freedom of expression and creation.\nWe therefore feel it is crucial to take account of the activities of those working in creative arts and to improve their social status. We are critical, however, of some of the proposals in this report on which Parliament has voted.\nWe know that cultural democratisation can only take place under the right conditions and that these times in which we live, characterised as they are by ever deepening neoliberalism, are not conducive to improving the working conditions and the creativity of most artists. In Portugal, the situation in this area is complicated too, with attacks on the rights gained and cuts in cultural and artistic activities, in which everybody - the artists and the population as a whole - loses out. We hope, however, that something can be done to give more visibility to these issues.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) The ability of artists to make a living is an important issue, but it is one that the Member States have responsibility for resolving politically in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.\nWe have therefore voted against this report.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nin writing. (PL) Mrs Gibault's report aimed at improving employment conditions for artists deserves strong support. Most of the difficulties encountered by artists working in Community countries other than their country of origin are not due to cultural issues. They relate for example to mobility, visa policy, health policy, social security, unemployment and pensions.\nThe report urges the Commission and the Member States to introduce a European Professional Register for artists. This would contain information on the status of each artist, the nature and duration of contracts, together with information on employers. The register would make it possible to transfer pension entitlements and social benefits acquired by artists in third countries when they returned to their country of origin. It would also allow experience gained whilst working in a Member State to be taken into account.\nThe challenge facing European cultural policy is the creation of a dynamic cultural environment that is creative and innovative with respect to all types of art. By supporting this report we are committing ourselves to providing artists with the social guarantees enjoyed by all other European workers.\nDaniel Stro\u017e \nin writing. (CS) I shall be voting in favour of the adoption of the report on the social status of artists. I feel that this will be a step towards resolving this problem, albeit one that merely scratches the surface and that will require further work.\nI feel that the report implicitly places the emphasis on performing artists and rather overlooks literature, which is a highly creative and important branch of the arts. As far as the report is concerned, writers are mere amateurs whose work is rarely classified as 'professional artistic activity'.\nAs for the conditions that exist in, say, the Czech Republic, I know of only one solitary author who is 'allowed' to be a professional artist. Furthermore, there is clear and convincing evidence that the Unie \u010desk\u00fdch spisovatel\u016f (Czech Writers' Union) - a left-leaning Czech writers' organisation - has for years been silenced and segregated by the Czech Culture Ministry. This only goes to show the sorry state of support for the art of writing.\nThe report also fails to define what is meant by the term 'European artist' even though it uses the term on a number of occasions. Do writers come into this category? If so, I feel that they cannot be measured in the same way as so-called performing artists.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I voted in favour of this report but with a cautionary note in terms of the proposed increase in spending on information, as it would relate to a proposal to bring local journalists here to Brussels. We would need to be very clear about what we are going to do with the local journalists and ensure that we make information that is available here relevant to the people who read and listen to local media. I do not think we have done that particularly well in the past, so we need more details on this issue.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) Mr President, today Parliament adopted a resolution concerning the United Nations Human Rights Council and its fifth session. As one of the authors of this resolution, I am very pleased that all political groups have agreed on an assessment of the first year of operation of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and which shortcomings it needs to attend to. They have also authorised a European Parliament ad hoc delegation, which will participate next week in the fifth Human Rights Council plenary session - a session, which is particularly important for the future of this organisation.\nAs one of the authors of this resolution and a member of the delegation, I would like to thank Parliament and my colleagues for supporting the resolution.\nPedro Guerreiro \nWith regard to Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2008, we wish to highlight just two of the many aspects worthy of consideration.\nThe first concerns the plan to earmark EUR 10 300 000 in 2008 for 'an awareness campaign in view of the 2009 European elections' and EUR 900 000 for implementation of the Parliamentary Television Channel. This is a matter of particular concern given that no detailed information or justifications have been given regarding the use of these financial resources. For example, how will they be used, and by whom? What are the actions to be funded? Who is to decide how they are to be used, and according to what criteria?\nMight it be that this 'awareness campaign' is being used, rather like the referendums on the lapsed Constitutional Treaty, as a covert way of using Community money, scandalously, to fund propaganda campaigns to promote the content of the Treaty?\nThe second is the effective guarantee and exercise of multilingualism in the European institutions and, in this case, Parliament. We wish to highlight the fact that the increasing outsourcing of language and translation services, and other types of unstable contract, inevitably affects the quality of the service and undermines the rights of those providing this service.\nOlle Schmidt \nin writing. (SV) In the first amendment, Mr Lundgren points out that the travelling circus moving between the three different places of work results in absurdly high costs. With that much I agree. The problem lies with the accusation, which finds its way into the third amendment, that the EU would be going in for questionable property speculation. The opposite is, of course, true: the European Parliament saves money by owning its buildings. Because there were parts of the proposal I agreed with, I abstained from voting in the first case and voted against in the second.\nIn the second amendment, Mr Lundgren expresses the view that the EU should refrain from conducting centralised campaigns. In this matter too, I am in agreement: it is unlikely that Europeans would have a more positive attitude towards the EU as a result of the Commission's communications strategies. I would have difficulty, however, objecting to the EU choosing to invest resources in providing information about its activities in the run-up to a European Parliament election. It is by working constructively, notably in our own countries between elections, that we are best at providing information at local level. It is when we engage in constructive politics that we are best at communicating policy.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"European Authentic Act - E-Justice - Cross-border implications of the legal protection of adults (debate) \nPresident. -The next item on the agenda is the joint debate on\nManuel Medina Ortega's report, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, with recommendations to the Commission on the European Authentic Act,\nDiana Wallis' report, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, concerning recommendations to the Commission on e-justice, and\nAntonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White's report, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, with recommendations to the Commission on cross-border implications of the legal protection of adults.\nManuel Medina Ortega\nMr President, this is an initiative by Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs that aims to achieve recognition of European authentic acts.\nThis initiative of Parliament calls on the Commission to adopt the measures that it considers appropriate. It is based on the Hague Programme, namely the recognition not only of judicial decisions but also of authentic acts.\nThe purpose of this initiative is to facilitate the position of consumers within the European Union.\nThe formalities required for recognising such acts are both expensive and time-consuming.\nIt seems we should therefore facilitate the movement or recognition of such authentic acts so that whenever there is a cross-border formality, such as a marriage, a contract or something similar, it is not necessary to have to go through cumbersome procedures.\nThe difficulty that this report may present is the nature of the European authentic act or public document itself, which is recognised in most of the countries in the European Union but not in others.\nThere are countries where the system of the European authentic act issued by a public official does not exist. Instead there are simple private documents legalised by a notary public, although the nature of the document does not vary.\nThe precedent for this proposal is the Unibank judgment by the European Court of Justice, which laid down a number of requirements for the recognition of authentic acts. In specific terms, the first requirement was that public officials should issue them. In other words, the person authenticating the act must in some way be a public official, a position that does not exist in some EU countries, which therefore do not have this ability.\nSecondly, the act must ensure that the will of the parties is appropriate to the achievement of particular legal purposes. The notarial act, under continental law at least, has a certain constituent character in that the parties express their will in it, but it is the notarial officer who performs the act.\nThirdly, the act cannot produce an effect that goes beyond that which is recognised in its country of origin. That is to say, if an act is merely probative in its country of origin, it cannot be considered an enforceable act.\nI would say that these three factors are fundamental: firstly, the person authorising the act must have the status of a public official; secondly, the act is constitutive in nature and does not merely certify a signature; and thirdly, it must not produce effects other than those it would produce in its country of origin.\nOne area that very clearly needs to be excluded is all matters relating to property law. The law on immovable property appears to be closely tied to the land, to the place where the property is located. The possibility for transfers in this field is therefore limited by the existence of public registers and the fact that each country has strict legislation imposing special requirements in this area.\nI hope the Commission will consider this proposal and will be able to submit an initiative. Specifically, the relevant legal bases are Article 65(a) and the second indent of Article 67(5) of the EC Treaty.\nI believe that the legal basis is adequate and that this kind of initiative would facilitate legal relations between citizens and, above all, would improve their lives.\nThe difficulty that the Commission can and will raise is the problem of the diversity of our legal systems, but I think this is a matter that we will have time to discuss at a later stage, once the Commission has submitted its proposal.\nDiana Wallis\nrapporteur. - Mr President, e-justice seems to have been very much at the centre of both the previous Slovenian and French presidencies and we know that the coming Czech presidency also wishes to continue the good work on e-justice.\nE-justice within this Parliament, and certainly within the Committee on Legal Affairs, also chimes in with the theme that we have long had close to our hearts, that of access to justice and how we provide access to justice on a cross-border basis. It is hard enough to get access to justice even in a national context: we think about access to lawyers, about affordability, about being able to understand or to comprehend the legal system. But put that into a European cross-border context, with different legal cultures and languages, and it becomes even more complex and difficult for our citizens to access.\nBut we should be able to harness those difficulties and put them together with all the possibilities offered by modern technology. If Europe is borderless, so is the internet; if languages are difficult, technological tools now offer us the possibility of instant translation. We should be able to develop the technological possibilities to deliver better cross-border access to justice.\nIt is clear that a number of our Member States have seen the possibilities within their own borders and are developing their own systems. That is good! Also there is joint working on a number of projects - some to provide linked-up registers to deal with businesses and land registries - and, again, it is good.\nBut for us, as parliamentarians, what we really want to see is something that delivers directly to our citizens and to their concerns about justice in their daily lives. We want Europe's citizens to feel the difference of an e-justice project at European level.\nIt appears that the work on the justice portal may do that: it may give information about who, what, where, which lawyers, which interpreters, where to get legal aid - all sorts of information. The project is ambitious, and it will need to be.\nBut we do not want to just stop there, at information. We would like to see the real possibility of access to cross-border justice online, to see those European instruments of the payment order, of small claims available to our citizens online. It is clear that some Member States are working on joint projects and, again, it is good that we harness that enthusiasm and that ambition. However, we also need the Commission to keep the European context - to keep it as a European ambition - so that we move forward together in a coordinated way. That is why, attached to Parliament's report, there is an action plan that brings out many of these themes. This could deliver our dream of a real Europe of borderless justice. Let us make it happen.\nAntonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White\nMr President, Minister, Vice-President of the Commission, the report I am presenting to you today deals with the protection of adults in the European Union. It has been difficult to address this subject in such a short time, especially as it has such broad, cross-cutting aims.\nMoreover, the report was the subject of several different views within the Committee on Legal Affairs as regards the direction that it should take.\nWe are dealing with this text today in a joint debate with two other reports from the Committee on Legal Affairs: one on the European authentic act by Mr Medina Ortega, and the e-Justice report by Mrs Wallis.\nThe improved coordination between these separate instruments produced by our committee has doubtless made our proposals more effective and will certainly provide Europe's citizens with a better service.\nFirst of all I should like to congratulate the French Presidency on the excellent job it has done over the last six months in leading the European Union. In this case I must especially thank the French Minister for Justice, Mrs Dati, for the interest she has shown in taking this issue forward beyond the established provisions to reach new, practical and effective solutions for all the Member States.\nWhile I am on the French theme, I would also like to give a special mention to the judge and adviser to the Minister for Justice, Am\u00e9lie Durand, and to my French colleagues who have played an active role, including Mr Gauz\u00e8s and Mr Toubon.\nOur Committee on Legal Affairs has shared the Presidency's concern regarding the subject that has brought us together here today: the protection of vulnerable adults. It therefore decided to draw up an own-initiative legislative report in order to make progress and reach new solutions from which our adult citizens could gain the greatest benefit.\nOur committee has also recently been highly involved in the approval of a package of civil law measures, including mediation, the service of documents and the law applicable to torts.\nEvidence of that was the hearing of the Forum on judicial cooperation in civil matters, which took place on 2 December in the Committee on Legal Affairs, in association with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, at which one of the items on the agenda was the need for protection of adults in our society.\nLadies and gentlemen, this is a subject that concerns all of the Member States, since the European Union is experiencing the increased ageing of its population. By 2050, 37% of people will be over 60 and 10% over 80.\nIt is important to remember that this situation has not just economic but budgetary and health implications that affect us all. We need to start finding solutions to these problems as soon as possible.\nThis report seeks to create an area of justice, freedom and security by two main routes: law enforcement, and cooperation among the competent authorities of the various Member States.\nAs I mentioned previously, this report had come a long way before it was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Legal Affairs on 17 December.\nA compromise amendment was reached, which brought together the differing viewpoints held by the members of our committee. This amendment, which has now become Article 2 of the final report, is key to this report, since it reconciles the possibility for Member States to incorporate the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 into their own legislation.\nIn addition, the report provides that in future, once sufficient experience has been gained in this field, the Commission should be called on to submit a legislative proposal to strengthen cooperation among Member States and improve the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the protection of adults and incapacity mandates.\nI would like to point out to the House that, to date, only four countries have signed the Hague Convention and only eight have ratified it. We call on the Member States to ratify this convention so that we can be more consistent and effective in dealing with this issue that affects us all.\nIt should be remembered that under the Treaty establishing the European Community, the power to legislate lies in the European Commission. As we all know, however, there is a small provision in the Treaty - Article 192 - which grants Parliament the right to ask the Commission to draw up a proposal for legislation.\nLadies and gentlemen, we would like to apply this article. I will end by saying that, as the report states, the Commission should, in future, monitor the experience gained with the Hague Convention, in order to propose Community provisions supplementing the Convention and suggesting possible additional instruments for the future.\nRachida Dati\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, I am fortunate to have the opportunity, once again, to talk to this House and, as such, I should like to thank you, on behalf of the Presidency, for the progress made in the field of justice.\nAfter the previous debate, which concerned the life of businesses, the reports that are to be discussed now concern the everyday lives of European citizens. These are issues that have been addressed on numerous occasions under the French Presidency, in particular during the colloquiums organised on the movement of authentic acts and on the legal protection of adults.\nAs you know, the French Presidency has tried hard to make progress with a Europe of justice through practical projects, in order to bring the European institutions closer to our fellow citizens, and - as Mrs Wallis said just now - the Slovenian Presidency also did a great deal in this connection, and we have continued its work.\nThe three texts that appear on our agenda this morning are testimony to this: the Medina Ortega report on the European Authentic Act, the Wallis report on e-justice, and the L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White report on the legal protection of adults. Indeed, they correspond to the Presidency's desire to promote new initiatives in order not only to have new tools adopted, but also to exchange our methods, to compare our practices and to look ahead to the future.\nWith regard to the report on authentic acts, the Presidency firstly commends the initiative taken by Mr Medina Ortega and the quality of his report. The interest shown by this House in the recognition and movement of authentic acts in Europe demonstrates that this is an important issue in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters. This work is part of our desire to make the everyday lives of our fellow citizens, but also of our businesses, easier, and the law is above all made in order to ease social relations, with referrals to court remaining a necessary exception.\nIt is also important for the European Union to make a commitment along these lines. The authentic act is a key element in the lives of families and businesses, whether it be a marriage contract, a settlement, a will, a bill of sale or a contract between businesses. It enables people, as part of a non-contractual relationship, to entrust a recognised authority with the task of certifying the commitments it wishes to make and of dealing with the full consequences of this in advance by making this act enforceable. However, your work also shows that we must consider which conditions need to be set for an authentic act to be able to move freely within Europe, no matter what the field.\nThere is no doubt that this idea will have to be taken into account in the European Commission's future legislative programme. The discussion of authentic acts will not stop us from reflecting further on ways of improving the movement of other types of act. We need to move forward gradually, but we also need to lay down an extremely clear framework. It is possible to relax the conditions and the procedures for the mutual recognition of authentic acts because they offer enhanced guarantees.\nIf anyone wants to submit to the system acts that offer unequal guarantees, our aim will have to be scaled down, and this will obviously be problematic. Parliament's point of view as it emerges from this report is largely in keeping with the guidelines developed and proposed by the Presidency. Your report, Mr Medina Ortega, will serve as a crucial foundation for future work, since the Presidency will take due note of today's debate.\nImproving and strengthening the European judicial area also means improving and modernising the way in which justice works, which in turn depends on our using new methods of communication; this is the essence of the e-justice project. The aim of the project is to develop, within a European cross-border context, the use of new information and communication technologies. This should enable us to strengthen the links between our judicial systems and to facilitate exchanges. Moreover, the framework decision that was adopted on the networking of criminal records plays a large part in this. The action plan on European e-justice, which was submitted at the last JHA Council of 28 November, is in line with the work done by successive presidencies, since the German Presidency.\nOver the last six months we have endeavoured to draw up a draft action plan on European e-justice that is as balanced as possible, by taking account of the Member States involved in this project, of this House's position, but also of the role that will have to be played by the Commission. Our objectives are shared by Parliament, and, as such, the Presidency should like once again to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Wallis, for her commitment to this matter and for her high-quality report. The intense debate conducted at the European Parliament has enriched the Presidency's draft and has ultimately meant that we have ended up with a draft that has everyone's support.\nFacilitating access and safeguarding the free movement of persons and of judicial decisions are objectives that can be fully achieved only if they take account of the most vulnerable in society. This is one of the reasons why the French Presidency wanted the situation of adults subject to legal protection measures to be improved.\nIndeed, protected adults must be able to enjoy the same freedom of movement as other citizens, regardless of the protection they receive. The Presidency is pleased that this issue has been addressed within Parliament, and thanks its rapporteur, Mr L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White, for his proposals on the legal protection of adults. This is an obvious sign of our common interest.\nThe Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 is due to come into force on 1 January, between France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Other EU Member States have signed it over the last six months. They are: Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Poland. It is important that all the Member States be able to participate in this instrument. I know that the future Czech and Swedish Presidencies will make a commitment in this area - they have indicated as much during this French Presidency - and, more broadly speaking, the movement of judicial decisions made in relation to the protection of adults must feature among our objectives.\nIt is on this condition that we will project the image of a Europe that is capable of responding to the needs of its citizens, including the most vulnerable ones. Your report makes an important contribution. In this connection, too, the French Presidency hopes that this issue can be incorporated into the Commission's future legislative programme, Mr Barrot. This is a major social issue. I know that this is a subject to which priority has been given and which is crucial to the Commission and to you, in particular, Mr Barrot. It is also proof that Europe, by creating a more certain legal environment, is also protecting its most vulnerable citizens.\nThe Presidency would like to thank you for these contributions, and I shall, of course, take due note of the comments made during this debate.\nJacques Barrot\nVice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to be able to take my turn in congratulating the authors of these three reports, and I would say to Mrs Dati that, really, these reports are perfectly in keeping with the efforts which have been made by the French Presidency and to which we have obviously given full consideration. I believe that we have really laid the foundations of this European legal and judicial area to which I am personally very committed and which we are going to build together, via the Stockholm programme, in particular.\nIt is therefore true that this debate this morning has come at exactly the right time. Mrs Dati has already given a very thorough review of the three reports, but I am nonetheless going to briefly repeat what she said in order to confirm the Commission's intentions.\nFirstly, please accept my thanks, Mr Medina Ortega. Mr Medina Ortega has presented us with an excellent report on the European Authentic Act. Certainly it is the everyday lives of consumers and citizens that are at stake, and the recommendations that you make to the Commission genuinely affect the lives of our fellow citizens, both as individuals and as businesses.\nIndeed, individual citizens and businesses often aim to take decisions relating to family matters or commercial transactions simply by means of a voluntary agreement authenticated by a public body, and it is quite clear that, in this area of free movement, authentic acts must also be able to move.\nHowever, this freedom of movement has been only partially realised today and, as you know, alongside the existing instruments, we have obviously provided for new measures. I am currently working on these: there are those that have just been adopted - and thank you, Mrs Dati, for the maintenance obligations - I am also preparing, Mr Medina Ortega, the measure on succession for March 2009. I am well aware, however, that there is still more work to be done, and that is why the Commission is going to prepare a Green Paper on the authentic act and possibly on other public documents, to really have the opportunity of a broad-based consultation on this subject.\nIt is clear, however, that, in this context, your report and the study prepared by the European Parliament will be very useful. Furthermore, as you stressed, there is also a need, in my view - I agree with you - for a legal basis that will enable us to take an initiative, while recognising that the diversity of our legal systems will nonetheless require in-depth work in order to make such action possible. However, thank you once again for this excellent work.\nI turn now to Mrs Wallis, who very much emphasised this need to modernise the way in which justice works, and it is true that the action plan that has just been adopted under the French Presidency is of huge interest to the Czech Presidency. Therefore, by taking up your report, Mrs Wallis, we shall be able to see how we can fully make use of this access to e-justice.\nYou mentioned, in particular, cases in which such access would be hugely beneficial when it comes to settling small claims, for example. There is no doubt that your recommendations will help us to enhance the measures already taken by the Commission and will enrich the debates and the decisions taken at the European Council.\nWe shall work together to ensure that European e-justice permits easier access to information on European legislation, on national legal systems and on European procedures. I should also like to point out that the planned portal will be set up at the end of December 2009, at the latest. We are obviously going to work on this in close cooperation with Parliament. This European e-justice portal is therefore to come into operation by the end of December 2009, without fail. It is intended for European citizens, but we shall also see about how to resolve issues that more directly affect the judicial authorities.\nOnce again, I am very happy to see this synergy between our European institutions - the Council, Parliament and the Commission - on this subject; I believe, Mrs Wallis, that, in line with your wish for us to be careful and not to limit our ambition but rather to apply it to e-justice, the French Presidency and Mrs Dati have demonstrated such ambition. Rest assured that, as a commissioner, I shall be very committed in this regard.\nLastly, I come to the report by Mr L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White; I am also very grateful to him for having taken up Mrs Dati's excellent initiative by having us work in Lille on this subject that is so important in our societies. Indeed, we know that our societies are going to comprise more and more people aged over 65 - this category already accounts for 16% of the total European population - and we are therefore convinced of the importance of protecting vulnerable adults. That is why we gave our very strong support to the French initiative by calling on the Member States to ratify the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000. Thanks to the stubborn determination of Mrs Dati, this Convention is going to come into force on 1 January 2009.\nMrs Dati listed a number of countries that are at the present time already members of this Convention. Their membership will once again, I believe, have a snowball effect and enable us to convince all the Member States to ratify this Convention.\nIt is true that there are no existing instruments at Community level. We have not yet mentioned the development of an existing instrument. We are going to look very closely at the application of this Convention, and then we are obviously going to incorporate this proposal in the framework of the Stockholm programme. We are going to examine all measures that will enable the Member States to cooperate more with one another and then we will be able to incorporate a possible Community initiative in this regard.\nThat is what I can say on this subject, which I personally recognise is very important. In any case, thank you, this morning's debate in the presence of Mrs Dati has already enabled us to see how we will go about proposing an ambitious Stockholm programme that lives up to the expectations of the people of Europe, who want this European judicial area. Thank you, Parliament.\nPanayiotis Demetriou\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. - (EL) Mr President, first of all allow me to congratulate the French Presidency for everything it has achieved to date, especially in the field of justice. I should also like to congratulate the Commissioner. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs endorses the positions of the rapporteur Antonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White, as expressed in his report. Our elderly fellow human beings, who have limited capacities, like all our fellow men who have problems, cannot be left legally unprotected; they cannot be left victim to fate and often in the hands of opportunistic protectors, who sometimes humiliate and take advantage of them. Every society, every state with rule of law has a duty to pass judicial and administrative decisions and acts which safeguard the dignity and property of elderly people and the European Union has a cross-border responsibility. I call on the Commission to help and to exert pressure on the Member States to sign and ratify the Hague Convention, which provides a framework for such protection. I call on all my fellow Members from countries which have not done so to work to make this a reality.\nLuca Romagnoli\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the French Presidency, Commissioner Barrot and all the rapporteurs, because technological development is moving inexorably forward and the justice system cannot escape this fact.\nI believe that the introduction of information and communication technologies in judicial administration offers many possible solutions, by improving the way the judiciary functions, thereby helping to rationalise and streamline procedures and thus reduce costs. E-justice could also bring undoubted benefits and meet several different needs, the most important of all being access to justice and improvements in terms of efficiency and reducing time and costs. It is therefore crucial that e-justice aims to develop the use of information technologies by the judiciary, all the more so when we consider that almost ten million European citizens are involved in cross-border civil proceedings and that this figure is likely to increase in the future.\nIn addition to citizens we must also consider the benefits for those who work in the legal sector, not forgetting, therefore, the procedures in the area of judicial and penal cooperation. As I have already had seen in my work as the rapporteur of the report on the Electronic Court Register Informational System (ECRIS), in addition to this opinion, the potential sphere of application of electronic justice is vast and is destined to evolve in line with progress on the European judicial area as well as technological developments. I therefore welcome Commissioner Barrot's earlier announcement that the portal will be operational by the end of 2009.\nI would like to conclude with the hope that our Europe can at last attain a just justice system and that the responsibility of stakeholders also can at last be shared. It is all too often the case, for example in my country, that the investigating party pays an extraordinarily high price and the tortured judicial course ends in an acquittal. In Italy judges do not have civil liability for miscarriages of justice - this is a grave social injustice and must be put right. I hope that the European judicial area will help sooner or later to rectify this great injustice.\nMy thanks go out once more to the French Presidency for their efforts on these matters and also to Mrs Wallis.\nJean-Paul Gauz\u00e8s\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Mrs Dati, Mr Barrot, firstly I should like to commend the efforts of the French Presidency and the efforts that you personally have made, Mrs Dati, to promote a better area of legal freedom and effectiveness for the benefit of our fellow citizens.\nOur rapporteurs have done an excellent job. That is why the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will endorse these three reports: the Wallis report, the L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White report and the Medina Ortega report. For my part I should like to clarify a few things regarding our group's position on the report by Mr Medina Ortega, with whom I have worked in close collaboration.\nAs you said, Mrs Dati, Mr Barrot, the idea has just been put to us in this report that we should make a considerable effort to mutually recognise authentic acts. There was a debate when this report came out concerning the possibility of an opening with regard to its terminology.\nFor our part we believe that this report concerns the authentic act, the characteristics of which have been laid down by the case-law, and that, at this stage, we should limit ourselves to the authentic acts and not create legal confusion by using inappropriate terms to expand on what ought to constitute an authentic act.\nYou said what the characteristics of the authentic act were, Mrs Dati, Mr Barrot, and I am not going to go back over them. All I would say is that, should debates be opened on other issues, on other acts that are different and that are essentially private agreements, this is not the role of this own-initiative report, which asks the real question today of how we can mutually recognise what the case-law recognises as authentic acts. I should like to thank Mr Medina Ortega once again for the excellent work he has done on this issue.\nManuel Medina Ortega\nMr President, I now find myself playing a different role. I am now speaking not as the rapporteur of my report but on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament with regard to all three reports.\nI would say that these three reports have one thing in common: they are all aimed at improving the situation for citizens. The fact is that, in this field of justice, the citizens' situation can only be improved in accordance with certain principles of balance, by taking certain factors into consideration. In the field of electronic justice, for instance, we must not let ourselves get carried away with overenthusiasm for new technologies if they might jeopardise guarantees for citizens. In other words, the concern to provide everyone with an e-mail address, for example, might result in those people who have no access to an Internet connection being excluded from justice.\nIn the specific field of my report on the authentic act, I think both the President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Dati, and Mr Barrot have highlighted the fact that legal guarantees are important here too. It is a question of taking documents that have legal value from one country to another, but not of recognising any kind of document if we have doubts as to its effectiveness. That is to say, even if a private document is notarised in a country where authentic acts do not exist, it cannot have the enforceable value that notarial acts in continental law have, since the latter have a binding enforceable value that is completely different.\nThus the balance between the need for the markets to operate effectively and the need for effective movement throughout the European Union should not lead us to abandon essential legal guarantees. Without legal guarantees, without guarantees for the people, there is no law. That, therefore, is the reason why, when the time comes to vote on these reports, the Socialist Group will continue to refine its positions in order, above all, to protect the interests of the normal, ordinary citizen, and not just the interests of the most powerful.\nDiana Wallis\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I think my group will have no difficulty, I hope, in supporting my own report and certainly that of Mr L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White.\nThe report I want to address - because it brings problems for Members across this House - is that of Mr Medina Ortega. We all share the same idea: we have freedom of movement of judgments. We would like freedom of movement of authentic acts, and I add: 'or equivalent documents'. There has been much talk about facilitating the lives of our citizens. To me, that means the lives of all Europe's citizens and it would not serve us well if a number of countries and a number of legal traditions were excluded from this area of justice. That is what will happen if we do not look more widely and have patience and tolerance for legal systems that on the face of it may appear different, but if you dig deeper have very similar ways of approaching things.\nWe have managed to recognise one another's documents. There is no earthly reason why with tolerance and care we cannot recognise one another's acts when they are done by contract or notarial act, but not in exactly the same manner and form.\nMy plea is: Please, respect the amendments that have been put today. They may not be passed, but the spirit of them is that this is a Europe of justice for all citizens and all legal cultures. It should not become exclusive.\nRyszard Czarnecki\non behalf of the UEN Group.- (PL) Mr President, we are discussing three very important reports. I would particularly like to thank Mrs Wallis for her extremely comprehensive, substantive, competent and outstanding report, which addresses all aspects of the problem. Parliament agrees with Mrs Wallis when she stresses the importance of a problem affecting at least 2% of the citizens of the Member States of the European Union. As many as 10 million of the 500 million citizens of the European Union are involved in cross-border litigation. For these people, the implementation of the most up-to-date IT systems in the field of justice might have a decisive impact, as it could make legal proceedings more efficient, simpler and shorter.\nOur proposals, if they are approved by the European Commission, can facilitate access to justice, and in addition they will limit the cost of legal proceedings, something that is important to our citizens. Support for the idea of creating two e-justice Internet portals seems justified. The first portal would benefit citizens, and would ensure that businesspeople have access to legal advice in a range of languages. The second portal, aimed at the legal profession, would be a tool to assist lawyers, judges, public prosecutors, barristers and officials working in the administration of justice.\nNew technology may also help in the fight against international crime and in the field of crime prevention, to say nothing of the widespread use of video-conferencing as an obvious means of obtaining and gathering evidence in legal proceedings.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu\n(RO) It is vital for new technologies to be introduced and used as far as possible in the judicial process. We cannot allow the justice system to remain lagging so far behind other areas in this respect. It also goes without saying that any strategy on this matter must be looked at very seriously. However, when we look at the current situation, we must keep our feet firmly on the ground.\nWithin the European Union of the 21st century, there are some courts which do not have a computer or Internet access, a fact which is also highlighted in this report. No matter which search method is used, it is still extremely difficult to access legal information, both for practitioners of the law and, in particular, for ordinary citizens looking to protect their rights. I am convinced that as part of the European finance schemes both for the area of civil justice and criminal justice there will be more funds in the future for remedying these shortcomings. Similarly, additional efforts are obviously required from Member States to make effective use of the funds currently available.\nThe report also highlights very similar problems with regard to the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, voted on just two days ago. I am sorry that this report has not been debated. Improving the way in which this network operates is undoubtedly important and will provide added value for Europe's citizens. However, the problems I have already referred to persist in this area, as well, and involve lack of information, lack of translations in all the official languages and difficulty in accessing the justice system on a cross-border basis.\nThank you for your attention. I hope once again that these problems, which are major concerns for Parliament, will feature to a larger extent on the future agenda of the Commission and Council, too, especially as ordinary citizens are expecting concrete measures from the European Union which will simplify their everyday life.\nNeena Gill\nMr President, I welcome all three reports but I shall first speak on guardianship. The protection of the most vulnerable citizens is an issue which I care very much about. We know the population of Europe is getting older: life expectancy has increased to 80 years of age today and, by 2050, 37% of the population will be over 60 years of age. Populations are also more mobile. Last year in my own country 400 000 people emigrated to retire aboard, so it is important to make sure that they receive the same protection as they would at home.\nThe challenges for European society posed by such demographic changes are many, such as we have already heard on health and social care. I believe it is crucial to enable the older generation to live an independent life and a dignified life.\nI was rapporteur last year on a report to ensure that older citizens can stay healthier and live longer and independently. The report we are debating today fits particularly well, I believe, with the proposals to ensure that they can continue to look after their own property and manage their everyday life wherever they live, free from exploitation and abuse. But I am also concerned about the Hague Convention. I welcome the Minister's action on this, but we should not just make sure that the existing legislation is ratified: we should make sure that it is effective.\nI want to say a couple of things on the Authentic Act. I welcome the initiatives to cut down administrative burdens for our citizens, but I, too, am concerned that this report does not take into account the different legal traditions that exist within the Community, including different legal instruments such as the English deed or different forms of notarial professions as exist in England. I believe the report, as it stands, risks undermining the national law of certain Member States, particularly mine, in terms of administration of estates. I believe that ignoring such differences would go against the principle of mutual recognition and the aim of achieving equal access to justice for all citizens. For these reasons, I and my delegation are supporting the amendments by Mrs Wallis.\nI very much welcome Mrs Wallis's report on e-justice. I think some of the issues we are raising in the other reports are interlinked, so it means that wherever people are in the European Union they will have equal access to justice.\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi\n(RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs: Diana Wallis, Manuel Medina Ortega and Antonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White for their excellent reports. E-justice is necessary at a time when the number of people involved in cross-border litigation in Europe is estimated at 10 million. Indeed, the use of information technologies in the justice system could make a significant contribution to improving the accessibility and efficiency of Europe's legal and judicial system. This is why Mrs Wallis's report and efforts deserve full consideration.\nI also believe that this Authentic Act resolution is particularly important. As a lawyer from Romania, I cannot but emphasise the fact that the benefits derived from the Authentic Act and an amicable, non-contentious justice system are huge. In fact, the most important way in which preventive justice is demonstrated in Romania, as well as in other European countries with a civil law jurisdiction, is by means of the authentic notarial act. I understand that Mr Medina Ortega would like to refer exclusively to authentic acts and differentiate between authentic public acts issued solely by a specialised professional, delegated by public authority and those certified with a private signature.\nHowever, regardless of the outcome of the debates and of whether the equivalent acts will be included or will appear on the agenda of another initiative, I think that this report needs to ensure that its objective is to guarantee protection for citizens and their legal security, as well as for cross-border family and property relations, by proposing reciprocal recognition of authentic acts.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski\n(PL) Mr President, the European Union must address the problem of the significant ageing of the population in the Member States, which is linked to a significant increase in life expectancy. As a result, by around 2050, around 40% of the population of Europe will be over 60, and 10% of these people will be over 80 years of age.\nThese demographic changes will have a serious impact on our economy, our society, our health and our budget. Thus, we need to establish appropriate and specific protective mechanisms, which will guarantee equal rights and obligations across the board. Protected persons are increasingly spending time outside of their country of residence or receive hospital treatment abroad, and so not in the country where their assets are located. That is why the legal protection system must ensure continuity of court decisions, administrative decisions and decisions taken by the persons themselves. This particularly concerns powers of attorney affecting future legal protection, which must be enforced in the European Member States.\nWe must therefore create a mechanism to effectively transmit documents, especially in emergency cases, such as when a protected person needs hospital treatment while temporarily outside of their country of origin. In this way, Europeans could, without hindrance, stay or live in a Member State that is not their country of origin, without losing efficient and rapid access to treatment.\nDushana Zdravkova\n(BG) Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to assure you that today's debate on the three reports is of major interest both to the European Union's citizens and my fellow lawyers. This is why I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs of the three reports.\nMy career until now has been entirely within the judicial system: both as chairwoman of one of the largest courts in Bulgaria, which was the first to introduce online technology for processing cases, and as chairwoman of the Committee of Experts on Information and Law in the Council of Europe up to 2000. For this reason, I am very familiar with the issues surrounding e-justice. When we introduced information technology in 1995, I could not have imagined that this subject would cause a stir in the European Parliament. This is why I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about it today.\nI would like to congratulate Mrs Wallis in particular for her report on e-justice because I believe that the use of information technology and new communications technologies in the field of justice will promote further the development of cross-border judicial cooperation, while also facilitating access to the judicial system for the European Union's citizens.\nI would however like to emphasise that in order to achieve an efficient European system in this area, it is vitally important to devise a general strategy at institutional level and to draw up general standards supporting more effective communication between national systems, but bearing in mind the need too for many highly trained specialists.\nWe will only be able to utilise the potential of new technologies in combating cross-border crime and make the judicial system more accessible to citizens on civil and commercial matters when these prerequisites are in place.\nWith this in mind, I would like to urge all relevant projects to be promoted, whether it is the online criminal records network, insolvency registers or the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters. This is the only way in which we will achieve one of the fundamental aims of the European Union: greater interaction with its citizens.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg\n- (PL) Mr President, in a communication to Parliament and the Council dated 10 May 2005 and concerning the Hague programme, the Commission stipulated, as one of its specific priorities that, by 2011, it aimed to guarantee an effective European area of justice in the field of civil law, with reference to the recognition and enforcement of court rulings and the principle of mutual recognition, as these measures provided a real means of ensuring cross-border legal protection for European Union citizens.\nThe European Union is expanding, and its citizens are being encouraged to be increasingly mobile. In the meantime, the movement of persons throughout Community territory is creating problems in relation to the transmission of authentic acts. The range of solutions applied by the Member States to the problem of the mutual recognition of authentic acts has meant that, today, the movement of these documents is a complicated matter, and there are restrictions in terms of the number and the types of documents that may be transmitted.\nThe Commission must take concrete steps to immediately introduce a single, tailor-made, uniform system for both the enforcement and the mutual recognition of authentic acts in all Member States, which will make day-to-day life significantly easier for citizens and enterprises.\nAt the same time, given the differences in the structure and organisation of public registry systems in the field of ownership of immovables, entries to public land and property registries should be excluded from this Community instrument. This exception aside, recognition of the authenticity, probative value and enforceability of an authentic act for the purposes of its use in the requested Member State may only be refused in the case of serious and substantiated doubts as to its authenticity, or if recognition is contrary to public policy in the Member State requested.\nFinally, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Medina Ortega, for a very well prepared document.\nToomas Savi\nMr President, I very much welcome the idea of the Commission preparing an action plan on e-justice. I was quite surprised to learn that such an initiative had not yet been introduced. I would like to thank my colleague Diana Wallis for tackling this pressing issue in a very befitting manner. Rapid technological development has provided us with new efficient tools that we should not hesitate to use.\nAlas, it has also presented us with new challenges, including e-crimes such as unauthorised monitoring, fraud, cyber warfare and many more. It is high time for the European Union to launch legislation on the definition, investigation, and penalisation of e-crime. E-crime crosses national borders and should therefore be addressed at supranational level. I expect the Commission to take a legislative initiative on this matter very promptly.\nCostas Botopoulos\nMr President, e-justice - electronic justice - can we say that such a thing is possible in an activity that is conditioned by human weaknesses and virtues, which are very human characteristics? No! Can there be borderless justice? As you said, no, again! Because this is a human activity, which is also very different in every part of the world.\nDo those two 'nos' mean that we must turn our back on technological innovation? Again, of course, no! We must try to exploit human innovation. A portal for information: yes! Exchange of data: yes! Awareness of the interindependence of the judicial systems: yes! Contribution to the creation of a European demos: yes! But for common faceless justice - and I do not say that you are doing that in your report - no!\nMy father, who was a judge, would not be too eager for me to defend electronic justice before the European Parliament. If I myself speak from the European Parliament to my father, who is in heaven, I can tell him that I know that justice will always be a man, his defender and a judge - not before God but before their conscience.\nNicolae Vlad Popa\n(RO) I would like to offer my congratulations on the initiative concerning the movement of authentic acts in Europe, as this will develop further the freedom of movement of persons and commercial entities within the European Union. Although physical borders have been removed, legal borders continue to remain. Proof of this are the complex procedures, varying from one state to another, for applying contracts signed in the presence of a representative of the public authorities.\nIt is our duty to offer every citizen the chance to have the provisions of the European Authentic Act applied without additional procedures in a Member State of the European Union, when the Authentic Act was drawn up in another Member State.\nI welcome Mrs Wallis's initiative and report on e-justice, as I believe that adopting this report will ensure that Europe's citizens have access to the European legal and judicial system through the use of information and communications technology. The speedy administration of evidence at minimal cost and the simplification of judicial procedures using simple, practical instruments will facilitate access to the justice system for citizens in the event of cross-border litigation. In order to achieve these...\nArmando Fran\u00e7a\n(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Dati, e-Justice is an important step towards ensuring access to the law, justice and the courts. I welcome this initiative and congratulate the rapporteur and the French Presidency. The e-Justice project was among those discussed during the Portuguese Presidency and it therefore fell to Portugal to guide the development and implementation of the pilot project, which will allow all citizens to access services in other Member States, in a simpler, cheaper and more convenient manner and in their own language.\nThis multilingual portal should be designed to help citizens and businesses seeking legal assistance and initial legal advice about cross-border legal problems. The e-Justice portal should be coordinated and managed by a unit that will also be responsible for coordinating the contributions of the various Member States and ensuring that they are interoperable. The e-Justice project will serve the people and strengthen our democracy. I welcome the launch of the portal in December 2009.\nMarcin Libicki\n(PL) Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Mrs Wallis on an excellent report and to draw your attention to two issues. As the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, I notice how frequently the citizens of the European Union are not aware of their rights and, conversely, how they sometimes believe that they can intervene in matters when they have no right to do so. Therefore, this Internet portal, also referred to as the e-justice portal, will undoubtedly assist the citizens of the European Union in contacting the European Parliament and its Committee on Petitions.\nI would also like to draw your attention to another matter mentioned by Mrs Wallis in her speech, namely the fact that we must respect local laws. This matter was raised 250 years ago by the famous French philosopher Charles de Montesqieu, who said that when drawing up legislation at a higher territorial level, it should always be remembered that small regions, smaller territories, and in this case the Member States of the European Union, have their own traditions, which must be respected.\nPresident\nLadies and gentlemen, during a discussion in the Bureau of Parliament the other day, the general view was that Members who had already spoken in a debate should not be given the floor again. Nevertheless, in what in Spain we call the Christmas spirit, we are going to make an exception and give Mr Romagnoli the floor.\nLuca Romagnoli\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot speak for everyone, but I hope that the Non-attached Members agree that the Common Area of Justice represents an indisputable advantage for citizens of the Union and will therefore support the initiative on the subject.\nLadies and gentlemen, more or less all of us here were present a few minutes ago and I do not wish to needlessly repeat what has already been said and so instead I would like to wish you all, and above all to wish Europe and the many citizens of the Union, who feel their quality of life is at risk, a new year of prosperity and, of course, justice.\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Mr President, it is good that integration in the justice sector, hitherto traditionally the preserve of the nation-states, is making progress. This is consistent with the changes in living conditions of the people of our Union. However - an observation that has already been made several times - this integration must not intrude too far into structures which have evolved by tradition and, most importantly, which work. Not everything can be measured by the same yardstick.\nThe organisation of authentic instruments and public registrars is completely different in many Member States. In Austria, but not only there, the notary's office enjoys a long tradition and a high level of security and confidence as a public registrars' office. This must not be jeopardised without good cause; that is, merely because such professions do not exist elsewhere. Therefore, I say 'yes' to integration and mutual opening-up, but in a balanced way.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, each Member State has a different legal system and different principles for the recognition of administrative documents. We should, therefore, aim to make the cross-border movement of authentic acts as simple as possible. However, we must remember that ensuring the certainty and security of situations and of acts in law and situations takes precedence over making the movement of documents easier.\nWe must also harmonise the principles for recognising administrative documents, in order to make the everyday lives of our citizens easier and to make it simpler for businesses to operate. Indeed, this is what they expect of us. It is certain that such rules will save them time and money. We must work to establish a harmonised basis for the mutual recognition of authentic acts in individual Member States, but we should certainly not extend the scope of this scheme to include documents which do not meet basic criteria.\nRachida Dati\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Presidency has paid a great deal of attention to your work on the three issues.\nYour reports above all testify to your interest in these matters, and I know that we will have other opportunities to discuss them again in the future. I should like once again to thank Mr Medina Ortega for his remarks and his contribution. We need to make progress in relation to the movement and the recognition of authentic acts.\nYou rightly mentioned that the Unibank judgment provides a framework for action and a definition of authentic acts. As Mr Gauz\u00e8s emphasised a moment ago, this is an excellent report that will help improve judicial cooperation. I should also like to make the point clear to Mrs Wallis: this should affect all European citizens, but we should also ensure that we create the conditions for real mutual confidence to be established. This is necessary for the purposes of legal certainty.\nI should also like to highlight Mrs Wallis's involvement in the area of electronic justice. You are right; this is a way of improving access to justice. Let us not forget that 10 million people are thought to be involved in cross-border disputes, hence the need for effective methods of communication. I would echo the words of Mr Barrot, 'we shall remain true to this ambition'. Mrs Zdravkova's speech was along these lines, since the networking of the judicial system opens up a number of prospects to us.\nMr L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White, I agree with what you said, we do need to do more to protect vulnerable adults, and elderly people, in particular, and I welcome the adoption of this report, which is fully in line with the recommendations and with our ambitions. I am also grateful to Mrs Gill for her comments, since her contribution makes this an extremely practical report.\nCommissioner, you have also shown your interest in these subjects, and I hope that our debate today will be able to enrich the consultation that you are organising, I believe, at the moment.\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Presidency I should like to thank all of the speakers who have taken the floor. The comments made were very professional and very practical. What is more, they enable us to have confidence in the future and they show the interest that the EU takes in this matter concerning the protection of European citizens.\nMy assessment of the French Presidency's work in the area of justice is that the subjects have been practical, the decisions have been practical and our ambitions are even more practical. This has been yet another special opportunity for me to hold a dialogue with this House; it coincides not only with your work in plenary and in committee, but also with all the thematic conferences that have been organised in France on these subjects.\nI am grateful to you for the excellent cooperation that has been established between the Council and Parliament. It has enabled us, moreover, to make very swift progress. I remember the start of the Presidency, when we debated our objectives and priorities. I can tell you that the objectives have been achieved and the priorities have been strengthened, and I believe that the presidencies following on from the French Presidency will absolutely continue along these lines.\nPresident\nMrs Dati, in my capacity as President I must also thank you and the Presidency of the Council for the work you have accomplished and the efforts that have been made, not least by you personally, over the last six months.\nJacques Barrot\nVice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, Mrs Dati, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to point out, firstly, with regard to the Medina Ortega report, that we are going to hold meetings on the recognition of authentic acts within the framework of the Brussels I regulation. We are going to adopt a report concerning the application of Brussels I in early 2009, and we shall look into ways of reviewing the latter in the course of that year.\nSecondly, as I told you just now, we shall hold another meeting concerning the instrument on succession and on matrimonial arrangements. The issue of authentic acts will therefore also be raised within the context of a Green Paper, which will more broadly cover all public acts. This Green Paper is planned for the end of 2009.\nThere is no question that the free movement of acts and documents must be improved, but as Mrs Dati quite rightly said, we still need to guarantee legal certainty, which can only come about if there is real mutual confidence. That is all I have to say regarding these meetings on the authentic acts, to which we are going to pay a great deal of attention in the forthcoming months of 2009.\nWith regard to e-justice, I can indeed confirm that the Commission is currently implementing contracts that will make it possible to develop an initial version of the European e-justice portal within the agreed timescales and, as has been stressed, the networking of criminal records already seems to me to be a very promising indication of the future success of this e-justice initiative.\nLastly, as I indicated, we are going to follow very closely the implementation of the Hague Convention on the protection of vulnerable people. Throughout 2009 we are going to see exactly which improvements could be envisaged and whether we will need a Community initiative on this subject in order to make it easier formally to implement the provisions of the Hague Convention. I am thinking of the transfer of files and of information provided to vulnerable people concerning their rights. This is the Commission's response.\nOn a personal note I should like, if I may, Mr President, to really congratulate Mrs Dati, since we have had an extremely active French Presidency in the field of justice, with the seminars to which we, Parliament and the Commission, have been invited. These seminars have greatly enriched the debate and, I would say, have laid the foundations for this new Stockholm programme.\nI am extremely grateful to you for your personal commitment, for the French Presidency's listening skills and, quite simply, for the way in which you too have worked, with regard to maintenance obligations and to the communication of criminal records and the strengthening of Eurojust. You truly have a great track record. Well done!\nManuel Medina Ortega\nAlthough this Parliament is not very generous with time, because of its very nature, nevertheless in the period of almost an hour that we have devoted to the subject of justice we have had an opportunity to discuss some of the outstanding issues to some extent. Specifically on the subject of the authentic act, I think one point needs to be clarified. An authentic act is one thing, and a private document is another, even if it involves a notary public.\nA private document involving a notary public may be recognised as expressing the will of the parties. There are legal systems in which the notary public is limited to certifying that the will of the parties is expressed. This is universally recognised under the principle of the autonomy of the will and recognition of its existence.\nWhat we are talking about here is a completely different instrument. We are talking about a public document, a document involving the intervention of an official - usually a notary in most countries with continental law - who is invested with public power. This raises the act to a level very similar to that of a judgment.\nThere is no discrimination here on the basis of country right now. If we were to adopt rules on the European authentic act, any European country could have this document and could gain this recognition, but for that to be so it would be necessary for it to be given the same recognition in the legal system in question that it has in the others.\nIn other words, the third element required for the recognition of the authentic act is that it cannot produce different effects outside that country from those it produces within the different country. Specifically, then, an English notarial document is recognised on the continent, but to the same extent that it is recognised under English law. It cannot be recognised beyond that. An English legal document cannot be recognised in France as if it were a French public document, for instance, because it does not have the same characteristics. It is an entirely different kind of document.\nThere is, therefore, no discrimination in this. This is an attempt to establish a common system for the whole of the European Union, and I think it is possible that some countries that do not have it will adopt this kind of document. To that end, the adoption of a single European act would be an important instrument.\nDiana Wallis\nrapporteur. - Mr President, I am afraid I cannot resist. Mr Medina says that the authentic act - and this is why I say that we must look carefully and we must look deeply - has to be a public act. If you look at English common law and if you look at an English solicitor who prepares deeds, an English solicitor is an officer of the court, authorised by the court, and therefore can prepare a public document. Look at it, please understand it. There are things that are common and deserve more investigation and consideration in other jurisdictions and other legal cultures.\nNow I will finish that argumentative mood and turn to the French presidency to say: Madam Minister, thank you so much for your cooperation and the work that your staff and others have done over the months of your presidency. It has been fabulous. We have got through so much, and your determination and drive to really make a difference to our citizens' lives in the area of justice have been very much appreciated. Thank you. You will be missed.\nPresident\nI should give the floor to Mr L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White, but this fellow-countryman of mine tells me that he would like to give a minute of his time to Mr Toubon.\nJacques Toubon\n- (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Minister of Justice, it is precisely in this capacity that I should like to address you at the end of this debate. Indeed, with the Portuguese Presidency, the Slovenian Presidency and, today, the French Presidency, that is, Rachida Dati as Keeper of the Seals, I truly believe - and I say this in the light of my experience as a former justice minister - that we in Europe have passed a milestone and that we will not go back.\nToday, an attempt is being made to have the legal and judicial systems - which are, however, by nature suspicious of one another - come closer together, recognise one another and harmonise. There is even, on certain points, a move to embark upon legislation that is wholly or partly Community-based, such as, for example, legislation on maintenance obligations. It follows that, even beyond what we have done when the need dictates, for example in relation to security, criminal law and the fight against terrorism, we are now addressing those who need rules and dispute settlements that apply throughout Europe, because they live, by definition, in their country but also elsewhere, because they work and because they have relationships with everyone across Europe.\nThis point must be stressed, Mr President. It is without doubt the hallmark of the French Presidency. All of my fellow Members have said so, but it must be emphasised that this is without doubt an historic milestone that has been passed, with regard to cooperation and legislation in the field of justice. Europe, I believe, will no longer be the same if people genuinely feel that the European judicial area is something more than just fine words.\nAntonio L\u00f3pez-Ist\u00fariz White\nMr President, this has, I think, been a very good solution and I am grateful for your courtesy towards myself and my colleague.\nFor my part, I simply appreciate all the speeches and thanks, especially some speeches that were kind to the report, and the collaboration from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on my report.\nI would like to mention Mr Rogalski's speech in particular. As the Member representing the region of the Balearic Islands and as a Spanish Member, I must say that you can be quite sure that the reason why I took this report was to help those people, those older people who are now living on our islands in Spain as residents or tourists. I consider it essential that they should have that protection.\nNobody will therefore have failed to notice that I included my own country in the aspiration that it may shortly ratify and sign the Hague Convention.\nI only differ from the Minister on one point. As you have seen, I have not mentioned any other presidencies. I join everyone else in saying that, in the end, we would have liked this French Presidency to have lasted much longer. For many of us it was too short.\nThat was my only difference of opinion.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.\n(The sitting was suspended at 11.00 a.m. and resumed at 11.35 a.m.)\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nLouis Grech  \nin writing. - This initiative seeks to establish a clear and comprehensive legal framework to further generalise recognition and facilitate the implementation of authentic acts.\nUntil now, the recognition of authentic acts among Member States has been handled inconsistently, creating legal uncertainty and unpredictability for citizens and businesses.\nBy creating a common system for the mutual recognition and enforcement of authentic acts the European Union will benefit in terms of time savings, lower costs and even more importantly by the adoption of simplified procedures. It would also promote the movement of authentic acts by making them more secure.\nThe enforceability of the authentic act and its superior probative value would contribute to the economic development and integration of the Union by facilitating the movement of goods and services. This is especially relevant in a time of economic crisis and I would like to see the implementation of this legislation as soon as possible.\nI also welcome the fact that this report is limited in scope to authentic acts and respects the particularity of private agreements and other intermediary categories of acts.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"3. Albino killings in Tanzania\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on albino killings in Tanzania.\nRyszard Czarnecki\nauthor. - (PL) Mr President, in the 21st century people are being murdered simply because they are albinos. This is happening in Tanzania, a country where over a third of the population is living below the poverty threshold. In recent times, 173 individuals have been arrested on suspicion of killing or injuring albinos. This indicates the scale of the problem. Twenty-five people have been killed or injured because they were albinos during the last six months.\nThere is a sizeable population of albinos in the world. In fact, 50 out of every million persons are albinos. It is only in Tanzania, however, that they are treated so cruelly. In that country, the blood and body parts of albinos are traded. The responsibility for this lies with animist witch doctors and the gangs they employ. It should be noted that the police also bear a share of the blame as they tend to turn a blind eye.\nAs I conclude, I should like to point out that we will only be able to consider that our protest here today has been effective if and when medical care, education and the opportunity to integrate into society are made available to albinos in Tanzania.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\u0117\nToday we are discussing a case of discrimination against a minority. The minority in question are albinos, who are being killed and mutilated in Tanzania, including small children. This is a serious problem throughout sub-Saharan Africa. I would like to remind you that albinism affects one in 20 000 people worldwide. As mentioned in the previous speech, witch-doctors in Tanzania sell severed body parts and blood from albinos to miners and fishermen, who naively believe that they can bring them luck, health and fortune. Our position is very clear - the killing of albinos and discrimination against them is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The Tanzanian Government must take consistent measures to end this dreadful situation. The Government and President of Tanzania have already started to implement measures, which we appreciate, but it is not enough. The court case in which 173 people suspected of albino killings are to be tried will be a litmus test that will reveal the disposition of those in power in Tanzania, and the guilty must be punished. However, the best way to solve the problem would be through better education and adequate health care that is accessible to all the citizens of this country, including albinos. The international community as well as the European Union should render assistance in overcoming these problems. Most people with albinism die of skin cancer before they reach age 30.\nMarios Matsakis\nauthor. - Mr President, people with the genetic defect of albinism, apart from serious health-care problems, suffer various degrees of discrimination internationally.\nBut recently in sub-Saharan Africa, and especially in Tanzania, albinos have, in addition, suffered unprecedented barbaric attacks of mutilation, with their body parts being used by witchcraft doctors as ingredients in the production of potions that are promised to make people rich. Such a state of affairs, apart from its obvious criminality, points towards a seriously backward society in which sickeningly brutal witchcraft practices are still operating.\nThe government of Tanzania has an obligation to act swiftly and decisively in the following aspects: firstly, to protect all albinos from further attacks; secondly, to investigate fully all crimes against albinos and bring those responsible to justice; thirdly, to educate their citizens sufficiently, so as to rid them from the curse of witchcraft and superstition and, fourthly, to make sure that people with albinism are offered the best possible medical and social assistance they need in order to lead near-normal, safe and peaceful lives.\nErik Meijer\nMr President, what is going on in Tanzania is not violence perpetrated by the State. The discrimination and violence are practices which have survived from the time before the Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilisations, a time when there was no assumption of the equality of all persons.\nTanzania has 150 000 inhabitants who, due to a shortage of the colour pigment melanin, have red eyes, pale skin and fair hair. They are seen as products of witchcraft. Many of these people are murdered, after which their skin is stripped off and their skin and other body parts are used in magic rituals. Because of its large number of albinos, Tanzania is the largest supplier of human body parts for the whole of Africa.\nIt will not be possible to put an end to these horrific practices without actively educating ordinary people in Tanzania and throughout Africa, providing better medical care and ensuring better access for albinos to prominent jobs. The Tanzanian Government is taking measures, including a register of all albinos, with a view to being able to protect them. Without changing attitudes on the position of albinos, this register could be misused in future to track down these people and exterminate them. We had bad experiences in Europe in the 1940s with the registration of threatened population groups.\nCharles Tannock\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the plight of albino people in Tanzania seems barely credible in today's age. When I first heard about this issue, it seemed like something straight out of Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness. I would like to believe in the renaissance and potential of Africa, as so many other colleagues in this House seem to, but the murder of albino people for their body parts does nothing to improve the image of the continent internationally. Sadly, the suffering of albino people is not limited to Tanzania but occurs all over Africa.\nQuite apart from the medical consequences of albinism in the tropics, including a high risk of terrible skin cancers, the long-suffering albino people are at best traditionally considered as freaks or curiosities, and at worst they are murdered to satisfy demand for traditional medicine that is more akin to medieval sorcery.\nThe EU should not hesitate to campaign on the issue and bring pressure to bear on countries like Tanzania, where, apparently, such scant regard for human rights and dignity is common. However, I am heartened that the Tanzanian President has appealed to his people to change their traditional ways. Let us hope that other leaders throughout Africa repeat this important message.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, in March of this year over 25 albinos living in the vicinity of Lake Victoria, were brutally murdered or maimed. The victims included children. People alleged to have supernatural characteristics had been the subject of attacks in that area in the past.\nIt should be recalled that 36% of Tanzania's population lives below the poverty threshold. To all intents and purposes these people have no access to health care. Normal practice is to turn to local witch doctors for help. The low level of education of the local population contributes to its belief in supernatural characteristics. A large number of albinos live in the territory of sub-Saharan Africa and they have become the victims of open discrimination because they are different. Not only are albinos denied the right to health care, but they are also denied the right to social and legal assistance. It is standard practice to discriminate against albinos in daily life, in schools, in public institutions and on the labour market. Albinos feel that they are being constantly humiliated and treated like second-class citizens.\nThe current intolerance could be countered and the number of attacks against albinos reduced in future by penalising those guilty of murder whilst at the same time undertaking fundamental awareness-raising work within Tanzanian society. It is essential to support the initiatives taken by the Tanzanian Government in this regard. Such initiatives include special protection for albino children along with cooperation with civil society and non-governmental organisations. Actions should be focused first and foremost on rural areas, where social awareness is at its lowest. In addition, the Commission and the Member States should give strong support to the emergency actions undertaken by the Tanzania Albino Society. Longer-term measures should aim at ensuring that the albino population enjoys full rights in terms of access to education, the labour market and also to social and health protection.\nEwa Tomaszewska\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, since March of this year 25 albinos have been murdered in Tanzania. These murders are connected with the superstitious practices current in the area and are based on the belief that albino body parts such as the feet, hands, hair and blood will make a person healthy, wealthy and rich. The latest victim was a seven-year-old child. Last year too, 25 albinos lost their lives.\nThese occult practices take place along the shores of Lake Victoria, in farming areas and also amongst fishermen and miners. Albinos are often the victims of discrimination and persecution. President Kikwete has been using the police to try and locate albinos in hiding. The President has promised to provide albinos with protection, but the albinos remain mistrustful, because some police officers are also involved in occult practices. Witch doctors' gangs are responsible for organising the murder of albinos. One hundred and seventy-eight local people have been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murders.\nThe President of Tanzania has been instrumental in the appointment of Mrs Kway-Geer as the country's first albino Member of Parliament in recognition of her fight against discrimination. We welcome this appointment as a step in the right direction. We support the activities of the Tanzania Albino Society and trust that the Commission will offer it genuine support.\nUrszula Krupa\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, we are today discussing breaches of human rights in Tanzania. The latter is a subtropical country where albinos are discriminated against, as is the case in many other African countries.\nAlbinos are murdered in a particularly brutal fashion in Tanzania, however. Last year more than 25 individuals lost their lives in this way. There are 39 million Tanzanians, 270 thousand of which suffer from a genetic defect caused by the presence of a recessive gene which means their skin lacks pigment. Consequently, albinos can suffer from sight problems, sunburn, cancer and premature death. Both parents have to be carriers of the gene for the condition to become apparent in their children. Women who give birth to albino babies are forced into divorce. The children are considered to be a curse on their family. They are thought to be possessed by unclean spirits and are treated as animals. On the other hand, however, witch doctors spread tales of the magical properties of albinos' white skin, which allegedly helps to bring luck and wealth. This leads to the killing of albinos who are then brutally quartered and their body parts used in the production of potions.\nIt is hard to understand what the reason for such cruelty might be and what purpose it could serve. Perhaps it is an attempt to eliminate sick people who have a genetic defect. In recent times, the government has condemned the use of force against white-skinned Africans and run educational campaigns. An albino member of parliament has even been appointed. Nonetheless, the tragedy affecting these people still continues. In addition, there is a lack of funding for protective clothing and other assistance for this marginalised sector of the population which is discriminated against and denied work and education.\nProtests and appeals by the international community, together with educational and financial help would help to counter extreme discrimination of this type. Bringing legal proceedings against the 173 would-be witch doctors arrested and accused of murderous activity, incitement to murder and trade in human organs would also help.\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, I would just like to add my voice of support to that of colleagues on all sides of this House about the appalling story of the treatment of albinos in Tanzania. I know it happens in other parts of Africa but there is a concentration in Tanzania - we have heard the number of 270 000 albinos - who are discriminated against, who are marginalised, brutalised and murdered for their body parts due to superstition, witchcraft and various occult practices.\nBy raising this issue here (and I commend all my colleagues who have raised it and those who put this item on the agenda), we add our voice in the European Parliament to the international voice of protest, and hopefully the Tanzanian Government - and indeed others - will listen.\nIt is a question mainly of education but, above all, we need protection for albinos within their own communities; we need full investigation. The fact that some of the police force are part of the problem and cannot be trusted to be part of the solution is extremely worrying.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, we share Parliament's outrage at the increasing number of attacks in Tanzania against the albino population and at the abhorrent and illegal trade in albino body parts linked to traditional medicine, to superstition and to the practices of witch doctors.\nIn particular, we share the concerns recently reported by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that, for instance, albino women and girls have been targeted very specifically in ritual killings. We condemn all forms of discrimination and victimisation, and we are committed to supporting policies and actions aimed at eradicating them.\nThe Government of Tanzania, too, it must be said, is committed to stamping out these practices and raising awareness of the plight of the albino population. Therefore, we welcome the nomination of an albino Member of Parliament, the recent arrests of some witch doctors, and the President's commitment, as has been mentioned, to bringing those responsible to justice.\nWe also closely monitor the human rights situation in general in Tanzania, together with Member States and other development partners. Several Member States and other partners are supporting organisations, such as the Legal and Human Rights Centre, which regularly monitor possible human rights violations. As a member of the Donor Group on Governance, the Commission will continue to coordinate donor responses to addressing the problem, including the Albino Association.\nThe Commission will also, with Member States in Tanzania, raise the problem in its political dialogue with the Tanzanian authorities.\nThe EUR 3 million EDF-funded Civil Society Programme will help to create awareness: workshops are being organised to highlight the albino situation and a new sensitisation campaign is shortly to be implemented in the Mwanza region of Northern Tanzania.\nSo, in general, we use our regular dialogues to refer to this issue. These questions are, of course, also being raised in our ongoing exercise concerning public funds and the health, education and employment sectors. We believe that an independent and functioning judicial system is vital.\nTherefore, we, the Commission, in our contacts with the authorities, will underline the importance of appropriate legal action being taken against the perpetrators of these horrible acts.\nWe will also contact the honourable Kway-Geer, the first Albino Member of Parliament in Tanzania (she has already been mentioned), and discuss possible actions with her, because she can tell us even better what can be done. Finally, together with the presidency in Tanzania, we will discuss this issue at the 60th anniversary of the signature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights planned in Tanzania on 10 December 2008.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place immediately after the debates.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"14. Protocol amending TRIPS (vote) \n- Recommendation: Susta\n- Before the vote:\nCarl Schlyter\nMr President, the basis for agreement with the Council on this report was a statement made by the Commission which was supposed to be read out yesterday during the debate. However, that statement was not read out. If the Council would agree to attach it to the Minutes or give it some kind of legal status and transparency, then that would help further the process on this issue.\nManuel Lobo Antunes\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, access to affordable pharmaceutical products in poor developing countries and LDCs is essential to attain the proposed EU development goals and would contribute to poverty reduction, increase human security and promote human rights and sustainable development. I think we both agree on the importance of ensuring the coherence of EU policies and that consistency in the EU's external actions, namely trade and development policies, should go hand in hand.\nWe recognise that the mechanism created by the WTO decision and the protocol to the TRIPS Agreement represent just a part of the solution to the problem of access to medicines and public health, and that other measures to improve health care and infrastructure are equally indispensable. Even if the TRIPS amendment is not the complete solution, we believe that the positive acceptance of the protocol represents an important step.\nTo this effect, it is worth recalling that the Member States of the European Union remain free under WTO rules to use the different exceptions provided under the TRIPS Agreement in their domestic patent laws, including those provided for under Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.\nFurthermore, in order to facilitate access to medicines in countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission all worked hard to adopt Regulation (EC) No 816\/2006 on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems.\nLet me add that we support the use of the 'flexibilities' built into the TRIPS Agreement and recognised by paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Doha Declaration as well as the additional flexibilities for less-developed countries made available pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Doha Declaration, in order to be able to provide essential medicines at affordable prices under their domestic public health programmes.\nIn view of the Doha Declaration in the framework of the EPA negotiations with the ACP countries and other future bilateral and regional agreements with poor developing countries and LDCs, the European Union is not asking, and does not foresee asking, to negotiate pharmaceutical-related provisions, sometimes referred to as TRIPS+ provisions, affecting public health and access to medicines.\nFinally, we look favourably upon initiatives encouraging the transfer of technology, research, capacity strengthening, regional supply systems and help with registration in order to facilitate and increase the production of pharmaceutical products by the developing countries themselves and we will work with Member States towards that end.\nConcerning the corresponding measures and the budgetary procedures, we are sure that the commitment of the European Parliament which has raised the visibility of the issue of access to medicines will help to increase their efficiency.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":2,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides - Placing of plant protection products on the market (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the following reports:\nby Christa Klass, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the framework directive to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides (06124\/5\/2008 - C6-0323\/2008 -;\nby Hiltrud Breyer, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the placing of plant protection products on the market (11119\/8\/2008 - C6-0326\/2008 -.\nChrista Kla\u00df\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Vassiliou, Commissioner Dimas, ladies and gentlemen, today we have the result of many discussions and negotiations, which were, at times, conducted with great emotion, and we will have the opportunity to vote on this tomorrow. We have not made it easy for ourselves. We have struggled to find the right solutions in our negotiations with the Council and with the Commission. We have established that science does not always point us in the right direction with clear findings. Further scientific support will be necessary in order to analyse the effects of this new legislation. First of all, therefore, sincere thanks to all those who contributed to this positive result with constructive proposals, my fellow members here in Parliament, the European Commission, the French Presidency of the Council - it is a pity that the Czech Presidency of the Council is not here this evening - but thanks also to the staff.\nWith the current Directive on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products we are taking a giant step towards more commonality in European environmental and consumer protection. Sustainability as the overall concept for European agriculture will guarantee healthy food and a healthy environment. For the first time, the handling of plant protection products will be harmonised at European level. The basic principle 'as much as necessary, as little as possible' assumes comprehensive, sound knowledge. Plant protection products are, in fact, medicine for plants. They must be used correctly in order to be effective - the right product and the right dosage at the right time. This also includes the consideration as to whether chemical plant protection is necessary or whether mechanical measures would be better. The selection of the best technology and tested application equipment will protect the environment and the user and contribute to the success of the operation through good harvests. The Member States will establish measures in their national action plans to reduce the use of plant protection products.\nRisk reduction is the primary objective. The use of the general basic principles of integrated plant protection will become mandatory for the entire European Union from 2014. Compliance with the stipulations of the Water Framework Directive is top priority. The Member States will establish buffer zones adjacent to bodies of water, which must be adapted to the conditions of the soil properties and geographical circumstances. The use of plant protection products by local authorities and in protected areas will be minimised or stopped, if necessary. There are regulations for checking equipment and regular maintenance intervals will be set. Risk reduction means that professional users must obtain sound and ongoing training in the use of plant protection products. Private users, who have no specific training and can cause damage in private gardens through incorrect usage, must be informed by well-trained salespersons on the use and risks when purchasing plant protection products.\nThis directive will mean that previously differing regulations in the individual Member States will be adjusted to a high, common level. The proposed measures will benefit the environment, consumers and users. Identical conditions throughout the European Union will guarantee identical safety standards and identical production conditions. Substances that are proven to be detrimental to health will not be licensed, on that we are in agreement. However, a ban must be based on scientifically sound findings and not on political dogmas. Exposure must also be taken into consideration because with pesticides, like many things in life, it is the dosage that creates the poison hazard. A headache tablet is a blessing, but if you take 20 it becomes dangerous, even life-threatening.\nWe have reached a good compromise. It will harmonise the environment and economic policy and I hope that we can emphasise our requirements in a unanimous vote tomorrow.\nI will allow myself just one more technical point, which is to say that an error has crept into Article 14 Paragraph 4. Reference is made to the Internet portal mentioned in Article 4 Paragraph 3; but there is no Paragraph 3 in Article 4. This should be rectified.\nHiltrud Breyer\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, this agreement represents a milestone, a milestone for European health protection and consumer protection but also for the environment and the economy. First of all, sincere thanks to the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent collaboration. Many thanks also to the staff involved and to the Commission, to you, shadow rapporteur and Mr Dimas, and also the French Presidency of the Council, but also thanks to fellow members who were not intimidated by the completely exaggerated figures from industry.\nWe have adopted 200 amendments at first reading in the European Parliament and attempted to decisively improve the common position with this agreement. We will end this unscientific, never-ending game of numbers, this hocus-pocus surrounding limit-setting, with the clear cut-off criteria. Nobody can quantify the risk. Therefore, safety can only be achieved with an outright ban. Pesticides and other substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction have no business, no business at all in foodstuffs. We will ensure successful environmental protection with the cut-off for persistent, bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) substances. I am particularly pleased that we have succeeded in implementing and anchoring initial clear criteria for endocrinal substances, and I have confidence in the Commission's responsibility to come up with more criteria in the next four years.\nHowever, I am also particularly pleased that the European Parliament has succeeded in anchoring bee protection as a licensing criterion for the first time. Leading scientists in France and Germany have estimated the economic value of pollinators at EUR 150 billion per annum and the damage at up to EUR 310 billion if we lost bees as pollinators. Therefore, I ask you quite particularly to reject, tomorrow, any amendments that have been submitted. They would dilute this compromise. This is a compromise to which the Council has already given its approval. It used to be common practice not to attempt to attack a joint compromise again. However, I am pleased that we have jointly achieved an improvement for immunotoxic and neurotoxic substances because, in a Europe that purports to be a knowledge-based society, we cannot afford to allow the development of a child's brain to be impaired primarily through neurotoxic substances in the long term. We can say quite clearly yes to harmonisation, however, without restricting the laws of the Member States and we will allow them flexibility with regard to procedures in the matter of licensing.\nThe triple legal basis also shows the high value we place on health and we have formulated exemptions from the ban with many restrictions, linked to a substitution plan, for example, so that the exception does not become the rule but vice versa. I am also pleased that we have succeeded in including animal protection in this regulation and that we were able to establish more transparency, although I would have expected more courage from the Commission. I hope that we will have more access to the application protocols and be able to introduce an electronic field pass. It is not only a milestone for environmental and consumer protection in Europe, I think it is also a magic moment for Europe. It is a magic moment for Europe because this decision to phase out highly toxic pesticides is unprecedented and it is unique worldwide, and we can thus put the European Union in the fast lane for ground-breaking health protection and Europe will be the trailblazer worldwide.\nThis regulation will also create added value for citizens who know that the European Union is primarily on the side of consumers and health and has not bowed down to industry. Furthermore, it is also a win-win situation for the industry, which will receive innovation incentives to produce better and safe products in the future.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, first of all I should like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Klass, the rapporteur, Mrs Breyer, and the parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on their excellent work on the proposals on the framework directive on a sustainable use of pesticides and to revise and improve the regulation.\nThe fact that agreement was achieved at second reading is particularly gratifying. This agreement safeguards the environmental integrity of the Commission's initial proposal and sets even more ambitious environmental targets for certain important points.\nWe are aware of the fact that the use of pesticides is a matter of particular concern to citizens. That is why we needed, firstly, to make the current legislative framework stricter by amending the 1991 Directive on the placing of specific products on the market and, secondly, to plug the gaps at Community level in the use of these products.\nIn achieving agreement on the directive, the European Union has proven that it has the political will to take effective measures to protect public health and the environment.\nParliament helped to make the directive more ambitious than the Council's common position on certain important points. Now the Member States will be obliged to prepare national action plans with quantitative targets both to limit the risks inherent in the use of pesticides and to reduce the use of certain products.\nThis was not easy, as the rapporteur had to persuade the Member States that, under certain circumstances, the best way of limiting the risk is to limit the use of specific pesticides, which she did with success. The agreement reached represents significant progress in the protection of public health and the environment in the European Union.\nThe European Commission is therefore in a position to accept the compromise package of amendments in order to reach agreement on the directive at second reading.\nAndroulla Vassiliou\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all, I wish to thank the rapporteurs Mrs Klass and Mrs Breyer, the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive approach to the proposal, the French presidency, and all of you who have contributed to the successful conclusion of the second reading of the Commission's proposal.\nPlant protection products play an important role in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and gardening. However, they can also have an impact on human health, animal health and the environment. We therefore need to ensure they are regulated in an effective and balanced way.\nIn the preparation of the initial proposal, the Commission held extensive consultations of stakeholders from all sectors concerned and it carried out a comprehensive impact assessment. The top priority was - and still is - to achieve the highest possible level of protection for human and animal health, and the environment. I am pleased to see that this is also reflected in the outcome of the discussions between the EU institutions.\nThe draft compromise before us today would strengthen this high level of protection through several provisions. Clear and strict criteria would be set for the approval of active substances. Producers, suppliers and professional users would have to keep records to be made available upon request to third parties, such as neighbours, other residents or the water industry. Member State authorities would have to tighten controls on marketing and use, and the Commission would audit Member States' controls. Duplicative testing on animals would be completely avoided. To promote sustainability in agriculture, safer alternatives would substitute the more hazardous products.\nIn order to ensure comprehensive information, the Commission may also look into the issue of availability of existing alternative products to substances being known as endocrine disruptors. This would happen, of course, without prejudging the safety requirements of the Regulation.\nAs part of the overall compromise, I would like to propose the following text in relation to the risk assessment to bees: 'When revising the data requirements for active substances and plant protection products, as referred to in Article 8(1) (b) and (c), the Commission will pay particular attention to study protocols allowing a risk assessment which takes into account the real exposure of bees to these products, in particular through nectar and pollen.'\nThe draft compromise would create an even safer framework for the use of plant protection products in the European Union, and would strengthen our environmental safeguards, and the protection of our citizens' health. It also reflects the Lisbon Strategy, as it would reduce red tape. For example, the approval procedure would become shorter and more efficient. Furthermore, Member States would no longer work in isolation since mutual recognition of authorisations would become the norm rather than the exception. This should reduce fragmentation of the internal market and create wider availability of pesticides for farmers.\nFinally, I would like to emphasise that it is fully compatible with, and complementary to, the proposal for a directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, which falls under the responsibility of my colleague, Commissioner Dimas.\nErna Hennicot-Schoepges\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioners, firstly I should like to thank the rapporteurs, the Commission and the institutions, especially the French Presidency. They have worked hard to reach this compromise, which strikes a balance between human health and agricultural production.\nAs far as farmers are concerned, harmonising the systems of the three zones will make it easier to access the products, and a fund for minor uses, as envisaged and guaranteed by the Commission, will mean that we have products placed on the market that are designed for minor cultivation and gardening purposes. We therefore have a guarantee that, by 2020, all substances with a proven harmful effect, such as CMRs and endocrine disrupters, will no longer be authorised to be placed on the market.\nIt follows that this proposal should significantly reduce the diseases and the many types of cancers for which a link to pesticides has already been scientifically proven, together with the degenerative diseases whose effects have also been proven.\nOne very important aspect that should be pointed out is that every effort will now be made to ensure better compliance with bee protection measures. The Commission has just made a declaration on this point. I should like to know, however, whether the Commission will reconsider Directive 2007\/52 under the aspects it has just listed. Emphasis will also be placed on biological control methods and, in this field, this research, which has been supported and financed by the Commission, still needs to be marketed effectively. Moreover I am confident that this text will serve as a welcome and necessary incentive to stimulate research and innovation among the major producers of conventional chemical pesticides.\nWith regard to the Commission, the report provides for interim reports, meaning that we have a guarantee that monitoring will take place. I hope that the national bodies will also do their best to prove that this is a valid text.\nDan J\u00f8rgensen\nMadam President, when the proposal from the Commission was published it prompted a headline in a major Danish newspaper. The front page of the newspaper read 'EU threatens Danish groundwater'. In Denmark, we are very proud of the fact that we have a huge amount of clean groundwater that we can drink completely untreated. Thus, the water that comes out of the tap is groundwater and we can drink it without having to treat it first. If the Commission's proposal were to have been implemented as it was originally presented, it would have meant that in Denmark we would have roughly doubled the number of pesticides on the market. This would very likely have also resulted in many of them seeping down into the groundwater - pesticides that we have currently declined to use because they would seep into the groundwater, with the effect that we would be unable to drink the water before it had been treated. Clearly, it would have been a disaster if the Commission's original proposal had been adopted, and not only for Denmark. Just as we, in my home country, have the groundwater that we want to look after, and that I choose to use as an example here, there are, of course, other countries with various other environmental and health-related matters that they would like to protect and the EU must never force a country to lower its level of protection. I am therefore extremely pleased that we have succeeded - not as a result of the Commission, not as a result of the Council, but as a result of Parliament's efforts - in ensuring a flexibility which, where there are special considerations, allows individual countries to say 'no' to pesticides that they do not want, as of course should be the case.\nAnother very positive thing that I am extremely pleased we have adopted is that we will now have a ban on, and can phase out, some of the most dangerous substances contained in pesticides. These are substances that have already been prohibited in other applications by means of the regulation, referred to as REACH, that we produced a couple of years ago. These are substances that are so dangerous that we will not permit them in textiles, we will not permit them in electronic goods, we will not permit them in toys or in all manner of other applications, but they are still permitted in pesticides, which then end up in our food! This is, of course, totally unacceptable and I am therefore extremely pleased that we will now be rid of these dangerous substances in pesticides.\nA third thing that I would like to mention and that I think is extremely positive and something we can be pleased about is that we have now introduced reduction targets for the individual Member States. We have introduced action plans through which the individual countries are to achieve both a qualitative and quantitative reduction in the use of pesticides. Qualitative refers to the fact that there are clearly some substances that are more dangerous than others and we should, of course, be particularly careful with these substances, but it is also a good idea to reduce use in the quantitative sense, that is to say the overall use of pesticides, because this will obviously also result in a reduction in the use of these substances that end up in our countryside and in our food.\nHowever, in conclusion I also have to say that there are things that could have been done much better. Neurotoxic substances, for example. These are substances that impair the development of children's brains. The fact that we are not phasing these substances out is, in my opinion, unambitious and a shame. I also think that it is a shame that we have included the possibility of exempting these dangerous substances if industry can demonstrate the need to do this. I think that we should have been more ambitious. However, when it comes to the bottom line, I am pleased and satisfied. This is a victory for health and for the environment.\nAnne Laperrouze\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, here we find ourselves, I hope, on the verge of adopting this pesticide package. The two compromise texts that will be put to the vote in this House seem to me to be balanced and worthy of our support, and this for several reasons.\nThe advances for producers and users are significant: the simplification of the authorisation procedures through, among other things, a division into three zones and the mutual recognition that goes with it. I should have liked to have had only one zone, to guarantee even more consistency on EU territory, but the Member States proved to be a little overcautious. Increased training requirements for sellers and users alike - teaching them how to understand and handle pesticides better - are guarantees not only of better health protection but also of economic gains.\nThe advances for those who protect animals are also significant, not least through the pooling of data derived from animal testing. The advances for health and environmental protection are very significant; in the long term, the most dangerous substances will be replaced by less harmful ones.\nI must address the very controversial issue of endocrine disrupters. Until now there has been no definition of these. No legislative text dealt with this question. The compromise gives the European Commission four years in which to draft science-based proposals for measures intended to define endocrine disrupting properties. This scientific definition will enable products to be classified according to their disruptive or non-disruptive effects and, in fact, will provide the industry with the scientific legal framework that it requires.\nThe compromise text also takes account of the issue of bees and of their crucial role in the ecosystem. I believe, in fact, that the wording found in the compromise, combined with the European Commission's declaration, represents a major step forward. The effects of active substances not only on the overall development of bees, but also on nectar and pollen, will be taken into account. I should like to reassure certain stakeholders who have cast doubt on the availability of active substances and products. This compromise takes account of their fears. The three-zone system guarantees Member States the possibility of authorising a larger number of products. There is also the possibility of derogations.\nAs far as minor uses are concerned, Parliament has fought to have the Commission draft proposals in the short term to establish a European fund. There is also the review clause, which calls on the European Commission to analyse the impact of this legislation on the diversification and the competitiveness of agriculture.\nLast but not least - and this has been pointed out by my fellow Members - we are encouraging pesticide manufacturers to develop new and effective products that respect human health and environmental protection.\nTo conclude, I should like to point out that plant protection products are medicines for plants and thus should be used only in a controlled and judicious manner. These texts recognise and are going to further accentuate the importance of integrated production when it comes to sound and sustainable agriculture. The two texts that we have arrived at manage to strike a balance between health and environmental protection and the availability of products for farmers.\nI should like to conclude by saying what a pleasure it has been working with you, ladies and gentlemen, on this very sensitive matter. Our work has, I believe, been an exercise in listening, mutual understanding and cooperation. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and well done in particular to our two rapporteurs, Mrs Klass and Mrs Breyer, who were excellent negotiators in the search for a compromise with the Council.\nLiam Aylward\non behalf of the UEN Group. - Madam President, we are speaking in this Chamber on the eve of a vote which is a critical one for agriculture, health and environment. Let us be very clear: any one of us legislators who has identified and raised problem issues during this legislation process has done so out of concern for agriculture and future food supply.\nOf course I am concerned about any overuse of pesticides and about their effects. There is no doubt that rates of cancer have increased. We have increased residues in our air, water and food, which affect our health and environment. Also note, it is our farmers who are in most direct contact with pesticides. The intention of this legislation, which I applaud, is to protect our citizens' health and environment and agriculture.\nAs legislators, however, we must always seek out balance and base legislation on sound science. We cannot and should not legislate in the abstract. By moving away from the Commission's original scientific, risk-based approach to a hazard-based one, we fell at the first hurdle. Without a relevant impact assessment, which many of us requested repeatedly, nobody can state exactly how many substances will be banned.\nIreland has a unique temperate but wet climate. This makes our potatoes and winter cereal crops susceptible to weeds and disease such as blight. The removal of an estimated 22 substances, including Mancozeb and Opus, will affect product availability.\nSo, following the introduction of this legislation in 18 months' time, what is the view? Pesticides which are already on the market under current legislation would remain available until their existing authorisation expires. If in Ireland we can prove that a particular substance which should be withdrawn is necessary to combat a serious danger to plant health and that there is no safer substitute, this substance may be approved for up to five years repeatedly, despite the ban.\nIn theory this may work. In practice we need to make this work. In the present climate we cannot afford to decrease EU food production and be less competitive in our market-leading potential. We need to push and urge industry to invest in alternative, biologically sound products which are equally if not more effective. We have a precedent. We have all seen the case of the use of a non-chemical, natural, cheap and effective remedy spray used to protect white grapes worldwide.\nI welcome Parliament's amendment which goes some way to protect bees, which are crucial for farmers and food supplies through pollination.\nFinally, I would ask colleagues to support UEN Amendment 182 and to reject the package Amendment 169. The Commission, the experts, will come up with the proper scientific basis for endocrine disruptors in four years. We cannot prejudice this scientific assessment with a non-scientific-based definition.\nHiltrud Breyer\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, I actually wanted to speak about Mrs Klass's report, but will now take the opportunity to respond to the previous speaker.\nYou should read the agreement! What you just said was, we have introduced the amendment so that endocrinal substances will not be on the market for a further four years. Your amendment will bring about exactly the opposite situation. Please look at it again. Perhaps you could withdraw your amendment tomorrow, as it conflicts with what you have just said.\nWhat the pesticide industry wants is that we do not set any criteria. Everybody in the House must, of course, ask themselves whether they have prostrated themselves before the pesticide industry or whether they are creating added value for citizens, health and the environment. This is the crux of the matter and nothing else. Otherwise, we have taken all measures to support agriculture as always. The Danish example, in particular, is very impressive: it has succeeded, within twenty years and without loss to agriculture, in halving the use of pesticides, doubling water quality and halving the quantities of pesticide residues.\nAnd now to Mrs Klass, many thanks for your work! However, as a group we would, of course, have liked to have clear objectives and clear timetables. Nevertheless, we hope, of course, that this will be a spur for Member States to generate competition amongst themselves as to who is the most prepared amongst them to really take plant protection and sustainable management seriously.\nAnd, of course, we would have liked more rights for the residents of areas adjacent to agriculture. I also hope, in this connection, that the ground-breaking judicial ruling by the British High Court to clearly encourage and support citizens in their requests for information may perhaps also be used to provide similar access for more citizens in their Member States throughout Europe. I also hope that we have made a little progress towards more transparency.\nRoberto Musacchio\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the dialogue on these measures - the pesticides directive and regulation - has been very difficult. Parliament rightly insisted on legislation that would be effective and suitable for the task. There has been debate in Parliament, but above all strong resistance in the Council, and economic powers have been mobilised in force in defence of vested interests.\nWe should, in fact, be concerned with general interests. Consumers should be able to eat foods uncontaminated by residues, citizens should be able to enjoy an environment unspoilt by these pesticides, and farmers should be able to work safely and towards a new quality of product.\nThere is an excessive use of chemicals in agriculture that damages all these things - our food, the environment and farmers are all forced to pay a high price for this industrial produce. The abuse of chemicals is linked to an old model of agriculture, where value is placed on quantity rather than quality and where produce becomes disconnected from the land, the seasons and the workers. It is a costly model for everyone, a harmful model also, because of the impact it has on the greenhouse effect. The legislation we are adopting is thus part of a movement to establish a more modern, healthier model of quality agriculture that meets the needs of citizens and the environment, with a greater commitment to labour and generating greater income.\nI have to report that our efforts have borne fruit, thanks to the perseverance of both the rapporteurs and all the experts who worked together with their counterparts in the Council. The objective of reducing pesticide use, and not only the dangers associated with it, has been added to the list of commitments to be met under the respective national plans only. This chiefly concerns high-risk substances.\nIf priority is thus to be given to non-chemical methods, to the defence and integrity of the soil and water supply, avoiding any contamination of common resources such as water, then individual countries must have a sense of this great responsibility to reduce pesticides and move to sustainable use. Aerial spraying is virtually prohibited and - where there are no viable alternatives - local people must be notified in advance of the composition, times, intensity and schedule of the spraying. Progress has thus been made with regard to rights to information too, and access to data via the Internet.\nWe did want the regulation to abandon the idea of three rigid zones, but the Council did not agree, and so it has been retained. The outcome is nonetheless significant; these are measures that will be adopted to fight the contraband in illegal, counterfeit and dangerous substances, as well as others. We are taking a real step forward and I hope that the parliamentary vote will not come to blows!\nJohannes Blokland\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, the debate about the sustainable use of plant protection products and their admission on the market is a particularly complex one. It is difficult to strike a balance between good and bad. Whilst chemical substances cause damage to the environment and health, our agriculture cannot function without them, since the risk of crop diseases would increase too much. This, in turn, would have adverse effects on food production and the economy.\nThe most important task policy-makers and politicians have is to strike a healthy balance between sustainability and agricultural economics. In my view, the present compromise proposals go some way to achieving this balance, I can endorse them. I am delighted, for example, that the system of risk mitigation is being maintained, rather than relying solely on reduction in use alone, as, in practice, the reduction in use on its own does not always guarantee a reduction in risks. There are cases where the quantity of pesticides may be reduced, but when the product is then used in higher concentration levels, this is of little benefit to the environment or our health.\nI am also pleased that the admission regulation has not become as restrictive as proposed in this House at first reading. Extra restrictions are now being imposed on the admission of products, and rightly so, but this will not harm agriculture to a disproportionate extent.\nI should like to offer my sincere thanks to both rapporteurs for the cooperation and efforts in achieving this result.\nAshley Mote\nMadam President, I have been deluged with messages from growers from all over the south-east of England who regard this proposal as near catastrophic. It will result, they tell me, in smaller crops and in higher prices, and it will open the way for importers who do not have the same criteria imposed upon them. There will be job losses, some units will become non-viable and production will stop. There will be closures in my constituency because there are, in some cases, no alternatives to key substances used by specialist growers.\nThere has been hopelessly inadequate impact assessment in many countries except my own, and the switch from risk assessment to hazards has already been commented on. If you are going to use hazards as criteria you might as well ban petrol and caffeine. Even the science is against you; pest resistance problems will be aggravated; there will be a loss of biodiversity. Integrated pest programmes have already decreased the need for pesticides. What is important are the options, not quantity. And you seem to have ignored the benefits of crop rotation. You have no right to destroy one of the few sectors of British agriculture still thriving just to appease Danish disinclination to process drinking water from the ground.\nMarianne Thyssen\n(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our rapporteurs have worked very hard on an agreement that deserves our support, primarily because it seeks to achieve ambitious environmental and health objectives but also because it remains agriculturally-economically rational, which means it has an eye for both the certainty of food supply and the viability of farming in the Union.\nAs ever, a compromise is about give and take. I still find it difficult to live with the cut-off criteria because I would have preferred to have seen a selection on the basis of a scientifically underpinned risk analysis, although I have to admit that the derogation option keeps things workable.\nOn the positive side, I would mainly like to highlight the following points. First of all, Member States have a margin when they determine the volume reduction goals. Secondly, the Union has been divided up into three zones where admissions are mutually recognised, which brings us closer to a unified market with less red tape and earlier availability of better plant protection products. Thirdly, I welcome the fact that Member States have sufficient flexibility to determine how buffer zones around watercourses are handled. Finally, what is also to be applauded is that Member States can take measures to make it easier to use plant protection products for minor crops. This is particularly important for countries practising intensive agriculture on small plots of land, and I therefore hope that the fund for minor users will be topped up sufficiently.\nA good guideline for the use of plant protection products is: as little and as safely as possible, but as much as is needed for a safe and profitable crop. If we recognise and monitor sensibly, if efforts are made for professional and informed use and if we also take into account that agricultural production takes place within a global market, we strike the right balance, and that is why this compromise receives our support.\nAnne Ferreira\n- (FR) Madam President, Commissioners, firstly I should like to thank the rapporteurs. We are conscious today that, although plant protection products have enabled a significant increase in agricultural production, in some instances they also have a very negative impact on health and the environment. That is why, aside from the legislation that will be put in place, there is also an urgent need for an epidemiological register making it possible to measure the impact caused by the use of various pesticides according to the way in which professionals and their families, and, of course, consumers, are exposed to them. In certain regions a particularly rapid increase in various types of cancer has actually been observed. Children of users and, in particular, of farmers, are also affected. Aside from this crucial issue of people's health, it is also the impact on the environment that should be measured. We are already aware of the harmful effects of certain chemical substances on groundwater and rivers. I might also add, on this issue, that I do not believe that the proposal to refer the buffer-zone matter to the various national arbiters is a satisfactory solution. Rather, I believe that the Commission will have to be extremely vigilant regarding this issue.\nToday we are also seeing an increase in soil erosion, which could jeopardise the agricultural use of many areas of land across the European Union in the decades to come. The fertility of this land is greatly diminishing. The European Union is reacting to confront these risks; that is good, but it should also support farmers in a move to reduce, if not eliminate, harmful pesticides. The future common agricultural policy should integrate this objective and take better account financially of the link between high-quality production and agriculture. Research into agronomy and ecotoxicology, as well as training for farmers, should be used to support new production methods and should be adapted to the specific characteristics of the territories.\nI shall conclude simply by quoting the title of a film that has just come out, which concerns the theme of this evening and which is called: 'Demain nos enfants nous accuserons' [Tomorrow our children will accuse us].\nMojca Dr\u010dar Murko\nMadam President, let me join those Members who consider the second-reading agreement a well-balanced compromise, given the complexity of the matter. It shows the way for further improvements in the sector, towards more efficient and safer plant protection products, and is flexible enough to avoid situations in which the ban on certain pesticides would, in the final analysis, reduce the irreproachability of agricultural products.\nIn particular, I wish to welcome the improvement of the original Commission proposal aimed at avoiding the duplication of tests and studies and promoting non-animal tests.\nI hope that this could have an impact on other, related sectors, such as plant protection product data requirements, which are right now moving through their own revision process.\nEven if pesticides, in contrast to chemicals, are intended to be toxic and their safety assessment is therefore a special case, it does not mean that redundant animal testing should take place or that scientific knowledge cannot develop in ways that will identify further redundancies and that further potential reduction in animal testing will be possible in future. It should be noted that development and registration of new agricultural pesticides or plant protection products can use upwards of 12 000 animals in dozens of separate and often overlapping tests.\nLeopold J\u00f3zef Rutowicz\n- (PL) Madam President, pesticides are harmful to the environment and to animals. I should like to point out that the conditions in which old pesticides are stored in many countries are such that the products represent a danger to the environment and to human beings. It will be impossible for poor countries to deal with this matter without Union aid.\nSustainable use of pesticides is an important issue. The provision of information and training for users is crucial, as is support for the latter by the agro-technical services. Some experts believe that the quantities of pesticides used are many times greater than is actually needed. This is commonest where small users are concerned, as these people lack the necessary agro-technical knowledge on many subjects.\nOther important issues are placing the pesticides on the market, scientific research in this area and all types of action to reduce the impact of pesticides on health and the environment whilst still proving effective. I should like to thank Mrs Klass and Mrs Breyer very much for the reports they have prepared. I should also like to point out that these directives make a great deal of sense, provided that they are effectively implemented and become part of agricultural practice.\nThe Union for Europe of the Nations Group supports the directive.\nBart Staes\n(NL) Madam President, the Directive on the sustainable and risk-reducing use of pesticides and the Regulation concerning the placing of pesticides on the market are both extremely necessary and useful. The sustainable production and consumption of food is, after all, a basic human right. There are two compromises between Parliament and the Council before us. Our group will approve both documents, although we would have liked to have seen a firmer end result, of course. In fact, I was rather taken aback by the attitude of, and fierce protests from, the farming lobby and the pesticides industry in relation to this dossier, given that the laws on which we will be voting tomorrow will guarantee better protection of man and the environment and will also, in the end, lead to more innovation and safe replacement products.\nNobody can maintain any longer the criticism levelled by the farming lobby that more than half of pesticides will disappear. In fact, even agricultural organisations now admit that no more than 9% of products will need to disappear, and even then not right away, but phased over a period of several years. Crucial in this matter is, as before, the protection of public health against carcinogenic substances that can bring about changes in DNA, affect fertility or upset hormones. The compromises that are before us on this subject are honourable, with due consideration for the farming world. It has even been agreed that if a specific farming sector is at risk of running into difficulty, a separate plan may be drawn up to give that sector more time.\nWe are, in my view, presenting an honourable and acceptable compromise between ecology, on the one hand, and agricultural economics, on the other.\nMary Lou McDonald\nMadam President, there are plenty of examples of sound EU environmental polices which improve the lives of citizens across the Union and there are, of course, also many examples where unnecessarily bureaucratic measures come from the EU and restrict the potential to sustain our rural economy and way of life. Unfortunately, I believe this pesticide package may fall into the latter category.\nIn raising my concerns on these measures, I want to make it clear that I do not have industry in mind but rather the farming community - farmers who, I will remind the previous speakers, have as much concern with human health as any other citizen and who bear no malicious intent in that regard.\nThis package lacks the sufficient scientific rigour which is needed both to defend our health and our economy. The lack of a thorough impact assessment, taking into account effects on our environment, health, economy and the sustainability of our rural communities, is testament to this failure to apply sufficient rigour.\nIt is my fear that the package will have the opposite effect of the progressive intentions behind it. The well-intentioned attempt to create a more sustainable countryside may ultimately undermine the countryside by imposing overly stringent rules on an already struggling farming population.\nI have listened intently to the arguments made unanimously by farmers in Ireland, and I believe that they are right to be concerned with this package and that the long-term interests of our citizens and of the rural communities are not protected in these measures.\nThe trialogue position does represent an improvement on the proposal but more needs to be done on the Regulation by way of amendment to meet these real concerns.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) Madam President, It is rare for a committed eurosceptic like me to be able to commend a proposal and recommend that the House votes in favour. The reason for this is that we are dealing with cross-border environmental problems and the ability of the internal market to function. Nevertheless, the proposals tend normally to be unreasonably bureaucratic - not so in this case.\nThis proposal avoids unnecessary bureaucracy. Our rapporteur is on the right track. This report proposes strict and tighter controls. The use of poisons such as alcohol and tobacco must be an individual decision. Collectively, it must be possible for us to be protected against toxicity. That is what is proposed.\nThe proposal offers flexibility, mutual recognition, division into zones and the national right to prohibit pesticides over and above those included here, which is absolutely excellent. Pesticides that have already been approved are not being withdrawn. I do, in fact, have reservations about that. We should be very strict when it comes to poisons of this kind.\nI would like to remind you of what our fellow Member, Mr Mote, said about there being a risk of citizens buying products from other countries once we introduce stricter rules in the EU. I do not believe that that will happen. It is important for it to be stated that a product comes from the EU Member States. People will then choose to buy such a product in particular. I therefore recommend that the House vote in favour of this excellent compromise.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate\n- (FR) Madam President, I should of course like to congratulate our rapporteurs, then to commend the agreement that has been reached thanks to the remarkable work that they have accomplished with the help of the European Commission and of the Council. We have here in fact what seems to me to be a particularly important agreement because it is a balanced agreement that takes account of everyone's interests, that is to say, it takes account of the protection of consumers' health - these consumers who become anxious as soon as pesticides are mentioned, who become concerned when they hear that pesticide residues contaminate fruit, vegetables and cereals. The reduction objective contained in the agreement, with the abolition of carcinogenic and genotoxic substances, is therefore very important.\nProtecting the environment and biodiversity, with the incorporation of the bee problem, protecting water and protecting our land are of course key aspects. So too is protecting farmers, these farmers who are the first to be affected by the use of such pesticides, who will look on with satisfaction at the harmonisation of legislation and the simplification of procedures, and who will be able to continue to use certain substances that they require for agriculture, but for what we now hope will be a sustainable type of agriculture. The chemical industry, which agriculture needs, also has a duty to evolve and to find alternative solutions. With this text, there can no longer be any confusion between the concepts of danger and of risk. Pesticides are obviously dangerous, but it is their methods of use that determine whether they pose a risk to professionals, consumers and the environment. It is therefore important to ensure that professionals receive proper training, that the general public is given information and that a kind of school of best practice is introduced.\nTo conclude, I would say that import controls absolutely must be harmonised, since we cannot demand a number of things from our farmers and then continue to bring products into the European Union that do not comply with our legislation. There would be a risk there of unfair competition.\nThomas Wise\nMadam President, I do not know what is going on, but I am reminded of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, one of whose most famous quotes is 'worse is better'. As I enter the last six months of my tenure in this place, I can see that is just what is happening. Worse is better! It is better from my point of view, because the sooner people realise just how damaging the EU is to their incomes, their livelihoods and food production, then we will be better off out - and that is what I stand for.\nThis report takes no cognisance of hazard or risk; it cannot identify between the two of them. Let me tell you now. It is icy out there - that is a hazard. There is a risk I will fall over when I walk home. You can legislate for neither of them.\nIt will damage food production. It will put farmers out of business. It will make food prices higher, particularly in the UK. I will be voting against this because worse is better and, when the message gets out, we in Britain will leave the EU.\nDorette Corbey\n(NL) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs alike. The compromise that has been reached is, to my mind, a step in the direction of more sustainable farming, and this is desperately needed. Needless to say, pesticides play a key role in preventing diseases and plagues of pests, but chemical pesticides also pollute the environment and can be harmful to health. This is why it is important to narrow the chasm between regular and organic farming in a responsible manner. That is precisely what this legislation does, and it does so mainly via three measures that are important in this regard.\nFirst of all, some of the most dangerous chemical pesticides are being banned. Exceptions are allowed where no alternatives are yet available. The cultivation of tulips is not at risk, therefore, but it would not do it any harm if the level of toxins dropped slightly.\nSecondly - and this is at least as important - incentives have been included in the legislation to promote the development of more sustainable products and products for minor crops. Minor crops are crops that are only cultivated in small amounts, such as tomatoes, Brussels sprouts and tulips. Many horticulturalists feared that these crops would come under threat as a result of this legislation, but, fortunately, this fear has proved unfounded. Quite the reverse, in fact, given that the regulation provides for the introduction of a special fund for the promotion of research into products that are suitable for minor crops.\nA third measure that is also of significance is that Member States should, in this context, make plans to reduce the risks involved in using the remaining chemical pesticides. The use of chemical pesticides is being reduced everywhere, but particularly in sensitive areas, such as close to schools. That, too, is important.\nThese are all measures that benefit the environment and public health. If it was up to me, I would have banned the neurotoxic substances at the same time, as these can influence the functioning of the human nervous system and so should not be sprayed on agricultural crops.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries\n- (FR) Madam President, the people of Europe should be pleased today with the very sound agreement reached by the Commission, the Council and, of course, our rapporteurs, on this issue of pesticides, and, going by what I have heard in this debate, it has been reached in a climate of very intense and particularly effective lobbying in the United Kingdom and in Ireland.\nIt is a legislative package, then, that reconciles health and the environment with competitiveness and innovation, instead of pitting them against one another, as is all too often the case. It is important to bear in mind that, although the some 800 chemical molecules concerned undeniably play a role in protecting crops against pests, there are many people today who are against exposing populations to avoidable health risks, and I am specifically thinking, of course, of farmers, who are more exposed than others to certain harmful substances, CMRs and endocrine disrupters.\nThe figures from the WHO are edifying: one million incidences of serious poisoning by pesticides, with some 220 000 deaths each year. It is this philosophy that consists in using chemicals for everything, in causing a cocktail effect and in taking a short-term view of agriculture that is today being called into question. A necessary change of direction is taking place which, tomorrow, if the compromise is of course accepted by our plenary, will formally bring an ambitious, realistic and resolutely modern pesticide policy into the world. It is ambitious, because Europeans want, as we do, to get rid of dangerous products; they also support a ban on aerial spraying and increased protection for public areas. It is realistic, because economic life cycles are respected, two-thirds of the substances placed on the market are safe and are therefore authorised for 10 years, on a renewable basis, and manufacturers have no legitimate cause for concern.\nTo conclude, Madam President, this pesticide package is modern because the integrated management of pesticides is an essential strand of a new agricultural policy, one that, for Europe, involves having fewer, but better, pesticides.\nZbigniew Krzysztof Ku\u017amiuk\n- (PL) Madam President, I should like to highlight three issues in the course of the debate on the reports on the sustainable use of pesticides and placing plant protection products on the market.\nFirstly, the provisions under discussion only concern two stages of the use of chemical products, namely their placement on the market and their subsequent use. As yet, no appropriate regulations exist concerning the removal of such substances from the market and their disposal. In my country, Poland, the disposal of plant protection products is a major issue. Significant financial support is a priority, rather than additional legal provisions. The local authorities on whose territory the dumps for substances of this type are located require financial aid to be able to dispose of them. Secondly, it would be desirable if, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, the individual Member States had the final say concerning confirmation, restriction and denial of authorisation for the use of a chemical product on their market Thirdly, I would like to express the hope that the solutions adopted in Parliament will create a level playing field for all European farmers in relation to the use of plant protection products. I trust too, that illegal practices involving the trading and use of these products will be reduced to a minimum.\nMadeleine Jouye de Grandmaison\n- (FR) Madam President, the report's proposals are along the right lines, and I should like to commend the rapporteurs on them. Although it is true, as the Commission says, that pesticides mainly concern the common agricultural policy, it is no less true that such a directive should aim to have the environment and public health as its main legal basis. Its scope cannot be reduced to a simple market-harmonisation or competitiveness problem. Proof of this is the case of the French outermost regions of Martinique and Guadeloupe where, in the case of Martinique, 20% of the land, 20% of the island's surface - that is, a surface area of 1 000 km2 - have been polluted indefinitely by the chlordecone molecule, the persistence of which is unknown. This is a molecule that has polluted not only the land but also the surface waters, some groundwater areas and the marine waters of the coastal region, greatly damaging our economy. Who is giving thought to the current public health problems? If it is not too late, I would advise Parliament to study the case of Martinique, which France is very aware of.\nIt is crucial for this directive to bring about a significant reduction in the use of chemical pesticides, not least through the promotion of sustainable alternative solutions such as organic farming and biopesticides. This will be a credit to Parliament. Lastly, let us not forget - and this has been pointed out many times - the ravages of pesticides on fauna, especially bees. It is also important for Parliament to be vigilant concerning free-trade products, in particular agricultural products sourced from countries that are not rigorous in their use of pesticides.\nKathy Sinnott\nMadam President, what we have in common here is a desire to protect health, but we should remember that it is the farmers who produce the good, fresh, nourishing food that is the basis of our health. I come from a very wet country. My farmers struggle continually with fungal infestation. Fungi - unlike insects that come and go - come and stay. To ban, or impose diluted, fungicides could make potato and grain farming impossible in Ireland, but this proposed legislation is already having another effect.\nAlready in our media there are articles promoting GM potato-growing as an answer to the EU restrictions on pesticides. Which will be more damaging to bees and the environment: the continued responsible use of pesticides as practised by Irish farmers, or GM? We are told pesticides might disrupt DNA. GM is based on disrupting DNA. It is more necessary than ever that we start with a full impact assessment.\nFernand Le Rachinel\n- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the wake of the trialogue between the Council, Parliament and the Commission, the text adopted on 18 December on the pesticide package seems to be well-balanced.\nIndeed it takes account both of the interests of farmers and of the necessary protection of the environment, protected areas included. Having followed this matter closely, I am pleased with the result obtained, as it will allow farmers to pursue their economic activity without being penalised by the total elimination of pesticides and plant protection products, which will be strictly controlled.\nI would point out in this regard that the producers of acid fruits and vegetables in my region of Normandy have been at the cutting edge of agro-environmental practices for several years now. Fortunately the Council and Parliament have found an extremely useful area of agreement in this period of uncertainty, which has been made worse by the CAP's closing balance sheet and by the threats hanging over the agricultural budget.\nTo conclude, we will always stand by farmers in defending their tool of work and their irreplaceable role in society, which consists first and foremost in feeding their fellow men and then in preserving the countryside and in developing the land to everyone's satisfaction. In the face of the irresponsible pressure exerted by ecologists, it is comforting that common sense has prevailed.\nAnja Weisgerber\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote on new regulations on the subject of plant protection, a subject that arouses a great deal of emotion in the populace. This was also reflected in the deliberations in Parliament. We would all like fresh, healthy, local food at affordable prices without hazardous residues from plant protection products. The result achieved in the trialogue will create the preconditions for this. The new Plant Protection Regulation is a great step towards more consumer and health protection.\nPriority was given once more to scientific criteria rather than political dogmas when establishing the exemption criteria. The result of the trialogue is a giant step forward compared to the result of our Parliament at the first reading. Almost 80% of all active substances will no longer be affected but only those that constitute a risk to human health or the environment, and this is on a scientific basis. There will also be sufficient plant protection products available for sustainable management in the future. However, substances that are really hazardous will also be banned.\nIn future, there will no longer be 27 national licensing authorities but only 3 licensing zones for licensing plant protection products. The Member States within these zones must then mutually acknowledge their licences in principle. The new Plant Protection Product Regulation will provide the harmonisation required for a long time with justification in the plant protection product sector. We will then have a uniformly high level of protection without jeopardising sustainable agricultural production within Europe. We will now achieve a real internal market, uniform competitive conditions and a great deal of progress towards health protection. This is wonderful success for consumers and farmers. Thank you very much.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu\n(RO) The use of plant protection products in compliance with efficient farming practices is vital to be able to produce a sufficient quantity of good-quality food, which will offer a high level of protection to the consumer's health and the environment.\nReducing the risks and impact associated with pesticide use and setting targets aimed at reducing how frequently these products are used will help guarantee sustainable farming.\nThe presence of a high level of pesticides in the food consumed in the European Union results from the dependency on these chemical products which, although necessary to help control any infestation and boost production efficiency, can have adverse effects on public health.\nSome Member States, including Romania, are facing a high level of infestation affecting their agricultural land, with pesticide use seeming to be the best method for eliminating the pests.\nFor this reason, the proposals for implementing integrated pesticide management, the use of alternative substances and risk management will help yield suitable agricultural products which take into account the environment and public health safety, thereby reducing dependency on plant protection products.\nAt the same time, the large number of pests on Romania's agricultural lands means that we have to use treatments sprayed from airplanes. However, once the directive comes into force, these spray treatments will only be applied when there are no viable alternative solutions to combating the pests, in order to provide the environment with an adequate level of protection.\nI am pleased with the compromise result, which has received the backing of the majority of political groups. It will also ensure a balance between the availability of plant protection products and, by implication, a sufficient quantity of food products, as well as help maintain European farmers' competitiveness and increase the level of protection for the environment and health.\nHolger Krahmer\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, plant protection products were, and still are, essential agricultural resources. Farmers require a minimum selection of plant protection products because it is a matter of protecting the indigenous cultural landscape, producing top-quality food and protecting resources.\nOur debates about chemicals are too often conducted on a very irrational level. We must think and act rationally if we are to achieve sensible results. The effects of Parliament's original position would have been fatal: a blanket ban on plant protection products would result in lower agricultural yields and, ultimately, rising food prices. Therefore, I am happy that an acceptable compromise was found in the trialogue negotiations. It is welcome that we have retained the three-zone ruling even with considerable exemptions for Member States. A courageous step to a consistent internal market solution would look different at this stage:\nAlongside the acceptable compromises achieved, we should not second guess a final definition of endocrinically effective substances but actually allow the Commission its four years to produce a scientifically-based definition. Otherwise, we will overstretch the precautionary principle here.\nI find it regrettable that we are not permitting any impact assessment of the agreement now reached.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n- (PL) Madam President, our work on a further series of tasks aimed at regulating issues important for human health within the European Union is drawing to a close. I believe that the compromises we hope to agree on are sound. They should ensure that the restrictions introduced will promote health without threatening the development of European agriculture.\nIt is important to bear in mind, however, that all such changes aimed at tightening up safety conditions in agriculture result in significant cost increases. The latter have to be borne by our farmers, who are simultaneously being required to improve their competitiveness on global markets. Our farmers will have to pay more for safer pesticides. I shall reiterate what I have said in the House on many previous occasions. By all means let us introduce high standards for our farmers and food producers. Let us also, however, impose those same standards on importers of food from outside the Union, otherwise our efforts to raise standards will prove counterproductive.\nJim Allister\nMadam President, I do not accept that we have yet got a balanced package on this matter. For me this debate highlights two follies: first the abject folly of the EU, without pausing for even an impact assessment, dashing down the road of banning multiple plant protection products, not caring that there are no substitutes and that indigenous food production will drastically suffer, particularly in the cereal and vegetable sector, and thereby forcing ever-increasing dependence upon imports from countries who care nothing about these things.\nMadam President, I have heard much talk in this debate about science, but what sort of science is it that does not subject itself to proper impact assessment?\nThe second folly is that of my country in particular, which is perhaps the most affected by these proposals, having subjected itself to qualified majority voting in the Council on these matters to the point where we are now probably going to be impotent to resist them. It is due to the idiocy of subjecting ourselves to qualified majority voting that we find ourselves in this position, and yet some under Lisbon would say we should hand over more and more subjects to that category.\nRichard Seeber\n(DE) Madam President, this is a balanced compromise and therefore I will support it. I would also like to say thank you, at this point, to all those involved. The dossier was, as we are hearing in this debate, created with a great deal of emotion, but nevertheless it succeeded in reconciling the different protection aims which we are pursuing with this legislation.\nEurope purports to be one of the most advanced plant protection legislative powers worldwide and that is a great plus. It was important for us to find a balance between the protection aims in question and health protection, the internal market goals and, of course, environmental protection, but a balanced result between the specific protection aims has also been achieved. It was important for us to observe the various principles, for example, that the whole thing was based on facts and scientific principles and not on emotions, secondly, that we stayed with the risk-based approach and not the hazard-based approach as before. This is extremely important for the practicability of the whole legislative project and for its implementation at a later date.\nAt the same time, it should be remembered that we do not give preferential treatment to imports in the implementation and disadvantage national or European production. But in this instance the Commission still has a great task ahead of it. These principles were taken into consideration in a balanced manner, overall. Therefore, we can live with the compromise. As far as the details are concerned, it is particularly important for me that Member States are given the necessary flexibility and subsidiarity for groundwater protection, so that they are in a position to be able to respond to their specific circumstances. The Netherlands cannot be compared with Germany or with Malta or Greece in this instance. It is also important that the use of pesticides in Natura 2000 areas and in bird sanctuaries is reduced to a minimum. Member States will have sufficient room to manoeuvre to implement this accordingly. However, this is a compromise which should be supported by everybody.\nBogdan Golik\n- (PL) Madam President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs on their excellent reports. Time is short, so I shall only refer to the report by Mrs Klass and highlight certain shortcomings of the proposed directive.\nThe directive lays down a training and certification system for distributors and professional users of pesticides. The proposed arrangements should, however, provide for mutual recognition between Member States of certificates confirming completion of training in the use of pesticides. The directive also retains the regulations of the system of technical control and maintenance of equipment for the application of pesticides based on national legislation. I believe it would be appropriate to regulate this matter at Community level. If such control were based on international provisions there would be every reason for mutual recognition of the results by the Member States. This is particularly relevant in relation to the exploitation of fields located in borderlands and to official plant protection action. One final reservation I should like to mention is the failure to take account of the special circumstances of forest protection. Forests cannot be maintained without aerial spraying.\nLambert van Nistelrooij\n(NL) Madam President, as a Dutch MEP, I followed this legislation with due attention and care. In my low-lying country, the situation is very specific. Unlike other areas in Europe, it is impossible to work with buffer zones prescribed by Europe along all water courses. This would not work. It would make normal sustainable production in farming and horticulture impossible. The Netherlands, however, is also known for its minor crops, including tulips, onions and chicory. This is why we should pay specific attention to how the compromise is to be worded. The compromise that is now being struck is a great improvement on the one in Mrs Breyer's proposal, which was the subject of vote in the Commission. As a member of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I voted against on that occasion. There are now sound transitional provisions which, in combination with innovation and replacement products, can help industry along. Moreover, this fund for minor crops that is about to be introduced will give these alternatives a shot in the arm. Also, the three regulations, the three zones in Europe for recognition and admission are also much better aligned with actual practice.\nI should like to add one area of concern, namely the admission of products from outside the European Union. We lead the way when it comes to striking a good balance between public health and practical applicability, but what happens with external imports? This competitive position, along with the parallel import and parallel trade should, to my mind, be raised in the WTO, where matters of this kind are discussed.\nWe can endorse the proposal. I should like to thank the rapporteurs and particularly Mrs Klass and Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges for their efforts in this respect. All that remains is this one area of concern that matters to farmers, namely we are practising sustainable farming, but what about everyone else? This problem remains unresolved for the time being, and I would appreciate hearing your reaction to this.\nCsaba S\u00e1ndor Tabajdi\n(HU) Fellow Members, food security is a major goal of the European Union, but this is a poor compromise. Hungary will oppose this report in Council, and the Hungarian Members of the European Parliament do likewise, because it is damaging to European agriculture.\nWe face two particularly important problems. The zone system is artificial and contrary to the European Union's principle of subsidiarity, and, as the remarks of my fellow Member from the Netherlands have just demonstrated, it makes flexible response impossible. It is further harmful to European agriculture because the level of risks increases, the danger of resistance increases, production costs rise, and because, as many of my fellow Members have mentioned, we will not be able to monitor the products of third countries. For this reason, this directive poses extremely serious dangers.\nFinally, the consequence of radical environmentalist perspectives is that restrictions on plant protection products will make way for GMOs, which would not be desirable in Europe.\nMairead McGuinness\nMadam President, I would like to thank those who worked on these two important reports. One would imagine from the contributions of some here this evening that the EU had absolutely no control currently on the marketing and use of these chemicals - we do! We have strict rules at the moment and, indeed, rules on residues and food. So I bow to neither side nor extreme of this debate this evening, particularly those who fail to see the need for plant protection products in food production and those who say that these two pieces of legislation are a disaster for farming and the food production in Europe.\nI am a bit concerned about the comments of Commissioner Dimas when he says that people are worried about pesticides. Yes, that may be the case, but the question is: how justified are these worries? What have you done as the Commission to point out to consumers that the vast bulk of our food is produced using products to give us quality, safe food? Yes, some ingredients used in chemicals are very hazardous, but the risks of using them depend on how they are used and depend on compliance with maximum residue levels (MRLs) in our food. As far as I am concerned, those who use them are well-trained, in my experience, and we need perhaps to step up the training in other Member States.\nTwenty-two substances are on the way out; in Ireland and the UK there are huge concerns about cereal production and potatoes. The questions are: will the agrochemical industry respond and produce new products? The Commission does not have the answer to that question. Will the derogations work? What happens if there are no alternatives? I think that that needs to be addressed, because we in Ireland want to continue producing cereals and potatoes. The question of imported food is a very real one, and I beg for five seconds extra on it. If the Commission would work with EU food producers on this, we could make progress. It is just not tenable that the Commission can sit here and say that we will ban the use of substances in Europe but that those outside the European Union can continue to send us food using those substances. It is not a competitive position, it is not tenable, and I ask you to address it here this evening.\nPilar Ayuso\n(ES) Madam President, I would like to make reference to the Breyer report. It must be said that European farmers are fully aware that particular attention must be paid to human health and to the protection of the environment when using plant protection products. However, the industry is deeply concerned because the European Parliament does not understand the impact that this regulation may have in the future.\nAssessments of its potential impact indicate that, due to the unavailability of plant protection products in the future, it is going to be very difficult to control pests and diseases that affect the cultivation of many foods - specifically, all Mediterranean produce - as well as the cultivation of ornamental plants and cut flowers.\nI am fully aware that the agreement adopted in the trialogue was the result of hard negotiation and I therefore have to acknowledge the work the rapporteurs have done. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the temporary definition of endocrine disrupters will result in the disappearance of a large number of active substances, particularly insecticides, which are of utmost importance to farming.\nThe producers must have at their disposal a sufficient quantity of active substances in order to effectively and safely combat any disease or pest affecting their plants, bearing in mind that often the danger lies not in the product itself but in its misuse.\nFor these reasons, the Spanish delegation of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports the proposals requesting an impact assessment and will vote in favour of Mr Sturdy's amendments - which I have signed myself - relating to endocrine disrupters, and those in support of plant protection products being made available in an emergency.\nFurthermore, if this regulation is adopted in the terms of the agreement reached, the outcome will be a reduction in food production and a rise in prices, which will result in our importing those same foods that we do not produce treated with the very products we are banning.\nRobert Sturdy\nMadam President, on the Breyer report, I say to the Commission, why are you against an impact assessment? What is so vital or of so much concern that the Commission are opposed to an impact assessment?\nThere is no scientific evidence to suggest that some of the products that we have been using are dangerous to public health. Some of them are, but there are quite a few you propose to take off the menu that are not dangerous. I am thinking particularly here of one called Triasol which is vitally important to the production of wheat within the European Union. You have failed, and I mean this quite clearly, you the Commission have failed the general public when you failed to stop GMOs coming into the European Union, and the Commission admits this. You have admitted the fact that you have failed to stop GMOs coming into Europe. You failed when it came to the report that I did on maximum residue levels. We have a member here from DG SANCO - the Commissioner is busy talking at the moment, but when she has stopped talking she might just listen to what I have got to say. They have failed to control imports coming in with maximum residue levels of pesticides. They are being found on supermarket shelves.\nSo, if we are going to ban these products within the European Union, what are you going to do about the imports coming in? Are you just going to say: well, it does not really matter - these products are going to be coming in anyway? Let us leave it and just assume that people will not bother about it?\nFarmers throughout the European Union have been the most responsible people when it comes to producing food and putting this legislation in place basically means saying to them that they are fools and they are not interested. No farmer in his right mind would use a chemical which is dangerous to public health. We have done a huge amount of surveys on this.\nI leave you with one or two last thoughts on this. We are about to ban battery cages for the production of eggs and yet you will give a derogation on that. Yet that is fairly important to people. I worry about the fact that you, the Commission, have failed so far to put in place all the legislation which we have. It is vitally important here that you give the farmers the opportunity to prove themselves and prove the fact that these products are safe.\nAlojz Peterle\n(SL) There are some alarming health trends which are largely due to the irresponsible use of pesticides. It is clear that an increase in health and a decrease in incidences of cancer is not possible when our food is becoming increasingly poisoned. I am talking about one of the key environmental and health issues, and that is why only a change in the development paradigm can help us, not mere cosmetic actions.\nThe work carried out by my colleague Mrs Klass and fellow Member Mrs Breyer, in conjunction with shadow rapporteurs, is a step in the right direction, and I wish to express my full appreciation for that. I am pleased to note that both reports identify a number of fronts for action, while also addressing the manufacturers, dealers and users of pesticides. At the same time, however, we request the introduction of national action plans with quantified objectives.\nIt seems to me very significant that the notification of neighbours has been included, as this could make an important difference, not only for humans, but also, in particular, for bees. This means that we can easily prevent harm, simply by focusing on those who might be causing it. In this directive it is stipulated that Member States may include provisions on the notification of neighbours in their national action plans. I would rather that it were stipulated that they must do this.\nI am convinced that it is possible to allow plant protection with non-chemical, that is biological and mechanical, products to play a bigger role.\nNeil Parish\nMadam President, Commissioners, can I say to you that less than a year ago we were debating in this Chamber what we were going to do about global food security, and was there enough food in the world, and we were terribly worried about it. Here we are, less than a year later, debating this legislation tonight, which has the potential of actually reducing food production in the European Union; and there is a morality about producing food because what you must remember is that if we in Europe do not produce food we can probably pay for it, but the developing world cannot.\nMuch of this legislation will affect our crops - not only wheat, as Robert Sturdy has said, but potatoes in particular. We have had two of the worst summers that I have ever seen in the last two years in northern Europe. We have needed fungicides to reduce blight and actually grow the potatoes. And if people in Europe do not eat potatoes, what do they eat, Commissioners? They eat rice and they eat pasta both of which - and certainly rice - the developing world is very short of.\nFurther to what Robert Sturdy has said, many of these pesticides and fungicides we are using, if they are used properly and you have the proper withdrawal period, pose no problems, and by using these particular chemicals we can produce very good food. And if you stand and tell me that you will stop imported food coming in that has been actually sprayed with these particular types of chemicals - you will not! For the simple reason that, if they had been properly applied, you can actually test your wheat as much as you like as it comes through the port of Rotterdam, but you will find no residue there. So I think we really do have to wake up to the fact that we in Europe need to produce food and we need to produce it safely, make sure that we reduce the amount of chemicals we use, which we are already doing, and we have got to make sure that we are training farmers to spray properly, which again we are also doing.\nSo, I would urge you: please, have a proper impact assessment, because it was two years ago you did your impact assessment. We have had two of the wettest summers on record; it is time for you to look again. We really do urge you to have a proper impact assessment.\nAvril Doyle\nMadam President, Mr Struan Stevenson has offered me his two minutes as he is unable to be here. May I take it is as PPE-DE time?\nPresident\nMy pleasure!\nAvril Doyle\nMadam President, exaggerated claims have made it difficult to ascertain fact from fiction at different stages of this difficult debate. Yes, there is a need to control the use of agrochemicals - we all accept that - and, if not used sustainably, they can be hazardous to the user and the environment. But, if used sustainably, and if the maximum residue levels and withdrawal period are respected, they are of minimum risk, and of none at all to the consumer.\nThe proposal to base decisions for approval of an active substance on the intrinsic properties of the substance - the hazard-based approach - rather than basing it on the scientific principle of risk assessment is a major concern.\nAlcohol, pure alcohol, is a hazard. If you drink pure alcohol, we know what happens. But when sufficiently diluted at 4% or 12% or whatever - when used sustainably - there is minimum risk. May I say that these are two different issues.\nThe EU impact assessment has been referred to. The scientific definition, and lack thereof, of endocrine disruptors has already been referred to. However, the positive note is that the derogation period will allow industry to invest in much-needed R&D and to develop new products and viable alternatives. I would invite the agrochemical industry and their CERP community to look into and invest in this area.\nThe anomaly of allowing imported food products using plant protection products generally, while we will not allow our farmers to use them, continues to be one of the mysteries and one of the major problems we have with legislation of this sort. However, on balance I think a lot of improvement is being made from the original proposal and I am inclined to support it.\nColm Burke\nMadam President, I wish to highlight the importance of explaining to affected stakeholders early on in the legislative process the reasons why it is necessary to regulate.\nAs a representative of a predominantly rural constituency, I have received a considerable number of representations from highly concerned constituents in the farming community on this particular dossier.\nThere is a general perception amongst this community that regulations are being arbitrarily handed down from Brussels without any input from the bottom up. Therefore, I firmly believe that Member State governments need to do a lot more explaining of these matters with affected stakeholders, rather than taking the easy route of foisting the responsibility on the so-called Brussels bureaucrats. After all, it is the Member States that have to implement these measures in the final instance, and it is the Member States that have the resources in terms of local representatives to explain these matters to farmers.\nIt is important that those who are producing food within the EU are not over-regulated compared to those who bring their produce onto the market from outside the EU. Any proposal must have balance for consumers, farmers and the environment, but we must also make sure that the correct information is made available to all of the stakeholders.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n- (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, as a doctor I am acutely aware that it is our duty to European consumers to eliminate crop treatment substances that are shown to be harmful on the basis of scientific evidence. At the same time I appreciate that the rapporteurs have managed to find a balanced solution to the new regulation which will motivate industry to seek and develop safer alternative pesticides. Until then it will be necessary to grant the exemptions that are needed by countries with wet climates and southern countries simply must understand this. I insist that the Member States and also the Commission perform thorough and uncompromising checks to ensure that food and flowers imported from countries outside the European Union have not been treated with banned pesticides and fungicides. It is not simply a matter of measuring levels of residues in food. We must not permit such unequal terms of competition for European farmers. I also agree that the Commission should be criticised for failing to carry out an impact study as a result of which we are unfortunately unable to respond to all of the concerns raised by citizens over this regulation, although I am essentially in favour of it.\nGerard Batten\nMadam President, the common agricultural policy has done enormous damage to British agriculture at enormous financial and economic cost.\nNow we have these proposals on pesticides. It is estimated that this directive could mean the banning of 15% of pesticides. It is estimated that such a ban would cut wheat yield by 26% to 62%, potato yield by 22% to 53% and some other vegetable yields by 25% to 77%. This will have the effect of sending retail prices soaring, affecting worst those least able to pay.\nI wonder whether the rapporteurs could give us the identity of just one person afflicted by, or who has died from, the effects of these pesticides? Probably not! But I could tell you of lots of my constituents who cannot afford to pay more for their food bills.\nP\u00e9ter Olajos\n(HU) I am pleased that the Directive on the use of plant protection products has essentially placed this matter within the competence of Member States, especially as regards the size and designation of the buffer zone. I am in favour of prescribing action plans at national level and support the proposal that the law should put the reduction in the use of such products at its core. I am also pleased with the compromise reached on aerial spraying.\nAs regards the Directive concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, the proposal is fundamentally sound inasmuch as it addresses the prohibition and gradual replacement of products that have seriously harmful effects on human health. At the same time, monitoring materials arriving from third countries may raise problems.\nI consider the authorisation of plant protection products in a 3-zone system unacceptable. One does not need to be a plant protection expert to be horrified at the thought that Hungary, for instance, would fall within the same zone as Ireland, which has very different weather and agricultural production conditions.\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Madam President, I would like to address a subject which has not yet been discussed today in this connection. At the end of the day, we have again reached what it is to be hoped is a reasonable compromise in Europe. But what have we done along the way? Let us remember the discussions over many months with some extreme accusations by one side against the other and vice versa. All this has been devoured by the media with great enthusiasm. All that in the media has led to consumers being undermined and everyone agreeing again that 'Europe is doing everything wrong' and 'Europe is against rather than for the citizens'. Now, at the end of the day, we have reached a halfway reasonable solution, a compromise solution, but still one on which there will be a great deal of agreement. What will be left then, on average? Little to nothing!\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n- (PL) This is the first time the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament have adopted such a thorough and wide-ranging approach to provisions concerning the quality and safety of food. Tomorrow's vote in Parliament will conclude three years of work. Our task is to ensure that provisions are clear, safe, and knowledge-based, especially as regards such a sensitive area as food production. That is why, together with a group of Members, we are highlighting the need for ongoing monitoring of the effects of the regulation adopted regarding the use of pesticides.\nWe maintain that provisions based on sound knowledge will create trust amongst consumers concerning the use of pesticides on a scientific basis. The compromise reached will help improve the condition of the population's health, but will increase production costs. We should keep that in mind when discussing financial resources for the common agricultural policy. We also wish to enquire whether imported food will comply with the strict provisions that apply within the Union. I appeal for support for Amendment 179, Amendment 180 and Amendment 181, which we tabled jointly with other Members.\nJames Nicholson\nMadam President, I have to say I have grave concerns about this proposal that is before us here tonight and the effects it will have on the future of our agricultural industry.\nI want to put on record that I support the amendments put forward by Mr Sturdy, which I have signed, and which I am happy to support. I think they will at least help give the industry some support in the future.\nYes, we do need and we do require legislation, but it must be good legislation. We do not need to damage production in the process. We need a strong impact assessment to know what effects this will have, and this is what is required and what is needed, and this we do not have at present. We must have more facts and not fiction, and we certainly should dwell on the facts.\nThere is no point in Europe legislating itself out of business because we cannot control what is imported in. This is where the Commission have total double standards on what they impose within the European Union and what they allow into the European Union, for all that will happen is that people will go outside.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, I should like to thank everyone who took the floor during today's debate for their very constructive speeches. On the basis of the agreed text, which is a compromise and a very successful compromise, the Member States are obliged to prepare national action plans setting out quantitative targets to limit risks.\nUnder these national action plans, the Member States are also obliged to monitor the use of pesticides which have on occasion caused specific problems and to set targets for reducing the use of certain pesticides. This represents significant progress which, in addition to protecting the health of European citizens and the environment, will bring about financial benefits, due to the reduction in national health spending, and the benefit of a reduction in the use of pesticides under the new legislation.\nApart from national action plans, the proposed compromise package also contains a number of other important aspects. The principle of prevention must be applied. Within the framework of integrated pest management, priority is given to other, non-chemical methods of plant protection.\nProtection of residents and bystanders has been improved, in that national action plans may include provisions concerning information for persons who may be exposed to spray drift, while land sprayed from the air must not be adjacent to residential areas.\nAll pesticide distributors, not just those who sell to professional users, must ensure that some members of their staff have a special certificate of aptitude - which of course, as one Member commented, will be mutually recognised - to provide information on pesticides and are available to provide advice to customers. Only certain categories of small distributors will be exempt from this requirement.\nAs far as the ban on aerial spraying is concerned, a compromise solution has been found on the processing of exemption requests. Exemptions will follow a two-stage procedure. Firstly, the preparation of a general aerial spraying plan, which will be subject to express approval by the authorities, followed by the submission of special individual requests for aerial spraying, which will be subject to the conditions on which the general plan was approved.\nTo close, I should like to add that the Commission is satisfied with the outcome of negotiations and is therefore in a position to accept all the proposed compromise amendments.\nAndroulla Vassiliou\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, thank you all for your very fruitful participation in this very interesting debate. The Commission has attached particular importance to this file and I have been personally committed to the highest level of public health which it seeks to achieve. There have been long and difficult discussions during the trialogue which the rapporteur has steered with great dedication and skill, and I thank her for that.\nThe Commission supported the common position and can now support the proposal as it emerges from the second reading. All the innovative aspects of the proposal have been retained, in particular the approval criteria, which will ensure that dangerous substances which pose a high risk to public health are eliminated or substituted by safer alternatives, improved mutual recognition, and the substitution of some products by safer alternatives. Let me reply, however, to some of the comments that have been made here.\nAccording to the Commission's estimate, only 4% of the substances currently on the market would disappear because they are endocrine disruptors and only 2% because they are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to production. The total number of active substances which are currently on the market and which possibly would not be approved under the new regulation is expected to be less than 25 substances.\nThis evaluation has been confirmed by a report from the Swedish Chemical Agency and is also in line with the revised impact assessment from the UK Pesticides Safety Directorate. Moreover, I would like to point out that the new criteria will apply to substances already approved only upon renewal of their approval, and for most of them the renewal date is 2016. The industry will therefore have ample time to develop other safer substances.\nI would also like to make reference to some comments made about imported food. Let me remind you that, as from 2008, we have the regulation on maximum residue levels which is fully applicable. If an active substance is not approved for use in plant reduction products in the EU, the maximum residue level for this substance is set at the level of detection. This MRL is valid for EU production, but also for imported food and feed.\nThere are, however, several reasons why an active substance could not be approved in the EU, and the possible risk to consumers is only one of them. Others can be linked to environmental issues or the protection of workers, which fall under the sovereignty of third countries where the pesticide is used. In these circumstances the use of the pesticide could not be acceptable for us, but the treated crops would not necessarily pose a risk to EU consumers. The third country which wants to export commodities treated with such substances to the EU may therefore ask for an import tolerance as long as it can submit data proving that there is no risk to human health from the consumption of these commodities and that these data are favourably evaluated by EFSA and formally adopted in EU legislation. This is the position regarding imported goods.\nComing back to the directive which we are hopefully about to adopt, the Commission considers the final compromise to be properly balanced, to achieve the objectives of health and environmental production, as well as to ensure the availability of pesticides to farmers. We now look forward to the formalisation of the second-reading agreement.\nThis is certainly a very good way for the European Parliament and the Council to start a new year, and good for our citizens as it benefits their health. It is also, we believe, beneficial to our farmers as it ensures their own production through specific measures, such as the promotion of safer products. What was achieved is important. It was achieved by all of us together and serves as an excellent example of how interinstitutional cooperation can directly benefit our citizens.\nChrista Kla\u00df\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is now possible to identify a sugar cube in Lake Constance using state-of-the-art analysis. However, we must also ask ourselves how we deal with these new discoveries, what we do with them.\nWe now need objective risk assessments to find a balance between the justified health and environmental requirements and the justified concerns of business and food safety, including within a worldwide comparison.\nThe questions, which colleagues have asked, have not been adequately answered by the Commission, in my opinion. It is not enough to say that four substances no longer apply or two substances no longer apply and there are only 25 substances in total. No, we wish to have an accurate economic assessment, an assessment that not only fulfils economic criteria but also health criteria. We still need an evaluation. The Commission must now thoroughly analyse the effects of this new legislation so that we know what effect it will have at the end of the day. We must continue to monitor this, as scientific discoveries will always continue.\nThe compromise which has been reached brings a new direction in European plant protection policy. It brings more common action Europe-wide and it requires targeted measures from Member States, which guarantee the sustainable use of plant protection products.\nAs rapporteur, I thank you for your support. We have managed to find a good compromise from different starting positions. I would like more positive thinking for the New Year. One thing that can be said is that I did not have enough positive thinking: plant protection products will ensure healthy and sufficient food and a healthy cultural landscape for us in Europe!\nHiltrud Breyer\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, I, too, would like to give my thanks for a lively debate. I would like to emphasise once again that I am still of the same opinion; this is a milestone for environmental and consumer protection and, most of all, it is a magic moment for Europe. Europe is now in the fast lane. Europe is showing that it is the world's trailblazer. This decision to phase out highly toxic pesticides is unique in the world and the European Union can profit therefore from this.\nNow, with regard to the arguments put forward again and again in this debate that the matter of imports has not been clarified: that is incorrect, the matter of imports has indeed been clarified. With the ban on these highly toxic substances, they will become illegal in Europe. That means that when we have imports - let us take fruit and vegetables as an example - these imports must, of course, comply with European legislation and, specifically, by means of the Regulation on Maximum Residue Levels. If substances, such as pesticides, that have been banned in Europe are found in the residue quantity test, then the product is illegal. This means that bananas coming from Costa Rica and treated with carcinogenic substances that we have put on the index and that are therefore banned are illegal within the European Union. This is clarified quite clearly in the Regulation on Maximum Residue Levels. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to encourage further dissent, panic and fear!\nAll I can do is point out, once again, and thankfully the Commissioner has already highlighted this, that while the initial PSD study indicated that 80% of pesticides would disappear from the market, this figure has been considerably reduced in the meantime. Unfortunately, you did not mention this correction in the PSD study.\nTherefore, please stop creating this fear and dissension. Let us now really celebrate the success we are all here hopefully achieving for the benefit of the citizens of Europe, for the environment and for health protection.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nPresident\n- Mrs McGuinness, you have a point of order.\nMairead McGuinness\nMadam President, this is on a point of order, because I think people are talking and not listening.\nI heard what the Commissioner said on the food import situation. I think you are missing the point and I think, with respect, our rapporteur is also missing the point. Farmers in Europe will be banned from using particular substances. Their cousins outside the European Union can use these products. We will not find residues in the food that comes in. We are talking about a competitive disadvantage for EU producers. Perhaps at another point, we could address the real world rather than this vague ether we are currently in. Sorry for the anger.\nPresident\n- The joint debate is closed.\nWe are not going to re-open the debate.\nMrs Breyer has the floor.\nHiltrud Breyer\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I and the Commissioner both explained the situation very clearly. If you do not listen - or perhaps you do not want to hear that we have solved the problem because it does not fit in with your campaign against this regulation - then I am at a loss! But I will state again that the problem is solved. In the European Union you cannot market a substance that is not allowed to be marketed in the European Union. Full stop.\nPresident\n- We are not going to re-open the debate. I would encourage you to continue it in the corridors, if necessary.\nThe joint debate is closed, and the vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nNicodim Bulzesc  \nin writing. - I support the compromise of the Breyer Report on the placing of plant protection products on the market because it will provide for greater stability and security for farmers and food producers.\nHowever, the compromise agreement states that the new legislation would only gradually replace the existing EU law, and that pesticides already approved under current rules would remain available until their existing authorisation expires. Products that contain hazardous substances are to be replaced within three years if safer alternatives exist.\nIf voted, the report will be a step towards better health through environmental protection and a means of allowing the EU to move on to a better system without further delays.\nMagor Imre Csibi  \nI welcome the compromise text on the sustainable use of pesticides and I would like to congratulate Mrs Klass for the fine work she has done.\nIn my view, we have before us a balanced text, which will ban the use of certain harmful pesticides, but without harming European farming.\nFurthermore, I would like to say how pleased I am to note that among the non-chemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management suggested, the use of GMOs does not feature as an option. They could have been included among the non-chemical methods.\nIn this case, an avenue would have opened up in the future for marketing in the EU food products containing GMOs. The compromise text proves to us that this is not the case.\nOnce again, the European Parliament is saying a categorical NO to the use of GMOs. Therefore, the united voice of 58% of Europe's citizens is making itself heard again. On this occasion, we also have the Member States on our side, represented by the Council.\nAlexandru Nazare  \nThe regulations governing pesticides are important as a means of reducing the risks involved with pesticide use to the population's health and the environment. However, the measures adopted with this aim must be reasonable and take into account both production quality and achieving maximum harvests.\nIn the current economic crisis, boosting food production may be one solution. As Mrs McGuiness noted in the report presented at the end of last year to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the price of wheat has risen by 180% in two years, while food prices in general have risen globally by 83%. These high prices are generated by the stringent standards which we impose on European producers.\nWithout disputing the need for better regulation of pesticide use, I still feel that one of the measures proposed will lead to a reduction in the number of plant protection products available on the EU market. The upshot of this will be a fall in productivity in certain sectors, such as the cereals sector.\nCertain provisions of this legal act will affect producers due to the fact that they entail a ban on the majority of pesticides available on the market, favouring instead the marketing of products regarded as being safer, but much more expensive. Consequently, production costs will grow, which will put farmers from new Member States at the biggest disadvantage.\nRovana Plumb  \nIf all the players involved approve this recommendation, this will ensure the conditions required to harmonise the principles relating to environmental protection and animal welfare with the efficient operation of the internal market.\nThe provisions concerning mutual recognition and the zoning system have been accepted by Romania, given that clauses have been included in the text, allowing Member States (MS) to take measures aimed at adapting the terms for authorising plant protection products (PPP) in order to take into account the specific conditions, along with clauses refusing recognition in specific justified cases.\nThis version is considered therefore to offer sufficient guarantees. This entails the additional benefits of reducing the administration burden as the PPP evaluation will be carried out in only one state within each zone, which will take into account the specific conditions in all MS in the zone.\nAs a social-democrat MEP, I believe that we need to make sustained efforts to protect the environment, human health and animal welfare, without however compromising agricultural production.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"6. Transparency in regional policy and its funding (\n- Before the vote:\nMichail Tremopoulos\nrapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the incentive for this report on transparency in regional policy and its funding was the fact that the full disclosure of EU fund recipients enables public participation in a meaningful debate on how European public money is spent. This is necessary for the functioning of democracy at European level.\nThis report, which was allocated to me by the Committee on Regional Development, contains recommendations which should be included in future regulations on the Structural Funds, such as the provision of additional information needed when publishing lists of recipients and sufficiently binding rules for partnership.\nOther proposals which can be implemented within the framework of current cohesion programmes are, for example:\nthe definition by the Commission of a more detailed and prescriptive format specifying the structure, form and content of the information to be provided;\nalso, linking the European transparency initiative with the new financial controls and auditing;\na tougher line by auditors on communication and information requirements, including 'naming and shaming' and the use of financial corrections in confirmed cases of fraud;\ncloser involvement of regional and local authorities and other relevant partners in all the phases of cohesion programming and implementation and full access for them to all project documentation;\nmore guidance from the Commission on how to put the partnership clause into practice under current programmes and improving transparency in respect of EU funding of major projects.\nI should like once again to thank the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups for this final text which we were able to achieve.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nPresident\n- Let us proceed to the explanations of votes.\nSiiri Oviir\n- (ET) Following repeated demands from Parliament, the Commission has submitted a regulation on the financing of security fees. I supported the adoption of this legal act because it is important for all passengers that firm, transparent principles are followed in determining security fees. The consumer needs to be sure that revenue obtained from security fees is used exclusively for covering security expenses.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n- (SK) In my opinion, it is right for the European Commission and the European Parliament to be involved in regulating charges for passenger safety and protection in air transport.\nHowever, I have to say that I consider the current approach of establishing bodies to perform such controls to be nonsensical and incorrect. At a time when Europe needs money to help Greece, and at a time when Europe needs money for economic development, establishing new bodies that will do practically nothing beyond some kind of supervision is playing fast and loose with EU citizens' money, and I believe that it will not produce a successful result.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to express my satisfaction at being able to vote in favour of extending the force of the regulation as it concerns spare parts for cars, in terms of access of car users both to certified and uncertified parts. We have done this at the last minute, but we have responded to the needs of our citizens. We are guaranteeing good quality parts at reasonable prices.\nAntonio Cancian\n(IT) Mr President, yesterday we did well to finish the first reading of the recast dossier for the TEN-T networks. However, there is a very important aspect of this recast, this codification, that relates to all of the restructuring of TEN-T networks over the next decade.\nThis restructuring must be completely rethought, simplified and rationalised within Europe in such a way that interoperability is truly implemented. Then, considering the current unfavourable economic situation we are living in, we have to think about the development of this network, or part of it, and not only with the budget resources that we have available. We must come up with a new path and work to pick the economy back up through these networks.\nHence it is more urgent than ever that over and above the step taken yesterday, we try to work in this direction.\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) I voted in favour of the amendment to this legal act, because it will help us meet the objectives agreed upon in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan adopted in 2008. I think that the simplification of financing will speed up cofinancing investments in the Member States and the regions, and will increase the effect that the measures have on the economy as a whole, though mainly on medium-sized entrepreneurs and employers. The simplification of the rules for the Cohesion Policy, arising from practical needs, and their clarification, will certainly have a positive effect on the speed of implementation of the plan and on our handling of new problems.\nRadvilMork\u016bnait\u0117-Mikul\u0117nien\n(LT) Many countries have been badly shaken by this economic downturn and the decline of the economies of many of the European Union Member States has exceeded 10%. Therefore, the European Union's attention is very important not only for the old European Union Member States, but also for those that have recently joined the European Union and that are benefiting from support from the Structural Funds and the European Social Fund. The Structural Funds are an important instrument that can help those Member States that have experienced a severe economic downturn recover. Therefore, once the requirements for obtaining Structural Funds have been simplified, I believe it will be possible to do this more effectively.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund have demonstrated that they are valid instruments and are very useful in territorial development and for responding to the consequences of the economic crisis that has been raging in Europe and the world for some time.\nIn relation to that, I welcome the proposal to simplify the procedures for decommitment of funding and to facilitate payments to the beneficiaries of the various programmes implemented with the funds I mentioned. I am, furthermore, in favour of the provision for an additional pre-financing instalment for 2010 for those Member States that have been worst hit by the economic crisis.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Sz\u00e1jer's report and I would like to thank him for the excellent analytical work he performed in light of the innovations introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.\nConsidering the extensive and multiple implications that delegated acts will have in the legislative procedure, I particularly agree with Parliament's desire to make those delegated acts subject to well specified and clear conditions, in order to guarantee effective democratic control by this House. I believe that, above all, it will also be necessary to verify in practice how that new system will function, in order to make any necessary adjustments.\nMairead McGuinness\n- Mr President, I should just like to say that I fully support this report, which is about animal welfare. However, I have some reservations about how this Parliament and the EU legislate on this matter.\nI would prefer that we had a science-based approach to animal welfare rather than one driven by emotion. We have brought in legislation which, in many cases, is not scientifically based, and we are placing European producers, European farmers, at a huge disadvantage.\nCan I add my distress and disgust at the fact that this week the Commission has decided to reopen talks with the Mercosur countries. By that decision they are placing at risk the future of Europe's farmers, specifically beef, poultry-meat and pig producers. I would ask the Commission whether it is going to apply the same animal-welfare standards and production standards to imported products from third countries as it enforces within the European Union. If they do not, we are a disgrace.\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, animal welfare is indivisible. It must be standardised and we need a global definition of it.\nOn the subject of standardisation, we should take a break from introducing new regulations and standards and, first of all, make sure that we are applying the existing regulations in a uniform way within the European Union.\nAs far as globalisation is concerned, we must make a greater effort to ensure that the same standards and guidelines apply to imports to the European Union from third countries as apply within the European Union itself.\nConsumers have a right to buy not only healthy food, but also food which has been produced healthily.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, lest I forget, I do have a visitors' group in the gallery, and I would like to welcome them from the Ireland-East constituency. I think it is very important that our visitors and citizens see how this Parliament works and, as you can see, they are awake and interested this morning!\nOn this particular report, the Le Foll report, this Chamber hosted one of the Beatles recently telling us that we should eat less meat. Well, I think that what we need to do in relation to agriculture and climate change is to use the best available technologies to reduce the emissions which come from agriculture, because we all know that we need to produce more food globally rather than less. We will need to do that with fewer resources, less soil, less water and with the pressures of climate change, and what we need is the best possible research; I believe it needs to be publicly funded and with private partnerships, so that our farmers and food industry can produce food in a climate-friendly way.\nPresident\nMrs McGuinness, thank you, and many greetings to your visitors' group.\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, I would like to make three brief remarks about the report.\nFirstly, agriculture is not the problem in the case of climate change, it is the solution.\nSecondly, we are in the early stages of our research into climate change, despite the fact that the media sometimes give the opposite impression. In the course of our climate research we should also take into consideration and follow up theories and results which are not part of mainstream thinking.\nThirdly, we should take all the necessary and appropriate measures that do not involve additional red tape and we should make sure that these measures are effective in economic terms. For example, against this background a European framework directive on the protection of soil is counterproductive and will not bring the desired results.\nMairead McGuinness\n- Mr President, I hope everybody in the visitors' gallery is impressed! I have to say it is unusual for us to get so much speaking time but these reports are of particular concern to me in the agriculture and food production area.\nThis report is about how we manage to keep farmers in areas where land and conditions are extremely difficult because we know that farmers are the best managers of the landscape, but they do need money to survive in these areas. The concern I would have is that the eight biophysical criteria proposed by the Commission might be too restrictive when they are adopted. We need to take account of different soil conditions across the European Union. In my own Member State, Ireland, there are concerns that, if we apply these criteria in the Atlantic region, there could be problems for farmers who live in that area.\nI want to ask the Commission to take into account these concerns when they prepare their legislative text. The Commission has said that farmers manage the landscape better and more cheaply than any other option we have, so let us make sure they are allowed to survive in these regions.\nSonia Alfano\n(IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Parliament's resolution on the new Digital Agenda for Europe because I believe that guaranteeing easy and affordable broadband access to the entire population is a strategic priority for the European Union.\nExtending Internet use means broadening and developing citizens' freedom of expression, favouring their participation in democratic life and permitting the dissemination of knowledge and innovations. What I would like to highlight is that the spread of broadband in Europe would guarantee broader freedom of information. As noted by Eurostat, we must not forget that Europe also has two or possibly three speeds as regards the spread of the Internet. Italy, especially in some regions, as well as Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Portugal, are the least developed States in this sense.\nIt is no accident that in the Freedom of the Press index for 2009 drawn up by Freedom House, Italy was listed among the partially free states, in last place in western Europe together with Turkey, and 72nd in the world together with Benin and India and preceded by Tonga. I also hope that thanks to these resolutions and the principles that have been mentioned, the Italian Government will decide to release the investment of EUR 800 million as soon as possible which was intended to break down the digital divide in Italy and which, according to a statement by Gianni Letta, the Deputy Secretary to the Italian Council of Ministers, is not a priority at the moment.\nI would like to emphasise that the quality of the service in Italy is inadequate for current needs and that for years consumer associations have been complaining that the access costs are among the least competitive in Europe.\nPresident\nFor your information for next time, we have only one minute for the explanations of vote.\nI give the floor to our best speaker today, and that is Mrs McGuinness.\nMairead McGuinness\n- Mr President, thank you for the endorsement. I should say to our visitors that we normally ask for silence but I think we are being lenient today, and I thank Mr Higgins for giving me the opportunity to speak.\nI have spoken about this already and I feel that this Parliament did not realise yesterday, in the Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra report, the implications of supporting that, which I did not do. I am most concerned about the decision to reopen bilateral talks with the Mercosur countries on two different levels.\nFirst of all, it is in advance of the potential reopening of world trade talks, and the bilateral deal may be worse than that at WTO level. But secondly - and they are linked - there are real concerns about the selling-out on agriculture in the European Union. These are not just my own concerns driven from an emotional basis: the Commission itself has said that there are severe implications for European agriculture if we do a deal in these talks with Mercosur. Again, the beef sector, the poultry sector and the pigmeat sector will be most affected. I could not support this report on that basis, and I warn colleagues about its implications.\nGiommaria Uggias\n(IT) Commissioner, water is an asset for everyone and it cannot be an asset for only a select few. That is what we, the Italian IDV (Italy of Values) delegation of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, wanted to affirm in relation to Amendment 10, which opposed any attempt to privatise the water distribution systems, as this is part of the overall economic and trade agreement, and conversely we declared our support for the Canadian communities which are committed to stopping the privatisation of water.\nThe Italian IDV delegation felt the need to vote in favour of the text because it represents our values, the values that lead us to affirm the necessary indissoluble public nature of water usage. That is why I would like to repeat that in recent days we have proposed a signed petition for a public referendum against the privatisation of water and we are receiving a great deal of support in our country.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"5. Powers of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority (\nBefore the final vote:\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\nMadam President, I point to Rule 57(2), of the Rules of Procedure when I say quite plainly that the amendments that we have approved reflect the position of Parliament with regard to the Omnibus Directive that forms part of the supervision package faithfully and very clearly, but that the text is not the final text arrived at by the end of the tripartite dialogue with the Commission and the Council, as we would have liked.\nWe asked the Commission and the Council to seriously consider this text and, taking into account their position and the explicit request by the Belgian Presidency for some time to try and reach an agreement soon, I am going to request that voting on the draft legislative resolution be postponed and that the report be returned to committee.\nI should state clearly that this is the last opportunity for Parliament to reach an agreement at first reading, and I would also like to inform the President that if what is to be put to the vote is whether or not to vote for the draft legislative resolution, I will request a vote against.\nMichel Barnier\nMadam President, first of all, I should like to say a quick thank you to Mr S\u00e1nchez Presedo for what he has just said. I should also like to thank the other rapporteurs, who have done, and continue to do, a marvellous job, as well as all those who assist them.\nOn behalf of President Barroso's Commission, I should like to say that we acknowledge the political purpose and goodwill shown by Parliament with regard to a fundamental issue, as defined in the various reports and proposals from the Commission aimed at constructing an effective and credible supervisory architecture.\nThis is a fundamental issue because it determines the success or otherwise of a number of other decisions relating to transparency, supervision and - I was going to say quite simply - moral standards, in the whole range of financial services in which these elements have been singularly lacking for about 15 years, as the last crisis showed.\nWe need a little more time, Mr S\u00e1nchez Presedo, if we are to achieve the objective of creating this architecture. The Belgian Presidency needs a little more time to make the political will of the Council match that of Parliament, as you have expressed it, and of the Commission. On behalf of the Commission, I should like to say that the Council must fully acknowledge this goodwill and determination and must use the time you are giving it to achieve this level of ambition. In any case, of course, discussions are under way. The Commission will not, and cannot, give its verdict on all the amendments tabled so far, even if many of them match our own position.\nI should like to confirm, at the same time as indicating my agreement with the procedure that you are proposing, that the Commission will be at hand day and night over the coming days so that we can achieve this level of goodwill and so that we can establish, on 1 January 2011, ladies and gentlemen, supervisory institutions, authorities, and a systemic risk committee that are not only credible but which also function efficiently.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil\nMadam President, on behalf of my group - and I believe on behalf of all the rapporteurs - I am going to request that, within the following reports that make up this package - the Giegold report, the Goulard report, my own report and the Skinner report - the amended Commission proposal be put to a roll-call vote. It is important to know that Parliament has the level of mandate that we have to negotiate with the Council.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\nMadam President, I would like to ask you to set out clearly the details of voting. If what is to be put to the vote is whether or not to vote for the draft legislative resolution, I will request a 'no' vote, but if what is to be put to the vote is the postponement of voting, I would recommend a 'yes' vote.\nI would therefore ask you to set out very clearly what it is going to be put to the vote.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nDavid Sumberg\nMr President, I am grateful to you for calling me. I supported this report but, as I shall be leaving this Parliament in the coming elections, I want to use this as a final opportunity to underline the very powerful message that the President of the Czech Republic, the President-in-Office, recently gave to this Parliament: 'We now seek a new people's mandate'. The truth is, however, that the people are not really represented in this Chamber. As the President-in-Office said, there is no opposition here to the European project.\nThe people - the men and women in our constituencies, particularly in Britain - do not want a European Constitution, they do not want a treaty imposed on them. What they want is the right to vote and I hope, sooner rather than later, they will be given that opportunity.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, I welcome the adoption of this report. My group and I voted in favour. This is a very important signal that Parliament has sent. We must now, however, follow it up.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Mr President, the antisocial behaviour of employers is forcing employees to become self-employed, and this includes workers who are drivers and people who offer transport services. Employers want to save on social insurance costs and gain greater flexibility, but this has led to a situation where we have to vote under pressure from this antisocial behaviour.\nThis is why it was necessary to reject this report, because the scale of this antisocial behaviour is so great. Its existence threatens not only the occupational hygiene of workers, but above all it threatens the safety of road traffic, and can affect practically each one of us and the situation of everyone who is on the road, whether it be in a car or as a pedestrian. This is a very clear reason why we should deal very seriously with this problem and why we should come back to it, because the proposed solution did not provide us with a way out of this situation.\nMichl Ebner\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to say that I voted in favour of the report despite the fact that our two amendments were not accepted.\nI believe that it would have been a very good idea to provide for and help the Inuit people to achieve peace and tranquillity as far as their way of life, their way of living and their way of hunting is concerned and also to achieve greater respect with regard to European Union LEADER programmes for Scandinavian countries on seal hunting. I also wanted to take the opportunity to say that what takes place in Canada and has nothing to do with the Inuit is not a hunt as we understand it but a slaughter of animals, not a hunt in the true sense of the word. I therefore believe that the two things must be treated separately, whatever attitudes people adopt subsequently. I also believe that it would have been better to deal with this topic in a post-electoral period and not a pre-electoral period as at present.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, I, too, welcome the fact that the European Parliament, with its ban on the import of seal products into the European Union, has followed the example of the United States and Russia. I am sure we are sending a clear signal that the Canadian government will have to change its methods of monitoring compliance with the law when it comes to humane methods of seal hunting. However, I am also sure that our proposal will enable traditional peoples, both in Europe and outside the EU, to continue hunting seals by their traditional methods. My thanks to everyone, especially to the Czech Presidency, for enabling Parliament and the Council, to reach the compromise on 24 April which we have been able to adopt today.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, I am absolutely delighted that this report has been adopted by such an overwhelming majority and we can look forward to a ban on the import of seal products into the European Union.\nI must say that I was saddened to see that our rapporteur, the Liberal Democrat Diana Wallis, was not fully in favour of this course of action. As rapporteur, she should have represented the views of the committee, where there was a very clear majority, and not sought in a number of ways to overturn what was clearly the will of a very large majority in this House. Nonetheless, I am glad that Parliament has shown such clear determination by such a clear majority to settle the issue in the way that we have now decided.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, this report presented me with something of a dilemma. There is something not strictly rational about singling out seals for special treatment. They are not an endangered species - even the WWF says so. We do not get anything like the clamour about hunting seals on behalf of wasps or woodlice or wolverines or worms.\nThen again, democracy is not strictly rational. People are not always calculating machines. It may be, as evolutionary biologists would argue, that it is the childlike features of the baby seal - its large eyes and so on - that on a deep genetic level give us a predisposition towards empathy with them. I do not know. The point is that you open a dangerous door if you say that the voters are wrong simply because their objection to seal hunting is aesthetic rather than rational or ethical. Once you have started down that road, it is a short step to saying that they are wrong to be against the European Constitution or the Lisbon Treaty or whatever.\nSo, after a lot of thinking, I have reached this view about this report: because it is obviously such a sensitive and important issue for a number of our voters, it should not be decided at EU level at all, but should rather be determined properly through the national, democratic mechanisms and procedures of every Member State.\nNeena Gill\nMr President, I rise with pride that this House voted for this report with an overwhelming majority. I voted for this report because I am pleased that we are making a strong statement, without loopholes, on the trade in seal products in the EU.\nMany people in my constituency contacted us - and millions have got involved in this - to say that this was the most disgusting and cruelly-deployed killing of lovely creatures. I know some may say this is just because they are attractive, but when one sees videos of the methods used one realises that commercial seal slaughter, in particular, is unnecessary because many alternatives are available.\nI am very pleased that we have voted in such large numbers to stop this cruel trade.\nPeter Skinner\nMr President, this ban is great progress and represents a true victory for campaigners across the South East of England particularly - as you could imagine - and across the European Union, many of whom have written to us in the House to demand the end of this cruel trade.\nThe fact that a Labour chair of committee led this campaign, in the face of intense lobbying by the perpetrators of this cruel and obscene trade, is crucial in realising its success. It was not the watered-down original - as my colleague, Richard Corbett pointed out - but, after critical amendments were proposed by Arlene McCarthy, the ban was voted through in the committee and now in Parliament.\nI was intrigued just now to hear Mr Hannan from the Conservative Party suggesting this should be a matter of national discussion and democracy. If we were to rely upon that particular route, only eight countries would be signing up to this particular ban, as opposed to the 27 by voting it through the European Parliament. It shows that trade and animal welfare are compatible and we should rejoice in that.\nCristiana Muscardini\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, (...) the Wallis report represents a step forward for the general protection of animal rights because it greatly limits the import of seal products into the Union.\nThe Union has made a civilised choice in this context and we hope other countries will follow, even though we would have preferred the Commission text to have been the one submitted on the internal market, which very clearly limited possible exceptions to the sale of such products to cases dependent on the subsistence needs of the Inuit people. Unless they are properly controlled by border customs authorities, new exceptions could open up dangerous loopholes that will make it possible to evade the measure that, after a long struggle, punishes the futility and cruelty of certain of Man's practices that should no longer be allowed to offend our consciences.\nI hope that today's step forward does not stand in isolation, that more effort may be put into reconsidering ways of preventing our countries importing products derived from animals that have been killed with incredible suffering. On this subject, I also remind you of the great vileness of continuing to support the practice, in Europe, of butchering animals without stunning them and letting them bleed to death.\nHiltrud Breyer\nMr President, while the vote on seal hunting was so successful, something which fills me with joy, the vote on the Parish Report is particularly disappointing. Here too I would have liked us to take a clear position on animal protection, a progressive position, which shows the way forward, which makes it clear that we need alternatives to experiments on animals. Animal testing should be a thing of the past. However, here there were obviously palpable interests on the part of industry - in particular the pharmaceuticals industry - and as a result my Group and I are very disappointed that we failed to ensure that animal testing and the barbaric conditions in which animals are kept are consigned to the past.\nUnfortunately, we did not succeed in amending the genuflection, which the Commission has already made with the clear banning of animal testing on great apes. That fills me with sadness, as a society must always be measured by how it treats animals, and the European Union must no longer stand as a synonym for unnecessary animal testing. As such I would have liked the assessment of non-animal testing alternatives to have been given more consideration in this proposal for a directive, as only clear support of alternatives to animal testing will result in the end of barbaric and unnecessary animal testing in the European Union.\nThis will not be accomplished with declarations of intention, but only by underlining the significance of alternatives to animal testing and by providing the appropriate research funding. We cannot talk about alternatives to animal testing, but then fail to support their development and quick recognition. Funding for non-animal testing alternatives must not dry up. The Commission's good draft should have demanded more backing in Parliament.\nKathy Sinnott\nMr President, I was glad in the Parish report on animal testing that Amendment 170 passed. This prohibits the use of human embryos or foetal cells as an alternative to the use of animals in this directive, though there is little consolation for me that the amendment leaves the ethical decisions to the Member State, as the Irish Government and courts have consistently refused to protect embryos and I have been assured that in Ireland we also import aborted foetal cells for research.\nWe have protected the seal and this is good. We have taken some measures towards limiting and reducing animal testing and we must go further, but at no time can we forget the principle that we cannot use human beings as a substitute for other forms of testing. We must reduce animal testing, but humans are still not to be seen as the alternative.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, although today was a good day for animal welfare in terms of seals, it was a less good day in terms of the way we have just voted on animal testing.\nEarlier this month, I had the pleasure of visiting a firm in my constituency, Simcyp, which has just won a national award from the Dr Hadwen Trust for developing alternatives to research on animals. That company has shown that it is possible to develop alternatives that work. Indeed, it has also shown that often the results of research on animals, when it comes to medical research, are not necessarily giving you data that it is reliable when applied to human beings.\nSimcyp is pioneering alternatives to this. It is possible to go further. We should have gone further today. We have only made a small step. We need to do much more.\nNeena Gill\nMr President, I abstained on this report because I am a long-term campaigner for animal rights. This is one of the issues that it is important for the EU to focus on if we are to balance justice with the internal market, and we must insist on market morality.\nI have received a number of letters on this issue and constituents across my region express their dismay. They believe there should be greater protection for animals used for scientific purposes.\nThe reason I abstained is because I wanted to end the capture of monkeys from the wild for breeding purposes and I therefore support the Commission text. Also, amendments that remove the obligation for accurate record-keeping in the user establishment were not supported. Furthermore, I believe that amendments that reduce the commitment to the three 'R's - replacement, reduction and refinement - needed to be supported. I also believe that the accommodation should be tailored to the experiment and accommodation should be part of the project authorisation. I want to avoid animal suffering and ensure we have humane methods of killing or at least less painful. That is one of the reasons why I abstained because I did not feel the report went far enough.\nInese Vaidere\n(LV) Thank you, Mr President. As a former Latvian environment minister, I have been concerned for a long time about what happens in this sphere, about this amazing cruelty towards animals, as well as the fact that this amazing cruelty is practised on an industrial scale. I would like to say that this has no connection at all with the traditional way of life of the Inuit, since their traditional way of life does not involve the slaughtering of animals on an industrial scale, in order to supply the entire world with seal products. I abstained on the amended proposal, because I feel that on this issue no compromises are necessary. On the other hand, I resolutely voted for the legislative resolution, and I am really pleased that Parliament has accepted the commendable decision by European citizens regarding this trading ban on seal products. Thank you.\nInese Vaidere\n(LV) Thank you, Mr President. With regard to the Podimata report, I would like to say that in fact we can support both the Commission's proposals and the report by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and also the proposals by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance and other political groups, since as I see it, the main interests dealt with in the report are consumers' interests. The main point is that consumers should know, as regards these electrical appliances, which are the most economical and which are the least harmful to the surrounding environment. In voting, therefore, I am trying to demonstrate a balanced approach and in this case to highlight the interests of European consumers.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, as we speak, there is a live radio programme about the European Parliament on the British radio station 5 Live - it has been going all morning. There are people phoning in and one of the questions that they constantly raise is the cost of the European Parliament. How much does this Parliament cost, and can it justify its cost?\nAs I pointed out recently, if you relate the cost to the number of citizens, then the European Parliament costs GBP 1.74 per citizen per year, about the price of one pint of beer. By contrast, the House of Lords costs GBP 1.77 and the House of Commons GBP 5.79 per year, far more per citizen. Of course, this Parliament, with a wide electorate, spreads its costs widely. We have costs imposed on us by the Member States in terms of the three working places and the 23 languages, which no national parliament has to bear in its budget. Yet, despite that, we manage to provide value for money.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, I shall not dispute the figures that Mr Corbett has just read out. I do not particularly care if this Parliament costs less per capita than others - though I think there are one or two more people across the European Union than there might be in the United Kingdom.\nMy concern with this report is that it is a missed opportunity. It highlights many of the expensive regimes that we have all noticed in our time here - I have been here for 10 years, like you, Mr President. It is interesting, for example, that the European Parliament's main library is in Luxembourg, where no one can access it, because the Members rotate between Brussels, Strasbourg and their home seats.\nThere are lots of missed opportunities in this place, and this report is most definitely one of them. At a time when all our constituents are having to tighten their belts, we should have signalled in this report that we were willing to tighten ours too, and we did not. It is a missed opportunity.\nPresident\nThank you Mr Heaton-Harris, if you are here next term, you can help us to do things better.\nWritten explanations of vote\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nI voted in favour.\nAccording to Regulation (EC) No 1234\/2007, poultrymeat may be sold on the international market even if it has undergone anti-microbe treatments. In June 2008, the European Parliament managed to approve a resolution prohibiting this type of marketing after several attempts.\nSince the United States export only poultrymeat treated with chemical or anti-microbe substances to the EU, the Commission has, however, not honoured the resolution. This strategy is at odds with the investments made by poultrymeat professionals in their field, in accordance with Community law, which states that only EU-approved protection methods, such as cold treatment, can be implemented in order to reduce the risks of meat contamination.\nWe therefore support the following proposals to amend Regulation (EC) No 1234\/2007: 1) withdrawal of Commission Recital 5, stating that 'the exclusive reference to cold treatment in the definition of \"poultrymeat\" is too restrictive in view of technological developments. This definition should therefore be adapted'; 2) replacement of Recital 5 with another requiring the source of the meat to be monitored in order to inform and guarantee transparency to the consumer; 3) maintenance of the cold method as the only protective treatment.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted for this draft because I think that the scope of marketing standards for poultrymeat must be extended to also cover poultrymeat preparations and products, as well as poultrymeat in brine, which is being marketed ever more widely.\nWe must bear in mind that when poultrymeat is sold as 'fresh', the consumer expects that it has never been frozen before, even quickly, which is a guarantee of quality for the consumer. Consequently, the current principle stipulating that poultrymeat sold as 'fresh' cannot be frozen beforehand must be reinforced and extended to cover poultrymeat preparations and products.\nIt should be noted that this proposal does not affect the Community budget.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nThe objectives of the marketing standards for poultrymeat are to safeguard the stability of market prices in the sector, to facilitate the marketing of products and to ensure consumer safety and high food-quality standards. The marketing standards for poultrymeat need to be reviewed in the light of technological developments and to include poultrymeat preparations, as consumer habits have changed since the 1990s. The principle that poultrymeat sold 'fresh' may not have been frozen beforehand is proposed to be reinforced to cover poultrymeat preparations and products, and I agree with this.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the proposal on the marketing of poultrymeat. The aim of this proposal is to update the standards that date back to 1990 on the marketing of poultrymeat, by adapting them to the new market reality. It also aims to safeguard the stability of market prices in this sector, facilitate the marketing of products and ensure consumer safety and high food-quality standards.\nI believe that the treatment of poultrymeat with decontaminating substances is not acceptable and I therefore argued for treatment by refrigeration.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We have voted in favour of the draft amendments by the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as they reinforce the wordings relating to the labelling of the origin of poultrymeat. We believe that this is a good thing.\nHowever, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development's amendments also contain wordings that we believe should be dealt with at an administrative level. Since everything is voted on in a single vote, we were not able to oppose these proposals.\nOur 'yes' vote for the amendments concerning the labelling of the origin does not, of course, mean that we in any way support the common agricultural policy.\nV\u00e9ronique Mathieu  \nWe have arrived at a good compromise on this report, which will enable us to have a balanced regulation that meets the European Union's requirements with regard to food safety.\nBy prohibiting the marketing of frozen poultrymeat under the label 'fresh product', by rejecting the use of toxic substances, such as chlorine, to decontaminate poultry carcasses, and by opting for clear labelling of origin and date of slaughter, we have favoured a common-sense approach and chosen to make defending the interests of European consumers our priority.\nIn adopting the resolution of June 2008, Parliament had already expressed strong opposition to authorising the marketing of 'chlorinated poultry' on the European market, and it was followed in that respect by the ministers of agriculture at the Council of last December.\nWith today's vote, we have confirmed our desire to ensure that, from farm to table, food in the European Union is as safe as possible for consumers.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski  \nThe matter seems obvious. The motion under discussion is the second in succession which intends to authorise the marketing of poultrymeat for human consumption where it has received anti-microbe treatment. This time the motion was introduced at the suggestion of the USA, which fears imposition of a ban on the import of their meat to Europe.\nIn a situation where research has shown that the use of anti-microbial substances does not contribute to a reduction in bacterial infection rates, and when Europe is fighting for healthy food, we must speak with one voice. As indeed we must also do in the case of GMOs. It is a pity that in the case of genetically modified organisms the matter is not so obvious to everybody.\nNeena Gill  \nin writing. - I welcome this report because it concerns an issue I have been working on for some time now. On a visit to the Michelin factory in Stoke-on-Trent, management and trades unions explained to me their support for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.\nI have since written to the Business and Enterprise Minister in the UK, Lord Mandelson, to request he consider an application to the EU for the activation of the Adjustment Fund. It strikes me, as it did the people I met at Michelin, that this fund needs to be put in place as soon as possible. This is exactly the kind of thing the EU was set up for - to collectively help Member States, and most importantly, their workers, at times of difficulty.\nBecause the fund is not about simply bailing out companies - it is about supporting a strategy which will lead to sustainable growth and employment for the future. The report's focus on the importance of small business for economic recovery, and the stress that the fund places on skills and training, will do much to ensure that people who lose their jobs will be reintegrated into the labour market.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We are strongly critical of the reasoning behind the establishment of a Globalisation Fund. For a start, it is based on the idea that globalisation per se is a problem. In our view, globalisation is a way of increasing prosperity, especially for poor, developing countries, provided that significant economic actors, such as the EU and the US, reform their protectionist trade policy positions at the World Trade Organization.\nThe Member States of the EU are capable of implementing national measures to support those sectors that they deem to be in need of financial assistance. A special EU fund would guarantee arbitrariness, inefficiency, bureaucracy and unjustified expenditure. How is the Commission to decide, in a relevant way, whether globalisation has had a negative impact on a given sector? Moreover, the amounts that are currently under discussion indicate that this could almost be considered to be a PR stunt by the EU.\nFor the above reasons, we have voted against the report in question.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nThe need to deliver cleaner air has been recognised for several decades with action having been taken at national and EU level and also through international conventions.\nImproving the quality of our ambient air remains a major challenge to be addressed. The problem of air pollution can only be solved in the long term and within a European framework, particularly by stepping up crossborder measures. The Commission's proposal is necessary, given the need to further target VOC emissions to improve both regional and local air quality and public amenity, the successful uptake of VPR II systems around the world, and the ability of the technology to reduce refuelling emissions by 95%.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - This legislation represents another example of how the EU is targeting the car industry and the way in which the EU usually seeks to impose grossly disproportionate legislation to resolve a relatively minor problem.\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety voted to bring forward the date for garages to comply with new measures to limit the amount of petrol vapour released into the atmosphere when cars are refuelled. The committee also voted to lower the threshold of petrol sales in order to bring many more garages into the scope of the proposed law.\nTargeting small independent garages in this way would have a knock-on effect on other local businesses, generate hardly any environmental benefits and potentially increase exhaust emissions if drivers have to drive further away to refuel when a local station has closed. The cost of upgrading equipment in terms of capital expenditure and lost business owing to temporary closure would be substantial.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on petrol vapour recovery. Petrol contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that evaporate inside the fuel tank, filling the empty space in the tank above the fuel. As a vehicle is refuelled, these vapours are pushed out of the tank by the incoming fuel and, unless captured, escape into the atmosphere.\nThe Commission's proposal aims to recover petrol vapour which is emitted into the atmosphere during the refuelling of passenger cars. It is very important to install petrol vapour recovery systems with high capture efficiency in service stations, in order to improve air quality.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nin writing. - (LT) Transparency is a fundamental principle of the European Union. This is clearly stated in Article 255 of the Treaty establishing the European Community: 'Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Commission and Council documents'.\nThe present regulation No 1049\/2001 was a significant step towards greater openness. In the six years since its implementation, it has contributed to the creation of a more transparent culture of administration in the European institutions. In my opinion, openness contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increases their confidence in them.\nCarlos Coelho  \nTransparency is a fundamental principle of the European Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen, thus conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens, at the same time as helping to increase their confidence in them.\nThe Regulation adopted in 2001 was undoubtedly a significant step in that direction, but many amendments now need to be made. These will make the European decision-making process more understandable, increase the level of transparency and improve the practices of the institutions.\nThe aim of this initiative is therefore to make these improvements. However, despite some positive proposals, these are regrettably overwhelmed by those which the European Parliament regards as negative.\nIn fact, the majority of the amendments requested by Parliament, in its April 2006 resolution, were not taken into account, as is the case, for example, with the proposals concerning the possibility of the EP exercising its right of democratic scrutiny through access to sensitive documents.\nI therefore support the proposal of the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, to return this initiative to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nWhile public debates on the Treaty of Lisbon conducted in all languages are being budgeted for, the 'no' to the reformed EU Constitution is not being accepted and referenda are being avoided. While the EU's web pages proclaim the importance of multilingualism, this is not reflected in the actual design of their website. This does not consistently use the three working languages, German, English and French, with which we could reach the majority of the population. Not even the current Presidency thinks this is worth the effort. Now the EU is agonising over access to its documents, but at the same time wants to cancel EU-tenders in national newspapers and thus in all native languages.\nNevertheless, some good approaches for improving access to documents do appear in the report, which is why I also voted for it.\nGuy Bono  \nI voted against the report by my Greek fellow Member from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities.\nMy vote was motivated by the fact that this report, which is aimed at organising the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, would have actually had the effect of excluding selfemployed drivers from the scope of European legislation on the organisation of working time.\nMy socialist colleagues and I share the view that we cannot accept two-speed social legislation: legislation that protects some but that leaves hauliers by the wayside.\nAdopting the Commission's proposal would have meant that self-employed drivers were unacceptably discriminated against when compared with employed drivers, who are protected by European legislation. Parliament has taken note of our reservations. It now falls to the soon-to-be-elected Parliament to give its verdict during the new parliamentary term.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the rejection of the Commission proposal on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, as I feel it is unacceptable and discriminatory for this proposal to exclude self-employed road transport workers.\nEveryone performing mobile road transport activities must be protected by the Community rules limiting the number of working hours per week. This is therefore a question of protecting the health and safety of these workers as well as ensuring road safety.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nIt was very important that the majority of Parliament voted for our proposal to reject this proposal for a directive presented by the European Commission on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities. The proposal for a directive represented a backward step in terms of the current situation, both as regards genuine self-employed workers and 'false' self-employed workers, and as regards current working hours, particularly night work.\nOur proposal had already been presented to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, where it was adopted by a majority. However, the rapporteur (from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats) insisted on bringing the report before plenary, to continue the attack against the fundamental rights of workers. That is why this rejection in plenary was so important, with the current directive remaining in force, which requires the same labour legislation to be applied to self-employed workers.\nMathieu Grosch  \nDuring the debate in the Committee on Transport I introduced two amendments, which affect all transport employees. In my view it is an advantage for a harmonised social and employment policy in Europe that working conditions affect all employees equally. The idea of including self-employed people in the working time directive is unrealistic. It is simply impossible to control the working hours of self-employed people. As far as safety is concerned, all drivers, including those who are self-employed, are subject to the rules on driving time and rest periods in buses and lorries over 3.5 tonnes. Broadening the driving and rest period rules to include drivers in lorries under 3.5 tonnes would do more for safety. The Commission should review this, but has yet to introduce a proposal. I hope that the new Parliament will take up these proposals.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nWe welcome the rejection of the proposal from the European Commission, presided over by Mr Dur\u00e3o Barroso, which aimed to exclude 'self-employed' road transport workers from the directive on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, as a result of our proposal to reject the Commission proposal.\nIn February, in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, we tabled a proposal calling for the rejection of this unacceptable initiative by the European Commission.\nThis is the best possible response to yet another attempt to intensify competition and the exploitation of road transport workers, thereby threatening their labour rights and road safety.\nWhat we must do is defend and improve the rights and working conditions of road transport workers, by combating job insecurity, respecting rest periods - without any loss of pay - and ensuring compliance with the labour legislation or collective agreements existing in each Member State.\nWhat we need is for the rules on working time and driving and rest periods to be applied equally to all professional drivers, including self-employed drivers, in order to ensure their safety and road safety, thus preventing excessively long working hours and inadequate rest periods or work patterns.\nCarl Lang  \nThe report by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou recommends rejecting the Commission's proposal for amending a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities.\nI voted in favour of this report, which seeks to reject a proposal by the European Commission that will not make it possible to remedy the failings identified in the implementation and monitoring of the rules in relation to driving times and rest periods directly linked to safety and social rights. Furthermore, there is no clarification as to the scope of this directive and possible ways of monitoring. In any case, Member States must assume sole responsibility in this area.\nFinally, this proposal does not define any better the notion of 'mobile workers' or 'self-employed drivers', and with good reason, since this is where the real challenge of this directive lies. Should we exclude all self-employed drivers from this directive? The question remains open, because the problem is complex.\nIndeed, there exists a widespread practice of drivers working as 'false' self-employed drivers, when they are in fact employed by companies which, for reasons of profitability, bypass the rules in relation to driving times and rest periods.\nMary Lou McDonald  \nin writing. - There are any number of reasons why the Commission proposal to exclude self-employed drivers from this Directive had to be rejected.\nIn voting to reject the Commission proposal I voted in favour of safety on the roads, to rule out discrimination in terms of health and safety, pay and working conditions for drivers, and to ensure fair play for employers and employees in the road transport sector.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis  \nin writing. - (EL) I voted in favour of Amendment 54 because it is an important political message to the Commission and the Council. The European Parliament supports the rights of drivers and refuses any competition between salaried and self-employed drivers. This proposal would exempt self-employed drivers from the scope of the current directive and, for the first time in European legislation, we would have an attempt to distinguish between 'real' self-employed persons and 'false' self-employed persons. This is, however, an imperfect distinction and may open the floodgates for the interpretation of other provisions of Community law. It is a victory for road safety and social Europe.\nBilyana Ilieva Raeva  \nin writing. - (BG) The EP directive on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, which has been rejected by the votes of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance and the extreme Left, will make self-employed mobile workers less competitive.\nThe irresponsible rejection of the European Commission's proposal means that it no longer makes sense for the self-employed to continue as such. They are no longer free to determine the length of their working hours themselves.\nThere is no such regulation in any other sector. This decision will have an irreversible adverse impact on the European economy's competitiveness.\nUnlike salaried workers, those who are self-employed in the transport sector do not work on the basis of a labour agreement, but freely determine their own customers and consignments. What they earn does not depend on their working hours, as is the case with salaried workers, but on the number and type of shipments. Determining their working hours based on the new directive limits their 'entrepreneurial' freedom.\nAs a result of today's vote, Member States have had the opportunity taken away from them of defining for themselves the time framework determining the night period and therefore, the opportunity to maximise the number of working hours for transporting passengers or goods according to the varying daylight conditions in the various Member States.\nThe directive's rejection jeopardises competitiveness. Small carriers and sole traders will be hardest hit. They will be forced to implement the requirements applicable to employees of large transport firms, which will inevitably threaten their positions on the market.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nin writing. - (EL) The rejection of the Commission proposal for a directive is a manoeuvre by the forces of the 'European one-way street' in the run-up to the European elections. The Greek Communist Party opposed the Commission proposal from the very beginning, voting against it both in the competent committee of the European Parliament and in plenary. It informed the workers and supported their demonstrations. The exemption for self-employed persons only serves the monopoly companies in the transport sector; it damages the interests of the workers and self-employed drivers and creates huge dangers for road safety. It will exacerbate drivers' working conditions even further, it will push working\/driving times to as high as 84 hours a week and it will intensify the exploitation of working drivers still further.\nThe workers' demonstrations and their fear of being ousted at the European elections forced a large section of the MEPs in the parties that support the European one-way street to vote against the proposal. However, the workers must know that the monopoly groups will live to impose their demands by finding the parties of capital willing to satisfy them. This achievement demonstrates the power and importance of the workers' fight. However, we would point out that it may prove to be fleeting if the working and grassroots movement fails to organise its counterattack and lay down the terms for radical changes at the level of power and the economy.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have chosen to vote in favour of the compromise negotiated with the Council, as our interpretation suggests that the negative impact on Swedish hunting that we had feared is eliminated by the exception in Article 3(2). We have all been appalled by the pictures of Canadian seal hunting.\nMost consumers would therefore reject products from seal hunting that does not come close to meeting requirements corresponding to those to which Swedish hunting is subject, results in unnecessary suffering and takes place on a large scale under uncontrolled conditions.\nWe are, in principle, opposed to the EU directly or indirectly interfering in issues relating to hunting, which is a national matter, particularly when it may undermine well-functioning Swedish rules. In this case, we have chosen to make a judgment based on the overall situation. Under these circumstances, we have accepted the compromise, as it sends out the clear message that Parliament does not find it acceptable for people to treat animals any way they like.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nI am thoroughly convinced that seal hunting must be banned, with certain exceptions for local communities. We should also not ignore the fact that various opinion polls in different EU Member States demonstrate that a large majority of EU citizens are against large scale commercial seal hunting and its methods. Moreover, a clear majority of citizens are in favour of a complete ban on trade in seal products.\nNiels Busk, Anne E. Jensen and Karin Riis-J\u00f8rgensen  \nWe have voted against the proposal to ban the trade in seal products and the compromise entered into between Parliament and the Council. We do not believe that a ban on trading in seal products will improve animal welfare and we find it regrettable that the proposal was adopted despite having no basis in the Treaty.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - I have been lobbied heavily by animal rights groups and constituents about this issue but I am very sceptical in principle about banning things. Ultimately consumers will decide if they want to buy seal products. I was proud to have contributed to the campaign to ban imports of cat and dog fur from China but the import of seal products is a very different issue based on traditional culture and practice over centuries.\nBullfighting and cockfighting are unsavoury spectacles but the EU recognises that they should be allowed to continue within the EU in regions where an unbroken tradition exists. It would therefore be hypocritical for the EU to ban seal products from Canada on the basis of animal cruelty. I am also hesitant to antagonise Canada, which is a great ally of the EU and shares our common values.\nI reject animal cruelty but I believe this issue has been deliberately distorted in order to provoke an emotive response among MEPs. We should approach such matters in a more balanced and dispassionate way.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on trade in seal products as it is based on two considerations: the ban in the European Union on the trade in certain seal products, and respect for the traditions and cultures of indigenous peoples of the Arctic.\nEach year around 900 000 seals are killed in the large-scale commercial hunt (number uncorrected for struck and lost or unreported killings), of which 60% occur in Canada, Greenland and Namibia. Norway and Russia are the other main countries conducting a large-scale commercial seal hunt. Within the Community, Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom (Scotland) engage in a small-scale seal hunt, mainly for fish stock management and pest control reasons.\nI believe that this agreement will protect seals from cruelty and, at the same time, protect the culture of the Inuit communities. I also believe that this regulation will ensure that the unscrupulous trade is stopped and that harmonised rules will be developed to change the whole internal market.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - When I was first elected to the European Parliament 25 years ago, it was shortly after an 'initial ban' on the trade in seal products in 1983. Unfortunately, despite revisiting the issue on a number of occasions, this is still unfinished business.\nThe situation, a quarter of a century on, is scarcely any better than back in 1983. We still see hundreds of thousands of seals culled in Canada in the most cruel and brutal slaughter. Hopefully today's vote will be sufficiently overwhelming to finally achieve what we thought we had managed 25 years ago. Neither I nor the seals want us to be back here in 2034.\nMathieu Grosch  \nPersonally, I find it regrettable that the committee's proposals, which were very clear, have not been adopted by the groups. Species conservation - especially faced with the known conditions of slaughter - demands decisive measures without compromise. The jobs related to this business can easily be reoriented.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nThe decision of the European Parliament to ban the trade in seal products in the European Community is a step in the direction of bringing an end to the brutal methods used by some countries to cull these animals. The draft resolution is a response to the concerns of public opinion over issues of animal welfare during the culling and skinning of seals.\nThe text of the regulation allows for several exceptions which in some cases are necessary. In particular this includes an exemption from the ban to allow seal products which are obtained by Inuit communities using traditional hunting methods as a means to ensure their subsistence.\nI am glad that the European Parliament has declared its support for adoption of this regulation by such a clear majority. It is a very clear signal on the part of the European institutions that the citizens of Europe do not agree to the brutal treatment and killing of animals.\nRoger Knapman and Thomas Wise  \nin writing. - We understand and share concerns about the trade in seal products. We have no problem with individual states banning seal products, but we believe that this should be a matter for individual states and not for the Commission. Therefore, we have been unable to support this proposal.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski  \nIn the current term the European Parliament has devoted a relatively large amount of attention to the protection of animals.\nThe introduction of a ban on the trade in certain seal products in the European Union undoubtedly strengthens that protection. It is also a source of satisfaction to the 425 MEPs who signed the written declaration on this subject. It should also be noted that in its resolution Parliament has expressed its desire to respect the culture and traditions of indigenous peoples. The way in which measures to protect seals develop in the future will depend on many factors in the international context and the WTO. Nonetheless, this initiative of MEPs deserves approval and support.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - I am pleased today that we voted to ban the EU trade in seal products.\nMarianne Thyssen  \nIn January 2007, Belgium became the first European country to ban all products obtained from seals, and a number of other Member States subsequently followed suit. The Belgian legislation does make an exception for hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit communities, and so I am pleased that the European Parliament is following Belgium's example today. The proposal to permit the import of seal products subject to a labelling requirement did not receive our support. If fur traders from Canada, Greenland, Namibia and Russia can no longer sell seal fur skins on one of the largest markets in the world, this will mean an enormous step forward for the welfare of this species. In addition, a ban is the most efficient way of putting an end to the inhumane practices to which hundreds of thousands of animals fall victim each year.\nIn my opinion, a total ban is the right approach. For this reason, I have endorsed the report by Mrs Wallis.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour.\nUntil now, Directive 86\/609\/EEC has guaranteed the protection of animals used for scientific purposes: just after it was issued, this directive was implemented and applied in different ways within the various Member States. However, we need to table a proposed amendment to this directive in order to guarantee an overall unity of intent within Europe and also greater protection for laboratory guinea pigs used for scientific purposes connected with human and animal health.\nThe most important of the many amendments that should be made, which we hope are in line with the Commission's ideals, are: 1) setting up an ethics committee for animal wellbeing; 2) extension of the guinea pig concept to include various species of invertebrate and foetal forms in the last trimester of development, or to larvae and other animals used in basic research and training; 3) use of animals only in experiments for which they have been reared; 4) examination of alternative methods to animal testing to minimise the number of animals used; 5) assurance of the fact that the main purpose of Member States should be to improve rearing methods to minimise animal suffering; 5) partial or total use of anaesthesia.\nDerek Roland Clark and Nigel Farage  \nin writing. - Although it contains much that my party (UKIP) would agree with, this report is tainted by its illegitimate and anti-democratic origins in the machinery of the EU. Consequently, I cannot support it.\nChristine De Veyrac  \nThe European Commission's text is a nonsense. It is a nonsense where science is concerned, because it holds back and penalises research, and it is a nonsense where medical progress is concerned, because the scientists who resort to animal experimentation are working daily to find medicines and treatments that tomorrow will cure new pandemics.\nFinally, it is an economic and social nonsense. While our pharmaceutical groups will be prohibited from carrying out research, laboratories set up outside of the European Union will be able to carry on with it! The Parish report fortunately restores the balance, because I will not support anything that weakens the competitiveness of our industry or that provides incentives for relocation.\nKonstantinos Droutsas  \nin writing. - (EL) The proposal for a directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes is directed more at the completion of the single internal market, at competition and at limiting costs in the field of research than at animal protection.\nThe multinationals are demanding more and more profits from research. The animals used in it are generally sacrificed and tortured on the basis of the criterion of increasing profits, not serving scientific requirements. No one can expect animal-friendly conduct from capital, whose motivation is exploitation and which behaves inhumanely and coarsely even towards people.\nResearch requires experiments in order to address important public health problems and numerous and even incurable diseases. Animals are often needed for this research.\nHowever, the protection of animals, like the protection of public health, requires a fight against the monopolies, against the power of capital, which protects drugs with patents in order to secure huge profits from the commercialisation of health.\nIt requires a fight which will free research from the shackles of capital and will use scientific findings from research to satisfy grassroots requirements.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. This proposal covers the protection of animals used for scientific purposes related to human or animal health or animal welfare. Every year in the EU approximately 12 million animals are used for scientific purposes, including 12 000 non-human primates.\nThe new directive will make it compulsory to carry out ethical reviews and will require that experiments where animals are used be subject to authorisation. With this proposal, specific invertebrate species and foetuses in their last trimester of development and also larvae and other animals used in basic research, education and training will now also be included.\nI therefore believe that the proposal aims to improve protection for animals used in experiments and reinforce animal welfare rules in light of developments in scientific research.\nMartine Roure  \nThanks to the European Commission's initiative, which makes it possible to review the directive in force on protection for animals used for scientific purposes, the European Union is able to play a decisive role in the research and development of tests and technologies that do not use animals. The scope of this directive must, moreover, be extended. Some of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, against the protection of laboratory animals, were contrary to this objective. It is essential for European research not to suffer because of it; rather, it should be developed. Nonetheless, that must not happen at the expense of animal welfare, or of the development and validation of methods that offer a complete alternative to the use of animals. The development of these alternative methods requires a budget. Moreover, it is essential for the use of non-human primates in research to be progressively phased out, for there to be monitoring for this purpose and for transparency in this matter to be increased.\nLydia Schenardi  \nIt was time for the partners concerned to consider the welfare of animals used for research purposes and the ban on trapping wild monkeys for use by breeding farms, which results in violence; stress during capture, then confinement; the separation of family groups; the splitting up of social groups; an impact on the environment; the disturbance of the natural balance of the population; and the withdrawal of females.\nWe will therefore support the aim of making maximum use of animals bred for this purpose whose genetic and medical history are known, and who therefore offer greater consistency and comparability of data.\nIf, on the other hand, the animal welfare standards used for research purposes resulted in the exporting of research, the impact would then be more obvious in those countries which already operate under strict regulatory controls, such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The fact is, in those countries the pharmaceutical industry has continued to prosper despite 20 years of strict regulation. Regulation has not, therefore, curbed the success of this industry. The controls have even improved the standards of scientific practices. This therefore confirms the fear of seeing research exported in the wake of these regulations.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I am disappointed at the Parliament's position on the revision of Europe-wide rules on animal testing. In the end I decided to abstain on the final report. While I fully support the provisions on developing and pushing forward the use of alternatives to animal testing and the thematic biannual review of the use of primates, both of which I see as crucial in moving our research away from its reliance on animals, particularly primates, overall Parliament's position has weakened many of the important animal welfare provisions proposed by the Commission.\nThe fear that has prevailed over the Parliament is that the research industry will leave the EU if too many demands are placed on our research establishments. However I believe that there are some demands that are essential if we in Europe are to ensure high levels of animal protection and I fear that today's result goes against this thinking. Two crucial issues for me were to move Europe away from the use of wild-caught monkeys for breeding purposes and the absolute need for authorisation of all experiments involving animals, thereby cementing our commitment to the replacement and reduction of animals in experiments. Sadly the European Parliament missed the opportunity to take a strong line on animal protection today.\nRoger Knapman and Thomas Wise  \nin writing. - We accept that experimentation on animals is sometimes necessary, but we also understand and accept that the necessity of some experimentation is questionable. We support the advancement of alternative methods of research, and would wish to see experiments on all live animals reduced to an absolute minimum and performed under the strictest possible humanitarian guidelines. We believe, however, that this should be a matter for individual states to decide on, and so regrettably we are unable to vote in favour of this proposal within an EU context.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the proposal on ship-source pollution as I believe it is essential to tackle this continued practice in sea transport, namely illegal discharges of polluting substances into the sea by certain ships.\nI believe that this amended proposal is absolutely essential to prevent environmental disasters and the deterioration of water quality, through criminal penalties which are harsh enough to dissuade potential polluters.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) This report recommends the amendment of an existing directive on ship-source pollution. This is to enable criminal law measures to be implemented in the event of pollution. The June List supports measures to prevent pollution from ships. However, we believe that criminal law is entirely a national matter. In addition, discharges from ships in international waters should be dealt with at the level of the United Nations. We have therefore voted against it in the final vote.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nin writing. - (EL) The much-vaunted directive which, various forces advertised, would apparently punish shipping companies with criminal sanctions for polluting the sea and would protect the environment has achieved exactly the opposite. It protects shipping capital from the imposition of sanctions against it. Even this inadequate Commission proposal is dead letter following the proposal by the European Parliament not to punish minor ship-source discharges of polluting substances. Our people know full well what minor discharges are and who will judge them and on what criteria. The inhabitants of Santorini, for example, who have protested about the wreck of the Sea Diamond cruise ship, which is still in the island's waters, are sick of the replies given by the EU and the New Democracy government - the same replies given by PASOK in the case of the Express Samina car ferry and others - that apparently wrecks do not cause pollution.\nWith the loophole of minor discharges of polluting substances, shipowners, operators, managers, agents, insurers, charterers, cargo and ship owners and those responsible for crimes at sea and environmental disasters will go unpunished. On the other hand, very strict use will again be made of seamen as scapegoats.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour.\nSpeaking of energy consumption policies, the EU should take the statements made by the renowned British economist Nicholas Stern as a guide to its choices: 'There are more incentives to invest in energy efficiency during a recession and when oil prices are high. Spending on renewable and other low-carbon industries could help stimulate the economy'.\nIt would be useful to try and create an energy policy able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to keep faith with the agreements taken under the Kyoto protocol and to support the EU's guiding role in combating climate change. Implementing this protocol would make a very important contribution to employment and also to competitiveness in the economic and social field.\nAlthough industry and consumers' associations are in favour of the current Directive 92\/75\/EEC on energy labelling, it cannot be said to have kept pace with technological developments and with innovation in the energy market because, first and foremost, there is a need to move forward from this situation of inertia throughout Europe so that a new dimension can be opened up in the lives of users.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (recast). I feel that it is necessary to provide better information about products' energy efficiency. Any advert promoting the technical features of refrigerators, washing machines or domestic ovens must indicate the product's energy consumption.\nEnergy labelling helps consumers assess their energy costs when they are purchasing domestic electrical appliances, such as refrigerators, washing machines, tumble dryers or ovens. Manufacturers must indicate the products' energy consumption, regardless of whether they are 'more efficient' (green) or 'less efficient' (pink) from an energy perspective.\nLabelling will also be applied to commercial and industrial energy-using products, such as cold storage rooms or chilled display cabinets. Any advert must indicate energy consumption and energy savings.\nMember States can adopt incentive measures, including tax credits for products which are extremely energy efficient.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the directive on the indication by labelling of energy consumption. Environmental issues and in particular energy efficiency are assuming new importance and becoming fundamental to tackling climate change. The recasting of this directive aims to allow the labelling of all energy related products in the household as well as in the commercial and industrial sectors.\nTaking into consideration that there is an urgent need to tackle climate change and that the European Union plans to achieve the target of increasing energy efficiency by 20% by 2020, I believe that simple, clear and easily recognisable labelling may persuade consumers to take more sustainable decisions and help to promote more energy efficient products.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List believes that tackling cross-border environmental issues is one of the EU's most important tasks. We think that the amendments do better than the Commission's proposal at giving end consumers a chance of making wiser choices by improving the information on the energy consumption and environmental impact of products.\nHowever, we are critical of certain individual wordings in the amendments, which seek to regulate European energy policy in greater detail. The good intentions of the amendments outweigh the negatives, however, and we have therefore chosen to support the amendments in their entirety.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":2,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Economic governance and Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on\nthe oral question by Stephen Hughes, Pervenche Ber\u00e8s and Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group, to the Council: Economic governance and Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon - B7-0660\/2010), and\nthe oral question by Stephen Hughes, Pervenche Ber\u00e8s and Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group, to the Commission: Economic governance and Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon - B7-0661\/2010)\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\nauthor. - (FR) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, both your institutions have worked very hard in the field of economic governance and, today, the European Parliament is debating the six Commission proposals on economic governance.\nToday, we are under the regime of the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 9 of which provides that, in the definition and implementation of its policies and actions, the Union shall, and I quote, 'take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health'. This article is binding on all the institutions of the Union and on all its policies.\nYet, today, you have not carried out an impact assessment on the 'economic governance package' on which you are asking me to deliberate. These impact assessments are very close to the heart of the Commission when, for example, it comes to implementing legislation on electromagnetic diseases.\nThis is to be welcomed, but we would like the same zeal to be applied to economic governance. Otherwise, what do we see? We see Commissioner Rehn explaining to us today that there would be three pillars in his strategy: growth on the one hand, economic governance on the other, and, finally, supervision of the financial markets. But if the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, the action of the European Union will be incoherent and European law in terms of Article 9 will not be complied with.\nWe therefore urge you to evaluate the social impact in terms of employment, in terms of the funding of retirement pension, in terms of social protection, in terms of the funding of public services, of the measures you are preparing to take.\nWhat impact will the fight against poverty have on your 2020 Strategy objective, when we learn that, today, within the European Union, 116 million people were threatened by poverty or social exclusion on the basis of figures valid for 2008?\nThe reality is that the Commission seems to be applying a secret mandate asking you, in response to the concerns of some Member States, within the Council, to reform the Stability and Growth Pact to make it more binding, to provide for preventive and corrective sanctions, while ignoring the necessary investment strategy around what you yourselves have adopted, the 2020 Strategy.\nWe know that, as regards job creation, over the next few years the situation in terms of growth prospects will be more difficult than in the years that have just elapsed.\nWe are not opposed to a return to public finance scenes but we are opposed to a growth strategy that has no means of financing, with austerity plans that may have immeasurable social effects, with potential consequences in terms of inequality, and where none of the inequalities, with respect to the distribution of wealth, is addressed.\nThis cannot be the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon, for which we fought so hard and which you, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, have an obligation to implement.\nOlivier Chastel\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I am delighted that the public is present. That is good.\nI should like to thank Parliament, of course, for having put this issue on the agenda of this part-session. It allows us to address an important issue, on which a great deal of work has been done in recent months within the Council.\nI am aware, of course, of the importance this Parliament attaches to economic governance and to its links with social issues in the broader sense, as set forth in Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The obligation deriving from Article 9 must be complied with when defining and implementing all the policies and actions of the Union, including, therefore, all the work on future economic governance.\nI should first like to point out that, during the Belgian Presidency, the importance of the implementation of Article 9 and hence of the cross-section clause has been referred to so often. I should therefore like to recall the conclusions adopted by the Council on 6 December on the social dimension in the context of an integrated Europe 2020 Strategy. These conclusions call on the European Commission to strengthen and encourage the use of the existing system for the evaluation of the social impact. It calls on the Council to produce a report on the way in which Article 9 is implemented in work and in European policies through the open coordination method. It also calls on the Commission to seek out means of implementing social mainstreaming and thus, also, Article 9 in the context of its flagship initiative of a European platform against poverty, which should be published in the next few days.\nWith regard, more specifically, to the new macroeconomic monitoring and coordination mechanism, the Council does not see employment and social protection as simply outcomes affected by the new macroeconomic monitoring framework, the impact of which would have to be studied, but also as factors stimulating macroeconomic and fiscal growth in the short and medium term. This is important if we want to avoid an unbalanced macroeconomic framework and preserve the institutional balance sought by the treaties.\nThe Council's willingness to promote Article 9 in practice is also evident in the European Semester, which has to reflect, in an integrated approach, a balanced position between the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Stability and Growth Pact. The principles contained in Article 9 must therefore apply across all these documents and legislative measures so that they become an integrated whole.\nWith this in mind, the Council carried out its work in two phases. In the first phase, the work of the Council consisted in developing a European Employment Strategy, as provided for by the Treaty and the new economic governance framework. In the conclusions adopted on 21 October, the Council defined the place of the European Employment Strategy in economic governance.\nIn the second phase, at the 6 December European Council, the Council adopted a new instrument for the multilateral monitoring of employment and social policies, the Joint Assessment Framework, which will make for better monitoring of the employment and social integration policies of the Member States and, therefore, ensure that better account is taken of these dimensions at European level.\nThese new instruments will have to be mobilised in the preventive phase of macroeconomic monitoring so that adequate attention is paid to the situation of the labour markets and to social problems which could jeopardise Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). They will, of course, also be central instruments for the thematic monitoring of the Europe 2020 Strategy.\nThe Council also recalled that it intended to contribute both to thematic monitoring, based on the five key objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and to macroeconomic monitoring, since both these frameworks are closely linked. And, in response to the request of the Belgian Presidency, the Social Protection Committee delivered an opinion on the social dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy, in which it stresses the need for synergy among the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the indivisible whole formed by the objectives set by the European Council.\nI would also note that the Council referred to Article 9 in other conclusions: the conclusions on pensions and the conclusions of the Council on social services of general interest.\nMadam President, honourable Members, our discussion this afternoon allows us to address issues relating to economic governance and, in particular, its social aspects. As President-in-Office of the Council, I will naturally listen carefully to your speeches and I look forward to a fruitful exchange of views, which will help us all in the subsequent negotiations.\nJanusz Lewandowski\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon, to which you are referring, really defines the specific features of the European social economic model. When you read our Europe 2020 Strategy you can see it explicit reinforces this very model of Europe by bringing together efforts to improve performance in areas such as labour participation, lifelong education, labour adaptability and mobility and social inclusion.\nHowever, this is not a sufficient answer at this time of severe challenges, when the climate of crisis in Europe is affecting negatively, or even dramatically, the real economy, public finances, the labour market and the quality of life in Europe. To address the challenges revealed by the crisis, the Commission has launched several policy initiatives. To reinforce the stability of our financial system, the EU has agreed on a new architecture for financial regulation. This has been debated in Parliament. Secondly, to address the challenges to public finances and macroeconomic imbalances, the European Commission has proposed a comprehensive strengthening of economic governance in the European Union, the legislative package you referred to in your question.\nThe package includes, as you know, proposals to address excessive public debt more seriously than in the past by defining a satisfactory pace of debt reduction. It also proposes minimum requirements for national fiscal frameworks to ensure that they are in line with Treaty obligations as well as a monitoring system for macroeconomic imbalances such as large current account deficits or bubbles in the housing market. It underlines prevention and prudence to ensure better preparedness in times of economic downturn. To ensure the credibility of the new framework, the Commission is proposing a wide range of sanctions that should start kicking in at an early stage.\nThe philosophy behind the proposed legislation is that it should help Member States to follow disciplined policies and lay the basis for stable long-term growth performance, which is critical to the welfare of European citizens, while making an important contribution to the prevention of future crises.\nGiven the current economic situation it is really important to have this economic governance framework in place as soon as possible. As to the impact assessment, the government reforms were prepared by far-reaching analysis in the EMU@10 study in 2008. Also, in preparing and following up the Commission communications announcing the new governance structures of the so-called EU semester that were adopted in May and June 2010, the Commission discussed its proposal with many stakeholders alongside the European Parliament and the Council and promoted vigorous, broad-based debate of the issues. And of course, we was developed the proposals in the light of past performance and lessons learnt.\nAnd what are the major lessons? The major lesson is that preventive action is much more valuable than imposing corrective sanctions on a state that is already in difficulties. Therefore our emphasis is on influencing positively the national policy mix responsible - and here is the real responsibility - for the trade-off between real economic revival and growth, and austerity and consolidation of public finances.\nEurope needs both.\nElisabeth Morin-Chartier\nMadam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, following Mrs Ber\u00e8s's question, I should like to focus on the economic model on which we in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) base ourselves: social market economics. That is to say we must indeed put all of our efforts not only into ending the crisis and combating poverty, but more importantly into ensuring the social inclusion of some of our fellow European citizens who are today left by the wayside.\nThis social inclusion must be addressed today, on the one hand to ensure that these fellow citizens can get back into work, which means creating jobs to fight the crisis, and on the other hand - and this is extremely important - to ensure that in the years to come we can have training programmes - initial training initiatives and lifelong learning initiatives - in every Member State, which will enable our fellow European citizens to adapt to the jobs of the future, to the new qualifications that we will require, and to the rise in the level of qualifications expected in the Europe 2020 Strategy.\nOn the basis of Article 9, therefore, we can clearly see that, beyond everything that is being done at the financial systems level, there is also an extremely important contribution to develop to ensure our fellow citizens are trained and able to fully become stakeholders in society because they are active in this society, and active means trained and ready to take on the jobs of the future.\nI therefore call for Commission policies to comply with this objective, otherwise we will lose sight of the objective of a Europe with strong social cohesion.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (ES) Madam President, representatives of the Council and the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, over the last 50 years our economy's interdependence has increased, along with the interdependence of our economic policies.\nThe eyes of citizens are on the European Union; they know that the process of European integration has placed many aspects of their lives under the responsibility of the EU institutions: many decisions are made jointly.\nMany of the Member States' traditional instruments have moved to European level, and everyone recognises that economic policies are an issue of common interest at European level. The European Union is therefore the focal point of this crisis: all eyes are on the EU.\nWe are not, as some say, in a 'post-crisis' scenario. At most we might be in a 'post-recession' scenario. Predicted growth for this year will be low and uneven, and the problem is that next year forecasts are still indicating that growth could decline slightly. The number of people unemployed in the European Union is currently 23 million. This crisis has opened up a significant social gap, and, moreover, it has put pressure on public finances and even threatened the future of the euro.\nIt is essential that we strengthen the economic governance of the European Union in order to respond to the crisis and ensure the future of the EU project. In order to tackle these common challenges, we need to restore growth and employment, change the economic model and promote global sustainable development, and we must do so while ensuring the future of the European social model.\nFrom the first economic crisis in 1929, we learnt that the public authorities have a commitment to restoring growth and employment; from the second economic crisis, which was the rebuilding of Europe following the Second World War, that the new Europe should be built on foundations of social justice. Neither of those lessons must be forgotten, and both of them must play an integral role in the future of a sustainable Europe.\nArticle 9 of our Treaty on the Functioning of the EU states that 'In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.'\nIt is not, therefore, just a question of austerity. Austerity could cause the economy to contract. We need policies that also promote growth, in other words responsible policies. It is also not a question of growing first and distributing later: we have learnt that distribution contributes to growth. It is also not a question of making progress first and later providing for the basic needs of citizens: we have learnt that education, health, social security and public services are essential in order for societies to progress. If they are not in place, they are costs that are a burden on the future of our society, and it is not possible to have a healthy economy in a sick society.\nWe therefore raise the following questions: must the future legislative framework on economic governance be in line with the model of a social Europe and Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU? Does a true impact assessment exist? Finally, is what we really want for President Barroso to fulfil his commitment to there being a social impact and to clearly state that Europe needs a new social pact, in terms of both fiscal and employment standards, a model that ensures employment, fairness, environmental responsibility and global development? Any other reform will be insufficient.\nMarian Harkin\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, when I was canvassing for a 'yes' vote for the Treaty of Lisbon, I gave Irish citizens 10 reasons to vote 'yes' to Lisbon. One of those was the social clause, Article 9.\nOn several occasions in this Chamber and elsewhere I have asked the Commission and the Council to now apply Article 9 in their proposals on economic governance and, of course, in their response to the current economic crisis, which is a real test of their commitment to the social clause. In Ireland we see the evidence of this response, where the minimum wage has been cut by one euro an hour in the last week, and where invalidity payments and payments to blind persons have also been cut. What now do the phrases 'the fight against social exclusion' or 'the guarantee of adequate social protection' contained in Article 9 signify to those citizens?\nOf course, you may say that this is an internal matter for Ireland, but it is not. The parameters for austerity in Ireland were set by the EU, and our government will send monthly reports to you. Will you remind them of Article 9 when the report comes in about the cut in the minimum wage? Why has this happened? This has happened because Irish banks and European banks engaged in reckless lending and borrowing right under the noses of the ECB.\nThe interest rates you are now charging to Ireland for borrowing, according to today's newspapers, are 3% more than were charged to Latvia, Romania and Hungary. Representatives from the Court of Auditors say that there is no precedent for the EU charging such a margin on loans. Can I ask you to confirm or deny this situation? If it is true, please explain to me, so that I can explain to Irish citizens, how the social clause is working for them. This situation is specific to Ireland, but if it is a template for other Member States in trouble, then Article 9 is dead in the water.\nPhilippe Lamberts\nMadam President, I will be brief. If we look at the policies being implemented today, broadly speaking there is an 80% cut in expenditure and a 20% increase in new revenue, and I think that is being generous.\nEverybody knows very well that when there is an 80% cut in public expenditure, the first ones to pay the price are the most vulnerable people in our societies. I should therefore like to share my indignation with you by drawing on two contrasts: the first being the contrast I see between economic governance, on the one hand, and the EU 2020 Strategy on the other.\nEconomic governance requires harsh, immediate action and stringent rules that are binding. The EU 2020 Strategy indeed has good intentions, in particular to reduce poverty, but it is a soft, voluntary option and governments will only follow it if they really want to and have the time. There is nothing binding about any of that. I feel that is a contrast that is untenable and therefore incompatible with the spirit of Article 9.\nThe second contrast exists between the issue of economic governance, on the one hand, and the issue of public expenditure on the other. Public expenditure must be reduced quickly otherwise we will be heading for catastrophe. The debt must be reduced within a maximum of 20 years and, if possible, even sooner than this but without an impact assessment we are not giving it much thought.\nWhen it comes to generating new revenue - because in any case a budget is made up of both revenue and expenditure - with taxes on financial transactions, taxes on energy, and a consolidated basis for corporate tax, we say, 'Wait, an assessment is required, we must consider the impact, we must not do too much. Let us think about it, let us take our time, let us assess ...'. I really do not understand why on the one hand we have to charge full speed ahead without worrying about the impact, whereas on the other hand we move slowly and take the time to think, while, in the meantime, the people are paying the price.\nThese contrasts, I think, demonstrate to everyone that Article 9 does not hold as much weight as the articles on economic convergence in the Treaties of the European Union and it is, I believe, a contrast we must resolve if we wish to win back the trust of our citizens.\nProinsias De Rossa\nMadam President, I want to ask the Commission if it would give the House a specific definition of how it intends to implement Article 9. We constantly hear about macroeconomic monitoring. We never hear it talking about macro-social monitoring of what Member States are doing in pursuit of European social policy and objectives.\nI want it to tell us if it intends to use this simply as an impact assessment, i.e. that it hopes its measurements will have no social impact. That is not good enough, because Article 9 is intended to promote the objectives of the European Union as outlined in Article 3 of the Treaty. It is not good enough simply to have no impact - it must have a positive impact. This is the obligation on the Commission and it must implement the treaties.\nI also want to address the issue of social services of general interest, on which I am a rapporteur. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the current crisis exit strategy which the Commission is pursuing is going to destroy social services of general interest in the Member States. You need only look at the Memorandum of Understanding which the Commission has concluded with the Irish Government for a demonstration of that. It is stated on page 2 that a reduction of current expenditure in 2011 of just over EUR 2 billion will be implemented, including social protection expenditure reductions, a reduction of public service employment numbers, a reduction of existing public service pensions on a progressive basis, other expenditure savings of over EUR 1 billion, and a reduction of close to EUR 2 billion in public capital expenditure against existing plans for 2011.\nWhat other impact can that have than to decimate services of general interest, and in particular social services of general interest? So where is Article 9? Where was Article 9 when the Commission was negotiating this deal with a Conservative Irish Government on the point of collapse?\nI would also ask the Commission, when it is going to present this Memorandum of Understanding it has signed off with the Irish Government before this House? It is obliged to do so under the Treaty of Lisbon. When are we going to see it? When are we going to have an opportunity to discuss it here?\nOne of the other aspects of this agreement which I mentioned this morning is the insistence by the Commission that the minimum wage in Ireland be reduced by EUR 2 000 a year. I repeat, the minimum wage. The Treaty of Lisbon declares that we must have adequate social protection, that we must encourage people to stay in work, that we must eliminate poverty traps, etc., etc., etc., and yet we reduce the minimum wage by EUR 2 000 a year. What will that do other than drive more people out of work into the safe haven, relatively speaking, of welfare dependency?\nThese are questions which the Commission must respond to. We do not want any more flannel. No more pl\u00e1m\u00e1s. No more Eurospeak. We want clear answers on how the Commission is going to apply Article 9 of the Treaty in relation to economic governance and, in particular, on the arrangements it is making with Member States with regard to the crisis exit strategy.\nSalvatore Iacolino\n(IT) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, there is no doubt that remaining alert to the matter of economic governance is an absolutely right and proper aim of the European Parliament.\nArticle 9, mentioned in the question, is absolutely consistent with the need to take everything concerning the individual citizen into the greatest consideration.\nToday, no more than a few hours ago, an important piece of legislation was passed, recognising citizens' rights to take the legislative initiative, to give primacy to their right to citizenship.\nGreater stability means more controls, it means intervening promptly and effectively, and it means making the most of competitiveness. Toughness must be combined with efficiency and substance. Social protection is closely linked to a real will to create jobs in a situation, such as our own, of particular difficulty.\nFor this reason, we need to talk about this - and talk about it meaningfully - with all the stakeholders.\nKyriakos Mavronikolas\n(EL) Madam President, may I say that the question of economic governance and the targets it sets, especially as put forward under the Treaty of Lisbon, raise specific questions as to whether a policy is being applied that is socially correct, whether an economy is being applied that targets green growth and whether an economy is being applied that prevents against unemployment, especially among young people.\nI should like to refer to the Republic of Cyprus, which is now under observation. The measures taken do everything except offer a way out into proper social policy and social standing, especially the measures which conflict with the interests of the young generations growing up on the island.\nNikolaos Salavrakos\n(EL) Madam President, the new report on employment in Europe in 2010 highlights the fact that young people have borne the burden of the crisis and that young people are facing more and more problems, with unemployment mainly affecting the 15-24 year age group. It is not enough to establish the problem; we need to resolve it. We have 3 million unemployed in the European Union. Commissioner, tell me please, what are we to do about it? I consider that the efforts you have made to record the problem are positive, but the problem needs to be resolved and you have an historic role to play. What is worrying for Greece, the country I come from, is that unemployment among young people up to the age of 24 has reached 27.5%, an astonishing and very dangerous number; and what is most worrying is that unemployment rates are not falling as more formal qualifications are obtained. As you know, employment is not merely a livelihood; it is the basis of human dignity. We need to give our young people dignity.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Madam President, there have been recent reports in the media about the directors of the failing German bank HRE being entitled to huge pensions after only working there for two years and on the basis of contracts which were drawn up after the bank had already received massive amounts of state aid. This confirms the belief of the citizens of the European Union that money is simply being thrown at the banks, while strict austerity programmes are being imposed on ordinary people.\nArticle 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon refers to 'a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection'. For those people in Europe who have been hard hit by the financial and economic crisis and who are now being forced to make savings, this sounds like adding insult to injury. For example, when the pension reform in Hungary is rolled back and the citizens have to transfer back to the state pension system or lose 70% of their pension rights, it is clear that an icy wind is blowing through the EU. In the debate in plenary on the future of the euro area, the President-in-Office of the Council explained that events in Dublin had highlighted the importance of an economic policy control mechanism in the EU. In my opinion, completely the opposite is the case. We have too much centralism and too much conformity.\nJanusz Lewandowski\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, to defend what is called the European social economic model we have to adjust the European model to reality, namely the global challenges and the crisis in Europe. If we want to defend the model, it cannot remain the same.\nA major assumption, which has already been stated, is as follows - this is a basic philosophy: consolidation and the regaining of the confidence of the markets is the basis for stable, sustainable growth and jobs. That is critical to the future welfare of European citizens.\nReferring precisely to the questions from Ms Harkin and Mr De Rossa - Mr De Rossa's being Irish-oriented - we are setting the same rate as the IMF in this respect. We are not obliged to make our Memorandum to the Irish Government open to the public. I have to say that there is nothing more anti-social than to produce deficit and debt, which will be charged to future generations of European citizens. There is nothing less responsible than banking practices that are transferring the banking problem into the sovereign debt problem. These are anti-social, irresponsible actions and we cannot blame the Commission for them.\nWe recognise that there is a clear tension between the austerity being undertaken in so many countries and its impact upon social inclusion and the level of poverty. We recognise that and therefore we need impact assessments and discussions. Such a discussion has been conducted here in Parliament.\nAgain, our basic philosophy is that prevention is what is valuable. Prevention means that we should influence the policy mix at the national level. The policy mix at national level is mainly responsible for the trade-off between austerity and growth. This is the major responsibility, but we are to influence this policy mix at national level in such a way as to discourage building the future of Europe upon debts and deficits because that does not lead anywhere.\nOlivier Chastel\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you will have understood from my first speech, the Council is well aware of the obligations pursuant to Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the need to take account of the overall aspect of the requirements associated with promoting a high level of employment, ensuring adequate social protection and combating social exclusion, as well as achieving a high level of education, training and protection of human health. These obligations are and will be duly respected in all of the Council's work.\nGiven the universality of this obligation, it is also required in the field of economic governance. It applies to the results contained in the report by the task force chaired by President Van Rompuy, which the October European Council fully endorsed. It also applies to the six legislative proposals that came out of the work of the task force, which were tabled by the Commission on 29 September.\nNevertheless, compliance with the obligations in Article 9 does not require a formal social impact assessment procedure. Our obligation, which applies to both the Council and Parliament, especially since it is up to our institutions to lay down the policies and work of the Union by adopting legislation in this field, is to take account of these requirements. That is what the Council will do.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nNikolaos Chountis\nin writing. - (EL) The package of economic governance measures proposed by the Commission makes provision for stricter discipline in the Stability and Growth Pact and budgetary supervision, by proposing penalties for 'undisciplined' Member States. In other words, it is a worse version of the recipe which led the EU into the crisis and recession and drastically exacerbated its social problems. The path marked out by the Commission, with the demand for institutional changes, is exacerbating social and regional inequalities. Consequently, the very unfortunate social repercussions addressed by my fellow members in their questions are a known fact. Moreover, we are already seeing these repercussions in practice and the workers are paying for them, not only in certain countries in the South, but in the entire EU also. The European Parliament must stand up against this policy which, apart from including harsh austerity measures and cuts to workers' rights, is undermining its role and the role of the national parliaments. In other words, it is undermining the role of the elected representatives of EU institutions, which should, however, demonstrate greater awareness in their demands of the citizens' fight.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU strategy for reform in the Arab world (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Rocard on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on EU strategy for reform in the Arab world.\nMichel Rocard \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, I should like to commend the willpower of the Minister and of the Commissioner: I know what it is like to attend debates without being able to leave the room, and I hope they will not be too bored. I come now, with this debate, to a topic that is rather a new one for us.\nThe title of the report is not appropriate. It is not so much about the European Union's relationship with reforms in the Arab world as about a relational process of the European Union with the Arab world for the purpose of facilitating reforms.\nFor the sake of speed, I shall set out my comments as a number of points. The first point, as you all know, is that all is not well in the various Arab states. We all receive vast amounts of information and hear complaints about failure to observe human rights, about often dictatorial governments, about huge, scandalous financial inequalities in the various countries and about the lack of economic take-off, even in places where there is oil. There is indeed a malaise in the Arab world. A Lebanese Arabic writer even spoke about an Arab malaise. Behind this malaise, there is a long history of humiliation: colonialism, independence, lack of control of resources, of oil in particular, intellectual decline and, as a result, a corresponding rise in religious fundamentalism.\nMy second point is that it is in this context that belonging to the Arab world is perceived in most of these countries as an awareness of identity, a search for collective empowerment. That developed in the second half of the 20th century and particularly towards the end. Now, it is the League of Arab States which, internationally, is taking a stand on behalf of the different States and is being respected. It is the League's resolutions that have brought about some progress in what is called the Middle East peace process, which is still not a peace process but from which it is hoped some results will emerge through the Arab League Summit. There is also, thanks to the media, something of a growth in Arab public opinion that is much more homogeneous than the diplomatic positions of the various States. It is also at the pan-Arab level that many intellectuals, especially Egyptians, but also Lebanese, even Algerians, pitch their message, rather than within their national context. Finally, it has to be said that the Arab League has never had to deal with religious problems. They are referred to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which is a different world. Arab identity is a secular concept, which can make our relationship easier.\nMy third point is: how do we, the European Union, deal with this Arab identity? By ignoring it. We have a strong, dense relationship with Iraq, and talk about it a great deal. We deal with the Israel-Palestine conflict, making very little reference to the preceding one. We speak about Algeria. We have strong bilateral relationships with Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, too. In short, we have relationships with all these countries that are of the public, state, bilateral kind, but we ignore the fact of their Arab identity.\nThe question that this own-initiative report puts to the Commission and to the Council is this: is there not good reason to move away from that and to do a bit more, in the light of the observations I was making in my second point? There is now an intellectual life, a political life and a diplomatic life in the Arab world at the level of its community. Is it not in the European Union's interest to establish relations at this level also? The numerous standstills that we find in the Arab world, which are of course economic, financial, political, institutional and religious, are also to a large extent intellectual and cultural.\nIt is through intellectual and cultural relations that other relations will develop, and the purpose of this report is to suggest that we take note of that. Firstly by recognising that Arab identity is compatible with democracy and with modernity, even if the facts do not demonstrate it. There is, intellectually and politically, and in the speeches of the League, a real possibility. It is, moreover, the Arab League which, by slightly forcing the hand of many of its Member States, has produced an Arab Charter on Human Rights. We all know that it is not a great advance, that it is well behind our own European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Nonetheless, it is real progress compared with the situation we had a short time ago. And then, in the face of the great contemporary problem of the fight against terrorism, I think that we all wish to reach a relationship of complicity and alliance with the Arab nations against extremists and killers, rather than to condemn them all and to make this fight impossible.\nIt is in this context that the report suggests that we, the European Union, should strengthen our relations with everything that has a collective character in this matter: of course, the League of Arab States, but also, why not, the Gulf Cooperation Council and even the Arab Maghreb Union, if it were to be revived. Through these bodies, it is possible to develop a network of cultural and intellectual relations and to organise discussion seminars, which will bolster our support for the reforms.\nThis report, Mr President, is somewhat subtle. We are extending the hand of friendship to countries about which there is seemingly much to criticise. Our amendments debate will be between the extremism of the condemnations and the moderation of the hand of friendship which, while indeed recognising that there are strong criticisms to be made, would prefer to keep quiet about them as long as this hand of friendship can contribute to a process of reform that we all need.\nG\u00fcnter Gloser\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Rocard, ladies and gentlemen, the present debate on the position of the Arab world in international politics is timely. As we see it, one of the issues here is how to further improve cooperation between the West and the Arab states, so that both sides can benefit from it. I should like to extend the warmest of thanks to Mr Rocard, with whose report the European Parliament, too, underlines the importance of EU-Arab cooperation.\nGreater dynamism has been apparent in the Arab League's regional involvement for some years now - the Beirut Peace Initiative of March 2002 being just one example. Recent weeks, in particular, have seen a massive interest on the part of the Arab world in reaching out beyond the borders of the region for closer coordination and cooperation - including on its own initiative.\nOn the one hand, this development strikes me as resulting from a return, to a certain extent, by the Arab world to the Arab League as an instrument of cooperation that has been neglected over time. On the other hand, I see it as representing a response to the quest on the part of non-Arab states and organisations for a reliable regional partner in an unstable region.\nThe ongoing involvement of the Arab League in Lebanon, which started immediately after last summer's war, is very important; and so we encourage the Arab League to continue its present endeavours.\nNevertheless, I believe that the clearest illustration of the new quality of international involvement by the Arab League, under the powerful leadership of Saudi Arabia, was the confirmation of the Arab Peace Initiative at the Riyadh Summit in late March. This Initiative shows the prospects of a return to normal for relations between Israel and the Arab States. The continued debate within the Arab League substantiates the view that the Arab world has the will to make genuine progress.\nThe EU, too, has increased its involvement in the Middle East in recent years and months; the Quartet remaining its key actor.\nRecently, both sides - the Arab world and Europe - have stepped up discussions on their ideas for intensifying political cooperation. In this regard, I should just like to mention the meeting of the EU Troika with an Arab League delegation in Sharm el-Sheikh, and also to point out that Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in his capacity as President of the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council, has invited a ministerial delegation of the Arab League to a meeting with all the EU Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Brussels on 14 May.\nThis alone does not reduce the internal political, social and cultural challenges facing the Arab world, of course; but I should like to emphasise clearly that Europe offers Arab countries and societies cooperation in all fields. It is my hope that this cooperation can contribute to greater understanding and tolerance between Europe and the Arab world. These two values: understanding and tolerance - characteristics that the Council President Angela Merkel described as constituting Europe's soul in Strasbourg at the start of the German Presidency - are the vital ingredients for successful dialogue.\nFor this reason, I welcome Mr Rocard's inclusion of cultural aspects, too, in his report. These play a major role in determining the EU's scope for supporting reform processes in the Arab world. Ignorance, stereotypes and hostility on both sides hinder a productive partnership with prospects. Dialogue and understanding of the culture of its relevant opposite number are a precondition for the EU's taking the right approach to promoting reform processes.\nLast year, in the context of the 'caricature conflict', there was much talk of the need for more 'dialogue between cultures'. We must use this term with caution, however, as the idea of a dialogue between cultures could accidentally promote cultural relativism. The idea that standards and values are in principle attributable to an individual's culture runs counter to our understanding of universal human rights. I fully agree with the report in this respect, emphasising as it does the importance of intercultural dialogue whilst coming out clearly in favour of the universality of human rights.\nWe must avoid falling into the 'culturism trap' in all respects, not only with regard to human rights. Human beings have diverse identities. We are not only Muslim or Christian or atheist, but also member of a profession, student, father, member of an association and much more. The problem with Islamic fundamentalism, as with any other kind of fundamentalism, is that one element of personal identity - the religious - is placed above all others, and the complexity of the world is ultimately reduced to the idea of an opposition between 'Islam' and 'the West'. Our policies must avoid everything that promotes this reduction. We must emphasise what unites us rather than what divides us. We must select joint EU-Arab forums, particularly the Anna Lindh Foundation, for our discussions and projects.\nPolitical Islamism is an expression of the modernisation crisis of Arab societies, as Mr Rocard's report also points out. Tackling this is primarily a task for Arab societies themselves. There, too, there are secular and liberal forces. What is often missing, however, is dialogue within these societies on the issue of how the relationship between state, religion and society should be shaped in political terms.\nDialogue within society will make clear that the religious neutrality of the state and the enforcement of human rights are not a reform agenda being forced on the Arab world by 'the West', but rather are in the interests of Arab societies themselves. We can support this process of dialogue within society by providing forums for dialogue. This is an important task, for example, of the various political foundations found in countries such as Germany.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nMr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes the report by the honourable Member Mr Rocard, which basically discusses what relevance developments in the Arab world have to us and what we can do to exert our influence over these developments.\nAt a time when we are rediscovering our common cultural and historic heritage, the European Parliament's willingness to resume a key role in the promotion of closer relations with our Arab neighbours is important. The European Parliament resolution on reforms in the Arab world underlines very clearly that we peoples and countries surrounding the Mediterranean are dependent on each other. We are mutually dependent in political terms as partners endeavouring to pacify the Middle East and working to promote pluralism and democracy; dependent in cultural terms with regard to the promotion of the urgently needed in-depth dialogue between cultures and religions; dependent in environmental terms because, with a shared Mediterranean coast over 46 000 kilometres long, problems such as climate change, marine pollution and the challenges of improving the environment are the same for all; dependent in terms of energy policy because of the supplies of oil and natural gas originating from or channelled via the Mediterranean area; and dependent particularly in demographic terms, as dialogue with North African countries is needed on the solution to issues surrounding both legal and illegal migration.\nAs a response to our dependence on each other, we launched the Barcelona process together, which is now complemented by the European Neighbourhood Policy. In addition, the Cooperation Agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, the agreement with Yemen and the Cotonou Agreement with sub-Saharan Arab states have further developed relations.\nProgress has been made recently thanks to the Barcelona process and to the neighbourhood policy. To give two examples, association agreements have been concluded with nearly every country in the region and Neighbourhood Action Plans launched. A Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area is gradually taking shape, which is intended to function as an interface between an increasingly globalised world and the open, integrated regionalism practised by Europe.\nThe year 2007 could certainly signalise our relations with a region undergoing radical change; a region with great expectations of a far-reaching partnership with the EU. Our work with our partners is based on the conviction that changes only last if they come from within a society, and the gradual introduction of political and economic reforms within the framework of neighbourhood policy smoothes the way for a further rapprochement between Europe and Mediterranean countries.\nAt the heart of our relations with our Arab partners is our desire to promote security, growth and stability in the region. In addition, we firmly believe that these relations have a far broader purpose, namely the joint creation of an area of cooperation and stability, and the advocacy of our common objectives and values.\nAntonio Tajani\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the relations between Europe and the Arab world are the key to building peace in the Mediterranean area and in the Middle East. We must all become involved in the dialogue between cultures and religions over the next few years, in the firm belief that friendly relations are based on sincerity, loyalty and an attempt to understand others, without, however, renouncing one's own identity. In confirming the crucial importance of providing the European Union with a strategy for reform in the Arab world, the Rocard report defines some inalienable principles that will have to characterise future relations.\nThe European Parliament's task will be to encourage any decisions that will enhance democracy, respect for human rights and the role of women, the creation of a free trade area, freedom of information, financial aid and respect for religious freedom.\nThe Rocard report - and I can announce that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will vote for it - defines a fundamental principle, which is that of reciprocity: just as everyone in Europe has the right to practise his or her religion, people should have the same right in every Arab country. On this aspect the Rocard report calls precisely on Arabs living in the European Union to give their accounts. On this, as on other issues, however, we are still a long way from achieving the objectives that the European Union has set itself.\nBy upholding these principles and helping the Arab countries in their reforms, yet respecting their autonomy, we will help to prevent fundamentalism from gathering further support. The threat of fanaticism does not concern, in fact, only Europe, but the entire Arab world. Terrorism is the child of fundamentalism, which is why it is vital for Europe and the Arab States to work together to beat this scourge of the 20th century. Recent attacks demonstrate that al-Qa'ida's priority right now is to strike out at the moderate Arab States, which are trying to establish a dialogue and are facilitating the reforms. Europe cannot remain silent; it cannot stand by.\nHannes Swoboda\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, my colleague and friend Mr Rocard will forgive me if I start by addressing a very important topic, one on which Mrs De Keyser has been working very intensively in recent months and years: that of the Palestinian territories. I do not believe that we can make progress without a change in EU policy on the Palestinian issue or with regard to many of Mr Rocard's justified demands.\nToday, my group decided unanimously to call on the Commission and the Council to make fundamental changes to their policy on the Palestinian territories. EU policy - championed by the Council and the Commission - is untenable, cynical and unacceptable to the Arab population. Some governments may consider it acceptable, but the population of the Arab countries cannot approve of our current policy towards the Palestinian Government.\nWe called for free elections; and free, fair elections took place - to which Mrs De Keyser is the chief witness - but then we said we could not accept the result. This is most undemocratic. We then said that the Palestinians should at least form a unity government; and a unity government has been formed. We also told them to make a clear commitment to the peace process and the 1967 borders. The present Palestinian Government has declared its commitment to those borders. Israel has not, but we do not seem to consider this a problem.\nMany of our officials still refuse to receive the Palestinian Foreign Minister, for example, as the Council President did recently. It is unacceptable for the Council President, Angela Merkel, to say that she will receive the Israeli Foreign Minister but that it is beneath her to welcome the Palestinian Foreign Minister, who has nothing to do with Hamas.\nTherefore, in view of the specific situation in the Palestinian territories, we demand a drastic change in the position of the Council and the Commission. Perhaps individual members of the Council and the Commission disagree with it, but as institutions their policy is wrong and cynical. Do the ladies and gentlemen know the situation in the Palestinian territories? Do they know that our policy is resulting in the territories descending into chaos, that Mafia groups are taking power there? Do they know that a continuation of this policy is the best way of contributing to Israel's insecurity?\nWe must arrive at a different position, therefore - particularly in connection with this report, but also in connection with Israel's security, which is closely linked to the security of the Arab countries and of Europe. We should do so by attempting genuine cooperation with the Palestinian Government - a government chosen by the elections demanded by us - if that government is at least as prepared as Israel to support the peace process. I wanted to say this at the start of the debate on what is a very good report, but risks being unrealisable unless we change our policy on the Palestinian territories and towards the Palestinian Government.\nMarco Cappato\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mr Rocard, whose report, as he himself has said, is intended to offer support for the purposes of opening a dialogue and a debate. However, I believe that, in making such a statement, we must first make it clear - since this is something that concerns us and our policies within the European Union - that this is a dialogue and a debate that we intend to open not with the States, but with the people, with individuals.\nThis is all the more true when we talk about a primarily cultural - and therefore also political and institutional - effort, since in this case the talks must take place first with individuals, rather than with the Arab League or with individual States, not least because I believe that two of the major problems in the Arab world - nationalism and fundamentalism - now concern our European cities, too, which, from a demographic point of view, are also increasingly becoming cities of the Arab world. That is why these problems must be addressed by our European Union itself. This state of affairs also affects our institutional systems and the way in which religion is perceived within the European Union.\nThere is no doubt that Islamic fundamentalism exists. We have taken the liberty, in this regard, of tabling two amendments on the issue of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and of the clear distinction between political authorities and religious authorities. I do not believe that this is provocation. I only have time to point out, for example, that, when, together with other fellow Members, we went to Jerusalem for Gay Pride, we observed that, during the sometimes violent demonstrations aimed at preventing the demonstration from taking place, Orthodox Jewish fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists and Catholic fundamentalists were united. This is therefore an issue that concerns us, too, and that is the meaning behind the amendments, which I hope will be adopted.\nMario Borghezio\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the good intentions expressed in this report pave the way for what I fear may be some wrong moves. For example, the concessions and, indeed, the looking ahead to the prospect of pan-Arabism, may lead to what the previous speaker rightly pointed out as a danger: Arab nationalism. I, for my part, would not look on it so approvingly and so calmly.\nI am not thrilled with the fact that, behind this offer of dialogue, we can glimpse the plans of what an influential Arab intellectual fearfully described as the 'Eurabia project', an expression that was later adopted very effectively by the Italian writer, Oriana Fallaci. Above all, however, what concerns me in the report is the way in which the doubts about the Arab Charter on Human Rights are expressed, where it is stated that some of the provisions contained in the Charter are worded in such as way as to allow different interpretations to be made. Yet, there is little to interpret differently in the text! The Islamic Charter on human rights is very clear: it states that human rights for Muslims are subject to the Sharia. This is stated in the preamble and in all of the subsequent articles, and stated extremely clearly.\nFor the Arab States that have signed this Charter - the 1948 Charter on Human Rights, to which we are referring - it is valid only insofar as it conforms to the dictates of Allah. Instead, unlike what is stated in the report, it needs to be made clear not only to the people but also to the Arab regimes with which we are holding talks - even though it is not clear how enthusiastic they are about tackling and supporting the Barcelona process, which is spoken about in very optimistic terms, given that they then do not take part in the meetings - that religious precepts are one thing, that laws are another thing and that the principle of freedom of conscience is another thing still. The Charter on Human Rights is based, in fact, on the philosophical principle of the separation of laws from spiritual and religious precepts.\nThis is a concept that must be reaffirmed very clearly, otherwise Europe will continue to pretend that it cannot see very serious dangers, including, for example, the television programmes broadcast by Hamas, in which Mickey Mouse teaches Arab children about the fight against terrorism, the fight against Israel and the sacrifice made by suicide bombers. That is what the peoples of the Arab world see.\nCaroline Lucas\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I, too, must beg forgiveness of Mr Rocard by focusing on one issue - Palestine. I also believe that, until the EU changes its current position and recognises the National Unity Government in Palestine, we are precisely undermining the opportunities for good relations with the Arab world, we are exacerbating poverty and suffering in the Occupied Territories, we are in danger of destroying the Palestinian Authority itself and we are certainly already destroying the hopes of the Palestinian people.\nWe are also being entirely inconsistent and hypocritical, because the Palestinians I have met have rightly challenged me: Does the EU not say that democracy is better than violence? Well, yes, we do. Did the EU election observers not pronounce the Palestinian elections free and fair? Well, yes, they did. In spite of that, when asked to do so, did the legitimately elected Hamas Government not transform itself into a genuine government of national unity? Yes, it did. Has that government not agreed to the three demands of the quartet to renounce violence, to respect previous agreements and to recognise the State of Israel? Yes, it has. They ask me and I, in turn, ask the Council here tonight, what else is the EU waiting for?\nI have just come back from a parliamentary delegation visit to Palestine where we met Prime Minister Haniyeh and many of his ministers, and the message from all of them was the same: they have met the demands of the Quartet, they accept a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and they are ready and eager for peace negotiations. They cannot understand why the EU does not respond and why we insist, for example, on channelling aid via the Temporary International Mechanism, which, while it helps some of the poorest, is unable to prevent the growing humanitarian and political crisis: it undermines the apparatus and the authority of the Palestinian State and, crucially, it strips the EU of the leverage we could - and should - have with the Israeli authorities to pressure them into releasing the Palestinian tax revenues which they are still illegally withholding. We met Mustafa Barghouti, the Minister of Information, and he left us in doubt when he said, 'If the EU wants the Palestinian Authority to collapse, then it should say so'. Let us be very clear: that is where our policies are leading. I am sure that neither we nor the Council wants the Palestinian Authority to collapse, and so I ask the Council once again: what else is it waiting for?\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\nMr President, if I were a Palestinian citizen looking enthusiastically towards the European Union to get me out of the impasse I was in, I would agree with Mr Swoboda and with Mrs Caroline Lucas and I would be very concerned about certain aspects of the Rocard report.\nThe first problem with the report is that it upgrades the strategy of the European Council and the European Commission in the Middle East, which calls on all of us to only talk to half the members of the government of Palestine and ignore the fact that this government is the product of democratic elections, that it is a government of national unity and is supported by 96% of the Palestinian people.\nWe have all seen the outcome of this catastrophic policy. There is a legitimate government on Palestinian soil which the European Council and the European Commission has quarantined, thereby destroying every opportunity which this government is giving us to engage in legitimate talks. If the Union misses this crucial crossroads, the road forward will be very difficult.\nIn another paragraph, the report notes that any deepening of Euro-Arab relations depends on the energy and talent which Europe brings to bear in reconciling its historic duties and responsibilities towards the State of Israel and the Jewish people; but where are its historic duties and responsibilities towards the Palestinians going? We have to stop burying our heads in the sand. There is a legal, elected government on Palestinian soil which we must not isolate and with which the European Union must engage immediately in direct dialogue.\nPhilip Claeys\non behalf of the ITS Group. - (NL) Mr President, the Rocard report contains many positive points. In these times of political correctness, to talk about an Arab evil openly, for example, shows a certain degree of courage. The report is right to single out a number of painful areas. There is a need for more democracy, more free market economy, respect for human rights, and equal treatment for women, while non-Muslims must be able to practise their religion freely.\nThe concept of reciprocity is very much applicable here, and it is useful to make a special mention of this in the report. The European Union can, and indeed must, play a part in promoting these principles within the Arab world. Whether this will bear fruit is a different matter, but we should at least try.\nThe report stipulates - and I quote - that the westernisation of the Arab societies is not the only way of bringing about the necessary reforms. I can go along with that, but I should like to stress that the Arabisation or Islamisation of Europe should not be an option either. One consequence of the riots resulting from the Danish cartoons is that we have had to conclude that a number of essential freedoms, such as the right to the free expression of opinion, have also come under pressure in Europe. The European Union's reaction to this was rather - not to say very - feeble. I should therefore like to say in all tranquillity and serenity that our freedoms and the right to remain ourselves in Europe and in all European Member States should remain intact.\nFrancisco Jos\u00e9 Mill\u00e1n Mon\n(ES) Mr President, it is not an easy task to produce a report on reforms in the Arab world, since that covers a fairly heterogeneous group of countries.\nThere is, however, agreement on the need for reforms in the Arab countries, a notion that is taken up in the very title of the report. The Arab leaders also acknowledged this at the Tunis Summit in 2004. Furthermore, the recent Riyadh Summit insisted on modernisation too, though I notice that its text places less emphasis on the idea of reforms.\nThe Arab countries are facing a series of challenges which they need to tackle by means of substantial improvements in the political, economic and social fields. That means reforms leading to democratisation and greater respect for human rights, which are not the exclusive property of the West, but are universal.\nIn many cases, democratisation will involve the challenge of incorporating moderate Islamic options into political life, options that are opposed to the use of violence.\nEconomic and social reforms are also needed. From an economic point of view, there is excessive State presence, scant participation in international trade and little diversification of economies. Generally speaking, in the majority of these countries there is a low level of economic development and low rates of growth, which are incapable of generating employment for a rapidly growing population. High unemployment and lack of prospects cause social discontent, which feeds radical political forces.\nThe stability and prosperity of the Arab countries is very important for the European Union. We need to have good relations with them that benefit us mutually; we must consider the importance of their oil and gas to the European Union, which imports much of its energy resources from outside. Furthermore, several Member States have Arab countries as neighbours, and many Arab citizens live in our cities.\nIn addition, over recent years, an extremely serious Jihadist threat has emerged, which is attacking our countries and also the Muslim States themselves.\nIn short, there are many fields in which we must cooperate. We must also encourage them and help them to implement political, economic and social reforms. Maintaining the status quo - as the report itself points out - is not a guarantee of stability in the long run, quite the opposite.\nV\u00e9ronique De Keyser\n(FR) Mr President, some people have said, on reading this report, that it is strange. It is strange because it does not mention, or scarcely mentions, regional and international policy in this part of the world, the conflicts ravaging the Middle East, terrorism, radical Islamism or illegal immigration. Nor does it mention the colonial past of certain great powers or the persistent influence they wish to continue to exert. What, then, is the point of this well-meaning report, which, by the way, is a real antidote to the cartoons of Mohammed?\nFirst of all, it is not a well-meaning report, but a bold statement and a tremendous message of confidence in the democratic potential of the Arab world, in the diversity of its non-governmental actors, in the strength of its civil society and in its culture. Furthermore, it states clearly the role that Europe must play: to support and promote local endogenous democratic processes and to remind them of the importance of human rights, but without ever imposing itself as a hegemonic power.\nThis message may seem commonplace. It is, however, vital for a real alliance of civilisations since it finally makes the Arab world a partner in peace, a partner in development and in culture. Many reports emanating from this European Parliament describe the threats coming to us from the East. Mr Rocard has chosen to point out the reasons for hope, and I thank him for it.\nIt is, however, a subject on which Mr Rocard has been incomplete. The report rightly mentions Europe's responsibility towards Israel and its security. We accept this responsibility and we will continue to accept it, but it is inseparable from our responsibility with regard to Palestine, which is today going through an unprecedented crisis. We shall never be able to sacrifice one to the other. The Balfour Declaration, in 1917, already stated that 'the establishment of a home for Jewish people in Palestine would not prejudice the rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine'. Where have we got to a century after this declaration?\nThat is why I support and strongly take up the demand not only of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, but also of all those who have spoken this evening and said to us: the sanctions against Palestine must be lifted, we have to negotiate with its national unity government, which accepts the Arab peace initiative, which is also a tremendous guarantee for the security of Israel with regard to the Arab world. This is a leap forward; this is a rising hope. And it is rising for all those who, on both sides of the 1967 frontier, still believe in international justice and want to encourage hope.\nTherefore, in the name of these values, in the name of those just men on both sides of the frontier, what are we, in Europe, going to do? Wait? I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, and I say to the Council and to the Commission: let us wait no longer! Tomorrow it will be too late, and the crushing responsibility for that will be ours.\nLuisa Morgantini\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will not speak about Palestine because I fully share the opinion of Mr Swoboda, Mr Triantaphyllides, Mrs Lucas and Mrs De Keyser; I will therefore spare you my comments about Palestine on this occasion.\nInstead, I should like to thank Mr Rocard for having drafted a report containing many important elements - 'hope', as Mrs De Keyser was saying. These elements include the statement that many Arab intellectuals have carried out a lucid analysis of the ills of the Arab world. I believe that what the Rocard report is lacking, however, is a lucid analysis of the ills of European society, with regard not only to the need for reforms in the democratic Arab world but also to our policies.\nIn the amendments tabled by Mr Rocard himself, there are a few corrections that I fully support, even though I believe that we cannot talk about reforms in the Arab world without taking into consideration the tragedies caused not by European policies but, for example, by the war in Iraq and by the absence of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I therefore believe that we must begin also with a criticism of how devastating and obstructive our policies in Iraq have been, for example in terms of hindering a reform process that is crucial not only in the Arab world but also to us, when it comes to changing our policy.\nSimon Busuttil\n(MT) Thank you, Mr President. The subject of reform in the Arab world is an extremely complex one. One need only read Mr Rockar's report in order to understand this complexity. The rapporteur in fact asks whether there is in fact an Arab community as such and points out that there is a reason why we talk of the Arab world but not of the Arab nation or the Arab union. This clearly means that, before we begin discussing the Arab world and offering solutions, we must understand it better. That is why it is essential not to be patronising when we talk of reforms in the Arab world and not to dictate solutions as though we were better informed than everyone else. There is no doubt that reforms are needed so as to enable the Arab countries to benefit more from the process of modernisation and globalisation. Our task is to offer the experience we have had in our Union and to lend our support in a spirit of partnership between two equal parties. We must not create a context in which we tell others what to do.\nThe Barcelona Process was meant to be one of partnership but, as we all know, we ended up in a situation in which the European Union dictated what should happen, and when and how. We also need to make better use of our interlocutors in the Arab world, such as the Arab League which, despite its own problems, has gained enough credibility to give a voice to the Arab world. Malta took the initiative of proposing a structured dialogue between the European Union and the Arab League; a dialogue aimed at tackling the subject of the reforms that must be carried out on both sides of the Mediterranean. This is a good initiative, and one that has gone down well with the Arab League, and I hope that both the Council of Ministers and the Commissioner can support it. Thank you.\nLibor Rou\u010dek\n(CS) I should like to congratulate Mr Rocard on his outstanding report which, in my view, is much-needed, both for the Arab world and for Europe. I believe the need for this report can be seen from the way that in recent years, not only in the USA but also in Europe, there has been a certain blinkered tendency to view the Arab and Islamic world simply in terms of the fight against terrorism.\nWhilst European-Arab relations must take account of the fight against terrorism, they must also take account of issues such as economic and social development, employment, the proper management of public affairs, the strengthening of civil society, the concept of human rights, and intercultural and inter-faith exchange and dialogue. European-Arab relations should be based on genuine dialogue on a level playing field without feelings of superiority or inferiority being generated.\nDialogue and partnership with the EU could in my view be targeted more at cooperation with the Arab world as a whole. In other words, in addition to bilateral relations, we should also focus on specific organisations, some of which have already been mentioned, such as the League of Arab States, the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab Maghreb Union.\nLastly, because we are here in the European Parliament, I should also like to emphasise the role played by the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA) as a democratic body bringing together members of parliament from both sides of the Mediterranean. The EMPA should in my opinion play a much greater role, including attempting to resolve the Arab-Israel conflict.\nPierre Schapira\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Rocard for this report, which conveys much objectivity on the European Union's exclusively bilateral relations with the Arab world. It calls, however, in particular for a new dialogue, which must include the problems of development and of good governance. It is to this subject that I should like to return.\nIn its development policy, the European Union has broken up the Arab world into two parts: the Mediterranean zone and the Caucasus, called the neighbourhood zone, and the Middle East subject to the development policy. This artificial distinction does not allow a more balanced comprehensive approach, which would make fundamental reforms possible.\nAs far as the matter of governance is concerned, Mr Rocard emphasises the partnership approach and the role of civil society. This is an innovative view that must take into account - and this is why I am speaking of it - the role of the local authorities. In fact, a very dense network of cooperation from town to town has developed in the Arab world, with the organisation of Arab towns which, moreover, belong to a wider organisation, the world organisation of towns, which includes Palestinian towns and Israeli towns that work together. There are cooperation projects for peace, for cultural and religious exchanges, for human rights and the fight against all forms of discrimination.\nThese transnational actions are the expression of a link between Europe and the Arab world on an infra-state scale, that of emerging civil societies. They also offer a wider framework for analysis than that of the fight against terrorism imposed following 11 September.\nRichard Howitt\nMr President, I should like to congratulate my esteemed colleague, Michel Rocard, on his report. As it underlines, the only valid response in our desire for reform in the Arab world is one which is inclusive and based on common values - something which is too often lost in talk of the war on terror.\nAs several Socialist colleagues have said, we need to make real progress in finding a peaceful and long-term solution to the problems of conflict, not least between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. But let me highlight the absolute need to limit the impact of any direct or indirect support by the EU or our Member States for authoritarianism in the region. There needs to be a re-evaluation of the relationship between European security services and their counterparts, making sure that these agencies continue to cooperate in addressing common threats, including terrorism, but that any action is unambiguously consistent with international human rights law, including the provisions on torture. There need to be tighter controls governing arms or military transfers to the region to ensure these are not used in internal repression or external aggression. In all of the EU's external assistance programmes there needs to be further re-evaluation of the provision of assistance to countries in the region in order to promote development and economic justice and to support the reformers themselves in the reform process.\nMichel Rocard \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Mr Gloser, Mr Verheugen, in only two minutes, I shall not be able to reply to everybody.\nI should like first to stress the importance that has led four of our speakers not to deal with the subject directly but to remind us that, before this topic, the unresolved tragedy of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the non-recognition of the new Palestinian Government and the different obstacles that we put in the way, hinder good relations between Europe and the Arab world. They are right. That was not my point. I wish to support this point of view very forcefully. I have often supported it on other occasions. I would draw your attention to the fact that therein lies the key.\nI should also like to commend the great understanding of the report's approach, which has been as evident in Mr Gloser's speech as in that of the Commissioner, Mr Verheugen, and I do not think that his successor will say otherwise: there exists a convergence of thinking between a parliamentary approach, which I represent here, and the perception of the Council of Ministers, as well as that of the Commission. For me, that is absolutely essential.\nTo our colleagues on the different benches, I shall simply say that the contribution made by Mr Busuttil's, who supports the idea of partnership, seems important to me. I would say that Mr Cappato is right to emphasise that we wish, through all these efforts, to engage with civil societies, to engage, ultimately, with individuals, of course, but we cannot engage with individuals alone, we have to do so through institutions, the media, etc., and that is indeed the approach of this report.\nMr Tajani focused on reciprocity. I too am concerned about reciprocity. I should like to point out that the intelligence of our approach will depend on our ability to adjust reciprocity according to the inequalitiy of the levels of economic and cultural development. The point is to support a process that must bring Arab countries closer to the values of our democracies, without pretending and without accusing them of not sharing these values from the beginning of the process. That is what brings me, as Mr Cappato well knows, to defer certain amendments, not because I disagree with some of the criticisms, but rather because I disagree that it is opportune to bring them up now, at a time when we are engaging in a process of holding out a hand to help people who are way behind us when it comes to respect for human rights.\nA support process does not presuppose that the problem has been resolved in advance. We will not increase our demands. I would even be tempted, in this spirit, to encourage voting against an amendment tabled by my own group. We have discussed it fully. My group is inflexible on some intangible principles for which I have been fighting for 50 years. In this matter we must progress more moderately. I propose that we use subtlety in our diplomatic relations. In politics, subtlety is rare, but I am suggesting it all the same.\n(Laughter)\nG\u00fcnter Gloser\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to discuss a few points. What alternative is there but dialogue with our neighbours?\nIn recent years, the EU has laid down a wide palette of measures - not unilaterally, but in cooperation with many Arab countries. The key ones have already been mentioned: the Barcelona process, for example, and also the further development of neighbourhood policy that is currently taking place. Nevertheless, we note different developments in individual countries.\nWho would have thought, for example, that the King of Morocco would have launched a truth commission seeking to reappraise what crimes were committed in the past? Of course, this committee of inquiry does not come close to meeting the criteria the EU Member States lay down for such committees. Who would have thought, also, that certain distant countries would extend the right to vote?\nA great deal has happened, but it is apparent that, on certain points, we could have achieved more. The people in Arab countries would also have hoped for a greater share in economic development than has been the case. There is no alternative to dialogue, however.\nMr Rocard spoke of the need for us to develop a strategy: this can only work in cooperation with Arab countries. It is possible that the strategy towards a certain country will differ from that towards a Gulf State. It is also important, however, to note that the Arab League has regained strength. The League often looks to the EU, the association of European states, but it has no such uniting function; instead its members often have a very national outlook and prefer to regulate their own matters. Nevertheless, there has now been a realisation that, when it comes to conflict resolution, in particular, an association is better, and accordingly is a better means of asserting a country's own interests.\nI should also like to discuss the various comments that have been made in the debate with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am of course aware that the unresolved conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territories often interferes with many of the talks, the forums for dialogue. However, I should also like to say quite deliberately that many problems in Arab countries could also have been solved without a prior resolution of this conflict.\nHowever - including in view of comments by Mr Swoboda and others - we should bear in mind the chronicle of developments in this whole debate. We have never said that the elections in the Palestinian territories were unfair. On the contrary, we noted that they were conducted more fairly than those in many other countries. Another important aspect, however, is that the newly elected government failed to declare its intention to comply with the commitments entered into by the previous government - at least not initially, Mr Swoboda; only gradually - and now only as a result of the initiative of Saudi Arabia.\nMany Arab states have succeeded in forming a national unity government.\nI would say quite clearly - because this is occasionally obscured, and so that you do not reproach me at the end of the process - that, at the time of the blockade, the EU provided considerable financial support to the Palestinians: a fact that the Commissioner responsible for external relations, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, has always made clear. The sums paid out were often greater than in the period before the 'blockade'.\nWe must now concern ourselves, together with the Arab League and, of course, the two actors Israel and Palestine, with making progress in reviving the peace process - an achievement to which the EU and the Quartet contributed - and with meeting the demands we have heard today.\nJacques Barrot\nMr President, I simply wish to thank Parliament and, of course, its rapporteur, Mr Rocard, for the work done on a subject that is important for all of us. I will give an account to Mr Verheugen, who has presented the Commission's position, of the quality of the debates in which I have been able to take part in his stead. I think, in fact, that Parliament prides itself on developing thinking about important issues. I pay tribute, of course, to the German Presidency and hope that this report will make it possible to work out this peace strategy that we all need so much.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nEija-Riitta Korhola \nin writing. - (FI) Mr President, I think that Mr Rocard's report is fairly commendable: it emphasises the fact that the Union's role is to encourage and engage with the attempts at reform in the Arab countries. This role requires active inter-cultural dialogue.\nWe have to give our attention to what the dialogue should be based on. The report says 'inter-cultural dialogue can only be revived through the affirmation of a common and universal basis of human values which transcends dogmas and Community allegiances'. This should not be understood as a purely secularist basis, which might indeed increase cultural tensions.\nA liberalised society exhibits a mix of two ways of thinking: ethical pluralism and cultural relativism, which could be called secularist relativism.\nWhereas relativism is based on the assumption that there is no religious truth, the pluralistic approach is just that we can reach consensus on this through reasonable means. Relativism therefore means that value and belief systems have not been left out of political decisions entirely.\nPluralism, on the other hand, aims for dialogue on values and means that different value and belief systems need to be understood when decisions are being taken, for the simple reason that they are an important part of people's lives. It has to be realised that dialogue along these lines makes not just understanding and interaction, but also criticism, possible.\nRelativism in fact leads to an increase in tension because it evades the difficult issues and passes over them. Pluralism can help ease tension as it is fundamentally to do with taking account of human values and their differences.\nReligion is not necessarily what causes tension, which is to say a problem. It can also be part of the solution.\nGlyn Ford \nin writing. I will be supporting this report on EU strategy towards the Arab world. While there is fault on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I welcome the fact that the EU has a much more balanced position with regard to this conflict than the Bush Administration in the US.\nWhat we can potentially do has been recently demonstrated in the not entirely different context of the Aceh conflict in Indonesia - the world's fourth largest country and largest Muslim state. Here EU efforts brokered a peace settlement and a peace process that ended a 30-year-long civil war at the cost of less than a few hours' spending in Iraq. This example should serve as a paradigm for the EU's future actions within our emerging Common Foreign and Security Policy.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, it is curious that, whatever the crisis, the answer in this House always seems to be greater European integration. Most people beset by the economic squalls we have had in the past six months respond by seeing the situation as scary and possibly painful. However, in this House, we see it as an opportunity for more regulation, more unification and more harmonisation at EU level, as this report shows.\nThe problem with this is that the people making that decision will be shielded from the consequences of it. Living in their palaces and chancelleries, surrounded and cocooned in their motorised convoys, their chauffeured cars and their official banquets, they will not be paying the price that our constituents will as a result of these economic policies. It seems to me axiomatic that we should respond to the economic crisis with more flexibility and by allowing countries to tailor their interest rates to suit their needs. Instead, we are doing precisely the opposite.\nSimon Busuttil  \n(MT) I voted in favour of this report because it places heavy emphasis on the importance of solidarity, on the fact that a common asylum policy needs to be built upon solidarity. However, I would like to underline the fact that there are certain paragraphs in the report that I cannot go along with and that I would have voted against had we been given an individual vote. I would particularly like to highlight the issue regarding detention policy. I believe that we must be very careful when referring to the detention of asylum seekers because it is not simply a question of deciding to put a stop to detention once and for all and to have it apply to everyone. There are certain specific circumstances whereby the use of detention policy is, and will, always remain important.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, I voted against the Catania report, as I totally and utterly disagree with the Commission's recent proposals on asylum policy, which the rapporteur welcomes in this report.\nMy particular fear is that the new directive, which provides asylum seekers with even easier access to the labour market and would even give them a large allowance on top, will create a pull factor similar to the collective regularisations that were carried out in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy, the consequences of which were simply disastrous.\nIndeed, I should like to remind the House that, according to recent censuses, there are still more than 20 million unemployed in the European Union - the figure has most probably reached 25 million by now - which means that attracting even more asylum seekers is, in fact, a kind of collective suicide. In addition, I believe that this whole area must remain an exclusive competence of the Member States.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, I voted against the Catania report, as it clearly reflects an extreme left-wing bias aimed at rendering any efficient asylum management system simply impossible. All abuses of the existing systems in the Member States are defended and, if possible, cast in stone in legislation.\nOne example is the toleration of bogus asylum seekers who use minor children as a way of getting themselves a residence permit, and another is the opposition to closed reception centres for people who fail to meet the conditions for recognition as refugees and abscond upon their release. Clearly, every effort is being made to make life easier for actual and potential illegal immigrants.\nThe rapporteur is pleased that the Court of Justice rejects a list of safe countries, even though such a list is essential to keep the flow of refugees under control. The strategy of the left wing thus aims to overload the system such as to render any possible efficiency impossible. However, this is not what the majority of Europeans wants, and so this will be featuring prominently in our election campaign.\nHubert Pirker\n(DE) Mr President, I am in favour of a common asylum policy for the European Union that would lead to quick and certain decisions. That said, I am against this report, as it contains elements that are absolutely unacceptable, such as the broadening of the term refugee way beyond what the Geneva Convention currently states; rejecting the regulation of safe third countries that we had already managed to reach a positive agreement on; giving Frontex tasks that have absolutely nothing to do with it; allowing asylum seekers a free choice of which country is to be responsible for the procedure - which represents the abandonment of the Dublin Convention; and easier access to the labour market for asylum seekers. We want quick procedures and not the integration of asylum seekers who will possibly have to leave the European Union again after 14 days because they will not be granted refugee status anyway.\nOverall, the development in the Union is heading in the positive direction of a common policy, but what has been proposed in this report is completely counterproductive. It is for that reason that I voted against the report.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, and so the European Union carries on acquiring one by one the attributes and trappings of nationality: a legal system, common external borders and now a common policy on who is allowed to cross those borders and settle within its territory. One by one, it has taken on all of the characteristics that international law recognises as definitive of statehood.\nI wanted to compliment you, Mr President, on your ruling that it was acceptable for MEPs to demonstrate - as my neighbour did - little Tibetan flags on their desks. It stands in marked contrast to the way we had our placards snatched off us when we dared to display the word 'referendum' in this Chamber. I would like to ask you - because I know you, and other Members of this House, are interested in this subject - to ponder the hypocrisy of being in favour of national self-determination in Tibet but against national self-determination within the European Union. If you think I am being extreme by drawing a parallel between an authoritarian State in China and the European Union, prove me wrong by putting your Treaty to the people in the referendums that you promised. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I shall be brief. I voted in favour of this report because anything that improves road safety has to be welcomed.\nI have an additional point. We have concerns in Ireland about road safety issues. When roads are being maintained by local authorities, we have had some terrible tragedies on these roads, and this is an issue that perhaps needs to be looked at from a European point of view and standards put in place.\nJames Nicholson\nMr President, first of all, I would like to welcome the report and thank the rapporteur for his good work. I have to admit that it is very rare for me to be lobbied, in Northern Ireland, to vote on an EU directive in a positive way, but I was on this one, and I was delighted to see such a positive vote today. For once it will bring some good news to my province, which certainly needs it.\nBetter safety and more environmentally sensitive and sensible proposals are always welcome. In the longer term, I hope it will also save existing jobs and maybe create new ones in the area. This is something that we can all welcome as far as Europe is concerned, being positive, good thinking, rather than holding the economy back.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, amid all the confusion about casting and recasting, this was a very difficult vote for many Members. In the end, I abstained on this vote because of my concerns about soils in particular. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has concerns about a soils directive and this is an issue that needs to be carefully examined. We made some progress in the amendments in relation to agricultural issues in general, but my vote in the end was to abstain, rather than vote against, because there is much in this report around the environment, about power generation and emissions of which I am in favour.\nAnja Weisgerber\n(DE) Mr President, I very much welcome the central element of the Krahmer report, the European safety network. Maximum emissions limits are being laid down which the Member States must adhere to as an absolute top limit when granting permits to large industrial plants. There is, then, a rough framework, so that everything moves flexibly and so that there is a level playing field. This will put a stop to the inflationary use of derogations that has thus far taken place in certain Member States. This means competition on an equal footing throughout Europe. In that way, we can together establish a high standard at the European level.\nI must make it clear, though, that I vehemently reject the regulations on soil protection. I am of the opinion that more account should be taken of the subsidiarity principle. Regulations on soil protection have no cross-border effect. Soil protection is not a cross-border issue. I therefore continue to believe that the Member States can regulate soil protection themselves.\nThere is an attempt here, however, to use the IPPC Directive as a back door through which to bring in parts of the soil protection directive, which we successfully fought off in the past. I very much regret that my motions to delete the relevant parts were rejected by a very narrow majority, in one case by only six votes. I have therefore decided to vote against this report as a whole, despite the fact that I very much welcome the European safety network.\nNeena Gill\nMr President, I am not entirely happy with this report and the manner in which we dealt with it here today, but I did nevertheless vote for the report because I believe it reduces red tape. Industrial installations make a significant contribution to pollutant emissions in Europe, but heavy industry is one of the drivers of our economy and needs to be encouraged to produce greener emissions.\nThis is a major issue for my region of the West Midlands, which is one of the most industrialised in the UK. The integrated approach is welcome, but the stringent rules in this report are of concern, and I am concerned that the implementation costs should not be so heavy that they undermine the environmental protection provisions.\nWe need checks on the European safety net and we need to look at issues such as the spreading of manure and slurry which, I believe, would be disproportionate to the environmental benefits we get.\nAdministrative burdens and costs have to be proportionate to the environmental benefits, because if that is the case, we will have a win-win situation which would help businesses meet their environmental commitments, bring significant support in the fight against climate change, and have the potential to improve health conditions for young and old people across my region.\nJames Nicholson\nMr President, I voted against his report. While there may well be good points in it, it eventually went too far. I am in favour of streamlining European Union regulations, but not if you make it more bureaucratic, difficult to operate and unfavourable to industry.\nThe attempt to bring agriculture into this legislation is, to me, totally unacceptable and is a step too far. It must be rejected. To bring in soil protection is not the responsibility of the European Parliament, nor can it be done throughout the whole of the European Union. That should be the responsibility of the national governments.\nI have to ask why the Committee on Agriculture was not consulted on this particular issue. You cannot bring in regulations that are destructive and make pig and poultry farmers go out of business. The truth is that we are bringing in regulations in Europe, and restricting production in Europe, whilst allowing imports into the European Union that are not produced to the same standards as they are in Europe. I cannot accept that.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, there was some controversy about the recasting procedure and my name was mentioned in this context. I would like firstly to point out that the rapporteur who introduced this into our Rules of Procedure was Maryl\u00e8ne Renault, not me.\nPerhaps a word of explanation is necessary concerning the correct actions of the President of the Parliament. We often have pieces of legislation amending for the 15th, 16th or 17th time some existing pieces of legislation. That is very confusing for people who have to deal with this legislation. We have, rightly, embarked on a procedure for codifying such legislation - putting it in a single, readable, manageable text. We frequently have that before us and, because it does not change the substance, we have a simplified procedure for that.\nHowever, when it comes to recasting, we have a difficulty. There, the Commission is putting forward a proposal to change one element of a package of existing legislation and to simply codify the rest without changing it. We have voluntarily restricted ourselves to tabling amendments of substance only to the part that the Commission is proposing to modify, and not to use the codification of the remaining part as an opportunity to reopen the substance. Maybe we should, as has been suggested by one of our colleagues. However, there would be a problem under the Treaty with regard to the demarcation of the right of initiative between us and the Commission. It is certainly not, however, an issue where colleagues were right to complain about the actions of the President. Under our existing Rules - which we gave ourselves as a Parliament and which we approved by an absolute majority of our Members - the correct procedure has been followed.\nJim Allister\nMr President, I voted against this report because of its attempts to totally unnecessarily entwine agriculture into the huge burden of regulation which it would import. I recently met with some producers in my constituency. I saw the paperwork that has been heaped upon a particular producer because he is already within the ambit of these regulations. I shudder to think what is going to happen to ordinary producers of very modest proportions when they, too, are subjected to this huge and totally unnecessary burden of regulation.\nI think it is a report that takes us very much in the wrong direction and, at the very least, I am happy that I was here to vote against it.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, I did not ask to give an explanation of vote on the Ma\u0148ka report, because I was going to combine it with this one, because the two deal with how we are going to look at the budget in the following year, and I am not going to be here in the following year because I am disappearing off in June. I know that there is great upset across the other side of the Chamber about this matter.\nI just wanted to lay down a few ground rules that have been ignored so far in these reports. We should watch out for how much money we are funding NGOs and agencies, where huge problems exist with how European taxpayers' money is being spent at this time. I give the example of the European Fundamental Rights Agency, which is currently under investigation by OLAF.\nIn general terms, at a time of huge economic downturn and hardship, maybe we should be looking at ourselves to tweak our budget so we can send more monies back to national exchequers where it is desperately needed and where the pain is being felt. And certainly at this time when big - almost irrational - decisions are being made by businesses and government departments around the world in employment matters, we should concern ourselves with having only one seat for this Parliament.\nKoenraad Dillen\n(NL) Mr President, I voted against this report. Although it is to be welcomed that illegal immigration and the fight against terrorism are prioritised and that this House is finally calling on the Commission to monitor closely the implementation of funds in Kosovo and the Balkan states too, bearing in mind the hasty enlargement to include Bulgaria and Romania, it is regrettable that no action is suggested in response to this, nor any conditions attached to it.\nIncidentally, my party advocates a halt to enlargement after the accession of Croatia. Returning to the report, though - as has just been touched on, why did this House not take the trouble for once to advocate the abolition of a few of the superfluous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and European agencies that are not subject to any democratic control, often interpret their powers too broadly and call upon European taxpayers' money for nothing?\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, it is excellent that Parliament is stressing equal access to language facilities for all the Members of this House. Parliament must become genuinely multilingual. It can certainly be said that the working conditions of persons employed by contractors should be in line with the language rules.\nOn the other hand, in the chapter on buildings, this House neglects to take a clear stance on the monthly travelling circus to Strasbourg that costs approximately EUR 200 million per year. This does not send out a good signal to European citizens, to taxpayers, which is one of the reasons why I voted against this report.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, in relation to the two budgetary votes, may I point out that a lot of people are asking: what contribution can the European budget make in terms of a fiscal stimulus in times of economic crisis? The answer is: very little. The whole of the European Union's budget amounts to less than 1% of GDP and it has been a declining proportion of GDP in recent years. It is, in macroeconomic terms, a very small budget and this is something that many of the Eurosceptics would do well to remember.\nOn the other hand, in certain areas, it can be of huge structural significance and gradually improve the structure of Europe's economy. On research and development, on some aspects of regional fund spending and social spending, we can help prepare our economy for the recovery.\nI am glad that those aspects of the budget are gradually representing a greater proportion of the budget, and agriculture and some others are declining. However, I think that trend needs to be accelerated and we need to continue much more rapidly in that direction of shifting resources to where they can make a real difference.\nSimon Busuttil  \n(MT) I voted in favour of the alternative motion on this report and I abstained when it came to the principle motion. There is no doubt that integrity in the online gaming sector is extremely important. We must ensure that we fend off all criminal activity that could affect it. However, this does not mean that we must turn to protectionism. We must keep in mind that the liberty of providing services within the European Union is a basic, recognised Union principle, and therefore we must not resort to protectionism. Moreover, it is worth noting that the Internet, considering that we are talking about online gaming, already provides us with a range of security measures that we can build upon, such as the obligation to sign up before one is allowed to play, or the tracing of certain activity which could be fraudulent in nature, or even the identification of the credit cards that are used. Therefore, we must say 'yes' to integrity and 'no' to protectionism.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the growth of gambling on the Internet is a new phenomenon which does not recognise national boundaries, and which has negative consequences that we must confront without delay on a unified EU basis in order to provide effective protection for children and young people. Member States must introduce a common set of regulations on payments as quickly as possible, including checks on identity and age. The key issue of course is prevention and I am therefore pushing for a Europe-wide ban on gambling advertisements which are targeted at young people, just as we have for alcohol and tobacco. We must also monitor the other negative effects of this branch of the entertainment industry, including money laundering and organised crime in general. And as far as these areas are concerned, I am fundamentally opposed to a free market.\nCarlo Fatuzzo\n(IT) Mr President, I was unsure as to how to vote on Mrs Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling and for what reason. So I asked my pensioners. Yesterday I met a pensioner named Ugo Rossi, a retired craftsman. He told me: 'Oh, online gambling, I have lost EUR 10 000'. A little later I met a retired lady, Lucia Annone. She told me: 'Do not talk to me about online gambling, I have lost EUR 100 000'. I decided, however, how to vote when even my mother, who is 94, said to me: 'You gave me a computer and I have lost my entire pension for March 2009, EUR 450'. So no, Mr President, at that point, I decided that, in order to protest against gambling and so that it is eradicated throughout Europe, I had to vote against this report for that reason.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\nMr President, in the case of online gambling, there must be clear and unambiguous laws that serve to limit, control and account for the nearly EUR 3 billion in annual gross revenue realised by the gambling industry. However, according to Mrs Schaldemose, that EUR 3 billion is only 5% of the total gambling market in the European Union.\nTherefore, the importance and influence of this industry is obvious - as are its dangers. Gambling is often correctly associated with crime at international level, and cross-border gambling rings which are much easier to run via the Internet jeopardise the laws of various nations and harbour risks to national sovereignty.\nIt is also important to note the negative effects on health associated with gambling. As a medical doctor, I am well aware of the damaging characteristics of obsessive or addictive gambling. These are not issues that the European Parliament can underestimate.\nWhen it comes to tackling fraud, criminal behaviour and financial and medical issues that correspond to online gambling, I call on the European Parliament to vote repeatedly on better and better solutions in future.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, I voted in the same way as Mr Busuttil on this particular report, and was concerned at the level of argument. In fact, the bilge that was coming up in this debate was unbelievable, exemplified by my colleague who has just left, Mr Fatuzzo. It is complete rubbish to say that, because three old people lose some money in a voluntary way, then we have got to ban online gambling across a continent.\nThis debate showed up many national differences, and there was no honesty in the debate at all. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs commissioned a study which showed that online gaming had no more damaging effect than ordinary gaming in a place run by a national lottery. There was one reasonable part, which was the part about fair return to guarantee integrity in sport. Alas, this debate has driven the online gamblers and the sporting governing bodies further apart than they have ever been before, rather than drawing them together to try and work out a common solution. It has absolutely shown the need for some forum where those two groups can come together and discuss this matter. Alas, this is obviously not that place.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, we all know that gambling is a very emotive subject. You only have to listen to the speeches that have been made before me. There are those who believe that gambling is the work of the devil and that those who take part deserve to be cast into hellfire and deserve all the losses they have on this earth and in the afterlife. Now that is an extreme view, granted, but if you were to look at some of the language used in this report - the issues of a transparent sector that safeguards the public and consumer interests, tackling fraud and other criminal behaviour, prevention of consumer detriment - those same emotions are expressed, albeit in a far more toned-down way, in this report when it comes to online gambling.\nHowever, consider the hypocrisy of this report. It talks about online gambling in this negative and detrimental way, but it says nothing about the state monopolies that are hiding behind the emotive language to continue to drive out private innovative competitors. Let us be honest in this debate as to what it is all about. It is about keeping state monopolies, and we know where that leads to: it leads down the road to serfdom.\nJim Allister\nMr President, quality food is not an aspiration in Europe: it must continue as a reality. But its production requires a fair and competitive return. Our agricultural producers must be able to earn enough to cover the extra cost generated by EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental requirements. When faced with cheap and inferior imports, the competitive advantage that quality should give is often not enough: hence the role that needs to be played by CAP funding in keeping our producers competitive. That has to be the quid pro quo for meeting the high costs imposed by EU regulation.\nI also deplore the continuing exploitation of producers by the major distributors who now dominate the European food markets. Their abuse of their position of dominance continues, with producers exploited at every turn, even to the point of having to pay for their promotions.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain how I voted. It may come as no surprise to you that I actually voted in favour of this report, given that the author was a very good Conservative, British colleague of mine.\nWhat we need to be wary of in these times of economic difficulties is the call for ever more protectionism and the call to suspend our normal rules on competition and state aid. We see the call for protectionism from President Sarkozy, arguing that taxpayers' money should be used to protect the French car industry. We see similar packages in America. I was interested when I saw an advertisement the other day in an American magazine sponsored by the American car companies, which said, 'You did not want to buy our cars. Therefore we are going to take your money anyway through your taxpayers' money to keep our companies alive'. This is what it seems to have come down to. Because the companies were not supplying the goods and services that consumers wanted to buy, we are now throwing aside rules on state aid and keeping up companies that may not survive in the long term. We understand the importance of jobs, but let us make sure that we are making good economic decisions.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, SMEs, unfortunately, still do not comprise the backbone of the economy, especially in the new Member States, and yet they represent hopes for a certain degree of employment security. Of course, we need more flexible employment laws so that these small firms can also react flexibly to new demands and reward specialists more easily in line with new objectives. We need to make it easier to set up companies but also to liquidate them. And most important of all, we also need to have easier access not only to credit, but also to drawdowns of financial resources from European funds. All this we know. We have done a good deal of work over the past five years here in the European Parliament, but it is up to the Member States to take these things seriously and put them into practice rather than just talking about them. Now, at a time of crisis, it is abundantly clear what has been neglected in this area, especially in the new Member States. I have voted in favour of Mrs Herczog's report but the whole exercise is pointless unless the Member States are willing to work on it.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n(SK) Mr President, I voted for Mrs Herczog's report. We have 23 million SMEs in the European Union. They represent up to 99% of all firms and provide work to more than 100 million EU citizens. In the current time of crisis, they therefore play a key role in economic growth, social cohesion and especially job creation. SMEs are dynamic and have a great ability to innovate and develop. The make a significant contribution towards implementing the Lisbon objectives.\nCredit and loans are the main sources of finance for SMEs in Europe. The fact that SMEs are usually considered more risky makes it difficult for them to get access to finance. It is particularly necessary to provide favourable conditions for SMEs to obtain sources of finance, both through loans and from EU funds, and thereby to ensure the long-term sustainability of their business activities.\nNeena Gill\nMr President, I supported this report because - as we have already heard - small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Many Member States' plans for economic recovery stress the important role small businesses can play in bringing us out of the present crisis.\n99.2% of my region's businesses employ fewer than 49 people. The West Midlands has the highest proportion of small businesses of any region in the UK. Providing that proper consideration is made of Member States' competences in areas such as collective bargaining rights, this report will go a long way towards making sure that we all think small first.\nI especially welcome the emphasis in this report on the difficulties that small businesses are facing in accessing credit, time and resources for education and training, and - most importantly - for research. National borders, increasingly, are irrelevant to small businesses, which are doing more business with partners across Europe. However, we do need to protect them when they engage in cross-border trading through measures such as my recovery of debtors' assets report.\nThe EU also has a key role to play in ensuring that SMEs have access to funding, which means we should ensure that non-bank microcredit is made available. We can do this by using structural funds and developing microcredit institutions without taking money from the taxpayer. This initiative can curb unemployment and restart our economy.\nGary Titley\nMr President, I welcome this report, with just one or two small reservations. We have heard from my colleague, Mrs Gill, how important small businesses are to the economy and how they are bearing the brunt of the difficulties at the moment. The trouble is that the European Union is geared entirely for big businesses, whether it is about legislation, access to markets or funding.\nWe often talk about better regulation, but what we really need is proportionality. We have to ensure that our legislation is proportional to the problems we are dealing with, and particularly in the IPPC, which we have talked about today. It is really about big business, not about small businesses, and we should reflect that.\nI welcome initiatives like JASMINE, which I think are moving us in the right direction, but we need to think in terms of funding, market access and legislation and about the specific needs of small business.\nLet me make one particular plea: we have a single market but we do not have a single Community patent. We have been at this for years and years now, and it really is a disgrace that we cannot sort out this problem. It could, by itself, be the biggest help for businesses in the European Union. Let us have some action.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, I should like to thank the interpreters for staying around, because they did not have the option that Mr Beazley took a long time ago of going for lunch.\nI should explain that being in a big group is not everything it seems. It is very difficult to get speaking time in some of the key debates if you are not in agreement with the big group's line, without either dramatically compromising your position or kissing backside in endless mind-numbingly boring meetings, and that is why, for people like me, explanations of vote are very important.\nI suppose, in general terms, I should be welcoming the Small Business Act, or indeed any attempt to recognise the needs of small business. In fact, it was bad regulation when I was running my own small business that got me into politics in the first place - just trying to change one particular thing.\nHowever, I am pretty sure that any regulation that comes from this place will certainly be creating more small businesses. Alas, they tend to be big businesses at the moment, which, when you add a lot of European regulation, gradually turn into small businesses employing smaller numbers of people, because they reduce their turnover because of that regulation and move jobs from our continent. We in this House have to be very careful that we encourage individuals to start up new businesses and do not encourage jobs to move continents because we are regulating jobs out of existence.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, like the previous speaker, I would also like to thank all the interpreters for having to listen to our speeches. I am sure it gives you much less pleasure than it gives us.\nTwo of my personal mottoes, for reasons which may not be obvious, are 'small is beautiful' and 'size does not matter'. I represent London, which I think is the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world. Even though we no longer have our smokestack industries, we are full of small, innovative businesses in the creative industries and fashion industry, creating jobs all the time in a real growth area.\nAs the previous speaker said, we see a lot of European regulation aimed at supposedly helping business, but quite often it is the result of lobbying by large businesses who want to keep small businesses out. There was one notable large business I had dinner with a few years ago that described small businesses as freeloaders. It is that sort of attitude that we need to tackle. We also need to help small businesses when it comes to public procurement and competing with large businesses but, especially in the current times, in dealing with the shortage of credit to make sure that viable businesses continue to grow and create wealth and jobs in the European Union.\nWritten explanations of vote\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mr Costa's report on the amendment of certain provisions of bilateral agreements in force on air services between the Member States and the Republic of Armenia. I think that a designation clause should be added so as to avoid discrimination between Community carriers and those of the European Economic Area and Switzerland. Furthermore, I support the amendment, added in Article 5, relating to air transport tariffs, whereby carriage wholly within the European Community should be subject to European Community law. I believe that these amendments benefit businesses operating in the air sector as well as citizens, through the bureaucratic simplification of procedures and the resolution of the legal conflicts that usually occur in cases where Community regulations and bilateral agreements coexist.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I realise that the Costa report deals with technical aspects of air services between the Union and Israel. Nevertheless, I voted against the report as a sign of my protest at the Israeli Government's outrageous actions in Gaza, even if there is no excuse for the rocket attacks on Israeli settlements orchestrated by Hamas militants and one can understand that Israel reacts.\nThe problem is that the recent invasion of Gaza was totally disproportionate and largely indiscriminate, with casualty rates one hundred times higher amongst innocent Palestinian men, women and children than amongst the Israeli army.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nI am voting in favour of the report on the Agreement between the EC and Israel on certain aspects of air services. I agree with the rapporteur's proposal that the agreement be signed.\nI believe that the amendments regarding the designation, the taxation of aviation fuel and the pricing clauses are appropriate with regard to the bilateral agreements currently in force. I hope that basing ourselves on mutual trust in the opposite party's systems will help the implementation of the agreement.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Costa on the agreement between the European Community and Israel on certain aspects of air services. I agree with the rapporteur that economic cooperation should be encouraged with the State of Israel for some services, such as air services, not only because of the mutual benefits, but also the positive external effects throughout the surrounding area. I myself am rapporteur for the report on developing a common aviation area with Israel, within the framework of the Commission's proposal on a global agreement on aviation with this important partner of the European Union in the Middle East and in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and one of the main trading partners in the Euromed area.\nMoreover, for a long time, Israel has been a member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, has met its obligations and adopted policies that are in line with international legislation in this area, especially with regard to security and protection, but also environmental protection and the welfare of airline employees, all of which means that the aforementioned comprehensive agreement should be implemented at Community level, while paying close attention to the environmental repercussions of increasing traffic and to equality of access conditions.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted in favour of the additional protocol to the Agreement between the EC and South Africa, which is intended to take into account the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU.\nAs a result of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, the European Parliament will give its assent to the Council's draft decision concerning the conclusion of the additional protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.\nI think that it is particularly important that all the agreements signed by the EU with third countries include Romania, as an EU Member State. Romania is a member of the European family with full rights and must be included in all documents relating to the EU. Romania must enjoy all the rights and obligations of an EU Member State.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I abstained from the vote on Mr Borrell Fontelles's report on the additional protocol to the Agreement between the EC and South Africa, to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU. I find, in fact, that I do not entirely agree with the work carried out by my fellow Member.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nThank you, Mr President, a great deal of progress has been made since the Schengen Agreement was implemented. The treaty radically changed the lives of many European citizens by focusing on a new approach to border management.\nThe new phase, dedicated to integrated border management, started in 2002, which led to the creation of a common corpus of legislation, a common coordination mechanism, operational cooperation, common integrated risk assessment, trained staff and burden sharing between Member States in the run-up to a European Corps of Border Guards.\nNow that this phase has been completed, it is time to look ahead so as to achieve truly integrated border management to meet the two objectives of enhancing security and facilitating travel for third country nationals. To that end, I am in favour of the proposals presented by the Commission to Parliament, many of which have already been addressed in my report on the Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders. In this case, it seems inevitable that we will continue along this path and give our favourable opinion on the creation of a system of entry\/exit registration, facilitating border crossing for travellers and the introduction of an electronic system of travel authorisation.\nCarlos Coelho  \nMember States are still responsible for controlling their respective borders, but only a general agreement and a common policy will allow us to tackle the fundamental challenges of managing borders and migratory flows.\nAn area without internal borders cannot function without shared responsibility and solidarity in managing its external borders. The main reason for this should be borne in mind: the EU's external borders are crossed every year by more than 300 million travellers.\nTruly integrated border management must work towards two basic objectives: enhancing security and facilitating the crossing of borders by those who are intending to enter legally and for legitimate reasons.\nWe cannot, however, continue to adopt separate new initiatives without a comprehensive master plan for the EU's border strategy. It is also important to evaluate existing systems so as to weigh up whether there is a real need for new instruments to be created, as well as their viability, reliability, interoperability and cost, and also whether the protection of individuals' fundamental rights is being given sufficient consideration.\nG\u00e9rard Deprez  \nI support Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert's report on the next steps in border management in the European Union.\nFaced with the challenge of enhancing internal security at the same time as facilitating travel for third country nationals, the Commission has proposed three solutions: registration of entry and exit, essentially in order to deal with the phenomenon of people overstaying their visas; facilitation of border crossing for bona fide travellers; and the introduction of an electronic system of travel authorisation, following the example of the system that has been in place in the United States since January. On the latter point, I would emphasise the importance of the Commission's policy study analysing the effectiveness, impact and practical feasibility of a system of this type: we need to have access to an objective assessment of its usefulness and of its real, not just assumed, added value.\nWe must not forget that there are two preconditions before we can introduce this impressive tool: we need to speed up the implementation of SIS II in order to enable biometric checking of passports and visas, and we need to examine the impact of the system on the protection of personal data, to ensure that the measure is proportionate.\nCarl Lang  \nSuch a rare event deserves to be highlighted. This own-initiative report on the future of the management of the EU's external borders is a reasonable one, and it is tinged with a degree of realism in that it proposes, as a first stage in re-examining border management in the EU, a critical, in-depth analysis of the operation and effectiveness of the existing systems and how they interact.\nWithout being gullible, we can be optimistic, and then perhaps we can have a debate.\nJust as an example, to help us understand the state of mind of the authors of this text, here are two passages from it.\nThe first recognises that 'striking a balance between ensuring the free movement of a growing number of people across borders and ensuring greater security for Europe's citizens is a complex exercise...'. That much is true, but in another place we read that 'measures to enhance border security must go hand in hand with facilitation of passenger flows and the promotion of mobility in an increasingly globalised world'.\nThis level of schizophrenia is quite beyond us.\nRoselyne Lefran\u00e7ois  \nRight from the start, I, as shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament for this report, have had serious reservations about the usefulness and the effectiveness of the entry\/exit system mentioned in the European Commission's communication. Implementing such a system, which is directly inspired by the 'US-VISIT' Programme, would mean making huge investments only to see very uncertain results obtained with regard to the fight against both illegal immigration and crime. This is what the US experiment shows, in any case.\nMoreover, the planned measures, which are based on the massive collection of personal data, pose risks to the protection of privacy in my opinion. This view is shared by the European Data Protection Supervisor.\nThe adoption of a number of my amendments, which were aimed at highlighting doubts concerning the need and the proportionality of the system and at criticising the culture of suspicion that increasingly pervades decisions relating to external border management, have led me to endorse the report in plenary.\nAt a time when the global economy is plunged into crisis, there are, without doubt, other priorities for the European budget.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu  \nThe own-initiative report on EU border management is important as it will act as a guide for the legislation which the EC will propose in 2009. As the PPE-DE rapporteur, I believe that the text must provide clearer support for preparing the next steps in integrated border management.\nWith regard to the EU entry\/exit system, part of the data required to create this system was already collected by systems such as VIS, SIS and EURODAC. The Commission must manage the interconnection of these systems and expand their functionality in order to streamline costs.\nThe option for EU citizens to use automated gates as part of the Registered 'Bona Fide' Traveller Programme is welcome as it will help speed up traveller flows and prevent congestion. However, I have suggested changing the term 'bona fide traveller' to 'frequent traveller' to prevent the remaining travellers being considered as 'high-risk'.\nCreating the Electronic System of Travel Authorisation is not justified financially. This is why I have suggested its replacement with the compulsory use of biometric passports by third country citizens not requiring a visa when entering the EU.\nIn order to achieve the EU's strategic objectives, the Commission should not start developing new tools from scratch until the existing ones are fully operational and reliable.\nAlexandru Nazare  \nThe security of external borders is an area which has not been looked into sufficiently, either by us in the European Parliament or by other Community institutions. I supported this report because I strongly believe that the importance of better identification of third country nationals lies not only in the fact that it will keep out people who should not be given entry, but rather it will facilitate access for those travelling legitimately.\nAmong the numerous necessary recommendations and observations made in this report, I would like to dwell in particular on how important it is to have a comprehensive master plan in place for border management. Even though, at the moment, other priorities are dictating institutional changes in the EU, it is becoming essential for us to integrate the numerous border programmes, either proposed or existing, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and costs.\nI also want to emphasise the importance of coordinating this potential plan with the experience and objectives of the Schengen area, which is the clearest example of the type of open area all of us want in Europe. We do not need temporary procedures, let alone a host of mutually incompatible mechanisms.\nNicolae Vlad Popa  \nI voted in favour of this report because I feel that removing internal EU border controls is a major step in the process of European integration, but it also involves new problems which we need to take into account.\nI welcome the Council's initiative in preparing legislation proposals for the 2009-2010 period on introducing an entry\/exit system, a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA). Although I believe that these programmes must be implemented as soon as possible, and operate as efficiently as possible, they need to be prepared properly.\nThe correct operation of the entry\/exit system will depend from both an equipment and operational perspective on the success of the systems VIS, SIS II and EURODAC. I believe that it is absolutely essential for a comprehensive master plan to be drafted which sets out the general framework for the EU's border strategy and ensures coordination and cooperation between the various systems and authorities with responsibilities in this area.\nWe must also take into consideration the experience in the US in this area. I agree with the author that a programme like US VISIT may work from a technical viewpoint and that the programme is not therefore, by definition, an obstacle preventing normal traveller flow.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nA legal system that is vulnerable to fraud, hard to impose and frequently not put into practice is an invitation to infringement - when not simply to ignorance - of the law. Taking into account the available information, it must be believed that this is one of the difficulties of the different European legislation on immigration. It is well-known that the dissuasive effect of a law depends more on how likely it is to be applied than on the sanctions that it carries. These concerns imply recognition of the need for the European authorities to collaborate on applying existing legislation and also on seeking to adapt the legal framework to the reality described in various reports.\nFinally, in the name of both solidarity and equitable justice, it must be stressed that there is a need for consideration to be given to the burden that managing external borders represents to the Member States in question.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski  \nI voted in favour of this report on the next steps in border management in the EU. I would, however, like to draw your attention to a number of important aspects that should be taken into account in future.\nAn area without internal borders will not work if there is no responsibility for managing those borders. Increasing border security, which should proceed in tandem with improving the free movement of people in an increasingly unified Europe, is an important element in this. However, the ultimate objective should be to strike a balance between ensuring the free movement of people and providing greater security for the citizens of Europe.\nThe key element should be an approach based on the goal of protecting privacy in such a way that the personal data of travellers are not abused and the travellers themselves have confidence in the authorities holding that data. The use of personal data is beneficial to public safety. However, let us remember that public confidence in the activities of the authorities must form the basis of any legislative activity in this area. To achieve this, personal data needs to be strictly protected and properly supervised.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I intend to support Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert's report on the important issue of the next steps in border management in the European Union and similar experiences in third countries. I agree with the rapporteur that it is essential to evaluate and assess existing measures within the framework of border management before investing further resources and developing the systems that the Commission seems to prefer, namely an exit\/entry system for all third country nationals, a registered traveller programme (RTP) also open to them and a framework for the development of local registered traveller schemes and automated border controls. These procedures have great potential but it needs to be stressed, and in this respect, I welcome the rapporteur's work, that absolute priority must be given to guaranteeing the protection of personal data and the development of technology that is minimally invasive from the point of view of people's confidentiality, not forgetting, finally, a thorough cost-benefit analysis.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nBearing in mind the importance of free movement as part of the European project, the purpose of the measures adopted over the years has been to ease controls at internal borders. However, these steps must be mirrored by measures which tighten controls at external borders.\nIn a situation where, for instance in 2006, up to 8 million illegal immigrants were registered in the EU, I consider that the Commission's initiative to introduce an entry\/exit system, a Registered Traveller Programme and an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation during the 2012-2015 period is necessary. A European area without borders, turned from a wish into reality, can only operate if we assume joint responsibility and if we show solidarity in managing the external borders, a task in which Member States located at the EU's borders, including Romania, will play a major role.\nHowever, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are already border protection systems available, such as EUROSUR and FRONTEX. It is therefore vital in terms of their functionality to assess to what extent the new initiative can supplement them, without creating the risk of duplication. Furthermore, our concern must be constantly focused on respecting a person's right to privacy, as well as on developing new, less invasive technologies.\nDaniel Stro\u017e  \nI would like to say first and foremost that I completely disagree with one of the main conclusions of the report, which is that the removal of border controls on internal EU borders is one of the greatest successes of European integration. The removal of border controls is merely an inevitable consequence of the EU neoliberal project and its vital interest in the free movement of capital, goods and persons (in other words, workers). The EU should be chalking up successes first and foremost in the areas of peace and social policy, but unfortunately, of course, these are always far fewer in number.\nThe report also takes it for granted that in the area of administering the EU's external borders, we should copy the systems introduced in the USA. This is simply wide of the mark, bearing in mind the very real and strongly enforced 'iron curtain' between the US and Mexico. With regard to the external borders of the EU, I would also like to stress that the recent past in Europe has clearly shown that political and social problems cannot be solved through police or routine measures.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) In this explanation of vote, we Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament aim to explain why we chose to vote in favour of Mr Lehne's report on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company. We believe that this is an important complement to the Lehne report on the European private company statute.\nWe believe that the lack of a common set of regulations for the transfer of the registered office of a company creates problems for companies wanting to move across borders within the internal market, as they are currently forced to liquidate the company and thus wind the business up in order to be able to move their registered office. We also think it good that the European Parliament is proposing that the transfer of a registered office must not involve the circumventing of legal, social or tax conditions. We also welcome the fact that the European Parliament emphasises that the transfer of the registered office should be tax neutral.\nHowever, we do not agree with all of the conclusions of the committee in connection with the discussions of the report. For example, we do not agree with the wording in recital G to the effect that the European Parliament cannot issue legislation that runs counter to the case law of the European Court of Justice. We would like to point out that it is the European Parliament, together with the Council, that makes the law, and it is then the job of the European Court of Justice to interpret that law, not the other way round. Furthermore, we would like to see the words 'the European Parliament emphasises the positive effects of tax competition on economic growth in the context of the Lisbon Strategy' deleted from the report.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Lehne's report on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company. In fact, I believe that company cross-border migration should not be regarded as one of the crucial elements in the completion of the internal market but, as is often the case, as a way of bypassing national laws on various subjects (not least taxation). I am therefore against this report because there is a real risk that the cross-border transfer of registered offices will circumvent the legal, social and fiscal requirements of the European Union.\nAdam Bielan  \nMr President, I supported Giusto Catani's report. In my opinion, we need to revise the Dublin regulation so that the decision of the country responsible for considering an asylum request takes account of the individual needs of the asylum applicant. We need to emphasise the integration of asylum seekers into their new environment and to ensure that they are given the opportunity to learn the language of the country they are staying in, as this will increase their chances of being assimilated into their new culture.\nGuy Bono  \nI voted in favour of this own-initiative report by the Italian Member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, Giusto Catania, on the future of the European Common Asylum System.\nThe text of this report focuses on the situation of asylum seekers, whose fate is really something of a lottery depending on the country in which they land, and whose detention conditions are, at times, only just about bearable. This is a situation that affects border countries in particular, but which needs to be taken into account at European level. The fundamental rights of asylum seekers are at stake, as is the ability of certain countries to cope with these migratory pressures. This is a joint responsibility.\nThis report has the merit of providing a clear account of the situation and of specifying the challenges to come for the European Union in the context of this debate.\nThrough this vote, I am joining the French socialists in denouncing a situation which is no longer acceptable and which Europe, as a democratic institution and human rights protector, must remedy.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - I am opposed to moves towards a common immigration and asylum policy in Europe. I believe that a harmonised asylum system will undermine the UK's sovereign right to decide for itself who should and should not be allowed to claim asylum in my country. Furthermore, I believe that a common asylum system will weaken the accountability of British ministers and parliamentarians to the citizens who elect them.\nI accept that developed countries like my own have a humanitarian responsibility to people from third countries who have faced or would face persecution, torture or death if they were to return. However, I am worried that by taking away the UK's independent ability to monitor and regulate asylum entrants, we would potentially be exposing ourselves further to the threat of terrorist attacks.\nG\u00e9rard Deprez  \nI support Mr Catania's report on the future of the European Common Asylum System.\nAll political refugees have the right to enter the European Union and, once their status has been recognised, to reside on European territory. Unfortunately, this right is not currently applied uniformly by the Member States: recognition of this status may vary from one Member State to another from 0% to 90%.\nIf we are to establish a uniformly high level of protection throughout the EU, we must be able to introduce a number of elements quickly. These include establishing a single asylum application procedure and single standards for qualification as a refugee, introducing a legal and effective mechanism for solidarity between the Member States - some countries are flooded with applications, while others escape more lightly - improving reception conditions for applicants, particularly for minors, and reducing the use of detention, and creating a European Asylum Support Office.\nThis is what is at stake in the whole of the 'asylum legislative package', which we have just started to look into as we reach the end of this Parliamentary term.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nThe thinking behind Mr Catania's report is that applicants for international protection are necessarily bone fide, but in fact, everyone knows that asylum is often nothing but a pretext used by prospective economic immigrants to avoid being turned away. The Member States, for their part, are allegedly necessarily deaf to their distress, repressive and too slow to take decisions. Nobody points out, though, that it is the abuse of the procedure for illegitimate purposes that slows down the assessment of genuine asylum applications.\nIt is no doubt these beginnings that have given birth to some of the report's proposals, such as the suggestions that the country responsible for consideration of an asylum request should take account of the applicant's wishes, that this country should ultimately be determined by a European body, that applicants should have the same rights as long-term residents, that they should have freedom of movement within the territory of Europe, and so on.\nWe agree that there is a need for cooperation with those European countries that, due to their geographic location, are in the front line for migration flows and have difficulty dealing with them, but this absolutely must not result in a European policy that tells the States whom they must welcome into their territory, based on the whims of the asylum applicants and a supranational administration.\nLouis Grech  \nin writing. - We are in agreement with the main thrust of the compromise report and are therefore voting for it. Having said that, however, we do not agree with certain clauses, such as those dealing with detention. I feel that they do not fully reflect and precisely interpret the complex and difficult situation of small Member States like Malta.\nMalta is facing a disproportionate flow of illegal immigrants compared to its geographical limitations (121 sq. miles), small population (400 000 people) and other limited resources (administrative, financial, etc.), which should be taken into consideration when regulating, debating or legislating on this subject.\nCarl Lang  \nIn reality, there is only one objective behind this desire to create a common European asylum system, namely to give the Member States of the European Union the legal option of receiving as many potential immigrants as possible, more easily and without restrictions, which were deemed to be useless and contrary to human rights.\nEurope has thus reaffirmed its position as a host for all migrant populations, and considerable emphasis has been placed on full respect for the principle of non-refoulement and on the duty to render assistance as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.\nHence - and this is indeed understandable for these pro-immigration types - the simple fact that each Member State still has sovereignty and its own procedures in asylum law inevitably leads to disparities in the acceptance of asylum applications and is thus a barrier to the general acceptance of asylum applicants.\nFaced with almost 26 million internally displaced persons and more than 12 million refugees in the world, what we need to do is not find more reception solutions, because it will never be enough to deal with the exponential growth in demand, but rather allow and encourage these people to stay in their own countries, to find work there and to base their families there.\nJean-Marie Le Pen  \nThe report by the Communist Member, Mr Catania, recommends the establishment of a European pro-immigration policy.\nEssentially, under the pretext of defending human rights, he wants to turn Europe into an open community that is prepared to take in all the misery in the world.\nTo this end, he proposes a top-down harmonisation of asylum law, the principle of non-refoulement, the avoidance of detention, and even the extension to refugees of the Directive on the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents.\nMr Catania is pretending to have forgotten that most of the illegal immigrants arriving in Europe - 75 000 of them in 2008 on the Mediterranean coast alone - are not political refugees but economic refugees, fleeing poverty in their countries.\nThis abuse of the right to asylum, contrary to the Geneva Convention, is not mentioned at any point in the report, and with good reason: it is convenient to make the 'white man' feel guilty by reminding him that he was a terrible colonialist and that he now needs to pay for that in every sense of the word. Legends die hard.\nBy trying to transform asylum law into a normal branch of immigration, Mr Catania is paving the way for a variety of abuses and is turning illegal immigrants into scapegoats.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nI welcome the fact that the Commission has proposed a regulation updating EU asylum law since, given current circumstances, this is urgently needed. The number of refugees is constantly rising, and the current regulations and directives governing asylum are no longer coping with the situation. I therefore believe it to be essential that the Commission's reforms are implemented as soon as possible, and I would categorise the following points in those reforms to be of particular importance.\nThere must be a common asylum system, and one that leads to 'uniform and reasonable time limits'.\nThe rights of refugees must be bolstered - because of their status as particularly 'in need of protection', refugees cannot, as a matter of principle, be taken into custody.\nThere must be uniform border controls so that people who have a right to international protection can get access more easily.\nThe Dublin system currently in force, under which the wishes of asylum seekers, for example, their choice of a European country, cannot be taken into consideration, must be revised to the effect that people who are recognised as being in special need of protection are also able to live in another EU country.\nThe individual Member States must always retain the ability to decide independently who and how many people they accept, and why they do so.\nI support the Commission's proposal and the own-initiative report, but I would point out, once again, that, on this issue, rapid and uniform implementation is crucial.\nErik Meijer  \nin writing. - (NL) Mr President, I voted against the proposal by Mr Catania today on the future of the European Common Asylum System. My party, the Dutch Socialist Party, does not believe that harmonising asylum policy and dressing up an agency to govern this in future would lead to a more even distribution of the number of asylum applications among the various Member States. Asylum applications are determined more by the presence of family members and acquaintances in certain Member States, which attracts new asylum seekers.\nI also take the view that harmonisation would lead to lower-quality asylum policy in countries where this policy is relatively well regulated at present, as Member States would use this standardisation to seek out the lowest possible level. Such a race to the bottom is undesirable and, ultimately, would only hit asylum seekers. As much as I appreciate Mr Catania's efforts, I cannot support his conclusions on this.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) While cooperation on asylum issues, given the massive streams of refugees, is important, the good sense of the proposed European asylum agency is dubious. Further upgrading can be arranged without the need for such an agency, while some of the measures envisaged fall within the competence of other organisations such as Frontex. It is absolutely not acceptable for this new agency to produce risk analyses that the Member States are then compelled to use, which is to say it would be prescribed which asylum seekers the Member States must accept. This is a profound intrusion on the sovereignty of the Member States, and the only response is to reject it.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nEven though, in some cases, the reasons that make someone decide to emigrate may be similar to those which drive asylum seekers, the two systems must be sufficiently distinct, whether in legal terms or in terms of administrative procedures.\nWith this important proviso, a point that must be considered is the fact that, because borders within the Schengen Area are effectively open, decisions taken within one Member State may have implications for another. At the same time, the idea of Europe could be understood as a whole in the eyes of an asylum seeker who views the 'European Union' as an area that is homogenous and, in their understanding, the antithesis of the danger that they are fleeing. Finally, it will be difficult for an asylum seeker fleeing from a real threat to his or her life to choose their point of entry to Europe, or to be able to carry out the administrative processes that are necessary and required for a candidate for immigration. All these considerations make coordination and collaboration between Member States necessary, without the above meaning that asylum should become an alternative means of gaining entry to immigration, or, even less so, a means of getting round the illegality of certain migratory flows.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I cannot agree with many of the points in Mr Catania's report on the future of the European Common Asylum System and, for that reason, I must vote against it. While I agree with Mr Catania on the fact that the institution of asylum is an essential part of democracy and protection of human rights, in order to ensure that it remains, so it is absolutely necessary to avoid any kind of possible abuse.\nTo that end, rather than a common asylum system in Europe and rather than building a 'Europe of asylum', to use the words of the European Pact on Asylum and Immigration, adopted by the European Council last October, it would be more desirable to build a 'Europe of rights', which is to say, a Europe that combats the causes behind the increase in the number of refugees as pointed out by the rapporteur, which adopts a stronger international role to resolve conflicts in certain countries, which exerts pressure more decisively so that respect for dignity, human life and fundamental freedoms is guaranteed, wherever that is not yet the case. Combating the effects of these serious violations of rights does not resolve and will never be able to effectively resolve the underlying problem, for which other instruments should be used.\nBart Staes  \nIn recent years, the number of refugees in the EU has grown to 12 million, in addition to which there are 26 million internally displaced people.\nA common European asylum policy is necessary, as the asylum policies of the 27 EU Member States are too different - which, in practice, means playing with people's futures, and that is preposterous. During the first phase (1999-2005), the EU attempted to harmonise the approach of Member States' policies on the basis of common minimum standards. The second phase has been working on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted asylum or subsidiary protection.\nThe report we shall be adopting today welcomes the establishment of a European asylum agency but regrets the slow progress on implementing the second phase; for which, of course, the non-entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon is to blame. I support the call for the improvement of the existing legislation with regard to both the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Directive determining the conditions for reception, and the Directive that grants or withdraws refugee status.\nThe report has my support, as it is important that a standard of protection be introduced for refugees and that all Member States show solidarity in shouldering their responsibility and cooperating purposefully.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Stauner's report on the Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework of the Union's budget. The principles of sound financial management and budgetary transparency are fundamental, not only in order to obtain a positive statement of assurance from the European Court of Auditors, by means of simplifying legislation on controls and the resultant potential reduction in associated costs, but also, in the medium term, in order to monitor more effectively the use of the resources of the citizens of the European Union and, as a result, to enhance the legitimacy of EU action. For this reason, I believe it is fundamental to begin cooperation with the Member States and with independent audit institutions, as, moreover, already pointed out by the rapporteur.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nCourts are dealing with international and cross-border evidence law on an increasingly frequent basis. Such cases may relate to Austrians who have accidents in Germany, defective goods or services procured from another Member State, witnesses who live at the other end of the EU or defendants who move abroad. The right to legal redress absolutely must not cease because evidence is located outside the Member State in which the court in question is located. Those on the ground tell us that, just as in the past, there are unsolved questions in connection with the cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters. Since these matters do still require solving, I have voted in favour of this report.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mr Medina Ortega's report on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. It is clear that, in order to promote efficiency and hence avoid any unnecessary waste of time and money, direct contacts between courts and full cooperation between them should be promoted. Moreover, more use should be made of information technology, in particular, secure e-mail communications and video conferencing, since they are, at the same time, more effective in terms of results and more cost-effective. Lastly, I agree with the rapporteur when he welcomes what is being done in this respect in the context of the e-Justice programme.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mr Doorn's report on implementation of Directive 2006\/43\/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts. I completely agree that it is necessary to urge the Commission to promote national quality assurance structures, in close collaboration with the Member States, which ensure independent and external quality assurance for accountancy firms. Moreover, I feel that it is right and necessary to monitor and report on how far the goals of the Directive have been met, or are expected to be met.\nRobert Atkins  \nin writing. - British Conservative MEPs are in favour of equality of treatment and access for men and women in all aspects of society, including the performing arts. We have supported this report today on that basis.\nHowever, we wish to record that we disagree with the concept of quotas as implied, for example, in paragraph 12 of the report.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nThank you, Mr President, I voted in favour of the report. A few days after International Women's Day, here we are again in this Chamber discussing social inequality between the two sexes. Even the world of performing arts, as clearly highlighted by the Commission, is not spared these problems.\nThroughout the performing arts sector, women are still struggling to achieve a fully developed role, rarely reach positions of senior responsibility in the major cultural institutions, and are often paid less than their male colleagues. In particular, the untypical hours that typify working in the arts make it difficult to reconcile the female roles of worker, wife and mother, often forcing women to choose between career and family.\nI would like to conclude, then, by stressing the need to guarantee an equal gender mix in the decision-making and consultative bodies involved in recruitment, promotion, rewards and funding, as well as in the other branches in the sector, in order to introduce statistical monitoring to produce comparative analyses of the working situation faced by women in the various countries of the Union\nNicodim Bulzesc  \nI voted in favour of the report on equality of treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts because inequalities in career prospects and opportunities between women and men in the performing arts are very much present and persistent. There is also an absolute need to put into practice the democratic notion that 'equal work must be matched by equal pay', which, in the arts as in many other sectors, is still not the case.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - Performing art has flourished for thousands of years and in every society on Earth. It is therefore questionable as to why the EU feels the need to impose its will on what is otherwise a sector that flourishes precisely because it is largely free of interference from Brussels.\nI do not think it is my place as an MEP to tell those involved in the performing arts how they should regulate their own affairs. In fact, I think it is my job to ensure that performing artists and organisations that facilitate performing arts are as free as possible from well-meaning, but misplaced and na\u00efve, initiatives like this one.\nI am all in favour of the equal treatment of men and women in the eyes of the law. However, I believe that political pressure should never be allowed to interfere with artistic decisions. We stood firm in this House with regard to the reaction provoked by depictions of the Prophet Mohammed in Danish newspapers. My fear is that by eroding artistic freedoms, even slightly, we are also eroding the values of free speech and expression.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nWe voted in favour of this report because it underlines the scale and persistence of the inequalities between men and women in the performing arts and their impact on society as a whole. It also emphasises the absolute necessity of promoting and encouraging women's access to all the artistic professions in which they are in the minority.\nAs is stressed in the report, the percentage of women employed in artistic professions and in the official culture industry is very small. Women are also under-represented in positions of responsibility in cultural institutions and in the academies and universities where some arts are studied.\nThat is why we agree with many of the proposals presented here, emphasising the need for promotion of women's access to all the artistic professions and other professional activities related to performance in which they are in the minority. Member States also should be encouraged to remove any impediments to women's access to management positions in cultural institutions, as well as in academies and universities.\nWe also emphasise that discrimination towards women is problematic for the development of the cultural sector because it deprives the sector of talent and ability. We also recognise that talent needs contact with the public in order to be given recognition.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) It goes without saying that we in the June List stand for equal treatment, equal pay for equal work and the fundamental principle of the equality of men and women. We have therefore voted in favour of this report.\nHowever, this is a 'yes' vote with a clear proviso. We are opposed to the European Parliament attempting to determine how the individual Member States should, for example, structure their national childcare or apply a quota system.\nThe present report is a typical example of the meddlesomeness and zeal for regulation that characterise the European Parliament. Instead of acting as a forum for the pressing challenges that require cross-border cooperation, it is continually interfering in issues that are, and should remain, national matters.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - This report highlights the persistent inequalities in career prospects and opportunities between women and men in the performing arts sector. I support this report which urges Member States to take specific measures to encourage and promote women to further their careers where they are under represented.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik  \nin writing. - I believe that gender inequality should be phased out of our lives. In today's civilised world, the disparity between men and women, and majorities and minorities, must be done away with. The European Parliament must observe its past legislation and uphold the values of universal solidarity. There must be a gender mix in the decision-making process for the performing arts and various other areas. In order to find true talent, the most capable performers and deserving applicants, women must be given equal status with men in the same fields. Where men are favoured over women, or vice versa, there must be serious corrections and viable protection to end this inconsistency. Depriving a group on the basis of sex or any other characteristic will not be tolerated by the EU, and it is our duty to ensure this applies across the field of the performing arts (and others areas as well). For this reason, it is my duty and that of the PPE-DE Party to give a vote of confidence to any legislation that supports equality, corrects wrongdoings, and better preserves cohesion between members of the opposite sex.\nMaria Petre  \nI voted for this report and Mrs Gibault and I cooperated very well. We must not forget that women in the performing arts in general are still under-represented, and specifically in management positions in this area. We must not forget either that we are talking about a sensitive area with a large multiplier effect, conveying a powerful message to its audience and society. We do not have sufficient nurseries and cr\u00e8ches. There is also the fact that working hours in the performing arts are long and non-standard. If these aspects are improved, the objective proposed in the report of having a representation level of 30% in the arts can be achieved.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Gibault's report on equality of treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts. I agree with the aims of Mrs Gibault's report: to recognise the way in which identities are constructed socially and culturally in the performing arts and to propose specific solutions which could correct the imbalances associated with existing unequal situations. All available skills sources should be used for the good health of the sector as well as for the personal development of men and women. Lastly, I feel that it is imperative to find solutions very quickly for opening cr\u00e8ches in cultural undertakings with hours adapted to rehearsal and performance times.\nAdam Bielan  \nMr President, I support Mr Schwab's report on CO2 emissions and improving road safety. It is essential that the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions do not undermine other equally important aspects of car design, and do not negatively affect road safety. I believe that stimulating and investing in the development of an innovative European motor industry will effectively enable us to protect jobs in this sector, which has been worst hit by the financial crisis.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nNow there are new technologies to fundamentally improve transport safety (e.g. electronic stability control systems) or to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions (e.g. low rolling resistance tyres), if such technologies are fitted as standard in new motor vehicles.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - MEP Schwab has proposed a report which aims to increase car safety through the introduction of increased safety measures requirements for car manufacturers. All new vehicles manufactured in the Union will be subject to compliance with the technical requirements and measures which will reduce their environmental impact, decrease associated noise pollution and increase their road safety. The regulation combines advances in European manufacturing and technology and increased levels of safety protection that the European consumer can expect. These innovations will help to reduce CO2 emissions, fuel consumption and noise pollution.\nI am delighted to support this report which will benefit us all.\nAstrid Lulling  \nI have voted in favour of this report, as consumers need and want safer and more environmentally-friendly vehicles. As for car safety, I particularly welcome the mandatory fitting of ESP (electronic stability systems) in passenger cars from as early as those built in 2011.\nAs far as tyres are concerned, I believe the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions through the use of better tyres with less rolling resistance, as well as the introduction of electronic tyre pressure monitoring systems, to be worthwhile. The reduction of CO2 emissions must not, however, be at the expense of the safety of the tyres, which is to say, their wet grip.\nI am also pleased that existing stocks will not - as originally planned - have to be taken off the market within 12 months, but instead only 30 months after the introduction of a new standard. This avoids the need for tyre stocks to be destroyed, which would cause additional damage to the environment. Furthermore, we are allowing our supply businesses, hard hit, as they have been, by the economic crisis, a sufficient transitional period to get to grips with the high level of requirements made of them.\nAdrian Manole  \nAny citizen on the planet who is aware of the magnitude assumed by global warming can act to halt the progress of this process endangering Earth. In the case of drivers and the vehicles which they drive, these efforts are set out in the report voted on today.\n'Green driving' means reducing fuel consumption. The EU is advocating a possible reduction in these costs of EUR 20 billion by 2010. It is also advocating a possible reduction in CO2 emissions of 50 million tonnes. It goes without saying that the effects of these measures will only be evident in the long term. However, it is helpful that their implementation is coming into force one year ahead of the Commission's proposal.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this regulation which will make cars and roads safer by bringing in new technologies. These include tyre pressure monitoring systems, wet grip requirements and lane departure warning systems. This report reduces CO2 emissions through new standards which tyres must reach, which will improve fuel efficiency and cut fuel bills.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mr Schwab's report on type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles. The aim of the report, which is excellent, is to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market while, at the same time, providing for a higher level of safety and environmental protection. These type-approval requirements have been harmonised at Community level in order to avoid differing systems from one Member State to another, and to ensure a high level of road safety and environmental protection throughout the Community. I therefore fully agree with Mr Schwab, since the proposed Regulation aims to significantly simplify the type-approval legislation in the field of motor vehicle safety and tyres with one Council and Parliament Regulation.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) The original IPPC Directive, along with the other six directives, has not been fully implemented in the EU Member States and therefore, these directives do not fulfil their purpose. It was therefore decided to recast these directives and we have voted on them in Parliament today. We Swedish Social Democrats are in favour of a recast and we can see that it contains certain improvements on the current rules. However, we chose to vote against the directive in the final vote, as we believe that some of the amendments that were voted through will make the directive considerably less good than the Commission's original proposal. For example, we were unable to accept additional exemptions for large combustion plants.\nAnother reason why we felt compelled to vote 'no' is the fact that we are missing an opportunity with this directive to seriously reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. By voting down the amendments that our delegation was involved in tabling, advocating limit values for carbon dioxide emissions for new large electricity generation plants, this House has shown that it does not take the work of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases seriously. We cannot support such a proposal.\nLiam Aylward, Brian Crowley, Se\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain and Eoin Ryan  \nin writing. - We strongly support the original IPPC Directive. Industrial activities covered by existing Directives emit 55% of the EU's CO2 emissions, 83% of SO2 and 34% of NOx. Under the current directive, permits are issued by the Environment Protection Agency which require industrial plants to apply 'Best Available Techniques'.\nDuring the vote this morning, there were a number of problematic amendments regarding the new IPPC proposal.\n1. Minimum Requirements. Ireland is against the minimum requirements amendment, as this will penalise Irish industry and the work recently undertaken to achieve the status of the current directive. Resources would be better spent enforcing the directive in those Member States which are non compliant.\n2. Poultry and Manure and Slurry. There were a number of amendments seeking to bring more poultry and manure spreading within the scope. I have voted against this amendment to avoid double regulation, as the Nitrates Directive suffices on manure and slurry. On poultry, the IPPC already controls 40 000 poultry places. An amendment would reduce the threshold values from 40 000 to 30 000 for laying hens, 24 000 for ducks and 11 500 for turkeys. There is nothing stated in the impact assessment about how these numbers came about and on what scientific basis they were established.\n2. Instalments. I also voted in favour of flexibility for instalments\nNiels Busk, Anne E. Jensen and Karin Riis-J\u00f8rgensen  \nin writing. - (DA) The Danish Liberal Party's MEPs, Anne E. Jensen, Karin Riis-J\u00f8rgensen and Niels Busk, have voted in favour of Amendment 96, proposed by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, to delete Article 16, paragraph 4, because the spreading of livestock manure is contrary to the objective of IPPC, which is to combat emissions from large industrial installations. Moreover, this matter is already included under the Water Framework Directive (2000\/60\/EC) and the Nitrate Directive (91\/676\/EEC).\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - The initial provisions of this report would have left National Health Service hospitals in my region of north-east England and elsewhere in the UK facing massively increased costs for their heating boilers.\nNHS hospitals need to have a significant amount of spare boiler capacity to cope with emergencies and in case there are technical failures. The directive would have assessed the hospitals' boilers on the basis of their potential emissions, rather than their actual emissions - thus causing them to incur substantial costs to obtain a permit.\nI supported the tabling of amendments to exempt part-time stand-by boilers from the scope of the directive.\nNotwithstanding these concerns, we must act in concert to address the common threat of climate change and environmental pollution.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis proposal for a directive seeks to revise and bring together, in a single text, seven separate directives on industrial emissions.\nThe Commission's proposal states that it provides for an integrated approach with the aim of ensuring that environmental aspects are taken into account, in the most comprehensive and balanced way possible, when permits are issued for installations. The aim is to impose effective limits on emissions through the employment of best available techniques (BATs), which must be applied more consistently than to date.\nAs the report states, this legislative process could have implications for 52 000 industrial plants in Europe. That is why we support some proposed derogations for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which should not be subject to the same obligations as large industrial units. However, we support greater intervention in industrial units that have incinerators and co-incinerators and more inspection than is being proposed by the European Commission.\nThe amended text attaches some value to public consultation and the role of environmental NGOs, takes into account the interests of micro-enterprises and SMEs and reclaims some decision-making power from the European Commission. For these reasons, in the end, we voted for the proposal, in the hope that in Portugal, there will be more government intervention in supporting and monitoring air quality.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Krahmer's report on industrial emissions. I do not agree that competent local authorities should have to lay down measures to limit emissions for individual installations, and hence attain an emission level which, on average, meets the requirements laid down in the BAT reference documents, with some leeway so that proper account can be taken of local circumstances. This task should be wholly assigned to a Community authority, not a local or national one. The specific characteristics of a region must not be a discriminating factor in this field, since different minimum thresholds result in extremely variable costs and returns, which then inevitably affect the true competitiveness of businesses.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nThe recently adopted climate and energy package demands decisive action on our part to meet its targets.\nPrevious efforts by the EU to reduce industrial emissions have been hampered by lack of cohesion and coordination, and by high levels of disparity. I therefore warmly support the Commission's initiative and the rapporteur's suggestion. Replacing numerous directives on industrial emissions with a single, coherent act is definitely a step in the right direction. I am also prepared to support any initiatives aimed at cutting red tape, increasing the flexibility of regulations regarding the inspection of installations and increasing transparency. I fully support the rapporteur's proposal to increase the role of the European Parliament in working on future regulatory changes.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe proposal for a directive by the European Commission on industrial emissions and the amendments by the European Parliament reveal, once again, that the real objective of the 'green economy' is not to protect the environment, but to safeguard the profits of capital. The pronouncements by the European Commission about limiting emissions of greenhouse gases are misleading and disorientating.\nThis directive concerns more than 52 000 industrial plants which account for a large proportion of emissions in the Member States of the EU and are even jointly responsible for the failure to achieve the targets set by the European Commission itself for reducing atmospheric pollution.\nThe most important amendments by the European Parliament considerably limit the scope of the directive and introduce elements of ambiguity and uncertainty which always operate for the benefit of the plutocracy and strengthen the unaccountability of capital. At the same time, industrialists themselves are reduced to a decisive factor in defining emission levels, which will be set in accordance with their needs and priorities, in other words, on the basis of the profit motive.\nThe impasse in environmental protection is being included in the anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist fight by the workers against the economic sovereignty of the monopolies and their political power and against the EU and the parties which support the European one-way street.\nJan Andersson, Ole Christensen, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Dan J\u00f8rgensen, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Christel Schaldemose, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m, Britta Thomsen and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - The Commission's proposal on a Statute for a European private company allows an opportunity for non-serious companies to circumvent the rules on worker participation. If the private European company has its registered office in a Member State with low or no workers' participation and performs its activities in another Member State with high participation, the company can circumvent the rules. The Socialist Group in the Parliament has however, together with the ETUC, reached a compromise which improves the Commission's proposal substantially. The compromise now states that when the companies have a certain quota of their employees in another Member State with higher worker participation compared to the Member State where the company has its headquarters, the more favourable rules for worker participation will apply. Although the compromise is far better than the original proposal, we have not succeeded fully. The levels to trigger worker participation are still high compared to the rules in some Member States and there are also problems with the definition of what is regarded as being a higher level of worker participation. We - the Danish and the Swedish delegations in the Socialist Group - have therefore decided to abstain our votes in the final vote.\nJohannes Blokland  \nThis afternoon, we voted on the Statute for a European private company. In the end, I voted against the proposal, for the following reasons. Firstly, I take the view that this proposal increases the legal uncertainty in the European Union. The relationship between the national private company and the European private company, between the applicable national law and the text of the regulation, is not made sufficiently clear. How is circumvention of useful national legislation to be prevented? How does the proposal accord with consumer protection?\nNo satisfactory answers are provided to such questions. We also voted on another report by Mr Lehne today, in which he makes recommendations for improving the cross-border transfer of company registered offices. I actually think this a much better idea than the European private company. If the Commission were to endeavour to facilitate the cross-border transfer of company registered offices, reducing red tape, the whole proposal for the European private company would be redundant.\nCarlos Coelho  \nThe significant differences between the legal systems of Member States often force companies that want to begin operating abroad into very costly processes. This is particularly true for SMEs, which have smaller structures.\nWith the creation of this statute, another step is taken towards the lifting of these obstacles, especially in a sector that is fundamental to the European economy.\nThe creation of the 'European private company' allows SMEs to establish their subsidiaries using the same statute, regardless of where they have their head office. They will be able to do business just as easily abroad as in their own country.\nThe time and money saved by SMEs through this measure, resulting from the Small Business Act, point out a clear course for future European business policy.\nFor these reasons, Members representing the Portuguese Social Democratic Party are supporting the report.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - Mr Lehne has proposed an own-initiative report proposing a Council Regulation that aims to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to facilitate cross-border transfers within the Community of the registered office of a company formed in a Member State of the Community. The aim is laudable. However, we must be cautious that this facility is not abused to undermine national company law while ensuring that the Statute (Societas Privata Europea) represents a viable alternative for businesses.\nThere are many proposals among the numerous amendments which remain highly contentious, including references to minimum capital, checks on registration, references to national law, cross-border components and employee participation. Certain amendments proposed by the ECON committee have called for uniformity in certain areas by 2010, including tax, effectively restricting the application of national law.\nWhile accepting in principle the proposal of a European company operating according to the same principles EU-wide, the scope of this proposal should not extend to restricting national taxation decisions, which remain firmly the preserve of individual Member States.\nLena Ek  \nin writing. - (SV) I voted against in the final vote with regard to the Statute for a European private company (SPE). The basic idea of introducing a common European company form for private companies is a very good one. It is a reform that is definitely needed.\nThe Commission's proposal is very poor. The boundary between when national law is to be applied as opposed to the statute for a European private company is very unclear. A large proportion of companies' rules and regulations are to be dealt with in their articles of association. Even if this may be a positive step for some companies, some issues are such that they must be clearly specified in the statute: for example, the boundary between the competence of the company as an entity and protection of minority shareholders. Moreover, the degree of employee representation within management is poor.\nThe SPE statute has been significantly improved during the Council's ongoing negotiations, and I am still hoping that the final result will be good. However, it is not that proposal that we are to adopt a position on today. It is the Commission's proposal, as amended by Mr Lehne, and that makes my decision quite simple: the lack of clarity and the problems contained in this proposal overshadow the positive aspects of the reform, and there is an imminent risk of us having a statute that will run counter to its purpose. Furthermore, in view of the positive progress that the Council has already made, support for this report would throw a spanner in the works with regard to the Council's work.\nIt is not the Council's proposal that we are voting on, it is essentially the Commission's proposal. I have therefore chosen to vote against it.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - This initiative creates a new European legal form intended to enhance the competitiveness of SMEs by facilitating their establishment and operation in the Single Market. I support the report which will lead to greater protection for workers and the information they are provided with by their company.\nBernhard Rapkay  \nThe German Social Democratic (SPD) delegation has voted in favour of the option of establishing a European private company. We would like to issue the following explanation, however.\nWorker participation is a cornerstone of a democratic and social Europe. For that reason, the right to information, consultation and worker participation, without restrictions, must take the same form as in the existing rules on the European company (Societas Europae - SE) and the European cooperative society (Societas Cooperativa Europaea - SCE).\nThe version of a European private company now agreed represents an improvement on the Commission's proposal in this regard - which is the reason we have voted in favour - but fails the objective of adapting to the existing rules. The risk of circumventing workers' rights to participation has not been completely averted.\nThe process is not yet over. We call upon the Council of Ministers to improve the proposal in the following ways:\nthe addition of clear references to the Directive on a European company (SE), in particular, to its standard rules in respect of the election of members to the administrative or supervisory board,\nthe simplification of the impracticable provision of Article 34; the significant lowering of the thresholds,\nthe stipulation that a European private company really is active across borders.\nWe call on the Commission to finally get the 14th Directive on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a limited company moving, as the rights of worker participation in the cross-border transfer of registered offices can only sensibly be ensured by a Europe-wide directive on worker participation.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Lehne's proposal for a Council regulation on the Statute for a European private company. I support the work he has done to lay down autonomous rules on points that are crucial for the 'daily life' of the SPE, such as minimum capital, employee participation and checks on registration. Lastly, as far as references to national laws are concerned, I believe that the aim of the regulation on SPEs, namely to create a uniform form of undertaking throughout the Community, is thoroughly welcome and worthwhile.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nAt a time of a raging economic crisis, developing the SME sector is a highly desirable thing. We must strive to raise the administrative and legal barriers that are preventing anyone who wants to from starting up in business. Procedural requirements, red tape and high costs of registration should not get in the way of people who want to develop their business idea. New firms mean new workplaces, and hence economic recovery.\nThe European Union consists of 27 Member States with different legal systems and different systems for setting up companies. Creating an EU-wide form of business establishment - the European private company - will definitely make life easier for anybody who wants to start up in business, and will help to make the principle of the free movement of capital more effective.\nUniform requirements on establishing and carrying on an activity, a low share capital requirement and simplified registration methods will definitely make the European private company a success. It will provide an attractive alternative to national regulations. It will be fast, cheap and free of unnecessary formalities, but ensure a proper degree of legal certainty.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) This report calls for yet more financial resources for area after area within the EU, while in the Member States, savings need to be made in areas such as healthcare, schools and social care.\nFurthermore, several areas indicated in the report, such as the financial crisis, climate change and energy policy, are associated with huge costs that are completely out of proportion to the EU's budget. These are matters that need to be dealt with in the individual Member States under their domestic political processes, which will result in a democratic basis for the sacrifices that need to be made.\nWe have therefore chosen to vote against this report on the Commission's budget for 2010.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nFaced with the worsening economic and social situation in various Member States, to date the EU has not taken any effective initiative that has not been aimed at protecting financial capital.\nWe urgently need to adopt immediate Community measures which will help to effectively respond to the needs of workers, the productive sector, and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, by mobilising the necessary financial resources.\nHowever, the EU has debated and adopted a budget for 2009 as if nothing were happening - a Community budget which, in relative terms, is the lowest since Portugal's accession to the EEC - once again showing its class nature.\nFaced with evidence of the depth of the capitalist crisis (in its policies), the EP has failed to conceal the true situation. The resolution now adopted therefore timidly says that the Community budget for 2010 must be closer to the limits set out in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-2013 - which, in addition to being clearly inadequate, is not even observed - and also recognises that the category of expenditure is 'insufficient'.\nAs we are 'once bitten, twice shy', we hope that this proclaimed concern and intent are not merely short-lived wishes, bearing in mind the forthcoming European Parliament elections, and that this is not, as always, simply a case of good intentions.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having carefully read Mr Surj\u00e1n's work on the Guidelines for the Budget 2010 procedure, I decided to vote against the report. I do not believe that the European Parliament's credibility comes from promotion or from establishing links to budget items. In this way, the real motivations prompting the European institutions to act are lost sight of. Moreover, while I agree with the principle of maximum transparency, I believe that the funds to be allocated to the various sectors should be shared out without any discrimination in terms of efficiency or results. Sectors that have performed poorly must also be subsidised. In fact, perhaps they are the ones that are most in need of Community institutional support.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) At a time when cuts are being made in healthcare, schools and social care within the public sector, savings should also be made within the EU institutions. We believe that the budget should most definitely be cut for the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. The EU's taxpayers would not notice any difference if a strict savings plan were to be imposed on these two institutions.\nWe are also opposed to the increase in staffing levels in the political groups in the European Parliament. This is not a necessary cost given the current situation.\nOpening a museum of European history, as the Bureau of the European Parliament has decided to do, is also a bad idea. Experience shows that such a museum will be designed as propaganda for an increasingly federal EU.\nWe have therefore chosen to vote against this report concerning, among other things, the European Parliament's budget for 2010.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nWe welcome the fact that linguistic issues are now regarded by the EP as a 'fundamental principle' in its priorities for the Community budget for 2010:\n'Cannot stress enough the fundamental principle that all Members should be equally provided with full and quality services allowing them to work and express themselves and to receive documents in their native language ...';\n'Considers that 2010 should be a year when the utmost effort must be made so that Members of all nationalities and languages are treated equally in terms of their possibility to carry out their duties and all political activity incumbent upon them in their own language if they so choose';\n'stresses, ..., the principle of democratic legitimacy through all its composite Members and their right to full multilingualism; therefore considers that this budget can and should be used to work towards this goal ...'\nHowever, we cannot forget that the proposals presented on the budget by the MEPs from the Portuguese Communist Party - which called for all the official languages of the EU to be available at meetings (both those held within the Community institutions and external meetings held as part of Parliament's work) - have successively been rejected over the years.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not endorse Mr Ma\u0148ka's report on the guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure, and I therefore voted against it. In point 5 of the motion for a resolution, in fact, mention is made of a complete adaptation in view of Croatia's accession to the European Union. However, as is written in the resolution, in situations such as these, with 27 Member States and one potential entrant, it should be the newest arrival that adapts, not the rest of the countries. Furthermore, I do not feel able to support the extension for a second year of the pilot programme on enhanced cooperation between the EU's Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, since I do not consider it worthwhile or effective.\nJim Allister  \nin writing. - This report addresses significant weaknesses in the current regulatory framework. In particular, I have been concerned about the lack of accountability of EU-based companies trading in the UK which are able to advertise in the UK, but do not need to apply for a licence. Indeed, the UK vice tax has only encouraged this worrying pattern of companies establishing themselves overseas and thus avoiding the need to apply for a UK licence. I therefore welcome this report, which should go some way to tackling this problem.\nLiam Aylward, Brian Crowley and Eoin Ryan  \nin writing. - Consumer protection is of paramount importance to all Member States. It is also an area in which Member States can cooperate to ensure protection for consumers availing of cross-border services. Mrs Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling is an example of how a pragmatic, cooperative approach from Member States can result in an approach that has consumer protection at its core.\nThe report recognises that the integrity of online gambling is best dealt with by recognising the principle of subsidiarity in this area and allowing Member States to regulate the industry themselves. However, it calls for cooperation and coordination on combating fraud and crime and addressing social and public order problems such as addiction and personal data protection.\nCentral to the report is the safeguarding of the integrity of sports and sporting events. It is absolutely essential that sport is first and foremost recognised for its social, entertainment and health values and that these values are in no way threatened or manipulated for financial gain. Online gambling is enjoyed by many European citizens. We must ensure that these citizens are protected and I believe that Mrs Schaldemose's report is an important step in that regard.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - I support a more open gaming environment in Europe. For too long now, national monopolies controlled by governments have prevented new entrants from offering gaming services in Europe.\nOnline gambling offers a new way for consumers to enjoy their gaming experience. I have no problem with responsible gamblers participating in online gaming activity offered by responsible operators. This report seeks to ensure a high level of consumer protection and to ensure a fair and transparent gaming environment in cyberspace. It is also important in my view to take all reasonable steps to prohibit minors from gaming online.\nOf course, there are concerns about the social effects of gambling and these are concerns that I share. However, I think that in the past, far too much responsibility has been put on gaming companies and not enough on individuals. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not to gamble is a personal decision and the individual must be responsible for the consequences.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nMr President, I am very satisfied with the result of the vote on Mrs Schaldemose's report on online gambling. It shows that the vast majority of Members of Parliament consider gambling to be an economic activity of a very special nature, to which the rules of the internal market cannot be applied exclusively.\nThe social impact of gambling and its effect on health, as well as the risks of crime associated with it and its special cultural aspects, must all be taken into account. That also applies to the many studies that show that the Internet as a tool multiplies these risks. Obviously, no one single authority alone could control online gambling throughout the whole of Europe.\nMrs Schaldemose's report also mentions the positive effects of gambling, which I think it is very important to preserve. In many countries in Europe, the proceeds from these games amount to significant sums of money that go, for example, to the arts, science, youth work and hospitals. Thousands of NGOs benefit from the funding that they provide, besides which gambling games are the biggest source of income for EU-wide sports organisations and, in particular, grassroots sports activities.\nThe fact that a majority in Parliament are keen to preserve the current national laws on gambling policy and do not simply want to replace them with a code of practice, which would afford consumers far less protection, does not mean that the market should not be liberalised. It simply means that liberalisation has to be on the Member State's own terms. Furthermore, if there is a desire to maintain national monopolies, the system must be non-discriminatory and legally justifiable.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I voted against the report on the integrity of online gambling as I believe the alternative motion, which was rejected by the plenary, would have better reflected the up-to-date position in the online gambling sector.\nI share concerns about citizens being ripped off and the worries about gambling addiction, but note that gambling is controlled in the majority of Member States in order to protect citizens against gambling addiction and fraud and to prevent money laundering.\nWe need to prevent problem gambling and under-age gambling, in addition to fighting fraud and crime. I believe that the alternative resolution would have addressed those concerns more effectively.\nSe\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain  \nConsumer protection is vitally important to all the Member States. This is also an area where cooperation between Member States is desperately needed, particularly from the point of view of cross-border services. This report on online gambling shows that a pragmatic approach, based on cooperation, can ensure that consumer protection is at the heart of European Union policies.\nThis report recognises that the best approach for dealing with gambling matters on the Internet is to recognise the principle of subsidiarity in this sector and to leave regulatory matters to each individual Member State. That said, the report recognises that it is through cooperation and coordination that European Union Member States will best be able to combat fraud, crimes and social problems.\nAt the heart of the report is the importance of sport and the need to preserve its integrity and honesty. The social and cultural value of sporting matters must be protected and it must be ensured that sport is not mismanaged for the sake of money or for other similar reasons. Many people in the European Union enjoy online gambling. We must ensure that these people are safe from harm on line.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling. I am firmly convinced that in this sector, which, incidentally, generates a very important source of income for sports organisations, there must be complete transparency that safeguards public and consumer interests. Lastly, I feel that uniform legislation, and not diverse legislation such as that currently in force, can be very helpful in order to avoid online gambling being signalled as a social problem.\nToomas Savi  \nin writing. - Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the votes on Christel Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling. However, I would like to use this opportunity to agree with the rapporteur, as the report points out several important and dangerous aspects concerning online gambling. In 2004, online gambling accounted for roughly 5% of the total gambling market in the EU and the numbers have been increasing rapidly over the past few years.\nIt is important to understand that different illegal activities such as credit card fraud, minors having access to gambling, match fixing, etc. are currently inevitable parts of online gambling. Also, the number of people addicted to gambling is likely to rise, as for many, online gambling is very convenient.\nThe impact of online gambling, as the rapporteur points out correctly, has not yet been examined in depth. Therefore, in order to protect citizens, it is crucially important that all Member States perform intensive research on the effects of online gambling as well as improve the monitoring and regulation of gambling markets.\nChristel Schaldemose  \nin writing. - The Schaldemose report on the integrity of online gambling sets out Member States' responsibilities in regulating their gambling markets so as to protect vulnerable consumers, especially children, to tackle crime and to protect sporting events from risks such as match-fixing.\nGambling was removed from the Services Directive by MEPs on account of its special status, and there is clearly no willingness to create EU-level legislation. Labour MEPs therefore strongly support the report's call for Member States to regulate their gambling markets to protect consumers. The report also makes clear that such regulation must be proportionate and non-discriminatory, as set out in the EU Treaties.\nAs such, Labour MEPs believe that the UK Gambling Act represents Treaty-compliant legislation that aims to ensure fair and open access to gambling services, while preventing crime and protecting children and the vulnerable. A number of Member States are currently reviewing their legislation on gambling to ensure it is compliant with the EU Treaties.\nLabour MEPs emphasise that authorities across the EU must remain vigilant and cooperate against all risks of crime, match-fixing, and threats to young people and the vulnerable from all forms of gambling. Labour MEPs welcome continued efforts by reputable operators of online gambling services to take action to ensure such concerns are met.\nMarianne Thyssen  \nThe operation of gambling and betting is not the same as other economic activities, as some in this House believe. In its case law, the European Court of Justice has confirmed that it is Member States themselves who determine what level of protection they consider appropriate to protect their citizens against the hazards associated with gambling.\nThe subsidiarity applicable here means that Member States must be able to control and to regulate their gambling markets in accordance with their traditions and cultures in order to protect consumers against the hazards of addiction, fraud and money laundering. In view of the additional risks involved in online gambling, I am convinced that national legislation cannot be replaced by pan-European self-regulation of the gambling industry.\nTherefore, I join the substantial majority of my colleagues on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection who believe that a purely internal market approach to gambling is not applicable. I have therefore chosen to wholeheartedly endorse the Schaldemose report.\nAdam Bielan  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Maria Petre's report on ensuring food quality. I would, however, like to express my concern that the average consumer is unaware of the difference between protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI). I believe that conducting an information campaign on this issue is essential.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nMember States need to promote those quality assurance systems which are already well known to European consumers. These systems should not be made uniform or merged into one. In order to ensure minimum standards for quality certification in the Community, they must be assessed and recognised on a European scale. Therefore, the Commission must have an office which would be responsible for approving and allowing the use of these systems on a European scale and which would ensure uniform and effective control at European and national levels.\nNicodim Bulzesc  \nI voted for this report as I agree with the introduction of a mandatory indication of the place of production of primary products based on a country of origin label, reflecting consumer desire to know more about the origins of the product they are buying. A system of this kind should also be applied to processed food products, indicating the origin of the main ingredients and raw materials, and specifying their place of origin as well as the place of final processing.\nNiels Busk, Anne E. Jensen and Karin Riis-J\u00f8rgensen  \nin writing. - (DA) The Danish Liberal Party's MEPs, Anne E. Jensen, Karin Riis-J\u00f8rgensen and Niels Busk, have voted in favour of Mrs Petre's own-initiative report on ensuring food quality, having weighed up the pros and cons and because there is only an overall vote. We feel able to support most of what is contained in the report, although there are also several things that we do not fully support.\nRichard Corbett  \nin writing. - I was disappointed to have to abstain on this report, which should have followed up on the Commission's Green Paper in looking at how farmers across Europe get the maximum benefit in the marketplace from the high standard of their produce. It does focus on important issues such as country of origin labelling, developing the organic market, where European products are the finest in the world, and exploiting the strengths of farming in Europe to give our farmers an advantage when taking their products to market - and this part is welcome.\nUnfortunately, however, the report has been hijacked by the protectionist elements in the Committee on Agriculture, and particularly by those who seek to justify massive market-distorting CAP subsidies and who want to make it harder for produce from third world countries to be imported to the EU.\nConstantin Dumitriu  \nAllow me to congratulate my colleague, Mrs Petre, for this excellent report.\nThere are a few points which we need to bear in mind when we are talking about European product quality:\n1. Implementation of 'qualified market access' offers a solution for guaranteeing that the products available to European consumers, whether produced domestically or imported, meet the same standards.\n2. The costs incurred by European producers in guaranteeing food safety and demands linked to cross-compliance, which should be covered by CAP funds.\n3. The promotion of specifically European agricultural and food products. As I also requested in the report on the amendment of Regulation No 3\/2008, the European Union's cofinancing rate must be increased. At the same time, however, we need to simplify the administrative procedures for the system of Traditional Speciality Guaranteed and offer better protection for products with a geographical indication or designation of origin.\nI hope that the recommendations we are going to adopt will be implemented as soon as possible by the European Commission and Member States because we cannot afford to waste time in such circumstances when European citizens are being hit by the effects of an extremely serious economic recession.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nDespite its good intentions, the report continues and even extends the policies which are at the root of problems experienced by many small producers, particularly in Portugal. Invoking what they call 'promoting the quality of European agricultural products', they increase production costs for those who are already having difficulty keeping themselves in production. This is especially true for small producers, as is the case for many small cheese dairies producing Serra da Estrela cheese of undeniable quality. It is unacceptable that producers should have to meet new requirements in order to continue producing, without the financial compensation that is due to them, whilst also having to support the costs of the 'official control' requirements. Contrary to the claims made, production of real quality is at serious risk of disappearing.\nApplying harmonised production and marketing standards to both small producers and agro-industry is unacceptable. The application of these standards is destroying the diversity, in terms of production and of culture, of countries like Portugal. It is important to reverse this trend and promote production and consumption at the local level. Agriculture must be considered a sensitive activity, incompatible with this model of commercial liberalisation that is environmentally unsustainable and poses enormous risks to human health.\nDuarte Freitas  \nI agree with the report as I consider the reduction of bureaucracy and of the complexity of the standards system to be essential. That way, regulation and quality control for agricultural products will become easier.\nThe result of this simplification would be a reduction in administrative costs for public entities.\nI also welcome the special attention given to designations of origin and the call on the Commission to ensure that this issue is included on the World Trade Organisation's agenda.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nWe cannot but endorse the intentions behind this report: to guarantee the quality of European food products, the competitiveness of producers, simple but comprehensive information for consumers regarding the origin of products, compliance with designations of origin and quality labels, a better definition of traditional or organic products, and so on.\nThe rapporteur is quite right to stress that we need to stipulate that agricultural and food products imported into Europe must meet the same standards as are required of European producers, which is unfortunately not always the case at present. He is also quite right in his wish to implement conditional access to our markets.\nThere are, however, still some problems that need to be solved, including that of unfair intra-Community competition, where one Member State lays down stricter standards than are provided for at Community level, primarily for reasons of public health or environmental protection. In such cases, the State must, whether you like it or not, be able to apply the same rules as you are calling for at WTO level.\nAnother problematic aspect is consistency with this Parliament's environmental concerns - we should be concentrating on reducing food miles (eating locally produced, seasonal products) rather than on a necessarily imperfect adaptation to the global market.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) This report, which does not form part of any legislative process, recommends a number of costly proposals, such as an EU agency for product quality and new sales promotion and sales supporting measures within agriculture. We would also like to point out that this report contains wordings that could lead to a more protectionist policy for agricultural goods on the part of the EU.\nAs usual, the June List observes that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU's agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of heavy subsidies to various groups within agriculture.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nIn the vote, I was in favour of Maria Petre's report on ensuring food quality. The issue of harmonising and mutually recognising standards with regard to food is very important for ensuring human health. Awareness of the relationship between the incidence of various diseases and the quality of food consumed is becoming increasingly common today. Only, the term 'healthy food' does itself appear to be paradoxical. Can anything that is not healthy to humans be described as 'food'? The quality of food products has a fundamental significance to the safety of food for our citizens. These products must meet clearly-defined criteria based on current knowledge and the principles of hygiene, and these criteria should also contribute towards protecting the environment and respect the principles of the proper treatment of animals for slaughter. Food products must also be properly packed, transported and stored.\nTo ensure good food quality, consumers must also be given complete information on the products they buy, the ingredients, any genetic modifications, the place of manufacture, the storage conditions, how to prepare it and the use by date. The rapporteur favours the introduction of a European service responsible for certification and food quality at Commission level to ensure that minimum certification requirements are met. This would provide a uniform system of control at EU and Member State level. On the basis of an earlier resolution, the report also favours the introduction of a special quality mark for European products.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nThe global financial and food crisis means that people are saving on consumption, and that means a rise in market share for discounters. In addition, we are laying down restrictive production regulations for our domestic food producers and promoting quality seals and similar schemes. At the same time, we are importing products that do not meet domestic quality standards and for which compliance with such standards cannot be checked. This means that domestic farmers find themselves severely squeezed and we must ensure that, especially in this difficult situation, the rate of farms going under does not escalate and that we do not lose our capability, across the EU, of self-sufficiency in food production.\nPeople who are prepared to pay for the quality of their food can all too easily lose their ability to keep on top of what is what amongst the jumble of quality seals and symbols - not everything that is labelled as 'organic' is produced in the domestic market and not everywhere where a particular country is given as the country of origin do all the ingredients actually come from that country. There is some playing fast and loose here, and food scandals and labelling scams are repeatedly being uncovered. Ultimately, consumers have to be able to rely on labelling. This initiative appears to be taking us in that direction, and that is why I have voted for it.\nAlexandru Nazare  \nThe report which my colleague, Maria Petre, presented to us today contains a series of recommendations which I confidently support. These range from simplifying the administration involved in guaranteeing quality standards and reducing the financial burdens on producers to supporting traditional products, as well as those with a designation of origin or geographical indication.\nAt a time when we are facing a serious economic crisis, it is our duty to take measures to support European farmers and processors and ensure that consumers have access to the best products at the most favourable prices.\nI believe that we must ensure that we provide consumers with correct information about the origin of products in order to support European agriculture. However, we must not confuse these provisions relating to a European quality mark with protectionism aimed at blocking access to the Community market. I rather think that the purpose of introducing this mark must be to promote European products and the benefits which they enjoy over those from third countries and to provide European consumers with better information. At the same time, a system recognising the origin of products will help reduce fears about 'contaminated products'.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Petre's report on ensuring food quality and harmonisation of the relevant standards. I believe that the subject is extremely important, since food quality has an ever-increasing effect on the quality of life of European citizens. Indeed, the EU needs to insist that all food products comply with its production standards, especially as regards health and safety. In addition, the Union must ensure a level playing field between locally produced and third country products. Lastly, I share the rapporteur's opinion when she states that, with regard to PGIs (protected geographical indications), PDOs (protected designations of origin) and GTSs (guaranteed traditional specialities), Community technical assistance should be provided for the implementation of the above systems in the Member States and the related evaluation of the products concerned.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) I chose not to support Mrs Petre's report on promoting and increasing the labelling of food. The report contained good proposals with regard to the simplification of the rules and shorter handling times. However, these were, in my opinion, outweighed by protectionist wordings on conditional market access and the desire to set up a supranational authority for product quality.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nWhen food is produced on the basis of the profit criterion rather than to satisfy grassroots requirements and the production and sale of food are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and are determined by food multinationals and cartels (choices which characterise the policy of the EU and of the governments of the Member States), then food can be neither cheap nor of good quality.\nThe supposed return to quality food is not intended to increase farmers' incomes or satisfy grassroots requirements. It is intended to increase the competitiveness and profits of the multinationals, to increase the exploitation of rural manpower, to concentrate land ownership even further and to control production.\nThe introduction and cultivation of GMOs and the series of food scandals show that the quality and safety of food in the EU are subordinate to the interests of big business.\nThe classification of food on the basis of quality is food differentiation on the basis of class in keeping with the market rationale' first-class food for high incomes and second-class food for working class families.\nFarmers of small and medium-sized holdings have every interest in opposing the CAP and the EU and their being sold off to big business, as well as in joining the Greek Communist Party and the Workers' Rally, the workers and the self-employed in the social alliance, to overturn the sovereignty and power of the monopolies.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nUpdating the Competition Policy is a particularly important factor in the preparation of the new security structure and operation of the EU competition policy. The essential elements of this process are cooperation between national competition institutions and coordination through the European Competition Network. The European Parliament has expressed serious concern that without an effective ECN, updating the policy would, in essence, really only be a renationalisation of the competition policy, and that would obviously undermine the idea of assuring uniform competition policy throughout the EU. Based on the criteria of flexibility and pragmatism, the 2006 and 2007 reports give a favourable evaluation of the effectiveness and development of the ECN's work. The efforts to fund training and judicial cooperation between state judges to interpret EU competition law and ensure its implementation are also welcome.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - This report highlights the importance of the free trade and fair competition principle and affirms the importance of what was signed in the Treaty of Rome. We must ensure effective anti-trust measures so that we will be protected against restrictive trade abuse.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nWe voted against the report because they did not even accept a proposal relating to concern about the abuses of market domination by big business, particularly with regard to the big supermarket chains. These abuse their purchasing power to force down prices paid to suppliers in the European Union and in third countries.\nNor did they demonstrate the necessary determination to investigate the impact that the concentration of the supermarket sector is having on small businesses, suppliers, workers and consumers. In particular, they failed to evaluate the abuses of purchasing power which may follow from such concentration.\nThe resolution adopted continues the pattern of intervention in defence of competition and against public services. It follows in the footsteps of the notorious Bolkestein Directive, always insisting on the need to comply with the rules of the internal market. Also, regrettably, even as it speaks of the crisis and the difficulties faced by economies, it insists on the Commission being vigilant so that competition is not called into question. In other words, faced with the crisis caused by neoliberal capitalism, the solution is more of the same. That is unacceptable.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mr Evans's reports on competition policy 2006 and 2007. Huge progress has been made in the field of competition over recent years. Indeed, if we think of merger control between enterprises and state aid (a problem that became of prime importance following the financial and economic crisis on the markets), the Commission has done an increasingly large amount of work. That is why I share the rapporteur's view when he says that it is necessary to modernise the legal and institutional framework in the field.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - Given the state of the economic crisis which grips the European Union and which has a global reach, it was important for Parliament to find agreement. This report has finally found a route to agree between ourselves in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Obviously, concerns about state intervention are of the highest ranking but, given the nature of the damage caused by under-consumption and a shrinking manufacturing base, some relief at the level of government expenditure is necessary.\nLiam Aylward  \nin writing. - Small businesses are the backbone of the European economy, accounting for 98% of all European businesses and employing up to 60% of the EU's workers. The European Commission is to be applauded in its initiatives to date and its continuing work aimed at eliminating red tape for small businesses. Ms Herczog's report recognises the work done by the Commission and calls for further steps in this direction.\nWhile I certainly support many of the comments contained in the report on the Small Business Act, I was very disappointed that the report that emerged from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy contained a paragraph calling for a common consolidated corporate tax base. I would have hoped that there would be global recognition at this stage that the CCCTB proposal is badly thought out and ill-advised. This issue is of such importance to Ireland, especially in these economic times, that I had to vote against this proposal. Doing so will have no adverse affects on the commendable work that is being done for small business but will send out a strong message that we must take a stand against unproductive, unwieldy and ill-conceived proposals that will be of no benefit to the European economy.\nGerard Batten, Nigel Farage and Jeffrey Titford  \nin writing. - This act proposes various measures, some of which might be of assistance to small businesses, but whose overall effect is to promote EU control, churning of the population, feminist agendas and infiltration of businesses by EU officials 'on work experience'. These elements make it impossible for UKIP to support this proposal.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nThe global financial crisis and slow economic growth are having a negative impact on the level of entrepreneurship. Therefore, we welcome the following measures embedded in the SBA, the implementation of which would be most effective for economic growth: to create the most favourable conditions for SMEs to obtain funding; to simplify business transfer conditions; to provide honest entrepreneurs who have experienced bankruptcy an opportunity to start a business a second time. The initiative to create the most favourable conditions for SMEs to obtain funding (risk capital, micro-credits, etc.) is very important.\nWith energy and raw materials rising in price, SMEs are becoming particularly vulnerable. Therefore, implementing the SBA strengthens the aspect of competitiveness. Only complex measures, i.e. promoting higher standards of manufacturing processes and ecological standards for products within the EU, and popularising these same standards throughout the world, as well as enhancing supervision of the EU market, can contribute to common global challenges, such as climate change and diminishing fossil fuel reserves.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - Every initiative that supports SMEs or improves their conditions should be applauded, and this report has many valid arguments that will be of great value to SMEs throughout Europe. We must capitalise on the major benefits of the current progress and ensure that we include the creation of a superior operational business environment for SMEs, including a more effective regulatory culture taking root across Europe.\nDerek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - This report proposes various measures, some of which might be of assistance to small businesses, but whose overall effect is to promote EU control, churning of the population, feminist agendas and infiltration of businesses by EU officials 'on work-experience'. These elements make it impossible for UKIP to support this proposal.\nCarlos Coelho  \nAlthough 99% of the EU's businesses are SMEs (23 million) - responsible for the creation of 80% of the new jobs in the EU in recent years - the majority of the rules normally created are aimed at the 41 000 large European companies. This fosters obvious inequalities in terms of competitiveness.\nThe time has come to reverse this trend and make a commitment to the sectors of the economy in which wealth is truly created, with a policy based on rewarding merit. This would put European SMEs on a par with their counterparts in the rest of the world.\nFurthermore, because of their flexible nature, SMEs are companies that are accustomed to being at the forefront of innovation in their areas, making the Small Business Act an important step forward in realising the Lisbon Strategy.\nThat is why the Members representing the Portuguese Social Democratic Party (PSD) are supporting this report, which is, as a matter of fact, coherent with the measures proposed in Portugal by the leader of the PSD, Dr Manuela Ferreira Leite.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - The Commission's proposal for a Small Business Act is part of a communication containing legislative proposals, guiding principles and measures to be implemented to help SMEs in Europe. I welcome the articulation of ten guiding principles which focus on the needs and requirements of SMEs and aim to help them realise their full market potential.\nThe provisions for legislation that is fully aware of the needs and requirements of its intended recipients are welcome, as is the adaptation of public policy tools to the needs of SMEs. Vitally important is the introduction of means of using the present crisis to respond to the environmental crisis by increasing efficiency, through thorough environmental management systems. As the Rapporteur on EU-ETS, I am aware, as I hope we all are, of the need to act and act promptly if we hope to solve this challenge.\nWhile I agree with much of this report, I am wary of proposals for a corporate consolidated tax base and voted against accordingly.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nDespite all the big talk and apparent good intentions of defending SMEs, the report has other objectives, namely: encouraging free competition and the internal market or, in other words, supporting the large economic and financial groups; insisting on the liberalisation of services, including public services; and also, behind a fa\u00e7ade of pseudo-help for small and medium-sized enterprises, aggravating the exploitation of workers.\nIn fact, in the name of the 91.5% of businesses in the European Union that employed less than 10 workers in 2003, they want better conditions in order to destroy essential public services, deregulate the labour market and call into question social and working rights. This is neoliberalism in its most visible form.\nThat is why we voted against this report: in defence of real measures in support of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and in defence of other policies that safeguard their role and significant contribution to production in the industrial, agricultural and fishing sectors, and to employment with rights, trade and meeting the public's basic needs.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have approved this report, which lists, in the form of desires that will no doubt remain unfulfilled for a while, the ways and means of making life easier for small businesses in the European Union.\nHowever, I have some comments to make.\nThe admittedly discreet call for a kind of positive discrimination in favour of SMEs, I quote, 'owned by under-represented ethnic minorities' is pointless, incomprehensible and completely ideological.\nAccess by SMEs and, in particular, local SMEs, to public procurement contracts, which the rapporteur intends to promote further, was hindered by the texts adopted 15 years ago by this very House, despite the warnings that they would have adverse effects. These texts effectively promoted access to public procurement contracts by large companies, particularly foreign ones, that had the information and the administrative and legal resources to bid for these contracts, while local SMEs did not have those resources.\nIt is an extraordinarily complex business for SMEs to access existing national and European aid, due to the requirements of European legislation itself.\nIn short, one once again gets the impression that we are having to adopt European texts to deal with the foreseeable problems produced by other European texts.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nI voted in favour of the Herczog report on the establishment of a Small Business Act.\nOur SMEs are the first victims of this current economic and financial crisis, having seen the banks restrict their access to credit, and the motor driving their growth must be restarted as a matter of urgency. Introducing a European Small Business Act will make it possible to strengthen SMEs' competitiveness so that we can finally turn words into action. The European Parliament has sent a clear signal to the Council and to the European Commission in order to ensure that the Small Business Act is actually implemented, namely 'priority for SMEs', so that these new measures can be understood and applied by all such enterprises, particularly by including the following actions: avoiding unnecessary burdens, promoting the emergence of innovative medium-sized companies beyond the Community definition of SMEs (250 employees), and making it easier for SMEs to get access to funding and public procurement contracts so as to increase their growth potential.\nI nevertheless find it regrettable that this action plan is not a legally binding instrument.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nI voted in favour of Edit Herczog's report on the Small Business Act, as I regard it as important legislation which affects the smallest organisms of the economy, which are currently responsible for around 100 million jobs in the EU. They account for almost 99% of all enterprises in the EU. In this context, and because the present crisis threatens severe economic disruption, we need to implement legal regulations at EU level which will help these enterprises to function. This should, in particular, cover issues such as the transfer of ownership in enterprises (particularly in the case of the illness or retirement of the owner) and for harmonised time limits for the payment of transactions (to avoid 'credit crunches').\nThe document also accentuates the importance to these enterprises of innovation, scientific research, patents and inventions and protecting intellectual property, and e-commerce. SMEs should also be assured access to sources of finance, including European funds and credits. A separate, but no less important issue, is reducing the red tape which plagues many SMEs. Also worthy of mention are the ten principles to guide policy towards small enterprises, both at EU and at Member State level. I also believe that underlining the need to support and promote the activity of SMEs at a cross-border level in the internal market is essential.\nAstrid Lulling  \nThe Commission's communication on the Small Business Act takes on a particular significance in the current circumstances, as it sets out the basic principles that should underlie the development and implementation of policies, at both European Union and national level, in order to create equal conditions for all SMEs operating within Europe. On a more operational level, it also includes a package of more than 50 separate measures, including four legislative proposals that translate these principles into action. Support for SMEs must be a top priority, particularly in this period of serious economic crisis. Investment by SMEs is one of the key factors in the keenly awaited recovery.\nGiven that most of these actions fall within the competence of the Member States, we need to find ways of involving the Member States and Community bodies in order to guarantee that SMEs can gain added value from the measures affecting them. Certain amendments tabled by my group aim to make the 'think small first' principle an essential part of all future legislation. I also support the idea of having a specific budget line for SMEs...\n(The explanation of vote was cut short pursuant to Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - Paragraph 68 of this report contains a reference to a common consolidated corporate tax base, stating that there should be a common basis for company taxation. That is something which I cannot and do not support. Taxation is a Member State competence, not an EU one, and any reference to a CCCTB inevitably brings concerns about EU corporate tax rates, which is not something I can support.\nI therefore rejected the first part of the paragraph, and because the plenary voted overall in favour of that paragraph, I voted against this report in the final vote.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nIf small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are, for the first time, to be put at the heart of European legislation, it is no cause for celebration. It is, rather, a tragedy. 2009 will, no doubt, be a year of destiny in which the survival or otherwise of thousands of SMEs will be decided. If the big companies fold, the little ones will inevitably follow.\nThe much talked-about credit crunch looms large, in any case, in the contraction of the volume of credit. What is needed here is to ensure that Basel II does not lead to the money flow to SMEs drying up definitively. If we do want to cut red tape, the gain from simplifying a procedure - insofar as this would have any noticeable impact on a business - must not be lost again through new obstacles elsewhere. If nothing else, tendering and public procurement must also be made more SME-friendly in order to give these companies a chance. I voted in favour of the Small Business Act in the hope that, this time, it will, at long last, amount to more than a piece of paper specifying objectives and will actually be implemented.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Herczog's report on the Small Business Act. It is clear how important SMEs are within the European Union, and that is why I intend to support Mrs Herczog's careful piece of work. Policy, public intervention and the social environment must all meet the real needs of small enterprises, which truly form the backbone of the European Union. That is why I agree with the report, especially with regard to the legislative proposals for the general block exemption for SMEs in respect of state aid.\nJos\u00e9 Albino Silva Peneda  \nin writing. - (PT) It is well-known that SMEs are responsible for more than 90% of jobs in Europe. However, the crisis that we are experiencing has already seen, or will soon see, many of their workers become unemployed.\nThe relaxing of Structural Fund procedures, as promoted by the Commission, is a sign that should be welcomed as positive.\nThe globalisation associated with the current crisis has changed many of the circumstances that served as a basis for decisions taken at European level in the past and which were, at the time, considered correct.\nTaking this into account, I am convinced that, for example, some aspects of the regional and cohesion policies must be revisited.\nWe must also examine the current financial conditions faced by SMEs. These are decisive, especially when they have to pay back loans at a time of economic stagnation.\nI therefore support this report, since it is precisely at these moments that we must think about SMEs and their contribution to innovation, economic growth and employment.\nThat is why there is a need for anticyclical policies at European level. This requires steps that are far more decisive to be taken, so as to create a truly macroeconomic policy at European level, which still does not exist.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I welcome this report and was pleased to vote for its main text with little exception. I cannot agree with a common consolidated corporate tax base as there is no agreement for this. Similarly, on the issue of penalties for exceeding limits on late payments, I prefer the Late Payments Directive so as to avoid confusion.\nGiven that small to medium-sized businesses are the strongest element of growth in the economy, this proposal helps to strengthen the conditions for such growth. The south-east of England should benefit from such an approach.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nI voted for the European Parliament Resolution for a 'Small Business Act' for Europe as it is very important to create better framework conditions aimed at providing an environment promoting innovation by SMEs, in particular, by introducing ways to improve the protection of intellectual property rights and to fight against fraud and counterfeiting more effectively throughout the European Union.\nA combined effort is required on the part of financial institutions, the Commission and Member States to ensure SMEs' access to finance and to offer them the possibility of consolidating their capital by reinvesting their profit in the company. I voted for the amendment asking for immediate action to ensure that charges are not levied prior to SMEs' commencing activities, in order to ensure that they are able to build up their own resources. I also called for the EIB to devise new forms of financial instruments and tangible new solutions to tackle the obstacles that collateral presents to accessing credit. I also called on Member States, in light of the current financial crisis, to encourage banks to guarantee SMEs access to credit on reasonable terms.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":2,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Consumer confidence in the digital environment (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Roithov\u00e1 on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on consumer confidence in the digital environment.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1 \nrapporteur. - (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that, after a year's work, I and the shadow rapporteurs can now present to you the complete report on consumer confidence in the digital environment.\nWith this report Parliament is sending out a strong political plea to the Commission and the Member States to update the conditions for online business and to take steps to enhance consumer confidence as regards the most recent trends in the digital environment. Businesses and consumers are waiting for unequivocal, simple, enforceable rules that will enhance online business culture in the European market. The report is merely the start of the whole process. I am aware that implementing it would involve a considerable amount of work for the Commission, which is already limited in terms of financial and human resources\nPublic hearings and studies have revealed some telling facts, to which we cannot turn a blind eye. Just 6% of consumers buy online from suppliers in other Member States. One third do not receive the goods or services they order on account of their nationality, their country of residence or the country in which their payment card was issued. Some modern electronic services providing digital content are only available to customers in the old EU-15.\nUsers are bound by any number of digital contracts that they have simply clicked on and have not read. They are therefore unaware that these contracts may contain a number of unfair and misleading contractual arrangements. We have discovered that not even legal experts are capable of deciphering the exact content of digital contracts, for example, licensing arrangements with the end user. Small businesses are unaware of their obligations in e-commerce and have difficulty in making their way around 27 different legal systems. Consumers do not know their Internet rights, and indeed, there is no document summarising these rights. Users are not sure what they can and cannot do with the digital content they have purchased. They are afraid of resolving claims in another country and do not know about counterfeit medicines sold on the Internet. We therefore propose the following: a worldwide campaign to be launched by the Commission to highlight the dangers of counterfeit medicines; the creation of a Europe-wide early-warning system to combat fraudulent activities on the Internet; and an extension to the scope of contracts on which bans are to be imposed due to unfair contractual arrangements.\nThe principle of the single market is less restriction and more opportunity. Paradoxically, however, it is as though this principle did not apply to the electronic environment, despite the cross-border opportunities. I would venture to say that 27 separate national markets are hampering the development of the information society in Europe, which lags behind that of the USA and Asia.\nIf we are to demolish the artificial or natural obstacles to e-commerce we will have to overcome the fragmented rules of the Member States. This will be possible in the long term if the political will is there to achieve complete harmonisation. Such a dynamic sector, however, calls for a quicker and more flexible solution. This is why in the report I opted for coordinated work on voluntary standards, or rather super-standards, for example an optional standardised contract geared towards cross-border e-commerce. The content must be agreed upon by business and consumer organisations, in which the Commission will have a vital role to play in terms of coordination. Holders of the European trustmark for cross-border e-commerce must adhere to these standards. Consumer organisations welcome the implementation of the trustmark and are committed to revealing and disclosing any misuse, with the help of existing technical and legal resources.\nWe also call for the formulation of a European Charter of Users' Rights in the information society. The European Parliament is one of the first parliaments in the world seeking to clarify consumer Internet rights. If the Charter is widely accessible and available in all official languages, consumers will begin to demand their rights and businesses will begin to uphold the Charter and not to risk having to spend money on resolving disputes.\nI feel that the report will act as an inspiration for improving standards in the digital environment.\nI should now like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their outstanding help: Mrs Herczog, Mrs R\u00fchle, Mr Schmidt and Mrs J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki and the assistants, in particular Mr Jirsa for his invaluable expert advice. I also appreciate the support of the coordinators, the chairman and the secretariat of the committee and the services. I was delighted with the constructive communication from consumer organisations, businesses and individual members of the Commission staff. I should in particular like to commend Mrs Kuneva on her obliging and very open attitude. She has embarked on her new post in the Commission in an outstanding fashion. I believe that we will be able to overcome any difficulties that may arise when our proposals on increasing confidence in the European digital environment are put into practice.\nMeglena Kuneva\nMr President, I am really very pleased to be here today to discuss with you this very important topic of how we can improve consumer confidence in the digital environment.\nI would like to start my speech by thanking Mrs Roithov\u00e1 and all the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent and very close cooperation - and this is not just a matter of courtesy, but a sincere recognition of very hard work.\nI am glad that the Commission and the European Parliament agree on a common line in approaching this very important and challenging issue. This is clearly an important and ambitious report, and I think we all broadly share the same objectives and analyses of the problems.\nThe digital economy - and more specifically e-commerce - has great potential to improve consumer welfare by making a greater range of products available, boosting price competition and developing new markets. It is also central to completing the retail side of the internal market. At present, retail markets are still fragmented along national lines into mini-markets, as Mrs Roithov\u00e1 indicated. This makes no sense in the age of e-commerce and the internet. E-commerce is changing the face of retail, but only at national level. The internet is borderless but consumers, businesses and regulators are not. Fifty per cent of European consumers who have a computer at home have made an e-commerce purchase in the previous 12 months, but only 12% of those with a computer at home bought cross-border. This indicates the need for action to increase consumer confidence on the retail side of the internal market and the necessity to solve the fragmentation of the market to achieve finally a citizens' market.\nAs you know, since the beginning of the year we have launched two major initiatives for consumers: the consumer policy strategy and the consultation on the review of existing consumer protection legislation. Our objective as a Commission is to help the EU rise to the challenges of growth and jobs and reconnecting with its citizens. This objective will be met if, by 2013, we can credibly demonstrate to all citizens that they can shop from anywhere in the EU - from corner shop to website - confident that they are equally and effectively protected.\nThe need to improve consumer confidence in the digital economy runs through every aspect of this strategy. Mrs Roithov\u00e1's report shows that the obstacles - including regulatory obstacles - are numerous. My predecessors made progress in tackling some of them with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation, which established the European Consumer Centre (ECC) network. My priority now is to tackle the remaining obstacles, with the reform of existing consumer protection legislation related to consumer contracts.\nAs you know, we have initiated a broad consultation on the future of consumer protection, and we have started to analyse reactions from the stakeholders. We are looking forward to Mrs Petre's report after the summer. Your views and your support will be an important reference for our follow-up work and for specific proposals. The Commission's follow-up to the review of the acquis is a basis on which build consumer trust. The development of standardised consumer contracts may be something to investigate further once this solid base is established.\nOne of the aims of this exercise is to reduce the regulatory fragmentation of the internal market by targeted harmonisation of issues that cause particular problems for consumers and businesses. We will, inter alia, consider whether standards and standardisation can play a role in this process.\nSimilarly for self-regulation. The Commission has done some important work to establish a best practice model for self- and co-regulation, and we will continue to do so in the future. I share your concerns about the interplay of different legislation governing online transactions or digital goods. There are many precise laws, and consumers and businesses may not be sufficiently aware of their rights and duties in the digital environment. I will examine how best to clarify these issues with my colleagues, Mrs Reding and Mr McCreevy.\nThanks to your input, we will explore the idea of a practical guide which would cover information society services and help citizens to understand their rights better. I would also like to thank you for insisting on the importance of enforcement - I fully agree with you. Quality legislation is not enough if it is not backed up by effective enforcement. We have set up a network of national enforcers in the European Union and we will now gradually enlarge the network to third country partners in order to enhance its efficiency.\nIn conclusion, I would like to thank you for your commitment to helping European citizens to enjoy all the benefits of the internal market and the digital economy. I look forward to working with you to fulfil our common goals and to achieve a citizens' internal market.\nDavid Hammerstein \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Roithov\u00e1 for such a wonderful report.\nConsumer confidence in the digital environment largely depends on our ability to provide consumers with protection and clarity within that environment.\nWe must bear in mind that SMEs are also consumers, and the European Union must promote the use of these new technologies and encourage SMEs to participate in on-line markets. At the same time, we must promote consumer confidence on these platforms by ensuring that transactions are transparent and fair.\nConsumers must be aware of their obligations and rights in the digital world. For some products, such as MP3 players, DVD players and computer game consoles, the consumer is obliged to accept very strict conditions in the small print, and in some cases this verges on the illegal and violates the right to privacy.\nAt the same time, the producers of these devices are expanding the use of digital rights management systems in order to prevent unauthorised copies. This creates fear, and that can undermine consumer confidence. In order to resolve the problem of interoperability, open standards are required that create a safer, more open and more trustworthy environment.\nSoftware patents are also a serious threat for software developers in SMEs, who cannot afford the legal costs. Fear in this environment is not compatible with confidence either amongst SMEs or amongst consumers.\nDigital platforms can only provide growth and development if they are based on open and interoperable standards. Standards can contribute to less fragmentation of markets and the use of open-source software can also make a considerable contribution to promoting on-line security.\nImproving the security and confidence of consumers depends upon certain key elements: legislation, mechanisms for strengthening and creating regulatory instruments such as codes of conduct and confidence marks.\nMalcolm Harbour\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to welcome this report and to thank my colleague, Mrs Roithov\u00e1, for her outstanding work, and the shadow rapporteurs, who are here as well. It has been a very good team effort. I also want to thank Mrs Kuneva for her very positive response.\nThis report shows the value that a parliamentary committee can bring to a complex issue, particularly one that cuts across so many policy areas. The special message I want to put to the Commissioner is that I hope she will take this forward and become the champion of consumers in the e-world and in e-commerce, because, as she said, it is not just her services that have a share in this - it is also those of Mrs Reding and of Mr McCreevy, and, indeed, of Mr Frattini and of Mr Verheugen, in his role as champion of enterprise, in particular small enterprise. As far as Mr Frattini is concerned, I want to emphasise again the concern that many of us feel about the proposed reform of the Rome I Regulation in particular, which is in serious danger of undermining the provisions for small businesses to be active in the world of e-commerce. There are also important data protection provisions that consumers feel concerned about in terms of giving up their data and going online, which also come under his area. Therefore, I think it needs that coordinated approach.\nI also want to pick up on what Mr Hammerstein-Mintz said, that small enterprises are the ones we need to look at in particular. Large enterprises can build complex websites in different languages, based in different countries, but we want to allow small enterprises with an innovative and exciting product and service based in one EU country to be able to access that EU market freely and simply, to take real advantage of the powers that e-commerce offers them. We have to be very careful that we design the regime in such a way as to ensure that we do not discourage them from doing that, because we want not only consumers to go online but also businesses to put their products online, and to make the two work together, because that is what we have the opportunity to do in our dynamic e-commerce market as it moves forward from here.\nEdit Herczog\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work over the last eighteen months, during which she has demonstrated considerable openness and willingness to compromise. Not the least, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her openness as we have been working together in this area ever since she was elected to this position.\nThe result of this work is a report whose ambitious political messages have not, contrary to what usually happens, been diluted by the numerous compromises made. If anything, they have been reinforced by them. This is exactly what we need; after all, it is how Europe's society and economy are gearing up for the digital age which is at stake. What is required here is for increasingly wider sections of European society to have access to information technologies. We must therefore emphasise, at any rate, as a footnote to this report the importance of e-inclusion, in other words, how important it is that the inhabitants of rural areas, those with disabilities, the older generations and those on the lowest incomes can be included in Europe's vibrant digital society.\nThere is no question that the future belongs to the information society and knowledge-based economy. As we have already realised, we also have to accept that business, the goods and services market along with consumption itself are becoming knowledge-based and digital. However, consumers are still consumers even on the Internet, with rights and obligations. They need to know, above all, what exactly they are facing: brochures, free newspapers, products or even services.\nEquipped with this knowledge, they need to behave just as discerningly as if they were in a conventional library, bank, travel agents or store. They need to know what they can and cannot do. In return for their compliance, they can then enjoy the protection afforded to law-abiding consumers in the traditional market too. However, there are numerous aspects of the digital environment which are fuelling the lack of consumer confidence. The easy, rapid flow of information, the frequent lack of information for consumers and the quick and extensive spread of illegal behaviour are just some of the many reasons why anyone using the Internet can cross the boundary of law-abiding consumer activity, even acting in good faith. It is our political responsibility as politicians to devise those tools for Europe's digital environment, which will allow our Internet users to remain law-abiding consumers.\nOn behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I can say that we will support the idea of a digital consumers charter in the longer term, which will provide every single consumer with clear, comprehensible information about what they should do in particular situations when using the Internet. Parliament is also aware that the dynamic development of the digital environment and the ongoing monitoring of consumer protection legislation will have a major impact on the content of any future charter. However, consumers also need information until then, which is why we are asking the Commission, even in current circumstances and based on current legislation, to provide some guidance as to what rights and protection e-consumers have.\nWith this in mind, we are proposing that a network of consumer protection centres should be set up, based on the model of the SOLVIT system and Dolceta website. In other words, a European e-consumer information and support portal, which can help Europe's online consumers by offering advice, answers and solutions. Similarly, we support clarification of the legislation governing the use and protection of digital content. After all, the interoperability between the tools and content, on the one hand, and online management of rights, on the other, are two important principles.\nFinally, I would like to draw the attention of consumers and industry to the fact that this is something in their joint interest. Based on the model of traditional markets, the digital market too depends on law-abiding behaviour. There are currently a large number of committees involved in this area. We would therefore like the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, which is linked to consumers and is the most responsive, to coordinate within the Commission the further efforts in this area.\nOlle Schmidt\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SV) Commissioner, Mr President, few could have imagined how the Internet would fundamentally change the world, both politically and economically. In spite of attempts by totalitarian regimes to limit the flow of information, the Internet is winning millions of new users. The way in which we use the Internet is also rapidly being transformed from the passive acquisition of information to an interactive approach. We buy and sell goods and services on it, and we chat and meet each other there. We have even acquired another life on the Internet, a virtual reality that, for some people, becomes more important than reality itself.\nThere are statistics showing a 21% annual increase in Internet commerce, and even though cross-border shopping within the EU is not extensive, there is a lot to indicate that it will increase. More than half of European households own a computer - an increase of approximately 4% in one year. Forty-two per cent of all households are on the Internet, and here too the increase is one of 4% in one year. In my own country, a good 75% of the population have an Internet connection at home. It is nonetheless gratifying that the biggest increase is taking place in the new Member States.\nAs many of my fellow Members have pointed out in this House, the number of frauds and other acts of deception is increasing concurrently with this development. In the light of this, Mrs Roithov\u00e1's report is an important step towards improving consumers' faith in the digital market. We know that, in parallel with Parliament's work, the Commission reviews the whole of the EU's consumer legislation.\nParagraph 19 of the report proposes what it calls a European trust mark. That is obviously a good idea, but I can see certain problems. Firstly, the costs of keeping such a quality mark updated may prove to be considerable. The Commission has itself calculated the costs at EUR 1 million per country per year, which is a considerable sum of money. Secondly, there is a danger of the trust mark being stolen, misused or falsified.\nAnother important point is the setting up of an EU charter of users' rights and obligations in the information society. This is not a new issue and is obviously an important area for the Commission, as the Commissioner also pointed out in connection with the ongoing review. I believe that the wordings proposed in the amendments better take account of the complexity and speed of the changes in the digital environment.\nIt perhaps does not even need to be said, but the digital environment obviously needs an efficient framework in the form of rules and legislation. All actors who make use of the Internet need to be aware of their rights and obligations. We need informed and educated consumers. We need not only vendors and entrepreneurs with a sense of responsibility but also bold innovators who envisage new possibilities and new jobs. We of course also need laws that operate in a changing environment.\nThe Commission has to balance all these interests with a view to an EU that is better able to become more competitive and to comply with the requirements of the Lisbon Strategy.\nLast of all, I should like to point out that we must never forget that it is freedom and free access to information that has formed the basis for the huge success of the Internet.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Roithov\u00e1 for tackling such an important issue. We should remember that work on developing the Internet began barely 40 years ago, yet we can now speak of an Internet revolution.\nThis extraordinary instrument opens up tremendous opportunities in many areas. It also presents us with many challenges. It may be used for laudable purposes but may unfortunately also be exploited for criminal activities. The same is true of many other instruments used by men and women as they develop civilisations.\nThe use of digital technology in electronic commerce for the purchase of goods and services ought to be seen in this context. As stated in the report, the legal and technical solutions applied should comply with a range of criteria. I would like to make a few remarks in this regard.\nFirstly, access to the Internet retail market should be far more widespread. This is linked to more generalised access to broadband Internet, a matter that has been repeatedly mentioned in the House. At present only around 25% of households in the European Union have a broadband connection, and therefore enjoy a high quality connection.\nSecondly, the purchaser needs to be certain that making purchases in this way is secure, both as regards the transaction itself and in terms of the relevant guarantee for the goods and services purchased, regardless of borders.\nThirdly, the fact that the transactions are often anonymous cannot be allowed to facilitate criminal activity in any way. I have in mind piracy of films or musical works that are protected intellectual property. It is therefore essential to clarify the expression 'for personal use only'.\nFourthly, other activities conducted through the Internet, such as the purchase of paedophile or pornographic material and the propagation of prostitution call for specific action by the police and prosecuting authorities. This is weighing on our consciences.\nFifthly, payments over the Internet must be undertaken in a way that ensures full security for both parties. Sixthly, advertisements for goods or services that can be purchased electronically must allow potential purchasers to verify the information put out.\nMy seventh remark is that the security of bank transactions undertaken by electronic means needs to be drastically improved. My eighth remark is to point out the importance of using digital means to provide certain medical services, diagnosis, and monitoring at a distance, notably in more remote areas.\nMy penultimate point relates to the importance of distance education. Finally, we would do well to remember that the disabled in particular benefit greatly from the opportunity to use digital platforms as consumers.\nIn conclusion, I should like to emphasise that high quality, honesty, transparency and flexibility must be essential features of the soundly based market in digital services open to competition that we wish to create.\nHeide R\u00fchle\non behalf of Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my special thanks go to the rapporteur. Through her efforts we have an excellent own-initiative report to approve today. I hope and am confident that the Commission will take the report's recommendations and conclusions on board when reviewing European consumer rights.\nOur group supports your report, Mrs Roithov\u00e0, and most of your compromise amendments. However, we do regret your decision to water down your proposal on the subject of the European trustmark. We will therefore not be voting for Amendment 4 and we will also be rejecting the Liberals' amendments.\nIntellectual property rights cannot be allowed to erode consumer rights. Consumers need clear information about their legal position when dealing with digital content and digital rights management. They are entitled to interoperable solutions.\nThe report addresses important issues, calling for a European charter of user rights, the creation of a European early warning system and a database for combating Internet fraud, the inclusion of an external audit obligation for specific electronic services such as online banking, and standardising European provisions for cross-border electronic invoices. It also calls for a coordinated global approach for the digital environment, including an analysis of external factors such as privacy protection, citizens' access to information technologies and Internet security.\nThe report also calls on the Commission to examine measures to deal with class actions in the case of cross-border digital environment disputes between businesses and consumers. We will be supporting the report and hope that it will be adopted in the plenary.\nNils Lundgren\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (SV) Mr President, trade and the exchange of goods, services and capital are the very bases of economic prosperity. Therefore, any technology that reduces the transaction costs for commerce is also fundamental to increased prosperity. With the world becoming more interconnected with the help of modern communications, safe and quick methods of payment and the removal of a good deal of protectionism, ever more countries around the world are now being drawn into global trade. In the long run, this is to the advantage of everyone on earth. It is therefore the EU's most important task to do everything it can to facilitate trade, firstly within the EU area and secondly between the EU area and the rest of the world.\nThe EU is very successful at facilitating trade within the EU area and has made a considerable contribution to the EU countries' economic development. The big exception is agriculture, in which precisely no liberalisation has taken place and in which there are, then, major gains in prosperity still to be brought about.\nWhen it comes to trade between the EU area and the rest of the world, matters look nothing like so good. EU protectionism in respect of the surrounding world is extensive and embraces not only the agricultural sphere but also labour-intensive industrial products. The economic costs for the poor countries of the world and for EU consumers are very great. It is, therefore, above all in these areas that we wish to invest our political resources in order to design an EU policy for increased trade and increased prosperity.\nEU trade is at present a phenomenon of limited scope, but I dare say we all believe that it is a form of trade with a great future. Mrs Roithov\u00e1 is therefore discussing an area that will prove to be very important in the future, but the question is that of what the EU's role might be in this area at this stage in the development of e-commerce.\nMrs Roithov\u00e1 and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy maintain that consumers do not dare to make cross-border purchases via the Internet within the EU because of poor legal certainty. Perhaps that is so, but do we know it for a fact? Every new area and every new problem that is identified are presented in this House as evidence that the EU needs to intervene. The tiresome phrase 'this shows that the EU is needed' is repeated like a mantra. In any socio-economic analysis of such problems, however, the attempt is first made to establish what the market failures are, whether they can be corrected through political measures and, if so, what these measures might be, and at which political level they should be resorted to.\nIn this House, the very point of departure is, more often than not, that the failures can and should be remedied at EU level. Every problem that is identified is taken as a pretext for advancing the EU's strategic positions at the expense of the Member States or of international bodies that are more global in scope. Constantly, man merkt die Absicht ['the intention is noted'].\nE-commerce is still in its infancy, and we do not know what is slowing down its growth, in which areas it will flourish and what forms it will then take. I would therefore advise the House to oppose all these proposals concerning EU-directed and EU-sponsored grant programmes and education and information campaigns and to wait before calling for charters of rights, dispute resolution mechanisms and harmonisation of contract law at EU level, and I advise it to say no to a logo for a European trustmark in this area.\nThose countries and regions that are creative and that are pioneers in various areas are those that offer entrepreneurs the freedom to feel their way towards solutions that politicians or officials cannot normally foresee. Where e-commerce is concerned, we shall find that there are very strong incentives for companies to create security for consumers. Such security will therefore be brought about by the financial market with the help of new insurance services and through the development of trademarks by producers themselves.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n- (SK) Allow me to thank Mrs Roithov\u00e1 for this report. It is responding to a dynamically developing digital environment. This is an area of everyday life for all of us, whether we are consumers or business people. New technologies offer huge opportunities to make full use of the internal market. Statistics, however, show that only 6% of European consumers participate in on-line transactions, and 33% experience problems, because their country of residence is different to that of the sellers of the goods.\nAccording to the Eurobarometer survey, 48% of merchants in the European Union are ready to sell across borders, but only 29% of companies are actually involved in cross-border transactions with at least one other country of the European Union. And yet 57% retailers in European Union sell via the Internet. The largest barriers to cross-border transactions include the uncertainty of transactions, different accounting rules, difficulties in the resolution of complaints and disputes, differences in national legislation on consumer protection, problems in provision of after-sales services, extra costs arising due to cross-border delivery, and the cost of translations.\nThe use of the on-line environment is more complicated than the off-line environment due to its many barriers. Because of this, I consider important the proposal to elaborate a strategy to build consumer confidence. It should be an attempt to respond and to implement steps for making Internet transactions more attractive, thus bringing an end to the fragmentation of the internal market in the digital environment. This should lead to improvements in access to goods and services offered on-line in other Member States.\nEvelyne Gebhardt\n(DE) Mr President, Mrs Roithov\u00e1, many thanks for your excellent report. My thanks also go to the shadow rapporteur Mrs Herczog, who was responsible for working on the report within my group.\nThis is a subject of particular importance to our citizens. It was very good to hear that Commissioner Kuneva will be taking action in this area. That is essential, and we can only support her efforts. We will be behind the Commissioner one hundred per cent.\nOur citizens have a whole range of problems in the digital environment. Goods do not arrive, or they arrive late. They may want to order a product in another country, but find themselves unable to do so because the company says that they are resident in the wrong country. Or they place an order and suddenly find themselves landed with a subscription. These are the problems that our citizens encounter. Of course, within the European Union there is already some very positive regulation within this area, but it is very disjointed. It is vital that we create positive legislation for this area that meets the expectations of our citizens and, more importantly, of consumers.\nWe want the citizens to enjoy the benefits of the single market in this arena. However, they can only benefit if we provide them with legal certainty, if they understand the basis on which they can do business, if they know that when they have a problem with a company they will be able to seek redress - and not have to wait 12 or 15 years for a result. They will also benefit from a more open market if they are able to compare prices and access more information. As you can see, there is still a lot to do in this area.\nThe citizens are expecting not only that we regulate the internal market, not only that we establish constructive and simpler rules for businesses, thereby ensuring that companies are free to move within the European Union. Our citizens also expect a Europe that works for them, in which policies are not just designed to encourage the economy, with the citizens merely expected to contribute to that economy. Instead, consumer protection should also determine policy, particularly in the digital arena. It must be clear that we are making policy for consumers, and that the economy serves the consumers. If this happens, Commissioner Kuneva - and I know this is your intention - then we will achieve our objective, namely a Europe for the citizens; a Europe in which they are free to make online purchases in another country without problems or obstacles, and in which they have rights, including the possibility of redress. You will certainly have the full backing of my group, Commissioner, and we will be very happy to work with you to achieve your aims.\nMarek Aleksander Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, the role of the on-line transactions market in the provision of products, services or information on these is now invaluable. Mrs Roithov\u00e1 rightly pointed out in her report, however, that the development and increased importance of that market is affected by its fragmentation across the various Member States of the European Union.\nI agree that the aforementioned lack of harmonisation of provisions across the territory of the European Union and the lack of consumer confidence in transactions on the digital market may endanger the European Union's competitiveness on the world market especially as Europe is now lagging behind the United States and certain Asian countries.\nCreating a European information system is certainly a good idea although it will require time and tremendous financial investment. It does appear, however, that such a proposal may increase the security of on-line transactions between entities in different countries. This is because it is precisely the diversity of provisions across Member States and the lack of access to them that enterprises cite as the main cause of the uncertainty about entering into transactions of this kind.\nI believe that the situation in the new Member States where there is a shortage of financial resources for information campaigns on access to electronic services and their quality is also an urgent matter. The individual citizens of these countries often lack access to services of this nature, particularly in rural areas. The report rightly refers to discrimination against consumers in this group of countries regarding e-commerce. In my view, the Commission ought to deal with this situation as a matter of urgency, because all Union consumers are entitled to equal treatment.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Corporate social responsibility (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Howitt on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on corporate social responsibility: a new partnership.\nRichard Howitt \nrapporteur. - Mr President, companies, politicians and above all people understand that the problems of world poverty and of environmental degradation remain stubbornly prevalent in today's world. For ten years, many companies have begun to examine how they can manage their own social and environmental impacts through initiatives for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Business cannot be expected to take responsibility alone for meeting these challenges. However, it is now time for the communications, the conferences and the codes of conduct to begin to make a significant and measurable difference and a move from process to outcome.\nIn this vote, the European Parliament will draw attention to the limitations of voluntary CSR reporting and of social auditing as it exists today. We will say that the drive for ever lower prices can prejudice fair treatment for people at work. We will insist that CSR can only work by adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, internationally-agreed standards and independent monitoring and verification. We will call for actions to tackle corporate abuses in the world's developing countries and to provide means for redress for its victims.\nThe Commission's communications seem to me to opt out of this debate, to prescribe an 'anything goes' approach to CSR and to risk Europe falling behind, compared with the rest of the world. However, tonight I am not proposing that we reject the Commission's approach. Indeed, I am asking the European Parliament to contribute constructively by seeking to rewrite some of the agenda and, where the Commission is making commitments, to come forward with detailed recommendations to turn fine words into concrete actions, to give full transparency to the evolving alliance for business, to rebuild confidence in the European multi-stakeholder forum and bring the NGOs back to the table, to make a genuine financial contribution to enabling CSR to grow, to genuinely put into operation support for CSR principles in Commission policies and programmes, including enterprise, employment, corporate governance and, in particular, trade and development programmes.\nI know that Commissioners Verheugen and \u0160pidla will not be able to accept all of Parliament's recommendations tonight. However, I am heartened and grateful for the private meetings I have held with them as this report has evolved. I now call on them publicly to promise that decisive progress will be made on CSR at EU level within the life of this Commission.\nI also know that some Members in the debate will seek to oppose the report: I say to them that this report represents a carefully crafted compromise between the political groups. Indeed, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the shadow rapporteur.\nThe one clear piece of new legislation we will support will be for mandatory environmental and social reporting by business, reiterating our previous position and sending a powerful political signal from this Parliament. All of our other proposals are about more effective use and implementation of the existing regulatory framework and support for voluntary action.\nI say to the opponents inside this Parliament and to the one or two associations outside that, in their enthusiasm to block action at EU level, I do not believe that they do justice or genuinely represent the best interests or the best of business when it comes to CSR. Take the Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, speaking on behalf of the business leaders' initiative for human rights, which told us: 'Minimum standards are essential for a level playing field to be developed in this area'. Take the European Investment and Research Service, who told us: 'If you can go some way to rekindling the interest of the Commission in a more substantive approach to CSR, that would be most welcome'. Or take the French business confederation MEDEF, speaking of behalf of Business Europe: 'I want to thank you very much for the quality and the relevance of most of the questions and suggestions put forward by you.'\nNow is not the time to retreat. It is time to be ambitious and to show vision and take all of these and others together. One of the key ways we can get greater enthusiasm, dynamism and consensus behind EU action on CSR is by championing it in global institutions and better implementing global CSR initiatives here in Europe. There is also the strategic partnership that I propose between the Commission and the global reporting initiative, a new business dialogue between the EU and Japan on corporate social responsibility, and the use of the fifth anniversary this year of the World Summit on Sustainable Development as an opportunity for us in Europe to lead the international debate for intergovernmental initiatives and corporate accountability, which was agreed at Johannesburg.\nWhen the Commission published its communication it said it wanted Europe to be a pole of excellence for CSR. When I read it I feared that CSR in Europe was instead falling down a black hole. However, if we can agree substantively on many of the recommendations in this Parliament report, I believe that we can make the Commission's aspiration come true.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nMr President, honourable Members, it is indeed true to say that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is marching ahead in Europe, and last year's communication from the Commission triggered a great wave of activities and new ideas.\nIt is because CSR can make a great contribution to sustainable development and enhance Europe's potential for innovation and its competitiveness that it is closely tied in with our strategy for growth and employment, the object of which is not only to create more jobs but also, and primarily, to create better ones. We are talking here not about short-term successes or apparently favourable quarterly results, but rather about the need for our companies to adjust in the long term to the changed conditions under which we have to compete in the world as a whole.\nFavourable social conditions may well be an important factor in competition, but producing them is not a responsibility for policy-makers alone; businesses have a responsibility of their own, and it goes beyond mere obedience to the law. They are responsible for the social climate, for the environment, for equality of opportunity, for training, for innovation and for structural change; to sum up, they are responsible for the people who work for them, and for the location where they are based.\nThe Commission welcomes Mr Howitt's report, which is evidence of deep knowledge and competence and not only essentially endorses the Commission's aim of strengthening CSR in Europe, but also makes an important contribution towards achieving it. I certainly agree that the debate should aim to achieve concrete results; that the multi-stakeholder approach should embrace all the interested parties and groups affected; and that the whole process should be even better integrated into the Lisbon Strategy.\nYou will be aware that the Commission believes that the openings for regulation in this area are limited. We do not believe that an enterprise's culture can be imposed from above or standardised by legislation, and that is why the Commission has been unwilling to take a decision in favour of proposing a regulation on CSR or the standardisation of it at European level.\nIf something, somewhere, has to be regulated; if we, by reason of our political responsibility have to insist on businesses doing something, then we have to summon up the courage to enact the relevant legislation, which must be specific and practically relevant to the area in question, but corporate social responsibility is, by definition, something that goes beyond companies' obligations under the law and is more than that which we lay down in regulations.\nWe want to support businesses and to encourage them to make use of the internationally recognised instruments, which are available in great numbers. The Commission is also supporting CSR in the global context, for example, through the EU-Africa Business Forum, brought into existence by my fellow-Commissioner Mr Michel, in which representatives of businesses from both continents met in November 2006 to discuss social responsibility.\nThe Commission is continuing to discuss with developing countries the progress being made in implementing the basic standards of the International Labour Organisation, and, in Europe, we are promoting the further development of relevant instruments within the various sectors, alongside multi-sectoral initiatives.\nMy fellow-Commissioner Mr \u0160pidla and I are meeting more and more business people who are getting committed to and involved in making Europe a front-runner where CSR is concerned, and who see it as putting their businesses at a definite advantage on the market. In the short time in which it has been in existence, the European CSR Alliance has set in motion some impressive and exemplary initiatives, and far-sighted managers and investors have long known that a company with a good record of CSR is usually a successful one, as, indeed, is evident from the prices at which such businesses' shares are quoted on stock exchanges.\nThe Commission calls on Europe's businesses to make CSR a European brand and to compete for the best ideas. We are convinced that a European company must be one that acknowledges its own social responsibility and acts accordingly. That is something on which the Commission and your House are in complete agreement.\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, my colleague Mr Verheugen has characterised the general framework of corporate social responsibility. I feel I must emphasise that this is about voluntary commitments on the part of businesses, commitments that clearly go beyond what the law requires. This must not of course restrict the right of any lawmaker or relevant authority to draw up any law it deems essential.\nGiven that the general framework has been described sufficiently clearly, I should like to present a number of specific areas in which we support corporate initiatives and which form part of the March 2006 strategy.\nFirst of all, businesses play a major role in professional cohesion and also support social cohesion insofar as they hire workers and are involved in human resources management. Secondly, 2007 has been declared the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. We have neither the right nor the means to deprive ourselves of our diverse talents, and therefore we support corporate initiatives aimed at equal opportunities. Thirdly, an important part of the intergenerational pact, which ageing Europe desperately needs, is cohesion and the retention of older people in employment. The other priorities in the March communication, such as health, investment in lifelong learning, innovation in training, science and operating on a global scale are equally important. The text you will be debating addresses these very issues.\nIf we want to ensure that corporate social responsibility continues into the 21st century there needs to be dialogue with the whole community, and for this reason in December we held a multi-stakeholder forum on corporate social responsibility. At the same time, it was decided to convene a European level discussion body from one of the plenary sittings, which will bring together representatives from civil society, the world of business and academic institutions. These forums have made it possible for us to assess the results of initiatives launched since 2004. As regards Commission initiatives I believe that corporate social responsibility is becoming increasingly influential across all of our policies, and in particular in external EU policy. Issues of common interest for the future have also been staked out, such as education, research and working conditions across chains of subcontractors. This will clearly have a major impact in fostering more secure social conditions in regions outside Europe for subcontractors who work for European firms.\nThere is much work to be done but we are on the right track. It can be seen from our debates and discussions with interested parties that corporate social responsibility is an increasingly important issue. It is important to maintain existing conditions and to be unstinting in our efforts.\nGunnar H\u00f6kmark \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur and congratulate him on his report. I think he has managed to present a report that can secure widespread support in this Chamber.\nI think it is important to make some remarks about corporate social responsibilities. First of all, the main task of companies is to deliver the services and products they are established for and to be run at a profit, because otherwise they will not survive. If they cannot fulfil these main tasks, they will fail in their fundamental social responsibility as employers and as producers of services and goods.\nI think it is important to underline this when we discuss how to define corporate social responsibilities. Our point of view - because we have discussed this question in the ITRE committee as well as within our group - is that it should be a matter of voluntary responsibility. It has to be performed on its own merits and as a part of the responsibility that the individual company has in society.\nCompanies have a social role in society. They must be good employers, delivering services and products of a high quality, because otherwise they will lose credibility and they will lose out in the market. But there are also grounds for saying that they must behave well in their own terms, because good and strong companies who stand up for fundamental values, whether in Europe or anywhere else in the world, are contributing to a better world, but also to a better economy and to better products and services.\nThere should be voluntary responsibility, because otherwise legislation would be needed and that is another matter. If we try to streamline too much, we will lose the variety and the dynamism that each company can deliver by making the most of its opportunities to be a good employer, a good company and a good service and product provider.\nMarie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou \nDraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (EL) Mr President, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, in its opinion on corporate social responsibility, calls on the rapporteur for a holistic understanding of this issue, because it believes that the role of companies is fundamental as regards respect for the values underpinning the European Union, irrespective of where they trade, within or outside the European Union, and irrespective of their size, of whether they are small or medium-sized enterprises, multinationals and so on.\nAt global level, core standards of the International Labour Organisation are promoted through corporate social responsibility. Within a framework of voluntary action, they can introduce measures to support female human resources, within the framework of national and Community legislation on gender equality and non-discrimination, both during the recruitment procedure and during the procedure to promote and elect women to the administration bodies, to the board of directors, when promoting the planning of actions for corporate social responsibility.\nWe congratulate the European Commission on reinforcing the new alliance and we do not believe that it will be a repetition of the multi-stakeholder forum. A charter of good practice to which companies subscribe voluntarily will help to promote actions for the living and working environment and facilitate a better combination of professional and home life alongside cultural and educational services.\nFinally, we are calling for good corporate social responsibility practices to be promoted and rewarded, especially in the gender equality sector, but not with a mandatory report by companies.\nCommissioners, allow me to express the view that the possibilities of voluntary application of corporate social responsibility, not as a means of advertising or competition, should be planned in the multi-stakeholder forum, which is a forum for discussion between all the social partners, and we hope that there will be significant female participation in it.\nThomas Mann\nMr President, far and away most of the EU's businesses have committed themselves to social responsibility, to socially and environmentally responsible action, to the protection of people and their environment, and to security of production. They support cultural and religious facilities, sports and clubs. As both Commissioners have just said, though, it is and remains a prerequisite that these things should be done on a voluntary basis, something laid down in the European Parliament report back in 2003, and, a year later, on the occasion of the founding of the Multi-Stakeholder Forum. If you want to maintain the voluntary character of this commitment, you have to reject binding regulations and suffocating bureaucracy.\nA comprehensive reporting system ought, if at all, to be expected only of large companies; SMEs, which make up over 90% of all companies, cannot cope with it, for they quite simply lack the human and financial resources required to give an all-round picture of their CSR. My group's shadow rapporteur, Mr Bushill-Matthews, has succeeded in reaching some compromises that have the effect of defusing the Howitt report, which my group in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was right to reject.\nI count it a victory that the demand for the award of public contracts to be made dependent on compliance with social and environmental clauses has been largely struck out. Firms must be able to win a public contract even if they do not have an ecologically-correct pot of flowers in front of the factory gate and even if the menu of their works canteen does not include alternative meals.\nParagraph 11, which calls for the setting-up of a central point of coordination for CSR, is problematic, as are paragraphs 39 and 55, which advocate the appointment of an ombudsman for CSR. I am opposed to any extension of enterprises' liability and obligations to account for their corporate social responsibility, and regard such dirigiste manipulations as unacceptable.\nFinally, we are talking today about an own-initiative report, one that many do not take seriously on the grounds that it is thought to be no more than a declamation. What I say is: principiis obsta - resist that which is only just beginning! If this House calls for some of all this to be made mandatory, then legislative measures from the Commission are no longer far away.\nMagda K\u00f3s\u00e1n\u00e9 Kov\u00e1cs\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) A transnational company has, within its network in one of the new Member States, employed people living with handicaps as cleaners in a city struggling with social problems. The company received subsidies from the local authorities for these employees with handicaps, thereby depleting almost the entire funding source available for this purpose. In my view this mode of behaviour does not meet our expectations regarding corporate social responsibility.\nThe efforts to recover costs can and must in all cases be harmonised with social goals. This is pointed out in Richard Howitt's excellent report. I would add that a favourable economic environment has since the early 1990s attracted numerous transnational companies to Central and Eastern Europe. Certain regions of the new EU Member States continue, however, to experience multiple disadvantages. To use a distinctive phrase: they are in a sense the European Union's internal peripheries. Therefore we must make it clear to transnational companies as well that their actions must follow the principle of 'think globally - act locally'. This will help avoid that certain regions of the Union become peripheries that only 'think globally'.\nThis is why I consider Richard Howitt's report to be important, and this is why I hope that it does not sink under arguments over formalities, but will develop its role within the European social model of CSR. Corporate social responsibility does not simply mean avoiding doing harm, but is an ordered system for positive actions. The question here is not whether or not certain actions can be prescribed, but rather whether they can fulfil expectations in view of a better world. It is my belief that they can. We can expect that they treat employees as human beings, in their entirety, with their rights, state of health and cultural and social traditions. Richard Howitt's report is a very important step along this path.\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) I am certain that corporate social responsibility promotes sustainable development and also the improved implementation of the Lisbon Strategy in such matters as the more sensible use of natural resources, improving the results of innovation activity, the reduction of poverty, and also, of course, improved compliance with human rights requirements.\nCorporate social responsibility should also act as an additional measure for the management of industry and restructuring, and act so that new areas are added to it; for instance, lifelong learning, equal opportunities, social involvement, sustainable development, and also ethics.\nCompanies' participation in such social activities must be voluntary. If we wish to move forward towards the creation and development of traditions in the area of corporate social responsibility, it is inevitable that we follow agreed and internationally recognised principles.\nWe have no other framework or agreed system with which we could adequately measure companies' activities in connection with corporate social responsibility. Thus the creation of the institution of ombudsman would be premature and pointless at the present moment. The imposition of a package of regulations would not have a positive effect, and would instead lead to negative counter-reactions.\nI would like to thank the rapporteur for his eight years of persistent activity in aiming to achieve this objective. Thank you for giving me the floor.\nClaude Turmes\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Howitt on his report. However, I am not sure that I am so happy about the deal he made with the PPE-DE Group to weaken what we will vote on tomorrow.\nYesterday I participated in a citizens' consultation, and it is quite obvious what citizens want - they want Europe to be more active on environmental issues. I think that last Friday's Council was well received by citizens.\nThe second thing that citizens want is greater social responsibility, and I am afraid the Barroso-Verheugen Commission went in entirely the opposite direction when it took office. So, Commissioner, you have already turned somewhat on environmental and energy issues under pressure from science and from citizens. I hope that this report by Parliament, especially if it is not watered down too much tomorrow, will help you to reconsider your social agenda. It was the Commission not being active enough in the multi-stakeholder dialogue that played a large part in frustrating NGOs to the extent that they left the table completely.\nThere are some good bits in the report which will be voted on tomorrow. I just wanted to highlight one issue: the deletion of paragraph 63, in which we call for global leadership from the European Union on this issue. Why is this important? With more Chinese oil and mining companies investing in Africa and other areas, if Europe does not elevate corporate social responsibility from a purely European issue to a global, UN issue, our companies will lose out, so I do not understand how the PPE-DE and the PSE Groups can delete a paragraph from the original report as voted on that calls for us to be much more proactive on a global level.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Ma\u0161t\u00e1lka\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate and thank Mr Howitt for his initiative and his report, and to endorse the series of amendments adopted in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.\nAs has been demonstrated, the main problem or the main question in our debate is over whether regulation is in fact needed in this area or whether a voluntary approach will suffice. I for one am not in favour of excessive bureaucracy and superfluous regulation. In questions such as corporate social responsibility, however, it is clear that relying on the goodwill of businesses is simply not enough. Otherwise, a part of the population of Europe will find itself facing an unequal situation. I feel, though, that what is needed is a workable legal instrument that would force companies to fulfil their responsibilities not only in the social field but also in the area of protecting working conditions, health at work and the environment.\nAlthough I warmly endorse this report, I have tabled two amendments in conjunction with members of our group, the purpose of which is firstly to sound a warning about the current situation and the problems faced by workers regarding, for example, company relocations, low salaries, precarious work and insufficient health protection at work, and secondly to express our objection to the policies proposed by the Commission in the area of social responsibility, which often do not match the goals and the principles on which corporate social responsibility should be based.\nI hope we will succeed in producing not only a statement of intent, but also the practical instruments needed to take practical action. If not, we will end up with mere window-dressing, and I believe that the citizens expect more from us than that.\nRoger Helmer\nMr President, in this House we talk constantly about the Lisbon Agenda, which is supposed to make the EU the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. The Commission President, Jos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso, likes to boast about his plans to control excessive regulation to help enhance the competitiveness of European economies.\nYet this report, as originally presented, sought to create mandatory regulation of a wide range of areas of corporate activity, including employee relations and the environment. But these areas are already heavily regulated, indeed massively over-regulated, by EU legislation already on the statute book. What we were proposing to do here was to double up on existing regulation with all the potential for ambiguity and confusion that would have created.\nMandatory CSR would be hugely damaging to competitiveness, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, to which we constantly pay lip-service but which we constantly seek to strangle with oppressive, intrusive and unnecessary regulation. However, there are now agreed amendments which firmly establish the voluntary nature of CSR and I for one strongly support those amendments. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to promote CSR, but we also need to protect the enterprise, productivity, competitiveness and wealth-creating capacity of European businesses.\nWe should also be aware of existing best practice of CSR amongst existing major businesses. Last summer, I had the privilege of visiting the Gates Foundation in Seattle, which of course is run by Bill Gates of Microsoft. This Foundation's spending on philanthropy exceeds the GDP of a number of small countries. Arguably, it does more to relieve poverty and hardship in Africa than EU aid does and, because it is a private sector organisation, its spending is hugely more efficient. I believe that, with the amendments that we are proposing to put in place here, we should be able to support this report.\nJos\u00e9 Albino Silva Peneda\n(PT) Mr President, the main function of business is wealth creation, but companies are, in certain circumstances, capable of being more than merely wealth-generating machines. Companies can also be seen as communities in which people live and interact; people can view their company as their place of professional fulfilment, and even, in many cases, personal happiness.\nSuccessful companies, those capable of creating wealth, are those that normally enjoy good relations with their partners, customers, suppliers and with the community in which they operate. Successful companies are those that adopt transparency criteria in their relations with the authorities and operate on the basis of codes of conduct and ethics, which are sometimes extremely stringent.\nIf one were to describe companies that exist for a long time in human terms, there are companies that function with a strong personality, with a particular culture that they have managed to create and develop and that identifies them and distinguishes them from the others. These are companies, one might say, with emotions and feelings. Companies such as these opt to give more to the community over and above their traditional functions and thereby take on a greater responsibility; this is what might be termed 'social responsibility'. I feel, however, that corporate social responsibility is not something that can be decreed or imposed, but something that must be entered into willingly. Corporate social responsibility can never be imposed from above. If it were, there would be a risk of reducing its role to a public relations exercise aimed at creating a smokescreen and at enabling companies to sidestep their responsibilities of addressing social and environmental issues. In which case corporate social responsibility would be a fraud because it would be insincere.\nI endorse the report before us because, in its final version, my view on the issue was ultimately taken into account.\nAlejandro Cercas\n(ES) Mr President, I am obliged to begin by thanking Mr Howitt for his wonderful work and for his extraordinary willingness to receive the contributions that other members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs have presented to him. He is also showing great capacity and flexibility on such a complex issue, opening himself up to dialogue and agreement with other groups in Parliament.\nAs others have said, I believe that corporate social responsibility is good per se. This must not lead us to think, however, that it is not possible to improve our current framework and the relatively short experience we have acquired in the European Union. I believe that the world's problems are increasing at a considerable speed, both environmental problems and the problems faced by people who are deprived of all kinds of rights. I therefore believe that we must make an additional effort.\nThat is all Mr Howitt is asking us for in his report. I hope that the Commission, whose Communication has had a mixed reception, not very positive in some cases, will see this as an opportunity to take more account of social responsibility. Much can still be done, avoiding false debates on what should be voluntary and what should not. We must continue moving forward with a view to creating criteria to make responsibility objective. Companies will be free to adopt codes of conduct, but they cannot be free when it comes to respecting the codes of conduct that they have adopted. There must be transparency, there must be more than philanthropy in this notion of corporate social responsibility.\nWe Europeans offer the world a model based on the sustainability of our economic model for us and for others. We can go further on the control and verification of these obligations that have been taken on freely. We have directives in the European Union. Directives that have not been transposed in the Member States on union law, on environmental responsibilities. The Commission can make commitments and not take the laissez faire, laissez passer approach to everything.\nJean Marie Beaupuy\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for a few minutes now, each of us, in turn, has been repeating the fact that we do not want the forthcoming provisions to result in so many additional constraints and regulations. We want a commitment on the part of business leaders, we want them to be proactive, we want this proactive approach to be applied internationally, we want SMEs to commit themselves and, as the rapporteur said, above and beyond declarations, we want something concrete. As a company director myself for over thirty years, well, I want things to be able to materialise.\nWith this in mind, I have a proposal for you, Commissioners. A system is already applied internationally by hundreds of thousands of businesses. This system coordinates the social responsibility of businesses via the ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 18001 standards, which ensure that business relationships with customers are better, that practices are totally environmentally-friendly and that hygiene, health and safety rules are complied with in full. Therefore, allow to me to suggest, Commissioners, the use of these three management standards with the aim of having businesses throughout our Europe genuinely assume their social responsibilities.\nJean Lambert\nMr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this excellent report.\nOne of the key points to come out of the report is that we are not just looking at corporate social responsibility within the European Union, but beyond the Union as well, and at the behaviour of European companies elsewhere in the world - a move away from the double standards of how you operate here with one legislative framework and what you think you can get away with somewhere else.\nWhat we have heard from the Commission on the Africa Forum is a good initiative, but we need to look much more closely at how companies behave in conflict zones. We have the leadership on the diamond process at the moment and we need to move forward on that.\nI also note from the report that voluntary reporting is now stabilising and that not all voluntary reports cover supply chain compliance, which is one of the most important mechanisms we have to drive up standards, to ensure brand protection for companies behaving well and to ensure that they avoid the actions of companies which behave irresponsibly. I look forward to Parliament's report on socially irresponsible corporate behaviour so that we can look at the contrast in how we work.\nJacek Protasiewicz\n(PL) Mr President, I am aware that the concept of corporate social responsibility is becoming an increasingly important part of the debate on globalisation, competitiveness and sustainable development. According to the definition of this concept, companies voluntarily take account of the social and economic impact of the activities they undertake.\nIn the framework of implementation of social responsibility on a voluntary basis, companies decide to go beyond the minimum legal requirements and commitments resulting from collective agreements, in order to respond to social and environmental needs. I should like to make it very clear, from the floor of this House, that it is precisely the voluntary basis of the action taken and of companies' response to the notion of social responsibility that is vital.\nAs corporate social responsibility is based mainly on decisions taken by companies on a voluntary basis, I believe that the imposition of any kind of additional duties and administrative requirements would most probably prove counterproductive. It would also be at variance with the principles of better legal regulation and with efforts to simplify and improve the functioning of the European Union. It was with this in mind that I tabled 10 amendments to the text presented by Mr Howitt, and I am pleased that the spirit of these amendments has been incorporated into the compromise text proposed by the rapporteur.\nI should also like to take advantage of this opportunity to underline the importance of introducing methods for the exchange of good practice concerning implementation of the notion of corporate social responsibility. In practice this can be achieved in the framework of the European Alliance for Corporate Social Responsibility. From the floor of the House I would like to commend the European Commission on its commitment. The Commission recognises that the companies themselves are the main players on this stage, and has announced its support for this body, which represents a sound and open way of exchanging good practice between all types of companies be they large, small or medium-sized.\nMaria Matsouka\n(EL) Mr President, I should like first of all to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Howitt, on his systematic work and his constructive proposals.\nThe concept of corporate social responsibility seems to be more topical than ever. On the one hand, the dramatic change in the climate, due in large part to the uncontrolled use and consumption of natural resources and, on the other hand, the worrying spread of poverty, in conjunction with the reversal of the demographic pyramid, appear to be the result of attempts to downgrade employment and overturn the social acquis. Nonetheless, if we want to flesh out the bones of this concept, at least three preconditions need to be met: firstly, the Commission needs to take serious account of the proposals tabled by Parliament. Secondly, it should be acknowledged that companies need to accept their responsibilities towards the environment, society and the workers which derive from their economic activity, without of course this being seen as a sacrifice on their part. Thirdly, priority should be given to supporting investments designed to promote workers' knowledge and the development of new technologies, especially those which are more environmentally friendly. Both these sectors should be seen as basic pillars of corporate social responsibility.\nFinally, this is an excellent opportunity to prove that the competitiveness must not be at the workers' expense, but must go hand in glove with respect for environmental equilibria, the promotion of dignified working conditions and social progress in general.\nPhilip Bushill-Matthews\nMr President, over the past seven years I have had the pleasure of debating CSR with Richard Howitt on and off for a considerable time. It has, of course, been a most enjoyable experience - as it says here! It has certainly been a challenge, but I am sure he would be the first to admit - and I see him chortling over there - that it has been a challenge for both of us. I would like to thank him for the way that he has risen to that challenge, because clearly we have both been approaching this issue from slightly different standpoints, although in our ways, like all the other speakers, we are equally wishing to champion the cause of CSR.\nI should just like to take issue on two tiny points with which he opened his comments. Firstly, he said he was disappointed that the Commission report almost indicated that it was opting out. I disagree with that. I think its report was very positive and we should welcome it. Secondly, he said that he hoped that the Commission would help bring the NGOs back to the multi-stakeholder forum table. In fairness, it was neither the Commission nor the multi-stakeholders that encouraged them to leave. They themselves chose to leave. It is up to them whether they wish to come back or not. Some of them at least had a minority view - in a democracy that is perfectly permitted. However - if the interpreters can rise to this challenge - we should not allow the tail to wag the dog. It is up to the NGOs to return.\nI will not comment further on his speech, nor, indeed, make other comments in detail about colleagues' speeches other than to say I am sure the President and Commissioners are aware that - with no disrespect to any of my colleagues including myself - sometimes our speeches are for different audiences because we have to impress constituents back home. There is nothing wrong with that; we are politicians and that is something we have to do. However, I would invite you particularly, rather than just listen to us talk, to read what we say, to read what we are voting upon because the text is very significant.\nThere are some aspects I still dislike about the text. I agree with Mrs Oviir from the ALDE Group in that I do not like the idea of an ombudsman, but it is an idea. There are a number of ideas that I do not particularly welcome, but they are ideas and all these ideas are generally worth serious consideration. However, the text is what is important. I particularly invite the Commission to think of the three reports: the original report that went to committee; the report that was amended and voted against by 15 members of the committee; and the final report as it is likely to emerge tomorrow. That report I believe will be very much on your side. If I may say so, Commissioners, I think you are a great double act. Tomorrow we will show we are a treble act and wish to follow your lead in advancing the cause of CSR.\nJoan Calabuig Rull\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, what seems clear first of all is that more and more companies see social and environmental responsibility as an opportunity, as an instrument for sustainable development, for growth and for creating jobs, and also as a good instrument for helping companies and workers to adapt better to the changes demanded by the globalised economy of the 21st century.\nI would like to comment on two issues in particular. Firstly, that it is clear that companies are the main players and that we must also take account of other parties such as consumers and non-governmental organisations. Above all, however, I believe that we must take account of the central role of unions, and codes of conduct cannot replace the crucial role of unions and collective negotiation under any circumstances.\nSecondly, it is clear that corporate social responsibility must be a factor that increases competitiveness, but behind the labels relating to corporate social responsibility there must be realities and not just mere propaganda. Otherwise, we will undermine them and consumers will not trust those labels and we will stop moving towards corporate social responsibility and its capacity to create more competitive companies.\nMany companies are currently making decisive efforts towards corporate social responsibility and they naturally know that it offers added value, and I am sure that those who do it in a clear and fair way will not object to it being verified by means of objective data.\nG\u00e1bor Harangoz\u00f3\n(HU) Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to welcome the report by my fellow Member Mr Howitt. The debate concerning corporate social responsibility is a very sensitive subject on which people are divided, since we would like to ensure a strong European social environment, while at the same time wishing to enhance the competitiveness of European companies. The current practice of corporate social responsibility, or CSR, is an excellent example of the fact that strengthening the social and environmental dimension does not necessarily mean a decline in companies' competitiveness.\nWe need to strengthen the European social model, but we must avoid introducing a mandatory model based on a single pattern. A better regulated voluntary model offers greater opportunities both to producers and to consumers, rather than new administrative burdens that are difficult to bear. If we reinforce voluntary CSR by defining minimum standards with which we can avoid excessive increase in expenditure on the part of smaller companies, then this will be able to increase their competitiveness, provided consumers are sufficiently informed about CSR-type production and business practices. We need to increase consumer awareness and information, as this creates a market for responsible production.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nMr President, honourable Members, the Commission is grateful for the constructive and frank spirit of this debate. I would like to stress once more that Mr Howitt's report contains numerous valuable suggestions that the Commission will be happy to take into account in the further development of its policies on CSR. This will bring us, together, a good way further ahead.\nBusinesses need a clear legal framework; they have to know what they have to do and what they must not do. If they do not, they cannot function on the market. Businesses have a social responsibility; that is why there are thousands of rules, at the European level and in the Member States, compelling companies to discharge their responsibility to society. All the legislation we have enacted - be it on the protection of consumers, health and safety at work, protection of the environment or social security benefits - is intended to compel social responsibility on the part of business and set standards that we believe absolutely have to be met. The intellectual problem we have with the debate we are having is that I, for one, find it difficult to imagine how we are supposed to fashion a legal framework for something that is not prescribed by law. The idea of creating a regulatory framework for CSR means that one would be enacting a law regulating how companies have to handle things that the law does not require them to handle. That is inherently contradictory, and the Commission really did want to put this debate behind it, and, for once, to see real progress being made; that is why, last year, we encouraged European businesses to get this Alliance for CSR up and running. As I told you, and as you can also read in the Commission's report that you have before you, this has already come up with some pretty remarkable ideas and initiatives.\nThere are two very important things - to which Mr Turmes referred - that I would like to discuss. The first is the Multi-Stakeholder Forum, in the holding of which the Commission was heavily involved, and which made some important proposals that the Commission is taking on board. There was very broad support for the Commission's stance. Some non-governmental organisations did not come on the grounds that their line differed from that taken by the Commission, and I find that a peculiar way of behaving in a democratic society - taking part in a discussion only if you are sure that everyone else is going to agree with you. I therefore expressed regret at the non-attendance of these non-governmental organisations, which were few in number, but we want to continue to engage in dialogue with them, and I have specifically asked them to rejoin us in this work in future.\nAs for the global dimension, which Mr Turmes also had something to say about, the Commission is wholeheartedly supportive. Before the end of this year, we will be staging a major conference on the subject of the international dimension of CSR, a topic that we have already broached in our dialogue with the other regions of the world, most notably with the developing economies such as China, India, Latin America and Africa, but which we are also discussing with the USA, the Japanese and other European partners, and it is a subject that we want to move forward at the global level.\nReference has been made in this debate to the existence of an ISO standard for corporate social responsibility. Such a thing does, indeed, exist, but it is a voluntary standard; for companies can decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it, and the good thing is that more and more European companies do, and also make use of it for marketing purposes, telling their customers - society at large - that 'we, X Ltd, act in accordance with this standard' and they also want to be judged on that basis, for they see it as useful in terms of their market success.\nI would like - and I am also speaking on behalf of my fellow-Commissioner Mr \u0160pidla when I say this - to offer your House our continued close and constructive cooperation on this matter, and will reiterate that we have, in Mr Howitt's report and in the debate, found many important suggestions, which the Commission will take into consideration as it continues to work on this.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.\nWritten statement (Rule 142)\nIles Braghetto\nin writing. - (IT) Business, or entrepreneurship, is the deciding factor for the development of people and society. Business has to consider products, organisation, marketing, design and production processes. The key factor in business, however, is its human capital, which must always be promoted and protected, and human capital is the result of education: education about safety, trust, creativity, the ability to learn, and a taste for what is useful and beautiful.\nTo become competitive in the marketplace, companies need to be able to make the most of these aspects and also to exercise strong social responsibility in caring not only about their product but above all about their work and their workers. If entrepreneurs exercise this responsibility of their own free will, it creates a virtuous circle among company, capital and work, helping them to compete effectively in the global marketplace.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2017-13":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, I should just like to say that I did not endorse the resolution on the EU\/China human rights dialogue for a number of reasons. In particular, I think that we in this Hemicycle have already churned out more than enough overblown texts, and that the European institutions rarely, if ever, follow these overblown texts and overblown statements with action.\nWith the Beijing Olympic Games around the corner, their European Excellencies will be once more attempting to curry favour with the Chinese authorities. This is already clear from the present resolution, which, alongside very many sensible elements, asserts that, at the recent Chinese Communist Party National Congress - and I quote - 'perspectives ... arose towards the implementation of higher international human rights benchmarks'. How unworldly of this House; as the reality in today's Beijing is one of intimidation, deportations, arrests and labour camps. It is time the European Union abandoned its policy of double standards towards China.\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) I voted against the resolution on extremism because it is the fruit of that hatred it is called upon to condemn. And who is lecturing us on extremism? Comrade Schulz and Comrade Cohn-Bendit, these champions of Marxism and Leninism, that very ideology which massacred dozens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians in the beginning of last century? Or Comrade Vigenin whose party held the Bulgarian people in its clutches for fifty years and killed thousands Bulgarians in its concentration camps? Are you the ones to teach us what extremism is like? Thank you.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, yes, that is the way it goes in this House. Unless your name is Mr Schulz, you have to use the explanations of vote to be able to express your opinions. This House has once again laid its periodic egg about the 'necessity' of combating 'extremism' - but is not talking about real extremism and real violence, for example that of the rising Islam in Europe. Instead, it is talking for the umpteenth time about curbing the freedom of expression of those peacefully standing up for the right to individuality, the right to protect and preserve our languages, identities, cultures and freedom.\nIt is little short of tragic that this House is constantly speaking about freedom and human rights whilst imposing the severest, most drastic muzzling rules on people who have differing opinions on the matter and, for example, do not simply join the rest of this House in worshipping the sacred cow of the proverbial multicultural society. I, for my part, do not take this resolution seriously and, as far as I am concerned, there can be no freedom without total freedom of political expression.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, I too voted against the resolution on extremism. This is not because I feel that the term concerns me - the reverse is true - but because, for the umpteenth time, a legitimate political discourse against further mass-immigration and for a firm adjustment policy is being consciously bound up with extremism and violence.\nEven the title of the resolution is misleading and biased. Left-wing extremism is evidently something that by definition cannot exist, and clearly no-one here has heard of the rising Islamic fundamentalism. This is straight out of Kafka. It would be funny if it were not so depressing. Anyone not falling into line with political correctness is criminalised. Perhaps someone could explain how this kind of thing relates to the Charter of Fundamental Rights we signed yesterday.\nKoenraad Dillen\n(NL) Mr President, I too voted wholeheartedly against this resolution, as when the fox preaches, look to your geese. I have rarely set eyes on a more hypocritical document than this motion for a resolution on 'rising extremism' in Europe - and God knows that Europe and this House have already broken records for hypocrisy.\nAfter all, as my colleagues have already said, there is no such thing as left-wing extremism. Indeed, the finger is not even pointed at Islamic extremism. The suburbs of Paris burned, but the problem apparently lies with the small nonconformist minority that has become the bane of the life of this lofty institution.\nPerhaps we should open the gates of the Gulag again for those who still dare to criticise the cult of Europe and the sacrosanct multicultural society - complete with an inquisition and banishment to Devil's Island for the heretics. Only then will Europe be purged of its last critics, and the cult of Europe will be able to continue its conversion mission undisturbed.\nMogens Camre\n(DA) Mr President, this resolution contains a justified critique of neo-fascist and fundamentalist movements in certain European countries. However, it appears that as a whole it is unilaterally oriented towards a problem that is described as European citizens with fascist and racist attitudes, and it makes the resolution meaningless. Repeated opinion polls in Denmark have indicated that immigrants from non-Western nations do not feel that they are being subjected to any form of racism or hostile treatment. However, some immigrants from non-European nations have perpetrated very widespread violence towards both Danish citizens and other immigrants. In the official crime statistics, immigrants from non-Western nations are disproportionately over-represented.\nWeek after week in recent months there have been many shooting incidents on the open streets involving immigrant gangs, as well as individual attacks. Immigrant officials, who are themselves of non-Danish ethnic origin, have had their lives threatened and been told to leave their job, not by Danes, but by people from foreign cultures, who they are trying to help integrate into Danish society. We have a prominent immigrant politician of Syrian origin. He must be protected 24 hours a day, not against Danes but against fundamentalists of an Islamic background. Our intelligence service is constantly involved in preventing violent attacks against Danes and Danish social institutions, not from Danes but from foreigners. Therefore, from a Danish perspective this resolution is absurd. In Denmark, violent racism is directed towards democracy and human rights. On this basis I have been unable to vote in favour of this resolution.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Mr President, the Black Sea is becoming one of the main routes for increasing oil exports in this region and in recent years has unfortunately often been a place of frequent accidents involving tankers and cargo carriers. Twelve vessels sank or ran aground here during a severe storm. These events had serious consequences, affected people's lives and caused large-scale ecological disasters.\nThe Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska more than 18 years ago is an example of a large-scale disaster, the consequences of which are felt to this day.\nConsidering that approximately 200 tankers travel the world's seas every day, I am of the opinion that the situation should be regularly and closely monitored not only in the Black Sea but also in other seas. The Member States, as well as other countries neighbouring the European Union, should ensure more rigorous application of existing Community legislation and maritime safety standards. In this context, I am calling on the Council to speed up its deliberations and to adopt common positions on the remaining legislative acts in the third maritime package on maritime safety.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, abolishing quotas and introducing monitoring of Chinese textile imports next year will undoubtedly result in improved control mechanisms. However, I do not agree that woollens should not be subject to monitoring. Our resolution is a political appeal to the Commission, an expression of our wish that greater emphasis be placed on demanding that international obligations are met, and it is a protest against Chinese barriers to imports of European products. I welcome the fact that China will have to issue import licences, which will make it possible to carry out control procedures in Chinese ports and so better protect Europe from counterfeit goods. At the same time it is the Commission's duty to protect European consumers against toxic substances, for example azo dyes that are sometimes present in Chinese goods. Therefore, I call on the Commission to push for the confiscation of textiles presenting health risks at the borders of the European Union.\nWritten explanations of vote\nBastiaan Belder  \nThe Council and the European Parliament have reached agreement on the additional financing for the Galileo satellite system and expenditure on foreign affairs, including the police mission in Kosovo. To this end, they have increased the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework and used the flexibility instrument, and there have also been redeployments within the existing budget lines. These redeployments could have been more far reaching.\nThe main things I have problems with are the adjustment of the previously agreed ceiling for EU funds for the period until 2013 and the use of the flexibility instrument for this purpose. The use of this instrument must be avoided, and at all costs must remain limited to very exceptional circumstances. Any changes in costs must be primarily absorbed by reducing other budget lines. I am thinking mainly of the expenditure that does not concern the central objectives of the European Union and the budget lines whose implementation is already falling behind in respect of the planned expenditure.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The agreement reached between the Commission, the Council and Parliament for the 2008 EU budget reveals the true weight of the 'big countries' and the 'rich countries' as it responds to their demands to limit the EU budget ceiling as much as possible.\nIn spite of all the attempts to hide it, the truth is that the Commission's, the Council's and the EP's proposals for the EU budget, and this agreement, were below the figure for 2008 envisaged in the 2007-2013 financial framework. That was also the case last year and in the 2000-2006 financial framework.\nIn reality, this EU budget for 2008 represents a reduction of more than EUR 9 billion in terms of payments as compared with what was agreed in the financial framework for 2008 - that is, in terms of payments, the EU budget has been reduced from 1.04% to 0.96% of the Community GNI. On the other hand, the EU budget has progressively moved its priorities towards financing the neoliberal, federalist and militaristic policies of the EU.\nWe therefore reject this agreement.\nGunnar H\u00f6kmark  \nin writing. - (SV) We support the basic principles of the EU budget for 2008 and stress that it must give the taxpayers good value for money. The frameworks set by the financial perspective must be respected and we therefore welcome the fact that the budget will be kept within these frameworks by a good margin.\nAgricultural support is one of the areas in which there is scope for cutbacks to the advantage of aims which are more in line with the Lisbon ambitions, that is that the EU should develop into the world's economically most successful region.\nGay Mitchell  \nin writing. - During Budget negotiations, Parliament decided with Council to redeploy EUR 50 million from the Decentralised Agencies to part-finance the European GNSS programmes (EGNOS\/GALILEO) and the European Institute of Technology. It was not indicated which agencies would be affected.\nThe reprogramming concerns the agencies under heading 1A under which Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living standards, belongs. Eurofound is based in Dublin. This foundation provides an important service in the area of the labour market and working conditions, and a cut would be intolerable and counterproductive.\nJos\u00e9 Albino Silva Peneda  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the proposed 2008 budget, firstly because the proposal is clearly in line with the principles set out in the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective.\nSecondly, because the proposal put to the vote, after being negotiated with the Commission and the Council, finally overcame the serious problems that arose concerning the financing of Galileo. The solution to this is also very positive, making it possible to provide a reasonable level of financing for projects included in the trans-European networks.\nThirdly, I think that the treasury solutions found are very positive as regards the budget for payments for items financing European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund projects, which are very important for enabling Portugal to develop the projects it needs to achieve much higher rates of economic growth than in recent years and thus to come closer to the EU average.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) Approximately 50 years ago the Council of Europe devised a system of rules and legal and judicial instruments for the purposes of protecting and promoting Fundamental Rights that has become a benchmark for Human Rights, the Rule of Law and Democracy in Europe.\nThe Agency for Fundamental Rights, which is a legal successor of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, should help to enhance the coherence and consistency of EU Fundamental Rights Policy.\nSince both institutions share the same objective (strengthening the protection of Fundamental Rights), it is essential to ensure that they collaborate closely.\nThis Agreement aims to ensure complementarity and added value and to avoid duplication with the activities of the Council of Europe, as laid down in Article 9 of the Regulation establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.\nI support the conclusion of this Agreement in a spirit of cooperation, transparency and complementarity, in particular the establishing of a cooperation framework between the two institutions entailing regular contacts and meetings, exchange of information and coordination of activities in order to avoid duplication and to guarantee the best possible use of resources.\nMarine Le Pen  \nin writing. - (FR) The paradox, or perhaps the hypocrisy of the European Parliament, is that it goes about preaching democratic principles and values but flouts them by refusing to apply them when it is inconvenient to do so.\nSuch was the case yesterday when the European Parliament, meeting in plenary, formally proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights amid general uproar, thus ignoring the protests from the separatists demanding a referendum for the adoption of the new constitutional treaty.\nThe European Parliament is discrediting itself by refusing any discussion and stigmatising its own elected Members who are committed to promoting the maintenance of national identity and sovereignty.\nFreedom of expression only has value if one's political opponents enjoy it too. According to the conservative political groups, it seems that some speech is illegitimate and needs to be prevented at any cost. As the European Parliament compromises itself by laying claim to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the elected Members from the Front National are stating loud and clear that they do not have the same idea of human rights and will continue to fight for respect for the sovereignty and identity of the nations of Europe.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) I am voting in favour of the report by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf since it is becoming urgent to introduce a system of electronic identification for ovine and caprine animals. I regret the 17 month delay in the Commission proposal.\nI agree with the amendment to the Commission proposal to the effect that a specific date should be set for the system to come into force, 31 December 2009 being the most appropriate date, as Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's report suggests.\nI do not agree with Amendments 4 and 5 which would delay the swift implementation of the system. Nor do I agree with Amendment 3, since in my view the document in question aims to set a timetable rather than discuss principles.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted for the report since it is important to remove the current obstacles to the collection of maintenance contributions from a citizen with residence in a Member State other than that of the person entitled to maintenance. In this connection it is particularly important to protect the weaker party in the collection procedure. However, we are opposed to the wording of Amendments 9 and 26 which require the parties, after independent legal advice, to enter into a written agreement on the jurisdiction of the court and on the national law which should be applied in order that the agreement should be effective in the court. Such requirements are not compatible with the Swedish legal tradition.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) Increasing mobility in the EU, combined with the growing number of couples separating, has brought an increase in the number of cross-border disputes regarding maintenance claims.\nThe current procedures for obtaining maintenance claims tend to be too long and complicated and in many cases impossible in terms of obtaining results. In the meantime, maintenance creditors, the large majority of them children, live in very poor circumstances and often do not even have money to survive.\nThis initiative is therefore very important, since it should facilitate the functioning of the internal market and freedom of movement, by the elimination of obstacles created by the discrepancies between the Member States, as regards enforcing maintenance obligations. It should ensure that such decisions are recognised and enforced throughout the European Union in the quickest and most effective way at the lowest possible cost.\nIt will simplify citizens' lives and should at the same time have positive social effects in that it will make it easier for maintenance creditors living in another Member State to take a claim to a competent court and, once the court decision has been given, it will be recognised in all the Member States without further formalities.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - C6-0079\/2006 -.\nMrs Grabowska is correct in her assessment that there is currently no common, harmonised system of recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions at EU level.\nI agree with the initiative for the quick, free-of-charge enforcement of maintenance claims, especially in the context of cross-border movements of persons.\nThe report rightly stresses the need for the introduction of such actions in order for a decision to have the same effect as it has in the Member State in which it was issued, without any additional formalities.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Since 1997, when the Ottawa Convention was signed, on the basis of data available last November, 156 States have signed the Convention. Significantly and regrettably, the USA is not one of those States.\nQuite correctly, the resolution adopted today points out the inconsistency between the European Commission's action in announcing its intention actively to strive for the destruction of anti-personnel mines and support for victims who for the most part, remember, are children, whilst at the same time deleting the specific anti-personnel mine budget line at the end of 2006.\nIn view of the importance of this action and the fact that victim support is nowhere near sufficient to respond to their needs, we think that a specific anti-personnel mine budget line for the financing of anti-mine actions, victim assistance, and stockpile destruction should be reinstated; furthermore, we would add that there should be a substantial increase in the funds allocated.\nWe regret the failure to adopt the proposal by our parliamentary group calling upon all countries to immediately halt the production of landmines and urging that under no circumstances or conditions should EU troops make use of mines.\nRobert Goebbels  \nin writing. - (FR) I abstained on the resolution on EU-China relations because I am not keen to associate myself with these paternalistic reprimands or with the moralising discourse that resolutions of this kind convey. A European Union that cannot adopt a Charter of Fundamental Rights that applies throughout its territory is ill placed to try and give lessons to the rest of the world.\nJim Allister  \nin writing. - As a representative from a region, Northern Ireland, where Sinn Fein, affiliates of a terrorist organisation which recently murdered a young man, Paul Quinn, has been admitted to government in a coalition with exclusively democratic parties, I was encouraged to note and vote for Amendment 14 which was in the following terms:\n'Deplores the fact that some mainstream parties have seen fit to give credibility and acceptance to extremist parties by entering into coalition agreements, thereby sacrificing their moral integrity for the sake of short-term political gain and expediency.'\nGerard Batten  \nin writing. - Whilst opposed to extremism in any form, UKIP does not believe that we, the British people, need to take any advice on this issue from the EU, and nor would UKIP call for the EU to take any action. This, like all other matters, should be the prerogative of independent, democratic nation states.\nDerek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - Whilst opposed to extremism in ny form UKIP does not believe that we, the British people, need to take advice on this issue from the EU, and nor would UKIP call for the EU to take any action. This, like all other matters, should be the prerogative of independent, democratic, nation states.\nHanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Wojciech Roszkowski and Konrad Szyma\u0144ski  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, we are against racism, xenophobia and political extremism. Recent practice in the European Parliament, where these concepts are abused in the ongoing political struggle, giving rise to a threat to free speech, a flagrant example of which was the incidents in the Hemicycle on 12 December this year, however, leads us to believe that supporters of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in which, it must be said, there is a senseless prohibition on discrimination based on 'any political opinion', at that time violated the principles they themselves propound.\nThe lack of any precise definition of political extremism and xenophobia in the resolution, which is intended to combat extremism, leads us to abstain from the vote on this matter.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Front National, Vlaams Belang and FPOE are not extremist, racist or xenophobic parties. Lumping them together in a way that is unhealthy and wrong, all the so-called 'conservative' parties are still trying to accuse them of being extremists solely because they want to promote the maintenance of national identity.\nDemocracy is certainly in danger, but those who are pre-appointed by the system as guilty are not the ones threatening it. It is not in danger from the people who criticise and challenge policies, particularly on immigration, and who are therefore accused of being extremist. It is in danger from those who systematically gag freedom of expression in the name of human rights and political correctness, and who are really only masking their own failure to solve the problems they are facing of immigration, lack of security and identity.\nBy massively increasing the amount of legislation to combat extremism in Europe, Parliament could have been proud of helping to maintain democratic principles and values. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Far from targeting radical Islamism or totalitarian communist regimes, Parliament is just feeding its anti-national and globalist obsession once again.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I categorically oppose racism, xenophobia and political extremism. I do think, though, that in documents adopted under the aegis of the European Parliament a clear definition should be provided of such terms as, specifically, political extremism and xenophobia. If this is not done, this may, under a noble banner, actually serve the opposite aims and become a field for abuses in politicians' public activities, drowning out free expression and the freedom to voice one's views.\nOne example of such selective interpretation of these concepts was provided by the situation that arose at the European Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg on 12 December this year. How, for example, does the provision of an article of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that says that 'Any discrimination based on ... political or any other opinion ... shall be prohibited' square with the forcible snatching of pieces of paper with the legend 'REFERENDUM' from the hands of Members? This was a peaceful expression of opinion by a few elected Members.\nIn view of this situation, I abstained from the vote on the resolution on combating rising extremism in Europe.\nCarl Lang  \nin writing. - (FR) It is astounding to see how hemiplegic the European Parliament can be: it can only look right! The various resolutions proposed by the PSE, Liberals, Verts or even Communists only consider extremism on the part of the 'extreme right'.\nWhat about radical Islamism and all those Trotskyites and communists? Not once are these types of extremism mentioned.\nThis is an insult for all the victims of totalitarian communist regimes and for all those who suffer on a daily basis because of the dogma and practices of radical Islamism. The European Parliament does not believe these types of extremism are objectionable. They just do not exist, because they do not form part of the current standard vocabulary of political correctness within these walls.\nOut of respect for the principles and values of democracy, equality and tolerance, the PSE Group is quick to welcome the dissolution of the extreme right-wing political group Independence, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) before calling for the conditions governing the formation of political groups within Parliament to be strengthened. The leitmotiv of these elected members is to systematically demonise their political opponents in order to impose their conservatism on everyone.\nThese resolutions are a hypocritical, blind and obscurantist chore. We will be voting against them.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - While I fully subscribe to genuine measures to overcome racism and extremism, this sort of resolution, generated by the Left, is not helpful and is merely intended to take forward their own distorted agenda. In fact, there is little to distinguish the extreme Left and the extreme Right and they feed off one another. However, the Left has been successful in taking the spotlight off its own extremes and promoting institutions and policies which assist its own objectives. The EU, in its continuous efforts to extend its own reach, is often complicit in this. I do not approve of EU quangos such as the so-called 'EU Agency for Fundamental Rights' or indeed funding from public money of the constellation of NGOs pushing the Left's agenda. I therefore abstained on the resolution.\nThomas Wise  \nin writing. - I am opposed to extremism in any form, but I do not accept that the British people must take advice from the EU on this - or indeed on any other matter. I was not elected to have the EU extend or expand its control over the UK. This matter should remain in the control and prerogative of independent, democratic nation states.\nErik Meijer  \nIn 1918, independent Montenegro voluntarily chose unification with the neighbouring countries of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia. In 2006, after the break-up of Yugoslavia, the electorate of Montenegro, the last state to remain united with Serbia, decided democratically to end this union. This made Montenegro the 49th independent state in Europe. Now it is important that Montenegro become a normal state, rather than a larger version of Monaco: a paradise for rich foreigners wishing to pay low taxes, launder money and build palaces. Montenegro must do more to combat environmental pollution and cigarette smuggling.\nI am pleased that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has accepted my amendments concerning housing and jobs for Serbian and Kosovar refugees. Stateless persons cannot remain stateless for ever, and Montenegro must respect the agreements of the Council of Europe in this regard. Even my proposal regarding the restoration of the north-south railway connections to Nik\u0161i\u0107 on the Bosnian border and Shkoder in Albania has been accepted. Increasing road transport is not a valid solution. Fortunately, the rapporteur, Mr Vernola - unlike in his previous annual report - is not calling for swift accession to NATO, nor an economic policy that is even more neoliberal than is usual in the rest of Europe. Accession to NATO cannot be a prerequisite for admission to the EU.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The resolution adopted today in the European Parliament expresses solidarity with the victims of the shipwrecks that occurred in the Kerch Strait - that is, the Strait linking the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov - causing an environmental disaster.\nThe environmental impact of the spillage of oil derivatives into the strait was exacerbated by the rapid dispersion of the pollutants due to the strong winds and high waves at the time.\nIn general, we agree with the positions contained in the resolution, stressing the important role of Member States in ensuring that ships on their national registers conform to international standards and in preventing maritime accidents and combating the consequences of such accidents.\nAgreeing with the need to implement measures to reduce the environmental risk and to make progress in maritime safety, we think that any initiative taken at EU level in this framework should be based on enhanced cooperation between Member States, without compromising their responsibilities in this area.\nMarie Anne Isler B\u00e9guin  \nin writing. - (FR) The enlargement of the European Union calls for our solidarity with the population of the 431 000 km2 around the Black Sea.\nThis solidarity is expressed by the agreement to open negotiations with Turkey, the implementation of the Neighbourhood Policy with Georgia and Ukraine, and the strategic partnership established with Russia. The violence of the storm makes us think about the effects of climate change, in our own neighbourhood too. A risk management policy is required that combines both prevention and the protection of biodiversity.\nWe remember that the storm trapped four vessels and caused the death of eight sailors. A Russian cargo vessel also broke in two, releasing 4 000 tonnes of fuel oil on a migration route for diving birds coming from Siberia. The European Union sent a team within the framework of the Monitoring and Information Centre. More should be done as part of this initiative. To prevent future disasters, the EU must make sure that high safety standards are systematically applied to the fleet of Russian vessels. The EU must impose the use of double-hull cargo vessels on its Russian partner, for transporting oil. As the parliamentary assembly of the BSEC meets, we should be demanding the application of the standards in the European maritime safety package.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of Mr Ehler's report on deposit-guarantee schemes.\nThe rapporteur has presented a very good report, in which attention is drawn to the new challenges facing guarantee schemes because of the increasing integration of markets. These challenges must be responded to if the stability of financial markets is to be ensured. Deposit-guarantee schemes are a very important part in the EU financial market system and their operation should continuously be improved.\nThe rapporteur rightly draws attention to the problem of crisis management and the safety net for cross-border deposits in crisis management.\nI agree that crisis management should rest on the foundations of improved early risk detection, better defined and planned procedures of interaction between all parties involved, and clarification of the point at which burdens are to be shared. Differences between systems and the variety of parties involved in the public and private sectors must be taken into consideration.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Mass imports, the perverse role played by a strong euro against a deliberately undervalued foreign currency, social and environmental dumping, counterfeits, piracy, dangerous products, and the existence of non-tariff barriers that hit European manufacturing: in the textiles sector as in others, every report and resolution by this Parliament on trade relations with China looks the same.\nWhy was China's membership of the WTO accepted under these circumstances? We voted against it. Why refuse to see that liberalising trade with countries that have decided not to obey the rules - and you never challenge this liberalisation - only leads to economic disaster and social disintegration for whole regions and sectors? Why accept the end of textile quotas and the laying off of tens of thousands of European workers? You are worried about it now, but you only talk timidly of possible means of commercial defence, safeguard measures and joint surveillance of exports. It is not much, and it is not enough, but it is better than nothing.\nTherefore, though this resolution is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, we will vote in favour.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) We are pleased at the adoption of our proposals that:\nmaintain that the double-checking surveillance system will serve no purpose unless it prevents any repetition of the situation that occurred in 2005 and that new safeguard measures are required;\nrepeat the proposal that a Community programme should be drawn up for the textiles and clothing sector, especially for the more disadvantaged regions that depend on it, and help for SMEs;\nWe regret the rejection by the majority of the European Parliament of our proposals that, for example:\nreferred to the serious consequences of liberalisation in the textiles and clothing sector at global level with firms closing down or relocating, unemployment and serious socio-economic crises;\npointed out that some countries have adopted safeguard measures applying until the end of 2008, and therefore failed to understand why the EU had not followed suit;\nmaintain that a regulatory framework needed to be laid down to penalise company relocations, making public aid to businesses subject to long-term commitments regarding regional development and employment, including the requirement to pay back aid if such conditions were not met;\ncalled for a stronger role for workers' representatives in company boards and in fundamental organisational decision-making.\nCarl Lang  \nin writing. - (FR) The textile sector in France and in Europe since the end of the Multi Fibre Arrangement has turned some of our regions into economic and social deserts. Poverty and deprivation reign there for the thousands of men and women who have lost their jobs.\nThe destruction of these companies, of this social fabric, in the name of globalisation and pro-European ultraliberalism, is the symbol of one of the greatest economic failures of the European Union.\nFor years, this approach has led to our manufacturing in all economic sectors, even where it was of a very high standard, being relocated to other countries throughout the world: to North Africa and especially to Asia. This global rebalancing will not actually have given these third countries anything, except to worsen economic slavery for the benefit of a small elite in Chinese factories and to establish long-term unemployment in Europe against a background of persistent economic crisis.\nClearly, global competition, as encouraged by the WTO, is the main reason for the widespread impoverishment and lack of dynamism of Europe. The European Union urgently needs to put an end to this madness, and finally to set up Community protection and preference.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Amongst other things, this report contains a veritable misconception. It acknowledges that 'poverty remains an unresolved and deepening problem in Korea which, according to OECD statistics, ranks among the three OECD members with both the biggest income gap and the greatest widening of the income gap' (we might add that it is not the only case, since within the EU the income gap between rich and poor has also widened, particularly in Portugal, where the difference between the richest and the poorest continues to grow, with approximately two million Portuguese living on the breadline).\nThe report nevertheless calls for a 'free trade' agreement between the EU and Korea and for trade liberalisation, when it is known that such policies have favoured and will continue to favour the concentration of wealth on the large economic and financial groups both in the EU and in Korea. It is an agreement which will serve to place workers under even greater pressure to accept low salaries and lose rights and social advances gained in the name of 'competitiveness', and to increase the fabulous profits of the few.\nIn the meantime there is no mention of the shipbuilding industry...\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of accepting Mr Martin's report on the trade and economic relations with Korea.\nThe rapporteur has drafted a very good report, in which he points out the importance of Korea as a trading partner for the European Union in economic terms. Conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement with Korea is part of the strategy to provide Europe with a global dimension.\nA Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the European Union could constitute a basis for the promotion of high social and environmental standards and could serve as an example for other agreements that are currently at the negotiation stage.\nI agree that every effort must be made to ensure that the European Union and Korea - under the aegis of the trade agreement currently being negotiated or through a separate agreement - themselves take on human rights obligations.\n(The sitting was suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":2,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Import of poultry carcases (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Commission statement on the import of poultry carcases.\nAndroula Vassiliou\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, on this issue I had exhaustive discussions with my colleagues on the authorisation of the use of AMT substances as a decontamination measure to clean the surface of poultry carcases, during the college meeting of 28 May. As you know, the possibility of removing surface contamination with substances other than potable water was approved by Council and Parliament in 2004 in the hygiene regulations.\nIn order to approve substances for use in decontamination of any meat, the applicable law requires a positive, evidence-based finding in comitology, indicating that the use of the substances does not pose risks to health or the environment.\nLet me remind you that there was a long-standing request by the USA for approval of four AMT substances for use in decontamination of poultry carcases. Against this background, we have requested various scientific opinions which have assessed the risk of the use of the four AMT substances from the point of view of health, environment and anti-microbial resistance.\nOn the basis of the outcome of the various scientific opinions, we decided to present a proposal. The scientific opinions allow us to proceed with a proposal for authorisation, but not at any price. Pursuant to the scientific opinions, a number of risk-management conditions had to be formulated. In proposing this text, my bottom line is very clear: no matter which commercial partner is at stake, no international commitment can be allowed to undermine the principles of food safety and the health of EU consumers.\nHence the need to ensure that any use of such substances would not replace the obligation to comply with the hygiene conditions along the food chain as set by Community legislation, and that such use would not make up for prior poor hygiene conditions. In fact, in its opinion, EFSA has indicated that AMT could be considered as a useful tool to complement the hygiene practices already implemented in the European Union.\nThis is why I have imposed strict, yet proportional conditions. Under these conditions, we can assure a proposal which is defensible from the point of view of public health and safety. The conditions that we propose are the following. First, one single substance is applied. Time of exposure and concentration of the substances are defined. The poultry carcases are rinsed with potable water. No residue is left on the final product after the use of the substance. The efficacy of the rinsing is monitored to ensure the absence of residues. By setting these conditions, we ensure that the use of AMT substances will not make up for poor hygiene conditions, and that no residues are left in the end product.\nI would also like to stress that the use of AMT only reduces the number of bacteria and does not replace good hygiene practices as a core requirement, equally applicable in third countries as in Europe and applicable from the flocks to the processing of poultry carcases. We will maintain a holistic approach to the reduction of salmonella at all stages of the production chain: feed, farms and slaughterhouses.\nMoreover, the proposal provides for appropriate labelling. As with other approved substances such as additives, the consumer has the right to be informed. Thus we suggest two alternative descriptions. Appropriate environmental medication measures on waste water effluent quality standards, as proposed by DG Environment. These consist of conditions for collecting and treatment of wastewater in slaughterhouses.\nLast but not least, the proposal foresees a review within two years of the date of application of the authorisation, allowing further collection of data from food business operators regarding the use of the substances so that scientific questions on antimicrobial resistance can be addressed. This review will place the burden of proof on the food operators rather than on the Commission's scientific bodies.\nThat said, when the proposal was presented to the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health on 2 June, 26 Member States expressed a negative opinion and one abstained. The Commission will now transmit the proposal to the Council of Ministers to decide.\nYou will ask why the Commission went ahead with this proposal despite the EU domestic opposition to it. Firstly, because the legislative framework foresees the possibility of approving such substances. Secondly, because there has been a request for approval which could not be left unanswered, considering also our international commitments. Finally, because there are scientific opinions which indicated that we could proceed with the authorisation provided it is flanked by a number of strict conditions, as we did. It was, therefore, for the Commission to stand up to its institutional responsibilities and make the proposal.\nWhat happens next is part of the decision-making process. In this sense, I have taken good note of your strongly held position. The Council will now be asked to pronounce on the text. As you know, if a qualified majority of Member States is against this proposal, it will not be adopted, so we will see the end result under the French presidency.\nRobert Sturdy\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner said that this chemical chlorine is not dangerous. If that is the case, why is it banned for use on chickens in the European Union?\nSecondly, Commissioner, you said that we have obligations to the United States. We are part of the WTO negotiations and part of the WTO, but - correct me if I am wrong - there is no ban on chicken meat coming out of the United States, provided it meets EU standards. Why on earth are we putting in place legislation in the European Union when we are in effect wasting our time?\nWe have just adopted a report on a directive on safe water. We have taken a number of chemicals out of the text and yet here we are, bringing chlorine back in. You mentioned quite rightly on 2 June that there was a vote of 26 to 1 against. The one that abstained was the United Kingdom. You have to remember that the United Kingdom is governed by the greed of the supermarkets and I would suggest to you that the reason the United Kingdom abstained is that it was pressurised for cheap food from the supermarkets. I believe that in actual fact this is having a detrimental effect.\nYou say there will be no residue left on the products. Can you wholeheartedly put your hand on your heart, Commissioner, and say that you will be able to monitor this, because in the past we have had problems with products coming into the EU? I was responsible for the report on chemicals in food coming into the European Union and food within the European Union, and we are having real problems monitoring them.\nI believe that you are laying yourself open to a real risk, and not just to public health. It is not a trade issue - it is about public health, public confidence in the product. The last thing we want to see is loss of public confidence in the European Union and in the food we produce.\nAnne Ferreira\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank the Members who contributed to the drafting of this resolution. I would like to stress that this is supported by all the political groups. Why such unanimity? No doubt because it reflects our dissatisfaction with the attitude and approach of the Commission, which stems from a denial of democracy that the European Parliament has faced on this dossier for several weeks now.\nThe Commission's determination to disregard the opinion of MEPs and experts on the issue of importing chlorinated chicken is truly appalling. Yes, Mr Verheugen is in charge of negotiating with his US counterpart to promote trade between our two regions, but can he do it by sacrificing European health standards? How can the Commission have given the go-ahead for this kind of project, merely proposing compulsory labelling and a review of the provisions in 2 years' time etc.? Can the Commission explain why, after acknowledging that it lacked information about these substances, it is not adopting a precautionary approach? The absence of references to the conclusions of the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also curious, since a few weeks ago it revealed an increase in contamination and infection from salmonella, listeria and other bacteria. Why should we import a method which has not already been tried and tested?\nAnother important point to remember is that the implementation of European food safety legislation required years of work and collaboration with industry professionals, who agreed to invest in order to meet the expectations of European citizens. This approach, which involves the entire food chain, is the most sustainable way of reducing the level of pathogens. This was the choice we made, and do you really think that a relationship of trust and a strong and reliable partnership can be built by failing to reaffirm our own principles and values to our US partners? I have one more question: would the imported products be subject to the same rules as European poultry?\nFinally, I will finish by pointing out that this decision is all the more incomprehensible as the European Commission has decided to counterattack the WTO over the decision of its Dispute Settlement Body on hormone-treated beef. I find that there is enormous confusion and misunderstanding among consumers faced with this diametrically opposed position. It really calls into question the political line taken by the European Commission on food health and safety.\nThe European Council will shortly issue an opinion on the Commission's proposal. We ask it to take into account the position of Parliament and the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health: to put health before trade.\nBart Staes\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I can only endorse the words of Mr Sturdy and Mrs Ferreira. I do not actually understand why the Commission persisted in tabling these proposals on 28 May. The pressure from the United States must have been enormous. This pressure is of an economic nature. The United States is losing markets here in the European Union - including, perhaps, in the new Member States that joined in 2004.\nWhat do I note from all the studies carried out? I note that the United States' approach to the use of antimicrobial agents is not really efficient. The number of cases of contamination with salmonella or campylobacter has not gone down. Our approach, on the other hand, is very effective. We have a 'farm to fork' approach, covering every stage from the farm to the consumer's table. Since the Commission White Paper in 2000, we have adopted strong legislation on foodstuffs. I do not now want to see this undermined.\nNor do farmers want this, as they have invested in this approach. They do not want unfair competition from competitors in other parts of the world. Besides, they do not stand alone; they have the support of the consumer and environmental movements. I would ask the Commissioner to have a rethink, therefore, and to withdraw this proposal: she has no support for it in the Council and no support for it in this Parliament.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I fully support the draft resolution that has been put forward. I identify with the full content of the proposals contained in the draft resolution. A very important matter has been raised in this document. In our debates on the situation in agriculture, but also in international trade, we have called numerous times for respect for the principle that requirements must be identical for producers in the European Union and for those entities that export their products onto the European market. This principle is not generally observed, and in particular it is not observed in the sphere of agricultural production. We must make a firm demand for this principle to be observed. We cannot continue with a procedure in which certain standards are required of producers in the European Union and different standards of those who export their products onto the European market.\nThe situation in the poultry industry is very difficult in a number of European countries. My country, Poland, is one of them. I have personally had the opportunity to take part in many discussions on this subject. Poultry organisations have pointed out that competition conditions are unequal, and that the European market is exposed to unequal competition in relation to other countries of the world. I am pleased that this initiative was raised, because this is exactly the direction in which it is facing to make for equal competition conditions, that being what elementary justice demands. I therefore support this draft resolution.\nKonstantinos Droutsas\nMr President, by lifting the ban on the import of chickens from the United States, the European Commission is once again showing that it places the interests of the food multinationals above the health of the people and workers.\nFor decades, the United States has been pushing for the import of hormone-treated meat. Now it is doing the same for its chickens. In previous years the ban was based on the danger posed by the chlorine and chicken dips. According to the scientific community, chlorinated chickens endanger the health of consumers and slaughterhouse workers and make for dangerous waste material with carcinogenic residues.\nThe substances used in the United States have obviously not stopped being carcinogenic, just as the scientific community has not changed its mind. The question is, then, what has led the Commission to give in to pressure from the United States and the multinationals, and what does it get in return for this change in position?\nThe food production chain is increasingly in the stranglehold of the food multinationals. Just a few days after the scandal of sunflower oil mixed with mineral oils, and the discovery that legislation allows the transportation of oil in the same tankers used to carry fluids dangerous to health, the European Commission did not bat an eyelid in announcing the lifting of the ban on chlorinated chickens.\nOne food scandal follows another. The EU is shifting the responsibility of inspection on to those who should be inspected; it is abdicating its own responsibilities, just like the governments of the Member States; it is transferring responsibility to consumers, on the grounds that they have the right to choose, provided the products are labelled.\nThe workers demand properly inspected, healthy foods at affordable prices. The opposition by the workers, their organisations and the scientific community to the lifting of the ban must oblige the Commission to revise its decision. The ban on chlorinated chickens for consumption must continue to pertain.\nDaniel Caspary\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transatlantic trade is currently worth about EUR 600 billion a year. Now the Commission is suggesting that we open the market to poultry that has been disinfected in a chlorine solution. I say strongly: I greatly regret that the Commission has not managed to claim - and gain - access to the market in the United States for our unchlorinated poultry at last. However, I would like to say that I support the Commission's suggestions in principle, because the scientific experts' reports are conclusive. The European Food Safety Authority provided a very conclusive expert report; we do not require any further expert reports.\nHere, as on the other side of the Atlantic, nobody wishes to see people's health put at risk by food, but if there really are misgivings about the substances used in the United States, then I ask myself why these substances are permitted here in the European Union as an additive to animal feedstuffs, potable water and other foods?\nI know how much importance many EU Member States attach to food quality and food safety, and just as well. What would France be, for example, without its coq au vin? This product, exported from France and famous the world over, is also prepared for export to the United States with a chlorine treatment according to the American method. Apparently, this method is so good that it is considered suitable for the export of quality products from Europe.\nFrom my point of view, then, this is a rather dishonest discussion. The Commission has made clear suggestions to guarantee the safety of European consumers. I believe that labelling, in particular, must be clear and visible, so that consumers really know what they are buying, but I know, too, that consumers will choose European poultry anyway.\nHowever, I call on everyone to stop hiding behind supposed environmental or health arguments and clearly state what this is really about. It is a question of honesty and honesty in politics is vital, especially when it comes to discussing a topic with friends like the United States.\nFrancisco Assis\n(PT) I understand the need to improve trade relations with the United States and in this regard, I would like to congratulate the Commission on the work it has done in this area. There are, however, 'red lines' and one of these is safeguarding the legitimate interests of European producers and consumers. I believe that in this specific case, we are faced with a situation where these lines are clearly being violated.\nThere are two different concepts here, perhaps even two contradictory concepts, relating to health protection and environmental protection. From the European perspective, there is a core concern, which is ensuring safety throughout the food chain. From the American perspective, the idea is merely to deal with this matter at the closing stages of the process.\nWe cannot renounce our convictions, customs or standards in this area, and we must not just seek to have them respected in Europe, but should rather try to project them on the international stage. The European Union will be standing on very shaky ground in terms of projecting its standards internationally if it gives up on ensuring that they are protected within Europe.\nFor this very reason, I believe it is essential to highlight the need to express clear opposition to the Commission's proposal in this area.\nCrucial issues are at stake that have to do with environmental protection, public health and the fundamental rights of European consumers. Yet they also have to do with European producers, as European producers have been made to respect these standards and over the last few years have had to make significant investments to make sure they respect these requirements. Now, suddenly, they would be left completely unable to resist competition at this level.\nThis is why, in the name of healthy and fair competition, too, it is our view that the European Union must make the protection of European producers a major concern. With this in mind, and without calling into question the efforts to improve trade relations with the United States (which are vital for the European Union), I believe that this proposal is a bad one and I naturally would like to express my support for the motion for a resolution.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the decision to lift the veto towards almost everyone on the import into the European Union of chlorinated chicken is a real textbook case of what the Commission, which is supposed to protect the higher public interest of Europe's citizens, can no longer and should no longer do.\nAs with all food sectors, poultry farmers, and particularly chicken farmers, have made enormous efforts in recent decades. They have invested heavily in order to comply with standards and are subject to no fewer than 70 regulations, directives and other European decisions.\nThe sector is also subject, as we know, to fierce competition in Europe but also from Brazil and the US. Need we remind you, since no one has mentioned it yet, of the bird flu outbreak in Europe - this was only three years ago - when poultry meat consumption fell by more than 20%? Why should we now subject this sector to such a distortion of competition in relation to US farmers, who are not in any way subject to the same health and safety constraints?\nThe purpose of this brief review is to underline the essence of this matter. Perhaps this is not an environmental and health issue, or at least so I have heard people say. However, I would like more clarification and research on the subject.\nOur refusal, Commissioner, is essentially an industrial and cultural decision, and ultimately a political one.\nIt is a cultural decision because Europeans have the right to choose their food model; as we know, they are very attached to their traditions and to diversity, as the French Agriculture Minister, Michel Barnier, recently reminded us.\nSecondly, it is an industrial decision. I have already mentioned the production methods, laws and high standards observed in Europe. A good trade deal must also be fair. The Commission stands no chance of convincing us that importing 300 000 tonnes of chlorinated chicken, without any compensation, is good news for the European poultry industry.\nFinally, it is a political decision. Now I am coming to the crux of the matter, as it is above all a question of confidence: confidence among producers and consumer confidence. Given the current climate, can the Commission really allow itself to scorn - and I am coming to an end, Mr President the opinion of the Council, of Parliament, of operators on the ground and of a good number of your own Members? I think that just asking the question is an answer in itself.\nCarl Schlyter\n(SV) Thank you, Mr President. The job of the EFSA is to determine whether something is dangerous. The job of the Commission and Parliament is to determine whether something is in conformity with public policy principles such as good animal husbandry, not to mislead consumers, and to maintain a high-quality environment in accordance with the precautionary principle. Hence this proposal is unethical and inappropriate and is an undesirable method of treating chicken. Besides, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has come out almost unanimously against the method. I will add a further dimension: fraudsters have long applied chlorination to chicken in order to make it look pinker and fresher. Are we to favour fraudsters over farmers who have invested millions, not least in my own country, in order to improve the situation?\nA few labelling rules will not work, especially in places such as restaurants.\nTurn this into a victory now, withdraw the proposal and go forward on the basis of unanimity in Parliament and unanimity in the Council and say to the United States: no, we do not accept your methods.\nZbigniew Krzysztof Ku\u017amiuk\n(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, in rising to speak in the debate on poultry imports into the EU market, I have three matters to bring to your attention.\nFirstly, agricultural products produced within the European Union have to meet very stringent environmental, sanitary and health requirements, and meeting these requirements significantly increases production costs, thus making European agricultural products relatively uncompetitive in price terms on world markets. Secondly, given this situation, the European Commission's proposals to amend the regulations to allow the import of chlorinated poultrymeat from the United States should be seen as a completely unacceptable proposal, especially for European consumers. Thirdly and finally, it should be pointed out that the European Commission's proposal on this subject is supposed to be a sort of special gesture by the Union aimed at ensuring a good atmosphere for the talks and making for more friendly contacts prior to the June summit between the European Union and the United States.\nI am in favour of having warmer relations, but I would rather this did not take place at the cost of the health of many EU citizens.\nGeorgios Papastamkos\n(EL) Mr President, experts in the EU Member States have come out almost unanimously against the Commission's proposal to lift the ban on the import of chlorinated poultry.\nThese imports, even under the conditions proposed by the Commission, run counter to the steady demand from European citizens for the distribution of safe, high-quality, high-nutrition products.\nThe European poultry-rearing sector has heavily invested in compliance with the Union's strict regulatory framework that applies to the entire food chain, from production to distribution. Quite apart from anything else, the matter of the European poultry-rearing sector's competitiveness is under scrutiny, and we know the Commission's proposal is an expression of support for US interests in the Transatlantic Economic Council.\nAs a member of the Committee on International Trade, I am basically in favour of smoothing out differences with our trading partners. However, I cannot under any circumstances accept solutions that endanger the health of citizens and adversely affect the European food model. This applies both to the case we are discussing and to the Euro-Atlantic dispute pending before the WTO regarding the import of genetically modified organisms.\nThe EU must comply with the strict rules on food quality, hygiene and safety. We are opposed to any relaxation of these rules. What we need is a strengthening of the international standards and production methods.\nWe therefore call on the Council to maintain the ban on the import of chlorinated poultry.\nRosa Migu\u00e9lez Ramos\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, European poultry farming, along with other animal production sectors, is going through a difficult period. In this context it is even more surprising that the Commission has been so quick to ask for Europe to allow poultry meat treated with chlorinated products to enter its territory, a request that appears to be solely and exclusively aimed at satisfying the commercial needs and aspirations of the United States of America.\nI do not need to remind you that, in Europe, the poultry sector does not receive any direct support from the CAP, despite the fact that since 1997 our producers have been banned from using the very same substances that the Commission now wants to authorise, and moreover they are submitted to exhaustive controls throughout the production cycle to prevent the development of bacteria and to comply with the high Community hygiene standards.\nHowever, in relation to third-country producers, the Commission considers that a chlorine wash alone is more than sufficient, and in my opinion this means that the efforts made by our producers are and have been completely futile.\nIf you will pardon my saying so, it is not possible for us to be so stupid and them to be so clever. In my opinion, we need to oppose this request from the Commission.\nEsther de Lange\n(NL) Mr President, we have already heard a very great deal in this debate and I certainly would not want to repeat it all, but I think that two fundamental issues are at stake here.\nThe first is fair competition - the level playing field - between European producers and producers from third countries. On the basis of European rules, the European poultry sector has invested millions of euros in the advanced control of salmonella and other contaminants throughout the production chain. Authorising products that do not meet these requirements threatens this fair competition, which should be a keystone in our trade policy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say. If we required it recently of meat from Brazil, we must also require it of chicken from the United States.\nThe second is the precautionary principle. After all, reports on the consequences of this technique for both health and the environment still cast the appropriate doubt. The Commission proposal to authorise this for two years, followed by a review on the basis of new data, is of course totally at variance with this precautionary principle. We need clarity on safety first and a debate second, not the other way round. Even the idea of labelling chlorinated poultry from the United States is unacceptable, as there remains a disparity between farmers here and farmers there and, furthermore, processed products are likely to escape this labelling. These processed products include the considerable amounts of chicken nuggets and drumsticks that will be consumed in front of the TV this evening by Dutch, Romanian, French and Italian football fans.\nI should like to conclude, therefore, by calling on the Commission to remain committed to these two basic European principles - the level playing field and the precautionary principle - in order to respect the wishes of a large majority in the management committee and in this House by abandoning this unfortunate proposal.\nEsther Herranz Garc\u00eda\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, now the European Commission wants to allow chicken from the USA treated with bleach and, moreover, it wants us to accept it without complaining in order to improve trade relations with the United States.\nThe frivolousness of the European Commission in this matter is very much at odds with the seriousness with which it produces new texts on food safety, which at times impose so many restrictions on Community producers that it is sometimes no longer viable for them to continue to operate.\nThe Commission is losing credibility with consumers and public opinion with this type of proposal, and I do not think that we should succumb to pressure from the Member States, trade pressure from the United States, even if the European Commission asks us to.\nIn January 2008 a study published in the US magazine Consumer Report revealed a 70% increase in the incidence of zoonosis in chickens treated with antimicrobial processes in the United States, compared to 2003. There has also been an increase in antibiotic resistance in infected people.\nAt the time in the European Union there was a decrease in the incidence of zoonosis in chicken, without using the US methods.\nThe European Union is doing its duty, because it is controlling zoonosis from the start of the production chain, and because it applies the principle that 'prevention is better than cure', which it is following rigorously, at a very high cost to producers and to the industry in the European Union.\nIn the specific case of the fight against zoonosis, in 2003 a very strict regulation was launched, which took a great deal of time to get off the ground, that increases the monitoring of diseases communicable to humans.\nThe result of implementing this regulation is a reduction in the incidence of these diseases. European producers and the European industry in general have to comply with these rules, because if they do not they could be penalised.\nWhy not continue to strictly monitor the US producers?\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate\n(FR) Mr President, this chlorinated chicken affair illustrates the divide that unfortunately exists between the European Commission and citizens who expect to have confidence in Europe. It is a blow to our food policy with its high level of consumer protection. There is a complete lack of understanding.\nIt is unfair competition for our farmers, who have made enormous efforts to improve production, and our abattoirs, which must abide by strict rules. All of this costs money, and so this competition is unfair. This will allow cheap chicken to be brought into the European Union, which will unfortunately affect the most disadvantaged people who shop in discount supermarkets, and we will find this chlorinated chicken in processed products, catering trays and school canteens. None of this is acceptable. It is unthinkable that we can even allow it. Please do not tell us that labelling will solve the problem, because unfortunately the labelling on processed products does not give any information.\nTherefore, in view of recent food scares, citizens need to be able to have confidence in the food chain. Consequently, we must say a categorical 'no' to chlorinated chicken imports.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, back in April I sent a written question to the Commissioner, in which I firmly objected to the planned admission into the EU market of chemically disinfected chickens from the United States. Fortunately this proposal has encountered resistance from the Member States.\nCommissioner, our farmers and processors comply with standards that are among the most restrictive in the world. They look after the environment, animal wellbeing and the maintenance of biodiversity. Adapting to these standards increases costs and weakens their competitive position. This is why I am surprised by the Commission's proposal. The American way of producing chickens does not meet these standards. The European consumer has no wish to see such food on his plate. If we are interested in taking care of the safety of our EU consumers, we cannot allow low-quality foods to be imported.\nMarios Matsakis\nMr President, if we accept the chlorination of American chicken, how can we stop demands for the chlorination of other products in the future, for example other meat products - beef or pork - either imported or produced inside the EU? What about eggs, cheese, vegetables or fruit? All the conditions that the Commissioner has told us would apply, in exactly the same way, to all the products I have just mentioned.\nWhat about the use of other antimicrobials? Perhaps in the future we will have demands from the Americans to be able to use penicillin or other antimicrobial agents on our imported chicken.\nIn any case, even if tests on the outside show that there are no microbes on the surface of the chicken, perhaps there are a lot of microbes inside the chicken and we will not be able to detect them because the surface would falsely show that the chicken is free from salmonella or other microbes.\nAndroula Vassiliou\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to say at the outset that I respect the honourable Members' opinions and I wish to repeat that this decision has not been taken lightly. There has been an exhaustive discussion in the college.\nSecondly, I want to clarify once again that we are not putting aside our hygiene regulations. As I think I mentioned, EFSA said that this decontamination with AMT substances can only be allowed if the hygiene regulations are applied, by whoever produces the chicken. So in conjunction with preventive measures at farm level, cleanliness of the animal sent to slaughter, hygiene measures and control procedures based on the HACCP principles at slaughterhouse level, all these have to be applied.\nI must tell you when the Americans heard about all these conditions, they were very displeased but we told them that these conditions cannot possibly be withdrawn.\nThe second thing I want to clarify is that the proposed measures would not be applicable only for American chicken, but will be allowed for our producers as well, so we are not differentiating between foreign producers and our own.\nAs I said, this decision now lies with the Council and from my experience in the Agricultural Council, where I was present, it does not seem very likely that we shall have a positive reply.\nPresident\nI have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday 19 June 2008.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nCristian Dan Preda\n(RO) I wanted to highlight above all the quality of the efforts made by Gabriele Albertini in drafting the motion. I also wanted to say that I voted in favour of this motion, given that enlargement is an important political gesture for the EU. I also want to point out that I have voted differently from my political group on several issues, basically linked to Kosovo, as I hold a different view to the majority of European countries about Kosovo. Therefore, I voted differently on Amendment 17 in Article 19, Amendment 22, Amendment 24 and also after citation 4 in point 10.\nI still regard enlargement as being very important, but I also believe that the differences expressed by five of the Member States must be taken into account.\nMar\u00eda Mu\u00f1iz De Urquiza\n(ES) Madam President, the votes of the Spanish socialist delegation on Kosovo support international non-recognition of Kosovo's unilateral declaration as an independent State.\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) I voted against the enlargement strategy resolution because it contains many flattering words about the progress Turkey is making under the Copenhagen criteria. I do not see any sign of this progress. Fellow Members, please understand once and for all that Turkey is a country which, less than 100 years ago, committed genocide against the peoples within its borders and peoples which had recently liberated themselves from Turkish rule. Today, Turkey still continues to commit genocide, and its population and political class are proud of these actions committed by their country. Twenty years ago, Turkey sponsored terrorist organisations and exported terrorism. It continues to foster close links with terrorist organisations even to this day. If we want to have a country in the European Union which is still proud of genocide and sponsors terrorism, then go ahead and accept it. However, I am definitely against this.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, but I would like to raise one important issue with regard to it.\nIn my view, we in the European Parliament and the European Union need to ensure that all countries aspiring to membership of the European Union demonstrate compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. It is very important to make sure that human rights, democracy, freedom of opinion and the rule of law can be implemented.\nToday, we also voted on women's rights and for women to have the right to a life in which they do not have to put up with violence. I think that it is very important in this connection to ensure that the rights of women and children are implemented in any country that wants to join the European Union.\nWith respect to all this, I am mainly talking about Turkey. Turkey has to implement speedy reforms and changes if it is to be ready to join the European Union, although I do not myself share the belief that that will happen in our lifetime. It is nevertheless most important that we in the European Union jointly adhere to the agreed rules, the Copenhagen criteria.\nMartin Kastler\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have also voted no, because I am of the opinion that Turkey must first fulfil all the criteria, before we can make such a positive statement here. In particular, I would like to highlight the border dispute between Cyprus and Turkey, which has still not been settled this year, and the illegal occupation of Cyprus, which has not yet been brought to an end. However, I did not want to vote against the other accession candidates. I would particularly make an exception in the case of the Balkan States which I would like to welcome here in this House as soon as possible.\nFilip Kaczmarek\n(PL) Mr President, I abstained from voting on this resolution, although the question is important, and even very important. However, I do not see why the question of combating violence against women should be taken together with the question of reproductive choice. During the debate on this subject yesterday, some of the speakers were talking nonsense. Mrs Senyszyn accused the Catholic Church of oppressing women.\nIt would be difficult to say something more absurd. In Poland, there are no honour killings, circumcision of girls is not a general practice, there is no selective abortion, there are no temporary marriages, and people are not stoned for actual or claimed adultery. Women do not suffer discrimination by the law in any way, and all instances of violence against women are universally condemned, both by the citizens and by the Catholic Church. Fortunately, extreme statements of this kind did not find their way into the resolution, so I only abstained.\nTiziano Motti\n(IT) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the elimination of violence against women. I am dedicating my vote to the nearly seven million Italian women who are subjected to violence by men each year. Of course, I also dedicate it to all those women in Europe who find themselves in the same situation.\nAt times, we are tempted to believe that this is a phenomenon that takes place on the fringes of our society when, in reality, violence against women is carried out above all within the home. Thus, it is a phenomenon which directly affects us.\nElderly women have greater difficulty in protecting themselves. Therefore, we must not forget about them, because violence is not only physical; it is also cultural. It can also mean denying a person their freedom of movement.\nMoreover, before reaching adulthood, women are young girls, and violence against a young girl will prevent her from enjoying life forever.\nI therefore hope that, from this point forward, Parliament will take concrete measures to ensure that all this does not remain just a good intention.\nLena Ek\n(SV) Mr President, violence against women is a widespread problem throughout Europe and, indeed, the world. In Sweden alone, with a population of nine million, 380 women are abused every day. A fifth of the female population is subjected to violence and 45% of all women between the ages of 16 and 64 have, at some time in their lives, been victims of acts of violence. This is absolutely appalling. Being subjected to violence in the home is a horrendous violation of personal integrity. Men and women should have the same chance of physical integrity.\nThe violence that goes on across our continent is evidence that the work of promoting equality in Europe still has a long way to go. The EU cannot continue to ignore these facts. I therefore welcome the resolution on elimination of violence against women and call on the new Commission and the Council to also assume their share of the responsibility in this matter. I intend to ensure that the Commission is forced to table a proposal to improve the situation with regard to violence against women.\nAnna Maria Corazza Bildt\nMr President, I voted in favour of this resolution wholeheartedly because I think that we need to join forces across political groups towards a common goal - to denounce, raise awareness of and combat all forms of violence against women.\nI am particularly sensitive to the women in conflict as I shared, provided help during, and lived through, all the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and partly also with the Red Cross in Darfur. I think that we now have a fantastic instrument with the Stockholm Programme to enable us to move from words to action. I would like to thank the Swedish Presidency for having included empowerment and combating violence against women in the Stockholm Programme. I will definitely work towards there being a priority, in the implementation of the Stockholm Programme, for combating violence against women.\nZbigniew Ziobro\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to stress that the subject of violence against women is extremely important, and I am very glad that the European Parliament has taken up this problem. Worthy of particular attention is the problem of the most aggressive and brutal sexually motivated crimes, which are committed against women but which do not always meet with an adequate reaction from the justice system in some European countries. Sentences handed down by courts in such cases are often extremely lenient, which in some cases causes women to lose motivation to report the drastic incidents which have happened to them to the law enforcement authorities. This leads to the existence of invisible crime statistics. This is why, in cases of these most drastic and serious crimes against women, where violence is used and which are sexually motivated, we should give greater attention to efforts at standardising sentencing, to give a sense of security and also a certain feeling of justice and moral satisfaction to women who have been affected in such a cruel way.\nI would like to stress that I could not vote in favour of the final text of the resolution because of its ideological and radical attitude to the question of abortion, an attitude which conflicts with Christian values.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to give an explanation of vote on the question of combating tobacco smoking, if possible. A very short statement.\nPresident\nMr Wojciechowski, the rules state that we must deal with one subject after another. We have just discussed the subject of the elimination of violence against women and we will now be moving to the subject of a political solution with regard to the piracy off the Somalian coast. One thing at a time!\nLouis Bontes\n(NL) The Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) voted against the motion for a resolution on Somalia, and I should like to explain why.\nThe PVV takes the view that the monitoring of vessels off the coast of Somalia is not a task for the EU; instead, it is one hundred per cent a task for NATO. Europe has no army, nor does it have any business being there. This is one hundred per cent a job for NATO.\nThe PVV also takes the view that marines should be present on merchant ships to make it possible to resist direct attacks by pirates. To reiterate then, the piracy in the sea surrounding Somalia must be stopped, but not this way.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1\n(SK) The recommendations of the Council on non-smoking environments have the aim of assisting the Member States in their efforts to protect people more effectively from tobacco smoke. This is in accordance with international obligations arising from the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.\nI support the recommendation. Smoking continues to be the most frequent cause of diseases which lead to premature deaths. These include cardiovascular diseases, cancers and chronic diseases of the airways and, to a lesser extent, of reduced fertility in young women and men.\nAt a time of demographic crisis and the development of new fertility methods which are financially costly, we should focus more on raising awareness. It is necessary to begin in the family in order to protect our children from the negative effects of smoking.\nI would like to conclude with an important request for consistent monitoring to include responses to the activities of the tobacco industry aimed at torpedoing anti-smoking measures.\nAxel Voss\n(DE) Mr President, I would like to speak about two aspects of the smoke-free environment. Firstly, I have voted in favour of the Member States being given the authority in this area, on the one hand, because of the concept of subsidiarity and, on the other hand, because we do not have any authority. Although I am very much in favour of a smoke-free environment, I believe that in this case we should play by the rules.\nThe second aspect is that I find it annoying that the European Union subsidises the cultivation of tobacco. This will be phased out and I have also voted in favour of this, because I cannot bring it into line with the other idea of banning smoking altogether. Therefore, we must be consistent. If we want to combat smoking, then we should not subsidise tobacco cultivation.\nAnja Weisgerber\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the German conservative group (CSU) would like to see clear and practical rules for the protection of non-smokers being introduced throughout Europe. However, in my opinion, 'throughout Europe' does not necessarily mean 'from within Europe'. Many Member States already have in place regulations for protecting non-smokers and others are in the process of introducing regulations of this kind.\nI do not believe - in common with the majority of my fellow Members in the European Parliament, which is very pleasing - that we in Brussels must impose regulations for the protection of non-smokers or that we are able to do this more effectively. The European Union has no authority in this area. We are only responsible for health and safety at work. This is where the problem lies, because for me the most important issue is protecting children and young people and this group, which specifically needs protection, would not be covered by regulations that refer only to health and safety at work.\nTherefore, the Member States must take action in this area. I have voted in favour and I am pleased that this amendment was accepted.\nMarian Harkin\nMr President, I come from a country which has introduced a ban on smoking in the workplace. Indeed, I was a Member of the Irish Parliament at the time and I fully supported the ban.\nHowever, we are in a slightly different position here in the European Parliament, where we have to consider the principle of subsidiarity. While indeed there may be an issue with regard to the protection of workers' health - we have legislation in this area already, such as on exposure to electro-magnetic radiation - we cannot ask, as we did in paragraph 7, that Member States, where smoking bans already exist, respect the principle of equality between different types of establishment in the hospitality sector. Yesterday, we voted on the role of national parliaments and their powers on proposed EU legislation in the area of subsidiarity under the new Lisbon Treaty, so we have to be very careful that we are coherent in the way we vote.\nFinally, I was talking to my colleague at the very beginning and missed the vote on the European Year of Volunteering. I want to state that I fully support the Parliament proposal for that Year, having led the campaign to ensure that 2011 was designated during the last parliamentary term.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, I feel slightly emotional explaining this vote as my own mother was born in the tobacco factory in this very city of Strasbourg where my grandfather worked. This factory has just closed down.\nWhen the service in France for producing tobacco and matches, which was a public service at the time, was turned into a limited company, its employees were told that this would be of no consequence to their jobs. Today, we can also understand the concern of other public service sectors confronted by the same problems.\nIn actual fact, we can definitely understand and justify the campaign against smoking, with its harmful effects on people's health. However, unfortunately, French tobacco production has disappeared. The tobacco factory in Strasbourg has closed down, but people are still smoking. They are continuing with tobacco imported from abroad.\nThis is why I personally support the prices set for European tobacco growers, at least for as long as people go on smoking in Europe. I prefer to see it grown here rather than imported from elsewhere.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) Mr President, thank you for allowing me to speak. I support the action being taken by the European Union to reduce tobacco consumption, but I do not think this action should be based on reducing support for tobacco producers. This is because tobacco production is not related to its consumption. If we reduce or eliminate production, or if we withdraw support from farms which produce tobacco, there will still be consumption, only it will be consumption of imported tobacco. Fighting the tobacco producers is not the way to reduce smoking. That would be rather like trying to reduce beer consumption among young people by starting with a fight against hops producers. This is why I endorsed with my vote the position which says that production of tobacco does not influence its consumption.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1\n(SK) The food crisis is not only an economic and humanitarian problem but also a question of world peace and security.\nI was delighted to support the approved resolution, even though I have reservations over the solution to the question of world hunger. The meeting of the World Summit on Food Security did not take the direction desired by the organisers. Even though the fight against hunger is a problem with socio-economic, financial and cultural dimensions, the discussions in the meeting were restricted just to the technical level. Even FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf was disappointed with the meeting and with the fact that representatives of western countries did not participate in the meeting. The representatives of the developed world did not adopt any concrete obligations.\nI cannot help seeing the question of solving hunger and poverty as a media topic rather than a concrete problem requiring an urgent solution. The foundation of solidarity is a willingness to assume real responsibility when meeting with others who are in need.\nWritten explanations of vote\nJohn Stuart Agnew, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark, Trevor Colman, Nigel Farage, Mike Nattrass and Nicole Sinclaire  \nin writing. - The UKIP admires volunteering and recognises the contribution to society it can make. However, this report called for the naked politicisation of volunteering for EU purposes, and for the use of the British taxpayers' money to achieve this politicisation. Thus, we could not support the motion.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - The notion of volunteering is crucial in modern day societies. It is something that is done out of the free will of the person concerned and can have an incredibly positive impact on the lives of many. The European Year of Volunteering is hence an important initiative. I am in agreement with the rapporteur. It is for these reasons that I have chosen to vote in favour of the report.\nDiane Dodds  \nin writing. - I voted for this proposal in recognition of the many volunteers who do invaluable work without the recognition they deserve. Without their contribution to society, for which they receive no monetary remuneration, the United Kingdom would be a lesser place. While against the whole principle of European citizenship, I recognise the value of the service provided by volunteers. Therefore, I supported this proposal.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of Mr Scurria's report on the European Year of Volunteering (2011), advocating greater support from the institutions of the EU for this sector, which involves millions of European citizens and is essential for the promotion of solidarity and social inclusion. I believe that both the budget and coordination need to be increased at Community level, so as to consolidate the initiatives that form part of the European Year of Volunteering, such as awareness campaigns and transnational exchanges focusing on ideas and good practice.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe most basic definition of volunteering is goodwill in action. It is offered without charge, and it is generous, freely given and without strings. It is also a fundamental pillar of any society, as the work of thousands of volunteers, young and old, acting in a formal or informal capacity, in the fields of health, welfare, education, the environment or culture, makes a difference to thousands of lives every single day.\nIn view of this, we should welcome the initiative of launching a European Year of Volunteering, which will give due prominence to the anonymous faces of these volunteers, making us all aware of their tremendous work and seeking to create more favourable conditions for them to carry out their activities.\nThis idea is in line with those of the Democratic and Social Centre - People's Party, the first and only Portuguese political party to look at the issue of volunteering and make practical proposals to help volunteers, giving them the dignity and recognition that they deserve.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nWe voted in favour of this report, despite certain contradictions and small parts of it with which we do not agree.\nVolunteering undoubtedly plays an important role in society, promoting the value of solidarity and mutual aid, contributing to social integration and helping to overcome discriminatory views, among other aspects.\nThe report tackles basic aspects, such as social support for the volunteer, focusing on issues like health, safety and training, and the distinction between paid work and voluntary activities.\nNevertheless, we believe that it needs to be ensured that volunteering does not come to substitute action by Member States, and that it must not be used as a way of fulfilling needs which are the responsibility of the social services. We advocate the need to promote the activities of non-profit organisations through effective and sufficient support. Such organisations include: cooperative groups; collectives and local societies; local residents' associations; sports, leisure, cultural, youth organisations, and those aimed at children.\nWe must also emphasise that voluntary work is equally dependent on workers having free time, and that it is incompatible with exploitation, irregular or excessive working hours, low salaries and job insecurity.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly  \nin writing. - It is with great pleasure that I have voted in favour of naming 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering. It is a great boon to the numerous voluntary organisations in all of our Member States of the EU. I would like to point out that sporting organisations play a central role in volunteering and, despite this not being stipulated explicitly in the legislative text, nevertheless needs to be acknowledged. Indeed, the largest voluntary association in Ireland is the Gaelic Athletic Association. The efforts of all involved in this great institution need to be duly recognised and lauded.\nBarbara Matera  \nMr President, volunteering represents the expression of European social values such as solidarity and non-discrimination. While it contributes to the personal development of volunteers on the one hand, it creates social cohesion on the other. Therefore, it requires due recognition and support from the European institutions, the Member States, local and regional authorities and various members of civil society, each according to their individual expertise.\nThe European Year of Volunteering (2011) will enable the activities organised in this field to take on a European dimension, and therefore the hope is that this will have a major impact on civil society.\nThe estimated EUR 3 million for preparatory initiatives in 2010, the increase in European Parliament-approved appropriations to EUR 8 million for 2011 and a high percentage - 1.8% to be precise - of cofinancing for the projects, will indeed enable the objectives set to be achieved, with the various levels working together.\nFinally, it is worth mentioning the role that volunteering, if supported properly, can play with regard to retired workers, given the growing number of elderly people in civil society.\nIosif Matula  \nI voted in favour of the draft report on the European Year of Volunteering for a number of reasons. It is well known that voluntary activities offer a two-fold benefit: for the individual and for society. On the one hand, volunteering offers citizens the chance to learn and acquire new skills and for self-development. On the other hand, it also has a social function, contributing to the creation of a sense of solidarity and belonging. Bearing in mind the ever-growing interdependence of local communities in a globalised world and, at the same time, the worsening extent of individualistic behaviour, it is becoming vital to encourage social participation by citizens. I am referring in this instance to activities involving both young and old alike. Furthermore, I think that the exchange of experiences first-hand between volunteer organisations from the most diverse corners of the European Union has a major impact, given that the values motivating them all are the same. The purpose is identical: to raise the standard of living and improve the quality of life, ensure a high level of employment, improve social cohesion and combat exclusion. In other words, these are precisely the values on which the European Union is founded.\nEmma McClarkin  \nin writing. - Despite the request for a budget increase which I opposed and voted against at the committee stages, I nonetheless fully support the Report on the European Year of Volunteering overall. Volunteers are often unsung heroes. They make an immeasurable impact in their communities and on people's lives. In tough economic times like these, volunteering becomes all the more important and that is why I and others who brought this report forward are keen not only to raise awareness of the benefits of volunteering, but also to create a European Year where properly-funded initiatives will provide volunteering organisations the opportunity to encourage new volunteers to come forward.\nWe must ensure that the European Year of Volunteering is used as a platform for recognition of the contribution volunteers make to our communities, but also use this as an opportunity for us to better understand the barriers to volunteering and what we can do to help remove them and push volunteering forward. This is an example of what the EU should be doing - exchanging best practice in areas such as volunteering rather than creating more and more needless bureaucracy.\nRobert Rochefort  \nI supported the report on the European Year of Volunteering in 2011, intended to promote dialogue and the exchange of good volunteering practice between authorities and stakeholders in our Member States. With the increase over recent years in individualistic behaviour, the quest for new ways of individual expression, or even the changing demographic trends, civic participation has undergone major changes.\nTherefore, volunteering must also adapt to enable a larger number of people to get involved in volunteering in different ways and at different times in their life. This can mean tapping the potential offered by the elderly and defining new forms of involvement with greater flexibility in terms of duration and ways to participate.\nEurope, which has a long volunteering tradition, must help release the potential this offers. Volunteering provides those involved with a channel for learning (it is obvious that participation in voluntary activities provides citizens with new skills, contributes to their personal development and increases their sense of belonging to society). It also embodies such European values as solidarity, civic participation and non-discrimination in sectors as varied as education, culture, the environment, social welfare or health.\nJoanna Senyszyn  \nI endorsed the report on the European Year of Volunteering (2011). In the Member States of the European Union, we must give more importance to the question of volunteering, and should plan political action which supports the work of volunteers. The amendments proposed by the European Parliament introduce many significant changes to the Commission's proposal, and these should be included by the Council. The budgetary amount earmarked for achievement of the objectives of the European Year of Volunteering (2011), which amounts to EUR 6 million, is insufficient (by way of comparison, the budget for the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion is nearly three times higher).\nVolunteering is a gratuitous and unpaid activity, but this does not mean that it does not generate any costs. Volunteering needs financial and political support from all interested parties: non-government organisations, governments, administrative bodies of both national and local government, and businesses. Political commitment should be seen in the form of favourable policy which supports the development and infrastructure of volunteering. This matter is especially important for Poland, which will hold the EU Presidency in 2011. I would like to ask the Government of Poland to follow the example set by the European Parliament and take action to increase financial support for the European Year of Volunteering. I fully support the proposal to designate financial means for the creation of an interactive database for volunteers and voluntary organisations, which would be accessible to all stakeholders and which would continue to operate after 2011.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nThe year 2011 will be the European Year of Volunteering, and will be intended to honour and distinguish volunteers and their contribution to society. It is a wonderful proposal. Volunteering occurs in many different forms all over Europe, but everywhere, irrespective of the place, it is characterised by the fact that people want to help others without being paid, or they willingly get involved in environmental protection or work to ensure that every citizen can live with dignity.\nIt is worth stressing the fact that volunteering unquestionably has a positive influence on the developing identity of Europe, which has its roots in these values and is a good basis for developing understanding between citizens of the different social groups and countries of the entire European society. In addition, volunteering is significant for integration, social policy and education. We should also remember that it has great significance for intercultural dialogue and dialogue between generations, and it contributes to the development of social responsibility.\nVolunteering also has economic value, and we must not forget this. It is, indeed, an unpaid and gratuitous activity, but this does not mean, however, that it does not involve any financial outlay. For this reason, it is important that volunteering receive support from the European Community. Volunteering requires policy based on friendly relations, which will support its development and infrastructure. I think that supporting the reward and recognition of voluntary activities by using certain financial means will motivate individuals, businesses and organisations.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k  \nI would like to explain my vote on the report of Marco Scurria on the proposal for a Council Decision on the European Year of Volunteering. Personally, I consider unpaid voluntary activities to be an important part of our society. In my own country, the Czech Republic, the most numerous and long-established voluntary organisations are the voluntary fire fighters. Their traditions go back a long way to a period when the need to avert catastrophic elemental disasters such as fires always brought together a few dozen volunteers whose aim was to protect their own property and that of their neighbours and other people they lived with. The most widely-spread and oldest organisations involved in voluntary work also include the Czech Red Cross, the Czech Tourists' Club, the Sokol gymnastic association, the Jun\u00e1k youth organisation and the voluntary mountain rescue service. All of these people who help in schools, hospitals and sports clubs or in the mountains, or who travel abroad to provide aid, deserve recognition. In this regard, it will surely be wholly beneficial to dedicate the year 2011 to this theme. For this reason I voted in favour of the report.\nJarom\u00edr Kohl\u00ed\u010dek  \nIt is generally possible to welcome any agreement which improves cooperation with states neighbouring the European Union. If we compare the position of the states neighbouring the EU, then we see that - after Russia - the most important partner is Ukraine. The exchange of information in the fields of science and technology, the joint implementation of programmes, worker exchanges and the sharing of expertise in the area of managing scientific and research institutions, these are aims that can only be supported.\nHowever, I would like to raise a specific reservation over the method of assessing the agreement. If the authors introduce efficiency indicators such as 'number of work trips and meetings', and even 'number of different areas of cooperative endeavour' then I have serious doubts as to the familiarity of the report's author with the issue in question. Section 7, 'Measures Against Fraud', makes a quite desperate impression, while statement 8.2.2 makes me question my sanity. In the age of electronic communications, I cannot understand why a 'report' on an agreement requires work trips and participation in meetings on the part of specialists and officials from the EU and Ukraine. In conclusion, I am happy to support this framework agreement because I know that in the Sixth Framework Programme, developments in science and research were already being integrated very actively and with genuinely good results. The aforementioned reservations notwithstanding, the GUE\/NGL group supports the decision of the Council.\nJohn Stuart Agnew, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark, Trevor Colman, Nigel Farage, Mike Nattrass and Nicole Sinclaire  \nin writing. - The UKIP is not opposed to cooperation in the field of energy efficiency, but insists that such cooperation must be conducted by democratically elected governments and not by their unaccountable proxies in an anti-democratic supranational organisation such as the EU.\nAnne Delvaux  \nAs we face a flood of applications for EU membership, the vote on this resolution could not have come at a better time. The EU is a rock of stability on this continent. It cannot remain a club which is closed to other European states, but it cannot open its doors indefinitely either. The European Union must, above all, make a success of the enlargements it has already carried out for the new Member States. As for the other states knocking on its door, the prerequisite for initiating any accession negotiations remains strict compliance with the Copenhagen criteria (democracy, rule of law, human rights, gender equality, market economy, etc.), along with unconditional observance of international law. Accession negotiations with candidate countries must be based on objectively measurable criteria, such as respect for rights and economic criteria, and avoid any kind of subjective reference based on values, religion or culture. In my view, what we therefore need to do is as follows: confirm the Balkans' suitability for EU membership; remember that enlargement and consolidation are inextricably linked; insist, in the case of Turkey, on compliance with the accession criteria; and, in the event of the negotiations' failure, propose a special association agreement.\nDiogo Feio  \nIn spite of all the criticism that can be levelled at it, it has been unequivocally shown that many countries harbour an enormous desire to join the European Union. The brutal and turbulent history of several of these countries, particularly in the Balkans, has strengthened their conviction that they would be free of both the expansionist tendencies of their neighbours and the influence of Russia if they were sheltered under the umbrella of the European Union.\nLooking at the countries on the list, it is relatively easy to spot the inequality between different countries in terms of their enthusiasm and espousal of the conditions for joining the European Union. As I see it, Iceland stands out from this group, as its tradition of democracy, the high living standards of its citizens and its respect for the community acquis put it first in line for the accession process.\nAware of the need to adhere strictly to the criteria set out in Copenhagen, and to meet the commitments resulting therefrom, the European Union should not, through blind obstinacy, refuse to embrace those who show themselves ready to do the same.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis resolution is yet another case where, in relation to enlargement and a statement published by the European Commission, entitled 'Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2009-2010', the majority in Parliament wants to acknowledge Kosovo, even saying that they 'welcome the Commission's intention to strengthen its relations with Kosovo, including exploring the possibility of Kosovo's participation in Community programmes.'\nThis encourages the future accession of a territory that has proclaimed its independence in blatant violation of international law, ignoring the fact that it is a state that is the product of an illegal war, a state that operates on the basis of an illegal statute which is not recognised by the UN.\nNeither is the issue of Turkey adequately covered, given that this country continues its military occupation of an EU Member State - Northern Cyprus - and does not respect the rights of the Kurdish people as it should.\nIn view of this, although we believe that the issue of EU enlargement is primarily a decision for the people of each country that wishes to join, we voted against the report as it stands due to the negative aspects of the strategy that it seeks to follow, although this has no legal value.\nTunne Kelam  \nin writing. - I voted for Amendment 4. I very much believe that we have to underline that by non-muslims, we first and foremost mean the Christians, therefore a mention of Christians explicitly next to other religious communities is needed. Christians are still persecuted in Turkey and it remains one of our biggest concerns. Christians and their communities are still not able to exercise their belief freely as they should be in a democratic state. I am convinced that Turkey will be ready for EU accession at the moment when it becomes as easy to raise a Christian church in Turkey as it is to raise a mosque in Brussels.\nNuno Melo  \nThe process of EU enlargement should always be carefully considered and any new accession should always respect the common points of reference between the countries that make up the EU.\nI understand that the accession of Turkey is seen as grounds for a preliminary debate, yet this indicates that there are doubts which, at the very least, justify this debate. The debate would include issues such as whether Turkey can, geographically speaking, be considered part of Europe, whether its secularity is merely the result of the army which keeps it in check, whether an EU with borders stretching to Iraqi Kurdistan would be wise, and whether, due to its enormous demographic mass, Turkey's accession would throw the EU off balance.\nMoreover, there is a non-negotiable obligation to respect the Copenhagen criteria, the first of which has to do with human rights.\nFrancisco Jos\u00e9 Mill\u00e1n Mon and Jos\u00e9 Ignacio Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra  \nWith regard to the resolution on the Commission's enlargement strategy paper for 2009, we would like to make it clear, on behalf of the Spanish delegation of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), that the fact that we supported it overall does not in any way mean that we agree with the recognition of Kosovo as an independent State. We feel that Kosovo is an exceptional case, and we would like to point out that it has not been recognised by Spain or by four other Member States.\nConsequently, both in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and today in plenary, we have supported the amendments that were in line with our viewpoint.\nOur vote in favour of the resolution is due to the fact that we do not want our position on Kosovo to be understood as a negative attitude to the enlargement process that the countries of the Western Balkans, Turkey and Iceland are now involved in.\nFranz Obermayr  \nI strongly oppose the Commission's enlargement strategy with regard to Turkey. The clear majority of EU citizens is against Turkey joining the EU and yet they must help to fund payments of billions of euros to Turkey in its role of official accession candidate. Turkey is not a European country, either geographically or culturally, or in terms of safeguarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The enlargement strategy takes almost no account of the concerns of the citizens of Europe. Instead it represents the geostrategic interests of the US. In addition, the unresolved conflicts on Turkey's borders will become EU problems if Turkey were to join. I regret the fact that the entire enlargement strategy, which includes Iceland and the western Balkans as well as Turkey, was discussed as a whole and this made it impossible to have a proper, selective, differentiated debate. The arrogance with which the subject of Turkey's accession is being handled is reflected in this procedure. The unwelcome voices of those opposed to accession, who represent the majority of the population, are largely being ignored.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis  \nI voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the Commission's 2009 enlargement strategy paper concerning the Western Balkan countries, Iceland and Turkey, since 6-15 years ago, Lithuania, together with the Baltic States and other Central and Eastern European countries, was in a similar situation to the candidate countries. Membership of the European Union gave my country and the other new EU Member States and their citizens many new opportunities, and helped to boost the economy and to strengthen democracy and human rights. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union will have a new, more powerful engine that will drive our ship forward more successfully and through the waters of the financial and economic crisis, taking us to a new stage of EU enlargement. Only once they have joined the EU will the Balkan countries, the infamous 'powder keg' of Europe, where the world wars were sparked off, be able to remove the barriers to cooperation between the citizens, the business structures and the cultural and scientific experts of the various states that have appeared there in recent years. It is important not to close the door to Turkey, which can be said to be Europe's link to the Muslim world. Turkey's rapprochement with the EU is changing this country in a good way and there is evidence of many positive steps to strengthen democracy and human rights. Although we are not yet discussing EU membership for Ukraine, Moldova or the countries of the South Caucasus in concrete terms, such a prospect in the future can contribute to stability, economic strengthening, reduced corruption and the consolidation of the rule of law in these countries.\nRovana Plumb  \nThe EU enlargement process is taking place at the moment against the background of a harsh, far-reaching recession, which has hit both the EU and the countries involved in the enlargement process. I welcome the progress made by Turkey in meeting the criteria for joining the European Union, especially the fact that this country signed the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Nabucco pipeline.\nThe implementation of this agreement remains one of the biggest priorities in the area of EU energy security. I support the requests made to the Turkish Government to continue reforming its social policies, to improve social dialogue on the labour market, as well as to step up efforts in the area of women's rights and gender equality, especially when it comes to combating gender violence.\nNikolaos Salavrakos  \nin writing. - We vote against the motion for a resolution 'The Commission's 2009 enlargement strategy paper concerning the Western Balkan countries, Iceland and Turkey' by Gabriele Albertini, because we believe that neither Turkey nor the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia shows any progress in meeting the Copenhagen criteria, nor do they demonstrate any political behaviour which would allow them to become EU members We hope to improve their efforts in order to meet the accession criteria, a fact that will be examined in the future. In any case, we do not wish to vote for a motion for a resolution that will give rise to vain hopes and will be used exclusively for internal consumption.\nRenate Sommer  \nThe motion for a resolution on the European Commission's current enlargement strategy is very balanced. It rewards the progress made by the accession candidates but, at the same time, clearly identifies the problems. Turkey, in particular, has taken a major step backwards. Therefore, I welcome the explicit criticism of the serious threats to, and genuine restrictions on, freedom of speech and of the press. The completely disproportionate tax penalty imposed on the opposition Dogan Media Group is a targeted attack against those who criticise the government. Objections have rightly been made to the discrimination against religious minorities and Turkey's refusal to implement the Ankara protocol. In addition, it is also important that we take a careful look at Turkish foreign policy. Its openness towards Armenia and the Kurds has so far been nothing more than gesture politics and has even been opposed by the Turkish parliament and by large sections of the population. The statements made by the Turkish Prime Minister also call into question Turkey's hoped-for role as a mediator between East and West. Turkey's flattery of the Iranian President, its invitation to the Sudanese President, who is wanted for genocide, to attend a conference, and its dealings with Israel, seem to indicate that it is turning away from the West. Therefore, our call for the Turkish Government to coordinate its foreign policy with that of the EU and to drop its objections to the cooperation between NATO and the EU is simply consistent.\nEva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - I am in favour of the EU being open to countries who meet the criteria for membership. I am concerned that this resolution presents enlargement as being imperative for the countries in question as well as the EU. It does not conceive of the possibility that it may be in the best interests of the countries concerned to remain outside the EU for a variety of social, economic or other reasons. EU membership is a big step for the countries concerned and it deserves the fullest possible debate and consultation involving the citizens of those countries. For this reason, I abstained.\nRegina Bastos  \nThe International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is an incentive by the UN and the Council of Europe which aims to discuss and give greater visibility to the victims of domestic violence and other types of mistreatment.\nThe situation of this issue in Portugal is worrying. The number of crimes of domestic violence recorded by the Portuguese Association for Victim Support (APAV) has increased by 9% on the same period in 2008. According to the APAV, physical and psychological abuse, threats and sexual assaults have seen a major increase compared with the 2008 figures. Twenty-six women have died this year in Portugal already, as victims of domestic violence. Nonetheless, the vast majority of acts of violence are not reported through fear and shame.\nThe EU needs to step up its efforts to combat this issue. I agree with the need to encourage Member States to draw up national plans of action for combating violence against women. We support any initiative that might help to change attitudes, in conjunction with the organisation of a European Year to combat violence against women, so as to expose it and alert both the public and the authorities to this worrying situation.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the elimination of violence against women as I believe that the Commission and the Council need to consolidate EU action in this area. The EU urgently needs a more comprehensive policy on combating violence against women, specifically through the Commission drawing up a draft directive to ensure a clear legal basis for combating all forms of violence against women, including trafficking. We should acknowledge and welcome the fact that the Spanish Presidency makes this issue a priority in its plan of action.\nDiogo Feio  \nIn a week when the frightening figures for cases of domestic violence have hit the headlines in Portugal, I believe that violence against women and children is a topic that requires consideration and serious action by governments.\nI condemn all kinds of violence, but particularly when it is used against those who are in a more vulnerable position - socially, economically or emotionally - as children and women often are. The Member States should therefore seek to eliminate all forms of violence against women and children, especially trafficking for sexual exploitation, sexually motivated attacks and domestic violence.\nRespect for human life and dignity is not consistent with crimes whose victims are many European women and children, which is why firm policies on the prevention of violence and the punishment of its perpetrators are necessary.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nOn the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, we wish to raise awareness of this serious social, economic and political problem that undermines women's rights in many different areas, including at work, among their families, and in society in general. Violence against women is a violation of human rights and an obstacle to their participation in social and political life, and in their public and professional life, preventing them from acting as full citizens.\nAlthough the many types of violence vary according to culture and traditions, economic and social crises of capitalism increase women's vulnerability, both collectively and individually, adding to their exploitation and driving them towards poverty and marginalisation, which also feeds the trafficking of women and prostitution.\nIt is therefore crucial that we consolidate financial measures and policies that are genuinely committed to strengthening the role of women in society by promoting equal rights on both a Community and national level, and by implementing real plans to combat all forms of violence against women, along with eliminating residual discrimination and protecting and supporting victims.\nMarine Le Pen  \nAs we mark the 10th anniversary of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, it has to be said that the preventive measures which have been implemented with this purpose in mind have not achieved the expected results. How can we explain this phenomenon? Judging from the debates which have been held in this Chamber, we can put a label on it: gender inequality.\nIf this inequality was the fundamental cause of this phenomenon, countries in northern Europe, which are renowned for their very progressive culture and customs, ought to have the best results. In fact, this is not the case; if anything, it is the opposite. According to the Norwegian daily newspaper Aftenposten, 6% of young women in Sweden aged between 15 and 25 have been raped in one year.\nCourage is required to be able to say that the rise in acts of violence against women has coincided with the mass arrival of immigrants from outside Europe whose culture and traditions are totally opposite to ours. The burkha, forced marriages, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour crimes and other forms of behaviour from another era are unacceptable.\nIt therefore makes it absolutely absurd to continue to encourage this immigration while wanting to combat violence against women.\nAstrid Lulling  \nIt makes perfect sense for the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality to remind us, as we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, that, in spite of the countless legal instruments and UN declarations, not to mention the numerous resolutions in this Parliament made over many decades, we are still far from a situation of zero tolerance with regard to violence against women. There is no denying that violence by men against women is a violation of human rights and must be punished as such.\nThis Parliament must therefore remind Member States of their obligations to reinforce their legislations and policies to enable them to combat effectively all forms of violence against women.\nUnfortunately, we have again over-egged the pudding in the resolution tabled before us and, in particular, we have ignored the principle of subsidiarity.\nMaking a request to the Council and Commission for a legal basis to be created for combating all forms of violence against women displays the height of ignorance of the treaties. A legal basis cannot be created. It either exists or not.\nAsking for a further high-level conference to be held will only incur expense which would be better allocated to specific measures.\nV\u00e9ronique Mathieu  \nI welcome the vote in the European Parliament on the resolution for eliminating violence against women on this International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The declaration of this day by the UN in 1999 and the adoption of this resolution today are valuable instruments for reminding national governments of their obligations arising from the international treaties concerning the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. This is why I support this resolution, with an immediate request for Member States to reinforce their national legislations and policies on combating all forms of violence against women. At European Union level, it is particularly vital to guarantee assistance and support for all victims of violence, especially those affected by human trafficking, regardless of their nationality, as well as to ensure protection for women who are victims of domestic violence whose legal status might depend on their partner.\nNuno Melo  \nWhen we talk about violence against women, we are discussing something that is clearly a reality in all the Member States, as one in four women is a victim of violence.\nIn an EU that sees itself as the champion of rights and freedoms for all its citizens, we must make every effort to put a stop to this scourge. The adoption of this draft resolution is a very important step towards finding new solutions, hence my vote.\nRovana Plumb  \nI voted in favour of this resolution as violence against women is still a problem which is all too prevalent in Romania and worldwide, making it necessary to adopt urgent measures to combat this scourge. Legislation is no longer the problem, but its application in the situation where many women are reluctant to report to the authorities the acts of violence they are subjected to, preferring to endure the suffering in silence.\nI believe that a powerful campaign is needed across the whole of society, based on continuous, long-term activities aimed at influencing attitudes so that everyone realises that violence against women is not permitted and not excused. I agree that coordinated action is needed at the same time from the authorities and civil society in order to support victims of domestic violence.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I welcome Parliament's commitment to this cause. In particular, it is critical to ensure that the women in some of the most vulnerable circumstances, such as in 'trafficking of women', fall under this assistance.\nI am appalled that the ECR Group, which contains the British Conservatives, has submitted an amendment to this proposal which reduces its coverage. I would point out that many victims are those who live in poverty or are immigrants or from minority groups within our populations. Removing these women from assistance aimed at helping these most vulnerable people is as illogical as it is inhuman.\nI am equally appalled that the Greens should disagree and promote deletion of sensible wording covering tolerance of prostitution, where it is clear much violence against women occurs.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nWomen are easy victims for any form of violence due to their unequal position in all class societies, in which they are open to class and gender oppression.\nPhysical abuse, rape, trafficking and so on are forms of violence which demonstrate the gender dimension of the class aspect of female inequality.\nHowever, violence is a social phenomenon with specific economic, political and social causes. These causes, which are rooted in the capitalist relations of production, cannot be eliminated as long as these relations exist. The grassroots movements must demand measures to prevent this phenomenon and relieve the victims, women and children, by seeking radical changes in favour of the people at social and political level.\nWe radically disagree with the creation by NGOs and private individuals of counselling centres and agencies to support maltreated women. The state alone must be responsible for these.\nNot only will the measures proposed in the resolution be unable to eliminate the problem, because they do not touch the causes; they also seek to manage and hence perpetuate the problem.\nMarina Yannakoudakis \nin writing. - The ECR Group fully supports and stresses the great need to increase awareness and action to combat violence against women. However, we do not support calls for an EU legal base and further directives (as in paragraphs 10, 11 and 27) to address the problem.\nWhilst we acknowledge that work needs to be done in this area, we believe this is an issue for nation states to legislate upon. Furthermore, the ECR Group believes that the issues of sexual and reproductive choice and health rights are an issue of conscience for each individual Member and Member State to decide. For these reasons, the ECR Group has chosen to abstain.\nDiogo Feio  \nSomalia is one of the most blatant cases of the total breakdown of the central power and the return to a belligerent, tribal way of life, as the country is an epicentre of violence and instability which spreads far beyond its own borders. The coasts of Somalia have been constantly threatened by armed groups which not only fight for control of the coastal areas, but also carry out intolerable acts of piracy against other vessels, especially commercial, cargo, fishing, humanitarian aid and leisure boats.\nThe severity and frequency of these events demands an uncompromising reaction from the whole international community, which must include the European Union. The EU must commit itself to combating piracy and doing everything within its power not only to analyse its causes and consequences, but also to mobilise all Somali and international forces that are available and equipped to deal with it.\nI must also praise the entire crew of the Portuguese frigate Corte-Real, in the person of their commander, who have distinguished themselves in the fight against this scourge, and have recently been the subject of a tribute by the International Maritime Organisation.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nWhen discussing the issue of Somalia, we need to remember that there is no military solution to the crisis there, and that we must take into account the country's lack of financial resources, caused at an international level by the debt crisis, which created a vacuum that was exploited by illegal fishing in its territorial waters, and which was one of the main reasons why Somali fishermen lost their livelihood, as the Somali Government was forced to suspend the country's coast guard due to a lack of resources.\nOne of the essential issues, therefore, is to ensure the supply of technical and financial aid, including support for a process of conciliation and mediation between the parties involved in the civil war.\nThe Commission and the Council should thus review their political strategy for Somalia, including Operation EUNAVFOR Atalanta, and should focus on the more general situation in the country at present, particularly the need to address the humanitarian situation on the ground and help to eradicate the underlying causes of this catastrophic situation which is causing suffering to millions of Somalis.\nFinally, we would like to stress that resources intended for aid and development, or the European Development Fund, should not, under any circumstances, be used for military purposes.\nRichard Howitt  \nin writing. - I am deeply proud to see the UK leading the work of the EU's first naval ESDP mission, Operation Atalanta, with a British Commander at its head and its operational HQ in the UK. Atalanta's work in the protection of vessels delivering food aid to displaced persons in Somalia and in protecting vulnerable vessels off the Somali coast is vitally important.\nLabour MEPs echo calls for the unconditional release of all hostages including the two Britons - Paul and Rachel Chandler from Kent - held by Somali pirates. Our thoughts continue to be with their family, and we praise the ongoing efforts of the UK Foreign Office, who are using all possible connections in East Africa to negotiate the pair's speedy release.\nFinally, on the scope of the Atalanta mission, we note calls in the resolution for its expansion to be considered. However, I want to put on record that we believe that at the current time, this is not a prospect, and to underline that we must focus on the continued success of the current mission as it stands.\nNuno Melo  \nThe current situation off the coast of Somalia is wrong on every level and has an impact on all countries.\nI think that it is therefore crucial that, pending a political solution to the problem of Somalia, and while there continues to be instability in the area, we should follow a strategy of heightened security for Operation Atalanta, even reinforcing the latter in terms of the means of action open to forces deployed in this operation.\nWilly Meyer  \nI voted against Resolution because I think that piracy is not a military problem but a development problem. I therefore believe that the problem should be dealt with at its root, and that the solution cannot be a military one, either by land or by sea. The officer responsible for Operation Atalanta stated that a maritime solution is impossible, and that the situation in the area needs to be stabilised. I think we need to tackle the problem of governance, the stability of institutions and economic development in the region. However much we paper over the cracks, the problem will persist. By voting against the resolution, I also want to condemn the privatisation of the actions that are within the remit of the armed forces, as in Spain, private security companies are being allowed to go out on vessels with weapons of war. Moreover, I think we need to put an end to the pirates in Somalia, but also to the foreign pirates that are pillaging in Somali waters.\nCharles Tannock  \nin writing. - The relative success of Operation Atalanta, now renewed for a year, underlines the fact that although the European Security and Defence Policy has the potential to achieve significant results for Member States, it is still unclear why NATO alone could not match this and thus avoid duplication. But piracy remains a clear and present danger in the seas around the Horn of Africa. We need to redouble efforts to defeat this menace, not only to protect our shipping, but to send a clear message of our resolve to the agents of al-Qaeda currently enjoying safe haven in Somalia.\nNational security does not end at national borders. Leaving the scourge of piracy unchecked will multiply the EU's security concerns in the long term. I also urge the Commission to reconsider how more political support for the relatively stable, prosperous and democratic breakaway former British territory of Somaliland could help to tackle the threat of piracy in the region.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nI voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on a political solution to the problem of piracy off the Somali coast because sea piracy is a real problem and will continue to be a problem in waters off the Somali coast. The EU must protect maritime vessels passing through this region by means of international negotiations and protection measures. One part of the solution requires international support in bringing stability to Somalia. The other part of the solution is Operation Atalanta, recently launched by the EU in order to stop piracy off the Somali coast. Six frigates, three maritime patrol aircraft and 1 200 personnel from the United Kingdom, France and Greece will take part in the operation. Other states will contribute to the operation in the future. Operation Atalanta has succeeded in providing protection for high-risk cargos by escorting them. Thirty-six pirate vessels have been intercepted and 14 direct attacks have been avoided. However, to be able to enjoy the benefit of this escort, the responsible national bodies and the sea vessels must notify Operation Atalanta and request protection. It is vital that sea vessels avoid taking needless risks and request, on an official basis and in good time, protection from Operation Atalanta.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - We are in favour of robust international action to deal with piracy and have no doubt that the Royal Navy and allied navies from the US and other European nations will do a good job. However, we see no reason for the EU to run up its flag on a naval operation. We are opposed to the interference of the EU as an institution in defence matters. This brings no additional military capability and merely duplicates or adds complexity to the well-tried arrangements under NATO. Operation Atalanta was conceived as a political opportunity to add a maritime dimension to ESDP during the French Presidency. Despite the presence in the seas off the Horn of Africa of the US-led Combined Task Force 151 and a NATO Maritime Group, it was decided to concoct yet another fleet and a further command chain. We are also deeply concerned by proposals for an ESDP training mission to Somalia at a time when the EUPOL mission in Afghanistan has been a failure and many European countries have been unwilling to provide troops and police for urgent training missions in Afghanistan. Incidentally, we do not recognise such terminology as 'EU fishing vessels.'\nElena Oana Antonescu  \nI welcome this resolution enabling Parliament to support the Commission's highly voluntary anti-smoking policy. Exposure to cigarette smoke is the main cause of death and illness in Europe, with smoking imposing a heavy burden on health care systems as well. I hope that the Commission's measures will go further and that in the years to come, we will have the right to a healthy environment in all closed spaces and in the workplace. I cannot fail to mention that we still have a hypocritical policy in Europe. We want to have fewer health problems caused by smoking, however we support the retention of subsidies for cigarette manufacturers, even though they are gradually being reduced. I think that the common agricultural policy should be defined to reward products which help maintain and improve people's state of health, not jeopardise it. I hope that the Council meeting in December will discuss protection for children, especially in cases where they are exposed to smoking by adults in private cars or in other closed spaces. I believe that adults have a responsibility in this respect, and where the legislator can intervene, it must do so.\nAnne Delvaux  \nI believe that we must protect non-smokers from passive smoking, but also make smokers aware of the impact of their addiction on themselves and others. They must not be left in any doubt about this. In Belgium, we also have a head-start on this issue because our country has already advocated a total ban on smoking in the hospitality sector and at all places of work by 2012.\nHaving said this, I would still like to express two concerns. Firstly, are we heading towards a society that imposes blanket bans? What do we do about individual responsibility? I feel a sense of unease about a society resembling the one described by George Orwell in his novel '1984'. Secondly, if smokers have to be made to break their harmful habit for themselves and others, this must be done with the utmost respect. Tobacco is a drug. Banning it completely would be tantamount to denying that most smokers are in a state of dependency. A total ban may be regarded as an act of exclusion, which may prove to be counterproductive. Why, therefore, have we not provided the option of reserving areas specifically for them?\nDiogo Feio  \nDespite voting in line with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), I must express some concerns I have about the present motion for a resolution.\nFirstly, I believe that smoke-free policies should be decided by the Member States and that the role of the European institutions, while respecting the subsidiarity principle, must remain at the level of non-binding recommendations. On the other hand, I also believe that Member States should promote smoke-free policies, but that they should not impose any restrictions on freedom of choice for operators, particularly in the hotel sector, where owners should have the option of being smoke-free or not. Against this backdrop, the act that was recently passed in Portugal was a well balanced one.\nMy second concern is with the proposed end of direct subsidies linked to tobacco production. As Portugal is also a tobacco producer, I think that this type of policy needs to be extremely carefully analysed; otherwise it could be severely detrimental to farmers who find themselves unable to continue production without being given a viable alternative. This is my opinion on item 9 of this resolution.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe protection of human health and the quality of life of employees at their places of work and that of the general public forms the basis of this resolution, and that is why we voted in favour of it.\nIt is necessary to increase the protection of non-smokers by preventing passive smoking, but also to create the necessary conditions for monitoring and encouraging smokers to give up the habit. The policy of prohibition should be implemented in situations where it is shown to be necessary.\nAs for direct production-linked subsidies, we advocate the incentives for reconverting tobacco production facilities. We believe, however, that we should not create a situation where we have to promote the importing of tobacco from outside the EU and thus benefit the big business of multinational tobacco companies.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI voted in favour of deleting item 13 from the original text, which read: 'Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal to Parliament and the Council for legislation on a smoking ban by 2011 in all enclosed workplaces, including all enclosed public buildings and public transport in the EU, in the field of protection of workers' health.' The deletion was approved, in keeping with the subsidiarity principle in this matter.\nI believe that there is still a long way to go for each Member State in creating smoke-free environments, carrying out effective awareness campaigns and applying best practices for the implementation of Article 14 (measures to reduce demand are dependent on levels of addiction and those giving up smoking).\nI do think, however, that these actions should be implemented by each Member State, in the first instance. The original text of the resolution mixed up and confused the production of tobacco with its consumption. I therefore welcome the adoption of the amendment tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), which removes part of item 9 from the original text, deleting the references to the production of tobacco. These two changes have improved the final resolution. I consider the remaining points positive, so I have voted in favour.\nRobert Goebbels  \nI abstained in the vote on the resolution on smoking. I have never smoked in my life, but I find this constant harassment of smokers completely anti-freedom. The current bans are more than sufficient.\nI distance myself from this constant, counterproductive harassment. The desire to get rid of tobacco plantations in Europe will result in increased imports from third countries.\nElisabeth Jeggle  \nHealth policy and, therefore, the protection of non-smokers clearly come under the authority of the Member States and should not be the subject of central regulations. The Member States must have the freedom to determine the extent to which they want to protect non-smokers. It must be made clear that the EU has no authority in this area. For this reason, I have voted in favour of Parliament's resolution for next week's summit of EU health ministers.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nMr President, I voted in favour, though I would have liked to see a tougher resolution. Smoking is the greatest single cause of premature deaths in Europe. Tobacco smoke is an environmental pollutant that contains over a hundred compounds that do harm to the health. Nevertheless, parts of Europe allow not just users of tobacco but those around them to be exposed to it. Passive smoking is a moral problem, because those who suffer have no choice. It is necessary, in particular, to protect children.\nStudies suggest that a child whose parent uses tobacco actually 'smokes' every fourth cigarette that his or her parent smokes. Every year, smoking leads to the premature death of almost 100 000 Europeans. Many Member States have already implemented some excellent measures. When Finland finally also banned smoking in restaurants and bars there was an outcry. Now, two years later, people are only grateful. That reflects the nature of public health policy: lasting results might be achieved through prevention and awareness-raising, but it takes the resolve of the legislators to deal with the resistance. I disagree with some of the other Members here that the Community does not need binding legislation on health and safety at work. It needs to be recognised that the recommendations have not been sufficient everywhere. I do support paragraph 13 of the resolution, in which the Commission is urged to put forward a legislative proposal for smoking to be banned in indoor workplaces and also on public transport.\nSmoking is expensive for society, and, furthermore, the 70% of Europeans who do not smoke end up paying the bill. I therefore agree with the view that Parliament expressed in 2007 that the content of the Tobacco Products Directive needs to be made more stringent and incorporate the liability of the manufacturers for the costs of health care due to the consumption of tobacco. The Union first needs to take the mote out of its own eye. It is high time we brought the gradual phasing out of subsidies for tobacco farming to a complete end.\nElisabeth Morin-Chartier  \nMr President, I voted for the resolution supporting smoke-free environments because I believe that it is vitally important to monitor the progress being made towards the widespread introduction of smoke-free environments in the European Union and to facilitate the exchange of good practice between Member States and the coordination of the policy for protecting citizens against the risks of smoking. I also voted in favour of keeping paragraph 9, declaring the end by 2010 of the direct production-linked subsidies for tobacco growing because of its implication for health issues. I also support my fellow Members from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety who have reminded us that smoking remains the number one identified cause of death and illness in the European Union. Thank you, Mr President.\nMariya Nedelcheva  \nLadies and gentlemen, I voted to remove the explicit reference to the year 2010 in paragraph 9 of the motion for a resolution. In my country, tobacco growing is a vitally important and critical industry for a large part of the population in regions where it is their only form of livelihood. One of those is also the region which I come from, Blagoevgrad.\nMy country was one of the eight largest tobacco growers in Europe which, a year ago, wanted current subsidies to be extended until 2013, in spite of the agreement stipulating that the link between the amount of resources allocated and the production volume had to end by 2010. Every time we meet with tobacco growers, one of the questions they most frequently ask is: What will become of us?\nI cannot promise them miracles, but we are working in collaboration with our government to devise measures which will not allow them to be left without any choice, having lost their principal means of livelihood. Fellow Members, I can understand the arguments of those who are campaigning against smoking. However, I urge you to ensure that we do not mix up the fight against smoking with the risk of us destroying tobacco growing in Europe. I call on you at a time of economic crisis to ensure that we remain prudent and wise.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nI agree with all reasonable measures aimed at combating smoking and protecting non-smokers, which is why I voted for this resolution. However, I must express some doubt about the effects which any kind of measures directed against tobacco growers would have. Romania currently has approximately 1 600 hectares of tobacco plantations providing a production of roughly 3 000 tonnes. However, a small volume of tobacco is grown in Romania, compared to the quantity required for Romanian processors, estimated at approximately 30 000 tonnes.\nThe difference in quantity, of approximately 27 000 tonnes, is made up by imports, mostly from regions in Africa or Asia. If we discourage tobacco production in Member States, we will only encourage even more of these imports from third countries, to the detriment of European producers.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nThis is a proactive and ambitious resolution we are dealing with. However, I am dismayed by the vote cast by a majority of my fellow Members, Christian-Democrats in particular, who, in the wake of intense lobbying by relevant pressure groups and stakeholders, have rejected Article 13.\nThey believe therefore that Europe does not have its place in this debate and provides no added value in terms of guaranteeing European citizens healthy areas in all public places, at work and on public transport. In other words, they are not bothered about discrimination being created among workers in Europe. Just to give one example, people in Ireland will be very well protected by a national law, while we can only wonder if, one day, people in Greece or the Czech Republic will have this chance, or rather this right.\nAs further proof of their 'brainwashing' by pressure groups, they have also rejected Article 9, which simply refers to one of the reforms to the common agricultural policy already decided on, namely the end by 2010 of direct production-linked subsidies for tobacco growing.\nVilja Savisaar  \nThe proposal in the resolution dealing with non-smoking areas envisaged a considerable change - the imposition of a smoking ban in pan-European public institutions and public spaces. The intention of the resolution was to task the Commission with preparing the necessary legislative act, which would come into effect in 2011. Although very many delegates, including myself, voted for a ban on smoking in public rooms (in particular, workplaces), the People's Party unfortunately took an opposing position. The majority of Parliament has not shown any consideration for protecting the health of every European citizen and, in particular, those people who do not smoke themselves, and yet are forced to breathe in smoke in public spaces and, as a result, suffer health problems themselves. I hope that this subject does not end up in oblivion, and also that it goes up the current agenda once more, since many Member States have not thus far imposed a ban on smoking in public places, although they have had the opportunity to do so.\nMarc Tarabella  \nI share the concern, through this resolution, of making progress in the battle against passive smoking imposed on those who do not smoke. However, some people are taking advantage of the situation to insert a provision in this resolution opposing the subsidies paid to tobacco growers. I am personally in favour of providing this support to those practising what is a dying art. You should be aware that tobacco accounts for less than 10% of what goes into cigarettes; are so many questions asked about the additives that account for more than 90% of their content, and about their harmfulness?\nLiam Aylward  \nin writing. - Given that over 40 million people die of hunger and poverty each year, including one child every six seconds, and that the global food crisis is one of the major threats to peace and security in the world, I have voted to support this timely Resolution. The Resolution calls for the Commission to conduct a full impact assessment of the EU's policies and programmes in the areas of agriculture, development and trade in order to guarantee a coherent, sustainable policy approach to global food security. As the Resolution stated everyone has the right to safe and nutritious food, the European Union must act to ensure these policies can deliver sustainable food security.\nOle Christensen, Dan J\u00f8rgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen  \nWe Danish Social Democrats believe in the phasing out of the EU's agricultural aid. Today, we gave our backing to the resolution on the 'FAO World Summit on Food Security' - a resolution that focuses on the major challenges we are facing in relation to eradicating hunger and ensuring better opportunities for developing countries in future - but we very much reject the glorifying statements that the resolution makes about agricultural policy and aid in paragraphs 3, 9 and 14, amongst others.\nCorazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic  \nThe Swedish Conservatives have today voted against the resolution on the FAO World Summit on Food Security. We are concerned about hunger in the world and believe that a focus on food security is important. However, in contrast to the resolution, we Swedish Conservatives believe that the common agricultural policy (CAP) is part of the problem rather than the solution and that it needs to be reformed.\nLena Ek, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikstr\u00f6m  \nThere is a strange situation in the world today: a billion people are suffering from obesity, yet at the same time, a billion people are starving. This situation is disastrous and requires effective measures, particularly on the part of the wealthy European Union. However, we do not believe that the EU's common agricultural policy, as it currently stands, is the solution. Our agricultural policy has been successful in the past, but it has no place in the future. Since this resolution opposes the revision of the current European system for agricultural aid (something that could benefit the climate, the world's poor and Europe's farmers), we could see no other alternative than to abstain from the vote.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the FAO World Summit on Food Security - Eradicating hunger from the face of the earth, because I believe that urgent measures are necessary to put a stop to this scourge, which affects a sixth of the world's population. In light of the impact of climate change on agriculture, particularly reduced productivity due to water scarcity, especially in countries which are already struggling with these problems, we must ensure that we develop coherent agricultural policies that are consistent with protecting the climate and fighting hunger.\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm  \nWe Swedish Social Democrats have today chosen to vote in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the FAO World Summit on Food Security. More than a billion people are currently suffering from starvation. Extreme oscillations in prices and a dramatic increase in the price of food on the world market have also caused a global food crisis, which has made it even harder for the poor people of the world to obtain access to food.\nHowever, we would like to point out that we do not share Parliament's view that we should not reduce market support measures and aid payments to farmers within the framework of the EU's common agricultural policy. We do not believe that these support measures and payments will help to bring increased security of food supply to developing countries in the long term. On the contrary, these measures will have the opposite effect. Subsidised, cheap European food is being exported to developing countries and, on account of its competitive prices, it often knocks these countries' own food production out of the market, so denying these countries the chance of more long-term self-sufficiency.\nDiogo Feio  \nNo one can remain indifferent to this global problem when they know that 40 million people die every year of starvation and that a child dies of malnutrition every six seconds.\nThe European Union is the foremost donor of development and humanitarian aid, but only a small part of this is channelled towards the agricultural sector, which could meet the food needs of thousands of people who continue to suffer from malnutrition. The European Union should therefore review its aid and development policies as a matter of urgency, and give greater precedence to supporting agriculture in developing countries, a sector which is the source of income for more than 70% of the workforce.\nThe common agricultural policy must also adapt internally to the crisis that we are undergoing, which includes higher production costs for European farmers, by refraining from dismantling its market support measures and\/or reducing agricultural subsidies, giving special attention to the support of small and medium-sized farmers and their access to credit, so that they can keep up their levels of production in spite of the escalating costs of materials needed for production.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nAlthough we do not agree with all the points made, we chose to give our approval to this resolution, as it underlines the importance of principles that we consider fundamental to a real fight against world hunger, particularly:\nEmphasising that 'the fight against hunger must be based on recognition of the right to food sovereignty',\nRecognising 'the right of local people in every country to control farmland and other natural resources vital to their food security'.\nThe resolution also draws attention to the importance of agriculture in combating hunger and stresses the importance of farmers' incomes. It remains to be seen whether, in the future, this Parliament will live up to what it has approved here today, or whether, as is often the case, it makes these good points, but later, when it needs to actually put them into practice, goes back on its word and approves legislation that violates these principles.\nWe should not forget that the successive reforms of the common agricultural policy, following the liberalisation of agricultural markets undertaken by the World Trade Organisation and coinciding only with the interests of the big agri-food companies, have contributed to the impoverishment of the global agricultural sector. Agricultural production should be used primarily to feed people, not to benefit export monopolies.\nAnne E. Jensen and Jens Rohde  \nWe, the Danish Liberal Party's MEPs, voted in favour of the resolution on food security as we want to emphasise the importance of the EU taking global responsibility in the fight against hunger and poverty. We are opposed to paragraph 9 of the resolution, however, which puts question marks against the continued liberalisation of EU agricultural policy. The Danish Liberal Party wants to see a gradual abolition of agricultural aid plus the establishment of common rules that ensure a level playing field for Europe's farmers in terms of competition.\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger  \nLong-term food security is one of the central challenges of the common agricultural policy. Especially in the light of food shortages, we must emphasise the importance of a strong CAP which will take on a key role in future in overcoming global challenges. This means that adequate long-term funding for the CAP is required. The CAP is an important element of the EU food and security policy and after 2013, it will play a significant role in development policy and in external food security policy.\nTherefore, perfectly functioning ecosystems, fertile soil, stable water resources and further diversification of the rural economy are the highest priorities. International cooperation and solidarity, together with balanced trade agreements which promote, rather than jeopardise, food security are an essential element of global food security and this is where a strong CAP can make an important contribution. Net food importing countries are hardest hit by rising food prices, yet many of these countries throughout the world are the least developed. The EU must take measures to counteract this.\nNuno Melo  \nHunger is a scourge that is affecting increasing numbers of people. As the EU is a place of solidarity, it has to be at the frontline of combating this growing problem. The world food crisis is one of the major threats to global peace and security, so all global and European food security policies need to be stepped up.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe authors of this resolution, although forced to highlight the problem of hunger and the problems raised at the Food and Agricultural Summit in general, have nonetheless concealed the basic cause of the problem, namely the capitalist system of exploitation and the strategy which the EU also loyally serves so that capital can profit. The food production and distribution multinationals are uprooting farmers and concentrating the land, thereby striking a heavy blow at poor and average farmers. The working and grassroots classes, even in developed capitalist countries, are finding it harder and harder to safeguard healthy, safe food, while the food multinationals are raking in massive profits and buying up huge swathes of land, especially in Africa, calculating that food production needs to double by 2050. The EU leads the way in the liberalisation and privatisation of all food production factors - water, energy, transport and technology - and is imposing the same on third countries through the WTO and bilateral agreements.\nThe CAP underpins the policy of uprooting small and medium-sized farms and supporting the monopolies and their profits. Farmers and workers are fighting against this policy, fighting to overturn this system of exploitation and secure sufficient, healthy, safe food for everyone.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU-Canada trade relations (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the question to the Commission on EU-Canada trade relations, by Vital Moreira, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade - B7-0213\/2011).\nVital Moreira\nMadam President, as Chair of Parliament's Committee on International Trade, it falls to me to table an oral question to the Commission concerning the negotiation of an economic and trade agreement with Canada.\nTwo years after they started, in May 2009, there are indications that these negotiations may be concluded in the course of the current year. Given the progress of the negotiations, now is therefore an ideal moment to get information from the Commission concerning some of the most important points in these negotiations.\nThe text of the question adopted by my committee is well known and, to save me from reading it, Madam President, please allow me to assume there are copies.\nAs we know, since the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has had the right to be informed on all stages of negotiation for international agreements. This obviously includes international trade agreements, which constitute an exclusive competence of Parliament, and for which parliamentary scrutiny is more justified.\nIt is important to mention that the Commissioner for Trade, Mr de Gucht, and the Directorate-General for Trade have fulfilled this duty of providing information to the parliamentary committee which I chair, in this and other cases. It is nonetheless important to share information with Parliament and the public on the most important issues at stake, given the progress of the negotiations in this instance. This includes matters which are very sensitive for Parliament and the European public such as, for example, the issue of the famous tar sands and Canadian opposition in the World Trade Organisation to the European ban on products made from seals.\nWe therefore believe this oral question and the developments that it may entail to be of particular importance. It only remains to inform Parliament that this oral question is accompanied, as usual, by a resolution on the same issue which will be voted on this Wednesday. Both initiatives are testament to the great importance that the Committee on International Trade and, in our view, Parliament, should place on this matter.\nM\u00e1ire Geoghegan-Quinn\nMadam President, Commissioner de Gucht is currently absent and has asked me to make the following statement in response to the parliamentary question from Vital Moreira.\nToday's plenary debate on the negotiations for a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada is very welcome. So far, these negotiations have run smoothly, and it should be possible to conclude the bulk of an agreement before the end of the year, with a formal conclusion early in 2012.\nHowever, we are also entering a stage of the negotiations where things are getting more difficult: in particular, because some of the outstanding issues are related to inherent differences in our economic structure or regulatory systems.\nThis is a tremendously beneficial agreement for both parties, with positive impacts on business, investors and consumers alike, thanks to the very broad scope envisaged. In material terms, we calculate that this could bring an additional EUR 20 billion per year to both economies. Where EU offensive interests, such as provincial government procurement, lie in areas of provincial competence, we have been assured that the provinces and territories of Canada will be committed to the negotiations and to the implementation of the agreement.\nIn relation to your particular concerns, EU Member States have now reached an understanding on the usage of the so-called 'negative list' approach. A key reason why a trading partner like Canada prefers a negative list is that it provides much greater transparency and legal security, because it makes very clear which services are excluded from market opening, including also where monopolies and exclusive rights may exist in the public sector. Hence, the negative list approach in no way prejudices the ability of an EU Member State to continue to maintain the right to retain a monopoly in the future for a particular service.\nIt remains up to the EU and Canada to decide what commitments it is willing or not to undertake in each sector, including with regard to public services or other services where future policy flexibility is important.\nEU governments will continue to have the option of imposing universal public service obligations on private operators and of subsidising public services as necessary. Trade agreements do not impose privatisation or deregulation obligations, and it will be no different for this CETA, which will include provisions on sustainable development covering economic, environmental and social aspects. Such provisions will be fully integrated within the trade agreement.\nWe note the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the WTO panel on the EU's seals ban and on Canadian oil sands. While we understand these concerns, we believe that there are good reasons to keep these processes separated from the CETA negotiations. This being said, the negotiation - as in the case of any other trade negotiation - does not in any way impede the ability of the EU or its partner countries to draw up and implement environmental measures.\nMore specifically, as regards the Fuels Quality Directive, I want to make it absolutely clear that the negotiation and a future agreement does not and will not represent any negative interference with regard to the implementation of that directive.\nHonourable Members, we are moving closer to an agreement which will help to provide a much-needed boost to the economies of the EU and Canada. We are looking forward to hearing Parliament's views during the debate today and the resolution that you will subsequently adopt.\nGeorgios Papastamkos\nMadam President, the resumption of negotiations, at Canada's initiative, to upgrade bilateral cooperation under a comprehensive economic and trade agreement is a positive move, as the committee chair, Mr Moreira, pointed out. However, there is one issue that concerns us, which has to do with the federal structure of Canada. I refer to the need for the unimpeded and uniform application of the agreement by the individual provinces.\nWithin the framework of trade relations between the two partners, important offensive and defensive agricultural interests, among other things, are at risk. On this point, I should like to voice the opinion of Mr Jeggle, who is absent today. Priority is being sought for full protection for geographical indications, given the increasing counterfeiting of quality EU agricultural products. Canada, like other states that protect geographical indications under trademarks, is, as we all know, opposed to the demands made by the EU on this point at the Doha Round negotiations. The different legislation of the individual provinces is an additional problematic aspect.\nAs for the question of genetically modified organisms, I would remind the House that the Union and Canada have signed a mutually acceptable solution to resolve this difference. Canada has agreed to resolve the difference in exchange for a bilateral regulatory dialogue on biotechnology issues. I call on the Commission to defend the high level of protection provided by the European regulatory framework during the course of the negotiations under way.\nFinally, I would like to mention the Canadian state trading companies in the agricultural sector which, as we all know, have broad competences and can act as monopolies. Specific commitments need to be entered into on the Canadian side. This, too, is a demand which was highlighted by the Union during WTO negotiations.\nDavid Martin\non behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, my group can see many benefits in an ambitious, comprehensive, economic trade agreement with Canada. However, we have four red lines.\nFirstly, on the extraction of oil sands, which damages local diversity, we insist on the EU's right to use the Fuel Quality Directive to inhibit their use. I was pleased to hear what the Commissioner had to say on that matter.\nSecondly, we find it hard to imagine Parliament approving a trade deal with Canada while Canada pursues a challenge, through the WTO, on the EU's trade ban. Here I cannot accept the Commissioner's point of view that we should keep the two matters separate. I think they are linked in the eyes of the voters, and they are linked in my eyes. I would certainly not vote for an agreement unless this dispute is settled before we reach the final stages of this deal.\nThirdly, we would not be able to accept any limitation on Canada's ability to use the TRIPS flexibilities to export cheap generic medicines to developing countries. This is an important source of generics for developing countries, and we should not bow to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry to make it more difficult for Canada to provide generic medicines.\nFourthly, we cannot accept a deal that does not address the different standards and preferences from local SMEs and state monopolies in Canada. This was a point that Mr Papastamkos was making about the difference between provincial and federal regulations. They must be dealt with before this agreement comes to conclusion.\nThat said, if we find that the final text deals with these issues and is ambitious in reducing tariffs on EU spirits, on EU machinery, on EU automobiles and other areas, we will be happy to back such a free trade agreement. But we do insist that the four items I have mentioned are red lines and have to be dealt with properly in these negotiations.\nMetin Kazak\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution tabled by the Committee on International Trade clearly expresses support for the ongoing negotiations with Canada on concluding the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Canada is one of our oldest and closest trading partners, currently the 11th biggest, and the potential benefits from deregulating bilateral trade are obvious, including from the study carried out by the Commission and the Canadian Government in October 2008.\nThe private sector in the European Union and Canada has also expressed strong support for concluding such a comprehensive agreement, even though a number of challenges still remain, taking into account the lofty ambitions declared during the negotiations.\nI believe that the first thing we need to do is to assess the impact, which will shed some light on the pros and cons of such an agreement. Secondly, how realistic are the Commission's expectations that negotiations will be concluded by the end of 2011? Can the Commission also guarantee that the final agreement will include a chapter on sustainable development, in keeping with Parliament's requirements? Will this chapter include labour standards, the obligations associated with multilateral environmental agreements, as well as an effective mechanism for enforcing them?\nHas a plan already been outlined enabling the Commission to resolve the issues relating to market access? Can the existing differences in terms of economic structures and regulatory systems be overcome in the near future?\nDoes the Commission intend to accept the application of the principle of reciprocity as part of the existing legal protection methods when it comes to resolving trade disputes? Does the Commission think that, in the long run, the implementation of the 'negative list' approach to deregulating services can set a precedent for other, future negotiations too?\nThese are questions that naturally require answers, which I am counting on receiving.\nKeith Taylor\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, as others have mentioned, Canada is indeed a solid trading partner for the EU. The abolition of the tariffs now being negotiated in the CETA framework is, on the whole, acceptable to our group.\nBut sadly, CETA does come up with some other demands and political goals which we find deeply worrying. I will mention two of the most troublesome, the first being the negative list in the negotiations on trade liberalisation. Normally, in negotiating FTAs, you name the services that you are ready to liberalise. But under these proposals, all services are open, except those specifically excluded at the outset. As Greens, we think there are some services, particularly those dealing with the general public interest, which are too sensitive and too potentially vulnerable to be negotiated under this 'negative list' approach. We have lodged some amendments and we are looking forward to some support from fellow Members.\nThe other area of concern is around procurement. We are concerned about the impact that CETA will have on procurement. To give just one example, the Ontario Green Energy Act would be illegal under CETA. That Act promotes the production and feeding of renewable energies and directs investments into local economies. That is just one example of how CETA will interfere with domestic policy in Canada.\nAlthough Canada is one of our oldest trading partners, we cannot deny that occasionally, we do have differences of opinion. Canada is, for instance, opposed to the EU's GMO policies. It is starting WTO action against the EU import ban on seals, in addition to its barbaric annual seal cull, and do not forget that it is fighting the EU Fuel Quality Directive to protect its exports of tar sands to the EU.\nI believe that it is important that we voice all these concerns and urge the Commission to remain firm in the principles and policies of this place.\nPaul Murphy\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - Madam President, the negotiations for the EU-Canada trade agreement have been driven by major European and Canadian multinationals who want market access to vital public services so that they can profit at the expense of workers and consumers. This agreement would be a charter for privatisation, particularly in terms of water, telecommunications and electricity. The investment chapter would, outrageously, give corporations the right to sue governments when social or environmental policies cut across their profiteering.\nCanada's tar sands have become a playground for big oil companies like BP, Total and Shell. These oil deposits produce more than three times the carbon emissions of conventional oil and their exploitation is also extremely damaging to the local environment and a threat to the First Nations communities who live in the region.\nThis trade agreement, I understand, could potentially cut across moves to stop this oil being imported into Europe. There is an urgent need now for united action by the European and Canadian trade union movement, with environmental and indigenous activists, to fight together and resist this proposed agreement.\nWilliam  Dartmouth\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, for the Commission and Parliament here to seek to use a proposed trade agreement with Canada to influence that country's internal affairs is simply wrong. If the Canadian Government considers that it is environmentally acceptable and economically advantageous to develop their tar sands, that is entirely a matter for them. Indeed, we should all welcome this enhancement and diversification of global energy.\nAs far as the British national interest is concerned, the coalition government consistently neglects trade relations with the Commonwealth, of which Canada is a founder member. To paraphrase the commentator, Ruth Lea: because the Trade Commissioner negotiates trade deals for the whole of the EU, the brutal truth is that EU membership constrains Britain's economic prospects.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Madam President, we can be extremely pleased that our long-standing relations with Canada, one of our oldest and closest trading partners worldwide, have been defined by common roots and values.\nAs we know, in recent decades, a whole series of framework agreements for trade and economic relations have been concluded, from sectoral agreements right through to the most diverse trade initiatives. The EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA), with regard to which there are probably only the last few minor details that need to be worked out, will probably enter into force in the near future.\nAlthough the predecessor to this agreement was never actually concluded, this time, everyone involved seems to be confident. The Canadian chief negotiator even admitted at the start of the year that this agreement was a top priority for Canada. As the second largest trading partner, the EU is clearly intended to be established as a counterbalance to the US market and, conversely, as far as Europe is concerned, Canada represents a gateway to the NAFTA economic area.\nIf the experts prove to be right, the conclusion of the CETA could increase bilateral trade between the European Union and Canada by 20% by 2014. Those are extremely appealing prospects, particularly in economically strained times. If we consider that, after Saudi Arabia, Canada has the largest oil reserves, this is probably also of strategic significance in the context of European efforts to achieve more energy security, and that is something that we should definitely bear in mind.\nChristofer Fjellner\n(SV) Madam President, Canada is one of our most important trading partners. Therefore, this is also one of the most important free trade agreements. It brings considerable advantages, and all studies show that it could increase trade significantly. Many fellow Members are choosing to focus on threats and risks and to make this into a problem, but I think it is important for us to take a step back and focus on why we want these negotiations.\nThe reason is that we can see the incredible potential that can be realised in growth, trade and development. That is something that we all welcome. I have very high hopes of this agreement, as it is so ambitious. We often say that all of our free trade agreements should be ambitious, but this one really is. This agreement has the potential to create more extensive free trade and more free borders between Europe and Canada than currently exist between Canada and the United States. That is worth emphasising. It would be an historic achievement if we succeeded in bridging the Atlantic with regard to free trade with Canada.\nI would like to mention the trade in services in particular. It is precisely this trade in services that several people have made out to be problematic, but this is clearly one of the most important strategic areas we have, particularly when it comes to financial services. I would like to hear the Commission say something about how this part of the negotiations is going, as I know there has been a certain amount of resistance with regard to this area. As I said, it is an important strategic area of interest for Europe.\nFinally, I would like to urge the Commission not to let this process drag on. We must ensure that we do not allow the negotiations to slow down. That is what I see as the biggest threat, in other words, that conflicts concerning various side issues take the focus away from the main issue. What is clearly important is to create more free trade. When we started these free trade negotiations, there was a very positive attitude from everyone involved. I therefore believe it is important for us to ensure that we finish in exactly the same spirit and that we do not allow the negotiations to drag on for far too long.\nHarlem D\u00e9sir\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement negotiated with Canada will strengthen our links with a large and long-standing EU partner country. We welcome this, but we must keep track of all its consequences, not just the benefits it will bring for certain economic sectors or certain major international investors.\nIn particular, the agreement must respect the social and environmental models of both parties - of the EU Member States and of Canada - and their capacity to continue to legislate in what are sensitive areas for our societies. These are not mere details or points to be left for another day.\nAs regards public services, the Commission's chosen 'negative list' approach is dangerous. It is far too broad and ill-defined, and we would not like to see it set a precedent. Also, from a general point of view, the chapter on investment must respect both parties' right to legislate in areas such as the environment, public health, employee and consumer rights, industrial policy and cultural diversity, among others. We call on the Commission to exclude sectors such as culture, education and public health from the scope of the agreements. In this respect, and as other Members have said, the intellectual property part should not call into question issues relating to generic medicine production.\nAs for the environment, we are concerned and call for investment. As regards the impact of the agreement on oil sands drilling, the agreement must not have the effect of weakening European legislation on the application of the Fuel Quality Directive, nor must it limit the possibility for Canada to regulate drilling of its oil sands in the future under its environmental remit.\nWe also call on the Commission - we are asking the question, anyway - to monitor the impact on the fisheries sector in areas such as St Pierre and Miquelon. These are areas of Europe that could be severely affected by the complete liberalisation of that sector.\nLastly, I echo Mr Kazak in saying that the sustainable development chapter must include social and environmental commitments and, in particular, social and environmental responsibility on the part of large multinationals.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) (The speaker directs a blue-card question to Mr Fjellner under Rule 149(8))\nMr Fjellner has represented all this in a very positive light and he said that we should not allow this process to drag on. In this context, my question is this: How can he have a positive view of the fact that in Canada, an area one eighth of the size of Austria is destroyed each year in connection with the exploitation of these tar sands and the entire livelihoods of the First Nations communities are being taken away? Does he really view this in such an incredibly positive light and is it not also part of Europe's responsibility to impose appropriate conditions in this regard?\nChristofer Fjellner\n(SV) Madam President, I should like to respond to Mr Obermayr's question. I do not believe that I made any reference to tar sands in my speech, but I think it would be naive to imagine that the entire free trade agreement with Canada should simply revolve around this issue. That would be to lose our sense of perspective. It goes without saying that we should lay down clear environmental requirements in these free trade agreements. That is something that we do in all of our free trade agreements, but we cannot allow the entire agreement with Canada to be reduced simply to negotiations on the issue of tar sands.\nChris Davies\nMadam President, it is the intention of the Commission to set default values for the use of tar sands - not just from Canada, but from any source, including Venezuela, for example - for the purpose of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels, as required by the Fuel Quality Directive.\nThere has been extensive lobbying by Canada to try to prevent us doing this. I have met the Alberta Energy Minister, who has been doing the rounds, as I am sure others have too. Canada has also been lobbying Member States, and there has been the threat that Canada will take us to the World Trade Organisation if such an arrangement is introduced.\nWe have to tell Canada to back off. Canada is making a great deal of money out of exploiting its tar sands but it also made commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its CO2 emissions, and it has reneged on those commitments because of the financial benefits it is getting from tar sands. We do not want a dispute with Canada but we have to insist that we will not shrink from facing inconvenient truths.\nFrieda Brepoels\n(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, against the backdrop of the ongoing negotiations with Canada, the issue of seal hunting raises its head once again. You even made reference to it yourself. I was the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety a few years back, but I remain an advocate of the ban on trading seal products. I therefore emphatically call on my fellow Members and also the Commission to absolutely not take their eye off this issue.\nAround two years ago, we, Parliament, approved a trading ban with an overwhelming majority, despite the immense pressure from Canada on Parliament and the other institutions to water down the legislation. For us, the crucial factor, above all, was the voice of millions of European citizens, who have made known their opposition to this inhumane slaughter.\nThe ban has not been ineffective. As a result of this piece of legislation, amongst other things, the market pretty much collapsed, as the number of animals killed fell from 217 000 in 2008 to 38 000 this year, while the price of fur also fell from USD 100 in 2006 to USD 15 in 2009. Canada is now trying to penetrate new markets, for example in China, but there, too, voices calling for a trading ban are to be heard. It is thus also regrettable that Canada is still trying to fight this European legislation through the WTO. That is why it is so important that Parliament should again send Canada a strong signal at this point. We will not give up on this piece of legislation, which we worked for for so long, both within and outside the Union. I hope that my fellow Members will tomorrow lend their support in large numbers to an amendment that I have tabled along with a number of other Members.\nHelmut Scholz\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the negotiations with Canada are being conducted with a country that has a strong economy and a highly developed legal system. It is therefore all the more incomprehensible that the Commission wants to integrate, if not conceal, an investment agreement in this agreement to give undertakings a direct right to take legal action before a special arbitration court. Why ever should an ordinary court not decide on compensation in cases of doubt?\nWhich courts do you, as the Commission, not have any trust in whatsoever? Is it the Canadian courts or those in the European Union? Do you not see that, with this part of the agreement, you would be discriminating against the local undertakings?\nAs has already been mentioned by a few Members, my group is also strongly opposed to the Commission's approach of using the agreement to force the liberalisation of services by means of a 'negative list'. This turns on its head the approach that has been taken up to now where the contracting partners define the areas that they actively want to open. We want to retain public services.\nI would also ask the Commission to provide an explanation for its rejection of Canada's social and employment policy proposals, which ought to be seen in a positive light for the sustainability chapter. The European Parliament is also calling for the protection of workers, payment of overtime, minimum wages and rejection of social dumping.\nJaros\u0142aw Leszek Wa\u0142\u0119sa\n(PL) Madam President, potential benefits for Canada as well as the European Union are obvious and backed up by research, as well as encouraging support from the private sector. This should be commended and further cooperation should be encouraged. However, since we are very aware of environmental issues in Europe, we should be tough and demand, as a matter of principle, that Canada fulfils our rigorous standards. I am very pleased that the Commissioner mentioned this in her presentation.\nHowever, we should not only focus on sustainable development but also consider the extraction of resources which pose a risk to life and health such as asbestos, the use and extraction of which is banned in Europe. In addition, we should note the difference in regulations on genetically modified organisms. This is a particularly sensitive topic in my country, but, of course, the whole chapter on agriculture is important for both sides. It should also be noted that we have an obligation to reduce CO2 emissions.\nThe final issue, which is no less important, is trade in articles made from seals. This is an area where we should be tough in demanding compliance with our bans. Taking all of these important matters into account, I believe that our economic relations will achieve their full potential because they are supported by both sides. Our Parliament should also encourage this.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I had actually intended to address several points in my speech. I am not going to do that now as I would like to say something else.\nI simply do not understand the Commission. It is supposed to be the guardian of European law, including the legislation that we have adopted, but when it comes to the trade agreement with Canada, it says that it is important that some people make a lot of money, but it is not important for European law to remain law. I do not understand how the Commission can say that we do not need to discuss the import ban on seal products in connection with these matters. We are talking about partners here and partners have mutual respect for each other's values, views and interests and do not haul the other partner before a WTO court on account of that partner's values. As far as I am concerned, that is not what trading partners are about. It is evident that if there is no mutual respect and the parties do not share each other's views, then these parties will not be able to work well together in the area of trade. If Canada does not stop its action against the import ban on seal products before the conclusion of this kind of agreement, then, in my opinion, we should not agree to this trade agreement. As I said, good partners do not haul each other before WTO courts on account of their convictions. Good partners work together.\nElie Hoarau\n(FR) Madam President, during the negotiations on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) agreements, in particular with Canada, the EU head of delegation promised to retrocede the French cod fishing quota to the fishermen of St Pierre and Miquelon. That promise was not kept, and the fishermen, like St Pierre and Miquelon's economy, are today suffering the consequences.\nThe negotiations currently taking place on an EU-Canada economic and trade agreement must not sacrifice what remains of St Pierre and Miquelon's economy - again. That is why I tabled an amendment on this subject.\nI call on the Commission to ensure that the strategic commercial interests of St Pierre and Miquelon are protected at all times during the negotiations. Commissioner, can you assure us of this?\nGianluca Susta\n(IT) Madam President, I feel bound to note that a sense of fear and a need to defend European interests still prevail among some Members in this Chamber: in other words, they are on the defensive.\nAs far as I am concerned, I believe that this agreement with a country with which we have a long-standing bond of friendship is important as long as it is entered into on the right basis, that of true reciprocity, and is a balanced and ambitious agreement. It should not be limited to the elimination of tariff or non-tariff barriers but should represent an opportunity to take a qualitative leap in the elimination of environmental and health policy differences, and I refer, in particular, to the farming sector, the protection of animal species at risk of extinction and particular economic extractive activities that have a significant environmental impact, such as asbestos mining and oil sands drilling, or that restrict access to medicines for the poorest countries.\nHowever, we must be positive in our attitude, not defensive like we were with Japan.\nI would therefore emphasise the need to improve reciprocity in terms of the protection of intellectual property, including trademarks, geographical indications and policies for the reciprocal promotion of bilateral investment, aimed principally at innovation and technology and inspired by the positions already taken in this field by the European Parliament.\nMadam President, I believe that the numerous bilateral agreements between Canada and the Member States are the best foundation on which to build a robust free trade agreement in the commercial arena, thanks to a friendship that we have already experienced in the UN, the G8, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, a friendship based on the ideals of democracy and freedom that characterise Canada and the European Union.\nKriton Arsenis\n(EL) Madam President, I, too, should like to raise the issue of tar sands; this is an important issue, because it is the reason why a similar agreement which we already have with Canada, an international agreement on commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, is not being respected. We trust that Canada will take a different stand in the agreement being debated today.\nIn any event, Canada is fighting to secure free trade and a liberalised system of investments under this agreement for oil mined from tar sands. The environmental impact study for this agreement, which we paid for, does not include an assessment of the impact that liberalisation will have on tar sands. In other words, we have a trade agreement which refers to specific measures for trading oil mined from tar sands and we have an impact study for this agreement which does not include an assessment of the impact of this specific activity.\nThis makes it very difficult for Parliament to approve any agreement that ultimately transpires. That is because we are talking about the Boreal forests, about a quarter of the world's virgin forests, and this mining activity will put those forests and local biodiversity and first nations at risk.\nElena B\u0103sescu\n(RO) Madam President, I think that EU-Canada trade relations are at a crossroads at the moment. Signature of the economic agreement is still under negotiation and the priorities of both parties must be included in the final document.\nIn this regard, I must highlight the differences in sanitary standards. Achieving consensus would avoid an adverse impact on the European agricultural sector. In addition, the agreement must also take into account the outcome of common agricultural policy reform. Clarifications on the sustainable development chapter are important. The EU has established its environmental standards in accordance with Member States' requirements. Verifying their compatibility with the standards proposed by Canada is vital to ensuring the effectiveness of the final agreement. I think that close attention must also be paid to the impact of the drilling issue and oil surveys on the negotiations. This is why the Commission needs to explain where the Fuel Quality Directive comes in this document.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMadam President, unlike the last discussion, which was virtually unanimous in its approach, this is the exact opposite. Many people are very concerned about this proposed free trade agreement. Now free trade agreements, bilateral agreements, are the norm at this point in time and I think we have much more in common with Canada than any differences. They are a democracy. They respect human rights. They speak mainly English and French, European languages, and they are open to take in many people, even from my own country, who cannot find jobs in Ireland.\nThere are issues, largely concerning seals and tar sands. Obviously, they are important but, at the end of the day, I think that some of the points made here would be refuted by the Canadians - because I am a member of the EU-Canadian delegation and these matters have been discussed and they would have a different perspective - and that is why it is important that we continue to negotiate with them on these issues. But the bottom line is - and nobody referred to it other than the Commissioner - that there is a EUR 20 billion benefit to both economies here if we can work out a free trade agreement. It is worth trying.\n(GA) Thank you, Madam President.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Madam President, I would like to congratulate the Commission on conducting these negotiations so intensively. At the end of the day, this is about trade relations, and I believe that environmental and social issues clearly also need to be regulated in separate agreements. Kyoto is a good example of this, where the intention was to improve standards at an international level. Therefore, we should be specific in our negotiations here.\nJust as energy policy and the generation of energy is a matter for the Member States in Europe, we must also concede that it should be the Canadians and Canadian democracy that decide how energy is produced there and what environmental impact is ultimately to be taken into account. We ought to strive to ensure that a research programme is set up in this regard to help to enable these resources to be used in a way that is as environmentally friendly and sustainable as possible. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn, perhaps you could provide some impetus here to get a tar sands research programme put in place alongside this trade agreement.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Madam President, Commissioner, I broadly support the reservations voiced by my colleagues from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. The question is whether they can be resolved in this agreement or, as Mr R\u00fcbig said, whether other agreements are necessary. At this point, however, I would like to draw attention to a major problem, which is the ratification of this agreement. For example, the Czech Parliament has already blocked the ratification of a transport agreement, due to the continuing dispute with Canada over the abolition of visa requirements for Czech citizens. This is an extremely serious issue, and there is a risk that ratification of the agreement will be blocked until the Commission is able to resolve the issue properly. I am asking you to take this issue seriously.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) Madam President, Canada is currently the European Union's 11th biggest trade partner, with trade relations between the European Union and Canada accounting for 1.6% of the EU's total external trade in 2010.\nIn 2010, 26% of the European Union's imports from Canada and 37% of the European Union's exports to Canada related to trade in machinery and transport equipment. I would like to know what impact this agreement is having on the European Union's industrial policy strategy and on its strategy on raw materials and rare earths. With regard to deregulating services, because it was mentioned here, I would like to ask you, Commissioner, what the link will be between this agreement and the agreement on civil aviation safety and the air transport agreement between the European Union and Canada. The aim of both agreements is to make the European and Canadian markets competitive in this area, as they are extremely important for the air transport sector. I would therefore like to ask what the trade agreement's impact will be on other agreements already signed between the European Union and Canada.\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f\n(RO) Madam President, I, too, wish to emphasise how important it is to conclude the negotiation of the European Union-Canada economic and trade agreement, thereby strengthening trade and economic links, which are already considerable, and yielding beneficial effects. However, during the negotiations, the European executive must strive to encourage an ambitious trade agreement, which will support fair trade and contain legally binding social and environmental protection elements.\nThe agreement must not jeopardise the Union's ability to review the Fuel Quality Directive and to refuse to import oil extracted from oil sands, the exploitation of which generates more carbon dioxide than the conventional oil extraction method, thereby entailing a major harmful environmental impact. By refusing this kind of oil, the European Union would retain its credibility in terms of its desire to protect the environment and comply with the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol.\nIoan Enciu\n(RO) Madam President, the CETA agreement marks an extremely important step towards a fruitful future for both the European Union and Canada. I support this project and am very pleased with the progress made so far. I think that we are on the right path to concluding the negotiations this year. However, I should point out that there are two points among the several being debated which need to be resolved to avoid creating problems at the time of ratification by some Member States, if they remain unresolved. These are the oil extractions from bituminous shale, which may pose a hazard to the environment and the local communities in the area, as well as the lack of reciprocity in the case of compulsory visa requirements for Bulgarian, Romanian and Czech citizens.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\n(PT) Madam President, this is yet another piece of the edifice which is European Union trade policy, an edifice which is growing by the day, with consequences that affect the various Member States profoundly but differently. The agreements that give concrete expression to this policy are essentially based on free trade, whose goals and effects are clearly demonstrated by the associated rhetoric: that of 'offensive interests', as if we were talking about a war. They are agreements that lack democratic legitimacy, and increasingly so as they are almost always negotiated in the greatest secrecy, behind the public's backs, seeking to cover up their economic, social and environmental impact, avoiding informed debate and clearing things up. This is the case once again.\nWith negotiations at a stage said to be fairly advanced and their conclusion envisaged for 2011, its impact on sectors and countries has yet to be fully debated. Its content is nothing new: the opening up of markets, and the liberalisation of services, including increasingly commercialised public services at the mercy of multinationals, making it harder for Member States to exercise their social function in these areas. The consequences are also well known: the domination of markets by a few, an impact on weaker production systems, and increasing pretexts for attacks on rights, and on working and living conditions.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) Madam President, the European Union engages in negotiations on trade and economic agreements with all influential countries, within the bounds of its competence.\nAlthough Canada has a strong presence in international trade, and is one of the European Union's oldest trading partners, we must proceed very sensitively and constructively as we finalise the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the European Union and Canada. Our divergent positions on areas such as drug policy, fisheries policy and the production of oil from tar sands need to be set out in the agreement in such a way as to represent European Union policy while respecting the views of our trading partner. Reciprocity stands at the core of balanced trade and economic relations. However, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement should by no means diminish Europe's established and accepted certification parameters. I would like to believe that, as we approach the finish line, the European Commission will be up to the challenge of finding appropriate solutions to the remaining problems.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Madam President, Canada is - I would like to say this at the outset - a wonderful country. Wonderful people, wonderful achievements - an important partner for the EU. However, we must be able to ask questions of a good partner. Many fellow Members are wrong to simply reduce this matter to sand and seals today. The tar sands represent just one example of incredible environmental destruction. Anyone who has seen Canada knows that environmental destruction is taking place there on a scale to match Brazil.\nThis environmental destruction also has an impact on the indigenous people, the First Nations. Their environment is being destroyed. Anyone who knows a bit about Canada, has visited British Columbia and knows how international corporations have used their influence here to make the indigenous peoples give up their ancestral areas and allow these areas to be bought up, cannot simply ignore this.\nWe talk a great deal about clear language and about protection of minorities in countries adjacent to the EU. However, it is also important for us to speak out with regard to the protection of the minorities that are the aboriginal peoples of Canada.\nM\u00e1ire Geoghegan-Quinn\nMadam President, honourable Members, I would firstly like to thank all the Members who participated in this debate and Vital Moreira for putting the question to Parliament.\nThe Commission has taken careful note of the substance of your questions and I do hope that the answers address your possible underlying concerns.\nAs you know, the negotiations are making good progress. The Commission wants to ensure a balanced, ambitious, high-quality agreement and it wants to be equally ambitious on sustainable development. Canada is a highly developed, like-minded partner with strategic links going far beyond trade and investment. The EU and Canada share the ambitious negotiation objectives that can be realised to our mutual benefit, creating the potential for new opportunities.\nLet me emphasise two things in particular. As regards the oil sands issues and your concerns in relation to this negotiation, for the Fuels Quality Directive to fall within the scope of CETA's regulatory cooperation provisions, both parties would need to agree. CETA's regulatory cooperation provisions would not impose any obligation to hold such discussions. Furthermore, the Commission does not propose entering into any commitment that would restrict the regulatory freedom of the EU, be it on environmental issues such as fuel quality, or on any other essential policy objective.\nAs I mentioned in the introduction, this agreement is hugely beneficial to our two economies and not just in material terms. In both countries, opportunities will be created for business and the manufacturing sector, thanks to the elimination of substantially all imported tariffs and improved market access for services and investors. Consumers will gain through more affordable purchases and enhanced access to high-quality services. At the same time, increased flows of foreign direct investment would act as a catalyst to creating jobs and boosting wages.\nThe CETA will also cover regulatory barriers such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, customs procedures and competition rules. European intellectual property rights will gain increased protection. Reciprocal access to both sides' procurement markets would not only mean savings for public budgets but also provide huge business opportunities.\nThis is why the Commission is convinced that this will be a good and balanced agreement. Our very debate tonight allows for important clarifications to be made. In this context, the Commission takes careful note, welcomes the resolution to be adopted by Parliament on EU-Canada trade relations and is grateful for its general support.\nMy colleague, Commissioner De Gucht, will, of course, continue to keep you informed of further developments in the CETA process.\nPresident\nI have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday at 12:00.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger\nThe European Union and Canada have had good, solid trade relations for many years. Canada is even one of the EU's oldest trading partners. In the mid-1970s, the EU signed the first economic and trade agreement with Canada. Further agreements followed in the livestock sector and with regard to wines and spirits. The EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA) could be very advantageous for both trading partners. However, there are still a few things that need to be taken into consideration and discussed. Clearly, the aim of the agreement must be fair competition. This can only be achieved if not only the tariff barriers but also the non-tariff and technical barriers to trade are removed. The principle of reciprocity must be respected, because that is the only way to achieve a balanced outcome of the negotiations. That also applies to elements that are specific to the country or culture of the individual partners. Discussions of tricky subjects like extraction from tar sands and the associated environmental impact, ILO standards, as well as the recognition of technical standards and the traceability of food products, must also continue on equal terms in order to reach a consensus. Of particular interest to me are the negotiations in the dairy sector and access to the Canadian market as well as origin labelling of Canadian slaughter cattle. Can the Commission provide more information in these areas? What outcome can we expect in this regard?\nMaurice Ponga\nI am glad that Parliament is stating its views on the current EU-Canada trade negotiations and outlining its priorities in this regard. Canada is undoubtedly a trade partner of the EU, but it is imperative that we in Parliament relay the concerns of our fellow citizens located both on European territory and in regions forming part of the European family, namely, the protection and defence of their interests. By 'European family', I mean the overseas countries and territories (OCT), which, although not strictly European territories, maintain a special relationship with the European Union, and, in particular, with the Member States of which they are part. In the trade negotiations currently under way, it is the archipelago of St Pierre and Miquelon, next door to Canada, that is particularly affected. I therefore call on the Commission, during the negotiations, to defend and protect the interests of that overseas country and territory situated in the North Atlantic Ocean.\nTokia Sa\u00effi\nCanada is one of Europe's oldest trade partners. It is only natural, therefore, that this relationship should be formalised via a comprehensive trade agreement. I do wonder, however, about the content of several negotiating chapters.\nFirstly, the EU and Canada have different rules of origin systems. As Canada is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission must undertake to find a satisfactory solution regarding both industrial products and agricultural or fisheries products, so that Canada does not become a gateway through which goods from other NAFTA members enter Europe.\nThe Commission will also have to negotiate a solution that can be applied to two different geographical indication systems: in Canada, 'geographical indication' is a mere adjective; in Europe, it is a bona fide trademark. If European geographical indications are genuinely to be protected, the Canadian authorities will have to recognise the European concept.\nRegarding the chapter on public works contracts, lastly, Canada must grant the EU the same access it granted the United States under their trade agreement; in other words, European businesses must be able to tender for contracts in the provinces, regions and certain municipalities.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Canfin, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation on Short Selling and certain aspects of Credit Default Swaps - C7-0264\/2010 -.\nPascal Canfin\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, this report concerns short selling and the supervision of credit default swaps, those products that insure debt against default, in particular state default.\nThe origins of this text lie in the Greek crisis, which began in spring 2010. Following certain movements on the financial markets that had been observed, a political request was put to Commissioner Barnier and to the European Commission to establish European rules on short selling and on sovereign debt speculation tools. The Commission drafted that regulation in September. This was followed by the adoption of our position in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in March, and of the Council position in May. Since then we have been negotiating, because we have already had five trialogues, which have enabled us to reach a number of possible compromises. Although they are not here, I should like to thank the representatives of the Hungarian Presidency who took part in these trialogues and helped to move this matter forward.\nHowever, after those four or five negotiating sessions, we and the shadow rapporteurs who voted by a majority for this text in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - in other words, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, which I represent - took the decision to vote in the July part-session for this text, but not for the legislative proposal, in order to send two messages. The first message consists in saying that we want to carry on negotiating with the Council because it has been almost a year since the Commission tabled this text and because, on this issue as on others, Parliament wishes to adopt a responsible yet ambitious attitude. We want these texts; we want the rules on financial markets to change. Too often, we have to wait for the Council, which clearly takes much longer to make its decisions than we do. Therefore, we want to carry on negotiating, which means that we will not be voting for the legislative proposal tomorrow.\nHowever, we also want to send three messages on the substance in order to reaffirm the positions adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which will become the positions of the European Parliament too when it adopts them - by a very large majority, I think - tomorrow.\nThe first issue concerns the role of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). In our version we have strengthened the role of ESMA, and you have reminded us many times, Commissioner, of the importance of that institution when it comes to ensuring the consistency of the single-market rules on financial services. I have to say that the position adopted in the Council - to have a red line that is an absolute red line for us, to create a right of veto for States on European regulatory issues concerning sovereign debt - is completely unacceptable.\nThe second point that I wished to raise is that we in Parliament want a simple rule: when you sell an asset, be it a share or a bond, you must be able to know for certain where to find it; there must be an agreement with the person who is going to lend it to you. This is what is known as the 'hard locate' rule in technical speak. This is Parliament's position, and I think it is a sensible one.\nThe final point that I should like to emphasise, and which is obviously a key element of the discussions we are having, is the ban on naked credit default swaps. This position is shared by a large majority of the European Parliament. We do not see how it is possible, in financial terms, to cover oneself against a risk with a credit default swap without being liable for that risk, in other words without owning the bond of the country that issued the security. It is a nonsense and it opens the door to speculation.\nTo conclude, I would say that the current debates on Greece prove us right, because some of the arguments made to limit the Greek restructuring consist in saying, 'Yes, but some people have speculated. If the debt is restructured, they are going to make money without having invested in Greece.' That is exactly what we want to put a stop to.\n(Applause)\nMichel Barnier\nMr President, as Mr Canfin said, with each day that passes, if we look closely at what is happening on the markets, we are reminded of the urgent and topical nature of this text. That is why, Mr Canfin, my entire Directorate-General and my team have worked so quickly, I think, and so seriously in four and a half months; on 15 September it will be a year since we tabled this text. I see the time passing, we know that times passes much more quickly in the world of the markets than in the world of democracy, and that is why I hope, like you, that you will be able to follow up the good work that you have done with the Hungarian Presidency recently in order to find a solution and to reach some compromises.\nLadies and gentlemen, the 2008 financial crisis and the stock-market collapse that followed clearly illustrated the consequences and the risks that can result from uncontrolled movements on the financial markets, which are sometimes encouraged by a number of reprehensible practices that we must regulate. The 2009 bond crisis highlighted the fact that these phenomena can affect bond markets too by causing serious problems for everyone operating on them, including Member States when they try to raise capital.\nIn both cases, the Member States reacted urgently, and often in a disorderly fashion, without having the information and the resources necessary to act effectively and within a genuinely European framework.\nThe draft regulation on short selling and credit default swaps (CDS) is specifically aimed at remedying this situation. We want to make these practices more transparent. Although they are often useful, they can have an impact on the markets by increasing volatility. The regulation must enable national regulators to act effectively, within the comprehensive and coordinated European framework that we want to consolidate.\nFaced with markets that are still unstable and with the persistent problems concerning the debt of certain Member States, Europe must take swift action, and it must take practical action.\nIt is vital that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission can make progress on reaching a dynamic compromise, something which you yourself want, Mr Canfin, and the few weeks that you are going to have should make this possible. I am very grateful to you, Mr Canfin, for the very effective work you have done alongside and with the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Ferber, Mr Goebbels, Mr Schmidt and Mr Kamall, and the Presidency, which has supported these efforts, as you said yourself.\nThe text put to the vote in Parliament and the general Council agreement are aligned on many points now. I think that the trialogues have made this alignment process possible, and I hope that it will succeed.\nI would just like to raise three points in your presence: the purchase of naked CDSs, the restrictions on naked short selling, and the powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which you yourself mentioned, Mr Canfin.\nPoint one: regarding the sensitive issue of CDSs on sovereign risks and the possibility of buying them without being exposed to the underlying risk, therefore naked, I believe that appropriate action should be taken. I have reservations, as you know, about the effects of an unconditional ban on naked CDSs where the liquidity of sovereign markets is concerned and about the impact that that might have on the bond market. I think that we need to change the status quo and not leave it up to the Member States to decide whether or not to ban naked CDSs. We must not let this opportunity slip; that is why I can confirm to you that we are willing to work with the European Parliament and with the Council in order to come up with a solution that responds to these concerns, which are in fact legitimate.\nPoint two: regarding the restrictions on short selling and the 'locate rule', which you mentioned, we must maintain effective and sufficiently binding measures for market operators. Having different provisions for shares and sovereign debt may be an option, Mr Canfin, but this must not result in requirements that are too flexible and hence ineffective.\nPoint three: regarding ESMA's powers, it is very important for that authority - I shall say it again in relation to this text - to be able to carry out its coordination and, in some cases, intervention role; this was a requirement laid down in ESMA's founding regulation, which you yourselves consolidated, and this regulation officially authorises such intervention under certain circumstances. The issues relating to sovereign debt are, of course, particularly important for the Member States. We can see this very clearly at the present time, but maintaining a European regulatory framework that dovetails with an authority that can act effectively is also very important. I made a promise, during the recent ECOFIN Council in May, to work with you and with the Council on an appropriate solution.\nOnce again, I am very grateful to you for having properly understood and worked on this text, which I consider to be one of the bricks that we talked about earlier, and for having decided to take the few days or weeks necessary to work effectively on the trialogues and to bring them to a successful conclusion.\nKlaus-Heiner Lehne\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a very important proposal and a very important report. In my view, the very fact that we are having this debate demonstrates that in the past we allowed things to go on in the financial markets that had, in fact, been banned in casinos and state lotteries for years or even decades.\nThe rapporteur has rightly pointed out that, in the current situation, credit default swaps (CDSs) are being offered which insure something that may not even exist. In practice, the result - and this is also true in the current debate on the crisis in Greece - is that nobody knows how many CDSs actually exist, or what the consequences would be in the event that Greece should actually declare itself bankrupt. It is high time that we regulated this and ensured proper supervision. In so doing we can help draw up rules for the financial markets that are at least equal to those that apply when ordinary citizens visit a casino or play the lottery.\nMarkus Ferber\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is right for us to debate this important proposal from the Commission here in plenary today and for us to lay down our position as the European Parliament tomorrow, because discussions in recent weeks - with all respect to the Hungarian Presidency, which has tried very hard to bring the Council and Parliament closer together on this - have shown that the Council of Ministers still needs to be motivated into adopting rules that allow what is necessary, but which prohibit what is not necessary.\nLet me say quite plainly that I can hardly stand to hear the word liquidity any more. If there was one problem that was to blame for leading us into the financial crisis, it was that there was too much liquidity that was invested in products that nobody needs and which then collapsed and took us into the crisis. I ask you therefore: who is it that needs insurance against a government defaulting on its commitments? Only those that hold such government securities, and they should indeed have it. Anyone speculating on a country being unable to meet its commitments, however, should not be able to use such instruments to do so. That is why these products must be prohibited.\nWhen it comes to the short selling of shares - in other words, selling shares that one does not have - it is a matter of drawing up rules that prevent highly speculative behaviour. I believe we have achieved a reasonable compromise here, and in this respect discussions with the Council have been very constructive. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his outstanding work. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive discussions, and also the Commission, which has played a very positive part in achieving this. Moreover, I hope that, for its part, the Council - which is unfortunately not represented here today - will be able to agree a sensible resolution of this matter with us as soon as possible. With that in mind, I am pleased that we - as Parliament - are now sending out a clear signal as regards this important dossier.\nRobert Goebbels\nMr President, I fully agree with my fellow Members Mr Canfin, Mr Lehne and Mr Ferber, because I believe that in order to prevent a new financial crisis, we need to strengthen market regulation. In particular, we need to ban all abusive practices, one particularly harmful example of which is short selling. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were forced into bankruptcy by the short selling of the shares of those two paragons of Wall Street capitalism. Naked credit default swaps (CDSs) are more abusive still. Warren Buffett described them as weapons of mass destruction. In theory, a CDS is a guarantee against a possible loss on a security. Yet naked CDSs offer the possibility of insuring oneself against a risk for which one is not liable. That is toxic speculation and it endangers the real economy.\nToday, certain market operators are betting on the collapse of the euro area and on the default of a State. By purchasing naked CDSs on the sovereign debt of certain States, they are simply increasing the speculative pressure on the States concerned. It is strange that certain States - the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Romania and others - do not want naked CDSs on sovereign debt to be banned. They believe in the warnings from the markets predicting increased volatility on the sovereign debt market if naked CDSs are banned. Those governments should explain to their citizens that they prefer to give in to wild speculation rather than alienate the sacrosanct financial markets. Wolfgang M\u00fcnchau, an editorial writer on the Financial Times, who is far from left-wing, writes the following:\nI quote in English: 'A naked CDS purchase means that you take out insurance on bonds without actually owning them. It is a purely speculative gamble. There is not one social or economic benefit. Even hardened speculators agree on this point. Especially because naked CDSs constitute a large part of all CDS transactions, the case for banning them is about as a strong as that for banning bank robberies.\n'Economically, CDSs are insurance ... A universally accepted aspect of insurance regulation is that you can only insure what you actually own. Insurance is not meant as a gamble, but an instrument to allow the buyer to reduce incalculable risks. Not even the most libertarian extremist would accept that you could take out insurance on your neighbour's house or the life of your boss.'\nTherefore it is absolutely necessary that we reach an agreement with the Council, especially on banning naked CDSs.\nOlle Schmidt\nMr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Canfin, for a splendid piece of work and, above all, for the way in which he led the trialogue negotiations. It was an absolute pleasure, even if we did not entirely agree.\nWe need a European legislative framework for short selling. I believe that that is something on which we all agree. We need more transparency and openness. It must no longer be possible for anything to be conducted in secrecy. We need a greater ability to regulate and we also need a greater ability to regulate at European level through the agency of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). However - and I realise that I am saying something that will not go down well in this Chamber - it is important for the financial markets to have the option of short selling. That will actually provide liquidity on the market and reveal prices that have been incorrectly set as well as any share bubbles.\nThe controversial question is now whether the EU should introduce a ban on short selling of naked credit default swaps. In connection with the crisis in Greece, it has been claimed that market participants have used these credit default swaps to a considerable extent to speculate against the Greek crisis. The Commission's report issued last year demonstrated that this was not the case. It simply did not happen. Neither is there any evidence, Mr Ferber, to suggest that the German ban during the financial crisis had the desired effect. On the contrary, academic experts believe that it had a negative effect. Our basic approach should be not to introduce market restrictions if we do not know what will happen.\nMy view and that of my group - and it is in line with what Mr Lehne and the Commissioner said - is that to experiment with a ban at the present time could be detrimental. The burden of proof should be on those who intend to introduce this ban. My group and I are in favour of the regulators being able, in exceptional circumstances, to introduce a temporary ban or to restrict short selling if manipulation of the market or other phenomena occur. However, a permanent ban at this present time would make the market, which is already experiencing uncertainty, even more uncertain.\nThe speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))\nSven Giegold\nMr President, I have a very short question. Could Mr Schmidt explain to me what economic benefit naked short selling brings to an efficient financial market? From my perspective, there is no theoretical reason in economic theory to explain what it is good for.\nOlle Schmidt\nMr President, I would rather use my mother tongue, but OK. Mr Giegold, I tried to explain that in Swedish and I think the burden of proof is upon you to say why you should ban naked CDSs today, because exactly as the Commissioner said, there is turmoil out there in the market. We do not know what is going to happen - that is also what Mr Lehne said. This is the crucial issue now: you do not know what is going to happen, I do not know what is going to happen, therefore be cautious, my dear friend Sven Giegold, be cautious. We are not dealing with theories now. We are dealing with a dramatic economic situation in Europe today, so you have a responsibility to know what kind of proposals you are passing through this House.\nSyed Kamall\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the work that we have done, even though we may not agree on every element.\nOne of the things that we do agree on is the need for better coordination between regulators and supervisors across borders so that they can act quickly. We all agree on the need for greater transparency. We can also agree that, where there is abusive behaviour in short selling, that should be banned. But that is banned under the Market Abuse Directive, so we have to be clear about what we are trying to achieve with this directive.\nThe question has been raised about uncovered sovereign CDSs. When I talk to the participants in the market I ask them why they want to use uncovered sovereign CDSs. Some of the investment banks tell me that they need them if they provide credit lines to some small and second-tier banks. I have also heard from investors - and I have shared this with my colleagues, but they did not seem to want to listen - that, if you have investments in countries that you are concerned about and you cannot get protection on those investments, you use uncovered sovereign CDSs as a proxy hedge for those investments, in such sectors as infrastructure, shopping malls and others. That is why they are used.\nThe problem is that, if we ban this, what will we end up with? We will end up with more complicated and less transparent instruments, when we want transparency. We will also end up not actually recognising the real problem. The real problem with CDSs and other derivatives is how they are treated on the balance sheets of banks and how banks use them to falsify their accounts, liquidity and capital.\nLet us focus on the real problem here, rather than trying to ban everything without tackling the real problem. Let us tackle the real problem of transparency, IFRS standards and the way these instruments are dealt with by banks.\nThomas H\u00e4ndel\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, speculation was a major factor in triggering the crisis, while credit default swaps (CDSs) and short selling have been a major factor in heightening the crisis. These instruments have degenerated into purely speculative instruments. Some people in the financial sector seem to have incorrectly regarded or misused these instruments as a personal licence to print money. As a result, entire economies have suffered, along with nation states and, above all, the people of the countries concerned. To this extent, the fact that the Commission has finally taken the initiative and realised that regulation is necessary is to be welcomed. Whether or not the regulation will be strict remains to be seen.\nI expressly welcome the work and the efforts by the rapporteur, Mr Canfin, to improve the regulation tabled and to put a stop to the gambling. What is needed is a de facto ban on naked short selling and the prevention of speculation in the future. We also need strict regulation and, above all, a strong supervisory authority in Europe.\nI fear, however, that as the negotiations continue, the interests of the financial centres - London and Frankfurt in particular - will override the interests of the majority of the people of Europe. If that happens we will be left with little more than a Swiss cheese in which the holes are probably larger than what is left. That is quite definitely not something my group could support.\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) Mr President, to be able to control the various derivative instruments properly, you need to have people who have an excellent knowledge of them. However, ladies and gentlemen, where would anyone with such good knowledge go? To the European inspection agency where they will receive an annual salary of EUR 30-40 000, or will they become a broker on the stock exchange where they can earn millions from speculation?\nThis method of getting rich by using speculation and knowledge about how the system works has been known for two thousand years, ladies and gentlemen, as oligarchy. As a result of the games being played by the new financial oligarchy, Europe's citizens, the very ordinary, poorest people, are now paying the price due to the fact that this oligarchy was left to its fun and games. This is why, in order to stop this act of robbery against European citizens, Commissioner, it is not just necessary but compulsory to ban uncovered short selling and credit swaps.\n(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Mr President, my question is addressed to the previous speaker. Yes, we should come to an agreement with the Council. That is all very laudable. I should be interested to hear how the previous speaker sees the situation. In his view, is the Council dragging its feet and not sufficiently prepared to be transparent? In particular, I should be interested to know what role the national governments should play - an important role or a fairly insignificant one? Moreover, what is his assessment of the function and task of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)?\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) Mr President, thank you, Mr Obermayr. I think that the answer to your question is very simple. When we see the Council dragging its feet and doing nothing for more than a year, I cannot understand the Commission's position. Why should Member States be banned from taking measures themselves? When one State is under threat, it cannot expect the Council made up of all the States to be on hand to make a decision, assuming that it does not want to. This is why I think that Member States must be given the power to ban these instruments in this situation.\nAs far as the role of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is concerned, I agree that it is exceptionally important. However, as I said at the start of my speech, I cannot simply imagine how staff, who should exercise real control, will be recruited for this agency.\nS\u0142awomir Witold Nitras\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs. Let me make a few comments based on the debate.\nSome of you may think this is trivial, but I would like to remind you that falls on the stock markets during the crisis were a consequence and not a cause of the problems. The reasons for these dramatic falls were the excessive risks taken by market participants, and the falls were a reaction to the losses they incurred. Sometimes, after all, prices have to fall to reflect the true value of a share or bond or other instrument. What is important is that these falls do not lead to panic or excessive hesitation. This is why the regulation is so important. In my view it addresses the challenge, and this is why I am pleased, as a situation where a supervisory agency is in possession of the full facts on short selling is an eminently desirable situation. It will increase the quality of supervision and confidence in this type of institution. However, I am not fully convinced whether making this information public will also contribute to this. I hope that it does not have consequences which are very different from those expected, such as the knowledge that a certain amount of short selling is taking place which may lead investors to tend to pursue that very trend.\nRegarding credit default swaps (CDSs), I am not convinced that banning uncovered CDS transactions is a proper reaction to what has happened to Greek bonds. There is no convincing proof, or at least I am not aware of any, that CDSs caused greater hesitation or increased interest rates on bonds of endangered countries. Please remember that the markets for CDS contracts are many times smaller than the bond markets of countries on which they are based. This is why it is difficult to believe that this issue has had such an effect. Even in spite of that I could agree that the ban is justified, were it not for the fact that - as Mr Kamall mentioned, among others - empty CDSs in fact cover other transactions which have not been included.\nWolf Klinz\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we do not know precisely what role short selling or naked short selling played in the bankruptcies of Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, but we do know that they made at least a substantial contribution to the collapse of these institutions.\nClaiming that naked short selling is useful for the market is as hard to prove as saying that it will be the end of the world if we do not prohibit it. We are dealing here with a highly complex, extremely technical area and I would not dare to claim that one thing or another was definitely right. However, it seems to me absurd to want to sell something that you do not even have, and moreover to want to do this on a speculative basis. It goes against my basic understanding of how one should behave in business. If I do not have the title to something then it is difficult for me to offer it for sale. Whether this is genuinely useful for the market is something that I am not in a position to judge. Perhaps it is - but my instinct suggests it is not.\nI would therefore suggest that we should deal with it by saying that shares, debt instruments and credit default swaps (CDSs) can only be offered for sale if you either hold the title or - if you do not hold the title - a loan agreement has been concluded or at least an agreement that says that the title will be available the next day or in a certain number of days' time if the transaction is actually concluded and settled, so that no risk arises. I thought that the Council and Parliament had already agreed on this when they agreed the intraday rule. I regret to say that the Council has since moved away from this position, and I hope that it may find its way back to it.\nOne thing is certain: in the final event, these are international transactions and it is therefore important for us to have very clear supervisory rules. It seems to me that the recently established European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is the ideal institution to have a sole mandate to intervene in serious cases and to establish what needs to be prohibited, what needs at least to be recorded, where we need a repository, where we need a reporting requirement and so on. In this respect we have an ideal opportunity to use ESMA productively.\nElena B\u0103sescu\n(RO) Mr President, I too must welcome the Commission's initiative on creating a legal framework for short selling and credit default swaps (CDSs) regarding the situations where market operations would pose a threat to financial stability or market confidence. I agree with the proposal to introduce a transparency system which entails the relevant authorities being notified of significant net short positions in shares, according to specific thresholds. In normal circumstances, short selling is conducive to market liquidity and helps set prices effectively. However, when the markets are experiencing difficulties, this operation can exacerbate the fall in prices. This situation would result in turbulent markets and systemic risks.\nRegulatory bodies must be given clear-cut powers to restrict or ban short selling in exceptional circumstances. They will be exercised in cooperation with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).\nMonika Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1\n(SK) Mr President, much like today's debate on derivatives, this debate on short selling and credit default swaps is important if we are to maintain already fragile financial stability. The fact that these provisions take the form of a regulation is unavoidable, as they impose direct obligations on private parties to disclose information. Transparency is particularly important for financial market stability and investor protection.\nAnother significant point in this proposal is the suggested ban on naked short selling. The current debt crisis has shown how speculators who choose to gamble on the bonds of eurozone Member States rather than actually own them are capable of bringing entire countries to their knees, so it is vital to restrict the practice of using credit defaults swaps as cover for securities solely to the bond holders.\nThe final important point promoted by the text before us is the strengthening of ESMA's powers. I hope that the Council will review its position that decision-making in exceptional situations should be placed in the hands of finance ministers rather than ESMA, and that ESMA will take precedence in this regard.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Mr President, I am glad to have the opportunity to add a few critical remarks. In short selling one is selling a security that one does not have, or that one has merely borrowed. This enables speculators to bet on falling prices. These complex, opaque instruments were the deciding factor in bringing about the financial crisis. We therefore need a basic ban on speculative short selling of forward contracts. However, this ban needs to be comprehensive and must also include naked credit default swaps (CDSs) and short selling, particularly of government bonds. Betting on states being unable to meet their commitments in times of crisis is abominable, and we need to stem the tide of destructive speculation involving government bonds. Finally, we also need to bolster our mechanisms for sanctions in the financial services sector. The crisis involving the euro should have shown us one thing at least: not every financial transaction that is profitable in the short term is economically and ethically justifiable.\nJean-Paul Gauz\u00e8s\n(FR) Mr President, having listened to this debate as a layman, I think that we need to show some common sense in this affair. When crises occur, the citizens are the ones who directly or indirectly pay the consequences. I believe that when they realise the absurdity of selling something that one does not own, or of insuring against a risk for which one is not liable, they understand that this is an inappropriate system.\nI believe that we should try today to apply some common sense to this complex financial legislation, so that the human spirit is back at the heart of this work, instead of computer programs that are all configured in the same way to ensure that, when ridiculous transactions take place, no one really understands what is going on. I believe that Parliament has adopted some reasonable positions, and I hope that the Council will support them.\nEvelyn Regner\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, in your introduction you said how important it is to make dynamic progress on this matter. That is a view I share, but at the same time I cannot help but remember that we Members already include a passage aimed at prohibiting naked short selling in the dossier on alternative investment fund managers. It did not have the intended effect. A separate proposal was tabled.\nI originally drafted the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on this matter, but I subsequently had my name removed because, in my view, we should not be making compromises here. We need a rigorous ban on naked short selling. Credit default swaps for government bonds should be prohibited. In this regard I can only congratulate the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which was able to achieve something constructive in the later work, for having succeeded to some extent and hope that in the end the Member States will be a bit more reasonable.\nMichel Barnier\nMr President, Mrs Regner, I have not forgotten the promise that was made during the debate - which Mr Gauz\u00e8s and all of you here remember - on the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers.\nIt is precisely for that reason that, as I said earlier in response to the work done by Mr Canfin - which many of you unanimously praised, and rightly so - the Commission honoured its commitment by preparing, in the space of four and a half months, the text that it presented almost a year ago - it will be a year to the day on 15 September - to the bodies in charge of making a decision: Parliament, which you represent and comprise, and the Council.\nI should like to thank Mr Lehne, Mr Schmidt, Mr H\u00e4ndel and Mrs Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1 for agreeing that we need to regulate credit default swaps (CDSs) and to increase transparency and financial stability. Mr Gauz\u00e8s spoke about the citizens. The citizens are also taxpayers. As I have often said, they cannot afford a second crisis and, politically speaking, they will not accept another crisis without lessons being learnt from the current one, which has been going on now for more than three years and is still not over. We owe it to the citizens, particularly to those who live in countries that are being attacked on the markets, Mr Gauz\u00e8s, and which are suffering under the effects of volatility, speculation and hyper-speculation, which Mr Stoyanov was not the only one to denounce here.\nThat is why the Commission has proposed rules, transparency and accountability, but needless to say it is willing to carry on and accomplish even more work with Parliament.\nMr Ferber, to whom I listened, as always, very carefully, raised the issue of liquidity. Let me say it again: I want to be cautious and realistic with you. Mr Schmidt also raised this point, as did Mrs B\u01cesescu. We know what an important role liquidity plays in ensuring the smooth functioning of the debt market. That is why I expressed reservations about a straightforward ban. However, I am always willing to discuss progress of any kind, and any additional rules that could provide peace of mind, Mr Ferber.\nMr Goebbels was right in saying that short selling can be harmful. However, it can also be useful, which is why we did not hesitate to implement a framework and rules. I agree with you, Mr Goebbels, holding CDSs without being exposed to the underlying risks does present problems, and sensitive ones at that. Mr Kamall also mentioned the sensitive nature of this issue. This is one of the issues that we will have to address in the trialogue.\nAll in all, though, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to you and with you, we are going to create for the first time, if you and the Council so wish, a European framework on the CDS market, with a European authority which I hope will not be undermined, on this or any other issue, and I am keen for it to be able to use ESMA's Article 9 - which Mr Giegold knows well - which gives it important powers.\nA word about naked short selling, which concerns me just as much as it concerns you. Mr Klinz and Mrs Regner raised this point. In this text we are going to propose - and I hope we can see it through - two types of regulation, everyday regulation in the shape of the 'locate rule', which your rapporteur, Mr Canfin, mentioned, and then a coherent liability system with a buy-back obligation. We will therefore have binding everyday rules for everyone and then the ability to enforce a coordinated ban, which we all wanted, in the event of an emergency.\nOne final word, Mr Nitras, on the disclosure of information. We have made provision to disclose information on shares above a certain threshold. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, that is precisely what the regulators wanted and requested. In the case of sovereign debt, this disclosure will not be automatic, but it will be compulsory to provide information to those regulators who need it.\nThat is what I am able to say, Mr President, by way of thanks to the rapporteur and to the speakers, and to clarify a number of points before you - we - spend the next few weeks, I hope, reaching a dynamic agreement on this point.\nPascal Canfin\nMr President, I just wanted to say something to my fellow Member, Mr Kamall - since he is one of the negotiators of this text and is very familiar with it, and if he is not, he only has to read it - concerning his argument that credit default swaps (CDSs) are used as proxy hedges and therefore should not be banned. As the text says, when CDSs are used for proxy hedging, they are not uncovered. It would be helpful, therefore, if you could change your argument or read the text, because we are debating for nothing otherwise.\n(Applause)\nThe second point that I wished to make is that we really want to complete this text because we feel that the situation is urgent. No one is saying that CDSs caused the Greek crisis. It would be absurd to think that. However, they are clearly being used to fan the flames by financial operators whose sole aim is to exacerbate the crisis so that they can make money at some point.\nWhile we are on the subject of CDSs, I should like to tell you that this text only covers the purchase of these swaps. This presents another problem, which was also raised by Mr Kamall, concerning the fact that operators who sell CDSs, such as US banks and hedge funds, are supposed to provide a guarantee against the risk of default to banks such as BNP, Deutsche Bank and Barclays. For those banks, it is a way of getting the risk off their balance sheets. However, those who sell CDSs, such as hedge funds, have a lot less capital than the banks. This tool has the effect of reducing capital requirements and hence the security of the system.\nSince you are working on the Capital Requirements Directive 4, I should like it if you could also cover the sale of CDSs and the obligations incumbent on sellers of CDSs, rather than just focusing on buyers, as is the case in this text.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nSebastian Valentin Bodu\nUnlike long selling, where the risk is reduced to the difference in price between buying and reselling, the risk with short selling is unlimited, which means, in theory, that losses could be limitless. Taking into account the unlimited risks which a seller also assumes in short selling, it was considered necessary to adopt this regulation. However, certain notification periods or procedures may have slightly more relaxed deadlines. Furthermore, speculative transactions, along with hedging transactions, are an integral part of this market and must be declared to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Speculative transactions are not damaging in themselves; the danger lies in them getting out of control.\nEdward Scicluna\nin writing. - Restrictions on short selling and credit default swaps in exceptional situations have long been overdue, as is the need for more transparency from financial markets. Parliament rightly found it appropriate to have a common framework rather than to rely on a number of divergent measures by Member States, as experienced during the financial crisis three years ago. These obligations come in the wake of various other reforms to past regulatory regimes. It is easy to jump on the bandwagon at this time and argue that more regulation is better because we do not want to live through another crisis in our lifetime. But at the same time we all want to look forward to a future where industry, both manufacturing and services, provides much-needed jobs, based on strong economic growth. For this we need many bankable projects. Let us therefore satisfy ourselves that there is no unintended collateral damage to industry from financial regulation. We do not want EU project funding to be curtailed by a drought of liquidity, nor do we want their responsibility in mitigating risks to become prohibitively expensive so as to make them lose their competitiveness.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Formal sitting - Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew\nPresident\nYour Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, it is a great honour to welcome you to this formal sitting of the European Parliament during the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. The first guest to address the European Parliament as part of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue was the Grand Mufti of Damascus in January. He is from Syria and addressed us as a messenger of peaceful Islam.\nYour Holiness, you represent the Christian faith, and the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks will address the European Parliament in Strasbourg in November as a representative of the Jewish faith.\nPeople from these three faiths - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - have lived side by side for centuries. Unfortunately, this coexistence has not always been peaceful. Even today, in the Middle East and elsewhere, there are areas marked by tensions between these communities.\nWe in the European Parliament support every effort to promote the peaceful coexistence of religions and cultures in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. In the Middle East, there are also examples of religious tolerance and harmonious relations between people of different faiths. When I visited Syria a short time ago, I had the opportunity to meet the spiritual leaders of the various faith communities and they assured me that in their country, good relations exist, underpinning the dialogue between religions and cultures.\nThe European Union is a community based on values, and one of our most fundamental values is the dignity which is inherent in every individual. In this respect, religious freedom is central to human dignity, and goes far beyond the powers invoked by state authorities. The separation of church and state, which we esteem so highly, is a guarantee of the freedom of religious communities to manage their own internal affairs and external relations. These principles are reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon, whose entry into force we are seeking to secure.\nThe Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, with its seat in Phanar in Istanbul, was founded in the 4th century and is an important spiritual centre for 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. Phanar means 'beacon', and you, Your Holiness, have always been a beacon of reconciliation and peace for the faithful in the Orthodox world and beyond.\nThe latest enlargement of the European Union has brought countries with Orthodox majorities, such as Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, into the EU, while Greece has been a member since 1981. The late Pope John Paul II, who addressed the European Parliament in 1988, used the following metaphor to describe this: he said that after overcoming its division, Europe is breathing with both its lungs again. We could use this metaphor again today to describe the richness of the enlarged EU, brought about by the different perspectives of Western and Eastern Christianity.\nYour Holiness, we thank you for your visit. You are one of the very few figures to address the European Parliament for a second time. You were here in 1994, and you are honouring us with a further address on the occasion of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. We are looking forward to hearing your speech.\nMay I now invite you to address the European Parliament. Thank you.\n(Applause)\nHis Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos I\nYour Excellency Mr President of the European Parliament, your Excellencies, honourable Members of the European Parliament, distinguished guests, dear friends, first and foremost we convey to you salutations from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, based for many, many centuries in what is today Istanbul - greetings replete with esteem and respect. In particular, we express our gratitude to an old friend of ours, His Excellency Hans-Gert P\u00f6ttering, President of the European Parliament. We likewise express our sincerest appreciation for the extraordinary honour to address the plenary sitting of the European Parliament for the second time (as the President already mentioned), especially on this occasion that commemorates the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.\nAs a purely spiritual institution, our Ecumenical Patriarchate embraces a truly global apostolate that strives to raise and broaden the consciousness of the human family - to bring understanding that we are all dwelling in the same house. At its most basic sense, this is the meaning of the word 'ecumenical' - for the 'oikoumene' is the inhabited world - the earth understood as a house in which all peoples, kindreds, tribes and languages dwell.\nAs is well known, the origins of our religious institution lie at the core of the Axial Age, deep in the history of the Christian Faith - with the earliest followers of Jesus Christ. Inasmuch as our See - our institutional centre - shared the centre and capital of the Christian Roman Empire, it became known as 'ecumenical', with certain privileges and responsibilities that it holds to this day. One of its chief responsibilities was for bringing the redemptive message of the Gospel to the world outside the Roman Empire. In the days before the exploratory age, most civilisations held such a bicameral view of the world as being 'within' and 'without'. The world was divided into two sectors: a hemisphere of civilisation and a hemisphere of barbarism. In this history, we behold the grievous consequences of the alienation of human persons from one another.\nToday, when we have the technological means to transcend the horizon of our own cultural self-awareness, we nevertheless continue to witness the terrible effects of human fragmentation. Tribalism, fundamentalism, and phyletism - which is extreme nationalism without regard to the rights of the other - all these contribute to the ongoing list of atrocities that give pause to our claims of being civilised in the first place.\nAnd yet, even with tides of trade, migrations and expansions of peoples, religious upheavals and revivals, and great geopolitical movements, the deconstruction of rigid and monolithic self-understandings of past centuries has yet to find a permanent harbour. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has sailed across the waves of these centuries, navigating the storms and the doldrums of history. For twenty centuries - through the Pax Romana, the Pax Christiana, the Pax Islamica, the Pax Ottomanica (all epochs marked by intercultural struggle, conflict and outright war) - the Ecumenical Patriarchate has continued as a lighthouse for the human family and the Christian Church. It is from the depths of our experience upon these deep waters of history that we offer to the contemporary world a timeless message of perennial human value.\nToday, the ecumenical scope of our Patriarchate extends far beyond the boundaries of its physical presence at the cusp of Europe and Asia, in the same city we have inhabited for the seventeen centuries since her founding. Though small in quantity, the extensive quality of our experience brings us before this august assembly today, in order to share from that experience on the necessity of intercultural dialogue, a lofty and timely ideal for the contemporary world.\nAs you yourselves have said - in this most esteemed body's own words: 'At the heart of the European project, it is important to provide the means for intercultural dialogue and dialogue between citizens to strengthen respect for cultural diversity and deal with the complex reality in our societies and the coexistence of different cultural identities and beliefs' (Decision No 1983\/2006\/EC) and we would humbly append this noble statement, as we did last year in our address to the Plenary of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg: 'Dialogue is necessary first and foremost because it is inherent in the nature of the human person'.\nThis is the principal message that we propose for your consideration today: that intercultural dialogue is at the very root of what it means to be a human being, for no one culture of the human family encompasses every human person. Without such dialogue, the differences in the human family are reduced to objectifications of the 'other' and lead to abuse, conflict, persecution - a grand-scale human suicide, for we are all ultimately one humanity. But where the differences between us move us to encounter one another, and where that encounter is based in dialogue, there is reciprocal understanding and appreciation - even love.\nIn the past 50 years, our human family has experienced leaps of technological achievement undreamed of by our forebears. Many have trusted that this kind of advancement will bridge the divides that fragment the human condition. As if our achievements had given us the power to overcome the fundamental realities of our moral and - may we say - our spiritual condition. Yet, despite every conceivable benefit and technological skill - skill that seems to outstrip our anthropological wit - we still behold the universal banes of hunger, thirst, war, persecution, injustice, planned misery, intolerance, fanaticism and prejudice.\nAmidst this cycle that cannot seem to be broken, the significance of the 'European project' cannot be underestimated. It is one of the hallmarks of the European Union that has succeeded in promoting mutual, peaceful and productive co-existence between nation states that less than 70 years ago were drenched in a bloody conflict that could have destroyed the legacy of Europe for the ages.\nHere, in this great hall of assembly of the European Parliament, you strive to make possible the relationships between states and political realities that make reconciliation between persons possible. Thus you have recognised the importance of intercultural dialogue, especially at a time in the history of Europe when transformations are taking place in every country and along every societal boundary. Great tidal forces of conflict, and economic security and opportunity have shifted populations around the globe. Of necessity, then, persons of differing cultural, ethnic, religious and national origin find themselves in close proximity. In some cases, the same populations shun the greater whole and close themselves off from the dominant society. But in either case, as we engage in dialogue, it must not be a mere academic exercise in mutual appreciation.\nFor dialogue to be effective, to be transformative in bringing about core change in persons, it cannot be done on the basis of 'subject' and 'object'. The value of the 'other' must be absolute - without objectification; so that each party is apprehended in the fullness of their being.\nFor Orthodox Christians, the icon, or image, stands not only as an acme of human aesthetic accomplishment, but as a tangible reminder of the perennial truth. As in every painting - religious or not, and notwithstanding the talent of the artist - the object presents as two-dimensional. Yet, for Orthodox Christians, an icon is no mere religious painting - and it is not, by definition, a religious object. Indeed, it is a subject with which the viewer, the worshipper, enters into wordless dialogue through the sense of sight. For an Orthodox Christian, the encounter with the icon is an act of communion with the person represented in the icon. How much more should our encounters with living icons - persons made in the image and likeness of God - be acts of communion!\nIn order for our dialogue to become more than mere cultural exchange, there must be a more profound understanding of the absolute interdependence - not merely of states and political and economic actors - but the interdependence of every single human person with every other single human person. And such a valuation must be made regardless of any commonality of race, religion, language, ethnicity, national origin, or any of the benchmarks by which we seek self-identification and self-identity. And in a world of billions of persons, how is such inter-connectedness possible?\nIndeed, there is no possible way to link with every human person - this is a property that we would ascribe to the Divine. However, there is a way of understanding the universe in which we live as being shared by all - a plane of existence that spans the reality of every human person - an ecosphere that contains us all.\nThus it is that the Ecumenical Patriarchate - in keeping with our own sense of responsibility for the house, the oikos of the world and all who dwell therein - has for decades championed the cause of the environment, calling attention to ecological crises around the globe. And we engage this ministry without regard to self-interest. As you know so well, our Patriarchate is not a 'national' church, but rather the fundamental canonical expression of the ecumenical dimensions of the Gospel message, and of its analogous responsibility within the life of the Church. This is the deeper reason that the Church Fathers and the Councils have given it the name 'Ecumenical'. The loving care of the Church of Constantinople exceeds any linguistic, cultural, ethnic and even religious definition, as she seeks to serve all peoples. Although firmly rooted in particular history - as any other institution is - the Ecumenical Patriarchate transcends historical categories in her perennial mission of service during 1 700 years.\nIn our service to the environment, we have, to date, sponsored seven scientific symposia that bring together a host of disciplines. The genesis of our initiative grew on the island that gave humanity the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation: the sacred island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea. And it was in the Aegean that we commenced, in 1995, an ambitious programme of integrating current scientific knowledge about the oceans with the spiritual approach of the world's religions to water, particularly the world's oceans. Since Patmos, since 1995, we have traversed the Danube, the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Amazon, the Arctic Sea (last September), and we are now making preparations to sail the Nile in Egypt and the Mississippi River in the United States, both next year.\nWhat we seek is not only an ongoing dialogue that is serviceable to practical necessities, but also one that raises human consciousness. While we strive to find answers to ecological concerns and crises, we also bring the participants into a more comprehensive sense of themselves as belonging to and relating to a greater whole. We seek to embrace the ecosphere of human existence not as an object to be controlled, but as a fellow-struggler on the path of increase and improvement. As the Apostle Paul, whose 2 000-year legacy both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches are celebrating this year, says in one of his most famous epistles, the Epistle to the Romans, 'For we know that until now, the whole of creation groans with us and shares our birth pangs'.\nEvery ecosystem on this planet is like a nation - by definition limited to a place. The estuary is not the tundra, nor is the savannah the desert. But like every culture, every ecosystem will have an effect that goes beyond far beyond its natural - or in the case of cultures, national - boundaries. And when we understand that every ecosystem is part of the singular ecosphere that is inhabited by every living breath that fills the world, then do we grasp the interconnectedness, the powerful communion of all life, and our true interdependency on one another. Without such an understanding, we are led to ecocide, the self-destruction of the one ecosphere that sustains all human existence.\nThus it is that we come before you today, highlighting this Year of Intercultural Dialogue, bringing parables from the natural world to affirm your transcendent human values. As an institution, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has lived as a relatively small ecosystem within a much larger culture for centuries. Out of this long experience, allow us to suggest the most important practical characteristic that enables the work of intercultural dialogue to succeed.\nChiefly and above all, there must be respect for the rights of the minority within every majority. When and where the rights of the minority are observed, the society will for the most part be just and tolerant. In any culture, one segment will always be dominant - whether that dominance is based on race, religion or any other category. Segmentation is inevitable in our diverse world. What we seek to end is fragmentation! Societies that are built upon exclusion and repression cannot last. Or, as the divine Prince of Peace Jesus Christ said: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.\nOur counsel to all is to recognise that only when we embrace the fullness of shared presence within the ecosphere of human existence, are we then able to face the 'otherness' of those around us - majority or minority - with a true sense of the consanguinity of the human family. Then do we behold the stranger amongst us not as an alien, but as a brother or sister in the human family, the family of God. St Paul expounds on pan-human relation and brotherhood quite eloquently and concisely when addressing the Athenians in the first century.\nThis is why Europe needs to bring Turkey into its project and why Turkey needs to foster intercultural dialogue and tolerance in order to be accepted into the European project. Europe should not see any religion that is tolerant of others and respectful to the others as alien to itself. The great religions, like the European project, can be a force that transcends nationalism and can even transcend nihilism and fundamentalism by focusing their faithful on what unites us as human beings, and by fostering a dialogue about what divides us.\nFrom our country, Turkey, we perceive both a welcome to a new economic and trading partner, but we also feel the hesitation that comes from embracing, as an equal, a country that is predominantly Muslim. And yet Europe is filled with millions of Muslims who have come here from all sorts of backgrounds and causations; just as Europe would still be filled with Jews, had it not been for the horrors of the Second World War.\nIndeed, it is not only non-Christians that Europe must encounter, but Christians who do not fit into the categories of Catholic or Protestant. The resurgence of the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain has truly been a marvel for the world to behold. The segmentation of Eastern Europe has led to fragmentation in many places. Not only does the centre not hold; it is hardly discernible. Through this process, as nation states strive to re-establish themselves, it is the Orthodox Christian faith that has risen, even above economic indicators, to a new status that could not have been predicted even 20 years ago.\nOne of the vital roles of our Ecumenical Patriarchate is to assist in the process of growth and expansion that is taking place in traditional Orthodox countries, by holding fast as the canonical norm for the worldwide Orthodox Church, over a quarter of a billion people around the globe. At this moment, we wish to inform you, dear friends, that in October - next month - at our invitation, all the Heads of the Orthodox Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches will meet in Istanbul, in order to discuss our common problems and to strengthen Pan-Orthodox unity and cooperation. Simultaneously, we will also concelebrate the two thousand years since the birth of the Apostle of the Nations, St Paul.\nCurrently in the City (Istanbul) we are experiencing great joy and enthusiasm as we are all preparing for its celebration as the European Capital of Culture in the year 2010. The City, which has a long history, was a crossroads for gatherings of people and served as a place of cohabitation of diverse religions and cultures. This past week, we attended a luncheon hosted by the Prime Minister of Turkey in honour of the Prime Minister of Spain. As is public knowledge, both are co-sponsors of the Alliance of Civilisations under the auspices of the United Nations. We heard their wonderful speeches, which were harmonious with the diachronic tolerant spirit of our City.\nAnd now dear friends, please allow us to conclude in French in order to honour the French presidency, and also because this week you celebrate the European Day of Languages, I think next Friday.\nExcellency, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, the Ecumenical Patriarchate reaffirms its desire to do all in its power to contribute to peace and prosperity in the European Union. We are ready to join you in other constructive dialogues like that of today and we will lend an attentive ear to the problems of the day.\nIt is in this spirit that our Patriarchate has been cultivating and nurturing meaningful dialogue with Islam and Judaism for the past 25 years. We have held many bilateral and trilateral meetings. Within this framework, we will be meeting in Athens at the beginning of November to resume, for the 12th time, our academic dialogue with Islam.\nAlongside these discussions, we are continuing our theological talks with the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed Churches and with the ancient Oriental Churches: Armenian, Coptic, etc. At the end of October, at the Pope's invitation, we will have the opportunity, the privilege even, to speak at the 12th Ordinary Assembly of the World Synod of Bishops in the Vatican.\nThis should illustrate that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is extremely active in the area of ecumenical dialogue and seeks to contribute to a better understanding between peoples, reconciliation, peace, solidarity and efforts to combat fanaticism, hatred and all forms of evil.\nWe would like to thank you for this unique opportunity to address your Assembly for the second time and we call for God's infinite blessing for all your just ventures.\nAllow me, from this distinguished platform, to present my best wishes to Muslims all over the world at the approach of the great festival of Ramadan and also to the Jews of the world on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We are all brothers and sisters, children of the same heavenly Father and, on this wonderful planet, for which we are all responsible, there is room for everyone, but there is no room for war or for those who kill each other.\nOnce more, we thank you with all our heart for allowing us the great honour and privilege of addressing you today.\n(Standing ovation)\nPresident\nYour Holiness, the European Parliament has accorded you a standing ovation to show its great appreciation of your speech. You spoke of pax, of peace for the human family and creation. Peace is the culmination of respect for human dignity.\nWe do not have to agree with every belief that exists, and we do not have to accept every view. What we must do, however, is respect our fellow men and women. It is this respect which is the core of human dignity, and it is the core of tolerance.\nIn that spirit, we would like to express our warmest thanks to you once again for the contribution that you have made to the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. It is a valuable contribution which fosters understanding between the people of our continent and the world, and promotes reconciliation, peace and freedom.\nThank you very much, Your Holiness.\n(Applause)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"One-minute speeches on matters of political importance\nPresident\nThe next item is the one-minute speeches.\nIuliu Winkler\n(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. The Regional Development and Cohesion Funds are very important for the new Member States, since the differences between regions are very significant for them. My country, Romania, can apply for more than EUR 20 billion for regional development by 2013. One year after our accession, experience shows an improvement in drawing on funds dedicated to regional development, but we are still far from accomplishing what we want. It is crucial for the regions of Romania that they increase their ability to draw on the Funds, by using them effectively and accounting for them systematically.\nRomania needs tools for this, such as, for example, an effective and increasingly decentralised system of public administration institutions, and a new division into areas of economic development, since the current regions are not fit for purpose, nor are they effective, so new regions need to be created from the bottom up according to appropriate social agreements, and which would be led by elected regional governments. The new division of Romania into areas of economic development cannot be delayed. Thank you very much.\nMarusya Ivanova Lyubcheva\n(BG) I would like to draw your attention to some problems related to disaster and accidents at sea. These are usually discussed when they occur, and then time quickly sweeps tragedies away from memory. Accidents at sea, however, are part of the common maritime policy. We must get ready for them just like we get ready to implement a transfer.\nThe Bulgarian ship Vanessa was shipwrecked recently in the Sea of Azov. During the past several months there were a number of accidents in the Bay of Kerch in bad weather. Sailors died, others went missing, there were damages worth millions of euro. The Sea of Azov and the Black Sea were polluted with oil. The common maritime policy needs to provide for measures to minimize risks and establish navigation arrangements which will reduce accidents. We need a comprehensive scheme for rapid response and conduct of emergency rescue operations. We need equipment which can operate in severe weather stationed so as to enable its rapid deployment at accident sites.\nMagor Imre Csibi\n(RO) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen: obesity affects more than half of the population in most Member States. What is even more worrying is that every year more than 400 000 European children become overweight. One of the issues to be addressed in combating obesity is the effective labelling of food products. Unfortunately, European food labels do not yet provide the information consumers need in order to make healthy and safe decisions.\nTherefore, I welcome the European Commission's proposal to review the Directive on the labelling of foodstuffs and implicitly the establishment of a simplified labelling system, printed on the front of the packaging of foodstuffs. However, I regret that the Commission's proposal does not include a colour-coded labelling system clearly indicating the nutritional value of the product (low, medium, high). Labelling should be to the advantage of both manufacturers and consumers, and a well informed consumer will make wise dietary choices.\nBrian Crowley\nMr President, with regard to the upcoming referendum in Ireland on the Reform Treaty, I would like to put into context the importance of this from an economic point of view, because the Reform Treaty, if nothing else, is about making the European Union more efficient in its decision-making capacity, which in itself will lead to greater economic success and greater growth. From an Irish perspective, last year there was EUR 2.6 billion worth of investment in Irish industry and Irish business; 9 000 new jobs were created; there were over EUR 80 billion worth of exports; over 80% of all products manufactured in Ireland were exported, mainly to the European Union markets. Average salaries in Ireland are EUR 44 000 per year, and over EUR 3 billion are taken by the Government in corporation tax. These issues - to ensure the continuing growth in economic terms, in employment terms, in economic growth and in wealth management - are what is so important. That is why we are all seeking a 'yes' vote for the referendum in Ireland.\nIlda Figueiredo\n(PT) When unemployment in Portugal has risen to one of the highest levels in the last 20 years, affecting women and young people in particular, yet another multinational is exerting pressure on workers to rescind their contracts of employment. The company concerned is Yasaki Saltano, which wishes to abandon cable production in Serzedo, Gaia. It intends to continue to transfer production to other countries, particularly in Asia and Africa, after already making drastic cuts in its labour force. This multinational employed over 6 000 workers in its factories in Ovar and Serzedo, for which it received millions of euros in Community aid. Those jobs have now been cut by more than two thirds, however.\nWe must therefore once again stress the need for effective measures to prevent these relocations of production, rather than mere palliatives such as the current globalisation fund for workers affected by relocations of multinationals, particularly in the automotive and automotive components sector, examples being Opel Portugal, Johnson Controls and Alcoa Fujikura, which have now closed.\nUrszula Krupa\n(PL) Mr President, at the last session I was not allowed to speak, and I am therefore protesting today, in the European Parliament, at an infringement of human rights and an assault on the dignity of the individual.\nDuring a flight to Buenos Aires at the invitation of the Polish American community, where we transmitted and defended universal European values together with the director of a Catholic radio station respected by millions of listeners, we were harassed by journalists from the private, commercial television network TVN, who tried to force us to give interviews, and personally insulted the clergyman and myself, a Member of the European Parliament. This psychological violence, which endangered our mental and physical wellbeing during the fourteen-hour flight, was relieved by several interventions on the part of the Lufthansa flight crew, but it continued after we landed.\nI would also draw attention to the danger of supplying third parties with information about flights, seat numbers and hotel reservations, contrary to existing legislation, since it can be used by all sorts of terrorists.\nPeter Baco\n(SK) Ladies and gentlemen, in their speeches in the European Parliament our Hungarian colleagues regularly attack Slovakia without any justification. The last attack consisted of lies about the abolishment of the national radio broadcasting network in Slovakia and teasing about how Slovakia should cooperate with Hungary on the normalisation of protection of Little Rye Island waters on the Danube.\nWe have already come to an agreement, after all, on the water regime in the entire Danube region. The last agreement consisted of a treaty concluded by Hungarian and Slovakian Government delegations in 1998 - I led the Slovakian delegation - and I remember well that this treaty accommodated the Hungarian requirements concerning this area too. The Slovakian Government has ratified this treaty and respects it, and now, finally, it needs to be ratified and respected by the Hungarian Government too.\nRoberta Alma Anastase\n(RO) Mr President, as rapporteur on regional cooperation in the Black Sea region, I would like to express concern for Bulgaria's agreement of 18 January 2008 to take part in and support the Russian South Stream energy project.\nThis project poses a dual challenge to the energy security of the European Union. First of all, a Member State's support to this project runs counter to the primary objective of diversifying the energy resources of the Union. The South Stream project would only increase the EU's dependence on a single source. Secondly, by its very existence, the South Stream project undermines the NABUCCO project, which is believed to be of strategic importance for the success of EU energy security policy.\nAllow me to remind you that this agreement between Bulgaria and Russia came at a time when the European Parliament was adopting with a majority of votes the report on Black Sea cooperation.\nC\u0103t\u0103lin-Ioan Nechifor\n(RO) I would have preferred my first one minute speech not to deal with a negative topic, but what happened last week on the Eastern border of the European Union should serve as a warning to us all.\nOn 21 and 22 January, groups of Ukrainian citizens blocked the access of cars to the Siret-Porubnoe border post, between Romania and the Ukraine, because of their discontentment with the requirement to pay for a visa for entering Romanian territory, whereas Romanian nationals no longer require a visa to go to the Ukraine as of 1 January 2008.\nAs a Member State, Romania must comply with European regulations concerning visas for non-EU nationals and cannot possibly grant preferential treatment to the Ukraine. This is why I believe that the Parliament and the Commission should ask for more consistent action from the Ukraine, as a means of asserting its European vocation...\n(President interrupts the speaker)\nMarian Harkin\nMr President, I want to draw attention to a recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency on water quality in Ireland. While we have invested significantly in upgrading waste water systems under the Water Framework Directive, we still have to achieve certain objectives with regard to water quality.\nIn this connection, I want to mention an issue which we have ignored and continue to ignore in Ireland: the issue of putting substantial resources into upgrading and refurbishment of septic tanks in Ireland, particularly in rural Ireland. There is far too great a tendency to blame septic tanks for the threat of pollution to Irish drinking water. But, to the extent that there is a problem, it is imperative that the Irish Government put in place a grant-aided programme to examine and, where necessary, upgrade existing septic tanks.\nBut perhaps there is an agenda here not to invest in upgrading septic tanks, and then to use this as a stick with which to beat the rural population. If so, this is short-sighted and totally contrary to European legislation.\nFrancesco Enrico Speroni\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Neapolitan politicians are in the habit of sending their rubbish throughout Europe. Today the waste has reached the Quirinale, where the dirty Bolshevik Napolitano has given the order to provide blandishments to prolong the death-agony of his drinking friends, without a care for democracy or for the people's wish to vote for a new parliament. This, however, is all you would expect from someone who spoke in favour of the Soviet invasion of Hungary.\nPedro Guerreiro\n(PT) I would like to take this opportunity to speak in the plenary to denounce the unacceptable situation of Kader \u015eahin, a young Turkish Communist Party activist who has been detained by decision of the Turkish authorities since January 2007, with no grounds being given for the charges against her, or for holding her in preventive custody awaiting trial.\nKader \u015eahin was arrested when a press conference denouncing the repression of Turkish political prisoners in December 2000 was violently disrupted by Turkish police. Bearing in mind that another hearing on her case is scheduled for 5 February, we express our dismay at this situation and call upon the Turkish authorities to release her immediately and drop the unfounded allegations against her.\nGerard Batten\nMr President, Alexander Litvinenko testified to the Mitrokhin Commission in Italy and made to me personally the allegation that Romano Prodi was an agent of some kind of the KGB. Mario Scaramella of the Mitrokhin Commission later came to London to warn Mr Litvinenko of murder threats. Mr Litvinenko was soon murdered.\nMr Scaramella returned to Italy, where he was immediately arrested. He has been detained for the last 13 months on trumped-up charges, without trial and denied access to the outside world. Mr Scaramella has lost his income, his home, is separated from his children and his health is at risk. Mario Scaramella is a political prisoner. His continued detention is a scandal at the heart of the European Union. His only offence, if it can be so called, was to help shine a light into the rotten corners of European politics. All democrats should call for his immediate, unconditional release.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 T\u0151k\u00e9s\n(HU) In this European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, I would like to draw your attention to an extremely discriminatory draft law by the Romanian Conservative Party which, if adopted, would penalise people who belong to ethnic minorities and who do not speak the state language of Romania with loss of their nationality. This language law is primarily aimed at the Hungarian community in their ancient homeland of Transylvania. Up to now, not a single Romanian parliamentary party has opposed it, and the National Council for Combating Discrimination has even given it the green light. At the same time, the Romanian parliament is preparing to adopt another discriminatory law, the Education Act. We will be contacting Leonard Orban, the Romanian Commissioner responsible for multilingualism in the European Commission, about these issues very soon, because we are convinced that Romania must follow the democratic practice of the European Parliament with regard to its language laws.\nColm Burke\nMr President, I wish to raise an issue in relation to the Convention on the Adoption of Children. This was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1967. Four decades later it is out of date and needs to be replaced.\nIn 2002 the Council of Europe decided that it should be changed. There were proposals agreed in 2004. The text of the new convention was agreed in 2007 by the legal experts. However, it appears that one country is now having a road block and blocking it from coming before the Committee of Ministers.\nI think a clear message should be sent from Parliament to the Council of Europe that this matter needs to be amended at the earliest possible date and a new convention put in place to bring it up to date with what has happened in individual countries, and also taking into account the decisions of the Court of Human Rights. I would ask that a clear message be sent to the Council of Europe.\nGenowefa Grabowska\n(PL) Mr President, the cost of visas for non-EU citizens has increased following the extension of the Schengen zone. Belarusians, for example, now have to pay 12 times as much for a visa - 60 euros instead of 5 euros. That is as much as a junior doctor earns in Belarus. Sixty euros is a third of the average monthly wage. For many Belarusians it is a barrier that prevents them from obtaining visas and visiting their EU neighbours.\nThe Union is impeding direct contact between citizens just when it is enshrining a policy of good neighbourliness in the Treaty of Lisbon. The increase in the price of visas is thus a painful paradox. It is also a perfect present for President Lukashenko, who says Belarusians can expect nothing from Europe.\nLadies and gentlemen, this must be changed. I call for all steps to be taken to reduce the price of visas for citizens of Belarus.\nToomas Savi\nMr President, yesterday the Russian state-funded youth organisation Nashi published the list of Estonians whom they propose to declare personae non gratae in Russia. Amongst them, next to the President of the Republic of Estonia, Toomas-Hendrik Ilves, a former MEP, is my friend and colleague, Tunne Kelam, a member of the delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee.\nNashi, supporting the non-democratic regime of President Putin, describes Mr Kelam as a consistent Russophobe, who has been notable for his nervousness and unhealthy homespun nationalism.\nAll of us who know Mr Kelam well are perfectly aware that those heartless words are complete lies. In my opinion, the European Parliament should react to this insult. But, on the other hand, being an enemy of the enemies of democracy in Russia is quite a grand compliment to Mr Kelam and his efforts.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Mr President, one of the main principles valued throughout the European Union is that of non-discrimination. Many documents contain references to the need for special protection for the rights of the disabled. The social role of sport, including its role in social integration, is also appreciated. Some EU countries are now adopting legislation on social assistance for sportspeople and former sportspeople, especially former Olympic participants, in difficult material circumstances. So much the better. But it is hard to accept that disabled sportspeople should be overlooked in this connection.\nDesislav Chukolov\n(BG) For the past 20 years Bulgaria should have been a rule-of-law country but it is not. Neo-communists in our country will stop at nothing. Georgi Pirinski, the Speaker of Bulgaria's Parliament, restricts the freedom of speech by imposing prohibitions on journalists, thus preventing them from doing their job. At the same time it turns out that Mr. Pirinski is a US citizen and according to Bulgarian legislation he is anything but a Bulgarian citizen. On the other hand, one of the most notorious drug traffickers in Europe, Budimir Kujovic, has Bulgarian citizenship because he was issued a passport by the top people in the Ministry of Interior, so that he could travel across the Union freely and go about his business. The Prosecutor's Office conducted an inquiry, no one is to blame, but the passport is a fact.\nAt the same time, the party most strongly in opposition in our country, Ataka, is subjected to daily attacks by the powers that be. Our leader's wife, Kapka Siderova, had a miscarriage because the harassment against her got so far that charges were pressed against her in a fabricated political trial. Finally, I suggest to Mr. P\u00f6ttering that he should do something more than sit apathetically and support neo-communists in Bulgaria.\nJaroslav Zv\u011b\u0159ina\n(CS) As far back as 2000 the Council of Europe expressed its wish to transform the European Union, within 10 years, into the most dynamic and competitive part of the world. Since then it has been repeatedly said that somehow we are not succeeding.\nNothing substantial has been done about the patents legislation and our entire innovation environment is lacking dynamism.\nThe modified Lisbon Strategy does not bring anything that is very new. Perhaps the targets it sets are slightly more modest. This is a further reason why we should try to set targets that are easier to meet. In my opinion, these include the simplification of legislation and the abolishment of unnecessary regulations in all areas where this is possible.\nCurbing the high rate of European legislation is a promising method. Introducing the principle of 'discontinuity' into the workings of the European Parliament would surely be beneficial in this regard. It would be a positive step if the legislative proposals that have not been tabled could be abandoned once the parliamentary term is over.\nPierre Pribetich\n(FR) Mr President, last week the package of legislation on climate change and energy was presented. We must welcome the spirit of the Commission proposals. These issues affect a large number of areas, in particular housing and more especially social housing. We realise that a large proportion of the housing stock in the Union will be affected by these necessary changes. The charges relating to heating, for instance, are a major expense for tenants and they need to be regulated and even reduced. The changes to social housing form part of our sustainable development policies and they call for appropriate financing in order to meet these new requirements. Until now, the Commission has concentrated financing on the new Member States, who have therefore received substantial support. The older Member States have not. National housing policies need consistent financial support to speed up changes to social housing. If the policies described are to be credible, we need to match actions to words. The Commission will have to take the necessary follow-up action and finance changes to social housing everywhere in the Union.\nHans-Peter Martin\n(DE) Mr President, I wish to place on record in this forum an incident that occurred in the chamber this afternoon. When President P\u00f6ttering was in the chair, Martin Schulz, the Socialist Group chairman, called out so loudly and clearly to me from the front row that he could be understood up here. 'Shut your trap, you idiot!' were his words. That is truly unacceptable behaviour; it is insulting as well as calumnious. I expect appropriate steps to be taken, particularly since the man in question aspires to the position currently held by Mr P\u00f6ttering. That is no way to conduct the business of a parliament. Matters were made worse by the fact that, at the same time, some Members were singled out at random because they had the courage to call for a referendum and were then threatened with absurd sanctions.\nPetya Stavreva\n(BG) The second year of Bulgaria's membership to the European Union is about to turn fatal for many Bulgarian dairy farmers. High fodder prices, low farm-gate purchase prices for milk and the shortage of funds for feeding the animals during the winter months, and the lack of a targeted government policy in stockbreeding are factors that could lead to liquidation of the livestock and to bankruptcy for many Bulgarian farmers. Today, when reforming the common agricultural policy is a particularly important topic for the European Union, we should take into account the current condition of the agrarian sector in the new Member States as well. We cannot neglect the difficulties faced by farmers in the newly acceded countries which result from adaptations to meet European standards. Bulgarian farmers, like their European colleagues, expect wise decisions for the future of the agri-business in the Community.\nMarianne Mikko\n(ET) Ladies and gentlemen, the harassment of the Director of the St Petersburg Office of the British Council, Mr Kinnock, and his colleagues going as far as questioning by the Russian authorities requires our full attention. The charges levelled at the British Council are a link in the chain to which the cyber attacks against Estonia, the blockade of Polish food products and the radioactive attack in London also belong. In each case the Kremlin has innocently claimed that the incident was an isolated one.\nLadies and gentlemen, such a high number of isolated incidents points to a system. The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lavrov, said explicitly last Thursday that the reform of Europe's security architecture is a priority in Russia's foreign policy for 2008. Russia wants to reform the European Union by paralysing our foreign policy and by squeezing us in an energy vice between the North Stream and the South Stream.\nAs we do not wish to become the undefended target of a strong Russian foreign policy, we must stand firm together in solidarity. We in the European Parliament must condemn the harassment of the British Council.\nMarian Zlotea\n(RO) The free movement of goods is one of the cornerstones of the European Union. I would like to draw Parliament's attention to the situation of this fundamental principle in Romania. On accession, the Romanian Government decided to adopt a first registration fee for motor vehicles. The Government then announced its intention of discontinuing this fee which the Commission considers to be in breach of the acquis communautaire, in order to prevent the continuation of the infringement procedures opened against Romania. However, the Romanian authorities refuse to reimburse citizens for the fees they have already paid, although this obligation is enshrined in ECJ case law.\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, the concept of European citizenship and equal rights for all European nationals will only be fully realised when all the Member States transpose and comply with the rights defined in the Treaty. I would like to inform you that I have started a written statement and I would like to ask you please to sign it, to avoid such situations occurring in the future.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) The Lisbon Strategy expresses the EU's commitment to becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy. The Lisbon Strategy objectives include increasing investment in research, the development of the information society and the creation of highly skilled jobs.\nUnfortunately, woefully few Member States have invested 3% of their GDP in research. Two-thirds of these funds should come from the private sector. Today, when we are talking about reducing climate change, sustainable energy resources, greener vehicles, increasing the energy efficiency of various industries, switching to digital technology etc., investing in research should be one of our priorities. Unfortunately, despite the allocation of national or European funds to research, the link between basic research and the industrial application of its results is still very weak.\nI call upon the European Commission to prepare a strategy and an action plan enabling all European citizens to benefit from the results of research. I am convinced that the development of applied research will lead to the creation of high-skilled jobs and the development of a knowledge-based economy.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to speak about a topic that is very important in terms of maintaining a variety of regional products and protecting traditional products, namely '\u010cesk\u00e9 pivo' (Czech beer).\nIt was this name, '\u010cesk\u00e9 pivo', that was published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the middle of January this year, together with a proposal to register it as a protected geographical designation.\n'\u010cesk\u00e9 pivo' is unique not only according to its consumers but also according to brewing industry experts and Commission officials. Due to the way in which the Czech brewing industry developed in the past, the types of malt and hops used and the brewing processes used have all given '\u010cesk\u00e9 pivo' a taste that is different from European beers such as Heineken or Stella Artois.\nThe Czech Republic was pressing for registration for more than three years. Long and exhausting negotiations culminated in publication in the Official Journal.\nI would like to thank the officials of the European Commission as well as the Czech experts for their responsible approach to this matter. I believe that from now on nothing will prevent '\u010cesk\u00e9 pivo' from becoming a part of Europe's cultural heritage.\nCatherine Stihler\nMr President, I wanted to raise the issue of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a disease which by 2020 will be the third largest cause of death worldwide. COPD killed 2.7 million people in 2000. Up to three quarters of people with COPD have difficulty with simple tasks such as walking upstairs. COPD is associated with many other health problems, and smoking is not the only risk factor: environmental tobacco smoke and pollution are also linked to COPD. As the population ages, COPD will become a bigger problem. I urge colleagues to sign Written Declaration 0102\/2007.\nCsaba S\u00f3gor\n(HU) Mr President, I am speaking in my mother tongue, Hungarian. I cannot do that at home. I am delighted that it is possible here. In relation to the question of the Roma, it is the duty of all of us to ease the tensions that have recently built up between ethnicities and to stop the widespread anti-Roma sentiment. We must find an urgent solution to economic migration.\nThe EU Roma Strategy does, however, form a basis for working out a policy for new and traditional national minorities within the EU. Kosovo has reminded us again that the question of human and minority rights has become an international, European issue. We are responsible for what happens inside and outside the EU. Today, in one of our Member States, it is not Community rights but Community crimes that are being raked up. In Romania, the language law would deprive several hundreds of thousands of people of their nationality. We are mentioning this because we are all responsible for our countries, for our neighbours, and for the whole of Europe. This responsibility is not only present at elections, but it continues to be present in our everyday work, and in finding a reassuring solution to the Roma question. Thank you.\n\u00c1rp\u00e1d Duka-Z\u00f3lyomi\n(SK) The situation in the Slovak Parliament is tense and unusual. A decision is to be made on the Lisbon Treaty but the opposition MPs do not intend to take part in the vote as a protest against an anti-democratic press law. This is surprising news but what is behind it?\nRobert Fico's Government continues to adopt measures that contradict the basic principles of democracy and a state governed by law. The Prime Minister ignores the opposition and, as he has said himself on more than one occasion, the main opposition in his view is the media. The press law is restrictive and the way in which it curtails the freedom of speech and press freedom is unacceptable. This was highlighted not only by the Slovak Syndicate of Journalists but also by the OSCE; the latter even vigorously appealed to the Parliament to reject the controversial proposal.\nOn behalf of the vast majority of opposition MPs, I can say that we support the Lisbon Treaty and we regret that the Slovak opposition's means of protesting against such a shameful press law are restricted.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) The European Parliament recognised the struggle for human rights in Cuba by awarding the Sakharov Prize to the Cuban dissident Oswald Pay\u00e1 Sardi\u00f1as in 2002 and to the Ladies in White in 2005; however, ladies and gentlemen, there is much more to solidarity.\nThe people of Cuba, who can only dream of freedom while being threatened by repression and imprisonment, need more than solidarity. The 'Damas de Blanco' need concrete help from the European Parliament today to free their husbands, opponents of the dictatorial regime, whose health has deteriorate due to inhumane conditions in prison and who risk dying in prison.\nMr President, I am asking you to help secure the release of 45-year-old Antonio Ram\u00f3n D\u00edaz S\u00e1nchez, who was sentenced to 27 years in jail in 2003. Antonio, whose family we have been supporting, and whom I have symbolically adopted along with my fellow Members Peter \u0160\u0165astn\u00fd and Milan Ga\u013ea, is seriously ill and urgently needs help: without it he will succumb to his illness in prison.\nP\u00e9ter Olajos\n(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Last week, here in Parliament, President Barroso presented the Commission's road map for bringing about the ambitious European reduction in carbon dioxide. The next day, the council of Trebi\u0161ov in Slovakia unanimously rejected a plan to build a power plant that would emit 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, and against which there have been widespread protests for a year and a half, with petitions and fines on both sides of the border. We could say \"Hurrah! Democracy, subsidiarity and civil courage work.\" There is, however, another question here. How can it even occur to the Slovak Ministry of the Environment to support and recommend such a power plant? This suggests to me that some countries have still got lots of free carbon dioxide quotas from the Commission. I therefore call upon the Commission to review the grounds for the carbon dioxide quota awarded to Slovakia, because if the Slovak government is racking its brains about a giant coal-fired power plant using obsolete technology in 2008, it means that the Union's incentive system is not working. Thank you.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n(SK) In its report published on 17 January 2008 the European Regulators Group states that since the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Directive on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community roaming call charges have fallen and operators have not been attempting to compensate for their losses by increasing charges for other types of calls.\nIt was also found that when it comes to roaming calls, overcharging by EU mobile networks can be as much as 20% due to call tariffs: roaming calls are billed on a per minute basis. I appreciate the efforts of Commissioner Reding, who announced that the Commission would be looking to remedy this situation.\nIn my view, it is essential for the mobile operators to offer consumers roaming calls billed on a per second basis just as they do at national level. I further recommend that the document that is being prepared also address the cost of SMS and roaming data services.\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, a wise December decision by the Commission to allow the import of Brazilian beef only from approved holdings envisaged by 1 February a positive list of approximately 300 farms, based on previous inspections by the Food and Veterinary Office.\nConfusion is rife following a statement today by Commissioner Kyprianou that there would be a ban from this Friday, as the Brazilian authorities had presented a list of 2 600 farms, raising major doubt, so more time will be needed to check them out. But the Commissioner continued - and I am quoting - 'There is no positive list for the time being ... but, of course, this can change in the next few days'.\nSo, will there or will there not be a ban? Will the 300 or so FVO-inspected holdings form a de facto positive list, pending inspections of others? Why was there no press release today from a Kyprianou source? Our consumers and our farmers deserve clarification.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, could I bring to the attention of the House a very important report published yesterday by the Commission about the lives of over a million European people who live in institutions? These are people with a disability, and the conclusions are not very comfortable reading. The quality of life in these institutions varies greatly, and the dignity of the people who live there is not always guaranteed.\nInstitutional care is often of unacceptably poor quality. Can I ask people in the House to read their own country report, because it might just wake us all up? I know the situation in Bulgaria received media attention recently, and lots of us are concerned about that, but even in my own country we could make improvements there too.\nIt is not just about money. Services in the community are not more expensive than institutional care if we take into account the needs of the residents and the quality of their lives.\nLastly I will mention the Delta Centre that I visited in Carlow in Ireland just last week. It is a model of best practice for adults with a disability who can live in the community and visit this centre.\nMihaela Popa\n(RO) Mr President, the Roma issue is one that concerns the entire European Union, not Romania alone. The Union has made available significant funding to ensure the promotion of equal opportunities. Funds have been earmarked for the desegregation of Roma; however, problems still persist. I believe that the implementation of these European funds should be monitored, and in particular it is the sustainability of EU-funded projects that should be monitored.\nMentalities are hard to change. However, education plays an important part in changing mentalities. Therefore, I believe that additional funding is needed for intercultural education, cultural and artistic activities, sports events, \"second-chance\" education, healthcare education etc. leading to Roma integration in all European societies. I'd like to reiterate the need to monitor these programs, in particular their sustainability.\nPresident\nThat is the end of the one-minute speech, which was a little longer than usual. I think it was the longest one-minute speech in the history of this Parliament. That had to happen one day.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Ethiopia\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the six motions for resolutions on Ethiopia.\nAdam Jerzy Bielan \nauthor. - (PL) Mr President, the news of the ongoing arrests, humiliation and intimidation of opposition politicians and students in Ethiopia has caused outrage and these actions should be decisively condemned. The recent arrest and expulsion from Ethiopia of two European Commission officials, who were accused of attempting to help Yalemzewd Bekele, a lawyer and women's rights advocate working for the European Commission in Addis Ababa, only serves to underline the gravity of the situation. Neither should we forget about the fact that 111 people are still in detention following the mass arrest of opposition supporters during demonstrations held in June and November 2005.\nI call upon the Commission and to the Council to do everything in their power to initiate a broad dialogue in Ethiopia, which would involve the participation of the political parties, civil society organisation and the authorities, to agree on a permanent solution to the current political crisis. We have to do all we can to make sure that the enduring principles of respect for human rights and the rule of law are re-established in that country. In order for this to happen, the Ethiopian authorities must show the world that they are willing to resolve the current crisis. The immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners would certainly constitute such a gesture of goodwill.\nMarios Matsakis \nauthor. - Mr President, the issue of human rights in Ethiopia has been the subject of numerous previous motions for resolution in this House. Unfortunately, it seems that our advisory words of wisdom and strong condemnation have been falling on deaf ears as far as the Ethiopian Government is concerned. However, who can blame it for behaving in such an arbitrary and totally unacceptable manner towards this Parliament when the Commission, for reasons best known to itself, invited Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to address the European Development Days specifically on governance issues? That inevitably sent out the wrong signal with regard to the EU's policy on respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance. Perhaps the Commissioner might be kind enough to explain to us today what the logic was behind that invitation.\nWe all understand the difficulties Ethiopia has been facing in its troubled post-colonial history and realise that some blame lies clearly and squarely with the ex-colonisers. We all want to help the Ethiopian people to achieve an acceptable standard of living, free of the evils of internal fighting and regional conflict. However, the governing regime in Addis Ababa must understand comprehensively and unequivocally that the highly-desired political stability will not be achieved through continuing arrests, harassment, arbitrary detention, humiliation and the intimidation of opposition politicians, civil society activists, students and other ordinary citizens. Such actions are, on the contrary, bound to lead to a deterioration of the already fragile political situation in Ethiopia, and the feared further worsening of the situation will become a certainty rather than a possibility.\nI urge colleagues to support this motion for a resolution, and I wait with interest to hear the Commissioner's comments on the issue of the invitation to Mr Meles Zenawi.\nAna Maria Gomes \nauthor. - (PT) The repression of students and of the Oromo, Amhara and other ethnic groups in Ethiopia; the continuing imprisonment and mock trials of elected opposition leaders, trade union leaders, journalists, teachers, human rights and development activists, and many other Ethiopians who are fighting for freedom and democracy; the manipulation by the Meles Zenawi government of the conclusions reached by the commission of inquiry into the massacre of 193 people in June and November 2005, following protests about election fraud, and the persecution of the judges in that commission who refused to alter their findings and were therefore forced to flee the country; the detention of the lawyer Yalemzewd Bekele, who was working for the European Union delegation, and the unjustified expulsion of European diplomats in violation of the Vienna Convention - all these events not only demonstrate how anti-democratic and totalitarian the Meles Zenawi regime is, but also expose its growing fragility and desperation.\nEver since the conclusions of the EU election observation mission in 2005, the Member States' governments in the Council and the Commission should have been working together to take action regarding Mr Meles Zenawi's regime. As Teshale Aberra, one of the judges who had to flee the country, said, the Meles Zenawi government is just as bad as, or even worse than, the Mengistu regime.\nEthiopia receives financial aid from the European Union, and therefore the European Union must demand the immediate release of all political prisoners. It must also demand that an international inquiry into the 2005 massacres be set up and that those responsible for the massacres be brought to justice. The EU must adopt the appropriate measures provided for in Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, of which Ethiopia is a member, as this Parliament demands.\nSuch measures include freezing the European assets of Mr Meles Zenawi and members of his government and denying them entry visas to Europe. All these measures must be designed so as to hit those who are primarily responsible, and not to hurt the Ethiopian people. Our governments and the Commission must stop justifying their tolerant attitude towards this anti-democratic regime that violates human rights, on the pretext that it is an ally in the fight against terrorism.\nWe in Europe and the United States must stop deluding ourselves. Ethiopia's intervention in Somalia on the pretext of fighting terrorism has only served to entrench the Islamic Courts in Mogadishu, and the disastrous consequences do not stop there: discredited and lacking in popular support, Mr Meles Zenawi's regime has left Ethiopia itself, Africa's second most populous country, wide open to infiltration by terrorists.\nMichael Gahler \nauthor. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last month, Mrs Kinnock and I, together with two African colleagues, had the privilege of leading a delegation to Ethiopia, where we had talks with both the government and the opposition, as well as with members of the families of detained dissidents.\nWe are very concerned about the situation there. We have found a complete lack of willingness - particularly on the part of the government - to learn any real lessons from the results of the elections, or, on the other hand, from the findings of a commission of inquiry into the parliament that the government had itself set up.\nWe have urged the Prime Minister to take these findings from the commission of inquiry as the starting point for a nationwide dialogue. To that he gave no clear response; on the contrary, indeed, we have discovered that the members of this commission have been subject to duress and that some of them have fled abroad. If the report is published at all, it will no doubt appear in a polished-up and falsified form.\nWe are grateful to the President of the Commission for speaking to the prime minister in such very plain terms of the occasion of his visit, but it is unfortunate that the environment Commissioner should, by inviting Mr Meles to visit Brussels, undermine the Commission's stance.\nI think it important that we should, now that we are equipping ourselves with a new instrument for democracy and human rights, ensure that it is an effective one and one that enables us to support democratic political forces. The new regulation must include a form of words to this effect, for how else are we to provide the opposition with legal counsel or help newly-elected parliamentarians who have no money to exercise their constitutional rights? It is for that reason that I call on not only the Commission, but also and in particular on the Member States to abandon their resistance to an effective instrument for democracy and human rights being drafted in these terms.\nAlyn Smith \nauthor. - Mr President, in these debates we regularly stress the importance of dialogue and frank discussion. In Ethiopia's case that dialogue will be a critical one, both in the sense of it being important and in the sense of our being critical of the Ethiopian Government's current practices.\nThe omens are not good. Some 193 citizens were killed in the riots in June and November 2005. The report on that inquiry remains unpublished, sanitised and unclear. Since that time a number of Ethiopians have been imprisoned, and recently two EU officials were expelled from the country. All this is not news to anyone involved in this debate, but things are stacking up and do not look good for Ethiopia.\nDialogue will indeed be critical and, as Mr Matsakis says, paragraph 7 of this resolution expresses regret at the forthcoming visit of Prime Minister Zenawi to Brussels to tell us about good governance. This is an irony that would be funny were it not so tragic. However, let us be positive. The Commissioner will hopefully tell us today that this will give us the opportunity to speak to Prime Minister Zenawi and tell him frankly of our concerns. I hope the Commissioner will confirm that this opportunity will not be missed when Mr Zenawi comes to Brussels.\nEthiopia plays an important role in the African Union and an important role in development. We could work much better in cooperation with one another. However, that cooperation, as colleagues have mentioned, should not be taken for granted and must be based on mutual principles and, importantly, adherence to them.\nIf we do not stick to our principles we can hardly expect others to, so I hope we can have a frank and open discussion with the Prime Minister when he comes to Brussels.\nKarin Scheele\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, the outcome of the parliamentary elections on 15 May 2005 saw an atmosphere of political repression fall over Ethiopia once more, and once more too, then, we find ourselves gathered here in this House discussing that country.\nIts manipulation of the elections and its repressive response to popular unrest have cost the Ethiopian Government respect at home and abroad and have cost the country itself its stability. The only way to counteract this is to resume the process of democratisation and involve the opposition parties in it. A year ago, the Ethiopian parliament set up a commission to investigate the murders committed in June and November 2005, and we call on the Ethiopian Government to publish that commission's final report without delay, without alteration and at full length. The findings must be put before the competent courts and used as the basis for fair proceedings in them.\nWe also call on the Ethiopian Government to release all political prisoners without delay and unconditionally.\nMarcin Libicki\nMr President, we are well aware of the fact that all countries and societies around the world have the right to freedom and independence. I should point out that today, we are talking about a very specific country, a country whose history is older than the history of many, or even most, European countries, who consider their roots to lie in the times of the Old Testament rulers King David and the Queen of Sheba.\nThis country, which also adopted Christianity earlier than many, if not most, European countries, is a country that is also entirely unique on the African continent. It has maintained its sovereignty throughout its history, with the exception of a short period in the thirties, when it was conquered by a European state. Even then, it maintained its independence in legal terms. Even during that invasion, which was an attempt to impose colonial rule, Emperor Haile Selassie, the country's honourable ruler, who was greatly respected throughout the world and in Ethiopia, represented his country when he was an expatriate and in exile.\nIn the seventies, Ethiopia was the victim of a communist plot, involving the Kremlin and Cuba. Since then, it has not managed to return to normality. I do not want to repeat that which has already been said about the current suffering of the Ethiopian people, but it really is our duty to aid this country and its society.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the European Commission has unfortunately behaved like a bull in a china shop by inviting the Ethiopian Prime Minister to the European Development Days. This event, to which the Prime Minister of Ethiopia has been invited as a guest, began on the same day as the Parliamentary session and will end tomorrow. The Ethiopian Prime Minister has even appeared as a speaker. The European Commission has decided that it would prefer to turn a deaf ear to the reports of persecution that are emerging from Ethiopia.\nHowever, we in the European Union cannot pretend that we are dealing with a normal country. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. We are dealing with a country which is a political prison for many journalists, trade unionists and human rights advocates. We do not even know how large a prison it is, as the Ethiopian government systematically refuses to reveal how many political prisoners there are or how many people have been arrested.\nRecently, members of yet another profession, namely teachers, were arrested. Clearly the attitude of the European Commission and the Council towards Ethiopia must depend on whether Ethiopia upholds human rights and, first and foremost, whether it agrees to release political prisoners or not. However, it should also be made clear that this is not only a matter that concerns the European Union. The African Union must also take action. That is why I stress that both unions need to deal with the issue.\nOlli Rehn\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, after the post-2005 election crisis the Commission, in close cooperation with the EU Member States and the international community, undertook efforts to defuse tensions and urged the Ethiopian Government to restore confidence in the democratisation process through the release of political detainees. The EU, in line with the international donor community, has given priority to maintaining an open and structured dialogue with the Ethiopian Government as the most appropriate way towards improving the situation.\nFollowing a visit to key political detainees, Commissioner Michel received commitments from Prime Minister Meles Zenawi during a dialogue in February that they would get a short and fair trial. President Barroso met Prime Minister Zenawi in Addis Ababa last October to express the Commission's concerns about the trial and the prisoners. President Barroso pointed out that he expected the trial to be speedy, fair and transparent. He also stressed that he did not consider a trial to be an appropriate response to the Ethiopian political differences. Instead, he suggested reconciliation and dialogue as the only way forward in building confidence.\nWhen two members of the Commission delegation were arrested and expelled from Ethiopia and a local employee of the delegation was arrested, President Barroso, Commissioner Michel and EU Member States immediately expressed their deep concern at these events, which clearly breached the Vienna Convention. The Commission strongly refuted the accusation against the Commission delegation and its staff. The Commission headquarters expressed its support and solidarity with the delegation staff and we were satisfied that this immediate and strong reaction resulted in the release of the arrested local agent on bail.\nThere have been some doubts as to the wisdom of inviting Prime Minister Zenawi to the European Development Days. The Commission believes that dialogue and further efforts have to be pursued to convey EU concerns to the Ethiopian Government and to obtain commitments on democratic reforms and good governance. The meetings and debates planned for the European Development Days will provide an opportunity to convey these messages directly and express our deep concerns.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at the end of the debate.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"PNR Agreement with the United States (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Commission statement on the PNR Agreement with the United States.\nFranco Frattini\nVice-President of the Commission. Mr President, as you already know, the United States and the European Union concluded talks on a long-term PNR agreement. I want to use this occasion to thank the German Presidency and in particular Minister Sch\u00e4uble for his personal involvement in making this happen. The unanimous mandate given by the Council of Ministers has been fulfilled. The new agreement provides for a high level of data protection and important commitments on the handling of future European PNR data.\nSeveral important interests had to be addressed. Firstly, the fight against terrorism and serious international crime, and in parallel the right to privacy and protection of fundamental civil rights, the need for air carriers to be able to comply with diverse legal requirements at an acceptable economic cost, the wider transatlantic relationship and the true international scope of these issues. The United States has agreed on a binding international agreement and by doing so they have understood the need for legal certainty.\nThe agreement is divided into three parts. First, an agreement signed by both parties. Second, a letter which the United States sent to the EU in which it set out assurances on the way in which it will handle European PNR data in the future. And third, a letter from the EU to the United States acknowledging the receipt of assurances and confirming that on that basis it considers the level of protection afforded by the US Department of Homeland Security to be adequate for European PNR data.\nIn the past, the exchange of undertakings was not binding in character. It was in my personal view, but also in the view of the Council, a major achievement of the new agreement. This agreement will be valid for 7 years, thus providing for a considerable period of legal certainty. There is not an extension of the time during which passenger data are kept from 3.5 to 15 years. There is an increase from 3.5 to 7 years of the time during which data are kept in an active file. The further period of 8 years that was already provided for in the previous agreements and that undertaking is not newly introduced in this new agreement.\nThe purpose for which data will be used remains the same. The number of PNR data has been reduced from 34 to 19 as a result of rationalisation and merging. Sensitive data will be filtered and made accessible only in exceptional circumstances which have been justified and will be deleted after 30 days. Those air carriers not already pushing the data will go from a 'pull' to a 'push' system as soon it becomes technically feasible. It is now up to air carriers to introduce new technologies as soon as possible, but both the United States and the EU agree that this system should be a 'push' system and no longer a 'pull' system.\nThe Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security and the United States Secretary of Homeland Security will be responsible for the review system. Finally, the United States has accepted a review system which was likely to be agreed at the beginning of our negotiations.\nProtection given under the United States Privacy Act will be extended through administrative procedures to non-US citizens, in particular with regard to redress and correction, and, therefore, EU citizens will be entitled to protection under that Act. That was not the case under the previous agreement.\nCommon efforts are needed in order to protect our societies, including our human rights, from attempts by terrorists to undermine them. The recent events in London and Glasgow have shown that terrorism will stay with us for some time. That is why, as I have already announced, I will present a package in the autumn, which will include new measures - both legislative and operational - aimed at improving and increasing our capacity to cooperate at an international level against terrorism. I shall also propose that the EU Member States establish a European PNR system at national level in as many Member States as possible.\nCarlos Coelho\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PT) Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Frattini and the German Presidency on the effort they have put into concluding this PNR Agreement. It was essential to avoid a legal vacuum that would have left European airlines in a difficult position and jeopardised the protection of our citizens.\nWe have always supported having an international agreement at EU level instead of 27 bilateral agreements, because the Union can put forward a stronger position not only on preventing and fighting terrorism, but also on protecting fundamental rights. That is why the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats was in favour of granting the Commission a mandate to reopen negotiations. We are well aware that the negotiations were difficult and also that the European side wanted to find a mutually acceptable solution more strongly than the US side did.\nI find it regrettable, however, that this agreement is composed of three parts: an agreement and two letters, the binding nature of which is not all the same. There are several points that have changed for the better, and Mr Frattini has mentioned a number of them, but there are others that have fallen well short of our expectations. The points I would highlight are these: first, I welcome the reduction in the number of PNR data, and I welcome the switch from a pull to a push system, as mentioned just now. We know that 13 airlines have implemented the system already, but many others have not yet done so. I would like to know what kind of initiatives the Commission is preparing to help and encourage airlines to switch over.\nI still cannot accept what I consider to be an excessively long data storage period. I am pleased at the inclusion of the requirement to give passengers adequate information and I welcome the appeal procedures for passengers, whereby they can review and correct data held by the US authorities, although there is still no sound legal mechanism allowing European citizens to appeal if their personal data are misused.\nI am afraid that the additional measures for protecting sensitive data are inadequate, and I regret that the use of data by other US agencies has not been fully guaranteed.\nA lot has been done, Commissioner, but there is still a lot left to do, and I hope that the control mechanism that you have agreed upon will allow some of the negative points that remain to be corrected.\nStavros Lambrinidis\nMr Vice-President, I honestly wish I could congratulate you today on achieving an agreement with the USA; my political group knows how hard you have worked, especially in the face of the USA's threat that, in the absence of agreement, they would unilaterally impose even worse terms on the airline companies.\nUnfortunately, what we have in our hands, first of all, is not an agreement with the USA. It is in fact an agreement with the USA and with any other countries to which the USA unilaterally decides to transfer personal data on European passengers.\nSecondly, it is an agreement that contains commitments only for Europe and not for the USA.\nThirdly, even where the agreement sets certain limits, these limits are so unclear and so full of legal loopholes that in practice it will allow the USA to do pretty much as it likes.\nLet me be more specific: firstly, the agreement and the attached letter from the USA state that America will be able to transfer the information we send it to any third country it likes, with hardly any obligation to even notify us. In other words, in practice, Europe is signing the PNR agreement not only with the USA but with any other countries on earth which the USA decides, countries which cannot today receive data on European citizens directly from Europe, because we have not signed an agreement with them. Did your negotiating mandate from the Council really include the authority to allow the uncontrolled transfer of European data by the USA where Europe cannot do so?\nSecondly, while Europe has expressly declared that it is bound by the agreement, the USA has expressly declared that they are not bound by the agreement. They are only bound by the unilateral assurances in their letter and by American laws which, if they change, will automatically bring about changes to the agreement.\nThirdly, as far as passenger information on the use of their data is concerned, there is no provision for an obligation by the governments to ensure they are informed; the airline companies are merely urged to do so. But information for citizens is an express dictat of European laws. Why did you not mention this?\nFourthly, if the USA infringes the agreement, the only solution open to the European Union is to abolish it completely. How will this be done, Commissioner, when even if 26 of the 27 Member States consider that it has been infringed and one considers that it has not, the agreement cannot be abolished at European level?\nFifthly, the legal intended uses of the data cited are uncontrolled. While at the beginning of the letter they are limited to combating terrorism and serious crime, immediately afterwards any use is allowed in any criminal proceedings or however otherwise required under US law, that is, for almost anything.\nThis is not an international agreement; at least not as the citizens understand the term. I do hope it will be changed on these crucial points before it is signed.\nSophia in 't Veld\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all I note that the Council Presidency is absent during this important debate, which is remarkable as it was responsible for the negotiations. I am therefore thankful for the presence of Mr Frattini.\nHowever, I would like to start by objecting to the implicit link that Mr Frattini makes with the failed terrorist attacks in the UK last week. I find that distasteful: it has nothing to do with PNR.\nThat brings me to an important point that this House has emphasised many times and that is the need for an evaluation. We need evidence that the use of PNR data leads to greater security and that they are not used only to catch people who commit document fraud, drug smuggling or whatever. We need evidence and not just anecdotes.\nMr Frattini says that this is a good agreement. Well, it serves two purposes: firstly, to legalise the transfer of data by carriers and, secondly, to provide, as he has said, a high level of data protection. Well, it fails miserably on the second objective; it is not legally binding, it explicitly states that it does not confer any rights on any person or any party. Well, how much clearer can it get? Then, it looks good superficially, but it is full of loopholes, open definitions and exceptions, when it comes to purpose limitation, for example, or the retention periods, which are going up to 15 years and maybe even more, and they will be applied retroactively. I am not a lawyer, but that strikes me as distinctly funny.\nThe reduction from 34 to 19 data is an insult to our intelligence. If you look at the data, it is not a reduction: the 34 are merged into 19 data fields. I am not stupid. We may not have any powers here but we are not stupid.\nThen with pull to push: we got that promise back in 2004. We still do not have it! It is technically feasible, so why do we not have it?\nDemocratic oversight is completely lacking. This House may not have competences any more, but the national parliaments are completely excluded. Some of the national parliaments will get to approve the agreement, but they can only say 'yes' or 'yes', because they do not have time, they do not get all the necessary information - only very summary information - and it has just been pointed out that if one national parliament says 'no' then there is no agreement and no parliament will want to take that responsibility, so they have their backs against the wall.\nWith regard to the Privacy Act, it is good that it now covers European citizens. We asked for that many times. However, we all know that the Bush Administration uses all sorts of exceptions and exemptions to the Privacy Act, which, incidentally, affects American citizens as it does European citizens.\nTo conclude, concerning Mr Frattini's proposal on a European PNR scheme - which is not a real proposal because he floated it at a press conference rather than putting a real proposal before this House, I think the timing - last week - was wrong and I would like to know what the justification is for such a scheme. We do not even know what purpose the PNR agreement with the United States serves. We do not know how many terrorists were caught, how many attacks were prevented and how many false positives there have been. We have insisted on an evaluation before signing a new agreement.\nFinally, I would like to recommend that the PPE-DE Group support the joint motion for a resolution that we will negotiate tomorrow, read the agreement very carefully and read between the lines, because it is not as good as it looks.\nKathalijne Maria Buitenweg\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, this is the third agreement we are discussing in this Parliament on the transfer of passenger data to the United States, and things are not getting any better. Commissioner Frattini, you claim that the data is only used for the fight against terrorism or against serious international crime. As you know the agreement well, you will also be aware that Annex II stipulates, as Mr Lambrinidis said, or otherwise required by law, by US-law that is, which opens up its scope considerably, of course.\nIn general, I think that this is not the place either where you should make things out to be better than they really are. This also applies to the data, as Mrs in 't Veld said a moment ago. I have the two annexes here in front of me: an old annex to the old agreement and a new annex to the new agreement, one of which contains 19 data fields while the other contains 34. I would very much like to hear from you presently what data, according to you, will no longer be transferred to the United States. I want to know this very specifically because, as I see it, there is not one data field that will no longer be transferred to the United States, let alone 15.\nTurning to the other item of push and pull, here too, I am tired of people acting as if major progress is being made. On two occasions, the Americans have moved this proposal, and you have had to negotiate once again with a view to them simply delivering on their own promises. Surely this is unacceptable in transatlantic relations.\nFinally, I checked the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] website today for redress inquiries. It states that if you think you are under suspicion and that you are on a watch list of people who are denied airline boarding, they cannot let you know what the data is that they have on you, but you will have to inform them of the reason why you think you are under suspicion. Surely this is not the way to let people seek travel redress! So I would have to say to you, yes, I might be a vegetarian, but this will really not tell you anything. It is too absurd for words that people do not have access to the data on which they appear to be judged.\nJeanine Hennis-Plasschaert\n(NL) Mr President, following endless debates, pulling and pushing, I had hoped for an adequate explanation where effectiveness is concerned, or the supposed effectiveness of an agreement such as this one. However, this hope soon evaporated when I read the agreement, one that was announced with so much pomp and circumstance by Mr Sch\u00e4uble and others, including yourself.\nNot a word was breathed about this supposed effectiveness. How many terrorists have been stopped in their tracks on the basis of the existing interim agreement? Of course, like the Commission, I too understand the importance of having an agreement, not least on account of the position of the European aviation industry. Legal certainty is important to everyone, but rules and regulations should not be there for rules and regulations' sake.\nWhat struck me, above all, having read this agreement, is that a great deal is coming out of our own pocket. It remains completely beyond me why we as a Union allow ourselves to be pushed into such an underdog position. Both the Council and Commission could learn from the perseverance displayed by our champion Mrs in 't Veld. All credit therefore to her and her unstinting efforts.\nFinally, whilst the fight against terrorism is, of course, an important one, I cannot shake off the impression that we are at risk of losing sight of reality in this matter. This agreement is not enough, not by a long shot.\nSarah Ludford\nMr President, I am afraid that I am going to continue in a slightly sceptical line, but first of all a question to the Commissioner. Could he please tell us what is the legal basis of this agreement from the EU side? The only reference I can find to any legal instruments in it are to US Statutes. I do not find any reference to legal bases from the Treaties. I remember talk of Articles 24 and 38 earlier on. If Article 38 is one of them, then why is the European Parliament not formally consulted?\nSecondly, we hear a lot about needing this to fight terrorism. If terrorism is such an important priority of the EU, why have we gone four months without a counter-terrorism coordinator?\nThirdly, this agreement is about collecting a huge amount of data on everyone, as a basis for profiling, data mining etc., but we have very poor implementation of targeted measures against terrorism.\nThe Director of Interpol has just launched what has been called in the press an 'unprecedented attack on the UK' for failing to check visitors against the Interpol database of stolen passports. When the Commission produced a report last year on the common position of January 2005, it was distinctly unimpressed by Member States' achievements. Only a small number of Member States had established infrastructures for authorities to search the Interpol databases - 8 of the 25 Member States did not respond to the Commission's inquiries - and very few Member States had made sure that their law enforcement authorities searched the database. Member States are completely ignoring their obligations.\nFinally, we have the EU APIS Directive of 2004, which should have been implemented last year. Could the Commissioner tell us whether the Member States have implemented this Directive, why it is concerned only with illegal immigration and why it does not provide for visitors to be checked against terrorist watch lists? There are plenty of measures out there which are being completely unimplemented by Member States. Let us do that first before we have mass surveillance of the whole population.\nFranco Frattini\nVice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank all those who have spoken, even though I do not agree with most of their speeches, but you know that I always speak my mind with absolute frankness.\nLadies and gentlemen, agreements are made between two parties. The United States has the power to accept or reject an agreement. We had a duty, first of all, to ask the Council of Ministers for a mandate, which we were given and within which we have operated. The agreement has been approved by the Member States - after all, they granted us the power to negotiate - so they clearly thought that having this agreement was immensely better than the possibility of not having any agreement at all after 31 July this year, which is actually in a few days' time.\nQuite frankly, I should like to have heard those who criticised this agreement so harshly make at least one comment on the consequences of not having any agreement at all. Can any of you imagine that the airlines would have negotiated bilaterally with the United States and achieved a better level of personal data protection? I do not think anyone can even imagine that that might have happened. The protection of European citizens' personal data would have been in serious jeopardy without the certainty of legally binding rules.\nAs you know, for the first time we have a binding agreement, unlike the previous one, which involved no binding commitments but just unilateral ones. In this agreement, we have recognised the 'push' principle as a fundamental criterion, as this Parliament has demanded on several occasions. The fact that some airlines have said that they are not yet in a position to switch over from pull to push does not depend on either the United States or Europe, but rather on the fact that some of them have so far been unable to change system on technical grounds. Since others have been able to do so, it must depend on their technical ability and willingness, and we shall help them to make the move.\nWe have set the 'push' system as a criterion; if, however, an airline says it is technically unable to implement it, other proposals need to be examined. Can we deny that airline landing rights? I am ready to examine any proposals, but we have also set a deadline, which is the end of this year. That seems technically feasible, since IATA (the International Air Transport Association) has told us that it is reasonable to expect all airlines to be technically capable of introducing the new system within six months. It is purely down to technical reasons.\nWe have established that sensitive data will be destroyed within 30 days, a measure that had not been agreed previously, and we have established that the US Privacy Act will apply to European citizens, something that had been mentioned in many debates here in Parliament as an essential condition: European citizens will be able to complain under the same law as US citizens if the US Department of Homeland Security misuses their data. That is something that did not exist before, and I am giving you actual facts.\nMr Lambrinidis has rightly mentioned third countries. It is true that the data in question can be passed on to third countries but, as you know, it is laid down that there will be the same power of control over the correct use of such data. The fact that they are passed on to a third country does not affect the power of control: the third country will use the data in accordance with the very same rules laid down in this agreement and we shall retain the same power to check whether the data have been used properly or not.\nSomeone asked about the possibility of terminating the agreement. The possibility does of course exist, in the event of a substantial breach, and you are perfectly well aware of the legal basis adopted. Article 24 of the Treaty is an intergovernmental basis and not, unfortunately, a Community basis, because the European Union Court of Justice has so ruled. An agreement had previously been negotiated on a basis that allowed for your full participation as the European Parliament. Unfortunately, the Court of Justice ruling established that the legal basis was incorrect and, as you know, everything stems from that ruling.\nIt is a fact, Mr Lambsdorff, that many Member States are not complying with European measures, which instead ought to be fully implemented. You know perfectly well not only that I published the state of the art country by country just a few days ago, but also that I have initiated infringement procedures, and I do not think I need to wait for the outcome of those to adopt useful proposals to combat terrorism.\nI do not share the opinion of those who say, 'We should do other things first and then worry about terrorism.' Terrorism is a serious and present threat. I think this agreement could have been better if we had been negotiating it alone but, since agreements are made between two sides, it is a compromise and, in the spirit of compromise, the Council of Ministers approved it unanimously. In my view it was right to do so, and the German Presidency was given due recognition for all the hard work it put into this agreement.\nIt is a binding agreement which will certainly help to fight terrorism or, better still, to prevent it. No member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs should forget that the US Secretary of Homeland Security came to Parliament and gave you some information and, in some cases, specific facts about terror suspects who were stopped thanks to PNR data. There were just a few cases, but they concern people who were stopped thanks to PNR data and were later involved in bomb attacks elsewhere in the world.\nDespite all the impact assessments that we have conducted and may yet conduct, I believe that the agreement in question, which provides legal certainty, is infinitely better than the absence of an agreement. I am sorry that we do not agree on this point, but I have a duty to be sincere.\nKathalijne Maria Buitenweg\nMr President, we are lacking an important piece of information. The PPE-DE Group is basing its positive opinion partly on the fact that the amount of data now being sent to the US is reduced from 34 to 19. I have challenged the Commission to say which of the 15 pieces of information are no longer being transferred to the US, because as far as I see it - and the rapporteur Sophia in 't Veld also mentioned this - most of the fields are merged so that the change is mainly cosmetic. I would like to be convinced that the opposite is true. I would like the Commission to list the 15 information fields which are now no longer being transferred to the US.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday 12 July 2007.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields (short presentation) \nPresident\nThe next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Ries, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries\nMr President, before coming to the substance, I would like to say a word, if you would allow me, on the form. I am not the first and I shall certainly not be the last to speak out against Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which prevents debate this evening on what is nonetheless a most important issue for the people of Europe.\nNo debate, no speakers on behalf of the groups, nothing. I would therefore like to thank, in spite of everything, and even though, I am sorry to say, they are not here, Mrs Ayala, Mrs Lucas, Mr Adamou, Mrs Sinnott, Mrs Ferreira and even Mr van Nistelrooij, who are without a Chamber, a virtually empty Chamber, at almost 11 p.m. Not bad either is the 11 p.m. slot for an issue that is of great interest and concerns millions of citizens in Europe.\nI come now to the substance. For ten years our Parliament had not taken up this issue. It was time, therefore, because 10 years is an age, or almost an age, when it comes to new technology: a boom in wireless devices, mobile phones, wifi, bluetooth, base stations, high-voltage power lines. These waves are all around us, bringing undeniable benefits, which I do not for a moment question in this report, but also, it has to be said, giving rise to serious questions with regard to their impact on our health.\nTherefore, let us be clear, it is in a somewhat sensitive area that I have had to prepare this report, with ever increasing controversy about the health risks of these low frequency waves and the inability of the scientific community, also, to reach an agreement.\nHere are a few examples of the ambitious proposals which, I hope, will be supported tomorrow: protection for areas that are at risk and vulnerable people, that is, schools, cr\u00e8ches, retirement homes, convalescent homes and health care establishments, of course.\nEthical considerations also are essential with regard to this issue, and we must lay down procedures to ensure independence of scientific research and expertise. We must also call for a change in behaviour with regard to mobile phones by encouraging the use of ear pieces, limiting mobile phone use among children and young people, educating them in safer techniques, monitoring certain marketing campaigns, and having operators and electricity companies share base stations and masts.\nI do have one regret, however, and it is important because it concerns the initial paragraph of my report, calling for a review of the limits on emissions. Unfortunately, I was not supported by my colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, even though - I must point this out - word for word, the same text received virtually unanimous support in our plenary session of 2 September last year, in the context of another report on the European environment and health action plan for 2004-2010.\nThe Commission's current policy of burying its head in the sand - I apologise for using that turn of phrase, Commissioner - certainly does not help to provide the clarity European citizens are waiting for, and, on the contrary, the experts continue to disagree, and court actions are on the increase, with judgments being in favour sometimes of operators and sometimes of local residents' associations.\nIn conclusion, it is a status quo approach that is being advocated by the World Health Organization and also by the Commission, with the rendez-vous clause for 2015 - virtually another decade - to review whether continual exposure to this cocktail of low frequency waves could cause cancerous tumours. This approach, therefore, is not the right one. It seems lightweight to me, and I hope with all my heart that, when faced with potential health issues in the future, we will not be told that it was responsible.\nThe precautionary principle that underpins our proposal is not a principle of inaction, but a principle of action and expertise to reduce uncertainty. It is this dynamic and progressive definition that we are defending today in this sensitive area of electromagnetic waves. That is why the alternative resolution tabled by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance has my full support - I must make that clear. It comes back, I might add, to my original proposal of reducing the emission thresholds, as nine Member States and a whole series of regions, two of which are very close to me - Wallonia and the Brussels region - are already doing, that is, they are using three volts per metre instead of the 41 volts per metre authorised at present by the 1999 recommendation.\nNevertheless, I am rapporteur for the European Parliament on this issue, and I want above all to retain the other advances in this report, as adopted in committee. It is the latter, of course, that I shall be asking you to vote for tomorrow.\nIn conclusion, Mr President, Commissioner, I want to deliver two messages. The issue of electromagnetic waves and their impact remains open, and I am convinced that the next European Parliament will take up this matter again. Europe must reassure its citizens and take over this debate, which at present is being conducted only in the courts.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the European Parliament and particularly to Mrs Ries, the rapporteur for this own-initiative report on electromagnetic fields (EMFs).\nThis issue - EMFs - is indeed very controversial in the eyes of many European citizens, although many others, us included, also see it as being most important.\nThe complexity of this issue and the strength of feeling surrounding it mean that it is particularly important to gather very precise facts and to evaluate them carefully, adequately and objectively.\nTherefore, the Commission is following this issue continuously and very attentively, as indeed it is required to do in accordance with Council Recommendation 1999\/519.\nFor this reason, the Commission regularly obtains information from the independent scientific committees in order to stay up to date on the possible risks of EMFs. The recent 'SCENIHR opinion' - the opinion of the competent scientific committee - on this subject was only adopted in January of this year.\nI should like to add here that the Commission is following the developments in the Member States and the latest court rulings against mobile phone companies in France with great attention and observing very closely the lowering of exposure limits for base stations in the Brussels Capital Region.\nI can assure Parliament that the Commission will attend to the demands made in the resolution with great care.\nLet me just examine a few points briefly.\nFirstly, there is already a framework at EU level laying down exposure limits and production standards and also a defined level of protection in terms of known effects.\nSecondly, the independent scientific studies to date do not justify amending the scientific basis for these exposure limits.\nThe Commission will also continue to follow scientific progress in this field closely in order to establish whether the exposure limits need to be adjusted.\nThirdly, the Commission is committed to stepping up the dialogue with stakeholders on the potential health effects of EMFs. In addition, the Commission wishes to cooperate with the main actors to make it possible to react adequately to public concerns.\nI should like to emphasise quite clearly our endeavours to also promote research in this field to clarify the remaining uncertainties.\nPresident\nThe item is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nV\u00e9ronique Mathieu  \nWe have to recognise that at present there are few reliable and accepted scientific data on the effects of magnetic fields on the human body. They are nonetheless part of our everyday lives (mobile phones, wireless technology), and 80 % of citizens consider that they do not have enough information about the possible effects, and 50 % of them say they are worried.\nUntil now, the scientific community could only issue divided, and sometimes contradictory, opinions, and public authorities have not really given attention to this problem. I therefore give my full support to this report, which calls on States to regularly update the threshold values for these fields and recommends, in accordance with the precautionary principle, prohibiting the installation of antennas in vulnerable areas (schools, health care establishments).\nI am also in favour of the European Commission launching a scientific study in order to better assess the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Public authorities, manufacturers and consumers must obtain accurate information so as to measure these risks and, if necessary, take appropriate protection measures. It is also important to make recommendations, based on good practices, to better protect the health of citizens, whether they are users of appliances or residents living near to base stations or high-voltage power lines.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) As one of the shadow rapporteurs for the telecommunications package, I would like to say, following the successful vote, that I am delighted that this important amendment to internal market regulations in the field of electronic communications in particular will bring another fair process in respect of disconnections from the internet. I am gratified that the Council has finally agreed to our proposals. Our guarantees will ensure that disconnections from the internet will apply to real criminals such as terrorists or distributors of child pornography and not to ordinary users.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, in my opinion, this legislation is necessary, as we move towards a single market in electronic communications. It has already been decided under the Treaty of Lisbon that this is the direction to take.\nI am nevertheless very concerned about the importance of ensuring the basic rights of users of the internet and free access to it. One worry is its illegal use and its abuse, and, as we know, one of the biggest issues and problems at the moment is piracy. Piracy is increasing greatly all the time, and one of the main areas in which it operates is the internet.\nI hope that in future, we can invest in ensuring that those who produce creative work are properly remunerated for it and that piracy does not endanger their livelihood, as is common at present on the internet when files are downloaded illegally. This is the right step and direction to take, though in future we should pay special attention to the rights of creative artists and prevent piracy.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, see how stealthily, how silkily, by how many small steps, how insidiously and invidiously we have moved towards the establishment of a pan-European federal police force.\nWhen Europol was first established in the early 1990s, it was presented as a clearing house - as a regional branch of Interpol, if you like. Since then, bit by bit, it has been given executive and policing powers.\nFirst these were portrayed as being narrowly restricted to the field of cross-border counter-terrorist activities. That, of course, is how the FBI got started, and bit by bit it eventually extended its remit and agglomerated powers until it had become a federal pan-continental police force.\nA similar process is now at work with Europol, which has gradually extended its remit to cover a whole series of crimes that are national in nature - but with the rather fascinating oversight that its personnel still have diplomatic immunity; in other words, they cannot be held to account for abuse of police powers.\nWhen did we ever vote for this? When did we ever agree to set up a pan-European system of criminal justice with its own arrest warrant, its own police force, its own prosecuting magistracy and its own pan-European public prosecutor?\nI think we ought to have the courtesy to ask our people, our voters, whether they approve.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, the best thing we could do for the Balkan and Caucasian republics is to admit them unconditionally into a customs union, to open our markets to their products. Those are countries ideally placed to price themselves into the market. They have educated and industrious workforces but they have relatively cheap costs and therefore competitive exports.\nInstead of doing that, we are freezing out their produce in a number of key areas, and then to salve our consciences, we are giving them government to government financial assistance. In doing so, we of course make them dependencies; we make them satrapies. It is not only the Russians who think of these countries as their 'near abroad'. This is a phrase that also seems to apply sometimes in Brussels.\nWe drag their politicians and their decision makers into a system of the massive redistribution of wealth and we thereby Europeanise them in advance because they are learning what we in this House know all too well, which is that the primary function of the European Union these days is to act as a massive device to take money away from taxpayers and give it to the people lucky enough to be working inside the system.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that we need an advanced information system for the civilian administration linking the customs and police authorities of the Member States. We owe it to the citizens of the Union to combat more effectively imports of counterfeit and also hazardous products into our market from third countries. In contrast to most Members, I believe that the Commission's proposal will ensure greater protection for personal data and, at the same time, a more effective fight against organised crime. I therefore did not vote for the 90 draft amendments of the committee or for the report as a whole.\nI would, of course, like to call on the Commission to negotiate a similar early warning system to RAPEX China with other states as well, such as India, Vietnam, Russia or Turkey, so that hazardous or counterfeit products can be seized before entering European countries. I note that since 2006, it has been possible to conclude international agreements with third countries concerning the cooperation of supervisory bodies in the field of consumer protection and I am very disappointed that the Commission has so far failed to make use of this option.\nWritten explanations of vote\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI am pleased that the European Parliament has approved the Telecoms Reform Package, thus consolidating the rights of consumers and contributing to greater access to information and freedom of expression. In order to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda, we need to provide sufficient incentives for investment in new high-speed networks, so as to support innovation in content-based internet services and to enhance the EU's competitiveness at international level. Promoting sustainable investment in the development of such networks is absolutely crucial, as this will both ensure competitiveness and increase consumer choice. In order to guarantee investment in new technologies in less developed regions, regulations relating to electronic communications should be streamlined with other policies such as State aid policy, cohesion policy or the objectives of a broader industrial policy.\nCarlos Coelho  \nI support the Telecoms Reform Package because I think that the internet is an essential tool for education, the exercise of freedom of expression and access to information. This initiative definitively establishes the idea that internet access and usage fall within the fundamental rights of European citizens. I would like to thank Mrs Bastos, who was the only Portuguese MEP involved in this process. I advocate freedom on the internet, without this meaning a lack of any regulation whatsoever. As in the real world, the virtual world of the internet is the setting for illicit and illegal activities, including downloading video and music files, inciting terrorism and child pornography. Despite the opposition of many national governments, Parliament has ensured that all users can benefit from the rights and guarantees enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This means that any restriction of rights or fundamental freedoms of internet users, such as cutting off access, must respect the ECHR and the general principle of the law, and must, first and foremost, have been authorised by a court order, so as to uphold the procedural safeguards, presumption of innocence and the right to privacy, without prejudice to specific mechanisms in cases which are deemed urgent in the interests of state security.\nMarielle De Sarnez  \nPrior court approval: that is what we wanted to obtain. With this compromise, we have at least guaranteed the best legal protection possible at this stage. The EU's message is now clear: access to the internet is a fundamental right, and precise and binding procedures will have to be followed to ensure that internet users can actually be sentenced for copyright infringement. It is now up to the national judges and to the European Court of Justice judges to enforce the right of all internet users to enjoy a 'prior, fair and impartial procedure'. The lack of clarity of many provisions will require close monitoring during the process of transposing and applying this important legislation. With the Treaty of Lisbon now ratified, the European Parliament will be able, as colegislator, to continue to defend the neutrality of the internet. Today's vote is just one stage in a long process. We will have to continue to defend internet users' rights and, in particular, to define them better. We will also have to urgently take up the crucial issue of internet copyright.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of Mrs Trautmann's report as I believe that the current agreement goes far beyond what was possible in the earlier stages of the process, particularly with regard to consumer rights. I believe that the introduction of measures to safeguard rights and guarantees on freedom of expression and information given to users with landline or mobile telephones and internet users is absolutely essential. It is important to streamline the internal telecoms market by encouraging competition between companies while, at the same time, consolidating the autonomy of national regulatory bodies from their respective governments. It was equally important to ensure more modern management of the radio spectrum by devising techniques which allow the easier provision of these services in rural areas.\nDiogo Feio  \nI welcome the compromise reached between Parliament and the Council on introducing into the framework directive adequate protection for users in cases of restriction of access to services and applications through electronic communication networks.\nI think that the rule of law dictates that no one's access to information and use of electronic communication networks can be made subject to conditions without this being done in strict accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence, and restriction of access must be preceded by prior fair and impartial proceedings which safeguard the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial protection.\nFurthermore, I believe that it is especially important to support the independence mechanisms of national regulatory authorities, so that these can regulate the market effectively, promoting fair competition between operators, as well as cooperation mechanisms between the various European regulatory bodies, so that we can bring about a more transparent and more competitive market, which will represent a step up for users in the quality of services offered.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nAt the end of October, the Council adopted the majority of the texts negotiated with Parliament on the so-called Telecoms Package, with a few exceptions, which were included in the Trautmann report.\nThis text continued to be negotiated in the Conciliation Committee, where the text which we are now to vote upon was accepted.\nIt is true that the agreed text contains some of the proposals tabled by our group, defending the rights of users. However, it does not go far enough, as it allows exceptions to the procedural safeguards in urgent cases, although these must be substantiated and in accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.\nYet the principal problem with the text is its scope, as it refers only to the restrictions that may be imposed by Member States, and not the restrictions imposed by private companies.\nIndeed, the European Union seems to be more interested in creating an internal telecoms market solely to serve the interests of the economic groups which dominate the sector than in defending the rights and fundamental freedoms of the end users. We have no choice but to disagree with such an attitude.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nI abstained from the vote on this final version of the telecoms package because it is unsatisfactory. It is, however, better than nothing. It does not protect internet users from the abuses of freedom-destroying laws such as the first version of the Hadopi Law in France, or from the wrath of administrative authorities duly authorised to carry out such abuses. Nevertheless, it does give internet users legal means of defending themselves. It is, unfortunately, alarming that it has come to this: that we should have to rely on the European Union, which could not care less about what the citizens think and of which the vast majority of acts are essentially aimed at satisfying the interests of lobbies of all kinds, to provide Europeans with a minimum level of freedom of information and of expression.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nAlthough the telecoms sector is going through an unprecedented period of development, it was crucial to support the report by my colleague, Mrs Trautmann, as it will mean that consumers are offered better services at fairer prices.\nI welcome the fact that this text will increase users' rights to universal services, via clearer contracts, a more accessible emergency telephone number, a hotline for missing children, greater consideration of the rights of disabled people, and a guarantee of number portability. It will also make it possible to protect privacy better and to combat illegal practices on the internet by improving the security and the integrity of electronic communication networks.\nLastly, it is gratifying to have obtained a legally sound solution offering European citizens procedural safeguards such as observance of the inter partes principle, the presumption of innocence and the right to be heard, and which obliges the Member States to comply with those safeguards before taking any measures aimed at restricting internet access.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nAdoption of the Trautmann report means that the provisions of the Telecoms Package will shortly enter into force. This is good news for consumers, whose rights are strengthened by this legislation. The possibility of moving a telephone number to another network in one day, the increase in transparency of tariffs and the strengthening of personal data protection are some of the many positive results of the package.\nWhat is more, the European Parliament has taken account of the fears of European citizens concerning internet users being cut off from the internet. The European Parliament upheld the view that access to the internet is the right of every citizen. In relation to this, disconnecting a citizen from the internet will be possible only in justified cases, while respecting the principles of innocence and the right to privacy, and following a fair and impartial trial. This solution will certainly please the supporters of open access to the internet.\nJacky H\u00e9nin  \nI have to say that the proposed compromise between the Council and Parliament offers no adequate legal safeguards for users.\nAlthough the text maintains that the Member States cannot impose restrictions on internet end-users, it does pave the way for consumers to be restricted by access providers without any prior decision by a judicial body.\nThis state of affairs undermines people's rights.\nOur group's amendments aimed at upholding citizens' rights have not been adopted.\nLastly, the package is subject to the 'law' of the internal market. It is therefore the European Court of Justice that will decide on 'conflicts of interest'. Freedom of expression will therefore, in all likelihood, be subject to the law of the internal market, as too many recent examples show.\nThanks to strong pressure from users and citizens, user safeguards have been gained, but they remain inadequate in the opinion of the left. We cannot accept dishonest compromises where the citizens' freedom of expression is concerned.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the compromise package on telecommunications. Whilst, as is the nature of compromises, the package is not perfect, I believe that it is a step in the right direction and will bring about an improvement in consumers' rights.\nNuno Melo  \nAn affirmative vote may be justified simply by the fact that the new European legislation on the telecoms sector supports the rights of landline and mobile telephone and internet users, and boosts competition.\nThe most pertinent of these new rules is the reinforcement of consumer rights, guarantees of internet access and the protection of personal data, given that the EU is increasingly an area of rights and freedoms.\nWilly Meyer  \nI voted against the framework directive on electronic communications networks and services because I think that it represents an attack on freedom of expression and the civil rights of citizens. By adopting this directive, the European Union is allowing internet services to be cut off without the need for a judicial order. As a defender of civil rights, I am bound to be opposed to this decision. It gives powers to private companies to introduce restrictions on the use of the internet, and is one more example of the liberalisation of the European telecommunications market.\nAlso, the fact that non-judicial bodies (the nature and composition of which has not been specified) can decide to cut off internet services due to alleged illegal practices (which have not been determined either) is a breach of the principle that citizens are innocent until proven guilty, and opens the door to operators being the ones who restrict users' rights, establish content filters and make some pages faster to the detriment of others, which would mean a de facto end to the neutrality of the Web.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nI voted in favour of this package because of its unquestionable usefulness. However, I appreciate that it is unclear as to what a fair and impartial procedure will mean in practice in terms of the possible situations for restricting internet access. I believe that it would have been preferable to make a prior judicial ruling compulsory.\nTeresa Riera Madurell  \nI voted in favour of a report that is the culmination of all the work done around the 'telecommunications package', two directives and a regulation that represent a fundamental step forward in the development of the information society and the protection of users' rights.\nThis new legislation also provides clear rules and the necessary legal certainty to encourage new investment, which, in turn, will make it possible to offer new services and develop new economic activities. These provisions will therefore have a major economic impact. The text that was finally adopted also guarantees greater respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of consumers to access the Web, by providing legal certainty in Amendment 138.\nThe compromise reached refers to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, while Amendment 138 opted for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.\nThe latter option has a clear disadvantage: the United Kingdom, Poland and now the Czech Republic have introduced a derogation protocol that prevents the Court of Justice of the European Union and the respective national courts from acting in the event of a breach, while all the Member States are signatories to the Convention and there is no interference with national legal structures.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe centre left and centre right political forces in the European Parliament voted in favour of the legislative 'package' on telecommunications and the internet on the basis of the criteria of competition and security, in other words, to secure the profits of the monopolies and restrict workers' freedoms and rights. The same political forces, while referring with demagogic bombast to users' rights and free access to the internet in the face of the highhandedness of monopoly business groups, supported the Commission's reactionary proposals, thereby helping to promote the interests of capital.\nThe decision by the European Parliament promotes capitalist restructurings that will enable companies to grow to gigantic proportions and develop the 'green economy', so that they will reign supreme at European and global level, thereby multiplying their profits to the detriment of the workers and users of their services.\nThe monopolies are being given legal rights to monitor and restrict users' access to the internet. At the same time, their profits are being secured thanks to the harmonisation of the radio spectrum and the 'operating divide' between landline and internet services and the necessary infrastructure. We voted against the motion for a resolution by the Council and the European Parliament and we stand by the workers and users of electronic communications who continue to claim their rights and freedoms against the reactionary policy of the EU and the parties of capital.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - In this case, the proposal aims at creating a framework that will provide for the harmonisation of rules relating to the collection and dissemination of statistics when it comes to the use as well as the selling of pesticides. There are a number of important definitions and clarifications that have been made and, therefore, I have decided to vote in favour of this report.\nEdite Estrela  \nI welcome the agreement reached on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning statistics on pesticides which will allow for the creation of a legal framework and the establishment of harmonised rules for the collection and dissemination of statistics on the sale and use of pesticides, with a view to the sustainable use of the latter.\nPeter Jahr  \nI welcome the fact that the regulation concerning statistics on plant protection products will complete the legislative package of European plant protection policy, which can then enter into force. In order to minimise the risks to people and the environment involved in the use of plant protection products, we need harmonised risk indicators based on comparable and reliable data from all the Member States. That is exactly what will now be possible. However, the collection of this data must not lead to more bureaucracy and thus to greater burdens for our farmers and administrations. Where possible, the existing data should be used and there should be no new data collection. It will be our responsibility to ensure, when monitoring the implementation of the regulation, that bureaucratic expenditure is kept to an absolute minimum. On another note, I would have preferred the term 'plant protection products', as originally used in the regulation, to have been retained. In German, the term 'pesticides' has completely negative connotations and generally refers to the improper use of plant protection products. Unfortunately, the regulation will now contribute to this misinterpretation.\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger  \nI very warmly welcome the fact that the regulation concerning statistics on plant protection products will ensure that there is now a common legal framework for the collection and distribution of data on the marketing and use of pesticides. It is beyond doubt that minimising risks to human health and environmental protection take priority. Harmonised risk indicators and reliable data from all the Member States will now make that possible. That said, I would like to emphatically point out that any additional administrative expenditure on the collection of data must not be a cost borne by our farmers. By refraining from re-collecting data that has already been taken, we can exploit synergies that will lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and additional burdens.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik  \nPesticides, especially pesticides used in agriculture, have an important impact on the health of humans and the environment and there should therefore be significant further reductions in their use. Lengthy experience with the collection of data on the sale and use of pesticides has shown the need for harmonised methods of collecting statistical data, not only at the national level but also at the Community level. This regulation creates, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, a common framework for the systematic creation of Community statistics on the marketing and use of pesticides.\nI therefore consider the joint text of the regulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning statistics on pesticides, which has been approved by the Conciliation Committee, as an appropriate measure which, in the final analysis, will contribute to the sustainable use of pesticides and a huge overall reduction in the risks to health and the environment, as well as adequate protection for crops.\nRovana Plumb  \nI want to emphasise that pesticides must be used in a more viable manner, which also entails a significant overall reduction in the risks involved. Pesticides must also be used in a manner compatible with the need to protect the harvests. However, pesticides can only be used without close monitoring of both their quantity and quality if a reliable database is available. The availability and use of harmonised, comparable Community statistics on pesticide sales play an important role in the drafting and monitoring of legislation and Community policies in the context of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Such statistics are necessary for evaluating the European Union's sustainable development policies and for calculating the significant indicators concerning the risks to health and the environment associated with the use of pesticides. This is why I voted in favour of this report.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k  \nI voted in favour of the draft legislative resolution of the European Parliament on the joint proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning statistics on pesticides, which was approved by the Conciliation Committee, because in my view, it will bring significant benefits. It harmonises and, in particular, simplifies legislation in the area of statistics on pesticides. It harmonises statistical surveys and thereby enables greater comparability of data, offering the possibility of better and broader use of the administrative resource of collected data, which will reduce costs and the administrative burden on farmers and other entities in the agricultural sector. The draft will also provide greater protection for confidential data. Moreover, this standard will, in the final analysis, lead to greater awareness of pesticides and their impact on public health which I personally consider to be a key issue.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the codification of the 1995 regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks. I am sorry that, in view of the development and the complexity of the texts, the Commission has not revised its position dating from 1 April 1987 consisting of instructing its staff that all legislative acts should be codified after no more than 10 amendments, stressing that this is a minimum requirement and that departments should endeavour to codify at even shorter intervals the texts for which they are responsible. In this particular case, we are consolidating the regulations from 1999, two regulations from 2004 and one regulation from 2005. I consider that the policy of consolidating Community law should be one of the European Commission's priorities and that the current situation is unsatisfactory, particularly in relation to the Member States, the citizens and, more generally, all users of the law: magistrates, lawyers, advisers, authorities, and so on.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nI voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks. These networks are very important to the development of Europe's traffic infrastructure. The new regulation will clearly regulate the conditions and procedures for granting Community financial aid, which will provide the corresponding legal certainty, in particular, for the States and regions that plan such projects.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.\nHowever, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.\nI do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Council withdraw its proposal.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nWe voted against the rejection of this series of reports by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, not because of the content of the regulatory proposals concerned, which relate to Europol and other criminal police activities, but for the sake of form. Indeed, the only reason why the majority of this House wants to refer these reports back to committee is so that it can wait for the Treaty of Lisbon to enter into force. With this treaty, these matters will fall under the ordinary legislative procedure, which means equality between Parliament and the Council in legislative terms, exclusive right of initiative for the European Commission and, worse still, jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice.\nThis is unacceptable as far as we are concerned. In the borderless world that you have created, and of which criminals, illegal migrants and traffickers take full advantage, police cooperation is vital. However, it is crucial that it remains within the scope of intergovernmental cooperation.\nNuno Melo  \nAs the third pillar, this is an extremely pertinent matter for the security of the European area, so I agree that this issue should be assessed under the Treaty of Lisbon, given its future bearing on cooperation policy.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nIn principle, close cooperation between the various authorities to fight crime is a desirable thing. However, there is a complete lack of any regulation of data protection in the planned unrestricted access for all authorities and it is not even clear what rights of investigation the proposed data protection officer will actually have. The SWIFT agreement, too, has major data protection concerns associated with it. The European Parliament must be given the chance to curb this data protection rights fiasco on behalf of the citizens of Europe. I therefore voted in favour of the report.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt \nI support the opinion of the rapporteur and agree that legislation on EUROPOL should be considered by common accord together with the European Parliament and the Council. Especially important attention should be paid to personal data protection. Indeed, it is not sufficiently clear whether there are strong protection safeguards for the transfer of personal data to third parties. Does this not infringe citizens' rights to privacy and can people have faith in the protection of their data? This matter should be thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the Council should submit a new proposal following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.\nHowever, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.\nI do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Council withdraw its proposal.\nNuno Melo  \nWithout forgetting the importance of the European Police Office (Europol) and notwithstanding the general support which it should have, as the third pillar, this is an extremely pertinent matter for the security of the European area.\nHence, I agree that this issue should be assessed under the Treaty of Lisbon, given its bearing on cooperation policy.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.\nHowever, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.\nI do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Council withdraw its proposal.\nPetru Constantin Luhan  \nThe Albrecht report brings up for debate the list of third States and organisations with which Europol is intending to conclude agreements. The list of third States also includes the Republic of Moldova, for example, while the list of organisations with which Europol is intending to conclude agreements should also include the Regional Centre for Combating Cross-border Crime, with its headquarters in Bucharest, which is in negotiations with Europol aimed at concluding a cooperation agreement. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has decided to vote against this report as a group during this plenary session so that it can review the dossier after the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force. It is precisely because this is such an important topic that we have decided to devote a huge amount of attention to it and we will debate it starting from next year on a codecision basis with the Council.\nCarlos Coelho  \nWithin the framework of Europol, we have been presented with four initiatives which aim to introduce new rules on information confidentiality, implementing matters relating to the regulation of Europol's relationships with its partners, including the exchange of personal data and classified information, determining the list of third countries and organisations with which agreements may be made, and implementing rules for the analysis work files.\nGiven that the Treaty of Lisbon will enter into force in a matter of days, and new prerogatives relating to police cooperation are to be conferred on Parliament, the four rapporteurs have sought the rejection of the proposals on legal grounds. I therefore support their stance of not commenting on the substance of these proposals, rejecting them and asking the Commission and the Council to make a declaration in plenary pledging to present a new decision within a period of six months from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In practical terms, it is worth recalling that in relation to the current incentives, being a mere matter of consulting Parliament, the Council will be able to establish a position before the end of the year, since the four steps for implementation will enter into force from 1 January 2010.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.\nHowever, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.\nI do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report requesting the Commission withdraw its proposal.\nNuno Melo  \nWithout forgetting the importance of the European Police Office (Europol) and notwithstanding the general support which it should have, as the third pillar, this is an extremely pertinent matter for the security of the European area.\nHence, I agree that this issue should be assessed under the Treaty of Lisbon, given its future bearing on cooperation policy. I therefore believe any decision on this sensitive matter is premature as long as the treaty is not yet in force, as it deals with the security of the European area.\nElena Oana Antonescu  \nCrime is continually on the increase in the European Union. We are facing a host of organised crime networks, as well as computer crime, which is becoming ever more widespread. As a result, the European crime prevention policy must be consolidated and strengthened, while Member States need to cooperate better and more closely, based on a powerful common strategy in this area. The progress made by the crime prevention network over the last few years has been rather limited. In fact, its potential is far from having been achieved as yet. Widening the network's responsibilities, establishing a clear, simple, effective administrative structure, as well as ensuring the involvement of civil society, universities and NGOs, are the conditions which are key to the successful operation of such a network.\nParliament is going to acquire proper law-making power and will be able, along with the Council, to make decisions on measures, in accordance with the codecision procedure, aimed at encouraging and supporting the actions of Member States in the area of crime prevention. I therefore support the rapporteur's proposal to reject the initiative and debate this important dossier after the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - The report in question asks that the modifications to the current system of the European Crime Prevention Network be rejected. I believe and agree with the rapporteur that there are a number of areas that require improvement even with regard to the proposal. Nevertheless, the interim measures are adequate in order to effect important alterations as soon as possible. It is for these reasons that I have decided to vote against this report.\nCarlos Coelho  \nThe European Crime Prevention Network was created in 2001, yet up until now, it has still not produced particularly good results, due to numerous organisational failures which have prevented it from effectively reaching its full potential, having already been subject to internal review on two occasions. The present initiative attempts to revoke that decision made in 2001, proposing the restructuring of the network, which I see as being somewhat limited and clearly inadequate as a solution to the current problems.\nIn view of this, we need to embark upon a reform of the network that is more serious and more ambitious in terms of its organisation. The Swedish Presidency's insistence that Parliament make a decision before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force is, therefore, unacceptable, not only because it is a weak initiative, but also because it asks Parliament to renounce the institutional prerogatives related to crime prevention conferred upon it by the Treaty of Lisbon a matter of days before the new treaty enters into force.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.\nHowever, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.\nI do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. I am therefore voting in favour of this report, and ask that the Council does not formally adopt the initiative prior to the imminent entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nNuno Melo  \nThe European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) was created in 2001 due to a need to establish measures and exchange activities to prevent criminality, as well as strengthening the network of national authorities responsible for preventing crime.\nSeven years later, following an external assessment of the EUCPN, the conclusion was that there was much room for improvement in the way the institution works.\nThe development of different aspects of crime prevention is extremely important at EU level, as is supporting the prevention of, and fight against, instances of national and local crime.\nIn view of the sensitive nature of the matters touched upon in this report, I agree with the decision to seek a new proposal from the Council under the codecision procedure, in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs an MEP who has always paid particular attention to issues relating to crime prevention, security and police cooperation, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of Europol in creating a secure European area and preventing crime throughout Europe, along with the need for it to be reinforced at various levels, including those under discussion here.\nHowever, the principal question being debated here today is whether Parliament, less than a week before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, should renounce its new institutional prerogatives relating to crime prevention and police cooperation and thus do away with the possibility of playing a part in the decision-making process for all these issues under the codecision procedure.\nI do not believe that this is the right course. This Parliament must fully assume its new powers in these matters. In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report, and request that the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Spain withdraw their initiative.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted in favour of the in 't Veld report, of the Kirkhope, Albrecht and D\u00edaz de Mera Garc\u00eda Consuegra reports on a package of measures concerning Europol, and of the Alfano report on the European Crime Prevention Network, calling for the rejection of the Council's proposals on these matters. The aim of rejecting the proposals was to defend the European Parliament's prerogatives on such sensitive issues as police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The European Parliament has been asked to give its verdict within a particularly short timeframe on what are, nonetheless, very sensitive matters. However, nothing justifies such hasty action, unless, after 1 December, the procedures carried out under the third pillar will lapse and will have to become the subject of a new procedure under the ordinary 'legislative procedure'. We are rejecting these proposals in order to send out a strong message to the Council that we are unhappy with the pressure being put on the MEPs and with the obvious desire to circumvent the new procedures for including the European Parliament in the legislative debate.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - In line with the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, I voted against the draft decision. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon imminent, decisions in this area should be taken under the new legislative procedures.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nI am voting against the adoption of the EUROPOL package. I voted in favour of rejecting the entire package as I think it is scandalous that the Commission and the Council should still be attempting to push the package through before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - Georgia has been subjected to an incredible downturn, especially following the 2008 conflict with Russia. Due to Georgia's strategic importance, among other reasons, the Commission has proposed providing macro-financial assistance to Georgia. Although I agree that the Parliament requires more information on the matter, I have decided to support the rapporteur's recommendation and thus vote in favour of the report.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nWe have always advocated the need for the EU to give solidarity aid to countries that need it, and argued that this aid should be directed towards projects which are of real interest to the people of the country.\nYet the 'aid' given by the EU seems to have had little to do with solidarity. The interests of big money, whether economic or financial, and the major powers always supersede the interests of solidarity.\nThis is also the case for the aid to Georgia, upon which we have just voted. Financial assistance is predominantly aimed at funding the recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund and its policy of structural adjustment, that is, its insistence on the very same neo-liberal policies that brought about the economic and financial crisis that this country is now facing.\nThese same reasons are also behind our abstention on the remaining reports. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the funding decided upon will not go towards the rearmament of Georgia, albeit indirectly, following the attack carried out by Georgian troops against the people of the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which led to war with Russia.\nWe could not condone a decision that could lead to greater militarisation in the relations between countries in the Caucasus region, whose energy, wealth and geostrategic value is important to the EU and its monopolies.\nJacek Olgierd Kurski  \nGeorgia was brutally attacked in August 2008 by the armies of the Russian Federation and, besides suffering damage on a large scale and numerous fatalities, has also experienced a serious deterioration of its economic condition. The European Union cannot remain passive in the face of Georgia's economic problems, and should be ready to give Georgia special macro-financial assistance to enable the country to rebuild after last year's Russian invasion. Financial assistance from Brussels will also help Georgia combat the effects of the world economic and financial crisis. Taking into account the above circumstances, as well as Georgia's strategic significance for the European Union in the European Neighbourhood Policy and the newly established Eastern Partnership, I endorsed the resolution on a Council Decision providing macro-financial assistance to Georgia.\nNuno Melo  \nThe macro-financial assistance programme is vital for improving the financial stability of European nations that have recently emerged from armed conflict, the vicissitudes of which have left them with financial difficulties in terms of budget deficits and their balance of payments.\nThis assistance is crucial for the process of reconstruction in these countries, provided that it is carried out in a peaceful manner, something that is possible only with international assistance. This assistance also ensures that these areas of instability do not jeopardise security and peace in Europe, particularly owing to the refugees and displaced people produced by such conflicts.\nIn this way, the EU must be an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Georgia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.\nNuno Melo  \nThe macro-financial assistance programme is also vital for improving the financial stability of European nations that have endured the recent global crisis and suffered from the effects of this crisis on their main commercial partners, particularly Russia in the case of Armenia. Financial imbalances are due to issues surrounding budgets and the balance of payments.\nThis assistance is important if Armenia is to face the crisis in a more consistent manner, and to prevent social instability, which could precipitate a mass exodus of emigrants, leading to problems within Europe.\nIn this way, the EU must act as an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Armenia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.\nNuno Melo  \nIn the specific case of Serbia, the macro-financial assistance programme is vital for improving the country's financial stability, as, in addition to the global crisis, Serbia has also emerged from an armed conflict whose effects are still being felt.\nThis assistance is an important tool for financial stability in Serbia, and for consolidating the stabilisation of the situation throughout the Balkan region. Serbia and its economy play a role of paramount importance in the process of regional integration, and its participation in European integration is also essential.\nIn this way, the EU must act as an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Serbia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nOver the next year, it is planned that Serbia will receive macro-financial assistance totalling up to EUR 200 million in the form of a loan. This money is intended to support the economic stabilisation of that country, finance its external balance-of-payments needs and help it meet the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis. I see the macro-financial assistance for Serbia, which will support the country's economic stabilisation programme in the current crisis, as an important tool for promoting stabilisation across the Balkan region. Serbia and its economy have a key role to play in regional integration and Serbia's participation in European integration is likewise of major importance. For these reasons, I voted in favour of Mr Ransdorf's report and thus in favour of the granting of macro-financial assistance to Serbia.\nNuno Melo  \nThe macro-financial assistance programme is vital for improving financial stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for combating the detrimental effect of the global crisis on the country's economy. This aid will be reflected in an improvement in the country's economy in terms of the budget deficit and the balance of payments.\nBosnia is also situated in a sensitive region, so its economic and financial stability is especially important, as it will contribute to bringing about greater stability throughout the Balkan region.\nIn this way, the EU must act as an area of solidarity, combining this assistance to Bosnia with the aforementioned appropriate aspects.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nWe do not accept European loans and subsidies being subject to restrictions imposed by the IMF. We shall vote against the MFA (macro-financial assistance) being presented today to the European Parliament. You can see what kinds of conditions are involved: impossible deadlines, a lack of information ... Whichever way you look at it, this defies the democratic demands that should characterise the European Union.\nNevertheless, we still support the peoples of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Armenia and Georgia. We do not want them to suffer any more than they already do from the obsolete and dangerous neo-liberal system that the IMF is seeking to perpetuate.\nDiogo Feio  \nI see this report on the draft Council Directive which aims to amend the common system of value added tax as a way of achieving a more simplified and harmonised system. In fact, by combining certain aspects relating to VAT on the supply of natural gas, electricity and heat or refrigeration with the tax treatment of joint undertakings established in accordance with Article 171 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the identification of certain consequences of EU enlargement, and with the conditions for exercising the right to deduct input VAT, we will be moving towards greater effectiveness in applying VAT.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThe Council's proposal aims to clarify certain matters relating to the import and place of taxation of gas and electricity supplies to include the amendments agreed for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU within the scope of the directive, and to clarify and emphasise the basic rule of law to deduct, which states that this right only arises if the goods and services are used by a taxable person and for the needs of his\/her business.\nHowever, the text adopted today does not correspond with certain specific features of national markets, such as the use of butane and propane gas. In Portugal, as in other European countries where citizens have low incomes and whose relatively recent inclusion in the European natural gas networks is extremely expensive, the use of butane and propane gas in households and micro and small enterprises is an unavoidable reality.\nMoreover, as a rule, the people who resort to this type of energy are the most deprived, meaning that the VAT directive discriminates against this group rather than those with higher incomes.\nFurthermore, the changes to the report seem to restrict the Member State's scope for action.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I abstained on the Bullmann report. Whilst I do believe that the Council has a duty to listen to the views of this House, the EU's only directly elected institution, I do not believe that VAT systems should be harmonised. The principle of subsidiarity dictates that taxation is a matter best left to the nations of Europe.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves  \nI voted in favour of the report on the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic in relation to the storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations as I believe that the existence of a regulatory framework and guidelines on the storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations will contribute to the protection of the maritime area, both in the short term and the long term, provided the aim is to permanently hold the carbon dioxide in these formations, and provided that this will not have significant adverse effects on the marine environment, human health and other legitimate uses of Europe's maritime areas, specifically those of Portugal and, in particular, the Azores.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the Rosbach report on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the approval on behalf of the European Community of the Amendments to Annex II and Annex III to the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) in relation to the storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that geological capture and storage technology for carbon dioxide, which has been little tested, is applied in accordance with the strictest safety standards, as set out in the directive on this issue.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe geological storage of carbon dioxide has been identified as a possible solution for mitigating the effects of an increase in the anthropogenic concentration of this gas in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, this solution raises a number of questions about its future applicability, particularly given that the development of the technology required is still in its early stages, it is expected to be expensive, and there are potential risks associated with it. It is worth following the studies that have been carried out on this subject, bearing in mind that some of the results obtained up to this point are positive in this respect.\nIt is, however, worth noting that under no circumstances must the pursuit of studies on this option or its possible implementation in the future compromise the necessary change of energy paradigm, which aims at a significant reduction in the current dependence on fossil fuels. On the other hand, both the environmental effects and the safety of the technologies used in storage must be thoroughly investigated. The approved resolution ensures that this will be done, and that is why we voted in favour of it.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Rosbach report. Carbon capture and storage can make a significant contribution to efforts aimed at tackling global warming and my own country, Scotland, will play an important role in developing the necessary technology. This amendment to the OSPAR Convention will mean that the EU and Scotland can take a lead in this area.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nI must admit that I learnt something new from these two reports by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg: I learnt that those countries that chose not to participate in judicial cooperation in civil matters had, nonetheless, also lost their sovereignty.\nIndeed, Denmark, which was able to negotiate an exemption, but which also sought, as a sovereign country, to conclude a treaty with the Community so as to participate in certain aspects of this cooperation, is today obliged to ask for the Commission's permission in order to conclude new international agreements of this kind with others! In other words, it has lost its right to take entirely independent decisions in one area of its external relations.\nWhile, from an intellectual point of view, I can understand that consistency within and outside the Community is required in order to establish this cooperation, I do have more difficulty in accepting that the Commission is solely responsible for these kinds of international treaties, that it controls, even in part, a Member State's ability to conclude treaties, and even more so that European law takes precedence over all others.\nWe have only voted in favour of these reports because there is no reason to prevent Denmark from concluding the agreements that it wants to conclude, and there are few opportunities to do otherwise in the current circumstances.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report relating to recovery plan changes within the framework of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. International fisheries organisations are essential to the management of global marine resources. I consider it unfortunate, however, that it is the EU that negotiates with our North Atlantic neighbours. Whilst the Treaty of Lisbon has now enshrined this principle, I still consider that there is scope for fisheries management to be returned to the fishing nations and maritime regions.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nSpecifically when it comes to rail freight and long-distance transport, the last few years have witnessed some change for the better. Passengers must not be left behind in this, however. Rules on compensation for delays to international rail services are not enough. We must ensure that, in the rush to globalise, regional transport is not completely marginalised, with whole regions being cut off.\nEqually, we must ensure that the delusional emphasis on privatisation hitherto does not lead to UK-style massive delays and safety failings. It is important to overcome obstacles and technical difficulties in the way of cross-border rail traffic, and not only for environmental purposes. That is why I voted in favour of this report.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik  \nI welcome the decision of the Community to sign the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations because the protocol brings a long-awaited and much-needed clarification of the rules determining the applicable law, which are supplemented by the Hague Convention of 23 November on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.\nThe harmonisation of the rules will provide legal certainty to persons entitled to maintenance and the possibility of taking action without being subject to differing legal systems. Thanks to the special rules, it will also limit the avoidance of maintenance obligations, where entitled persons are unable to secure maintenance on the basis of the law of the country in which they normally reside. The possibility of refusing to apply a right established on the basis of the protocol is restricted only to cases where the effects would clearly be contrary to public order in the country of the court in question. I would also like to express my profound regret that the United Kingdom is not participating in the decision of the Council for the protocol to be signed by the Community.\nSabine L\u00f6sing  \nin writing. - On 9 November 2009, the report on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pfl\u00fcger was voted and adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in the European Parliament.\nThis report is based on incorrect facts.\nThe central point is that the report cites a judgment at first instance which has been repealed. The judgment is invalid, because the regional court in Munich http:\/\/dict.leo.org\/ende?lp=ende&p=5tY9AA&search=dismiss\" ed http:\/\/dict.leo.org\/ende?lp=ende&p=5tY9AA&search=an\" http:\/\/dict.leo.org\/ende?lp=ende&p=5tY9AA&search=action\" against Tobias Pfl\u00fcger on 21 July 2009 in the second and final instance. A conviction was not made. For this reason, all reproaches are invalid.\nIt is politically unacceptable that this report, which contains incorrect facts, was voted in Plenary today (24 November 2009).\nWe have tried to get this incomplete and therefore incorrect report taken from the agenda, unfortunately without success.\nThis kind of proceeding by the European Parliament creates the impression of supporting the persecution of politically active persons, in this case, the Munich II Public Prosecution Service against a former Member of the European Parliament.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nin writing. - On 9 November 2009, the report on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pfl\u00fcger was voted and adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in the European Parliament.\nThis report is based on incorrect facts.\nThe central point is that the report cites a judgment at first instance which has been repealed. The judgment is invalid because the regional court in Munich dismissed the action against Tobias Pfl\u00fcger on 21 July 2009 in the second and final instance. A conviction was not made. For this reason, all reproaches are invalid.\nIt is politically unacceptable that this report, which contains incorrect facts, was voted in plenary today (24 November 2009).\nWe have tried to get this incomplete and therefore incorrect report taken off the agenda, unfortunately without success.\nThis kind of proceeding by the European Parliament creates the impression of supporting the persecution of politically active persons, in this case, the Munich II Public Prosecution Service against the former Member of the European Parliament, Tobias Pfl\u00fcger.\nWilly Meyer  \nin writing. - On 9 November 2009, the report on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pfl\u00fcger was voted and adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in the European Parliament. This report is based on incorrect facts. The central point is: the report cites a judgment at first instance which was repealed in the meanwhile. The judgment is invalid because the Munich regional court dismissed the action against Tobias Pfl\u00fcger on 21 July 2009 in second and final instance. A conviction was not made. For this reason, all reproaches are invalid. It is politically unacceptable that this report, which contains incorrect facts, was voted in the Plenary today (24 November 2009). We have tried to get this incomplete and therefore incorrect report taken off the agenda, unfortunately without success. This kind of proceeding by the European Parliament creates the impression of supporting the persecution of political active persons, in this case, the Munich II Public Prosecution Service against the former Member of European Parliament, Tobias Pfl\u00fcger.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I consider the role of Parliament to be only effective if it can sustain the effect of legislation. In this context, the application of the rule of 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny' allows for ex ante consideration of proposals brought into law. This report nuances Parliament's role and enhances our ability to control and monitor the implementation of legislation in Member States.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":2,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Situation in Darfur (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Commission statement on the situation in Darfur.\nJoaqu\u00edn Almunia\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, we are confronted with a dramatic humanitarian, security and political problem in Darfur today.\nThe situation on the ground is deteriorating by the day. The number of civilians affected by the conflict has risen to almost four million since 2003. Throughout 2006 we saw an increase in the number of violent deaths in Darfur. Attacks on humanitarian aid agencies also significantly increased and this has prompted some organisations to evacuate.\nContinued violations of the ceasefire by both the Sudanese Government and the rebel factions deepen insecurity and instability. Most recently, on Monday, Sudanese military forces bombarded Cariari and Bahai, two villages in north Darfur close to the Chad-Sudan border.\nThe African Union Mission to Sudan - established in 2004 to help prevent further conflict - continues to face resource constraints. Despite its best efforts, it had some difficulty in providing effective protection to civilians or carrying out additional duties associated with the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement. Politically, the situation is complicated by splits and regrouping among the non-signatory rebel movements as well as the Government's refusal to consider reopening the deadlocked Peace Agreement.\nDarfur is not a simple issue. The commitment of the European Union to alleviating such a dramatic situation has been reiterated on several occasions, most recently at the European Council last December, at the Council on 22 January and, just two days ago, through the General Affairs Council conclusions on Sudan of 12 February. We must work to ensure the protection of non-combatants as well as of humanitarian aid workers. We must seek the full implementation of the UN-AU three phase plan for Darfur, this being the most effective means at our disposal to support the African Union mission in Sudan and to protect civilians.\nBut our overriding objective in Darfur must be to achieve a durable peace through a political settlement agreed by all parties voluntarily and then implemented. The strategy of Khartoum to negotiate individually with each rebel leader to buy their support will not create a cohesive and lasting peace.\nThe Council of the EU, in its latest conclusions on Sudan, has emphasised the need for an inclusive political process and confirmed its support for the joint initiative of the African Union and UN special envoys to start negotiations between the parties as soon as possible. On several occasions and in various fora, the Commission has stressed the need for a political solution in Darfur based on the existing peace agreement and insisted that there is no military solution to the crisis. In this context, the European Commission has strongly backed the African Union in the search for a political settlement in Darfur.\nThe Commission has been providing continued support to the African Union in political and financial terms. With cofinancing from Belgium, the Commission stands behind any and all efforts to revive the peace agreement. The European Commission has provided one and a half billion euros specifically for the Darfur crisis, covering security, humanitarian needs and peace efforts for Darfur. The aim is to create the conditions to bring the non-signatory parties of the Darfur Peace Agreement back to the negotiating table and to start effective implementation of the Agreement.\nPending a lasting settlement, the Commission is also active in the political d\u00e9marche intended to obtain the agreement of the Khartoum Government to a joint AU-UN force capable of providing effective protection of civilians. In the margins of the African Union Summit on 28 January, Commissioner Michel met with the Sudanese President, Mr al-Bashir, as well as with the UN Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-Moon. The Commissioner was also in Ethiopia and in Eritrea where the Darfur issue was raised. Just yesterday, the Darfur issue was discussed in Washington in a meeting between Commissioner Michel and the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.\nThis Parliament is right to debate the Darfur Peace Agreement and the critical situation in Darfur. Yet we must not take the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for granted. EU Heads of Mission in Khartoum report that this peace agreement, made in 2005 with the south, is in trouble. After 20 years of civil war the comprehensive peace agreement may be the last chance for the Khartoum regime to show that the federal power-sharing form of government can work for this vast country. If the Comprehensive Peace Agreement cannot work, then nor can the Darfur Peace Agreement. It is important, I think, that the critical situation in Darfur does not divert our attention, or indeed the attention of the Sudanese regime, from the very real threat to the whole sub-region if both the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement are not pursued with more vigour. This is a message that the Commission will strive to communicate in the weeks ahead.\nSimon Coveney\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Council released its conclusions on Sudan on Monday, so it is appropriate that Parliament also speaks out strongly this week, further highlighting the humanitarian crisis and international scandal that is Darfur. We are attempting to raise the political temperature on this issue to increase the pressure on those who can, if the will exists, make things happen on the ground to protect people.\nWe all know the figures and the scale of the humanitarian consequences of insufficient action by the international community. It is estimated that up to 400 000 people have been killed and more than two and a half million people displaced or made homeless in the last three years due to conflict. NGOs currently provide humanitarian relief for up to four million people. That is half of Darfur's entire population. In recent months there have been repeated attacks on humanitarian convoys and twelve aid workers have been killed in Darfur in the last six months.\nSo NGOs are pulling their people out of Darfur while indiscriminate attacks continue on civilians. So what can we do? The main thrust of this resolution is to call on the UN to set a clear date for deployment of the planned UN-supported peacekeeping force, or hybrid force, into Darfur, even in the absence of agreement with the Sudanese Government, in order to secure humanitarian aid corridors to an increasingly isolated population in the region.\nWe are calling for this in the context of the UN's responsibility to protect, based on the failure of the Sudanese Government to protect its own population from war crimes and crimes against humanity, and a failure to provide humanitarian assistance to the population. President al-Bashir continues to oppose Phase 3 of the present UN Plan which allows the AU mission to be bolstered by more than 20 000 UN peacekeeping troops.\nThe point is, diplomacy is failing. People are dying in huge numbers and at some point the international community is obliged to act more firmly. That is why the setting of a clear date for the deployment of troops will focus the attention on a tight timescale to find a diplomatic solution to get peacekeepers on the ground in Darfur.\nMargrietus van den Berg\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Darfur has been suffering under a regime of terror for four years now. Hundreds of thousands of people there have lost their lives, two million have lost their homes, and rape, murder and pillaging are daily occurrences there. It is nearly impossible to really grasp the extent of this suffering. Meanwhile, despite all the fine agreements, human rights violations get increasingly out of hand. Over the past few months, the situation has hit an all-time low for both the people and aid workers. Despite the Peace Agreement concluded in early January, large parts of North Darfur were deliberately bombarded recently by the Sudanese air force. Even the aid workers are no longer safe from violence, aid organisations increasingly feel it. Last month, 15 UN organisations, including UNICEF, reported that they were no longer able to keep on providing aid to the people in Darfur in an adequate manner. Two weeks ago, the aid organisation M\u00e9dicins du Monde was the first to withdraw, and Oxfam and CARE International are at risk of having to follow suit, even though three and a half million Darfuris rely on humanitarian aid.\nThe Council is not present today. How long do we intend to perpetuate this untenable situation? The UN may be speaking with force in its resolution, but it has not done much in the way of action. The peace force that was promised two months ago in Addis Ababa produced some 100 troops and very little else. The UN Security Council authorised sanctions against four major perpetrators of atrocities, but nothing happened. It is unacceptable for European Member States to be able to impose sanctions on war criminals in countries such as Belarus, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe and to fail to do so in Darfur, where the Council is neglecting its humanitarian duty.\nThe international community should no longer stand by helplessly while millions of innocent people are being driven away from their homes, murdered and raped. Europe should take the lead and take urgent action in order to stop the humanitarian crisis in Darfur in its tracks. The Sudanese Government will be prepared to conclude real peace agreements and adhere to them only if its own interests are affected, for the only language it understands is its own, that of the fist. In southern Sudan, an oil boycott proved effective, and I would urge Members belonging to the other political parties to apply the same tactics if necessary.\nI should like to ask the Council whether it is prepared, without delay, to declare sanctions against anyone who violates the ceasefire or who attacks citizens, peace keepers or aid workers. Would it be prepared to do everything necessary to stop them getting away with it and, once and for all, to enforce and implement the sanctions agreed upon in the Security Council? Is it prepared to enforce the presence of the hybrid peace force of African Union soldiers and blue helmets?\nWould it, finally, be prepared to apply economic sanctions, including the introduction of an oil embargo? We did not intervene when the genocide in Rwanda took place, and watched helplessly as the men in Srebrenica met their fate, even though the UN was set up in 1945 in order to reinforce our promise of 'never again'. We should not leave the powerless to their fate. I hope that Europe wants to make a difference. I am, above all, addressing the Council, which is absent, and the Commissioner, whom I would like to urge to take action.\nThierry Cornillet\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, I speak on behalf of my colleague, Mr Morillon.\nI must begin by highlighting the entirely surreal nature of our meeting this evening. There are around ten of us Members present. Commissioner, thank you for being here. I know the reasons for the absence of Mr Michel, whom you are representing. However, the most notable absentee is the Council, and in the meantime, I am afraid to say, people continue to die in Darfur. I would remind you, as a numbers man, Mr Almunia, that fourteen or fifteen people die every hour in Darfur.\nIt was therefore high time we worried about a situation that no one believes is simple. Yet, must we continue making fools of ourselves? This resolution will be the fifth that we have adopted over many months on Darfur: we can see the extent to which they undermine the officials, not least the Sudanese officials received this evening in Paris.\nI believe that we could actually finally assume our responsibilities. I must alert you, Commissioner, to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this resolution. As my fellow Member, Mr Coveney, pointed out, paragraph 2 emphasises the need for a precise date to be set by the UN. However, paragraph 3, Commissioner, is an appeal launched at the European Union, with the aim of having it assume its responsibilities. Its assuming its responsibilities will surely mean something in the future. If not, one may wonder about the purpose of the European Union and of the values that we seek to uphold, faced with what is essentially an endless emergency humanitarian situation, something that no one denies.\nMy colleagues have nominated me as permanent rapporteur for humanitarian action. But what should I report on? The systematic withdrawal of all the NGOs, which are no longer allowed to work, the fourteen people who have been killed and the deaths day in, day out of people who have been abandoned and who, in addition to having been displaced, have lost all hope.\nCommissioner, please speak with the Commission on our behalf; we will take care of the Council, politically, because, if we listened to them, we would have to wait a month before discussing this issue. This message needs to be passed on: one day, the law, not to mention the duty to interfere, will be required, when it is clear that men and women are being abused to this extent.\nMarie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Aubert\nMr President, I too should like to highlight the discrepancy between the seriousness of the issue being dealt with and this practically deserted Chamber, and that is without mentioning the absence of the Council; while the Commission is at least represented, our action in relation to this matter is certainly not, in any event, equal to the challenges.\nAs I was saying, the Council is absent, but when one reads its conclusions of 12 February, that is to say, those written exactly two days ago, its absence does not change a great deal anyway. I shall read and quote what is written in these conclusions:\n'The Council remains gravely concerned about the security situation in Darfur' - to say the least - 'and condemns continued ceasefire violations by all parties.'\n(FR) That is the kind of particularly forceful sentence that the Council is capable of producing after months and months of resolutions, decisions and diplomatic meetings, when the situation is more disastrous now than it ever has been. We therefore clearly believe that a change of level is required and, indeed, that more pressure must be exerted with regard to this unacceptable situation.\nWhat about the punishments that were decided on for the Sudanese leaders, and for all these war criminals? What is the European Union doing with regard to these punishments? It seems to me, in any case, that the European Union has a number of options available to it to freeze financial resources so as to prevent all these people from moving freely about our territory. Ways of exerting pressure do exist.\nWhat are we doing with regard to United Nations Resolution 1706, which has the backing of the European Union? What initiatives have been taken by the European Commission and the Council to put pressure on all those responsible for this situation? What credibility do we have today to issue a multitude of texts that, at least on the part of the Council, and even of the Commission, merely restate our grave concerns regarding this situation?\nOnly a very short time ago, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, visited several African countries and, more specifically, Sudan. What is the Union's position faced with this situation, with the new and emerging role of China's leaders? Faced, too, with the importance of access to raw materials, and to oil in particular?\nThus, when one sees the inertia, the powerlessness, of the European institutions on this issue, what conclusions must be drawn? Does this mean that, if priority is to be given to accessing raw materials or oil, which in reality is gradually dwindling, and if it is to be given to the large markets represented by countries such as China, the values of human rights and the duty that we actually have to protect civilian populations need to be put on the back burner? Is that what this means?\nI believe that it would be absolutely tragic for the European Union to come to that. The fact is that these issues are being raised on a daily basis, and we constantly find ourselves incapable and powerless in the face of this tragic situation. It is therefore high time a formal sitting bringing together the Council, the Commission and Parliament was organised - and organised very soon - on this issue, in Brussels or Strasbourg, so that the necessary decisions can finally be taken.\nBastiaan Belder\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I can identify with this joint resolution about the international blot - and I should like to underline 'this international blot' - being Darfur, despite a few of the comments that have been made. I should like to single out a few elements if I may.\nIn recital C, it is stated that the conflict in Darfur is increasingly destabilising the Central African region. Less than a week ago, an analysis was published in my home country, the Netherlands, about this very disruptive situation under the telling heading 'The black hole'. Indeed, there is a black hole at the heart of Africa, rudderless, violent and with a stream of refugees who are headed in all directions. One immediate risk is that the conflict in Darfur, which is racist in that nomads of Arab origin are driving out and killing African farmers, will move to Chad and take the notorious and murderous Janjaweed militia with it. Various paragraphs in the joint resolution urge the United Nations finally to face up to its responsibilities in Darfur. Whilst I can fully endorse this parliamentary cry for help, I have to confess at the same time that I am extremely sceptical as to whether this distress signal will actually be heard in the UN Headquarters in New York.\nEarlier this week, Jan Pronk, the former UN envoy to Sudan, gave a frank and honest interview to the Sudan Tribune. He asserted, verbatim, that he accused New York of leaving its own mission in the lurch and, instead, of pandering to the elite in power in Khartoum. It is awful - he said - if you send thousands of people to Sudan and then leave them to their own devices.\nWhat we should, in any case, be doing is to ensure that Mr Pronk's indictment does not fall on deaf ears, but reaches our governments, the European Council and the UN Security Council, and results in action.\nI also deem as completely appropriate the appeal of this House to the People's Republic of China to put its not insignificant political and economic weight into the balance in order to try to get the Sudanese leadership to actually enforce existing peace agreements on Khartoum. Only a constructive international stance such as this one is in keeping with Peking's adage of harmonious external relations. Moreover, that is also what we can expect of a strategic partner as a responsible member of the UN Security Council. After all, as rapporteur for EU\/China relations, I constantly reminded my esteemed Chinese interlocutors of this elementary constructive international role.\nFinally, I would like to back the only amendment to the joint resolution - that tabled by Mrs Gomes - and back it all the way. Sanctions against this shameless Sudanese regime should definitely involve an oil embargo, as some sort of acid test to check whether the United Nations, given the long suffering of the people in Darfur, still abides by its own political principles.\nMichael Gahler\n(DE) Mr President, the situation in Darfur remains shocking. The response of the international community has been wholly inadequate. The previous speakers have described the situation adequately: there is no improvement in sight for the people there.\nSome necessary resolutions have been passed, such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1706, but their implementation ultimately fails on account of the Government in Khartoum, most of whose leaders are no doubt listed in the files of the International Criminal Court - which launched an investigation into crimes in Darfur as early as June 2005.\nWe have a situation where the United Nations has to take action, in accordance with its responsibility for protecting human beings, since the Government of Sudan has not been protecting the people of Darfur against war crimes and crimes against humanity, nor has it lent them any assistance.\nFor this reason, Parliament calls on the United Nations to set a date for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the United Nations, even if this has not been approved by the Khartoum regime. We call on the Council and the Commission to do everything in their power to put an end to this sustained humanitarian disaster.\nConcrete action can be launched for the short term without great expense. The EU should impose personal sanctions on representatives of the regime unilaterally rather than waiting for the rest of the international community. I have always been in favour of this as a means of preventing family members going on shopping trips to Europe.\nThe Darfur regime has thus far been ignoring the no-fly zone imposed by Security Council Resolution 1591, and is continuing to bomb villages in Darfur. We call for the use of capabilities available in the region to enforce this no-fly zone. After all, we know which Member States have aircraft based in the region - not to say the immediate vicinity. Why are these not being used in the services of the UN? The EU must agree to this, at least.\nWe should also give those in power in Khartoum to understand that they should not rely overly on forces outside Africa. The Sudanese Government is skating on very thin ice, and should not exhaust African solidarity. Two warning shots have already been fired. The ACP Summit in Khartoum was the summit attended by the fewest Heads of State or Government - a clear sign of displeasure. The fact that the AU Summit opted for President Kufuor instead of the Sudanese President was a further clear indication of disapproval.\nGlenys Kinnock\nMr President, as others have said, as General al-Bashir continues to prevaricate on the deployment of an AU-UN hybrid force in Darfur, we see the humanitarian crisis getting worse. We see the number of internally displaced people increasing. The ceasefire has collapsed.\nThe international community has and is continuing to fail to fulfil its responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Darfur. This means that the European Union must act urgently to impose its own targeted and phased smart sanctions. We do not have to wait for the UN Security Council to agree on essential new measures - as others have suggested - on an arms embargo covering all of Sudan, on asset-freezing of the wealthy people of Sudan, on travel bans and on consideration of an oil embargo.\nClearly, revenue flows to the south would need to be protected if we impose an oil embargo, and consideration would perhaps need to be given to compensating the south Sudanese for lost oil revenue. But the least we can do is to put a bar on investments, on technical equipment and on expertise. I also believe that there should be serious consideration of sports sanctions against Sudan, especially consideration of excluding Sudan from the 2010 World Cup. This means that Europe has to put pressure on FIFA.\nThe EU position, frankly, is weak and untenable. There is too much emphasis on carrots and not enough on sticks. The German Presidency must take a lead and insist on a unified position from Member States. Commissioner, you have described the position, and in the Council we hear the fine words, but nothing happens.\nThe question is: how does Europe put pressure on Khartoum? There must be an urgent and detailed investigation of the personal finances of wealthy individuals in Sudan. We have to prepare the arguments against those who claim that this would push Sudan closer towards Chinese business interests. The truth is, frankly, that nothing is currently influencing Sudan. It is virtually impossible to influence them, and so, if we remain supine, then we maintain the position where they can be as brutal as they like and Europe will continue to do nothing. Millions of people in Darfur are paying for European broken promises and totally worthless commitments. Khartoum knows that Europe is all bark and no bite and that is why today we are calling for new, strong, economic, legal and military measures.\nPublic condemnation is not enough. We want solutions which reflect the tragedy. Europe is shamefully weak and I have to say finally that if Darfur was, for example, Lebanon, then real sanctions would be getting a lot more discussion time in the Council, and President Barroso in the Commission and you, Commissioner, would put pressure on the Council to do more.\nFiona Hall\nMr President, the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is on a scale which is difficult to comprehend. Two and a half million people have had to flee their homes. That is the equivalent of the entire population of north-east England. The death toll among these displaced people is high and it would be higher by far if it were not for the humanitarian efforts on the ground. But even humanitarian workers cannot operate on a battlefield and unless there is a lessening of hostilities in Darfur it can be expected that more of them will be evacuated. The entire fragile, overstretched humanitarian effort in Darfur could very easily collapse, precipitating hunger and disease in the camps and a rocketing death toll. That is why the stabilising influence of an international peace force is so urgently required. It is also necessary in order to provide calmer conditions in which a political process can get under way, involving all parties and including local low-key intercommunity dialogue as well as high-level, high-profile political negotiation.\nAna Maria Gomes\n(PT) It is certainly significant and worrying that the German Presidency is not here today to represent the Council. This says a great deal about levels of genuine interest and commitment in the new relationship with Africa and in working for development in Africa. Three years ago, I was in Darfur with other MEPs who have spoken or who are about to speak. Since then, the situation has worsened, as Mr Almunia said.\nThe Al-Bashir Government is toying with the international community, with the Security Council, with the European Union and with the African Union, and the EU makes fine statements and does nothing. The time has come for the EU to take action and to exercise its responsibility to protect people. The time has come to impose a no-fly-zone from Chad. The EU can do this, alongside African countries with which it enjoys good relations, and can have an effect on the ground. The time has come, among other things, to impose smart, phased sanctions, travel bans, visa restrictions, and the freezing of assets in banks and elsewhere, and to stop treating Omar Al-Bashir and the members of his government as responsible, respectable leaders. The time has come to impose an effective arms embargo. The time has come to impose other kinds of trade embargo and in particular an oil embargo and on this issue, Mr President, the EU must speak frankly with China, because China as we know is very much responsible for the Al-Bashir Government's attitude. It is a pity that Europe waits for the United States, as Mr Almunia suggested, albeit in a roundabout way, because the EU should take action independently on this issue.\nLet us take a look at what is happening not just in Darfur but throughout Sudan and the Horn of Africa. The EU cannot be dependent on the worldview and disastrous policies of the US in respect of the Horn of Africa, as we have seen in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. The time has come for the EU to take action and I align myself with those MEPs who are calling on the Council and the President of the Commission to ensure that the EU does not wait any longer, and exerts the influence it actually has in Khartoum and in Africa to change the situation and to protect the people dying in Darfur. Otherwise, three years hence I along with other MEPs will be joining Mr Almunia or some other Commissioner in bemoaning the fact that the situation has become worse and worse.\nJoaqu\u00edn Almunia\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission shares the main concerns that you have expressed in this debate tonight. We find the initiative of this debate particularly useful, given the situation and in particular given the latest developments in the region.\nIn our view, even with this extremely difficult situation, a negotiated way out of the crisis in Darfur is the most desirable alternative and the option most likely to be successful. That being said, the Council already stated last Monday that it is ready to consider further measures, notably in the UN framework.\nA lasting peace is Darfur can only be political and will require all parties to support the Darfur Peace Agreement and renounce the military option. The Commission remains strongly committed to alleviating the plight of the three million civilian people affected by this terrible crisis. As you all know, the Commission, and in particular my colleague Louis Michel - who cannot be here today because he is in Washington, discussing, among other things, this particular issue - is following the situation very closely and the Commission will not hesitate to call on all parties to respect human rights and international law as well as to remove all obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian aid.\nPresident\nTo wind up the debate, I have received six motions for resolutionspursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nFilip Kaczmarek \nin writing. - (PL) We are proud that the very fact that, as Europeans, we are compelled to condemn manifest evil in whichever part of our world it may affect human beings. What is happening in Darfur is a manifest evil. Accordingly, we are bound to express our opposition to those who perpetrate such evils. Is it enough for us to simply express views that stem from a moral imperative and then rest in the knowledge of a job well done? Obviously not. We cannot rest as long as people continue to suffer. We can only rest when we have put a stop to the evil. Therefore, we are not entitled to rest simply because we have right on our side, but only when effective action has been taken.\nWe shall only be able to rest and be content when our words and actions have put a stop to the activities of those who kill, supply weapons and ideology, as well as those who permit, incite and inflict cruelty. We will only be able to walk with our heads held high when our vision of a moral order becomes reality. A person who did not commit a sin simply because he or she was not tempted to do so cannot be accused of sinning. By the same token, one cannot praise a person who could have taken action to stem evil, but who was content to simply point it out. We do not lack information about Darfur. We do not lack experience or an ethical and political assessment of events. What we are lack is effectiveness and, therefore, that is what we should focus on.\nPatrick Gaubert \nin writing. - (FR) Ever since the hostilities were launched in February 2003, Darfur, one of the poorest regions in Sudan, has been the scene of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. There have been four years of conflict and suffering for the people of Darfur, and four resolutions by our Parliament to show our indignation, but the situation remains extremely worrying.\nToday, our Parliament is reiterating its concerns within the context of a joint resolution on Darfur and is urging the United Nations, the Member States, the Council and the Commission to assume their responsibilities and to clearly set a date for the deployment of a peacekeeping force, under UN control, with the aim of immediately making the humanitarian corridors more secure and of thus easing the immense distress faced by the people of Darfur.\nI welcome this new initiative, but faced with the urgency of the situation, Europe can no longer just reiterate old requests. Our responsibility and our credibility require us to provide a satisfactory solution to the suffering of millions of human victims whom Europe can no longer merely observe, and to adopt a resolution that finally matches our indignation.\nGlyn Ford\nDarfur has been a running sore for far too long. A situation partly driven by climate change - what does that bode for the future - whereby desertification has driven pastoralists into direct conflict with settled farming communities and then exploited by a heartless Government in Sudan has gone on for far too long.\nHundreds of thousands are living in misery and threatened with worse. I have been critical of China's reluctance to support UN action, it was claimed because of its oil interests in southern Sudan. But now President Hu Jintao's direct intervention appears to have persuaded Sudan's President to agree a UN peacekeeping operation manned by troops from AU countries.\nWhether Sudan's Government can be trusted is not clear. But now, if China is betrayed, Sudan will no longer be able to rely on their reluctance to act in the UN Secretary Council. This may be good news for refugees in Darfur and neighbouring countries.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership - Mexico Strategic Partnership (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the following reports:\nby Mrs Koppa, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the European Union-Brazil Strategic Partnership, and\nby Mr Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on an EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership.\nJos\u00e9 Ignacio Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra\nMr President, Latin America is a continent with more than 600 million inhabitants, contributes more than 10% of the world's gross domestic product, has 40% of the earth's plant species and at the same time has a dynamic and extraordinarily active young population.\nDespite the economic boom of recent years, however, this is not the best time for Latin America in terms of its integration. This is what President \u00d3scar Arias said at his inauguration and I was reminded of it last weekend at a seminar organised in S\u00e3o Paulo with Alejandro Toledo, the former President of Peru, and Fernando Enrique Cardoso, the former President of Brazil.\nThere have been tensions between Argentina and Uruguay; the ALCA project has failed; Venezuela has left the Andean Community; there have been problems between Brazil and Bolivia over the nationalisation of energy resources, and between Argentina and Bolivia for the same reason; there have been disputes between Ecuador and Colombia, between Colombia and Venezuela, between Mexico and Venezuela, and so on.\nThis initiative by the European Commission, supported by Parliament and the Council, to establish this strategic partnership therefore sends out a clear, well-defined message that Latin America remains on the list of action priorities for the European Union, due not least to Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner's personal commitment.\nIn the case of Mexico, this strategic partnership aims specifically to underline that country's importance on the Latin American and world stages and, in addition, it is an essential, key step in consolidating our existing relations with Mexico and expanding coordination on topics of world importance.\nThis new step is an opportunity to boost political dialogue even further and to coordinate the positions of both parties at world level and also in the various multilateral forums and international bodies. Consultation mechanisms will enable joint positions to be adopted on concrete issues of global reach such as security, the environment or socioeconomic questions.\nFor the European Union it is also an excellent opportunity to develop privileged relations with a country that plays a leading role in Latin American forums such as the Rio Group, in which it holds the presidency until 2010. Mexico takes part in the G20, the G8+5, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and also the OECD, in which it is the only Latin American member.\nTherefore, seeking joint solutions to the world economic and financial crisis, drawing up ambitious strategies for the success of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change to be held in Copenhagen, developing a structured dialogue on immigration, or collaborating to achieve the Millennium Development Goals are some of the things that can be achieved at the annual summits between the European Union and Mexico if the strategic partnership that we are proposing is set up.\nIn the resolution that it will adopt this morning, Parliament will also reiterate its support for President Calder\u00f3n in the fight against drug trafficking and organised crime. In addition, and in a spirit of mutual respect, dialogue and shared responsibility, I believe we should take on joint challenges, such as seeking to protect vulnerable groups in society like women or representatives of the media.\nCommissioner, this year we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the political talks held in San Jos\u00e9, at which, thanks to the major mobilisation of political talent in Central America and the monitoring by the European Union, peace was finally brought to the conflict-torn Central American isthmus.\nIn its support for peace, understanding, concord and reconciliation, the European Union has, in my view, been doing an honourable job in Central America and also in other parts of the world. Now that these values are being consolidated, albeit not without difficulty and not everywhere to the same extent, it is clearly time for development. Based on our European experience, however, that will be more difficult if there is no integration.\nI believe that we are providing a substantial impetus through this strategic partnership with Mexico and, above all, we are sending out a clear, well-defined message about Europe's commitment to Latin America.\nMaria Eleni Koppa\nrapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I am delighted that we are debating and will be voting today on the report on improving our relations with Brazil. The creation of a strategic relationship between the European Union and Brazil is of mutual benefit, firstly due to Brazil's changing position at global level to become a leading force in the developing world and, secondly, because Brazil plays a vital role in bridging differences on questions of global interest.\nOver recent years, the European Union has maintained a very broad spectrum of relations with Brazil and a coordinated cohesive framework is therefore needed for relations on both sides. Stronger relations will be based on historical, cultural and economic ties and on common values for democracy, the rule of law, human rights, concern about climate change and sustainable development, disarmament, energy and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The strategic partnership must be substantial in scope and of a gradual nature.\nBrazil is also a country of decisive importance to Mercosur. It must therefore commit, within the partnership, to strengthening relations between the European Union and Mercosur and addressing questions of common interest. Within this framework, the strategic relationship will be a means of deepening interregional, economic and trade relations.\nDue to its enhanced role in the area and its active involvement in the UN, Brazil can, I believe, play an essential role in preventing and resolving regional conflicts in Latin America, thereby helping to consolidate peace in the area.\nIn light of the global economic crisis, the European Union and Brazil must cooperate at World Trade Organization level with a view to the successful conclusion of negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda. Brazil is in a position to do more to address the new challenges of the global economy, given that regulatory matters play an important part in safeguarding competition law and in sustainable development.\nAs far as the reform of the financial system is concerned, its membership of international fora may help in reviewing the role of international institutions in the surveillance and regulation of financial markets.\nLike other developing powers, Brazil is becoming more and more active in international efforts to deal with global poverty and inequality through cooperation programmes with the long-term objective of sustainable development.\nAs far as environmental protection is concerned, Brazil is the country with the largest areas of vital rainforests. The European Union and Brazil must cooperate proactively at international level to protect them and to address climate change and the loss of biodiversity. Political undertakings need to be made to implement the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Action also needs to be taken to protect and manage water resources.\nI should say at this point that Brazil is the first country to develop important biofuel production, thereby achieving tangible results in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Consequently, exchanging experiences and cooperating in this sector may prove to be very useful to the European Union and, conversely, renewable energies and energy-saving measures will be very useful to Brazil.\nMigration is one basic issue on the European political agenda. Consequently, the strategic partnership should, in light of the Lima Declaration, promote a wide-ranging dialogue on migration, covering regular and irregular migration and the protection of migrants' human rights.\nFinally, the European Parliament welcomes the launching of negotiations on a visa agreement between the two sides, which will facilitate the free movement of people.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - (FR) Honourable Members, friends, allow me first of all to thank in particular the rapporteurs, Mrs Koppa and Mr Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra, for their excellent reports on, respectively, the strategic partnership between the European Union and Brazil, and between the European Union and Mexico.\nI must also say that I am proud, as Commissioner, that we have brought forward many proposals and many communications concerning Latin America in general, and Brazil and Mexico in particular, because it seems to me that it was the right time to do it.\nIn recent years, Brazil and Mexico have proved to be front-line actors, both on the world stage and at regional level. In line with this fact, the European Union has recognised the need to consider these countries strategic partners, in particular because of their economic weight in Latin America and also because of their role as regional leaders and, very often, their importance in regional security issues.\nThe foundations of our relationships are extremely solid. Not only do we have, as we all know, close historical and cultural links, but we also share common interests and values, and our economic links are increasingly solid.\nThe European Union is, in fact, the top trading partner for Brazil which, for its part, is the principal beneficiary of European Union investments in Latin America. Brazil alone has, in fact, attracted some EUR 87 billion, in other words more than all of the capital invested by the European Union in the other three 'BRIC' countries, namely Russia, India and China. It is also true that Brazil is very important to cooperation in relation to the WTO. As a partner, it can sometimes be difficult but, naturally, it has its own point of view.\nSince the implementation of the European Union-Mexico agreement, which was a pioneering agreement between a Latin American country and the European Union, average annual European investment has tripled and the Union is today Mexico's second biggest trading partner. Naturally, Mexico is also a partner that shares the same values and the same interests. That is why we have drawn up this strategic partnership as a powerful instrument that, we hope, will bring tangible benefits not only to our respective citizens, but also to those of other countries and regions in the world.\nI wish to stress that the European Union, Brazil and Mexico continue to cooperate to confront the financial crisis and to prepare the ground, as you said, Mrs Koppa, to ensure the success of the G20 summit taking place in London in April.\nThey also continue to work together on common challenges such as climate change - the major issue for us - the fight against drugs, in which we are relying greatly on President Calder\u00f3n, who has a major fight on his hands, and the sensitive and difficult question of migration.\nWe have seen the Mexican Government's current efforts to fight the illegal drugs trade, even though, unfortunately, the government is having to confront an almost unprecedented level of violence. We must absolutely, therefore, help Mexico.\nHonourable Members, what does the strategic partnership mean for us? I believe that it will allow us better to prepare for the future by addressing a whole host of bilateral and world issues of common interest in a more structured, more coherent and better coordinated framework.\nI am very happy to note that, with the deepened relations with these two countries, we have laid the emphasis, correctly, on several priorities identified in the European Parliament's report, such as coordination at a multilateral level, meaning the United Nations as well, democracy, human rights and the other global issues that I have just mentioned.\nWith Brazil especially, we have also begun work on the question of renewable energies, like biofuel, in which Brazil has real experience and on which President Lula himself addressed us during the Portuguese Presidency.\nOn the monitoring and implementation of this partnership, Mr President, our main challenge for 2009, as relates to Brazil first, is to make a reality of the joint commitments entered into in the action plans.\nWe would like to complete the negotiations on two major aspects. First, the agreement on the exemption of short-stay visas and the granting of market economy status to Bulgaria and Romania. Also, we are planning in 2009 to open new dialogues on education, culture and economic and financial affairs, as well as pursuing the current dialogues, and we will continue to work with Brazil on all the other global questions.\nAs for Mexico, the strategic partnership decided on by the Council will, I hope, soon be announced at a European Union-Mexico summit. Meanwhile, the Commission, with the Member States, has committed to work with the Mexican Government on an operational document that specifies the practical actions that will optimise the strategic partnership.\nFinally, let me mention the role of the European Parliament. We have always been in favour of any contribution Parliament could make in relation to the launch of this strategic partnership, and we enthusiastically welcome these recommendations today. In this context, I wish to say that I can only welcome the fact that the Parliamentary relationships appear to be extremely promising, given that some 96 members from the Brazilian Parliament's parliamentary group on the European Union are here.\nI believe that we share the same interest and, as for the joint EU-Mexico parliamentary committee, we can also see that it is in operation and its next meeting will take place at the end of March.\nTo summarise, Mr President, I believe that we are actively engaged in making a reality of the numerous commitments that we have made in the framework of the partnership and we hope in this way to work for greater security in the world as a whole.\nJuan Fraile Cant\u00f3n\nMr President, I shall take the floor first of all to congratulate the Commission on its initiative, which implies recognising Brazil as a regional power and upgrades its relations with the European Union to strategic level. These relations have until now been based on the 1992 Cooperation Framework Agreement and the 1995 EU-Mercosur Framework Agreement.\nIn recent years, however, Brazil's role in world affairs has changed for the better and the country has shown itself to be a key partner for Europe. This new scenario leads us to intensify and diversify our relations.\nFirstly, the EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership should help that country exercise regional and world leadership.\nSecondly, in connection with the Millennium Development Goals, although programmes such as the 'Bolsa Fam\u00edlia' ('family fund') have succeeded in improving human development and in cutting extreme poverty practically by half, it cannot be ignored that income inequalities are still very great, that there exist considerable concentrations of poverty and that there are also substantial regional differences between the north and the south of the country.\nIn this respect, an exchange of political experiences would be welcome, which could lead us to propose innovative solutions in the fight against poverty, inequality and social exclusion, the reduction of imbalances, and in terms of social protection and decent work for all.\nWe share basic concerns in the area of environmental protection and, on this basis, we should begin a dialogue on issues such as climate change, water management, biodiversity and deforestation, as well as on the role that indigenous peoples should play in all these things.\nIn the field of energy cooperation, the dialogue initiated in 2007 has enabled us to make progress which we now need to consolidate on topics such as sustainable biofuels, renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-CO2 energy technology.\nThe strategic partnership with Brazil also brings with it a commitment to greater regional integration to strengthen our cooperation with Mercosur.\nErika Mann\nMr President, Commissioner, I am pleased that we are having this debate. Of course we have intensive relations with both these countries, but I would like to talk about Mexico in particular.\nIn our debate, we in the Committee on International Trade saw it as particularly important to discuss matters that affect our area. It is especially important to us that we strengthen the free-trade agreement once again. If you look at the figures, you can see that, although our trade has definitely intensified in recent years, there is still considerable demand and that we - and the European side - still have considerable restrictions when it comes to market access. I would sincerely ask you, Commissioner, to again do everything you can to analyse the situation once more together with your competent colleagues and, where problems exist, to really lift these restrictions.\nIt makes no sense whatsoever for us, on the one hand, to talk about strategic partnerships with such important countries in Latin America and then, on the other hand, to still have to battle with such absurd market restrictions. Sometimes, of course, they make sense, but as a rule they are in fact not useful at all. I would be very grateful to you, and to the committee, if we could resolve this matter.\nThe second point that we feel is important is that, in the context of global international relations, we should also truly give Mexico the status it deserves. This, of course, relates in particular to the still very fragile arrangement in connection with the G20. Our delegation has written a letter, which we have also sent to you, in which we ask that Mexico also sit at the G20 table and for this to be a permanent arrangement rather than merely a brief appearance.\nMy final request is for you to attend our delegation meeting on 30 and 31 March; I know that you cannot attend personally, but for you to arrange for someone from your area of competence to attend when Mr Guadarrama, Mr Buganza and Mr Green, who chair the Mexico delegation, come so that they really feel that the Commission values the delegation and its visit.\nFrancisco Jos\u00e9 Mill\u00e1n Mon\nMr President, the countries of Europe are linked to Latin America by close historical, cultural and human ties. As a Spaniard and, what is more, a Galician, I am very aware of that. In addition, we share principles and values that are also a result of our Christian heritage.\nLatin America and the European Union are, in general, natural partners, and we must intensify our relations. I am delighted that there is broad agreement in this House on the fact that the European Union should establish strategic relations with both Mexico and Brazil. I said as much myself with regard to Mexico in April last year during a debate here in Parliament on the Lima summit.\nThe strategic partnership should be accompanied by regular yearly summits. We have held them with Brazil since 2007, and the Salafranca report rightly calls for them in relation to Mexico, in view of the Council's somewhat ambiguous conclusions of October 2008. I hope such a summit may be held with Mexico this year.\nLadies and gentlemen, the European Union's strategic partnership with Mexico and Brazil is highly beneficial at both bilateral and global levels. Bilaterally, there is ample potential for the relations to grow. In the case of Mexico, for example, the association agreement has resulted in a spectacular increase in trade and investment. The fight against organised crime and drug trafficking and cooperation in the field of energy are other areas where joint cooperation is necessary, as well as greater coordination in multilateral forums.\nIn the case of Brazil, the intensification of relations should also help to unblock the EU-Mercosur Agreement.\nI should like to highlight the positive economic results achieved by Mexico and Brazil throughout this decade, in contrast to previous periods. Without that progress, which has been due to well-conceived policies, the current extreme world crisis would have devastated their economies. In contrast, their governments can now use the reserves they have built up to implement anticyclical policies in the same way as the developed and some emerging countries.\nMexico and Brazil are also playing an increasingly important role on the world stage. They take part in the Heiligendamm process and, as major economic powers in Latin America, they are members of the G20.\nIn today's complex and interconnected world - I am just finishing - with all its global challenges and threats, including climate change, cooperating in a spirit of shared responsibility with players as significant as Mexico and Brazil is highly beneficial for the European Union and also, of course, for the whole international community.\nVicente Miguel Garc\u00e9s Ram\u00f3n\nMr President, on 15 July 2008 the European Commission adopted a communication to the Council and Parliament recommending that a strategic partnership be established between the European Union and Mexico.\nFor its part, on 13 October 2008 the European General Affairs and External Relations Council recognised Mexico as a strategic partner, pending Parliament's opinion on the matter.\nI would recall that, at the seventh meeting of the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee held at the end of October last year, we said that a strategic partnership between Mexico and the European Union would provide the impetus needed to strengthen and develop the true potential of our bilateral relations.\nThis is a good time in the relations between the two sides and the results of the current global agreement are good. We stress the need for our respective executive powers to strengthen collaboration in the political, economic and cooperation spheres, particularly in view of the new challenges of all kinds resulting from the financial and economic crisis that is causing havoc in our continents.\nMexico is a great country with which we share values and goals, such as the development of democratic forms of government, a commitment to gender equality, consolidation of the rule of law, fair and sustainable development and respect for human rights. We advocate closer cooperation in the fight against organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking, based on the principles of shared responsibility and strict adherence to international law.\nConsequently, we shall support the proposal for a recommendation on the EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership to be put before Parliament this morning.\nRenate Weber\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it is already widely acknowledged that Brazil has become an increasingly significant regional and global player. The crucial role Brazil played in the establishment of UNASUR is just one more confirmation of the country's reputation and deserves clear recognition, as does Brazil's endeavour to support and influence the democratic evolution of some countries in Latin America.\nI agree with the rapporteur that Brazil and the European Union share the same values regarding democracy, the rule of law and the promotion of human rights, and share the same principles on market economy. Therefore it is clear why Brazil is a key partner for the European Union.\nFor several years, Brazil has enjoyed an economic growth which I hope will not be too badly affected by the current ravaging economic crisis. Unfortunately, however, the economic development and accumulation of wealth in Brazil did not translate into the eradication of poverty. As the report notes, Brazil still has a high number of poor people and it is a sad reality that the concentration of wealth is based on cultural and racial grounds. It should be emphasised that 65% of the poorest Brazilians are black or of a mixed ethnicity, while 86% of the most privileged are white. I appreciated President Lula's idea that his government should not fight wealth but poverty. I am convinced that EU support and assistance would be beneficial in trying to put an end to this polarisation between the very poor and the very rich.\nBut, in order to do this, we need the financial assistance available under the development cooperation instrument for Brazil to be used to support the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and for sustainable development purposes. At the same time, the European Union needs to continue to focus on the topic of combating deforestation. This is a key issue, as Brazil has a rich but fragile environment. We need not only to develop strong partnerships, but also to coordinate with other donors and have projects that should put words into action as far as the protection of the environment is concerned.\nOur strategic partnership should also support the development of a strong Brazilian civil society, encouraging contacts between European and Brazilian NGOs, entrepreneurs and businesspeople fora, and should promote exchanges on an educational and cultural level. Cooperation on higher education under the Erasmus Mundus programme or other biregional schemes should be viewed as an investment in what is the most precious capital of a country, its human resources.\nRoberta Angelilli\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue and political and commercial collaboration with Brazil is an important goal for Europe; a goal to be developed and strengthened, beginning with the fight against poverty, particularly among children, and moving towards strong commercial agreements to build up trade and investment.\nHowever, this strategic partnership cannot avoid certain immovable points. Firstly, the need for greater cooperation in the fight against corruption, organised crime, cross-border crime, drug trafficking, money laundering and international terrorism. Secondly, the need for close collaboration in legal matters, notably with regard to collaboration in extradition procedures and the mutual recognition of judicial rulings.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nMr President, I think it is obvious that we cannot ignore the context in which we are discussing this agreement. In Europe the current crisis is above all affecting the sectors more oriented towards exports, while in Mexico it is very specifically affecting those actors that suffer most from the consequences of the economic slowdown.\nAn agreement of this kind should be beneficial to both parties, but the experience we have at the moment is that that is not always the case. For Europe it is very beneficial. I think that is obvious, and we can see it clearly when we look at the results of the last eight years, during which the trade balance has been strongly in the EU's favour.\nThere has been an 80% rise in the trade deficit, which means that Mexico is now highly dependent on Europe. There are other risks, however, which we must not forget. The fact is that most of the investments that the EU has made will later have positive consequences for Europe as well. I mean that many of the exports that are made are basically in-house, within companies.\nI am not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, but I am saying that we must be careful and remain very aware that it may have highly negative consequences. Above all, however, the most worrying factor is the liberalising obsession shown by certain governments, which is embedded in certain attitudes in this context. Banking, for example, is one of the most important sectors and one that has proved to be essential in tackling this crisis but, in Mexico, 90% of this sector is currently in foreign hands, with 50% of that in European hands.\nI do not think that that is the best way to approach an agreement of this kind. An agreement should correct, or at least not fuel, some of these risks, and that is what we propose with some of our amendments.\nWilly Meyer Pleite\nMr President, with regard to the partnership with Brazil, the report undoubtedly has some highly positive aspects. The call for multilateralism, especially in the international forums of the United Nations; cooperation in the areas of the environment, sustainable development, forest and water resource management and education; as well as cooperation relating to renewable energy and technology are, in our view, highly appropriate and positive.\nAs for the focus on immigration, despite the shameful directive, I believe that in this specific case it is talking about human rights and the rights of migrants, which is why I think it is very appropriate. Another important point is cooperation to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, as well as social cohesion in relation to the important leadership shown by Brazil in its policy to reduce poverty through the 'Bolsa Fam\u00edlia' or 'family fund'. A further undoubtedly important aspect of the partnership is Brazil's role as one of the leaders in the process of regional integration through Unasur. In other words, there is a whole range of important points which also suggest that civil society itself should be involved in these negotiations.\nOn the other hand, there are aspects of the report that we do not like, which is why we are going to abstain. Firstly, it recommends putting an end to economic protectionism in Brazil. I think this text was drafted before the crisis; as I see it, protectionism is a reality today. The winds of change that are blowing to end or mitigate the crisis are undoubtedly pointing towards public intervention in the economy by governments. I think the free market is over, and it has left behind a crisis of unforeseeable consequences for humankind.\nAnother very important point that we do not like is that the report calls for joint participation in nuclear research projects, especially the ITER thermonuclear reactor project. I do not think that is right for us, as we are not in favour of nuclear energy. With greater efficiency in energy consumption and more renewable energy, I think we can do without a form of energy that is highly damaging to humankind. That, despite the positive points, leads us to abstain.\nThe Mexico report is a very different matter, since the partnership with Brazil is yet to take off. Mexico has been working within our strategic association agreement since 1997, and we therefore already have results that enable us to judge whether it is going well - whether it is going as well as we would like or not.\nWe are going to abstain on this report as well, for a number of reasons. Firstly, we believe that the report ignores negative consequences in economic terms. It is true that there has been progress if we look at aspects where the country has a poor human rights record, in relation to the murder of women. Amendments have been tabled that I think clarify and improve the text, but there is a part that we do not see as being positive, and that is everything concerning the Treaty on Free Trade and the consequences it is having for small producers in Mexico. This is not a good time for Mexico, as for any other country in the world in the current crisis. Foreign investment in Mexico is certainly concentrated in just a few sectors and is not helping to expand the domestic economy.\nOur group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left, is therefore going to abstain in the vote on this report.\nBastiaan Belder\nMr President, in recent years there has been a growing trend in the Union to conclude strategic partnerships with third countries. In itself, this does not trouble me much. It can be useful to give more shape to bilateral relations through such a partnership, but there are at least two risks involved in this structure.\nFirstly, Europe cannot declare every country a strategic partner. To do so, in my view, would lead to a devaluation of the term 'strategic'. I therefore argue that only the bilateral relationships with crucial partners should be brought under this banner. As far as I am concerned, this actually applies more to Brazil than to Mexico, the subject of our debate this morning.\nSecondly, I sometimes get an indefinable feeling that these strategic partnerships are largely symbolic. It is a chance to call another summit and then things remain largely as they were. These partnerships often function solely as a forum. The question of tangible results is frequently left unanswered.\nI have the same sense, to some extent, in relation to Parliament's draft recommendation to the Council in relation to Brazil, which we shall be discussing tomorrow. Here, too, I feel that there is not enough mention given to specific problems. Mr President, I should like to illustrate this concern using three elements of the draft recommendation.\nFirstly, the recommendation notes, somewhat misleadingly, that this partnership is not to be at the expense of the Union's relations with Mercosur. How is it possible that the European Union, which always puts itself forward as a promoter of regional cooperation, could allow its bilateral relations with Brazil to take preference over its regional cooperation with Mercosur? The Union is choosing the wrong priorities here.\nOn the strength of our involvement with the region, the European Union must, in fact, indicate to Brazil the importance of a strong Mercosur and must encourage the country to itself invest strongly in this cooperation agreement. Instead, the Union will be sitting down with Brazil at the bilateral level and, in so doing, will be signalling that Mercosur is of secondary importance as far as we are concerned.\nIn the field of trade, too, it seems to me the draft recommendation has not been worded strictly enough. There is a call for us to work together for the smooth conclusion of the Doha round. This is, of course, a fine aim, but would it not be better to first specify the key points of difference between the Union and Brazil?\nThe subject of market access is a salient issue for both camps. I believe that the Doha round has more chance of succeeding if this matter is resolved at the bilateral level. I am not saying that that would be easy, but I do believe this to be a better way forward than making rhetorically appealing declarations.\nI have also looked at the draft recommendation from the perspective of my geopolitical interest. From that perspective, it occurs to me that the recommendation fails to call on Brazil to take up a leadership role in the region. With this point, I shall wind up my speech. Brazil must gauge political developments in the region well and can do so primarily from the ambition of its neighbour Venezuela to dominate the continent.\nThat is a situation that is in the interests neither of the continent itself, nor of the European Union. The controversial Venezuelan referendum on amending the constitution illustrates well enough that there will then be little left of European values such as democracy.\nJean-Claude Martinez\n- (FR) Mr President, it is fine to have a strategic partnership to begin with, to have the Volkswagen factory in Puebla and to have joint parliamentary committees with Chile and with Mexico, but it has been 30 years, as Mr Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra said in his report, of being realistic, of cooperating, of setting a climate, a little discussion on agriculture, drugs, women, water and so on.\nWe have to go further. More ambition is needed, both for Europe and for Latin America. We have to set a target: for example, 2025. In a generation, in the next 20 years, we must create an alliance of civilisations between Europe and Latin America, and why not even integration!\nTo do this, there is the EuroLat framework, the parliament which brings together Europe and Latin America. In this framework, a manifesto is needed, a resolution which will be the equivalent of what 8 May 1950 meant for Europe. Let us pool our peoples, our resources, our intelligence, old and young from both sides and create, without delay, an area of free movement for students, researchers, intellectuals and intelligence. That would mean an automatic cultural visa. Malinche needed no visa to go and teach Quechua or Mayan to Cort\u00e9s. It is the first step on the road to creating a block with a billion Latin Americans, a billion Christians in the match of nations.\nI know full well that this may appear unrealistic to the economic realists, but if the dream you are chasing is not big enough, you are going to lose sight of it even as you chase it.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103\n(RO) I wish to express my support for Mr Salafranca's report. I believe that once the Global Agreement has been implemented, we must move to a higher historic level in the strategic partnership between the European Union and Mexico.\nThis partnership has become necessary, bearing in mind not only Mexico's important role on the global political and economic stage, but also its very close economic ties with the European Union. Mexico has a population of more than 100 million, is the tenth-largest economic power in the world and is a member of the G20 Group.\nAgainst the backdrop of global challenges such as the economic crisis and global warming, cooperation with Mexico will prove to be beneficial. It goes without saying that we want the new partnership to formalise annual summits between the European Union and Mexico, based on the model used for high-level meetings featuring in the European Union's relations with other strategic partners.\nWe must also support the parliamentary dimension of this partnership through the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee and the EuroLat Assembly, which have played a particularly beneficial role in recent years. Given that it is the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, I think that we must focus greater attention on cooperation between the European Union and Mexico in the fields of research, culture and education, as well as scientific and student mobility.\nMexicans are the largest Spanish-speaking population in the world and share common cultural values with Europeans, which includes close ties with Romania's cultural heritage, based on their Latin legacy. For example, an exhibition staged in July 2005 at the Romanian Peasant Museum in Bucharest demonstrated the astounding similarity between Mexican popular art and numerous creative works of Romanian popular art. I feel that the European Union's institutions should tap to a greater extent and on a constant basis the potential which culture, education and art offer in terms of bringing peoples closer together.\nLast but not least, I think that this strategic partnership's contribution should also include guaranteeing the safety of European citizens who travel to Mexico. Mexico offers exceptional tourism potential, has magnificent historical cultural treasures and is also a favourite destination of many Europeans. However, they must not be put in danger because of the crime and corruption which are evident in certain regions of the country. The battle against crime may become more effective through trilateral cooperation between Mexico, the European Union and the United States.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) I feel that the cooperation agreements between the European Union and Mexico and the European Union and Brazil are of paramount importance. These cooperation agreements must be based on respect for the values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.\nI would like to emphasise the need to step up the efforts between the European Union and these two countries in promoting scientific and technological transfer, with a view to consolidating real cooperation in fighting climate change and improving environmental protection. The Integral Support Programme for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises will make a fundamental contribution to the economic and social development of these countries. Especially during the current global economic crisis, it is important to create and preserve jobs and continue the efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.\nAs rapporteur for the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States with regard to certain aspects of air services, I want to stress the importance of this agreement. It promotes free competition in the area of air services. Mexico can impose, if applicable, in a non-discriminatory manner levies, taxes, charges, duties or dues on fuel supplied on its own territory for the aircraft of the air carrier appointed by a Member State of the European Community, operating on a route between a point located on Mexican territory and another point located on the territory of another state on the American continent.\nI would like to mention that this matter is extremely important, particularly in view of the implementation of the system for trading greenhouse gas emission certificates. Furthermore, these two countries, Brazil and Mexico, have a particularly important role to play in concluding the future post-Kyoto agreement, which we hope will be signed in Copenhagen in December.\nMonica Frassoni\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance will vote against the report on the Brazil partnership and will abstain on the issue of partnership with Mexico. We do not take great pleasure in this, but we feel that this vote clearly demonstrates our dissatisfaction with practices that we have been denouncing for some time. As regards Brazil for example, the subject of partnership is being settled with more Mercosur dumping. It focuses on what we believe to be the wrong priorities - Mrs FerreroWaldner has for instance referred to biofuels, but in the resolution there is a whole series of considerations about nuclear power and CCS, and therefore carbon. A country like Brazil, however, should instead work with us to develop renewable technologies and energy savings: that is the way forward for that country.\nThen, as regards Mexico, Mr President, we have tabled some amendments - the rapporteur, moreover, has been fairly open with certain matters mainly concerning human rights. However, a strategic partnership and parliamentary dialogue should, in our opinion, focus on current political concerns. Top of the political agenda today is the great economic crisis that the country is experiencing, the problem of returning migrants and, of course, violence and organised crime. I think that the partnership must concentrate much, much more explicitly on this rather than on matters that we surely consider to be less important.\nOne word more, Mr President, concerning the issue of interparliamentary dialogue, to which we all, of course, attach great importance: I believe and hope that the next EuroLat meeting will be able to find a way out of that somewhat formal and, frankly, unhelpful framework that has characterised many of our meetings, and I sincerely hope that it will also have an impact on national debate in those countries.\nIlda Figueiredo\n(PT) The changes taking place in Latin America should encourage the European Union to establish new cooperation relations with the countries of Latin America. Greater attention should be paid to social and cultural aspects and to support for development in a framework of mutual respect for the different levels of development and different political choices of the people. Unfortunately, these are minor aspects in the proposals put forward by the European Union.\nGenerally speaking, their main interest is economic, aimed at safeguarding the business of large European economic and financial groups. This situation has been highlighted by social organisations, particularly in Brazil, as we discovered during the last trip to Brazil by the Delegation for relations with Mercosur. At a time when, for example, most of the population in Mexico is suffering from the consequences of the serious economic recession and when the overwhelming majority of the Mexican banking sector is controlled by foreign companies, particularly European banks, it is regrettable that the European Union is still using its agreement with Mexico more as a point of entry to the United States than to support local development. As a result, it is contributing to the destruction of Mexico's small and medium-sized enterprises and its productive fabric, particularly the industrial fabric, due to the insistence on free trade, liberalisation of strategic sectors and commercialisation of essential goods such as water.\nWe therefore need to radically overhaul the EU's policies on partnership agreements, so as to give priority to cooperation and to economic and social development. In this way we can help to create jobs with rights, ensure social progress, promote the rights of indigenous peoples, defend the forests and biodiversity, and also recognise the sovereign right of Latin American countries to high-quality public services, control of strategic sectors within their economies and respect for the decisions of the institutions chosen by their people.\nLuca Romagnoli\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would argue, as I have on other occasions, that a strengthened relationship of cooperation with Latin America is a strategic move for the EU because, as in the case of the Salafranca report, the establishment of a closer relationship is explained not only by historical and cultural ties and shared values - as the rapporteur rightly states - but it also provides multi-sector, inter-regional and intra-regional development opportunities for both sides.\nWhile I therefore welcome the proposed initiatives to increase trade and investments between the Union and Brazil, I do however wonder what improvement is possible as regards legal and environmental collaboration, the recognition of human rights and protection against organised crime often exported to the Union - these areas are just as important. The subject of migration and emigrant remittances must also be examined, as there is no doubt that profits acquired through clandestine work and other illegal activities are illegally exported. As regards migration, I would question what guarantees we can receive from a nation that protects criminals and swindlers like Cesare Battisti and the 'wizard' M\u00e1rio Pacheco do Nascimiento. This example alone explains my total opposition to opening negotiations on a visa waiver agreement between the European Union and Brazil.\nJos\u00e9 Ribeiro e Castro\nMr President, as the Czech Presidency is not in the House, I shall speak in English because I believe the message will get through quicker.\nI draw your attention to paragraph 1(l) of the proposal for a recommendation on the partnership with Brazil and also to the communication from the Commission of September 2008 on multilingualism.\nThe fact is that to establish and to develop a strategic partnership with Brazil we speak in Portuguese. When we go to the USA or Australia, we speak English; when we go to Mexico or Colombia, we speak Spanish; when we go to Brazil or Angola, we speak Portuguese; when we go to Senegal or C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, we speak in French. This is key to communication; this is key to doing business.\nThis draws attention to what I called a few years ago the 'European world' languages: linguas europeias globais in Portuguese. I mean that some European languages have the ability to establish a very intimate and close connection with various parts of the world, and these are: English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and, to a lesser extent and on different grounds, German and Italian. The Commission fully understood this and put it in the communication, but, unfortunately, there were misunderstandings in the Council - mainly on the part of the Germans, I believe - and the Council passed a much weaker line in this matter.\nI have to clarify that this does not affect, by any means, the equal value of official languages in the Union. This has to do with the internal vision of multilingualism, and we all agree that every citizen has the right to speak, to read and to be answered in his own language. However, this adds another dimension in the broad field of the external value of multilingualism. To have those European world languages in today's globalised world, in today's globalised economy, in this global village, which is cultural, economic, social and political, is a most valuable asset for the entire EU, which we must take full account of and full benefit from. That is why I ask that these languages be properly introduced and managed inside the youth external services and also taught in our schools, as a common asset, as second, third or fourth languages, because these languages, as our relations with Brazil clearly show, increase our EU capacity to relate closely worldwide: to mingle more, to really share, to be part of the same club. This is my appeal to the Council and I greet and thank the rapporteur for her support.\nVladko Todorov Panayotov\n(BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra on the excellent report in such an important area as global cooperation with our strategic partners. Globalisation not only brings us benefits, but it also makes us more vulnerable to global crises and threats. That is why identifying strategic partners and strengthening cooperation at global level will enable us to cope with current and future challenges. We highlight in the report that Europe is Mexico's second biggest partner after the United States. It must be emphasised that Europe regards Mexico as an important partner for supplying raw materials. The security of raw material supplies is specifically one of the key factors supporting Europe's sustainable development. For its part, Europe plays a leading role in protecting the environment and in adopting green industrial solutions.\nThe strategic partnership with Mexico will strengthen bilateral relations, with the specific aim of achieving more efficient trade in technology and raw materials, and provide a good foundation for bilateral cooperation in the area of environmental protection. To achieve these aims, we must develop and improve the sector-related programmes on which the mechanisms and measures for science and technology transfer are based, because only specific measures will make this cooperation real. In addition, this science and technology transfer is inconceivable without establishing an educational exchange and creating a joint network of scientific research centres. I am therefore calling for the expansion of bilateral cooperation in the field of education and innovation as well. Thank you for your attention.\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Mr President, fortunately the time when Latin America was regarded as the backyard of the United States is long since past. Today we view this area quite differently, and there are a considerable number of areas of common ground and common interest between Europe and Latin America in particular, which justify our extending our strategic partnerships into this area also.\nThe issues of climate change, energy policy, the financial crisis, drug trafficking and so on have been mentioned. In this regard, we have a lot of common ground and common interests. It is good that we are cooperating on a multilateral basis with this area. It is good that we are also concluding bilateral agreements. However, it is important for us to achieve a balanced relationship between both partners in each case.\nTherefore, if we achieve visa-free travel, we should also consider how we will handle deportations, extradition agreements and similar issues, in order that ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nMarcin Libicki\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to point out that, this morning, we spoke about the partnership between the European Union and countries such as Brazil and Mexico. We also discussed the Eastern Partnership this morning. I would like to stress as strongly as possible, and this is particularly addressed to Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, that when we discuss the European Union's foreign, or external, policies, such as the EU's relations with Brazil, Mexico or with North African countries, our debates are, to a certain extent, removed from reality. On the other hand, when we discuss our relations with the East, then we are dealing with fundamental matters affecting the EU. Similarly, when we discuss our partnership with Turkey, and that country's EU membership prospects, these are also fundamental matters. When we discuss our relations with Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, in terms of gas supplies, or the issue of Georgia, then we are discussing matters of fundamental importance to the EU, and ones which could plunge the European Union into a serious crisis.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski\n(PL) Mr President, Brazil's role on both the international and the regional stage is growing every year. As a result, this country has become one of the European Union's most important and significant partners. Historical, cultural and economic ties should provide the basis for action within the scope of the strategic partnership between the EU and Brazil. Key issues, on which political dialogue should focus, should include promoting joint strategies to meet global challenges, in areas such as security, human rights, the financial crisis and, perhaps most importantly, the fight against poverty.\nWe should also aim to diversify our efforts to prevent regional conflict in South America. Our priority should be to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the field of trade and cooperation to protect Brazil's forests - which are, after all, the lungs of the world. A strategic partnership should facilitate the creation of a permanent platform for dialogue between the European Union and Brazil.\nCharles Tannock\nMr President, as a Member of EuroLat I welcome the EU Strategic Partnership with Brazil and Mexico, both thriving democracies. The word 'BRIC' - for Brazil, Russia, India and China - is very much in the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, and Brazil is indeed an emerging global player.\nPresident Lula has demonstrated moderation in government and has been a stabilising force against the rise of populist demagogues like Ch\u00e1vez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia. Brazil will be hit now by the credit crunch and the fall in commodity prices. Mexico will also be affected by the dramatic fall in oil prices. These two countries have enjoyed stability. I also commend the work of President Calder\u00f3n in Mexico and he also deserves our support in his struggle against the drug cartels.\nThe two countries, being embedded respectively in NAFTA and Mercosur, are big players in the region and they are key to our relations with Latin America.\nCarlo Fatuzzo\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ten seconds. A while ago, I attended a convention on the subject of pensions, pension payments and how long pensioners draw their pensions before going to a better place. At this convention a league table of states was published in which countries were ranked according to the average number of years for which pensions were paid out. Mexico was considered a shining example to be followed. Why? Because its pensioners, having received their pension and enjoying this benefit, lived for an average of six months, and that was the record, that is to say it was the state held up as the best ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I fully endorse paragraph 1(e) of this report, which talks about the need for a partnership tackling the major issues of climate change, energy security and the fight against poverty and exclusion.\nI have some concerns regarding the WTO agreements - or potential agreements - from the perspective of EU farmers and food producers. As you know, there was a major battle about food production standards, and the Commission finally conceded that it could not allow Brazilian beef into the European Union until it met our production standards. I applaud that decision and I think that we need to do this for every commodity. We cannot expect our producers to meet standards that third countries are not meeting. We will not get the cooperation of our producers for a WTO agreement if that continues to happen.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMr President, I occasionally indulge in a little multilingualism, and so I am going to try to speak Spanish now.\nFirst of all, I would like to explain to Mr Belder why we have opted for a strategic partnership. I think it is very important to realise, first, that the countries themselves are very interested in it. Naturally, it is a political decision based on certain criteria. For example, Mexico is a very important bridge between north and south and is a stabilising factor, even though it has problems within the country itself.\nSecondly, it is currently a member of the G20 and I hope of course, to answer Mrs Mann, that it will continue to be one in the future.\nThirdly, both Mexico and Brazil are strongly committed to global issues that we can only, in fact, tackle jointly. These include particularly the question of climate change and the financial crisis. That is why I think the idea of strategic partnerships is valid: not with the whole world, of course, but with the major players in the world.\nIn addition, there are many minor or particular, sectoral issues, some of which I would like to mention.\nThe fact is that we talk to these countries about many difficult issues, such as drugs, corruption, terrorism and organised crime. We hold meetings at senior official level and also at ministerial level, for example, at which we see what can be done to help these countries and where we also exchange experience.\nWe have set up a forum with Mexico on public security issues, especially in relation to the problem of corruption, and we are exploring cooperation in a number of areas, such as police training, policies on how to work in prisons, and policies to combat people trafficking, drugs, arms trafficking, cybercrime and money laundering. I think it is very important to carry on with these special dialogues.\nRegarding the question on when we can have more meetings, I can say that we will try to have a meeting at the highest level this year, but it also depends on the Presidency and whether it includes this topic on its agenda. I hope it will happen in the latter part of the year. In any event we will have a ministerial meeting in Prague on the Mercosur issues, Mercosur and the strategic partnership with Mexico or Brazil. Neither one is ruled out, because we have tried to work very hard in favour of the agreement with Mercosur, but you all know that neither we nor the Mercosur countries, especially Brazil and Argentina, are yet willing to sign an agreement at a time when we do not know which way Doha will go. It has always gone in parallel with Doha.\nOf course, we are going to have another ministerial meeting in Prague in May, and again we are going to try and force a possible conclusion, but I think we are still going to find ourselves facing this challenge.\nThe subject of migration is also extremely important, and I think we have a balanced, non-confrontational dialogue with Mexico, for example, especially on the Return Directive. We greatly appreciate the fact that Mexico has responded very positively and with understanding in an area that is very complicated, as we all know, and in which, in fact, we have to both respect human rights, of course, and also consider the sensitivities of all our countries. I believe this has been taken into account.\nI would also like to say that it is the major issues that are always on our table. In December last year, for example, President Sarkozy, President Lula and President Barroso talked especially about the issue of the financial crisis and how to tackle it together, but they also talked about the issue of renewable energy, on which we are already working with Brazil to develop second-generation biofuels.\nWe are also going to hold a dialogue on human rights for the first time in 2009, in which the rights of indigenous peoples will be discussed, as that is also one of the priorities of the Human Rights Council.\nI think I will stop here, Madam President, because there were so many points that I cannot address every one of them.\nJos\u00e9 Ignacio Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra\nMadam President, to conclude this debate I should simply like to say that the decision to grant Mexico and Brazil the status of strategic partners is the right decision and one that will mean a qualitative leap in our relations, due to the political, economic, strategic and demographic importance of those countries. It will see them playing in the premier division of EU relations, together with other global partners such as the United States, China and Russia.\nMadam President, the difference between Mexico and Brazil at the moment, as the Commissioner has just reminded us, is that Mexico has an association agreement linking it to the European Union, which is something that Brazil does not yet have.\nI disagree with the assessments that have been made of the results of this association agreement. The EU-Mexico Association Agreement has a history of success - as Mrs Mann, who chairs the Joint Parliamentary Committee, has acknowledged. That is because the European Union concludes these agreements in such a way that our partners, in this case Mexico or the Mexicans, represent not merely a market but a particular way of viewing things, based on principles, values, representative democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law.\nI believe we should realise, therefore, that the agreement has resulted in a boost to our relations, which must now be endorsed by the nature of this biregional strategic partnership.\nThe Commissioner said that the next encounter now will be the Rio Group meeting, which will take place during the Prague meeting under the Czech Presidency of the Union in May this year. Latin America and our partners need opportunities from us, rather than handouts, and such opportunities are represented today by association agreements.\nI am perfectly aware of the limitations that the Commissioner pointed out, because concluding an association agreement, in this case with Mercosur, requires political will on both sides. I realise that the WTO Doha Round and the path of the bilateral association run absolutely in parallel, and the examples of Mexico and Chile fully demonstrate that.\nTherefore, Commissioner, we for our part must make every effort to consolidate this strategic association between the European Union and Latin America, which these partnerships with Mexico and Brazil will stimulate and move forward a long way.\nMaria Eleni Koppa\nrapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, I wish to thank Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and all my fellow Members for their comments on the two reports which we are debating today. I agree with Mr Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra that Latin America is extremely interesting and important for the European Union and we must send out clear messages about cooperation via these reports, especially in these critical times. We need a substantial framework which can cover all issues and provide clear answers.\nI should just like to mention a few points in connection with what has been said. First of all, I want to emphasise that under no circumstances is the enhanced relationship intended to undermine Mercosur. On the contrary, we consider that the strategic partnership with Brazil, with the biggest and perhaps most important country in Latin America, could give new momentum to Mercosur. We also need to be perfectly clear about the financial framework within which relations with Brazil will be determined.\nI would add that Brazil has been increasingly active in cooperation with the Portuguese-speaking countries of the South and in Africa and could therefore cooperate actively in this sector with the European Union.\nWe must take care to maintain the balance between the development of biofuels and food security, especially in these critical times.\nMrs Weber raised the question of inequality. I think that the Lula Government has taken important steps in this direction. A lot still needs to be done, but I think the way has been paved.\nFinally, I should like to mention that we need to seriously examine the possibility of creating a joint EU-Brazil parliamentary committee, because it is the only BRIC country with which we have enhanced relations which have not been institutionalised.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today at 12 noon.\n\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Madam President, yesterday, at a school in Winnenden, in southern Germany, a teenage madman named Tim Kretschner shot 15 people, mostly children. One of the teachers was killed whilst trying to shield a pupil with her own body. I would like to ask the President to announce a minute's silence before the voting, in order to honour the victims of this tragedy.\nPresident\nI am sorry, you were probably not in the Chamber at the time, but this was remembered yesterday and a minute's silence was observed, announced by our President. I regret that you were not present and were unaware of the fact that it had already taken place.\nWritten Statement (Rule 142)\nFlaviu C\u0103lin Rus  \nI feel that the EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership is beneficial for both sides. In my view, the European Union is a pillar of democracy; indeed, Europe is the cradle of our civilisation. As a strategic partner, Brazil is a bastion of balance and stability in Latin America.\nStrengthening EU-Brazil ties may create a common framework which will facilitate the development of these two entities, thereby contributing to an increase in cooperation between the two regions. The EU-Brazil strategic agreement may be, not only in my view but in the rapporteur's view as well, an instrument which will help promote democracy and human rights. In addition, this partnership may contribute to the promotion of good governance at global level, as well as good cooperation within the framework of the UN.\nI support the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on an EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"2. Iran\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Iran.\nAna Gomes\nMr President, Iran is characterised by linguistic, religious, ethnic and political diversity. The Shia majority lives alongside Sunnis, Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews and Baha'i. The Persian majority shares the country with countless ethnic minorities that make up almost half of the population: Azeris, Arabs, Kurds, Baloch and others. The cities are teeming with a modern middle class and young people ready to live in 21st century Iran. All this commotion and complexity frightens the regime that would rather have a simple Iran: simple in terms of religious fanaticism, in isolation of the country and simple in terms of public opinion cowed by violent repression.\nThis resolution describes the systematic violation of human rights to which Iranians are subjected in their own country, including frequent application of the death penalty, even against children, the stoning of men and women, extensive limitations on freedom of expression and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. With this resolution, Parliament is sending out two separate messages. The first is for the people of Iran: Europe sees in Iranians and, particularly in its young people, the hope for a future in which their country will embrace democracy and freedom and will take on an important role in the region, as it deserves. The second is for the Iranian regime: we are telling it that Iran will never fulfil its unquestionable potential as long as violence and obscurantism are the main features of a political regime that merely pays lip service to the values of justice and peace and continues to brutally oppress its people.\nMarietje Schaake\nauthor. - Mr President, any government derives its legitimacy from providing for the well-being of its own citizens. Any regime that fails at this most basic responsibility loses its legitimacy in the international community.\nCurrent self-isolation is leading to destruction in Iran and has a toxic impact on neighbouring countries and on the rest of the world. We cannot stand by and watch minor offenders being hanged, people being raped and arbitrary violence wrought upon citizens by their own regime. We stand here to restate that there cannot and will not be impunity for those guilty of committing crimes against humanity, and we will continue to stand with the Iranian people as they exercise their right to free speech and peaceful protest for freedom and democracy.\nThe European Union has a responsibility in keeping these universal rights on the agenda, including when trade interests or the nuclear programme of Iran are at issue. Only when the Iranian regime earns its legitimacy from its citizens can it be a credible player in the international community.\nTunne Kelam\nauthor. - Mr President, this situation is rooted in a very special clerical dictatorship, which is notorious for its indiscriminate suppression of human rights and civil liberties. The situation has even worsened since the June elections. Arrests, torture and executions of minors and women have increased. In fact, Iran has the highest number of executions in the world after China.\nThe latest information, which is not reflected in the draft resolution, is that yesterday, Iran's regime hanged five prisoners in Tehran's Evin prison, including Soheila Ghadiri, a 28-year-old woman. She is the fourth woman to be hanged by the regime in the past month.\nSuch barbaric sentences have nothing to do with crimes allegedly committed by the prisoners but are rather an effort to intensify the atmosphere of terror in the country, especially among women and young people, who have displayed their resolve to establish democracy and oppose the elections.\nRui Tavares\nRegardless of how many people are here in this House, when we speak in Parliament, we are also speaking for the millions of people in Iran who have gone out on the streets and have risked their lives and safety to protest against elections that they believed to be fraudulent.\nThese millions of Iranians, inside and outside the country, expect something from us and, therefore, the starting point cannot be anything other than that of solidarity and of collaboration in aiding these millions of Iranians, who are fighting for democracy and for human rights and who, it should be pointed out, are running risks much greater than those normally feared by diplomacy.\nI would say, then, that the starting point cannot be anything else. It is true that Western policy has very often been a simplistic policy that is ignorant with regard to Iran. It is true that Europe has too often been reactive with policies that proved to be wrong with regard to Iran. It is true that very often we have not wanted to accept that Iran should have the respect from the international community that, as a major regional power, it certainly craves.\nAs put by an Iranian artist in exile after the protests, the West did not want the Islamic Republic and now we do not even have a republic. However, none of this can excuse a regime that has repressed freedom, an oppressive regime and, now, a regime based on the increasingly flimsy foundations of fraudulent elections and oppression of its people. The Iranian people expect solidarity and support from Parliament, and we seek to provide it with this text.\nFiorello Provera\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, we know about the political and social conditions in which the citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran live.\nWe are aware of religion's significant interference in political decisions and the sphere of fundamental human rights. The latest example was the killing of Behnood Shojaee, a young man recently executed even though he was a minor at the time of the crime. This is the latest episode in a chain of serious violations of human rights which have entailed the repression of political opponents, homosexuals, journalists, intellectuals and anyone who is fighting for the social and civil development of Iran.\nThe situation has deteriorated during the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who began his presidency by repeatedly denying the Holocaust and the State of Israel's right to exist. Since 2005, the number of executions in Iran has quadrupled, and Iran is the only country in the world which executes minors guilty of crimes. The systematic use of torture in prisons and the use of medieval punishments, such as amputation and stoning, is well known, but the regime is in difficulty as shown by the tens of thousands of people who were brave enough to protest in the streets following the last elections.\nThe young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, killed in the street as she was standing up for her rights as a woman and as a citizen, has become the symbol not only of the repression, but also of the desire for freedom of a people that Europe must help. How can we help? One way is with the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. Another tangible proposal is to name streets or squares in our cities after Neda Agha-Soltan. This would not only commemorate her sacrifice, but would show our solidarity with Iranian opposition and provide greater information and awareness of such a serious situation among European citizens. I would like to see a picture of Neda Agha-Soltan next to the picture of Aung San Suu Kyi displayed on one side of the European Parliament building in Brussels.\nOne final comment: how can President Ahmadinejad have any credibility in the negotiations on the nuclear issue when he is persecuting and going against his own people who are calling for greater democracy, greater freedom and greater respect for human rights?\nStruan Stevenson\nauthor. - Mr President, while we sit in this Chamber having grand debates, the hangmen in Iran are working overtime. As we heard from Tunne Kelam, yesterday they hanged another five people, including a young woman, the parents of whose victim had pardoned her. So she had actually been excused the death penalty but was subsequently hanged.\nBut we follow a policy of appeasement in the EU. Only this week, we have agreed that we will encourage the Russians to enrich the nuclear fuel rods, on behalf of Ahmadinejad, in return for his guarantee that he will stop his own nuclear enrichment programme. But he has not given that guarantee, nor has he given open access for inspectors to look at his nuclear facilities. We are only bolstering the Mullahs when we continue this policy of appeasement. We need to take tough sanctions. Toughness is the only language these Mullahs understand.\nBarbara Lochbihler\nMr President, at the beginning of this part-session, President Buzek pointed out that the abolition of the death penalty is a basic concern of the European Parliament. It applies to all regions of the world that this inhumane and barbaric penalty must be abolished.\nHe referred to the executions taking place in Iran. Four death sentences in particular are mentioned in the motion for a resolution before us. The persons in question have been sentenced to death because they allegedly took part in the protests against the elections, but they were all in custody at the alleged time of the offence. So this could still go to appeal and we need to keep an eye on these cases.\nThe fact that minors were still being executed in Iran at the time of the offence has also been addressed. Iran is the only country which was still executing minors at the time of the offence. Iran has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is therefore obliged to pass a national law prohibiting the execution of minors. A bill has been tabled before the Iranian Parliament and we must call on our colleagues there to do everything they can so that the passage of this bill stops being blocked. I consider this a very important task.\nTo close, I should like to express my high respect for all men and women in Iran who are risking so much, who are taking to the streets, who are engaging in various activities to demand respect for the rights to which they are entitled under the Iranian Constitution. Their determination, their commitment and their courage deserve our unreserved solidarity.\nMartin Kastler\nMr President, on 2 October this year, the Iranian police stopped a man from boarding an aircraft at the last minute. The lawyer, Abdolfattah Soltani, was due to receive the International Human Rights Award for 2009 in my home town of Nuremburg for his courageous work on behalf of victims of political persecution. Despite having a valid passport, the Iranian powers refused to allow Mr Soltani to leave the country for no legal reason. His wife was allowed to leave. She rightly stated, and I quote: 'It pains me that in a country that calls itself a theocracy, acts are committed that have nothing to do with God'.\nIran is bound under international law by its ratification of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates the human right that everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. I find it scandalous that Iran is trampling this right underfoot. I am therefore lobbying for the Soltani case to be included in our joint resolution today, in our resolution on Iran, and I ask for your support.\nRyszard Czarnecki\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to use this time to express our concern over the situation in Iran and especially of Iranian opposition members in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, which has been the symbol of resistance for people in Iran.\nThe Iraqi Government should stop following the orders of the Mullahs in Tehran. Iraq should understand that the Iranian regime has no future and is holding on to power for repression and executions. So, if Iraq is a sovereign country, they should respect and implement the European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on Ashraf, which calls on Iraq to stop any forcible displacement of Ashraf residents within Iraq. The Mullahs in Tehran want Ashraf to be destroyed, and we in Europe must support these defenceless Iranian refugees. It is our moral duty.\nWe should ask the EU Presidency and the Commission to ask the UN to become more involved by sending a permanent team - and even a peacekeeping force - there to prevent more attacks and prevent these people being moved by force to other parts of Iraq.\nBastiaan Belder\nMr President, there is no doubt that the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran has deteriorated sharply in recent months. An apt illustration of this is the current developments in the repressive apparatus provided by President Ahmadinejad to nip in the bud even the appearance of any kind of opposition to his administration, which is of dubious legitimacy. The notorious thugs known as the Basij have now been incorporated into the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, another sinister organisation.\nWhat can the European Union still accomplish here? The answer is two things in particular. Together with the United States, we, the Western world, must focus on individual cases of serious human rights abuses in Iran (I also refer you to our resolution). In direct conjunction with this, we must make it clear to Tehran that these abuses are not to be tolerated and will have serious consequences.\nWhen national interests - particularly of an economic nature - come into play, the Iranian pragmatists will appear of their own accord. In doing so, they can even make reference to the late Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran. When it came down to it, he, too, opted resolutely to put the national interest before religious requirements. Commission, Council, I urge you to seek out the ayatollahs' weaknesses, primarily in the interests of a more tolerable fabric of life for the Iranian people and in the interests of the security of the Jewish State of Israel, not forgetting the Arab world, and also the European Union.\nKrisztina Morvai\n(HU) A few days ago, President Barroso was here and I asked him what could be done to resolve the human rights crisis that had been going on in a European Union Member State, Hungary, since autumn 2006. I mentioned on several occasions that many hundreds of people were subjected to such heavy-handed police brutality that they suffered serious injuries, while several hundred people were put arbitrarily under arrest and several hundred people went through lengthy criminal proceedings where they were proved innocent. The President replied to this that these were internal matters and the European Union cannot interfere in internal matters. I would like to ask about the double standard that is being applied and about what legal basis the European Union has for interfering in a country outside the European Union when it is reluctant to protect human rights in a European Union Member State. I would also like to take the opportunity to ask our Iranian friends, those belonging to the opposition and even those belonging to the government party, to help Hungarians protect their human rights.\nEija-Riitta Korhola\n(FI) Mr President, Iran would have an important role in the Middle East peace negotiations but, to our regret, the country seems to be slipping ever further away from the democratic rule of law. Firstly, there is reason to cast serious doubts on the election results last June that allowed President Ahmadinejad to remain in office. Since the elections, the general human rights situation has become even worse. Furthermore, since Ahmadinejad's rise to power in 2005, the number of executions that have taken place has quadrupled, and Iran executes the most people in the world after China. Secondly, freedom of religion and opinion are in a sorry state. For example, the seven Baha'i leaders are still imprisoned only on the basis of their religious convictions.\nIn our resolution, we are appealing to the Iranian authorities, and I hope that at the same time, we can, in this way, show our support and respect for the courage that many Iranians demonstrate in their fight for fundamental freedoms and democratic principles. We have a special respect for those brave Iranian women who had a decisive role to play in the demonstrations following the elections in Tehran.\nPeter van Dalen\n(NL) Mr President, Iran is ruled by a strict regime based on a radical interpretation of Islam and of the Koran. In Iran, those who want no part in this fall into disfavour. Iran is a frightening country, particularly for the Christians there. There is literally no life for Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Iran. Last year, the Iranian Parliament adopted a law making the abandonment of the Islamic faith a capital offence.\nNor is there any life in Iran for demonstrators. Three people arrested during the demonstrations against the outcome of the presidential election have now been sentenced to death. It is utterly wrong and incomprehensible for a court to pronounce such a sentence. An appeal against this sentence may still be possible, but it is clear to everyone that even demonstrators must fear for their lives in Iran.\nI call on the Council and the Commission to give these demonstrators strong support in further proceedings and, in particular, to vigorously oppose the brutal Iranian regime.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) The human rights situation in Iran is clearly deteriorating. The presidential elections of dubious legitimacy that took place this year and the mass protests by people following the elections mirrored the increasingly tense and fearful political and social situation in Iran.\nI would like to point out that this year in the Reporters without Borders report evaluating press freedom, Iran ended up at the bottom of the list, that is 172nd out of 175, and was only above Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan.\nThe situation for journalists in Iran is one of the worst in the world; free information on the internet is blocked and people writing blogs are persecuted. We know only too well the story about the renowned blogger, Fariba Pajooh, who was arrested very recently and whose future remains uncertain.\nI appeal to the European Commission. Commissioner, we must establish a Commission delegation in Tehran as soon as possible in order to begin a dialogue with Iran's government institutions on the worsening human rights situation in this country.\nJim Higgins\nMr President, I fully agree with the comments of Mr Czarnecki. The attack last July on the Iraqi PMOI camp at Ashraf in Iraq can only be described as savage and barbaric. Eleven people killed, and a lot more could have been killed; numerous people brutally injured - you have to see the video to realise the barbarity which actually occurred. The army and the military indulged themselves in the most sadistic form of brutality. As a result, 36 people were arrested; they had no option but to go on hunger strike. They were released two weeks ago because of international pressure - and international pressure after 72 days on hunger strike: that is what brought people to heel in relation to the Malaki government. So these people are refugees; they are entitled to go to bed at night and get up in the morning, safe. We need, as Mr Czarnecki said, two things: first of all, we need a permanent UN presence there to replace the United States and, secondly, an absolute guarantee of no displacement.\nV\u00e9ronique De Keyser\nMr President, I wish to make three small points to add to what my fellow Members have said.\nFirstly - and here I refer to what Mrs Gomes said - in spite of everything that is going on, in spite of the tragedies that are occurring in Iran and the regime, we still have every faith in the political future of that country and in the strength of its civil society.\nMy second point is that it has not been emphasised enough that we condemn the latest suicide attacks, which took place in Sistan and Baluchistan, even though the victims were Revolutionary Guards, as well as, sadly, dozens of civilians. We are against this type of violence, even though we fully understand the reasons why it takes place but, at this point in time, we must side with the opponents of the regime.\nLastly, our Parliament, I believe, condemns the death penalty, no matter who it affects - children, women, adults - or which country in the world carries it out.\nCristian Dan Preda\nI, too, wish to deplore the deterioration in the situation in Iran with regard to human rights, in the wake of the elections in June. This deterioration is certainly being signalled by the huge wave of arrests and the violence being shown to the regime's opponents.\nIn addition, as has already been mentioned, freedom of information is being put under serious threat, with the risk of persecution being targeted against journalists. One major sign of concern is the fact that both torture and the death penalty are being used wholesale in Iran. In fact, Amnesty International recently highlighted the fact that, following the elections, the number of people convicted and then executed has multiplied significantly.\nFinally, I wish to show my support for the notion of establishing a European Union delegation in Tehran. Such a delegation can work together with civil society on the ground, thereby supporting the rights of the activists campaigning for freedom.\nAngelika Werthmann\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have a proposal to make to you: human rights, democracy and the rule of law are issues that are too important and too urgent to deal with on a Thursday afternoon. Unfortunately, there are only a few of us here.\nA month ago, we debated the murder of journalists. Today, it is the horrendous human rights situation in Guinea, Iran and Sri Lanka. I know that many of you share my opinion. Let us find another - a better - date for this important debate.\nPresident\nMadam, you are supposed to talk on the subject under the catch-the-eye procedure. You are using other Members' speaking time.\nThe catch-the-eye procedure is closed.\nLeonard Orban\nMember of the Commission. - (RO) Let me begin by conveying our condolences to the families of the victims of the terrorist attack carried out in the Sistan-Baluchistan province in Iran. The Commission condemns terrorist attacks carried out anywhere in the world, along with the loss of life entailed.\nThe European Commission is deeply concerned about the current state of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Iran. When talking about this subject, we can mention examples such as the executions of minors, discrimination against people belonging to different minorities, significant restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, ill treatment of prisoners, denial of the right to a fair trial, as well as large-scale oppression and intimidation of human rights supporters and political opponents.\nThe European Union has maintained direct contact with Iran and has openly made its point of view known to the Iranian authorities regarding developments in the country.\nThe European Union supports the fundamental freedoms and the universal values they are based on, and feels duty bound to express its view any time and anywhere these principles are flouted. Unfortunately, in spite of the numerous appeals and statements of condemnation from the European Union and the international community, the human rights situation has deteriorated even more since the presidential elections that took place in Iran in June 2009.\nLarge numbers of people have been executed by hanging in Iran just in the last few weeks. One of these people, whom you have already mentioned, Behnoud Shojaee, who was a minor at the time he committed his crime, was executed in spite of repeated appeals from the EU to have his sentence commuted. More minors are likely to be executed shortly in Iran. We are also concerned about the situation of seven Baha'i leaders in Iran, who have been under arrest for over 17 months and must answer serious accusations, such as espionage and anti-state propaganda. The latest scheduled hearing was postponed again on 18 October, leaving these seven people since then without any clear prospect of proper judicial proceedings.\nHundreds of people were held after the presidential elections because they took part in the post-election demonstrations and made critical comments. The trials against those involved in these activities are continuing. Indeed, last week, four people were condemned to death because they were involved in post-election incidents.\nI finally wish to emphasise that we share the concerns expressed by honourable Members about the state of human rights in Iran. The Commission is monitoring closely how the situation evolves and will continue to use every opportunity to call on the Iranian authorities to observe their international human rights commitments, including compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Improving the human rights situation in Iran is a key element in the European Commission's approach to strengthening political dialogue and cooperation with Tehran in the future.\nIn answer to the question I was asked, we believe that at the moment, given the current conditions in Iran, it is not the right time to establish a European Commission Delegation in Tehran.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place after the debates.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik  \nLadies and gentlemen, I call upon the European Union not to stand by passively while human rights are being violated in Iran. The European Union has to take a much more resolute stance against the death sentences passed in the country and the executions, and especially those imposed on young and under-age criminals. Reacting to what is happening in Iran today is one of the greatest tests of the effectiveness of our western world.\nFor this reason, the European Commission must set up a delegation of the European Union in Tehran as soon as possible to support and reinforce dialogue with Iranian leaders and civil society, especially to give support to young people, political prisoners and journalists. The European Commission must become much more involved in the sending of a special envoy by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the situation as regards political prisoners and to ensure that the Iranian authorities observe international procedural standards and legal obligations with regard to human rights.\nThe European Union will always be a standard-bearer for civil freedoms and our common European democratic values, even beyond our borders. For that reason, we should make all efforts, through intensive dialogue with the political elites, so that Iran in the 21st century observes fundamental human rights and respects the right to life.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-10":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Coordination of social security systems - Coordination of social security systems - Extending Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 to third country nationals otherwise excluded (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on\nthe report by Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 on the coordination of social security systems - C6-0037\/2006 -;\nthe report by Emine Bozkurt, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and determining the content of Annex XI - C6-0029\/2006 -; and\nthe report by Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation extending the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 and Regulation (EC) No [...] to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these provisions solely on the ground of their nationality - C6-0289\/2007 -.\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, all four legislative resolutions under discussion concern issues that have a direct impact on the everyday lives of European citizens. The right of people moving within Europe to be protected by social security systems is inseparable from the right of free movement in the Union.\nThe Commission's proposals have one common goal, and that is to modernise and simplify the coordination of national social security systems.\nThe aim is to define mechanisms of cooperation between institutions and processes that would simplify and speed up calculating and paying social benefits to their recipients. These are family benefits, pensions, unemployment benefits and so on, in other words a range of social benefits very important to the lives of people in the Union.\nI should like to thank the Members and the rapporteurs for all the work they have done on these important texts in recent months.\nThe implementing regulation sets out how Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004, which we call the basic Regulation, should operate. It extends to all persons who make use of the coordination of national social security systems: citizens, Member States' social security institutions, health care providers and employers.\nIts goal is to establish procedures, as clearly as possible, on the basis of which those insured persons who are in a cross-border situation will receive social benefits. Who do I turn to in order to be granted family benefits? What steps must my employer take if he wants to post me, temporarily, to another Member State? My working career is coming to an end and as I have worked in several Member States, how do I find out how my pension will be calculated and what must I do in order to receive it?\nThe procedures set out in said regulation are meant to help recipients get appropriate answers, by means of cooperation between the social security institutions.\nIn the process of trying to make this cooperation effective and meet the needs of citizens as quickly as possible, we realised the importance of electronically processing and exchanging data between the institutions of the various Member States.\nThe EESSI network (Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information) will ensure that data exchange will be quick and secure and will shorten the period of time that social security institutions take to reply and to process a cross-border situation.\nIf the implementing regulation is adopted soon, citizens will be able to make use of the progress achieved, by means of coordination, in the areas of simplification and modernisation, and also to make use of the new rights that could not be implemented to date although they are included in the basic Regulation. The benefits of the new concept of coordination for European citizens will only really become apparent when the implementing regulation is adopted and when the regulation amending the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 is adopted.\nTwo further draft resolutions pertain to Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 and its annexes. They aim to amend the basic Regulation so that it takes into account legislative changes in the Member States, in particular those that joined the Union after 29 April 2004 when the basic Regulation was adopted.\nThese resolutions also amend the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 that were left empty when the basic Regulation was adopted.\nIn spite of the technical nature of these texts, their goal remains the same: to ensure the transparency of mechanisms and procedures applied to persons moving within the European Union. For example, Annex XI contains a special provision that takes into account the specifics of national legislation. The annexes are therefore vital for ensuring transparency and legal certainty in regard to national regulations that are also fairly extensive.\nCoordination of national social security systems, to which you are contributing in your role as co-legislative authority, will ensure that two fundamental principles (equal treatment and non-discrimination) are fully applied on behalf of those European citizens taking advantage of free movement.\nThe implementing regulation also envisages extending the provisions of Regulation No 883\/2004 to third-country nationals who are not already covered by these provisions on the grounds of their nationality. The aim of this regulation is to ensure that third-country nationals who are legally resident in the European Union and who are in a cross-border situation can take advantage of the modernised and simplified coordination of social security systems.\nIn fact, it is essential that a single and uniform coordination rule is applied in administrative matters and in order to achieve simplification.\nReaching consensus in regard to these regulations will mean significant progress for all those who use the regulations and will ensure a better service for persons moving within the Union.\nThis will show that the regulations on the coordination of social security systems are ready for the new challenges of the 21st century in relation to mobility. I should like to add that this work is the result of exemplary cooperation between the Member States and that the will to find solutions for citizens has helped overcome the differences between individual systems and the complexity of this area.\nLadies and gentlemen, let me say that the Commission explicitly supports Amendments 2 and 161 that make it possible to use the electronic data processing system, which is especially important in regard to the operations of the electronic data registry and to electronic processing of cross-border cases. The Commission also notably supports Amendment 90, dealing with the granting of sickness benefits and long-term care benefits. These two amendments significantly empower citizens within the whole system.\nJean Lambert\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I want to bring together my two reports in the luxurious amount of time I have for my introduction in this House.\nFirstly, I would like to start by thanking colleagues, the Council and the Commission for the good cooperation so far on what appears a very complex dossier - but it always is when you try to set down in writing what you do in practice, in a way that you think will at least be clear for practitioners and those needing to understand the system.\nAs the Commissioner has said, the basic Regulation ((EC) No 883\/2004) concerns the coordination, but not the harmonisation - and I want to make that clear - of social security systems between Member States for people who are living or working in another Member State or even simply travelling there. It cannot come into force until this implementing regulation has been agreed between Parliament and the Council in a codecision procedure requiring unanimity in the Council - not the least of the complexities.\nThe implementing regulation sets out the administrative architecture for how this should work. It sets out the rules on how each Member State, each competent authority, will deal with the various dimensions of social security in respect to cross-border issues. Central to the new basic regulation and the implementing regulation is this exchange of electronic data, with a view to providing greater speed and also greater accuracy of communication.\nHopefully, amongst other things, this will see an end to the situation - or at least a reduction in the time required - where thousands of pieces of paper land on an official's desk: prescriptions filled out in the always of course totally legible handwriting of numerous doctors, and other claims relating to cross-border healthcare. By trying to simplify and clarify that, hopefully we can also reduce the amount of fraud currently in the system. For example, people exploit the current resulting inertia by manipulating the reimbursement system for cross-border care. Equally, it could also ensure that more providers and individuals make claims as they feel there is a hope of being paid, rather than it being passed to their inheritors.\nArticles 78 and 79 of the basic regulation set out the role for the Commission in terms of supporting the development of the exchange of electronic data, including potential financing, so I am a bit surprised and disappointed at the move to delete Amendments 2 and 161, which relate to implementing this essential development. When we were discussing the issue of data exchange, the committee felt that Parliament should make very explicit the safeguards and the need for proportionate collection of data. Thus we have reinforced the requirements concerning data protection in our proposals.\nThe basic regulation also deals with aspects of access to benefits in kind for healthcare for people staying in another Member State - for example on holiday - or for whom scheduled treatment becomes necessary on medical grounds, not simply from choice. The recent publication of the directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare has links to this basic regulation. Parliament will have to ensure that there is no conflict between the two pieces of legislation.\nThe committee has also anticipated the proposed extension of the Equalities Directives and has proposed two measures particularly relating to people with disabilities - one a cross-cutting measure to ensure that Member States take the needs of people with particular disabilities into account when they are communicating with them and, secondly, in terms of providing for payment for the expenses of someone to accompany a disabled person who needs urgent medical treatment abroad. We are aware that this is an issue requiring further discussion with the Council.\nThe implementing regulation also concerns a number of deadlines. I know that there are varying opinions on that, which will be reflected in certain of the amendments that we discuss today. The committee also chose to support a revised schedule concerning the assessment and payment of long-term care cash benefits and the additional clarity relating to frontier workers who become unemployed. I would hope that the House will be able to support those amendments from the committee.\nIn terms of the other report concerning the rights of third-country nationals when they travel within the European Union, there is already a regulation in existence which links those who are legally resident and in a cross-border situation with the coordination of social security systems. This now needs to be updated: because we are updating the overarching regulation, we also need to update the linking one.\nThe new proposal is substantially the same as the existing one. Again it clarifies the scope and maintains the rights people already have. It introduces no new rights and it will become even more important as the European Union develops its common immigration policy. The so-called blue card proposal will also benefit from this update of the regulation. Again I hope that the House can support the committee amendments on this. We want a clear statement of principle and that is why I am recommending - as indeed the committee did - that we do not support the amendments concerning the addition of annexes.\n(Applause)\nEmine Bozkurt\nrapporteur. - (NL) Ladies and gentlemen, we are voting today on a proposal to coordinate European social security more clearly and more flexibly and we are thus voting in favour of clarifying the annex.\nThe European Parliament, Council and Commission have worked to simplify the proposal so that Europeans can have a better understanding of the complex rules applied in the coordination of social security.\nI must start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs with whom it has been my pleasure to work on this document in recent months and years. Jean Lambert, of course, who was shadow rapporteur for my report on behalf of the Greens, as I was shadow rapporteur for her report, Ria Oomen-Ruijten of the EPP-ED Group, Bilyana Raeva of the ALDE Group, Dimitrios Papadimoulis of the GUE\/NGL Group and Ewa Tomaszewska of the UEN Group, along with all those other members who made a valuable contribution to the debate.\nI should also emphasise that talks with the Commission and Council went extremely well. I am especially grateful here to H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Michard and Rob Cornelissen of the European Commission. Cooperation with the Council has involved a succession of presidencies. Given that it has taken several years to reach the point of voting on the coordination of social security we have had the pleasure of working with Finland, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and France.\nLadies and gentlemen, it has indeed been a lengthy process, but one with a successful outcome. We now have a good compromise, which all the Member States and all the European institutions, including the European Parliament, can take forward. Our guiding principle in evaluating the amendments was always the conviction that changes to the current system of coordination should in no event lead to a reduction of citizens' rights.\nOne very important illustration of this is the scrapping of Annex III, since Annex III allows Member States the freedom to curb their citizens' rights. This report reflects our efforts on behalf of a Europe which gives more rights to its citizens in as many areas as possible. The good thing about European cooperation is that it enables European countries to look after their people collectively. Social justice is a major part of that and it does not stop at borders. Citizens must be able to count on their social rights being protected, even outside the borders of their own country.\nThe single market enables people to move around freely within the European Union. And we are keen to encourage that. People can then be confident that their social security rights travel with them, that their pensions are in order, regardless of where they are living or working, and that proper care is guaranteed, everywhere in Europe and not just for themselves but for their families too. That is European cooperation as it ought to be.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\nLadies and gentlemen, as draftsman of the opinion on this report, I regret that the committee responsible has not adopted my key proposals. Once again it has squandered the chance to ensure clear rules for social security provisions applying to all family members moving across all Member States, in regard to reimbursement in respect of non-urgent health care, in accordance with judgments of the European Court of Justice. Consequently we still have to clarify that the amount of reimbursement for planned care abroad should correspond, at a minimum, to the cost of similar care in the country in which the patient is insured. The citizen planning to take advantage of hospital care must apply for permission in advance but has the right to appeal if his application is refused. Advance notification of outpatient treatment is not mandatory. Citizens will now have to wait for the new directive on cross-border health care to be adopted, although reimbursement of costs is part of this regulation. In addition, the directive will not make a significant contribution in the area of subsidiarity in health care but adopting the policy may be delayed, perhaps for years. I regret that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs underestimated this angle. Apart from that, the report is very good and I will support it.\nGabriele Stauner\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, I should like to say something about the Lambert report on the implementation of the regulation, which relates to the details of coordination of social security systems.\nAs the rapporteur has said, the purpose of the regulation is coordination, not harmonisation, for which we in the EU do not in any case have any legal basis. However, some of the amendments adopted in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs go beyond coordination and form the basis for new competencies and services. In our opinion, for instance, it is not necessary for the Commission to be given the power to establish its own neutral central database and manage it independently, in order to ensure prompt payments to citizens. That is the task of the Member States, which have already been performing it up to now and which, furthermore, now have to designate a liaison body for it. For citizens seeking advice too, it is also more convenient and closer to go to the authorities of the Member States and not to a remote and anonymous Commission database. I should therefore like to take issue with the Commissioner specifically on that point.\nNor do we consider it appropriate for every disabled insured person to be entitled to the costs of travel and stay for an accompanying person. The payment of travel expenses for an accompanying person should be linked to the severe disability concept, which is in any case largely defined perfectly by law in the Member States.\nWe also believe that unemployed persons who have failed to fulfil obligations in their country of employment, in particular have not taken all the required steps to find a job there, should not be able to claim benefits in their country of residence as if they had always complied with the law. That is not right.\nThe other three amendments by my Group concern periods, for all of which we consider six months sufficient. They should not vary between 12 and 18 months.\nJan Cremers\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) On behalf of the PSE Group, a word of thanks to the rapporteurs, the Commission's officials and the Slovenian Presidency.\nThis subject has a long history. After all, the earlier Regulation (EEC) No 1408\/71 is one of the first items of legislation on the free movement of workers in Europe. The proposed simplification is designed to ensure a faster service for the European citizen when he claims entitlements and at the same time better verification of the legitimacy of such claims. Cooperation between payment agencies and improved data exchange are very important factors here. The implementing rules must also ensure that frontier workers and other entitled persons do not have any break in their entitlement.\nFrom the second reading our Group sees three remaining points which may need further consideration. Firstly, there are still two different rules in deciding whether someone is an employee or a self-employed person with no staff. In the social security context the definition used is the one applicable in the country of origin, whilst in the employment context the definition applied to seconded workers is that applicable in the country of employment. Until such time as we arrive at a clear European definition of self-employment, this subject is guaranteed to keep coming up for discussion in Parliament.\nA second point is that of information to entitled persons. In the Commission text, since amended, details of when entitled persons should receive information from the competent authorities, and on what topics, were scattered too widely over a number of different articles. A clear summary of the right to information, given at a central point in this legislation, would make the position substantially clearer for entitled persons.\nA third point of concern is the scrutiny of compliance. We know from the earlier Regulation that registration in the Member States and cooperation and coordination between the competent authorities sometimes worked very poorly. It would be a very good idea for Parliament to be kept informed of how the relevant rules are being implemented in future.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien\u0117\nMay I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lambert, and thank him for his cooperation in the preparation of this document.\nThe regulation determines the order and solves practical everyday human problems. It does not aim to unify social security systems. It is a method of implementation, allowing for the existence of different social security systems in the Member States. However, it prevents people from missing out on what they are entitled to.\nA year ago, President Sarkozy delivered a speech in this House, in which he said that the French believed that the EU was not taking care of them and did not provide any social security. The people of Ireland are probably not aware of what they can expect from the EU either.\nToday France and indeed all of us have a chance to show the people that their everyday problems are being solved at EU level.\nRegretfully, to my knowledge, not everyone in the Council is prepared to accept the set time periods proposed by the Commission for the Member States to reconcile their differences. The rapporteur suggests that we should not rush.\nMy group is in favour of the proposals and amendments that oblige the Member States to resolve the issues of payment and compatibility in a six-month period instead of protracting it for a year and a half. People should not miss out because of the institutions' inactivity and delayed decision-making.\nThis regulation could be the best example of the EU's efforts to gain the trust of its citizens.\nTherefore, I call on my fellow Members to vote in favour of these amendments. They concern practical and comprehensible help for every citizen of the EU. We have been elected to represent the people, not governments or institutions.\nEwa Tomaszewska\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, each European Union country has its own social security system that differs from those of other countries, depending on many years of tradition as well as on the country's financial capabilities. These systems are not subject to harmonisation. The right of free movement to take up employment in other countries has created a need to coordinate social security systems. Current regulations in this regard need to be simplified.\nThe introduction of electronic data transfer into the Polish pensions system has greatly reduced the number of errors in the transfer of insurance data between institutions.\nThere is a need to protect citizens against a reduction in their insurance rights. Workers should have the opportunity to know which system will be used to calculate their entitlements. They have the right to know how their contributions will be calculated and what will be the resulting entitlements. For this reason it is important that the regulations and procedures concerning the coordination of systems, which by their nature are quite complicated, should be simplified to the extent that this is possible, and also that they should not act retrospectively to the detriment of the insured.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis\nMadam President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Lambert and Mrs Bozkurt, for their detailed and painstaking work, as well as for their outstanding cooperation with all the shadow rapporteurs and for their efforts to make good use of our proposals and of our contribution.\nThese are exceptionally difficult reports containing a great deal of complex technical details, but they are also exceptionally useful for European citizens.\nCitizens have seized every opportunity, including the recent referendum in Ireland, to protest over the great social deficit seen in the policies of the Council and the Commission. They seek a European Union that safeguards their rights, and here we are now, debating Regulation 883\/2004, which, thanks to the Council and the Commission, not Parliament, has been on stand-by for years, waiting for the implementing regulations for the annexes to be adopted.\nThis results in red tape, lack of information, confusion, violation of the fundamental social security and social rights of employees, who are caught in the middle; an \u00e0 la carte Europe, the way the neo-liberals and the large corporations want it, with a single currency but no coordination or harmonisation of the social and social security rights of employees. In the midst of this legislative gap, the Commission submits its proposal for a 'Bolkestein directive through the back door' for health services.\nThese reports reveal another way. We do not need a Bolkestein directive on health services; we need an improved Regulation 883\/2004, through which, according to the reports, all the issues that come to light can be dealt with, by safeguarding the rights of employees and their families while also supporting the necessary mobility.\nTherefore, Commissioner, please stop the Bolkestein experiments on health services and promptly proceed, together with the Council, with the procedures for the processing of the remaining chapters and annexes of Regulation 883\/2004 so that it can enter into force as soon as possible.\nI urge you not to vote in favour of any amendments that weaken the content of the reports by Mrs Lambert and Mrs Bozkurt.\nDerek Roland Clark\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, in, Amendment 4 mentioned 'mobility for the unemployed'. Does that mean bussing unemployed around the EU looking for work - at taxpayers' expense? A Member State is liable for social security payments for someone who worked there but moved to another Member State and then became unemployed.\nAmendment 148 suggests that the taxpayer should pay for travel for a medical examination in another Member State with a reimbursement system between Member States, no doubt using a complex EU formula. Member States may make decisions on invalidity which are binding on another Member State, although complicated by the degree of invalidity, but they may have rules against overlapping of benefits.\nThe rules will concern all EU citizens moving within the EU for any reason whatever. This includes legally resident third-country nationals who have worked in more than one Member State as well as, soon, stateless persons and refugees. In several places these reports claim to simplify regulations and modernise existing legislation for social security authorities, employers and citizens, while being very inclusive. There will be, apparently, no implication for the Community budget. It says that financial and administrative burdens will be reduced by the rules for coordination - which can only be done at Community level - but that this is not harmonisation. How can one have reimbursement, EU-determined formulae, a rule covering all movement and rules for coordination, without it being harmonisation? All in all, these reports are a mass of conflicting statements. If they are adopted, they will need a great deal of administrative effort, costing money which the report says is not needed.\nFinally, the family here has an identity crisis. Birth and adoption allowances are, evidently, not family benefits. So when is a family not a family, and an adopted child is - well, what exactly?\nI too would like to avoid an identity crisis. A 'frontier worker' is a person working in one Member State but residing in another providing they return home once a week. Well, this is France and I am going home tomorrow. Am I a frontier worker, even though I live right in the middle of England?\nJim Allister\nMadam President, mobility of labour is supposed to be a key feature of the EU and of the Lisbon Strategy, yet as an MEP - like other MEPs - I regularly get complaints about lack of health-care cover, inadequate social cover and - perhaps most frustrating of all - conflicting advice from different state agencies.\nIt is not uncommon for an employee from one Member State to be working in another at the behest of a company which exists in a third Member State, and that is where the real issue for many seems to lie, causing issues about where and how they are covered. Within our midst we have this very problem affecting parliamentary assistants and, despite the struggle of the Parliamentary Assistants' Association, this problem persists. I have to say it is scandalous that we cannot even get our own house in order in this regard, yet here we are legislating for others.\nMy primary concern is for usefully employed individuals, not benefit tourists. I want to see any loopholes which help benefit tourists well and truly sealed in this legislation.\nRia Oomen-Ruijten\n(NL) My thanks to all the rapporteurs for the excellent job they have done, because this was no easy task. We need good rules on the free movement of workers in Europe, Madam President, rules to ensure that workers who make use of that freedom do not fall between two stools. That is now taken care of in the new coordination regulation. That regulation was necessary because the old one was not longer adequate and there was scope for simplifying the coordination procedures.\nI wonder if the outcome is satisfactory. Is everything really simplified now? I have my doubts. We are coordinating social security, but what we are not coordinating is the tax treatment of benefits, when benefits are increasingly being given as tax credits. I think we ought to reflect on that.\nAnother point is that coordination always takes place after the event. National legislators should take far greater account of the consequences of system changes for people who are mobile, that is to say people who work in one country and live in another.\nI would also draw attention to a change in the annex. That change is very good for Dutch pensioners who go on paying social security contributions in the Netherlands but live abroad and have not hitherto been eligible to claim benefits in the Netherlands even though they have been paying into the system there. So Dutch people living in Belgium or Germany, or even farther afield in France, la belle France, or in Spain, will now be entitled to treatment. My thanks for this must also go to the Minister for Health, who was in favour of this change.\nJan Andersson\n(SV) Madam President, Commissioner, I want to thank the rapporteurs. Jean Lambert has worked on these matters for as long as I can remember and has great experience. Emine Bozkurt came in a little later, but both have done a fantastically good job and, in particular, have worked exceedingly well with the shadow rapporteurs from the various parties.\nSome general points to begin with, since they bear repeating. This is not about harmonisation. We know that the social security systems in the EU differ. It is about citizens and the right of citizens to make use of the internal market in order to look for jobs and to stay in other places within the internal market. It is of the utmost importance that there is coordination of social security systems. It is important to have coordination of pension rights. It is important that the unemployed can make use of the internal market. It is important that patients can seek treatment in other countries. These things are crucial to the internal market. Without coordination, the internal market would not function satisfactorily.\nWe have had coordination before. It had its shortcomings. Now improvements are being introduced, on the one hand through the coverage of more people, not just the economically active, and on the other hand through the coverage of more areas, such as early retirement pensions, which we regard as a positive development.\nI would like to draw attention to some matters addressed by our rapporteurs. Jean Lambert referred to the exchange of electronic data and is favourably disposed to it, since it offers many improvements. However, it is also important to consider protection of the individual when information is exchanged in this way. We therefore follow the recommendations of the Data Protection Supervisor.\nAs far as third country nationals are concerned, it is important that consideration be given to that aspect, not least because the blue card is on its way. It is all the more urgent that we have equality of treatment. As regards Emine Bozkurt's report, I will merely say that the new regulation must not mean fewer rights but more. That is important. I thank the rapporteurs again and hope that we can get a final decision in the near future.\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur and the Committee who have done a great job on simplifying and updating these complex provisions. The topic which we are debating today is one which falls directly within our citizens' sphere of interest. What is important to citizens, who are after all the subject of these provisions? First, the fact that their rights are safeguarded and, in view of the free movement of labour we have today, that there is social protection provision for them everywhere. Secondly, the document should be comprehensible to them. Thirdly, the benefits mechanism should deliver in reasonable time.\nWhat are we achieving with these regulations? Our citizens' primary concern - the right to social insurance - is very well safeguarded. Their second concern, comprehensibility, is something we have not yet fully succeeded in. I am not reproaching anybody here: this topic is complex, very technical and is not a work of great literature. The third concern, the period of time by which citizens receive benefits, is dependent on the vote we are about to take today.\nSocial insurance benefits are not comparable to businessmen's profits or bank dividends. Applicants are people in difficulty for whom the benefit is generally the only source of income. I therefore call upon you to support the proposals for a six-month benefits payment period. In order to ensure the exercise and protection of citizens' rights the clearing period between the competent institutions of the Member States must be the same, namely six months, particularly in view of the fact that an electronic procedure would be used. An 18-month period for processing benefits is not appropriate in the 21st century.\nAndrzej Tomasz Zapa\u0142owski\n(PL) Madam President, creating a coordinated social security system is a very difficult task. For this reason we should offer our congratulations to the rapporteur. I would like, however, at this point, to draw attention to the issue of benefits paid to families of immigrants arriving from outside Europe. Of course support should be provided to those who are there legally, and humanitarian aid should be given to illegal immigrants, but the provision of unrestricted social benefits to families for which this becomes their permanent and sole source of income is a misunderstanding. Currently there are many families that are enjoying a wide range of benefits and have no intention of working, as they consider their standard of living to be quite satisfactory. This is very demoralising for the economy as well as for the traditions and culture of work in Europe. This is compounded by the fact that these families live in a way that does not integrate with the cultures and traditions of the country where they settle.\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\n(EL) Madam President, we consider Mrs Lambert's report to be positive from a technical viewpoint, as it makes progress in the area of social security coordination. It enables EU citizens to add up the periods for which they have lived or worked in another Member State, under the social security system at the time, in order to calculate their pension from the state or to establish other rights. It thus contributes to the easier and smoother movement of citizens within the Union.\nI must note, however, that we must not overlook the fact that, despite some objections raised in the report, there will be an electronic exchange of information and personal data, and we do not fully agree with this.\nWhat I wish to stress in speaking now is another need, which we currently tend to overlook in the European Union. The crucial issue is not taking measures to facilitate movement merely for the sake of taking them. That is not the priority for employees; what they seek and demand is respect for their fundamental rights. Emigration from one country to another because of unemployment or poor working conditions in one's country of origin is not a social need. The social need is to ensure certainty and security in employment and, thus, in the family lives of all citizens. Emigration for financial and social reasons should not be the objective; far from it.\nThe course the European Union is choosing today - placing greater importance on the free movement of capital than on self-evident employment rights, as can be seen in a number of cases heard by the Court of Justice of the European Communities - suggests that we cannot content ourselves with the right to transfer our pension rights to demonstrate, ostensibly, that the free movement of persons has been established.\nWe need to fight for full employment with comprehensive social security, in contrast with current practices, which, on the pretext of demographic decline, are leading towards the logic of uncertain employment and are undermining the importance of collective negotiations in various countries.\nEdit Bauer\n(SK) In the first place, I should like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Lambert and Mrs Bozkurt, for their excellent and challenging work.\nThe rapporteurs, we in this House and the Council as well as the Commission have all combined our efforts and, because of that, today we have in front of us, at last, the long-awaited new regulation that will make it possible to implement Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 which is due to replace the cumbersome Regulation (EEC) No 1408\/71. Together these documents simplify citizens' access to benefits and services, as many of my fellow Members as well as the Commissioner have pointed out. Access to these benefits and services, granted by individual Member States through their social security systems, has so far been difficult for eligible persons in other Member States. There can be no doubt that together these documents will help to simplify cross-border movement for work purposes, as a result of which the single labour market will be better used and will function better.\nAs the shadow rapporteur for the other report prepared by Mrs Lambert, I should like to highlight the broadened implementation of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, by extending the provisions of the Regulation to third-country nationals. I think that, as the debate shows, we cannot assume that this legislation will solve all our problems. It does not even solve all our existing problems, let alone the future ones.\nClearly, many steps will have to be taken and a lot of work will have to be done in order to achieve sustainability and adapt to the new challenges, including further coordination.\nGabriela Cre\u0163u\n(RO) We have spoken about the simply technical nature of this regulation many times. In fact, it was a wrong vision blocking a deeply political aspect. In the European Union, we have the single market, but there are 27 different social security systems. Millions of citizens work in other countries than their own and should benefit from the legal social rights due to them and their families. Institutions should manage this situation and suppliers should deduct their services.\nThe rules according to which problems are solved today are from before the Internet era, when the Union had six Member States inhabited by sedentary citizens. Today, they are 27, inhabited by citizens who tend to become migratory. The modernization, simplification and adjustment of these rules to the new reality were absolutely necessary. This is the purpose of Regulation 883\/ 2004, which is still inapplicable without procedures.\nWe are now in 2008 - four years of delays unfavourable both to the employees claiming their rights and to the efficiency of companies and institutions involved.\nA proverb says that \"the devil is in the details\". Today, we have to congratulate Rapporteurs Jean Lambert and Emine Bozkurt because, by solving the issue of details, we are expecting a fluidization of the information flow, under conditions of data security and more efficient coordination.\nThese days, the new social agenda proposes minor improvements against the background of major shortcomings. The enforcement of Regulation 883 is good news. It scarcely mitigates the feeling that, in recent years, the European social agenda has been under stagnation.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 applies not only to employees and their families, but also to all those covered by social security systems. It extends the coordination of those systems, and there are also other important changes including calculations for pensions, benefits and other entitlements. How effective this coordination will turn out to be will depend on the contents of the new implementing regulation and on the effectiveness of electronic data exchange as well as on good communications. It is also good that the regulation affects third countries, and that work is ongoing to improve it.\nWe should give recognition to the work and the proposals put forward by the rapporteur. One cannot require any more from her, since the Council and the Commission have not yet completed their work and have not yet presented the final contents of the Annexes. Work is continuing, and recipients of benefits are also continuing to wait, frustrated as they are by the failure to pay full benefits, by bureaucracy and by the long time one has to wait for refunds.\nMarie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou\n(EL) Madam President, these are regulations that confirm the general direction of European policy and relate to solving practical problems regarding social security for European citizens, as well as all those living and working in EU Member States.\nWhen they enter into force, once the implementing regulation, which is currently being reviewed within the codecision framework, has also been passed, they will strengthen the mobility of employees and make life easier for their families, during both employment and retirement.\nAccording to the rapporteurs, who I wish to congratulate, the principles for the simplification of the regulations will alter the current coordination system without leading to lesser rights for citizens, as would have been the case with harmonisation.\nThe need for effectiveness and quick solutions is met through the simplification of bureaucratic procedures and through the resolution of inter-state administrative issues. One of the main measures is for Member States to appoint cooperation authorities and special liaison organisations in order to cover the various aspects of social security in cross-border relations.\nOne of those is long-term care, an issue that is resolved in a very complex way under Parliament's proposal. We hope that an easier way will be found to solve the chronic problem of ageing Europe.\nThe payment systems, the settlement of disputes, the recovery of amounts paid and the difficulties that citizens face in accumulating rights from periods of employment in another Member State are currently great obstacles, and we hope to overcome these within a set period through the coordination that the new basic regulation, as well as the implementing regulation, sets out to reinstate.\nThe individual attributes of the national social security systems will be taken into account in the particular provisions for the implementation of national legislation in Annex XI. The regulation will also cover the rights of foreign employees.\nProinsias De Rossa\nMadam President, we never fail to get remarks from the Far Right when we are debating this issue - remarks such as 'benefit tourists'. We never hear them talking about 'tax tourists' or 'state aid tourists'. It is always the poor and the less well-off who are attacked in this way.\nI want to congratulate the two rapporteurs on these reports. Unfortunately, their positive work is unlikely to attract much attention in the Member State media, which is generally more interested in negative stories. These are complex resolutions seeking to coordinate Member States' social security systems, which are also in themselves complex because they seek to address a variety of individual circumstances. The regulations are essential to our citizens and residents, particularly those living in border areas who, not unusually, work in one Member State while living in another. It is important to ensure that people who do work and live in this way are covered for unforeseen unemployment, sickness and accidents and, indeed, eventual retirement. They need security if we are to ensure free movement in the European Union.\nHowever, I want to raise one particular issue which is not covered by these regulations and is not generally covered in the Member States either. That is the freedom of movement of people with disabilities, who often need personal assistance in order to move freely.\n(The President cut off the speaker.)\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi\n(RO) The rules regarding the coordination of social security systems are closely related to the principle of the free movement of persons and should improve the living standard and employment conditions of citizens living in another European Union Member State.\nThe present regulation in the version amended by the Rapporteurs simplifies all these procedures and expands the scope of application to all categories of citizens, both those working and those unemployed.\nThe European citizens should be able to benefit from pension rights with a total amount corresponding to the length of service. Once they settle into another European Union state, citizens should be able to find an administrative system able to collect all information regarding former employments, as well as the financial rights arising from the professional activity.\nThis is why I would have wanted the Commission's proposal to include solutions as exact as possible for the way in which Member States can efficiently transfer information regarding social rights. Moreover, I consider that the present regulation is fundamental for the European labour mobility.\nA Eurobarometer survey shows that more than 50% of the citizens feel discouraged by the social insecurity they expect following the change of the workplace to another Member State. Consequently, only 2% of the European citizens presently live in another Member State than their own.\nIf we want mobility to be a real driver of the European economy, we have to eliminate all administrative obstacles regarding the portability of social rights.\nJoel Hasse Ferreira\n(PT) Commissioner \u0160pidla, ladies and gentlemen, we need to coordinate social security at the European level, hence this opportunity to debate the issue. First, I would like to welcome the work done by the rapporteurs, Emine Bozkurt and Jean Lambert. Second, I would like to highlight the following points: the absolute need to guarantee compatibility between national systems, in the private and mutualist sectors as well as the public sector. Such compatibility will contribute to greater mobility and provide workers with the opportunity to move around the whole of Europe.\nMr President, in this context, it is important to make progress with aggregating deductions in different Member States, just as it is important to guarantee that the coordination of social security systems strengthens and never restricts citizens' rights. In addition, it is essential to simplify the rules so that citizens are able to understand the principles and language used by European Union institutions and feel that Europe is one entity.\nWe know it is not easy to manage social security systems, but it is essential that the citizens of Europe understand the criteria we are using. I would go further and say that this coordination will certainly help us increase our mutual understanding of the different social security systems. We need to move towards improved social security for all Europeans, towards a social security system that takes on board the best practices from the different systems, to improve coordination today and, who knows, harmonisation tomorrow.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) The internal market, embracing the four freedoms, is one of the fundamental achievements of the European Union. Adopting the directive on services and free movement of people brings advantages for European Union citizens.\nOn the other hand, citizens turn to us with problems they encounter when in need of health and social care. Individual Member States have their specific social security systems. I am convinced that coordination of the systems, transparency, elimination of bureaucracy and the electronic information exchange system will be beneficial to all EU citizens.\nI should like to thank all Members for today's very interesting debate, and the rapporteurs for their challenging work.\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nLadies and gentlemen, thank you for the detailed debate that, in my opinion, is testimony to the high quality of the relevant report. Right now we have reached a certain stage in regard to our work on the new regulation. Indeed at this point not all problems have been solved but, as the debate has also shown, we have achieved success in all aspects. The European system coordinates social security systems. This does not mean that it defines new rights. At this level we do not define new rights. What we do is improve the practical application of rights for citizens moving across the European Union. These are tens of millions of people, tens of millions of cases. Consequently, allow me once again to stress how important this debate is given that it is extremely practical and affects almost every single citizen of the European Union. Let me also stress that the technical proposals tabled also have some fundamental political purport because freedom of movement and access to rights belong, in my opinion, to the fundamental principles on which the European Union has been built.\nLadies and gentlemen, allow me to respond, just briefly, to a comment we heard regarding new directives on the movement of patients that will be tabled. I want to emphasise that the issue is not free movement of services, in other words any parallels with any previous directive are inaccurate. I am also of the opinion that the thorough debate in Parliament will prove that these proposals represent progress for European Union citizens.\nJean Lambert\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I would like to thank all those Members who have contributed to the debate.\nIt is clear that some people lead what appear to be complicated lives. In fact the situation may be very straightforward if the border is within maybe 10 km of their homes and they are looking for work or indeed other things.\nIt is certainly clear from some speeches we have heard in this House that the current system is not well understood either in some Member States' administrations or in this House itself. Coordination of social security systems already exists - this is not new. What this is doing is updating, implementing and simplifying. All of you who have a European health insurance card with you - which, of course, you all will have - will know that even under the existing system we can simplify.\nI recommend Amendment 30 to Article 11(1) to the individual who was not sure whether or not he was frontier worker.\nThis implementing regulation is also trying to set out clearly the rights that people have. That is the aim of Amendment 34, and of Amendment 125, which is a clarification and does not give new rights to somebody who is seeking work in two Member States.\nI would once again urge people to support the committee text concerning the database. If this is not up and running effectively - and it is something that Member States' administrations want as well - then it becomes very difficult to meet whatever deadlines this House decides to put in place today.\nI recommend the committee position for both the reports to the House and look forward to the vote in a few minutes.\nEmine Bozkurt\nrapporteur. - (NL) I haven't really anything more to add. My thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate: thank you for your support. I am now looking to see how the vote goes shortly.\nRobert Goebbels\n(FR) Madam President, on Monday evening we were gratified at the visit by the Minister, Mr Jouyet, and the importance that the French Presidency appeared to attach to the work of this Parliament.\nToday, when we are discussing social security, the Presidency bench has remained hopelessly empty. I hope that is not an indication that the French Presidency of the Union is not interested in a subject as important as social security.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nWe shall now proceed to the vote.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Follow-up to the report on competition in professional services (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Ehler, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on follow-up to the report on competition in professional services.\nJan Christian Ehler \nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, by presenting a report in September of last year on professional services under the heading 'Scope for more reform', the Commission has actually expanded on the report it had already drawn up back in 2004 on the topic of competition in professional services. Parliament expressed its views on this on the basis of the reports from 2001 and 2003. In March of this year, the Committee on Legal Affairs and this House again positioned themselves in relation to the special sector of legal professions.\nWhat links all public discussions, between economists, as well as between Parliament and the Commission, is a significant phenomenon: all participants have extremely forthright opinions but are weak when it comes to figures. The figures which form the basis of the mainly sector-specific or national investigations largely date from the early 90s. The most recent investigation dates from the start of 2001. What unites all of the investigations, however, is the fact that they are either limited to specific sectors or nationally or that they are founded precisely on an empirical basis which basically goes so far back that it is barely suitable for generalisation purposes.\nViewed rationally, the economic importance of the services cannot be overestimated. 8% of European GDP is made up of business services, of which at least one third can be attributed to professional services. In this respect, and I believe that Parliament also welcomes this in the context of the Lisbon agenda, it is entirely justified asking what contribution this sector may make to growth and employment in Europe. It seemed important to us to not just approve the Lisbon agenda using nice speeches but to also get involved in this specific instance in the question as to what contribution liberalisation can make to growth.\nThe Commission should be commended in bringing some sort of order to a discussion which hitherto, I should say, has run wild. Basically, the Commission has made the following economic consideration: First of all, it has looked at six professions: lawyers, notaries, engineers, architects, pharmacists and accountants. It has defined five restrictions on competition (fixed prices, recommended prices, rules of competition, advertising rules and the entire gamete of entry restrictions, business structures and merger practices). The Commission has put forward four large categories of consumer for comparison purposes - public authorities, large enterprises, small- and medium-sized enterprises and private consumers - and then acknowledged that certain special regulations apply here given the presence of asymmetries - in the sphere of market transparency, as far as externalities are concerned, or on the issue as to what extent a public good is furnished here.\nThis rationalisation is welcomed. It enables discussions to proceed and makes it logical for Parliament to position itself in relation to this discussion at this time. For our part, we have tried, on the one hand, to lend a degree of support, but also, on the other, to contribute to differentiation as regards this discussion. First of all, it needs to be emphasised that there is a large amount of agreement on the theme of subsidiarity. The difficult task of achieving coordination between Member States on this subject will fall to the European Community. We have requested, on the other hand, and I consider this to be extremely important, also as a result of the discussion on the Services Directive, that the objectives of liberalisation are clearly named and empirical evidence produced too. What level of growth is expected from which liberalisations? What is the desired impact on employment? This also really needs to be stated in terms of figures, otherwise there will not be sufficient acceptance in the Member States. We have emphasised that we see self-administration having equal status vis-\u00e0-vis state regulation. We have said we believe that we must differentiate between this system. By way of example, we must distinguish between public authorities because there is a difference between whether a small community invites tenders or whether a nation state invites tenders for professional services. We have stated that whilst we recognise the geographical and traditional conditions, we view them as special regulations which do not obviate the necessity of continual analysis in these sectors as to what opportunities for liberalisation and growth exist there. We have stated in no uncertain terms that we consider special regulations regarding mergers and advertising to be dubious. We have stated that we want to differentiate clearly between certain restrictions on competition according to categories of consumers and finally, we have stated that in the very area of voluntariness, the voluntary Code of Conduct for professional services is very welcome indeed.\nThe crux of the matter is that we want to go back to the Commission saying that we welcome these observations. It must also be stated categorically, however, that rationalisation, further differentiation in these areas, is required. Only then will the necessary acceptance be achieved in the nation states.\nNeelie Kroes\nMr President, I would like to thank Dr Ehler and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for this report. The Commission welcomes your support for the work that needs to be done in the sector. Your assessment of the importance of professional services to the EU economy is welcome and pertinent. Reform by Member States in this sector must be an integral part of delivering the Lisbon and Better Regulation agendas.\nThe Commission fully supports your call for us all to work together constructively. We agree, too, that is important to learn from the experience of Member States which have already taken steps to modernise. We think you are right to insist that Member States eliminate special advertising and business structure restrictions and ensure fair and equal access to the professions, including eliminating geographic and demographic rules on entry.\nYour call for more economic evidence is a fair one, but let us not forget that we are not proposing harmonisation of regulation in the professions. Member States remain free to determine regulatory solutions based on national needs and circumstances. So our experience is that the best way to add value is through historical and international comparisons. And that is why we have commissioned another piece of external comparative research to look at the EU property services market - selling and buying property. That study will evaluate the impact of professional regulation on consumer choice, price, quality and other important indicators and, where feasible, the effect on jobs and growth.\nNational authorities can also play an important role in evaluating the impact of reforms already undertaken. They, along with key stakeholders, such as professional bodies, are likewise well placed to evaluate the current state of regulation of the professions in their countries, explore what can be modernised and evaluate the impact of possible reforms on growth and jobs.\nDonata Gottardi\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the professions make up one of the areas of excellence in the provision of services. In the majority of European countries, although not in all of them, basic regulation dates back to the codification of civil law on contracts. Obviously this is primarily in civil law countries. Over time, the professions have become the jewel in the crown of civil society, but often also a conservative and closed field, risking the loss of their outstanding quality in order to keep their privileges. In this way, in some countries and in some sectors a closed caste has been created, often inaccessible on the basis of merit, but increasingly and all too often based solely on the hereditary line.\nThe European Parliament has been asked to reflect on the issue of services in the internal market, and will vote tomorrow on the report on competition in professional services. This year as never before, therefore, it is laying the foundations for finding a balance between, on the one hand, opening up to competition and therefore liberalising access, with particular attention to young people at the end of their training, and, on the other hand, safeguarding the quality of service, not least to protect European citizens. It is also laying the foundations for defining a reference legal framework, identifying critical points to be removed, principles to be respected and procedures to be followed for reference checks; a legal framework within which Member States will be free to make decisions, fully in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, which has also been mentioned earlier. The text is the result of constructive work by the various political groups. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his willingness in practice to discuss and accept the majority of the amendments, many of which were submitted by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.\nParliament is adopting a clear stand with regard to the services sector: it wants to gradually remove regulatory barriers and obstacles, not because it has an uncritical, sceptical attitude that cannot tolerate red tape and wants to dismantle the existing system, but rather so that it can encourage that positive competition and openness to transparency and innovation that is a fundamental part of sustainable economic growth and consumer protection. Regulation and self-regulation in the professional services sector must be in line with the Lisbon Strategy, in particular with the protection of the general interest, and must not result in discrimination, particularly discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, nationality or gender.\nThe proposals contained in the report are a move in that direction, and include: the promotion of codes of conduct, with a decisive role assigned to all stakeholders, not least through representative organisations; importance given to removing bans on advertising, which is seen as a genuine information service for consumers, in particular regarding the nature and cost of services; support for establishing inter-professional and multidisciplinary services to encourage innovation and competitiveness in an ever more complex world; and focus on creating conditions to ease the transition from university education to professional practice.\nI hope that there will be support for the amendment we are submitting to Parliament asking Member States to abolish the system of fixed or minimum fees and the ban on negotiating payment linked to the outcome achieved, where they act as obstacles to the quality of services and to competition. I believe that there is still a long way to go, and that the Member States must look within themselves to find the best possible combination of respect for tradition and innovative development of professional services, a key factor in developing the productive system and the social market economy that characterises Europe in a globalised world.\nAlfonso Andria\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the desirability of reforming the professions in Europe has been discussed since time immemorial. There are contrasting opinions on this. Some people, including the former Commissioner for competition, Mario Monti, have always come out in favour of what they describe as necessary liberalisation, within a general framework of reform geared towards revitalising the European economy. Others, however, maintain that the current system guarantees citizens a certain level of quality of service and should therefore be retained.\nI personally recognise the importance of professional services as drivers of European economic growth, and I agree with the rapporteur on the need to begin a process of reform of the sector, aimed at liberalising professional services. Excessive regulation, rigid fees, few professional organisations, and even fewer multidisciplinary organisations, as well as advertising restrictions, act as an obstacle to revitalising competitiveness in Europe and often do not allow a high level of quality of services to be ensured.\nAll of that must also be seen from the point of view of paying greater attention to protecting citizens. It is citizens that we as MEPs are called on to represent, and citizens that benefit from professional services. In many regions, the interest of users is often sacrificed to the rewards of position. Situations of oligopoly, where sometimes it would not be strictly true to speak of monopoly, result in higher prices for professional services and cause an added cost that is invariably passed on to consumers. Furthermore, I agree with the rapporteur that it is appropriate to dispense with special regulations in the field of advertising, in order to allow professionals to inform users of the services offered and the relevant prices. On the other hand, I do of course believe that a regulatory effort is needed to strengthen the bans on misleading advertising and to provide instruments for the practical protection of consumers\/users.\nIn conclusion, from the point of view of reconciling the need for greater competitiveness in professional services, through liberalisation, with consumer protection, I support the rapporteur's worthwhile proposal on the adoption of codes of conduct and self-regulation. I would therefore like to congratulate Mr Ehler once again on his excellent work.\nJohannes Blokland\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, it is not self-evident that competition in the liberal professions should be unlimited, and that is once again demonstrated by the Ehler report, and also by practical experience. In the Netherlands, for example, fixed prices for notarial services have been abolished, while many other rules have remained intact. Those rules are needed to guarantee quality. I was approached very recently, for example, with the question by a remedial educationalist who wanted to establish himself freely without going through the usual registration procedure with the Ministry of Public Health. The government was right to prescribe additional requirements in terms of training for registration and compensation, something that is, of course, vitally important for public health services.\nThe registration requirements for different professional groups still form an obstacle to establishing oneself in a liberal profession, and there are, to some extent, good reasons for this. The guarantee for professional services cannot be made if people can set up in a liberal profession without any restrictions. The rapporteur's amendment aimed at drawing this subtle distinction in the report is therefore necessary.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, it is certainly to be welcomed if partly antiquated professional codes of conduct are reviewed in terms of their necessity in the case of independent professions. In my opinion, however, it is not a question of deregulating all the sectors affected in the same way, irrespective of their different nature. It is known that independent professions provide high-quality services which are in the public interest. In my view, we should not undertake any experiments in this area. The fact that in Argentina and France, for instance, second thoughts are being given to the reintroduction of statutory tariffs for notaries shows that deregulation is not perfect. A sharp increase in the number of lawyers with a simultaneous relaxation in the Fees Ordinance has led to a situation in Germany, for instance, whereby highly qualified legal advice is only offered at staggeringly high hourly rates while at the lower end of the market, a great many lawyers work for rock bottom prices. It is paradoxical if the Commission intends, on the one hand, to limit occupational rights but, on the other, is calling for codes of conduct to be drawn up and the introduction of new quality controls following the abolition of regulatory measures.\nNeelie Kroes\nThank you, Mr President, for a stimulating debate. I would like to respond to a couple of the most important issues that have been raised.\nMr Ehler called for better economic analysis of the impact of changes on jobs and growth - and rightly so. On assessing the economic impact of reforms: as I mentioned, the fact there are no plans to harmonise professional regulation across the EU means it would be very difficult to predict impact accurately.\nWe favour comparative assessment of what differences real changes have actually made on the ground in the Member States that have already introduced them. That is why we see a strong role for the national authorities, which are well placed when they undertake these analyses, but we will also further reflect on what more we might do to facilitate the building of the economic evidence base at EU level.\nTalking about liberal professions, such as lawyer, requires tough ethical rules and qualities. The Commission fully accepts that genuine ethical rules are essential to ensure good governance and practice in professions such as lawyer. In this respect, one standard should apply no matter to whom the services are provided: fixing prices or banning advertising do not deliver high ethical standards and good quality services. Quality and observance of ethical standards are better ensured and controlled by adequate training requirements and by effective supervision by the States and\/or by professional bodies, including effective complaints procedures for clients. Codes of conduct, as mentioned here, also represent a positive step.\nThe Commission supports the removal of fixed and minimum prices and the use of result-based fees. There is no evidence to suggest that in the Member States where fixed and minimum prices have been removed there has been a deterioration in the quality or ethical standards of legal services. Though quality has a price, a fixed price does not in itself guarantee quality. Price competition with the possibility of undercutting fixed minimum fees and the use of success fees will, rather, enhance access to justice.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":2,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"2. Hangings in Iran (vote) \n- Before the vote:\nMarco Cappato\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I propose putting these amendments at the end of the resolution. I apologise for doing so at the last moment, but it has to do with the UN moratorium on the death penalty, on which Parliament has already expressed a view on three occasions. That is why I believe a purely oral amendment to be acceptable.\nThe two paragraphs I am proposing are as follows. I shall read them out very slowly in English:\n'Calls for the presentation of a resolution, at the next UN General Assembly, with a request to all countries who retain the death penalty to make available to the UN Secretary-General and to public opinion all information on capital punishment and executions, so as to overcome the state secret on the death penalty, which is also a direct cause of a greater number of executions'.\nThe second paragraph is as follows:\n'Calls for the new resolution to foresee the figure of a Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, with the task of monitoring the situation, ensuring maximum transparency in the capital punishment system and favouring an internal process directed at the implementation of the United Nations resolution on the moratorium on executions'.\n(IT) I realise that this is, let us say, an additional subject on the issue of Iran, but it is also an issue on which rapid action is needed. I therefore ask you to accept this addition to our resolution.\n(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nauthor. - Mr President, the two amendments relate firstly to Article 9. We have a specific request from the UNHCR that it not be mentioned in the resolution. I think that this is absolutely acceptable and, according to this amendment, I ask for the words 'starting to notably work together with the UNHCR and others' to be deleted. Please note that in this amendment we also include Mr Hutchinson's oral amendment, in which he also asked for the opposition members to be included.\nConcerning recital K, we also had the same request in connection with the same principle that I have already mentioned. Here the words that we ask to be deleted from the resolution are 'under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention'. It should also be noted here that we are also including Mr Kelam's oral amendment. Given the fact that this is a specific request from the UNHCR, I insist that we should take them into consideration.\nPaulo Casaca\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Mr President, I believe that what has just been said should be corrected. I can guarantee to this House that the United Nations High Commissioner has not at any time suggested this nor is he in agreement with what has just been said by our fellow Member. I therefore call on the House not to vote for what is being proposed. This would call into question the most important point, as underlined by the Commissioner, which is the protection offered by the Geneva Convention to prisoners in Camp Ashraf. We should therefore not accept this amendment as tabled. I must also point out that this would be in total contradiction to what was proposed by my colleague, Mr Hutchinson, and also our fellow Member from the Group of the European People's Party. I therefore vehemently reject this oral amendment.\nBernd Posselt\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I would just like to say that our Group is also opposed to this oral amendment and is of the opinion that the Convention should continue to be mentioned, which is what was negotiated at the beginning of the week.\nTunne Kelam\nMr President, I am really against joining, in recital K, my oral amendment, which is to replace 'ex-members' with 'associates', with deletion of the mention of the Geneva Convention. The Commissioner has just confirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies as well to the inhabitants of Ashraf, so I would like to ask you to support the first part of this amendment, which is the same as Mr Hutchinson's, but to oppose deletion of the mention of the Geneva Convention.\nMogens Camre\non behalf of the UEN Group. - Mr President, I want to join with the last two speakers, as the UEN Group is also against any changes to the existing oral amendments printed in the files.\nAlain Hutchinson\nauthor. - (FR) Mr President, I simply wish to confirm that we shall not be supporting the amendment that has been tabled here by our fellow Member, but that we have tabled an oral amendment to Article 9 that takes the same line as that put forward by the Member in question and that we shall of course be standing by this.\n(The oral amendments tabled by Mr Romeva i Rueda were not accepted. The oral amendments tabled by Mr Kelam and Mr Hutchinson were accepted.)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) I should like to state that the European Parliament's resolution on Israel and Palestine is not quite appropriately timed in view of the latest developments, whereby Israel last week released another 198 Palestinian prisoners. This gesture gives evidence of Israel's willingness to build mutual confidence in the peace process, despite a severely critical Israeli public.\nThe same also applied to the recent exchange of prisoners on the Lebanese border. It is undoubtedly very sad that Israeli prisons are also holding Palestinian youths. The primary reason is, however, the fact that terrorist organisations are exploiting them, inciting hatred and a determination to kill. Over the last eight years, up to 16 % of suicide assassins and potential assassins have been minors and there has been a pronounced downward trend in age. Children's upbringing and education are key factors which may have a significant effect on the future development of coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.\nFrank Vanhecke\n- (NL) Mr President, with this resolution in particular, Parliament is showing that it does not take a neutral position on the highly complex conflict in the Middle East, that it is not a neutral player. Quite the contrary, this Parliament always systematically takes the side of the Palestinians against the Israelis.\nEvidently it is not enough for this Parliament that every year tens of millions of euro of European tax money disappears into the bottomless, corrupt and anti-Western pits of the Palestinian Territories. Evidently it is not enough for this Parliament that NGOs which openly - and I stress that - openly approve and explain away terrorist acts are sponsored again with millions of European taxpayers' money. Now Parliament is asking for this literally in a resolution for the release of convicted terrorists. This position may well be politically correct; I think we will live to regret it.\nPhilip Claeys\n- (NL) Mr President, I also voted against the resolution on the Palestinian prisoners in Israel, because at the very least this resolution conveys the idea - and I will put this in a friendly way - that we as the European Parliament are not really serious when we condemn terrorism. The resolution argues for the release of people who have been involved in terrorist activities. At least one of them is responsible for the deaths of a number of Israeli citizens. Approving the resolution is not good for the credibility of Parliament, therefore, but much worse than that, it undermines the fight against terrorism in general.\nV\u00e9ronique De Keyser\n(FR) Mr President, in the Flautre report I voted for Amendments 4 and 5, which were not taken over and which concern Israel. I would like to explain my reasons: these amendments had nothing to do with sanctions against Israel; rather they - and particularly Amendment 5 - referred to violations of international law perpetrated by Israel, which are widely documented.\nI would like to say that I am generally opposed to sanctions, whether they are imposed against the Palestinians or against Israel. What I regret, however, is that this amendment, which spoke of initiatives that could be taken with regard to Israel, as opposed to sanctions, was not retained. If we abandon the idea that we in the European Union need to take initiatives to prevent violations of human rights then we are failing our democratic system.\nI would also like to say that in putting forward this view we are not criticising the Jewish people, for we hold them dear and condemn all forms of anti-Semitism. We are not criticising the Israeli State, for we support its existence and want it to be secure, but we are opposed to those within Israel who are undermining democracy in that country, and that is something completely different. Moreover we support all the Israeli NGOs that are working to promote human rights and international law.\nFrank Vanhecke\n- (NL) Mr President, in the debate yesterday I already had the opportunity to mention briefly that the Flautre report on the human rights policy of the European Union really is quite a good and balanced document. However, what I regret is that there is no explicit reference in the report to the problem and the danger of Islamisation in Europe and in the world. That Islamisation is undeniable and puts a number of very fundamental European and Western values, fundamental rights and human rights at risk. I am thinking in the first place of the important separation of church and state and especially of the equality of men and women.\nThe Islamic countries themselves also get off far too lightly in this report, even though in a number of those so-called developed countries and in a number of those often very rich countries, oil states like Saudi Arabia, situations prevail which are unacceptable, from actual slave trade and slave labour to exceptionally far-reaching and degrading discrimination against women. That should certainly be improved in a subsequent report.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, the report by Mrs Flautre may well prove to be one of the most significant ones adopted during this part-session. This report concerns sanctions, an instrument that we, the European Community, cannot afford to do without. We must, however, only use this instrument with great care, in a very flexible manner, and preferably infrequently, so as to avoid it becoming degraded or undergoing a sui generis inflation.\nNonetheless, I wish to warn against applying double standards in the use of this instrument. Sanctions should not only serve as a threat to small and poor countries that violate human rights. Wealthier and larger countries that are good business partners for the European Union should also be exposed to the threat of sanctions, and need to be aware that the European Union may resort to the latter.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) I consider the joint motion for a resolution to evaluate MDG 5 on maternal mortality to be well balanced.\nI agree with the resolution's point that maternal health is the area in which the least progress has been recorded among all the Millennium Development Goals. Since it is not at all likely that progress will be achieved in this area by 2015, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, I agree that we must take steps.\nI am worried in particular about the four amendments proposed on behalf of the ALDE and GUE\/NGL Groups, once again forcing the European Parliament to make decisions on matters which fall within the sovereignty of Member States. This involves consent to safe and legal abortions. Unfortunately, these amendments were accepted in today's vote.\nEvery EU Member State has a different view of the artificial termination of pregnancy and they therefore make decisions on this problem in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Even the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty foundered on abortion in Catholic Ireland, abortions are forbidden in Poland, and Slovakia takes a different view on abortion. This is why I voted against this motion for a resolution.\nFrank Vanhecke\n- (NL) Mr President, I voted against this resolution, not only because I really am opposed to yet another piece of propaganda for abortion that is contained in this resolution, but at least as much because I find the position of Parliament in general on this issue to be really rather hypocritical. On the one hand, Parliament rightly says that everything should be done to bring about a large reduction in maternal mortality in developing countries, but, on the other hand, Parliament continues to argue elsewhere for ever increasing, ever more extensive legal immigration and for the European Commission's proposals for the so-called Blue Card. It is precisely this immigration policy that is resulting in a huge brain drain from the developing countries to Western countries, and it is precisely this policy that is robbing the developing countries of the best workers that they need, including health care workers, doctors and nurses who are needed much more in Africa than in the West. I refuse to go along with such a hypocritical position.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, I rise to make an explanation of vote on our resolution on maternal health. We shall have to wait and see where this Chamber stands on apple pie, but it has, at least, pronounced itself clearly on the subject of motherhood.\nNonetheless, I rise in no carping spirit to ask why we felt the need to pronounce on these questions at all. These are sensitive, intimate and, for many of our constituents, ethical questions. They ought properly to be addressed through the national democratic procedures of the Member States. By expressing ourselves as we have this afternoon, we have exhibited a presumption, an arrogance, and a desire to arrogate power to the centre and to overrule the national traditions of our constituent members. Look at that resolution and you may understand why it is that the institutions of the European Union are so widely disliked and mistrusted by the voters.\nLinda McAvan\nMr President, I think Daniel Hannan has missed the point. This resolution is actually about the United Nations meeting on the Millennium Development Goals, and aims to put pressure on world leaders to take seriously MDG 5 on maternal health: that is what it is about. It is nothing to do with abortion in Poland or Ireland. It is about access to maternity rights. However, my explanation of vote was not about that.\nWhat I wanted to say was that one of the saddest things I have ever seen in my life was in Addis Ababa at the fistula hospital we went to with a number of women colleagues as part of the ACP delegation. There we saw queues of young women - in fact they were really just girls of 13 or 14 - and there was a stream of urine coming down the street from where they were queuing. They were queuing up and there was a stream of urine because they had developed a vaginal fistula as a result of there being no medical care during childbirth in remote parts of Ethiopia.\nI think it is extremely important that the European Union invest in proper maternal health care in some of the poorest countries in the world. It is a disgrace that there is so little progress on this Millennium Development Goal, as it is one of the most important. I hope this will arm our negotiators, such as Glenys Kinnock, who are going to New York.\nI also think that people like Daniel Hannan really ought to read and find out about what is going on in this Parliament.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, this is a particularly important report. A high demand for services is a characteristic feature of developed economies. Services determine the standard of living and well being of societies. There is a constant increase in demand for the development of services linked to modern technology and for high-quality services meeting the standards and expectations of their users.\nThe growth of GDP is increasingly dependent on the size of the services sector. Services represent a significant proportion of trade. This part of the market is constantly expanding. That is why there has been so much debate regarding the conditions and principles of the liberalisation of trade in services at global level within the framework of the WTO. There are many highly profitable types of services, notably those filling specific niches. This is one of the reasons why the liberalisation of trade in services is progressing slowly and why there is such great resistance to it. As I conclude, I should like to say that we are now living in times when services are the main indicators of development.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of adoption of the report on European ports policy, because it deals with many issues of importance for that sector of the economy. These issues are also relevant to Poland.\nI asked myself how these texts could apply to the situation of Polish shipyards in Gda\u0144sk, Gdynia and Szczeczin. Proceedings relating to State aid for Polish shipyards have been under way in the European Commission for quite some time now. The Szczeczin shipyard is the fifth largest in Europe and is experiencing serious difficulties, as is the shipyard in Gdynia. All this is due to a series of problems that have arisen over the years, which are a result of the change of economic regime and the international situation, as I pointed out when I took the floor yesterday.\nAs to the current situation of Polish shipyards, the Commission is of the opinion that they do not represent a source of employment. They are not exposed to unfair competition. That might well sound odd. In addition, it is proposed to close two slipways in order to achieve full potential, and this is simply ridiculous. The restructuring plan for these shipyards is forever being rejected, which is bound to result in them collapsing, instead of helping the European shipbuilding industry to regain its place in the world.\nPresident\nI would remind colleagues who have not been able to take the floor that they may enter a written statement, which will enable them to put their explanation of vote on the record.\nWritten explanations of vote\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I thank Mr Kirkhope for his report, which will help provide a better service for consumers. At the moment, the price consumers pay for an inter-Member State ticket depends on the country of purchase. In my own country, England, I pay the same price for a ticket whether I buy it in the city of departure, city of arrival or a third city. I see absolutely no reason why this should not apply across the whole of the Union.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I am voting in favour of Timothy Kirkhope's report on the code of conduct for computerised reservation systems.\nThe new code of conduct will stimulate competition between the computer reservation systems, thereby benefiting the price and quality of services. The current arrangements are out of date, as almost 40% of bookings are now carried out via alternative websites, dispensing with booking fees altogether. The new code will benefit consumers by increasing competition and cutting charges, with low-cost airlines now being included in the reservation system as well.\nIn order to offer customers the best possible information and protection from anti-competitive practices, the provision of services must be expanded, and regulated and controlled on an EU-wide basis. It is important, therefore, that the flight prices given in main advertisements set out the full flight price including all taxes and charges, so that the customer is not duped by special offers which are not in fact available. The same applies to the listing of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: both must be clear to the consumer. An alternative rail offer for flights of less than 90 minutes gives the customer another option and enables him or her to make an informed choice.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - By updating the code of conduct for computerised reservation systems (CRS) you ensure that reservation systems for air travel services adhere to the principle of fair competition. However, I fear that the vague definition of a company's 'participation in capital' as the carrier having 'decisive influence' on the CRS will cause confusion and allow for the distortion of competition. This report should be about benefiting the consumer and these views are reflected in my vote.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) The computerised reservation system is a platform bringing together air and rail transport providers and used for the sale of tickets for their services. The report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council was aimed at amending the provisions currently in force and strengthening competition through a computerised reservations system.\nThe code of conduct was updated in order to improve transparency and also to prevent market abuse and distortion of competition. I voted against the report on the code for computerised reservations systems because I advocated referring it to the Committee on Transport and Tourism.\nIn my view, many of the concepts in the Commission's report are poorly defined. This is particularly true regarding the key concept of parent carrier. I therefore believe that the interests of consumers within the common European market are not being fully protected.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nin writing. - (RO) I voted for sending back to the Commission the regulation on the computerized reservation system because there are still ambiguous wordings, which may lead to different text interpretations. A regulation is mandatory in all its elements and directly applicable in all Member States and, for this reason, the text must be precise.\nI am of the opinion that the publishing of a specification presenting the interpretation given by the European Commission to certain definitions in the regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union before the regulation becomes effective is not an acceptable solution. The European institutions have committed to a process of legislative simplification and, especially, of legislation stability.\nObviously, an update and improvement of the Regulation on the computerized reservation system is necessary and I appreciate the work of all the colleagues in the commission. Nevertheless, I consider that greater clarity of the text would have been required in order to ensure a stable legal framework necessary for the good operation of the passenger air transport sector.\nEwa Tomaszewska  \nin writing. - (PL) In the course of the roll-call vote and in connection with Amendment 48, I voted against infringement of equal rights for competing entities by singling out three European Union countries and granting them a privileged position on the market. Unfortunately my voting equipment failed, and my efforts to draw attention to this fact were ignored. I would like it to be recorded that I voted against the second half of the amendment concerned.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) Standing up for human rights in the world around us is one of the political tasks of the European Union in its capacity as a union of values. However, in the view of the June List, this must not be used to pursue foreign policy at EU level and thus encroach on the foreign policy sovereignty of Member States.\nWe therefore appreciate the EIB prioritising the granting of credit which promotes the development of democracy and stability in Central Asia, but are opposed to a trend in which the EIB becomes an instrument for furthering the EU's foreign policy ambitions.\nAfter careful consideration, we have chosen to vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament to the Commission's proposal, despite the fact that some of the amendments are not precisely in line with our principles in this respect.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, I am voting in favour of this document, but I wish to point out that it is the umpteenth text approved by this House in support of respect for human rights in this part of the world. What effect do our declarations have? Very little, unfortunately, apart from expressing political solidarity.\nIf Europe wishes to be credible on this matter, it must speak with a single voice and place international security above individual national interests. I believe that it is vital to strike a balance between two requirements: for the Palestinians, a free and independent state; for the Israelis, the security of living in their own territory, free from attacks and threats. If the two aspects are separated, it becomes rather awkward to find a credible stance and a lasting solution. I hope that in future this European Union of ours, which has such an interest in peace in a part of the world so close to us, will be able to play a more effective mediating role than it has done in the past.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted in favour of the compromise resolution, not because we agree with all its points or wording, but because we believe that this may help to denounce the unacceptable situation of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.\nIsrael, with the support and connivance of the US and its allies, is illegally occupying the Palestinian Territories, has built settlements and a dividing wall, and is assassinating, detaining, attacking and exploiting the Palestinian people, while systematically violating international law and disregarding the inalienable right of this people to their sovereign, viable and independent State.\nAround 10 000 Palestinians are currently detained in Israeli jails, including hundreds of children, under inhumane conditions and subject to humiliating and degrading treatment and also ill-treatment, including torture. Most are prevented from receiving visits from their family. Many have been detained 'administratively', without charge or trial.\nIsrael is holding in its jails around one-third of the elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council as well as other Palestinian local elected officials.\nThe imprisonment of Palestinian activists is an instrument used to combat the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian people and to perpetuate the Israeli occupation.\nAny fair, viable and lasting solution to end the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories requires the release of all Palestinian political prisoners by Israel.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThis is an unacceptable resolution, which essentially absolves Israel of the genocide of the Palestinian people and occupation of its territories.\nSection 4, for example, supports Israel's fight against terrorism. It thus brands as terrorists a people struggling for freedom, opposed to the occupation of their territories by the Israeli army and opposed to the economic, social and political blockade and the reprisal attacks they suffer. Young children are among the victims, in the Gaza Strip, for example, because a government has been elected that is not to the liking of the Israelis, the United States and the EU.\nFurthermore, Section 7 provocatively calls on the Palestinian Authorities to police the Palestinian people's resistance. It accuses former prisoners, particularly little children, even, of violent or terrorist acts.\nIt is shameful to make such allegations. Instead, the European Parliament should demand Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank occupied territories. The wall of shame in Jerusalem should be demolished, the murderous attacks on civilians, women and children must cease, and all political prisoners must be released. The European Parliament should demand Israel's compliance with the principles of international law and the relevant UN resolutions.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) The situation of Israel and Palestine is complicated. For Israel, dealing with the huge insecurity created by its surroundings is problematic. As a good friend to Israel, I know this very well. However, it is always important to uphold international law. I therefore chose to participate in the negotiations on the European Parliament's resolution on the situation of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.\nThrough these negotiations the final result became considerably more balanced, which meant that, in the end, I supported the resolution. As I see it, it is important not to condemn Israel, as was the case in Mrs Flautre's report on the evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU's actions and policies in the area of human rights, where the facts had not been studied. I therefore voted no to that.\nMarek Siwiec  \nin writing. - (PL) The resolution on the situation of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails adopted by the European Parliament is biased and therefore does not provide an accurate reflection of the conflict in the Middle East. The resolution fails to take any account of the political context or of the fact that the Israeli authorities need to be able to guarantee the security of their citizens. Israel is still under constant threat of terrorist activity originating in the Palestinian territories, despite ongoing peace negotiations and goodwill gestures such as the recent decision to free 198 Palestinian prisoners. Israel is the one and only democratic country in the region, and is dealing with this threat by way of democratic methods and resources.\nThe resolution condemns the Israeli authorities for using inappropriate methods to deal with minors. It fails to mention, however, that according to reports by Amnesty International, terrorist organisations such as the al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine recruit minors and use them as couriers. In some cases minors are also assigned to combat duties or used to perpetrate terrorist attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians.\nIt was because the issue of Palestinian prisoners was dealt with in such a biased and incomplete manner that I voted against this resolution.\nSlavi Binev  \nin written form. ?- (BG) Mr. President, respected colleagues, the report of Ms. Helene Flautre discusses the sanctions that have to be undertaken by the European Union in respect to any violation of human rights, regardless of the part of the world. But what happens in our own backyard?! On yet another occasion, I would like to draw your attention to the unprecedented actions of the incumbent coalition in Bulgaria.\nOn July 30, the day when a no-confidence vote was to be voted [in the Bulgarian Parliament] police force was used against MEP Dimiter Stoyanov. In spite of the fact that the names of the uniformed \"helpers\" were established immediately, to this day there are no penalties, no excuse, but there is glaring arrogance in the attempts to cover up the case.\nThe conduct of the Interior Ministry officials shows that they were aware who they were beating, particularly as Stoyanov held his MEP ID all the time and repreatedly explained who he was.\nIllegal detention and beating of a Member of the European Parliament is something that has not occurred in the 50-year history of this institution! The case of our colleague is a dangerous blow on the founding principles of contemporary European democracy. It is a direct and democtrative encroachment on personal rights.\nAfter the repressive apparatus of the incumbent did not spare the MEP status of Dimiter Stoyanov, what remains for the ordinary Bulgarian citizen?\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As it is impossible in an explanation of vote to discuss all the many important issues raised by the report, particularly the many with which we totally disagree, perhaps the best approach is to use the example of the vote on the amendments tabled in plenary to highlight the central aim of this political instrument of the EU.\nDespite reference being made to various countries within the report, a majority in Parliament rejected two proposed amendments which considered that:\n'... the European Union sanctions against the Palestinian Government formed in February 2006 following elections which the EU recognised as free and democratic have undermined the consistency of Union policy and proved seriously counterproductive by making the political and humanitarian situation considerably worse';\n'... the persistent violations of international law by Israel call for urgent action on the part of the Union'.\nWhat better example is there to show that the aim of EU sanctions is unacceptable interference, obviously applied with 'double standards'. In other words, sanctions are being used as a means of pressure and political interference to protect 'friends' and criticise 'others' that the EU (and the US) indicate as the target.\nThat is why we voted against the report.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien \nin writing. - In the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU applies restrictive measures, or sanctions, to ensure compliance with the CFSP objectives. The current EU sanctions policy suffers from excessive ad-hoc cases, which often result in incoherence and inconsistency. I believe that the Commission should play a more proactive role in defining a clear EU policy on sanctions.\nI believe that the EP must be very precise when talking about sanctions, and especially when calling for EU action in response to violations of international law, as the House did in this report on Israel. I believe that before asking the EU to impose any sanctions, we must be well informed about concrete breaches of international law and should refrain from making statements of a generic nature. If there are factual cases, they have to be specified in the text or presented in a footnote to the respective document.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in support of H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Flautre's report on the evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU's actions and policies in the area of human rights. I welcome the rapporteur's balanced approach towards an important tool of the EU's common foreign and security policy. Sanctions need to be applied on a case-by-case basis and targeted in a way that avoids affecting innocent parties. I am satisfied that Mrs Flautre's report adequately covers such points.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) The EU considers respect for human rights to be the most important principle and therefore includes clauses on human rights and implementing mechanisms in all new bilateral agreements concluded with third countries.\nThe political effectiveness of sanctions and their negative consequences are subject to dispute today. We are particularly conscious of this when the EU has to adopt a standpoint with respect to the conflict in the Caucasus.\nI therefore welcome and have voted for H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Flautre's report, which brings a new philosophy to the application of sanctions and a change of ideas in the area of human rights.\nWe need an effective sanctions policy, so as not to apply 'double standards', based, for example, on the strategic importance of the partner, as in the case of Russia and China.\nWe must use strategy papers for the different countries and other similar types of documents as the basis for the development of a coherent strategy relating to human rights in the country and the situation as regards democracy. We must use objective and up-to-date information obtained from representatives of local and non-governmental organisations. We must support civil society and target those to blame for conflicts, for example by freezing assets and imposing travel bans. Sanctions should not affect the poorest people.\nI firmly believe that the sanctions policy will not be more effective until it is incorporated in an integrated EU human rights strategy. Sanctions will only be effective when they help to change relationships and consequently resolve conflicts.\nPierre Schapira  \nin writing. - (FR) Following the legislative elections in Palestine in February 2006 I was one of the first to say, both from Jerusalem and in Parliament, that we should not be applying sanctions against the Palestinian Government because it would be the people who would suffer. Admittedly, we have to accept that the political situation in the Territories has completely deteriorated, especially between Fatah and Hamas, but this political crisis cannot be attributed solely to European sanctions. This is why I abstained from voting on Amendment 4.\nI also wish to state that I clearly condemn Israel's persistent violation of international law, but regret that the text of the report fails to mention those violations of international law committed by other countries in the Middle East. This appears to be a case of double standards and that is why I voted against Amendment 5.\nS\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard  \nIn spite of the fact that there are aspects of the Flautre report that are worthy of criticism, I am voting in favour of the report in order to show support for the battle for human rights.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) Sanctions imposed by the European Union are instruments that ensure the effectiveness of the CFSP. They may be diplomatic tools but they are most commonly economic ones, and they serve to ensure compliance with the fundamental principles of international law, democracy and human rights.\nThe rapporteur calls for a comprehensive and in-depth review of existing restrictive measures and I believe that she is right to do so. Appropriate principles for the imposition of sanctions should be drafted, so that the latter are only used following detailed individual analysis.\nFurthermore, I also believe that priority should be given to developing economic sanctions that do not impact negatively on society and do not violate the human rights of citizens of the countries sanctioned. This is particularly necessary in relation to the custom of drawing up black lists. That is why I also supported the report on a review of EU sanctions as regards the area of human rights.\nShould it prove necessary to impose sanctions, I believe that it is important to introduce positive measures so as to help the citizens of countries on which restrictive measures have been imposed.\nCharles Tannock  \nin writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues wholeheartedly support human rights for all. We support the concept of a CFSP EU sanctions regime which is applied on a unanimous basis to target the most egregious abusers of human rights in the world, provided the UK can always exercise a veto in this respect. We also deplore the way they have been applied inconsistently and are wide open to breaches, such as the way President Mugabe has been allowed into the EU on several occasions in spite of a travel ban on his regime.\nUnfortunately the Flautre Report goes further by recognising the right of the European Court of Justice to rule over the list of banned terrorist organisations - which must remain a political decision not a judicial one - and claiming the Lisbon Treaty is required to make EU sanctions for abuses of human rights more effective. It calls for European Parliamentary oversight of the Member State security services and making the code of conduct on arms exports binding. For those reasons we will not be supporting the report.\nEwa Tomaszewska  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted against paragraph 57 during the roll-call vote. Unfortunately my voting equipment failed to work. My attempts to draw attention to the fact were ignored, as was the case during five other roll-call votes. I would like it to be recorded that I voted against the original text of paragraph 57 of the document.\nMarie-Arlette Carlotti  \nin writing. - (FR) On paper, the fifth of the Millennium Development Goals - which is to reduce maternal mortality by 75% between now and 2015 - was clearly one of the most achievable targets.\nIn fact this was the one that fell most behind schedule. Here is a damning fact: in sub-Saharan Africa one woman in 16 dies in childbirth. This figure has hardly changed in 20 years.\nWhere else on the planet could you find such a dramatic imbalance as this in the area of human health? What is more, when the mother dies the child is 10 times more likely to die too.\nIn our all-out efforts to achieve the MDGs we therefore need to pay special attention to number 5.\nThe G8 itself has finally got the message. At its last meeting in Japan it adopted a 'health package' aimed at recruiting and training 1 million health professionals for Africa so that 80% of mothers will have support during childbirth.\nThe ball is now in the EU's court.\nThe Community needs to act simultaneously and with real substance in several directions:\ninformation and education for women,\nstrengthening of public health systems in the countries of the south,\nmassive investment in human resources in the area of health care.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Each year there are around 536 000 maternal deaths (95% of which occur in Africa and South Asia). For every woman who dies, 20 or more experience serious complications, ranging from chronic infections to disabling injuries, which could be easily avoided if there were universal access to basic and emergency obstetric care and reproductive health services. This requires greater support from the developed countries.\nThese figures are very worrying and indicate that maternal mortality (MDG 5) is not only not on track to be achieved by developing countries, but is also the only one in which no progress is being recorded. The figures from today are exactly the same as the figures from 20 years ago.\nThe fact is that maternal mortality could be avoided through the provision of better health care and by guaranteeing access for all women to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services.\nWe therefore support the resolution adopted and are pleased that our proposal to protect access to effective contraception and to legal and safe abortion has also been adopted in plenary.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) It is terrible that such a large proportion of the world's population lives in extreme poverty, that women in these countries and areas die during pregnancy or childbirth, and that so many people lack information on and access to safe contraception. This is a question which is about the value of human life and inviolate universal human rights, not least for women living in poverty.\nThis resolution contains positive - and necessary - proposals but also raises issues which are not within the EU's remit. We have chosen to support proposals which call for better conditions for women, especially regarding sexual and reproductive health. However, the resolution also addresses other subjects, some of which refer to foreign policy. We have therefore abstained in the final vote.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien \nin writing. - The resolution of the EP on maternal mortality carries a great significance in the light of the Millennium Development Goals and conveys our message that we are aware of the current situation and that we call for action to help millions of women in developing countries. I strongly support the suggestion to ask the Commission and the Council to develop programmes and policies that would help to prevent maternal mortality, with a particular emphasis on access to information on sexual and reproductive health, literacy and nutrition.\nWithin the context of this resolution, I believe that the use of contraceptives is very important in preventing diseases, unwanted pregnancies and reducing maternal mortality, but at the same time I am convinced that we do not have a right to condemn or criticise churches, which stand merely as a moral but not as a legislative authority, promoting their faith but not prohibiting making a personal choice. Furthermore, there are churches which do not address the issues of contraception to their congregation.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of this resolution because there is a high maternal mortality rate not even in the countries under development, but also in the new EU Member States.\nIt is worrying that, every year, 536,000 families are left without the mother's support, which creates imbalances at the level of the society's basic cell. We know the causes and the methods to fight this phenomenon; the way of organizing and planning the activity depends on us.\nI really consider that emphasis should be laid mainly on women's access to information regarding healthy reproduction. We cannot be successful in our actions unless women themselves become aware of the dangers they incur before or during pregnancy. We should also allocate maximum possible resources for providing quality services available to everybody.\nToomas Savi  \nin writing. - Mr President, having supported the amendments concerning the condemnation of the US Global Gag rule and of the ban on the use of contraceptives advocated by some churches, I voted in favour of the resolution. But I was shocked to learn that some of my colleagues, who can usually be taken seriously, have prioritized the statements of the Pope over the health and well-being of the people in developing countries.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nin writing. - (RO) The increase in the infant mortality rate and the decrease in the birth rate, on the one hand, and the ageing of population, on the other hand, require firm and urgent actions from Member States and the European institutions.\nI voted for the Resolution on maternal mortality before the UN High-Level Meeting of 25 September, designed for the review of the Millennium Development Goals, due to the fact that its text requests the Council and the Commission to expand the provisions on maternal health services and lay emphasis on programmes of prenatal care, maternal nutrition, adequate delivery assistance that avoids excessive recourse to caesarean sections, post-natal assistance and family planning. By this resolution, we request the Council and the Commission to guarantee that reproductive health services are affordable, available and of high quality.\nIt is important to allocate the maximum available resources for programmes and policies on prevention of maternal mortality.\nI also consider it important to finance family planning activities from public funds.\nEwa Tomaszewska  \nin writing. - (PL) The resolution contains provisions that indirectly encourage abortion and others that openly call for abortion to be legalised. The inclusion of statements on this subject amounts to a violation of the principle of subsidiarity. It also means that financial resources from contributions to the Community by Member States where abortion is not permitted may be used to promote abortion in third countries.\nIt is hypocritical to justify engaging in pro-abortion propaganda in terms of promoting maternal health, and to allocate financial resources to abortion, instead of devoting them to improving maternal health. That is why I voted against this resolution.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) I voted against this resolution.\nThe protection of maternal health is an unconditional prerequisite for the survival of humanity.\nMothers in developing countries are at present faced with a pandemic with no access to basic health care, aspirin or a cup of drinking water. The UN General Secretary clearly emphasised that less than 10% of the budget is used to resolve problems affecting 90% of the world's population. Pneumonia, infectious diarrhoea, tuberculosis and malaria - diseases which cause enormous health problems in developing countries but can be treated - benefit from less than 1% of the budget.\nThe UN has adopted a strategy supporting childbirth under qualified medical supervision. This is intended to limit the risks of motherhood, reduce infant mortality and provide access to services.\nOur resolution, however, proposes, among other things, 'provision of comprehensive and safe abortion' and regrets the lack of provision of services in the field of reproductive health. It calls for the Council and the Commission to 'guarantee that reproductive health care services are available, accessible and of good quality and promote the access of all women to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services.' It calls for the Council and the Commission to intervene in this field, but abortion falls within the exclusive competence of Member States and not the EU.\nWe cannot offer mothers in developing countries an unclear, simplified or, even worse, ideologically biased vision of health protection.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) that provides for the liberalisation of services at international level, and which the rapporteur so passionately wants to see concluded, is in reality no more than a Bolkestein Directive on a global scale. Yesterday's 'Polish plumber' will tomorrow be Chinese or Pakistani.\nThe only exception applies to services 'supplied in the exercise of governmental authority', which are 'supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more service suppliers'. In other words, the only ones not affected will be the police, the courts, the diplomatic service and the army. On the other hand, the GATS will be another step towards the dismantling of public services, a process begun by the Commission some 15 years ago in the name of competition and the single market.\nToday the European Union believes it enjoys a competitive advantage and asserts that its service providers have inadequate access to third-country markets. However, the services sector will end up just like our industry, with relocations and downsizing and, as a bonus, the import of social dumping. Putting the social, environmental and quality standards into perspective, which according to the rapporteur should not become a barrier to trade, contains the seeds of a gradual disintegration of the European social and economic model.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Despite having removed some of its more negative aspects and toned down some of its wording, which, while not calling into question the process of liberalisation, tries to 'humanise' it, this resolution is basically still a textbook defending the liberalisation of services, including public services (supposedly limited, in their presentation, by the need for a 'differentiated' approach to liberalisation).\nHowever, despite the concerns of a majority in Parliament, the current international situation is not the same as it was at the time when the Doha Round began in 2001, meaning that the US and the EU are struggling to get the WTO to impose their agenda of economic domination on the world.\nHowever, despite successive failures, the EU and the 'social democrats' Mandelson and Lamy are again trying to prevent the negotiations from 'coming off the rails', in order to safeguard and not lose the ground already gained in the negotiations.\nAs we have stated before, the aim of the major economic and financial groups is control of international trade, in a framework of capitalist competition, control of the national economies (agriculture, industry, services, labour, natural resources) and control of the states themselves.\nLiberalisation means attacking the victories of workers and the sovereignty of peoples as well as environmental destruction.\nThat is why we voted against the resolution!\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) Services account for more than three-quarters of the European economy. The services sector is of vital importance to the competitiveness and innovation of the European economy, which is largely based on knowledge. Efficient operation of the European Union's internal market in services is very important for the competitiveness of EU enterprises on the global market. Timely and appropriate transposition and implementation will be vital to sound operation of the market, especially in the case of the Services Directive.\nTrade in services largely involves the transfer of specialised knowledge between countries. Consequently, free trade in services plays an important part in all development strategies, because it facilitates swift and effective transfer of know-how on a large scale. In addition, increasing access to the market in services represents an opportunity not only for developed countries but also for developing ones, which are often deprived of access to know-how.\nAccess to the market for services is a difficult issue in the context of the ongoing negotiations at the WTO. It should be borne in mind, however, that negotiations on trade in services must serve the interests of the EU as well as promoting the development of the poorest countries. If substantial foreign investment is allowed, it could be precisely the liberalisation of trade in services that might facilitate increased and more sustainable production and the modernisation of infrastructure in all economies.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Mr Kamall's report on trade in services looks at ways EU companies can gain access to third-country service markets. Indeed, services are playing an increasingly important role in international trade. It is precisely for this reason that it is important to distinguish between commercial and essential public services. I have made this clear in the way I have voted.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nUnder GATS, through bilateral and multilateral agreements and open or veiled coercion and threats, the EU is encouraging capital to penetrate the developing service markets of the less developed countries in order to increase profits and its own influence. The Commission's report applauds and supports this policy.\nPublic commodities such as water, health and welfare, education, etc., are being targeted by the monopolies, which are aiming to liberalise and open up the national markets and privatise entities. Capitalist restructuring will be even more disastrous for workers in the poorer countries.\nThe rivalry of the imperialist centres combined with the opposition of the poorer countries has resulted in the failure of the latest WTO negotiations. The centres of power are vying with one another to conclude bilateral and multilateral agreements in a bid to strengthen their position.\nAttention is focused on the direct and indirect abolition of public services, particularly in sectors profitable for capital, and on the abolition of all safety barriers. These are an attempt to equate services with commodities and carry out joint negotiations on agricultural produce. All these are simply examples of European capitalist imperialist aggression, which is quick to wage war in order to impose its choices.\nTokia Sa\u00effi  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the report on trade in services in order to urge the Commission, in its trade negotiations, to pursue both the progressive and reciprocal opening of access to the services market and a policy for increased transparency. The European Union, which is the world's largest exporter and largest provider of services, has to promote greater access to the services market for both the developed nations and the developing countries alike.\nNevertheless, this liberalisation has to be progressive and reciprocal in such a way that it takes account of the different interests of the countries concerned. It was with this in mind that I voted for Amendment 2, which highlights the need for a distinction to be drawn between commercial and non-commercial services and for a differentiated approach to be taken when opening markets for general interest services. I also voted in favour of Amendment 5 that in the context of the EPA calls for universal, accessible and sustainable public services to be guaranteed for everyone.\nFinally, I voted for Amendment 7, which recognises that certain products, such as water, should be considered as a universal public asset, and I would point out that a measure of caution is required when proposing to open up markets for services of this kind.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) Trade in services has today become a necessity for all economies. It is impossible for any country to achieve economic success with an expensive and ineffective service infrastructure. Producers and exporters of textiles, tomatoes and other goods will not be competitive without access to an efficient banking system, efficient insurance companies, accountancy firms, telecommunications and transport systems.\nHowever, the opportunity to offer public services run by private companies is also crucial. Competition in the health sector, education and public communications results in better service. I therefore chose to support not making any categorical difference between services for private or public use because I believe that competition also in the public sphere contributes to greater efficiency and better service. To me this is obvious, whether it concerns our internal market or trade in services in other countries, outside the EU's borders.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) The report on trade in services aims to emphasise the role of trade in services as a sector instrumental in the creation of new permanent jobs and in improving the citizens' quality of life. These services currently represent as much as 75% of the European Union's GDP.\nThe rapporteur calls for the market in trade in services to be opened up and liberalised. It is certainly necessary to open up the market and improve competitiveness. In my view, however, opening up trade in services should not be understood to mean privatisation. It must be established clearly that commercial services are different in nature from public ones. Consequently, it must also be ensured that the approach adopted to opening up trade in public services is quite different from that adopted to opening up trade in commercial services.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nin writing. - (RO) I voted for the Report on Trade in services, which emphasizes the importance of trade in services for the creation of jobs.\nAmendment 2, submitted by the Socialist Group, emphasizes the need for a differentiated approach in the context of opening the market in services of general interest and, in particular, the need to make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial services.\nI consider amendment 5 extremely important, which calls for universal, accessible, sustainable and affordable public services, with high-quality standards to be ensured for all and amendment 10, which calls on the Commission to take stronger action against counterfeiting, particularly via the Internet and requests the Commission to submit to the Parliament and Council a proposal with a view to providing the Community and its Member States with qualitative and statistical data at European level on counterfeiting, particularly via the Internet.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) The so-called services revolution that has been under way since the middle of the 20th century has led to services becoming the most important sector of the economy for most countries. Technological progress, notably in the areas of telecommunications and information technology, has fundamentally changed the perception of services and their potential role in international trade. Dramatic expansion of the aforementioned system, together with technological advances, has resulted in the expansion of international trade in services.\nPoland's involvement in international trade in services has never been very great. The same is true of the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. This was largely due to the underdevelopment of the sector in centrally planned economies. Fundamental changes in the development of the services sector only began during the period of transition that followed the Communist era, and continued throughout the process of accession to the European Communities. Radical changes in the services sector are already evident. Furthermore, Poland's integration into the Communities and the related process of adjusting Poland's economy to EC requirements should accelerate the rate of development of the services sector and provide increased opportunities for Poland to participate in the international trade in services.\nI therefore believe that the EU should make every effort to improve the quality of trade in services, as this sector promotes well-being and job creation in all of the world's economies. In addition, it helps to accelerate development.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) While we welcome the concerns expressed in the report about the need for investment in port regions, technological modernisation and environmental protection, we consider that this report hides the fact that one of the objectives of the European Commission for a future port policy is to pursue the liberalisation of this strategic public service in various Member States.\nWe therefore regret the rejection of our proposals which:\nUnderlined the rejection of any new attempt to liberalise port services at EU level by applying internal market competition rules;\nAnd called for initiatives to be taken to combat insecurity and accident risks in the sector and to guarantee and ensure respect for the rights of port workers, particularly in the areas of employment, fair pay, dignified working conditions, social welfare, collective agreements, trade union rights and vocational training.\nThe diversities and complementarities of European ports must be safeguarded and their management must be based on advanced standards of quality and safety, a strategic element in economic development. Opening up the management of European ports to transnationals, as appears to be happening, will devalue labour relations and collective bargaining and increase the risks of insecurity in the port system, which will subsequently call into question maritime safety.\nThat is why we abstained.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien \nin writing. - During the votes I have expressed my position by voting against the amendments of the GUE group. The port sector is of crucial importance to the European Union from economic, commercial, social, environmental and strategic points of view. However, bearing in mind the importance of the sector, I cannot support the approach that ports should constitute public property.\nOn the contrary, I support the right of the Member States to take their best interests into account in deciding whether or not to open the port sector to liberalisation. Decisions on whether to privatise and\/or to apply private and public partnership in ports are the competence of the Member States and shall not be directed by European institutions as long as it is in compliance with European legislation. In fact, some European ports are already managed by authorities or companies from third countries. In my view, the port sector, as any other sector, should be allowed to operate on an equally competitive basis.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe Communist Party of Greece is voting against the report because it endorses and follows the rationale of the Commission Communication on Ports, which promotes the EU's fixed objective of privatising the ports. The privatisation of ports has been blocked until now by the port workers' struggle, but has not been abandoned by the EU, because it is a key objective of EU capital.\nThat is why the Commission is now seeking to promote it by means of fragmentation, i.e. handing over profitable port services to capital. At the same time, the EU has its sights trained on state subsidies for ports; it is preparing for their abolition or drastic curtailment, thus paving the way for their privatisation. Ports represent sectors of strategic importance for the economy of the Member States and are directly linked to their defence capability and sovereignty. For this reason, the plans to liberalise port services and privatise ports affect not only those who work in them, but the whole of the working class and the masses.\nIt is not enough for the working class and workers in general to be vigilant and to organise their struggle against privatisation plans alone; they must fight for ports that will be owned by the people within the framework of a self-reliant people's economy under popular authority.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Despite agreeing with the concerns and proposals contained in the report, we consider that this does not reflect essential elements of national policy in this strategic sector - with social, economic and environmental implications - particularly that of establishing this system within a strong public sector and the need to combat the systematic violation of, and non-compliance with, the rights of workers which can be seen in segments of this sector.\nAs a result, we consider that, in not tackling this central aspect of working conditions for professionals in this sector, the report fails in its objective. The practice of temporary contracting, which encourages a lack of respect for working hours, rest periods and collective labour agreements, in addition to constituting a violation of workers' rights, calls into question their very safety (and that of third parties). This is why we need to halt the destruction of jobs and the increased insecurity of labour relations by promoting integration within the workforces of companies and dignifying careers and wages.\nWe also disagree with the emphasis on applying the principles of 'user pays' and 'polluter pays' as it is the end consumer who is mainly affected by these measures, which only benefit those who have the financial capacity to 'use' or 'pollute', without necessarily contributing to a significant improvement in freight transport.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I am voting in favour of Michael Cramer's report for a sustainable and efficient logistics and freight transport system in Europe.\nThis system plays a vital role in strengthening and expanding Europe's position as an internationally competitive economy, but without this occurring at the expense of the environment and citizens. 'Green corridors' are a fundamental concept for optimising Europe's transport and do so as sustainably as possible. Reducing all types of pollution while increasing the use of renewable energy sources is the right approach to take.\nIn this context, investment in new technologies such as computerised 'stop-go' in freight transport and support for modes of transport other than road transport play an important role and point the way ahead.\nHarmonisation of management and administrative procedures on an EU-wide basis will also make the European transport system better and more efficient. Europe needs a competitive and innovative economy in order to be successful. The present report makes an important contribution to achieving that goal.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) I agree with the views expressed by Mr Cramer, namely that efforts should be made to improve the efficiency, integration and sustainability of freight transport in Europe.\nI also support all the measures advocated with a view to attaining the desired objectives. The former include focusing on the transport corridors, supporting innovative technologies, innovative infrastructure and more efficient management of freight transport. There has also been mention of the need to simplify administrative procedures and the freight transport chain, and to make transport that does not rely on the road network more attractive. I support all these approaches. In my view, the priorities identified by the rapporteur should make a significant contribution to improving freight transport in Europe.\nLiam Aylward  \nin writing. - My colleagues and I welcome the renewed interest in research on the potential health risks posed by prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields. Prudence as regards those effects on health is essential. This is an issue I personally have been concerned with and which I sought to address in January this year. In my letter to former Commissioner Kyprianou, I brought to his attention the fact that no review has been done on this issue since July 12th 1999, despite an expected review 5 years from that date.\nI voted in favour of the Ries report which acknowledges that owing to the influx of new technology since the 1999 report, it is out of date. However, I voted against the amendment calling for the imposition of harmonized stricter limits on the emission of specific electromagnetic waves. This is a health issue and consequently an Irish one. The Irish Government has published a recent report concluding that, so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been found. It has already adopted ICNIRP guidelines limiting public and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields, endorsed by the World Health Organization. Ireland needs to govern for Ireland, and is guided by the WHO.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted in favour of this report, despite certain contradictions. However, there are many positive aspects which are important, in particular its defence of the precautionary principle, confirming that this should constitute one of the cornerstones of Community policies in the areas of health and the environment.\nThe report also makes some criticisms of the Action Plan, particularly where it states that this 'is bound to fail at least in part, since it is designed solely to accompany existing Community policies, it is not based upon a preventive policy intended to reduce illnesses linked to environmental factors, and it pursues no clear, quantified objective.'\nThe report also underlines that the European Commission must take account of the economic importance of SMEs, by providing technical support to allow and help them to comply with binding environmental health regulations and to encourage them to make other changes which are positive from the point of view of environmental health and affect the operation of enterprises.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in support of Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries's report on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010. The call for the action plan to focus on indoor and outdoor air quality and chemicals has my backing. For all producers or importers to be obliged to demonstrate the safety of their product before it can be put on the market is also a positive step to ensure that both consumers and the environment are adequately protected.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe thoughtless use of natural resources for profit, capitalist restructuring, the liberalisation of markets and the privatisation of energy, transport and telecommunications are leading to the destruction of the environment. In combination with the worsening of working terms and conditions and the privatisation of health, welfare and insurance, we are seeing an increase in health problems generally, particularly those linked to environmental risks. The commercialisation of health services and the EU's environmental policy that, with the pollution trading system and the polluter pays principle, is turning the environment into a commodity, cannot prevent risks and illnesses, nor can it even manage them for the benefit of the workers, because their basic aim is to increase the profits of capital.\nThe report is correct in its findings on the application of the principles of prevention and protection; the lack of substantial, strict measures; the need for comprehensive studies based on the most vulnerable groups; mental health, and the effects of magnetic fields etc. However, it ends with proposals governed by the pro-monopolistic policy of the EU, such as more tax breaks and financial incentives for companies. This is a rationale that shifts responsibility for protection onto the individual.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) The enthusiasm of February 2005, when the \"European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010\" was approved, has been exhausted without many of the proposed actions to be achieved. It is highly necessary to meet these deadlines and achieve these actions, especially this decade, when the greatest challenge for human health, in the field of environment protection, is adjustment to climate change.\nThe less wealthy segments of society, as well as the more biologically fragile (children, pregnant women and old people) will be more vulnerable to these effects.\nSpecial attention should be given to the social aspects of adjustment, including to the risks related to employment and the effects on living and inhabiting conditions.\nThe prevention of negative effects on people's health, caused by extreme weather events, plays an essential role and, for this purpose, the Commission is requested to draft good practice guides containing actions to be adopted by the regional and local authorities in cooperation with other institutions, as well as population education and awareness programmes for increasing awareness as regards adjustment to climate change effects.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Inland waterway transport (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the promotion of inland waterway transport: NAIADES, an integrated European Action Programme for inland waterway transport.\nCorien Wortmann-Kool \nrapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to convey my heartfelt thanks to the Vice-President of the Commission for 'NAIADES', the Action Programme for inland waterway transport. Parliament is your ally, because inland waterway transport must be given a prominent place on the European agenda. Our report has received unanimous support from the Committee on Transport and Tourism and I should like to extend warm thanks to my fellow MEPs, the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the staff for their efforts.\nMr Vice-President, although Parliament backs your goals, we do think that more ambition is called for if they are to be capable of being achieved. In the report, Parliament underlines, above all, the importance of reliable inland waterways. This is, after all, the key to their success and to their expansion. Reliable inland waterway transport hinges on sound infrastructure and transhipment facilities, and the current maintenance backlog of the inland waterways infrastructure in Europe is one of the most urgent problems to be resolved. In this respect, the new Member States, with their specific problems, must receive special attention. Prime responsibility lies, of course, with national or regional authorities, which give too little priority in this area.\nThis House also wants to see more funding within the framework of the TENs, especially where priority projects are concerned, and we are still waiting for the appointment of a TEN coordinator. Could you promise that you will come up with a proposal shortly? Parliament would also like greater priority and a higher preferential rate of 20% for all inland waterway projects of common interest, which will make it possible to back many small infrastructure projects, for the bulk of the funds have, so far, in fact been diverted to rail and road, which has to change if we take the NAIADES Programme seriously.\nRiver information services projects must also be considered for a contribution from the multi-annual programme. This is something Parliament will be voting in favour of tomorrow, and is also what the Finnish Presidency has proposed in the Council. If you can give it your backing therefore, things are bound to fall into place.\nParliament is also ambitious where the environment is concerned. We hope that the Commission will present regulations for cleaner fuel as quickly as possible. Last Friday, we received additional information from your offices, for which we are indebted. Clearly, much research has been done, also into the technical and economic impact. The results appear promising, and that is why I should like to ask you to table a sound proposal when the directive is reviewed. It is important not to lose track of the prospect that IWT will be just as clean as road transport. This is also something the sector itself is in favour of. I have read in the paper that the sector believes it could achieve more via the Central Consultancy Register, since the Commission is said not to want to rush things. I hope you will be able to put my mind at rest about this.\nMuch has been said about the innovation fund, which, in my view, is a wonderful instrument to flesh out this fine Action Programme. The sector has good ideas of its own, and EUR 40 million have been set aside in Brussels. This House is of the opinion that the Commission and Council should also show commitment and should match the same amount, so that EUR 120 million would become available. The Council has produced little in the way of concrete commitment, but would you be in a position to convince them? Even more importantly, would you be prepared to make these EUR 40 million available over the next few years? I consider this to be a test case to demonstrate whether you really want to implement the Action Programme.\nThe Action Programme contains various other points we are very happy to endorse: a funding manual, guidelines for state support and the announced screening of existing legislation, which is desperately needed in order to trim down the administrative burden. I should, in this connection, like to draw your attention to problematic environmental legislation.\nIt is not for no reason that I have left the institutional issue to last, something for which I have set out a clear course in my report. We must focus on cooperation, take into consideration the current competences of all participating parties and capitalise on the expertise of international organisations. A battle over powers will only have a delaying effect. We must start implementing the Action Programme as a matter of urgency.\nFinally, the Commission will also need to show a real commitment to action. By rolling up their sleeves, the Commission will prove that it is really taking inland waterways to heart and only then will the time be right to consider, if necessary - and I am not convinced of this yet - the institutional relations.\nJacques Barrot\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Wortmann-Kool on this excellent report. The Resolution shows that there is broad agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the promotion of inland waterway transport. Inland waterway transport is safe, low-polluting and energy efficient, and offers great reserve capacities. Despite the advantages it offers, inland waterway transport is under-used: it represents scarcely 6% of the total overland goods transport in the Union, even though, in a few Member States, its modal share stands at 40%.\nToday, Europe has 36 000 km of inland waterways. We are talking here about a genuine trans-European network. We need a European approach in order to promote this mode of transport. It can achieve a far greater modal share if, as you just pointed out, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, our approach is accompanied by concrete action.\nI am grateful to Parliament for the support that it has given me via this report by Mrs Wortmann-Kool. I am going to confine myself, Mr President, to a few remarks about the main points, starting with the improvement of market conditions. We must develop new multi-modal, innovative services, so as to enable inland waterway transport to play its role among the large seaports and the big cities in the Hinterland. More than 70% of the inland navigation sector is made up of small businesses, often owner-boatmen. We need to create conditions that will help strengthen their position in the market: for example, improved access to funds through the removal of any regulatory and administrative barriers and clear indications as to what State aid is available. The Commission is going to start work on State aid for this sector. These guidelines will be published in 2008-2009. That is all I have to say on market conditions.\nAs regards the modernisation of the fleet, inland waterway transport must improve its logistical efficiency and its performance in relation to the environment and safety. Innovations must be focused on the construction of boats - for example, the engine and the propulsion system - and on information and communication technologies for what are known as river information services. A regulatory framework already exists, but we must ensure that the system is actually implemented. That also applies to the standards applicable to fuel intended for inland navigation. Stricter standards, which we should propose by the end of the year, will enable us to further improve the environmental quality of inland waterway transport.\nI now come to the promotion of employment and skills. Inland waterway transport suffers from a dearth of crews and a worsening shortage of candidates to take over businesses. The strategy must be focused on an improvement to onboard working and living conditions and on professional training. I plan to propose harmonising the requirements relating to crew members and to boatmasters' certificates in 2008 via the mutual recognition procedure.\nWith regard to the image of waterway transport, we must correct the one that inland navigation currently suffers from. We must make people aware of the real potential of inland navigation by implementing a network to promote inland waterway transport, as exists in certain regions.\nWith regard to waterway infrastructure, there are, within the network, bottlenecks that curb the competitiveness of inland waterway transport. We must therefore remove the existing obstacles. That is primarily a responsibility of the Member States, but the Community can help thanks to the trans-European networks. In this context, the Commission prioritises the development of the two major waterway routes: the Rhine-Meuse-Danube route and the Seine-Scheldt link.\nIn the new financial regulation submitted for Parliament's approval, we have proposed a 30% rate of support for the waterway projects and the inclusion of these projects in the multi-annual programme. I hope that the Council, like Parliament, will support our proposals. The contribution of intelligent transport systems is vital. We are preparing to implement river information services, by which, in practical terms, we mean a system for managing information concerning inland waterway transport, which will enable boatmen to plan their journeys better, to reduce the time they wait at locks and to constantly monitor transport.\nMrs Wortmann-Kool, you mentioned the appointment of a TEN coordinator. I must say that we welcomed the positive results obtained by the six coordinators who have already been appointed. Mr Costa, for his part, has also called for the appointment of a coordinator for both inland waterway transport and maritime transport. I can tell you that my intention is indeed to select two coordinators over the next few weeks.\nThe NAIADES programme provides for a range of very different actions: harmonised legislation, strategic promotion and coordination measures. All of these actions will only be effective, however, if the institutional framework is suitable. The fact is that, today, we are faced with fragmented resources and efforts spread over different levels. We therefore need to adapt the framework to the demands of an enlarged European market. We are in the process of analysing different options. The results of this analysis will be discussed with all of the parties concerned, with the Member States and with the international river commissions.\nTo conclude, we need this NAIADES programme to be a success and, to that end, we need to be able to rely on the support of decision-makers at every level: national and regional authorities, river commissions and businesses. I am grateful to Parliament and to you, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, for sending out, with this report, a strong signal in favour of the promotion of inland navigation, which Europe needs now more than ever.\nEtelka Barsi-Pataky\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Vice-President Barrot has sketched a wide-ranging programme concerning inland waterway transport, on which we can only congratulate him. Speaking from the perspective of Parliament, we consider this parliamentary report, prepared by Mrs Wortmann-Kool, to be a worthy statement and report on this wide-ranging programme. On this matter our intentions perfectly match those of the Commission.\nFrom among the various strategic ramifications, I would like to underline a single issue, that of infrastructure. Recent floods have demonstrated that in terms of infrastructure, and within that, specifically with regard to trying to improve navigability, we have to proceed cautiously in order to guarantee navigation on a permanent basis. Floods render navigation unreliable and unpredictable; therefore, the most important goal of the NAIADES programme is paying close attention to flood control. I would like to stress the programme's environmental considerations - which require special emphasis - such as the creation and conservation of floodplains. I believe that we have to act with care and in harmony with respect to environmental and navigational requirements.\nJust a brief comment on another point. For the navigability of the Danube, it is important to be able to count on high quality shipping conditions along its entire length. Among the third countries concerned, I would like to highlight Serbia. For Serbia, the value of the Danube as a waterway has increased considerably, and therefore, I suggest close cooperation on this matter among the future Member States of Romania and Bulgaria as well as the Black Sea region. All these proposals are put forward in the report, for which I express my thanks to my fellow Member, Mrs Wortmann-Kool.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, a moment ago I was saying to the rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, that, so far tonight, all of the speakers in this debate have been women. Then they will say that transport is only of interest to men. Perhaps NAIADES inspires us, and perhaps the Commissioner should take note and appoint two women coordinators for NAIADES. Let us return to serious issues though, and the report by Mrs Wortmann-Kool.\nIn principle, we formally support the Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterways, known as 'NAIADES', and the idea of giving it a greater political profile. It is true, and we have noted this, that the use of inland waterways varies a lot throughout Europe, from 0.1%, in countries like the United Kingdom, Italy, and even a little less in my country, to 40% in the Netherlands, which has a greater number of these waterways. Unfortunately, in some cases canals and rivers have been abandoned.\nAdmirable attempts at recovery are being made, however. In my country, due to its mountainous nature, canals and rivers are used more for carrying irrigation and drinking water than for transport, but we nevertheless are aware of and support the initiatives relating to the navigable stretch of the Guadalquivir from Seville to the sea, which is also hoping to be included in the trans-European network. Furthermore, I am also delighted by the current efforts of my city, Zaragoza, which will host Expo 2008 and which, within that context, wishes - and this has been proposed within the context of the objective of promoting water and sustainable development - to restore the navigability of the River Ebro. We are therefore pleased to be able to include ourselves in this European project.\nWe are talking about sustainable development when we refer to inland waterways' potential to help reduce the impact of CO2 emissions by up to 75% compared to roads and also - and this is why it is so important - to promote this inland waterways network at European level and to support new formulae so that this sector can be more competitive and efficient.\nMrs Wortmann-Kool has done an excellent job as rapporteur, and we are eagerly awaiting the Commission's coming proposals to enhance the economic and competitive impact of this new sector. We particularly support the strengthening of infrastructures. That is to say, for thousands of kilometres of inland waterways and hundreds of inland ports, with lock infrastructures, etc., which have already been named, to finally become a connection network that strengthens regional and territorial cohesion. To this end, some of the amendments that we presented in committee and which have been included propose greater inclusion of this sector in the trans-European network programmes. We have also proposed supporting river information services, which we believe will very much increase the efficiency and safety of the sector.\nFurthermore, we believe that it is an excellent idea to obtain greater economic support for the sector's potential for container traffic, although there are still great deficiencies here. In the report on logistics, which I hope to be able to present to this House, I will clearly also include Mrs Wortmann-Kool's proposals on improving logistical aspects and innovation and technological progress for reducing operational costs.\nEva Lichtenberger\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as the Commissioner has emphasised - and I am obliged to him for doing so - 6% of all goods and persons transported are carried on waterways, and so an ambitious programme is required if these unused capacities are to be put to work and the existing infrastructure improved.\nIt has to be said that the greatest deficiency in this area is the lack of intermodal nodes; if transport links - including these means of transport - are to be developed, the first thing to be done is to establish ports and terminals.\nIn other transport sectors, innovation has made great strides; here, though, it is limping along behind. There is still a lot of lost ground to be made up where fuels and materials are concerned, and this programme should provide an opportunity for that to be done, but we must also - as my colleague has already mentioned - give very serious attention to the environment, and I attach particular importance to this.\nI would also ask you to support an amendment that we have tabled, which has to do with the transport of hazardous goods on waterways, which must be subject to regulations every bit as stringent as those applicable to road and rail, for an accident with hazardous goods on a waterway can do enormous and irreparable damage.\nAnother issue is the threat of flagging-out - the re-registration of vessels under flags of convenience - which poses a risk to social standards, among other things, and that is a danger we absolutely must take into account from the very outset.\nI want to thank the rapporteur for her superb report and the shadow rapporteurs for their good cooperation. Thank you all very much, and I hope that it will, tomorrow, be adopted as it now stands.\nErik Meijer\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, for years, old canals were neglected or closed, inland waterway transport appeared to be a thing of the past and there was a massive growth in the transport of goods by road. Nowadays, everyone across the party-political boundaries welcomes the fact that the water-borne transport of goods is coming back into fashion. This consensus conceals different opinions, as was evident in this House during the debate in February 2003 on the subject of the White Paper on transport 2010. To my group, as to some others, water-borne transport is an alternative to ever more and widening motorways. It is a way of being economical with space and the environment. This is in contrast to another view, which wants more of everything, including, therefore, even more motorways.\nBy creating overcapacity, entrepreneurs are given more freedom to make fresh choices within this overcapacity to decide which mode of transport is most advantageous to them at that particular moment in time. An example of overcapacity is the expensive Betuwe line that has been built as a TEN project for transport of freight by rail in the Netherlands alongside the rivers Waal and Lek, that are perfectly navigable, at the lower reaches of the Rhine. More pressing projects than these projects that are probably underutilised include the widening of the narrow canals that connect Northern France with Belgium and the Netherlands, or returning the ever dwindling transport across the Danube between Hungary and the Black Sea ever since the bombardments of 1999 back to its original level.\nMy group is opposed to overcapacity. Even in the case of waterways, this is at the expense of space, nature and the environment. The adjustment of rivers impacts on flood plains, biodiversity, the supply of drinking water and flooding surrounding low lands. In addition, water-borne transport is not a panacea that magics away all the risks of polluting and harmful substances. Their transport entails risks not only for the rivers themselves, but also for the residential areas and areas of outstanding beauty that are located downstream. We need more than just cleaner engines and sulphur-free fuel. Together with the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, we would propose infrastructural levies in order to promote fair competition between different modes of transport, a better environmental impact assessment of European development plans, a tightening of legislation for the transport of dangerous substances and preventing inland waterway ships from being put under flags of convenience, because this adversely affects social, security and environmental standards. Only when our water-borne transport meets quality requirements of this kind, is its growth a step in the right direction.\nJohannes Blokland\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her extremely comprehensive report and thank her for the good cooperation. Like the other speakers, I should like to express wholehearted support for the NAIADES Programme. Inland waterway transport can, provided it is correctly backed by flanking policy, substantially contribute towards solving the problem of transport. I am pleased that this message is also being sent to the national, regional and local governments. Both old and new Member States are urged, in their economic and planning policy, to give due consideration to the scope that inland waterways offer in order to meet the transport needs of enterprises, not only for bulkier, but also for slimmer, flows of goods.\nIn addition, the recommendation for active improvements in the fleet's environmental performance also receives my unqualified support. As in road transport, incentive schemes for the introduction of the reduction of emission and energy-saving measures in inland waterway transport also help make the fleet more environmentally-friendly.\nFinally, I hope that the Member States will approach this Action Programme with the same positive attitude and commitment as the Members of this House have done in the recent weeks.\nStanis\u0142aw Ja\u0142owiecki\n(PL) Mr President, I should like to draw particular attention to the title of Mrs Wortmann-Kool's report. It is a report on the promotion of inland waterway transport. Inland waterway transport most certainly needs aid. This might not be the case in the Netherlands, where the report's author hails from, but it is certainly true of many other European Union countries, including Poland, my home country. The Oder Programme was adopted a few years ago in Poland, and was initially called the Oder 2006 Programme, but was later extended to last until 2015. However, all these schemes amount to empty words, because nothing is actually being done.\nThe virtue of the report we are currently debating is that it sets out to deal with European inland waterways as an autonomous field, and here I emphasise the word 'autonomous' which means not treating inland waterways as a complement to road and rail transport, as an unimportant addition to them. Instead, inland waterways are perceived as an independent, autonomous whole. This is very significant, because the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania will provide a unique opportunity to create a European network of inland waterways.\nI would like to tell the House about one of my dreams. It is a dream I think many members of my committee share, and it involves a journey along the old and new inland waterways in Europe. It may be an old-fashioned journey, but it is a very beautiful one. In order to be able to undertake it, however, further significant investment is needed.\nI think it is worthwhile recalling a couple of significant ideas that have formed part of the aspirations of far-sighted politicians over the centuries. One of these is the plan for a canal between the Oder and the Danube, which would create a link between two important bodies of water.\nI urge the European Commission not to end the studies, but to continue working on a European network of inland waterways. Studies in this field should be continued, and I wish the venture every success.\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Mr President, as is well known, Austria is a land of mountains, but it is also - and Austria's national day being tomorrow, perhaps I might be permitted this allusion - described in its own national anthem as a land on a river, the river in question being the Danube. This makes inland waterways an important subject for us Austrians, as we are connected by water to the West, to the Rhine-Main-Meuse system that is to be found there, but also, and above all, to the south and east.\nWe in Austria know how important it is - not only for our own country, but also for Europe as a whole - to have a better, by which I mean above all better-functioning system of waterways. Although reference has been made to the environment and technological dimensions, and to much else besides, we also know that it is above all for the sake of the new and future Member States of the EU that alternatives to roads are needed, for without them, we really are going to end up as roadkill, and what better alternative could there be than a well-developed and therefore well-used infrastructure in Corridor 7 of the Trans-European Network? I am glad that the Commission is willing to attach greater importance to this mode of transport, and I can do no other than agree with much of what Vice-President Barrot has said today. While, though, we do need plans and programmes to be set out, they also need to be implemented, and as soon as possible.\nI hope that the contributions made at the Vienna conference on inland waterways staged by the Austrian Presidency of the Council were useful in terms of our subject overall and will therefore be relevant to our future opportunities.\nI particularly want to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool for the very good work she has done on this document and for her good cooperation, and, in particular, for her willingness to be talked into contending not only for the priorities of 'old Europe' but also for the openings and opportunities afforded by the new. Let me repeat what I said earlier: now is the time for us to make use of these opportunities!\nRenate Sommer\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the neglect of internal waterways in the EU has been going on for many years to a positively criminal degree. NAIADES is a means whereby we want to change that. We want internal waterways to make headway in terms of job creation, on the markets, in terms of infrastructure and the fleet as a whole.\nThese depend, above all else, on the reliability of internal waterways and on the availability of multi-functional inland ports, not least with regard to multimodal transport links, and I would, in this regard, like to do as Commissioner Barrot has already done and highlight the importance of RIS as an important contribution to the use of inland waterways, and would argue that its potential ought to be used to the full by its being incorporated into the TEN programme.\nBack to NAIADES, though. The report on the subject highlights the need for tighter emission limit values to be laid down across the Community, particularly by promoting the use of low-sulphur fuels. So far, so good, but I see it as counterproductive if more stringent emission limit values were to oblige the internal waterways sector, most of the operators in which are, of course, small and medium-sized enterprises, to pay out a great deal of money that they cannot afford for refits, and so we have to work towards incentives, provided not only by the Commission but also by the Member States, for a more rapid introduction of environmentally-friendly engines on ships.\nIt strikes me as important that the planned European Waterway Transport Innovation Fund be established subject to conditions agreed on with the inland waterways businesses themselves, and that the Fund should be able to help with the funding of communications offices.\nFurther to the Commission's initiative for the production of information source on financial issues, in the shape, for example, of a funding handbook, what is also needed is a European development plan containing an up-to-date inventory and more detailed information on European waterways, which must draw on existing expert studies and reports, as well as on the experiences gained by the coordinators. It would, after all, be wrong to keep on reinventing the wheel, and, since, additional bureaucracy is undesirable in the implementation of the action plans, we have to take particular care that it is avoided.\nI will conclude by thanking our rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, for her dedication and for her cooperation, which really has been good and constructive.\nJacques Barrot\nMr President, I should like to begin by echoing what was said in this excellent debate and by thanking all of the speakers. Inland navigation is not, as you said, an added extra. It is a genuine option, and we need modes of transport other than roads in today's Europe. I am therefore fully determined, just as determined as your rapporteur and yourselves. Nevertheless, you are right: we cannot just make declarations; we need to act. I am therefore going to provide you with a few answers.\nLet us begin by focusing on the innovation fund: the Commission services, together with representatives of the profession and the Member States, are currently looking into the possibility of creating a fund for innovation in the field of inland waterway transport. This fund would be an important instrument for implementing the NAIADES programme. We are examining different options, such as how this fund can be sustained by the inland navigation sector, the Union and the Member States. The Commission will draft a report on the state of play and on the results of the assessments in 2007. You did in fact place great emphasis on this innovation fund, Mrs Wortmann-Kool.\nOn the issue of pollution from ships, it is true, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, that we must think about reducing the level of sulphur in the fuel used for inland navigation purposes, but we must not go too far. The idea is to bring this level of sulphur down to the level of the diesel fuel used in road transport. This reduction in the sulphur level is key to reducing air pollution. We are carrying out a review of the directives on air pollution with the aim of substantially reducing this sulphur level. However, I have taken full note of what you said about the investments required to that end.\nMrs Lichtenberger, you asked me about the monitoring of dangerous transport. On this point, I should like to make it clear to you that a proposal is currently the subject of an interservice consultation and is due to be adopted before the end of the year. As a general rule, the improvement of infrastructure, Mr Meijer, will be accompanied by impact studies, in order to reduce as far as possible any harmful effects of infrastructure works.\nGenerally speaking, I would say to all of the speakers that infrastructure obviously requires investment. This investment is the responsibility of the Member States. Nevertheless, it is true - and I am addressing you, in particular, Mrs Ayala - that we have proposed in the financial regulation to prioritise inland waterway transport by providing for a 30% cap. May I call for Parliament's help, Mr President, in adopting this financial regulation? I am well aware that there is some reluctance on the part of the Member States, but I am sure that Parliament will give priority to the inland waterways.\nThere are undoubtedly other solutions to propose, but my aim with these few answers was to tell you that my intention was obviously to act. As you pointed out, we, in Europe, have several magnificent waterways, such as the Danube, and I have taken note of your comments about the need to involve all those who live along the Danube. I must say that we are aware, Mr Rack, of the importance of these waterways and of the major role that they can play in the future.\nThat, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to say to you, in the hope that we can carry out this crucial work together and accord Europe's waterways the full importance they deserve.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, there are a number of controversies surrounding the production and consumption of tobacco. We must be aware that the fact of tobacco growing in the EU really has no impact on the level of consumption of tobacco products by our citizens. Were we to restrict or cease tobacco production in Europe, this would not result in a fall in the number of cigarettes smoked. Imported tobacco would be used. I fully support the development of a public information programme to publicise the dangers of smoking, and this should be paid for by cigarette manufacturers and tobacco producers.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) I support information campaigns on the harmful effects of tobacco and the European Parliament resolution on a long-term plan to finance these campaigns with EUR 80 million, deducted from the subsidies to European tobacco growers. This will mean that no burden will be placed on the EU budget. Although the level of raw tobacco production in Europe is marginal, barely 4% of world production, we are the world's leading importer of raw tobacco and for most of our requirements we rely on the supply from third countries where tobacco is produced locally under conditions that are less closely regulated than those applicable to European tobacco. However, I object to subsidising tobacco production in Europe, and not only as a matter of general principle: the public funds allocated for this area could be used elsewhere and in a better way.\nKaterina Batzeli\n(EL) Mr President, we, the PASOK Group in the European Parliament, have voted in favour of Mr Berlato's report. We believe the public should continue to be informed on matters relating to tobacco and tobacco products.\nThere should be a similar policy with self-financed funds to inform the public on health matters relating to other products such as meat and fats.\nFurthermore, in regions such as Greece, where tobacco production has been drastically reduced, we cannot see why subsidies should not continue in their present form until 2013.\nJames Nicholson\nMr President, first of all I have to apologise to the House; as shadow rapporteur, I was unable to be here yesterday evening because my flight was not on time. So I apologise for that.\nMr President, much has been written about the Northern Ireland peace process and this is another non-legislative report. The question is, did it do any good? Yes it did. It meant that many small groups in Northern Ireland, especially women's groups, were able to get off the ground and were able to provide for their areas.\nWas it fair in distribution? The answer is, no, it was not. At the beginning PEACE I was certainly not fair; PEACE II was better, and I certainly look forward to PEACE III being another improvement. Unionist communities are not getting their fair share. Greater care must be taken to ensure that the cross-border bodies that are in place respect the balance in the region. There is no point in their existence if they do not. A glaring example of this is ICBAN, a cross-border body which in my opinion should not receive any more funding until they rectify the position.\nI would like to pay tribute, Mr President, to the many people since the beginning of the PEACE programme who have given their time voluntarily to work for the greater good of all, and I trust that Northern Ireland will go forward and prosper. The people deserve no less, and I warn against the sinister forces that are still around in the region.\nHubert Pirker\n(DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report mainly for two reasons: firstly, because this report quite emphatically demands that the Member States finally implement the Lisbon Strategy and therefore measures on employment policy as well, and secondly, because it demands that good and affordable childcare arrangements finally be set up in the Member States. This is a very important precondition for compatibility between family life and work. This is particularly in the interest of single mothers because employment opportunities are thereby created and poverty can be combated. These are therefore positive strategies that are needed in order to translate the appropriate employment policy measures into reality.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, employment is an indicator of how we are progressing. It is, however, difficult not to perceive certain defects in the sphere of social and territorial cohesion. In the EU, considered as a sphere of wellbeing, there are still almost 80 million people, that is 16% of all EU citizens, who are living in or threatened by poverty. Many jobs are of low quality and there is no help to get young people into work or to extend the working life of many experienced employees, or to employ disabled people. We must bear in mind that it is regions that are most backward in development terms that have to contend with the greatest problems. High unemployment, low involvement of older and disabled people in employment, a high proportion of people remaining out of work for longer than 12 months, women finding it harder than men in the job market - these are just some of the problems they have to face.\nIn Poland this situation arises in the 'Eastern Wall' regions. The situation in the Czech Republic is worth commending: there they have made the lowering of barriers to employee movements one of the priorities of the forthcoming Presidency.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) The report by Mrs Van Lancker actually reads like a type of catalogue of good intentions and wishes. Improved and better-paid access to the labour market for women, disabled persons and immigrants is always said in one breath, even though it concerns three very different groups. An increase by five years in the average retirement age in the EU by 2010, perfect childcare facilities, barely any school leavers without a job, a job for people who have been unemployed for four years, and so on.\nThat is all well and good, but it is not Christmas Day. This is a Parliament; not a Christmas pageant. Mrs Van Lancker should know better. We both live in a country in which, unfortunately, 10 million people in both parts of the country are simply crying out for a fundamentally different approach to the employment issue in the two parts of the country. We no longer require uniformity at European level; on the contrary, we require the possibility for the Member States and regions to take the specific measures that are required at local level both quickly and effectively. Thank you.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) This is an initial report on Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure and, in actual fact, is teeming with the complacency of this institution, whereas the opposite should be the case in this initial report.\nEverybody knows that money is thrown around in this institution. The two places of work cost a tremendous amount of money, without actually offering true added value. Each year always heralds enormous increases in the operating costs of this institution, this time camouflaged as it were as a necessary consequence of the Treaty of Lisbon, which to my knowledge has not even been adopted yet.\nThen, of course, there is the new Statute for Members, a concoction by Eurofanatics, intended to cut even more firmly through the bond between Members of Parliament and the people who they represent, which will of course all cost a great deal, will it not? It is for all of these reasons, and many more, that I have voted against this report with conviction.\nMadeleine Jouye de Grandmaison\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (FR) Mr President, regarding the report by Mrs Sudre, with my Group's support I tabled a number of amendments as part of a compromise. These amendments have been partially fulfilled. I would like to thank the Committee.\nThe amendments concerned recognition of the added value of the outermost regions in the fields of space, renewable energies, energy self-sufficiency and biodiversity, the importance of public service for the development of the ORs, acknowledgement of the lack of integration of the ORs into the European Research Area, recognition of the benefit of the NET-BIOME programme, and the ORs' ability to make a significant contribution to established international priorities.\nOn the other hand, I am disappointed that this report has not fully integrated the social and cultural chapter for comprehensive development and that support and recognition of the regional languages of the ORs, funding of research into slavery and colonialism, and the defence of the rights of the native peoples of Guyana were not kept.\nI am also disappointed that the report makes no significant commitment to strengthen research capability so that it matches potential.\nI am disappointed that my proposal for regulation of postal and telecommunications pricing between the national territories and the ORs was not upheld.\nAs part of my assessment, I am disappointed that my request for a social and environmental impact study of the CMO in sugar and bananas was rejected.\nHowever, I voted in favour of this report, which certainly provides valuable information and results for the ORs.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) I would like to follow up on the politically charged debate we had yesterday. I did not support the Socialists' proposal relating to collective redress because the responsible thing, in my opinion, is to wait for the results of the impact studies in order to assess the effectiveness of collective redress, in particular as regards the costs incurred by consumers. Therefore, today I want to protest against improper comments during our debate yesterday by my fellow Member Mrs Gebhardt, who gives voters the impression that only the Socialists protect consumer interests, unlike the democrats who protect the interests of industry. Such manipulative political rhetoric and demagogy bear no relation to reality and I object to them.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) I have voted with great conviction against the Lynne report because, in my opinion, it goes much further than countless reports approved by this Parliament in the past that, in themselves, are highly questionable.\nParliament is now once again throwing its doors wide open to a type of all-encompassing European anti-discrimination policy, which leaves barely a single social domain untouched. I have said it before in this institution and I shall say it again: the fight against discrimination, if it is necessary, is a fight that falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States, and Europe must not assume the role of police officer or thought police in this regard.\nIndeed, anyone who reads the Lynne report closely will come to the conclusion that it has less to do with the actual fight against discrimination than with undermining freedom of expression even further and, in particular, making political correctness into a legal affair. I cannot agree with this and have therefore voted against this report with conviction.\nHubert Pirker\n(DE) Mr President, we are all in agreement that every conceivable measure has to be taken against discrimination. Therefore, we have also declared our faith in four directives. A fifth is being prepared. There is support for this one, too.\nI have, however, voted against this report because it chooses a wrong strategy, because it does not advocate the implementation of existing laws, but instead immediately demands another new directive, which includes new authorities, new bureaucracies and new test procedures. This means barriers are proffered instead of solutions. All in all, this does not lead to discrimination being abolished.\nMy entire delegation is pursuing a different path. My delegation would like the Member States to be asked ultimately to implement everything that already exists in current law and not, as the report suggests, taking the second step before the first.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\n(PL) Mr President, respect for human rights is a fundamental task of the European Community. Sadly, the European Union is not managing this in the best way. The situation in this sphere will not alter after just two hours of debate. Nor do the actions taken by the European Commission and other agencies in authority offer much hope for improvement. Europe and the rest of the world are still wrestling with racial, sexual, cultural and national discrimination. Trafficking in people, including children, for money, for pleasure, for organs, is increasing with each year that passes. The number of acts of violence is rising, and victims are increasingly often deciding to remain silent, as they have no faith in help from the State.\nI get the impression that we in the European Parliament are working mainly for the benefit of businesses, corporations and regions, and too little for ordinary people, for whom the most important considerations are their standard of living and equality of rights. Our actions do not bring the desired effects; they merely soothe the conscience by making us feel that we are doing something. It is high time for some radical changes.\nThat is why I am voting against the report.\nErik Meijer\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - Mr President, within the GUE\/NGL Group there exists great tolerance for minority positions. There are cases where those minorities like to show to the plenary of this Parliament that their viewpoint differs from the large majority inside our group.\nSuch was recently the case in the voting on my report concerning the relationship between Macedonia and the European Union. We gave the limited speaking time for our group to one of our Greek Members, who declared that the European Union cannot admit any new member, as it would be better to abolish the Union itself. Possibly this remark created the misunderstanding that my group did not follow my proposals to speed up the negotiations with this candidate Member State. However, this position was only the viewpoint of the Communist Party of Greece, not of our group as a whole, which supported my proposals, as did the vast majority of this Parliament.\nIn the last debate this morning we again had such a situation. On the Piecyk report on an integrated maritime policy, the two speakers from our group were the Greek Member Pafilis and the Portuguese Member Guerreiro. Getting the opportunity to speak on this issue was very important for the parties they represent here. In their national debate, those two parties prefer to use the Piecyk report as a symbol for everything that is wrong about the working conditions of seamen and port workers and also for everything that can be linked with NATO intentions for the military use of the sea.\nThe majority of our group, including the German and Netherlands delegations, take the view that the Piecyk report has nothing to do with those issues. We twice supported the defeat of the Ports Directive but we are not against maritime policy in general. We support Mr Piecyk's proposals, which are focused on useful elements like the environment, the protection of coastal regions, education and the quality of labour.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report for a number of reasons. Firstly, one of the main challenges with which Europe has to contend is climate change. This also has a direct bearing on maritime areas, especially coastal regions threatened by rising water levels. Secondly, significant exploitation of maritime resources, especially through excessive fishing, as well as climate change, currently constitutes a serious threat to the marine environment. Relations between oceans and the climate are treated as a major part of EU climate policy. Thirdly, almost 80% of pollution of the marine environment originates from the land. Environmental threats such as shipwrecks on the sea bed and the remains of military ammunition and chemical weaponry are also of considerable significance. Fourthly, intensive fishing has rocked the equilibrium of the ecosystem and is destabilising biodiversity too. Fifthly, oceans and seas play an important role in the European strategy to ensure energy security. On the one hand, they are a source of oil and gas, as well as a source of renewable energy. On the other, they constitute a means and a route for the transportation of energy and thus increase energy security. We therefore need to create a sustainable policy for development of the seas and oceans.\nWritten explanation of vote\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the report by my Swedish fellow Member Jan Andersson, under the simplified procedure, which confirms the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Decision 85\/368\/EEC on the comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States of the European Community, which called for the Member States and the Commission to cooperate in drawing up Community job descriptions in specified occupations, and then match vocational training qualifications recognised in the Member States with the agreed job descriptions.\nBecause this decision was difficult to apply, it was sensible to repeal it. The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) should address the limitations of the decision to be repealed, by focusing on improving the transparency of qualifications and by introducing a decentralised approach for cooperation which reflects the increasing complexity of qualifications in Europe. Nevertheless, this unfortunate affair testifies to the need for clarification and simplification of Community law so that citizens can understand and use it in their everyday lives.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) A rise in employment in the European Union is directly related to occupational training and to mutual recognition of qualifications. I supported Mr Andersson's report because I feel that EU Member States should create a common model for verification of occupational qualifications regardless of the country in which they were acquired. This will encourage employees to keep improving their skills, and students to study, gain new experience and improve their knowledge of foreign languages in various parts of Europe.\nAs a representative of Ma\u0142opolska, the third largest region in Poland in terms of student numbers, I would also like to draw attention to the particular significance of diploma recognition for young people. All academic exchanges and the potential to compare qualifications are of exceptional importance for young people wishing to acquire experience abroad.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nOne of the four principles on which the European Union's common market is based relates to the free movement of people. The free movement of people provides EU citizens with the potential to take up employment in another Member State.\nDifferent education systems and regulations on occupational qualifications, however, often make it difficult to accept employment in occupations in which we hold qualifications. This is why it is so important to be able to compare occupational qualifications between different Member States. In the view of the European Commission and also of the rapporteur, Decision No 85\/368\/EEC, which governs this matter, has not adequately facilitated the comparability of occupational qualifications to the benefit of workers seeking employment in another Member State.\nThis is what lies behind the decision to replace it with a newer and more effective instrument, the European Qualifications Framework, which increases transparency, supports the transfer of qualifications and makes it easier to assess the results of study.\nI am pleased that this step has drawn broad support from various areas: social partners, industry and sector organisations, educational institutions and NGOs. This guarantees broad acceptance of the changes being made.\nI am therefore in favour of rescinding the Decision, and I feel that the EQF, as a tool enabling qualifications to be compared, will provide a chance for people to move more easily and will enable the aims that were not realised through Decision No 85\/368\/EEC to be attained, thus ensuring greater worker mobility in the European labour market.\nKatalin L\u00e9vai  \nin writing. - (HU) I voted in favour of Mr Andersson's report because I believe it is important to overturn all possible barriers to the harmonisation of professional and vocational qualifications. It is important to repeal Council Decision 85\/368\/EEC, since implementation of this decision failed to bring about comparability of professional and vocational qualifications.\nThe decision is now being replaced by other, newer and more effective European-level instruments such as the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). As an instrument for the promotion of lifelong learning, the EQF encompasses qualifications of all levels, from those achieved through compulsory education or adult education to those awarded in higher education and in professional or vocational education and training. It is therefore important for Member States to give the maximum possible weight to education, as this is the basis for employment. Education, alongside the acquisition of general learning and cultural knowledge, plays a vital role in developing a tolerant European society. As well as learning to use energy efficiently and protect the environment, the next generation must also learn to accept and respect differences.\nEducation is the key to many other things too: it provides an opportunity for minorities, for example for Roma people, to preserve their culture and ensure their integration. In minority communities nowadays there are increasing numbers of well-educated young people who are in a position to defend their own interests in the face of local authorities and governments.\nIn order for this to become the norm, we need to develop language teaching, devote more attention to minority cultures in schools, and minorities themselves need to take a more active role in teaching.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) In practice we have not always managed to smooth out all the difficulties regarding the mutual recognition of vocational training qualifications and maintain the quality of work here on the one hand, without creating unnecessary hurdles on the other hand. In this regard it is alarming that the Services Directive granted foreign service providers a certain freedom to do whatever they want in the absence of the possibilities of effective control and unexplained sanctions, whereas domestic service providers still have to comply rigorously with the law and standards.\nIn a few years' time our domestic enterprises will be demanding a re-evaluation of the regulations that apply to foreign enterprises so that they do not go under in the face of merciless competition. Undercutting competition is therefore still being encouraged in the case of wages, working conditions and social security. Nor should the EU be encouraging this development with the 'blue card'. We have enough skilled workers if only we are prepared to pay them a decent wage.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the report by my Polish fellow Member Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg approving, in its first reading under the codecision procedure, the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to codify Council Directive 93\/7\/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State as amended by Directive 96\/100\/EC (OJ L of 1 March 1997) and Directive 2001\/38\/EC (OJ L of 10 July 2001).\nI am disappointed that the codification process is taking such a long time; it should be remembered that it was on 1 April 1987 that the Commission decided to instruct its services to proceed with the codification of all legislation at the latest after its 10th modification, emphasising that this was a minor matter and that its services should strive to codify the texts they were responsible for within an even shorter interval. The President-in-Office of the European Council (in Edinburgh in December 1992) confirmed these imperatives.\nFinally, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in an interinstitutional agreement on 20 December 1994 that an accelerated procedure could be used.\nNicodim Bulzesc  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for the Geringer report because I agree that the cultural objects that were removed from the territory of a Member State illegally should be returned to the lawful owner.\nThis report supports the idea of issuing a European Directive for establishing administrative cooperation between Member States on the return of cultural objects removed unlawfully. The Directive will stipulate the establishment of a central authority in each Member State, which would exclusively deal with this issue and cooperate with the similar authorities established in the other Member States and Interpol.\nAt the same time, such a directive could simplify the administrative procedure existent at present in the European Union and, personally, I am looking forward to seeing this draft law implemented.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I endorse the codification of legislation relating to cultural objects unlawfully removed from Member States. The existing legislation has been modified a number of times and it is important that we have a clear legal framework within which Member States can secure the return of stolen cultural property.\nI also believe that cultural objects should be returned to local communities within Member States when there is clear local support for such an initiative. Within this context I fully support, for example, the return of the Lewis chessmen to a location in the Western Isles of Scotland and, likewise, the St Ninian's Isle treasure to Shetland.\nLuca Romagnoli\nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the report by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State.\nI consider it fundamental that Member States should be able to work together to settle disputes between national governments and to recognise the importance of the protection of cultural assets at a European level. Cultural assets and works of art represent the heritage of the citizens of Member States, who have every right to be able to visit and admire them.\nThere are in fact cases of scandal and disputes concerning stolen works of art that go back decades. I consider Community intervention to resolve these situations absolutely necessary.\nToomas Savi  \nin writing. - Although having voted in favour of the report, I must draw attention to the fact that Article 13 of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State states that this directive shall apply starting from 1 January 1993.\nLet me remind you that after the illegal annexation of the Republic of Estonia by the Soviet Union in 1940 numerous artefacts were moved from Estonia to different destinations in the Soviet Union that have not been returned, among those objects the Presidential collar. I hope that the Commission has not forgotten about that and will soon produce a proposal for a directive dealing with unlawful removals prior to 1993.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the report by my Italian fellow Member Mrs Locatelli, written under the consultation procedure on the proposal for a Council regulation setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. Putting Europe at the forefront of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies globally is an excellent policy.\nFuel cells are discreet, efficient energy converters that considerably reduce the production of greenhouse gases. They provide great flexibility since they can consume hydrogen and other fuels such as natural gas, ethanol and methanol.\nIt became essential to set up a Community instrument with this Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) to create partnerships between the public and private sectors in the research field under the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7). The JTIs, which mainly result from work by the European Technology Platforms (ETPs) reflect the EU's firm commitment to coordinate research in order to strengthen the European Research Area and achieve European objectives for competitiveness. I support the idea of giving more assistance to SMEs.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nI agree with the rapporteur that we should apply the Cooperation Specific Programme which identifies fuel cells and hydrogen as one of the six areas where a JTI could have particular relevance.\nThis proposal setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking is the fruit of work carried out within the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform and aims to contribute to the implementation of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan.\nFuel cells are very quiet, highly efficient energy converters capable of delivering substantial cumulative greenhouse gas and pollutant reductions, since they can be operated on hydrogen and other fuels, such as natural gas, ethanol and methanol. The introduction of hydrogen as a flexible energy carrier can contribute positively to energy security and stabilise energy prices as it can be produced from any primary energy source, and as such can introduce diversity into the transport mix, which is currently dependent on oil.\nAlthough substantial EU public funding has been channelled towards research into fuel cells and hydrogen, those technologies are unlikely to be on the market as soon as we would hope.\nTeresa Riera Madurell  \nin writing. - (ES) A vote in the committee on Industry, Research and Energy prevented me from participating in this debate, therefore I would like to justify my vote in favour.\nThis JTI has been welcomed by Parliament:\nin that it has a great deal to do with the EU's priorities: energy and the fight against climate change;\nin that the experience accumulated in processing the four previous JTIs has been very helpful in shaping this regulation: the Commission was already aware of our concerns regarding these new instruments - in terms of funding, rules for participating, transparency, opening up, conditions for continuity, etc.;\nfor the good work that the rapporteur has done. The amendments proposed: placing the EU at the forefront of these technologies, guaranteeing priority support for long-term research, supporting the rules for use and dissemination being adapted to those for participation in FP7, strengthening the Scientific Committee with the function of setting the scientific priorities and preventing the regulation from requiring the consortium coordinator to come from an industrial group, are issues that strengthen the Commission's proposal.\nJTIs are good instruments for improving our R&D capacity, provided that they are implemented in accordance with the objectives for which they were created. It is our duty to ensure that this happens.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nI welcome the Berlato report on the possibility of extending the financing of the Community Tobacco Fund until 2012.\nThe EU feels the need to protect this important sector because the complete withdrawal of subsidies would cause enormous damage to production, with negative repercussions for employment in the regions involved.\nIn some areas, tobacco can represent 35% of agricultural exports and a potential fall in production would do serious economic and social harm, particularly if the local economy is already in difficulty.\nIt is important to underline the fact that the financing earmarked for the Community Tobacco Fund will be used to cover all initiatives and education and awareness-raising campaigns on the damage caused by smoking.\nTherefore, I hope that the proposal to extend the anti-smoking communication fund is supported by my colleagues, thereby also protecting the interests of the consumer.\nBernadette Bourzai  \nThe Community Tobacco Fund financed by the transfer of a certain amount of tobacco aid for the years 2006 and 2007 promotes initiatives to raise public awareness of the harmful effects of smoking.\nThe Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has proposed extending the funding until the end of the financial perspective and has increased the percentage rate to 6%. Tobacco consumption in Europe has not changed and the gradual reduction in European production has been replaced by tobacco imports.\nThe parallel question of maintaining the CMO in tobacco and therefore of postponing the 2004 reform that should have applied from 2010 must be addressed during the health check of the CAP because decoupling causes the almost total abandonment of production with no sustainable alternative from the point of view of the economy and jobs, which has had very serious consequences for the rural areas concerned but no impact on public health.\nI do not think the fight against smoking and the extension of a transitional period enabling European producers to find alternatives to growing tobacco and reduce the negative impact on our regions are mutually exclusive.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Financing of the Community Tobacco Fund is aimed exclusively at promoting information initiatives on the damage tobacco products can cause. The proposal presented by the European Commission provides for the transfer of an amount equal to 5% of the tobacco aid granted for the calendar years 2008 and 2009. For its part, Parliament is proposing the transfer of 6% of tobacco aid granted for the period 2009 to 2012, assuming that aid to producers is continued.\nAs we know, the European Commission has, unfortunately, moved towards decoupling production aid, which has been instrumental in reducing tobacco production in Portugal, although tobacco is still being imported from producer countries. The Commission is still linking this Fund to the system of support for tobacco growers on the grounds that it is the only source of financing provided for. In line with that rationale, and based on the view that information campaigns will continue to be of value, the amendments would seem to be appropriate.\nIt also seems relevant to support the recent formal request made to the Commission by almost all the tobacco-producing Member States, for the Commission to bring forward a proposal for a regulation extending the current system of support for tobacco production until 2013, for consideration as part of the discussions in progress on the CAP 'health check'.\nNeena Gill  \nin writing. - I have voted against this report because as someone who has argued from the very outset against subsidies for tobacco production, I believe that it would be devastating to extend the phasing out of tobacco subsidies from 2009 to 2012.\nI support the European Commission's proposal which indicates there is no justification for tobacco subsidies to continue to be linked to tobacco production. I believe that the Parliament's report which tries to reopen the debate about phasing out of subsidies by 2009 is totally unacceptable.\nI see no logical reason to continue supporting tobacco production particularly due to the negative consequences tobacco has on health and healthcare costs.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted against the Berlato report on the Community Tobacco Fund. The EU, in harmony with numerous Member States, has sought to reduce tobacco use by measures such as the ban on tobacco advertising. It is therefore rank hypocrisy for the EU to continue to fund tobacco growers within Europe.\nKartika Tamara Liotard, Erik Meijer, Esko Sepp\u00e4nen, S\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - The European Parliament resolution on the Tobacco Fund proposes to extend agricultural subsidies on tobacco. We vote against in protest at the whole system of tobacco subsidies. For the EU to financially support the growth of tobacco is ridiculous, to use part of this money to support anti-smoking campaigns hypocritical. All agricultural subsidies for tobacco should be abolished immediately. Anti-smoking campaigns are useful but can easily be financed in other ways.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Sergia Belato's report on the Community Tobacco Fund seeks to reopen the debate on extending tobacco subsidies until 2012. There is no justification for tobacco subsidies to be given to farmers from both a public health and economic perspective, therefore their extension is simply not necessary.\nIndeed, given the EU's stance on tobacco, I find the proposals contained in the report to be not only hypocritical but immoral. I therefore could not vote in favour of the report.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis  \nI have voted in favour of the Berlato report, as has the Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left. It guarantees Community subsidies for tobacco growers for a further period and affords them protection against unfavourable discrimination in relation to growers of other agricultural products, for which subsidies are to continue. It is particularly important to make use of all the possibilities offered by existing resources. We must prevent tobacco growing from being abandoned and stop the exodus of the rural population during this transitional period for the crop.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski  \nin writing. - (PL) Although the vote on the Belato report was positive, it does not resolve the problem of smoking and tobacco production.\nYou could say that we have postponed a decision on these important matters, by several years. This problem will consequently return and will remain a problem for as long as people keep smoking tobacco. It will need to be solved, but not at the cost of farmers who have tied themselves to tobacco production and incurred the relevant investment outlay.\nTobacco growing provides a living for tens of thousands of families, who often have no other way of obtaining income, as, for example, in regions of Poland with poor soils.\nThis is why we need strategic decisions today, taken with due consideration, not under pressure from lobbyists representing intermediaries and traders functioning in an international system.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Berlato and voice my support for his report.\nThe report is extremely balanced and represents a rare and positive example of integration between the EU's agricultural and health policies. By proposing to increase the percentage rate of the deduction for subsidies paid to tobacco growers and releasing additional funding of over EUR 81 million for anti-smoking campaigns, the report manages to satisfy both camps with regard to certain sensitive areas.\nOn the other hand, this report extends partially coupled aid to producers at no additional cost to the EU budget, and without discriminating between them and other agricultural sectors, confirming the position expressed by Parliament in Strasbourg in March 2004.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - You will be aware that over many years this Parliament has been very vocal in its efforts to highlight the dangers to health of smoking tobacco.\nYet through all that time the European Union has given millions of euros in support to farmers for growing that very same product.\nIt really is hypocritical in the extreme to carry on such a policy.\nThe report from the Committee on Agriculture tries to reopen the debate on extending tobacco subsidies until 2012. Yet the Commission proposal, that the report was allegedly drawn up in response to, is about extending the financing of the Community Tobacco Fund, which as we know is used to warn of the dangers of smoking tobacco.\nWhat was attempted here by the Agriculture Committee was a sleight of hand that would have done any top-class magician proud, but thankfully this has been spotted and hopefully exposed for what it really is; namely an attempt to extend subsidies to tobacco farmers. This has to be resisted by this Parliament on moral, economic and health grounds.\nThe Commission's position is clear. There is no justification for tobacco subsidies linked to production. It is now high time Parliament adopted the same line by rejecting the Agriculture Committee stance on this issue. That is why I shall vote against.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - Over half a million EU citizens die every year due to tobacco addiction. Not a penny of EU taxpayers' money should go on the Community Tobacco Fund. The Community Tobacco Fund should cease to exist.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my British fellow Member Mrs de Br\u00fan on the evaluation of the PEACE Programme (EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland) which stresses that local empowerment has been an essential part of peace-building in Northern Ireland and that the participation of civil society in this process has largely contributed to improving local policy making and implementation.\nI support the idea that cooperation between participants in programmes financed by PEACE and IFI (International Fund for Ireland) should not cease when the programmes come to an end.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the de Br\u00fan report on the PEACE Programme which rightly highlights the importance of local empowerment in the peace-building process. The PEACE Programmes have made a valuable contribution to the peace process in Ireland and efforts to build upon this in the future are to be welcomed.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - I am pleased to support the PEACE programme and hope it will continue to help communities at a grass-root level.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my German fellow Member, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, which proposes to modify the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning meat and livestock statistics, but in a way that should permit agreement at the first reading under the codecision procedure. Livestock statistics (twice a year for pigs and bovine animals, and once a year for sheep and goats), monthly slaughtering statistics (head and carcass weight of pigs, bovine animals, sheep, goats and poultry) and meat production forecasts (meat from pigs, bovine animals, sheep and goats) are essential for managing EU markets but the legislation in force, which had become very complex, urgently needed to be dealt with. It seems sensible to include poultry meat in addition to statistics for meat from pigs, bovine animals, sheep and goats.\nConstantin Dumitriu  \nin writing. - (RO) The simplification of procedures is a major objective of the European institutions, which are aware that overregulation is a burden both for their operation and for the efficiency and competitiveness of economic operators. For the farmers and agricultural producers in Romania, reducing the bureaucratic burden is a requirement in order to be able to fully benefit from the advantages of joining the European Union.\nThe statistical reports should be taken into consideration both by Eurostat and in particular by the national institutions and companies. As regards meat, the statistical data represent a picture that allows taking actions in due time in order to regulate the market, by establishing intervention mechanisms.\nThe statistical reports should be unitary, correct and available in due time in order to avoid major imbalances on the Community market, affecting producers, consumers or both groups equally.\nThis report has precisely this mission and I welcome it! At the same time, national authorities should also rigorously (and, where necessary, firmly) implement actions that would result in seriousness from respondents.\nThis issue should be treated with the same care both by the person collecting and processing statistical data and by the economic agents sending them. Apart from rigorousness, this regulation will also bring about the uniformity of these data by common standards applicable across the European Union.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's report on the proposal for a regulation concerning meat and livestock statistics. The regulation aims to simplify existing legislation in this area. I voted in support of the report's recommendations.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the report by my Belgian fellow Member Mrs Van Lancker, written within the framework of the consultation procedure, on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for employment policies of the Member States.\nI salute the excellent job done by my colleague and friend Mrs Morin, the rapporteur for our political group, particularly on flexicurity. At the risk of getting off the subject a little, since this Council decision basically aims only to make recommendations to the Member States on the basis of Article 128 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, I am disappointed that, although it was its duty in application of Article 138 of this Treaty, the Committee does not push forward the social partners and affirm that the time has come to create European employment legislation with the support of these social partners based on the procedure laid down in Article 139 of the EC Treaty.\nWe cannot have an ambitious employment policy if we do not establish European labour legislation with the support of the social partners.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Lisbon Strategy, particularly following the mid-term review, represents the EU's most important strategic commitment and is finally being accompanied by concrete results in terms of growth and employment.\nIn this respect, Mrs Van Lancker, while recognising that the strategy has the advantage of having contributed to job creation, expresses the view that quality and safety need to be improved. It should be noted in fact that despite the steady fall in the number of unemployed, the number of workers with fixed-term contracts is on the increase, with clear implications and consequences. The figures reveal the need to monitor individual Member States to ensure that they tackle employment issues with an increasingly balanced, flexicurity approach: this means new jobs, but also better conditions for workers in general.\nAs the rapporteur emphasises, however, the Lisbon Agenda needs to take more account of common social objectives: the buzzword of our strategy should now be inclusion, and not just growth and employment.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) The current situation shows that, ten years after the first guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, there is ever less employment with rights, which in itself shows that the strategy is not aimed at the promotion of employment with rights. On the other hand, the constant changes to those guidelines accompanied by the European Union's ever more neoliberal economic guidelines have contributed to increased job insecurity.\n\nAlthough the rapporteur includes some palliatives concerning poverty or social inclusion, there is in fact no mention of the need to break away from the present macroeconomic and employment guidelines, which are completely neoliberal and where competition and flexibility reigns supreme, which is why such proposals amount to nothing more than a smoke screen, failing to tackle the root cause of the problems.\nSome other proposals even tend to promote flexicurity or, rather, the deregulation of the labour market, defending flexible and reliable contractual arrangements through modern labour laws, collective agreements and work organisation, with the indication that the Member States should implement their own action plans based on the common principles of flexicurity adopted by the Council.\nWe therefore voted against the report.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Van Lancker Report dealing with Member States' employment policies. The report correctly emphasises the need for Member States to implement guidelines in a way which seeks to combat discrimination whether it is based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.\nThe report also calls for Member States to recognise national traditions in implementing employment policy. I consider that the recognition of Europe's diverse traditions should be at the heart of all EU policy.\nStanis\u0142aw Ja\u0142owiecki  \nin writing. - (PL) I abstained from the vote on Mrs Van Lancker's report on employment policy guidelines. The report did not, unfortunately, succeed in avoiding contradictions. On the one hand it contains plenty of phrases such as 'knowledge-based society', 'competitiveness' and 'technological challenges' while on the other hand there is talk of the need to ensure 'employment security', 'stable employment' and such like. The former stresses intentions, the latter, keeping things as they are. No progress can be made without disrupting the employment structure. This has never happened in history.\nInstead of talking about employment security, understood as maintaining existing jobs and types of work, then, we should talk about something else, namely ensuring access to work; access to work that exists now, at this moment in time. This should be our common concern.\nCarl Lang  \nThe employment situation in the European Union is not very good. The average unemployment rate of 7.3% in 2007, not taking account of assisted jobs, is higher than that of the other major economic blocs. In North America it is less than 5%.\nFar from improving the situation, the guidelines that have been presented to us will make it worse. The Lisbon Strategy, viewed in a positive light by the rapporteur, opens our economies up to unfair competition, particularly from communist China, which practises true social dumping. Furthermore, by demanding the reduction of 'employment gaps between third country nationals and EU citizens', the report clearly forms part of the immigrationist policy pursued for decades in our countries which, by bringing more than 1.5 million immigrants in from outside Europe, is in the process of turning us into third world nations.\nRestoring national preference, which is fair positive discrimination, reducing the weight of immigration and thereby reducing the tax burden on our companies and employees, and implementing the principle of Community preference to protect the European market: these are the principal measures that should be taken to develop employment in Europe.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I salute the rapporteur's move to strengthen the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy. The call for the introduction of a balanced approach to 'flexicurity' and the introduction of a clause on active inclusion, I feel, will strengthen employment policy across Europe. I voted in favour of the report.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski  \nin writing. - (PL) There are numerous contradictions in the report on employment policy in the Member States.\nThe rapporteur writes that the renewed Lisbon Strategy is delivering results in, among other areas, a rise in GDP in the EU in recent years and a fall in unemployment, and that the employment guidelines do not need a complete revision, but merely amendments to a number of individual points.\nThe rapporteur also notes that in recent years as many as 6 million young people aged between 18 and 24 have left school early and discontinued their education, and that youth unemployment represents 40% of total unemployment in the EU, with this percentage being twice as high among migrants. In addition 78 million people are living in poverty, which is twice the population of Poland.\nShe furthermore considers the rise in the number of jobs obtained at the cost of a fall in their quality, and the rise in the percentage of people employed part-time and for fixed periods, often under the terms of contracts concluded under duress.\nReality speaks for itself, but we do not always want to listen. The reality is that society is not integrating, but dividing. Poverty is not diminishing, but spreading with each year that passes. Discrimination against women, older people and migrants in the labour market is not falling, and stereotypes in thought and in action are failing to disappear.\nCarl Schlyter  \nin writing. - (SV) By and large the content of the report is positive, but it is hypocrisy to speak of social responsibility, local economy and equality while at the same time seeking to ensure that procurement rules prohibit such things from being taken into account. I will not contribute to this. The report gives a false impression of reality, and I therefore abstain in the vote.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) I support this report and Mrs Van Lancker's view that the common social objectives of the Member States should be better reflected in the Lisbon agenda. I also support the transformation of the current Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs into a strategy based on growth, jobs and integration. I feel it is essential to promote common social standards at EU level. The creation of quality jobs is necessary, along with a strengthening of the values of the European social model.\nIn my view, one of the key tasks in the EU Sustainable Development Strategy is the establishment of an integrating society in which aims and operational strivings take priority in order to limit the number of people threatened by poverty and social exclusion and greatly increase the part played by women, older people and migrants in the labour market and promote youth employment.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - This report sets some important guidelines in the budgetary process of the 2009 budget and, overall, we strongly agree with the rapporteur's determination to continue to respect the voluntarily imposed 20% ceiling on parliamentary expenditure.\n2009 will be a year that will bring much change to the way the Parliament works and we believe that, in order to maintain this discipline, it will be necessary to closely scrutinise all spending proposals to ensure that they deliver value for money to the taxpayer. In particular we make no apology for reminding the Parliament that the biggest single saving they could make would be to abandon the two seat working of the Parliament. We also strongly support the rapporteur's proposals to provide the means for the removal of asbestos from the Strasbourg Parliament buildings.\nBritish Conservatives look forward to receiving the rapporteur's further thoughts in due course, and therefore have abstained on the final vote on this report.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the report by my Polish colleague Mr Lewandowski on Parliament's estimate of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009. This budget has to meet major challenges such as the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon if it is ratified by the Member States, the fact that 2009 is an election year for Parliament and the entry into force of the new Statute for Members\nAlthough I obviously agree with the fact that we need to be vigilant about the status of budgetary expenditure, I think we must be unyielding over expenditure associated with multilingualism (translation and interpreting), which is a condition of the political success of the European Union. We should also develop facilities for MEPs to receive visitors because these visits are very much appreciated and help citizens to get to know more about the European Union.\nFinally, in my opinion we should increase the staff of MEPs and the European Parliament's committees in order to ensure their independence and the high standard of their work, for example, when dealing with the other European institutions, lobby groups or national parliaments.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg  \nin writing. - (PL) The year 2009 will bring many challenges for the European Parliament, linked above all to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the elections to Parliament, the new Statute for Members and the change of term. The overall budget level for 2009 will have to meet the challenges despite being below Parliament's traditional voluntary limitation to 20% of outlay on administration.\nThe use in this year's procedure of a pilot process involving early and closer cooperation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets in the case of all items with significant budgetary implications is worthy of note. The new approach is aimed at ensuring the most rational use of available means and identifying potential savings.\nI must state my satisfaction at the sensible estimations of expenditure on the new Statute for Members, especially as there is potential to fine-tune the amount at a later stage. It is also pleasing to see the integration of the proposed 65 new posts into the estimates for 2009 with the idea of strengthening Parliament's legislative activity and services to Members, while at the same time placing 15% of those appropriations in reserve. The announcement that the priorities established in the 2008 budget will continue in connection with interpreting and with the analytical service of the library is also pleasing. A successful conclusion to this year's budgetary procedure will also require debates to be held and specific decisions to be taken without delay concerning Parliament's policy on real estate.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nThe budgetary process has now begun with the submission of the Commission's proposed Community budget for 2009.\nIn previous budgetary processes, the European Parliament's budget has accounted for approximately 20% of the amount budgeted under heading 5 - (administrative expenditure) of the multi-annual financial framework. The rapporteur is proposing that similar levels should be retained for the 2009 budget.\nSuch a decision should not block or hinder the availability of financial resources required to respond appropriately to the needs already mentioned to increase the number of staff and improve interpretation and translation services, respecting equality and the right to use all the official languages in the European Parliament and the activities it promotes.\nFurthermore, this has been a recurring problem, since the need to improve services such as interpretation and translation is frequently mentioned, but the financial resources required are not allocated; rules created specifically to discourage the use of different languages are frequently applied. Just look at the criteria adopted in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assemblies.\nOn the other hand the report makes no mention of guaranteeing workers' rights, in particular with regard to the EP's increased outsourcing of services over recent years.\nC\u0103t\u0103lin-Ioan Nechifor  \nin writing. - (RO) The European Parliament should become aware of the importance of the principle of solidarity, according to which the regions that have remained behind or are less developed should be supported, including financially, from the European Union budget. Unfortunately, approximately one year since its accession, Romania continues to dominate the top regarding the Gross Domestic Product per inhabitant at regional level. 6 out of the 8 regions are among the 15 less developed regions in the EU and the North East Development Region where I come from still remains the poorest of the regions in the 27 Member States.\nRomania's rhythm of economic growth is insufficient at this moment in order to very rapidly reduce the gaps that separate us and the disparities we find everywhere and the extremely low absorption of structural funds is certainly one of the reasons that place us near the top of the European Union poverty list. This is why the politization of the central administrative act makes Romania become a net contributor to the EU budget, paying approximately 1.1 billion euros last year.\nThe only consolation that remains is that 16 million euros will be returned to our country due to the fact that 2007 was the first year in which a budgetary surplus was recorded.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe employment guidelines drawn up by the EU in collaboration with centre-left and centre-right governments have been enthusiastically contributed to by the European Parliament's political representatives of capitalism. They promote the most barbarous exploitation of the working class in order to achieve the aim of the Lisbon Strategy, which is the unrestrained growth of profit for plutocrats.\nAt the centre of EU and government policy is the notorious 'flexicurity', which spells out the complete dismantling of labour relations. The EU is using unemployment as a means of intimidating workers. It is doing away with collective agreements and full-time steady employment. These are being replaced with individualised employment contracts and mainly part-time jobs having precious little in the way of labour, wage, social, insurance or pension rights. The EU aims to strike a decisive blow against state systems of social protection, insurance and pensions in all Member States. In the mediaeval employment conditions being prepared by the EU, the 'model' employee as described in EU employment guidelines is an 'employable' person working under conditions of every conceivable form of part-time work. He or she has no rights, having been trained and retrained in disposable skills according to the capitalist needs of the time. He or she is constantly on the move in search of employment, works until advanced old age or even death, and provides untold riches to be plundered by the plutocracy.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my Swedish fellow Member Mr Holm on trade in raw materials and commodities. I agree with the idea that there is a need to secure the European Union's supply of raw materials and to ensure access to raw materials on the world markets, while noting that the European Union currently does not provide a coherent strategy that would allow its economy to face the challenges to its competitiveness due to enhanced competition for access to raw materials.\nI am disappointed that the report does not discuss the issues linked to currency manipulation in the world which, together with reduced exchange rates, distorts fair competition. Among the raw materials, oil would have merited particular examination and I reiterate my proposal to create a European instrument for the annual regulation of crude oil prices, which is at least worth looking into - not to fight market forces, which we have to accept, but to regulate the suddenness of their application in the internal market and soften the impact of crude oil price rises in the cost\/price chain of the sectors concerned (fishing, transport, etc.).\nBruno Gollnisch  \nMr Holm's report seems to identify fairly clearly the problems the world is currently facing because of the unprecedented rise in the cost of raw materials. For European countries without natural resources of their own, this means problems with competitiveness, and therefore jobs, security of supply, greater dependence, and so on, and for poorer countries, puts their development in jeopardy and causes food shortage riots and the like.\nAlthough some of the causes are mentioned, particularly the predatory behaviour of some emerging countries like China and the liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, others - such as speculation, Europe's Malthusian agricultural policy emanating from Brussels, the principle itself of global free trade, etc. - are obscured or nearly obscured.\nAs for the solutions, it is clear that Parliament believes essentially in the regulatory virtues of the free, competitive market. However, that market is now revealing its limitations, and cruelly so. Energy, food and raw materials are not just products like any other: people's survival depends on them. It is time that in its international trade relations, Europe, from Brussels, defended its own interests and those of its Member States first and foremost, instead of trying to create a globalist utopia at any cost, human or social.\nVasco Gra\u00e7a Moura  \nin writing. - (PT) This report considers aspects beyond traditional trade in raw materials and commodities. In the new international situation various production factors and components may be regarded as raw materials, including energy. The increase in the prices of those products is serious for European industry, which imports them from outside its borders. The markets respond to the increase in demand on the part of more producers facing natural and environmental condition and react to financial speculation. It is worrying that this international situation has encouraged price levels capable of wiping out economic growth in Europe. Once that trend is established, the race for resources will give rise to pressure and shortages which are likely to pose a challenge to many generations of managers and will certainly have implications for the governance of the modern world.\nBy means of this report the European Parliament calls on the Commission to raise within the WTO issues of access to raw material markets. The objective is to obtain reciprocity and one appropriate route is via the WTO. Negotiations on these products should never go below regional level so as to promote integration, development and sustainability. In order to prevent major speculation and conflict, we must ensure that our trading partners holding these resources receive a fair price for their commodities.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nWe do not share the vision with regard to trade in raw materials contained in the report.\nWe do not agree with the criticism that describes policies and measures introduced by third countries as: 'creating obstacles to free and fair access to raw materials (...), which have the effect of limiting access by EU industries (!) to raw materials and commodities'. Each country has the inalienable sovereign right to decide how it uses its raw materials or how it trades in its commodities. It is for the people of each country to decide upon the use of their resources and of the wealth created.\nThe report does not mention that the real problem actually lies with the EU's neoliberal model. Steeped in neo-colonial ambitions, it seeks to return many countries to the role of producers of raw materials for the countries of the EU, using technology and dominance and control of the market mechanisms - including financial speculation - to promote economic dependence and exploitation by the multinationals.\nWhat is needed is a clear break from the reigning economic and social model, ending dominator\/dominated relationships, defending national sovereignty, developing the economic potential of each country and complementarity and solidarity in its external relations, and production geared to satisfying the needs of the people and to preserving the planet.\nJens Holm  \nin writing. - The report dealing with trade in raw materials and commodities expresses many important issues from a development perspective. The report emphasises the problematic occurrence of speculation in inflating prices and increasing volatility on the markets, which needs to be regulated.\nIt also calls for more support for diversification in developing countries, and highlights the importance of policy space for these countries to enable the development of not least their agricultural sector. The report also criticises the increase of meat consumption, and asks for ways of tackling that. However, the report also expresses points, which we find deeply problematic. This refers foremost to the repeated emphasis on the international competitiveness and the urge for the European industry to secure cheap access to raw materials.\nWe do not support this focus, and can only conclude that the neoliberal face of the EU once more has been articulated. In general the report is a step in the right direction compared with earlier positions of Parliament on trade policy.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Jens Holm's report on trade in raw materials and commodities. Free and fair access to raw materials is important for the EU economy. Nevertheless, the implications of price volatility in raw materials and commodities for developing countries also need to be taken into account. I voted in favour of the report.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - Some news, although good in itself, cannot fail to give us concern as regards the consequences. That is partly the case with the increase in the price of raw materials.\nThe good news is that, as shown by various indices, an ever larger proportion of the world's population is attaining levels of consumption previously unknown to them. The problem, however, lies in some of the consequences, above all the immediate consequences that such growth in consumption - and therefore in demand - might have. The laws of economics apply even in distorted markets and an increase in demand results either in an increase in supply or, as in this case, in an increase in price. That is what has happened.\nThe European Union should encourage a general opening up of markets, so that ever more producers are able to take advantage of the increase in demand and it should foster an increase in trade. At the same time we have a duty to provide direct support to those immediately hit by these new circumstances: those who are unable to face the increase in the price of essential goods. Market distortion rarely produces positive effects, above all in the long term, but there is nothing to stop us, quite the reverse, from providing funding for those who have less.\nBart Staes  \nin writing. - (NL) Something is clearly going wrong with the trade in raw materials and commodities. There is currently much speculation on the prices of raw materials. Minerals, for example, are fairly expensive. Despite their natural resources, countries that are rich in minerals are remaining poor or becoming even poorer.\nDeveloping countries are also unsure of their own food supply, despite the fact that they produce a great deal of food. The problem is that food is being exported on a massive scale at excessively low prices. Furthermore, climate change forces us to manage this energy-guzzling market differently: extraction of minerals is to be discouraged, and localised food production and consumption are preferable to the global trade in agricultural products. In short, the trade in raw materials and commodities, as regulated today, has a highly disruptive effect and requires a multilateral approach.\nThe report on the trade in raw materials and commodities initially comprised a just complaint against the ultraliberal trade policy proposed by the EU in late 2006. In the meantime, however, it has been toned down to such an extent that I can no longer lend it my support. For instance, it contains barely any significant policy proposals. Even worse is the fact that the report labels free access to raw materials and commodities as a right of the EU and pushes forward a bilateral trade policy as the ideal instrument.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my French colleague and friend Mrs Sudre, which she wrote in response to the Commission communication on the strategy for the outermost regions (ORs). I support the idea that taking into account increasingly mathematical justifications for the measures taken should not serve as a pretext for calling into question part of the Union's policy to assist the ORs nor deter actors by imposing conditions on them which are too difficult to meet.\nCommunity interventions should be a catalyst for a spirit of enterprise that will transform the ORs into centres of excellence, driven by sectors that fully exploit their advantages and know-how, such as waste management, renewable energies, energy self-sufficiency, biodiversity, student mobility, research into climate change and crisis management. Finally, I support the fact that the future common immigration policy should devote special attention to the position of ORs, which are all EU external borders. I applaud the job done by Mrs Sudre which, unremittingly and with a great deal of skill, determination and compassion, speaks up on behalf of the outermost regions.\nEmanuel Jardim Fernandes\nin writing. - (PT) The motion for a resolution in this report contains recommendations on the assessment and future prospects of the strategy for the outermost regions, including in particular:\nindicators other than merely GDP being used to measure the degree of cohesion achieved;\ncohesion policy being better coordinated with other Community policies across the board, so as to enhance synergies, and current and future European policies being more effectively adapted to the realities of the situation of the outermost regions;\npolicies and measures in their favour that are not transitional and are adapted to their different needs and offer solutions for the permanent constraints to which they are subject;\nCommunity support for agriculture in the ORs and provision for support measures for their respective fishing industries;\ndifferential treatment in the transport sector, particularly as regards the inclusion of civil aviation in the Emission Trading Scheme;\nthe need for the debate on the future of the strategy for the ORs to include Lisbon strategy implementation in their regard;\nthe future common immigration policy should devote special attention to the position of ORs;\nplacing ORs at the heart of EU maritime policy;\nensuring future Community funding of the strategy for the ORs and the compensation of handicaps linked to their outermost status.\nThe report deserved my support and that of my group. I called for the report to be adopted and voted in favour.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nWe regret that the majority in Parliament rejected our amendments seeking to incorporate into the motion for a resolution on the future of EU policy for the Outermost Regions (ORs) - adopted today in plenary - the valuable and important proposals in the interests of the ORs, approved in the Committee on Fisheries.\nSome people argue that it is a resolution on regional policy rather than on fisheries. That is a fallacy. The motion for a resolution is the EP's contribution on the future of Community policies for the ORs, and it is here in Parliament that we shall have to explain the proposals approved, in particular those adopted in the EP Committee on Fisheries - which is what happened with the EP resolution on maritime policy. That is why we sought to present them again and also to be consistent with the view which we take in Portugal.\nOn the other hand, we regret the rejection of our proposal that clearly explained that the Community support measures for the ORs should be of a permanent nature. The rapporteur states that the aim is that eventually these measures will no longer be necessary. That is basically a (pseudo) argument to cover up the fact that the constraints faced by the ORs are permanent in nature and will need to be negotiated in every budget or Community framework.\nFernand Le Rachinel  \nin writing. - (FR) France is very concerned about the European Union's policy on the outermost regions.\nIt is essential that the specific characteristics of these regions be taken into account, much more and much better than they are now, by the politicians in Brussels, especially:\nthrough trade policy, as production by the outermost regions is in competition with that of the neighbouring countries that benefit from highly preferential conditions from the EU;\nthrough immigration policy, as these regions are particularly vulnerable to immigration and the influx of illegal immigrants is creating economic and social problems there that are far beyond the local capacity to overcome them;\nthrough provisions concerning State aid and especially by maintaining the tax exemptions that these regions benefit from, which are periodically called into question in the name of European law.\nI am particularly worried about the legal ambiguity that exists regarding Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy: this small French island has been a territorial authority since 2007, and when it changed its status it wanted to preserve the tax exemption that is essential for its economic survival. However, the EU appears to consider it to be among the outermost regions, in other words a territory of the Union that is subject to Community law. It would be unacceptable for this ambiguity to put at risk the desire for autonomy that was clearly expressed by 95% of the population.\nRamona Nicole M\u0103nescu  \nin writing. - (RO) The main issue of the seven ultra peripheral regions is that, although they represent 1% of the European Union population, they deal with a delicate economic and social situation, aggravated by their insular position far away from the continent, the difficult surface, relief and climate, as well as their economic dependence on a limited number of products.\nTaking the actions listed by the Commission and supported by the Rapporteur a priority, such as the improvement of competitiveness, reducing difficulties related to accessibility and integration of ultra peripheral regions into the regional geographic environment, we can contribute to improving the socio-economic situation of these regions, homogenising their development with the other regions of the European Union and turning to good account their resources complementarily with the Community requirements.\nThis is also one of the reasons why I voted for this report and I would like to add the need to give increased attention to ports, since 6 out of the 7 ultra peripheral regions are islands. The modernization of ports infrastructure can contribute to the promotion and development of the tourism industry, production sector and local markets.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Supporting the outermost regions of the European Union is in keeping with EU thinking on solidarity in order to reduce the disadvantages generated by their being difficult to access. In particular, we certainly need to ensure that these regions do not lose their agricultural self-sufficiency capability, which also applies generally to the European Union as a whole.\nIn this regard it must be our common endeavour to maintain small family farms - also those of hill farmers in Austria, for instance, as well as every individual traditional small, medium-sized and organic farmer - so that they can continue their ecologically useful work and we do not lose our food sovereignty to giant farms or become dependent on big agricultural concerns. For this reason I voted in favour of the Sudre report.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The ORs have specific characteristics that have come to be taken into account in measures to promote European growth and development. However, there is still much to do for further development of those regions and for us to draw more benefit from that frontier area with other global economic blocs.\nCross-sectoral and complementary measures in favour of the ORs have helped to improve the economic and social situation of these regions and it is still important to work on improved accessibility, stronger competitiveness and better regional integration. Nevertheless, there are still difficulties on the ground that are not being taken into account, such as the preservation of traditional agriculture, increased support for the development of key sectors or the maintenance of differentiated tax regimes. Making the most of the specific assets of the ORs is thus the strategy that will ensure the sustainable development of the outermost regions in terms of attraction and cooperation.\nMaking new priorities of climate change, demographic change and migration management, agriculture and maritime policy is a good measure that needs to be complemented by the necessary diversification of OR economies, by their specific characteristics and by exploiting the rules in force as widely as possible, using the most appropriate tools for resolving the specific problems faced by the ORs.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI abstained from voting on the own-initiative report by my Finnish fellow Member Mr Lehtinen, in response to the Commission communication on Community consumer policy strategy for 2007-2013.\nI am naturally in agreement on the fact that the 493 million European consumers should be at the heart of the three main challenges that the Union has to face: growth, employment and the need to form closer links with citizens, and that they are the life force of the economy, as their consumption represents 58% of the EU's GDP.\nNevertheless, I remain convinced that while we have succeeded with the internal market through competition; in other words paying particular attention to consumers, I consider that we should, in response to the current global challenges, place producers at the heart of our concerns. Moreover, in the absence of a serious legal study, I have considerable reservations about the hasty manner in which the report tackles the issue of collective action by consumers against producers by asking the Commission to put forward a comprehensive solution at European level offering all consumers access to collective appeal mechanisms for settling cross-border disputes.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nTo offer consumers better protection, Mr Lehtinen's report proposes improving the existing legislation in the relevant areas, making it simpler and smoothing out any regional differences. The EU has a duty to develop a real transnational economic policy aimed at the protection of consumer rights and at safeguards for consumer health.\nThe proposal in question - which I support - is intended to create a harmonious legal framework to guarantee a solid, integrated system for product safety and to instil real consumer confidence in goods on the European market, thereby triggering widespread growth in consumption.\nTo arrive at an effective consumer protection policy, however, the EU must invest a great deal of energy in improving market surveillance, if necessary by stepping up international cooperation, and in education and awareness-raising campaigns for the consumers themselves: until consumers have been persuaded that its products are completely safe, the European market cannot realise its full potential.\nThis would allow Europe to become a truly competitive market able to satisfy and protect its consumers and encourage them to be bolder: real players in the market, in fact.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) I supported Mr Lehtinen's report because the transparency of the regulations protecting European consumers is beneficial to those consumers and also to manufacturers who are competing among themselves. Economic changes in the new Member States have brought about the introduction of new principles of action for market entities. The range of goods on offer to consumers today is increasingly rich in terms of both products and services. I nevertheless feel that the position of consumers, especially in the new Member States, where we all recall the beginnings of the free market, remains relatively weak vis-\u00e0-vis large concerns. It requires greater transparency and an upgrading of the relevant legal framework guaranteeing consumers suitable protection of their rights.\nI was also glad to accept that part of the report in which the rapporteur speaks in favour of support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU. In my region, Ma\u0142opolska, such enterprises account for 95% of the total, and most of them have not been around for very long (30% are less than 5 years old).\nColm Burke and Malcolm Harbour  \nin writing. - The EPP-ED Group strongly supports a comprehensive programme of actions to inform and empower consumers in Europe's Single Market. We want consumers to take maximum benefits from the choice, diversity and innovation available in a thriving market of nearly 500 million consumers, the largest retail market in the world.\nWe also want consumers to be able to enjoy their rights of redress quickly and effectively if they run into problems. We support easy and effective access to justice especially through non-judicial means, backed as last resort by judicial remedies.\nWe abstained on the vote today because the PSE has hijacked a very positive report by inserting a call for an entirely untested and potentially very costly legal provision for European level enforcement of collective rights. The Commission is already consulting extensively on the whole issue of consumers' rights enforcement. It is far too early to draw any conclusions on the changes that might be needed. Much can be done by improving existing redress mechanisms, and stepping up cooperation between Member States.\nThe PSE are harming consumer's rights by trying to divert attention away from the need for more determined actions at all levels to improve the enforcement of consumers' rights, while ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163).\nIlda Figueiredo  \nA genuine consumer protection policy must obey various principles.\nFirstly, there must be a fair income distribution and redistribution policy, based on decent wages, adequate returns for producers, specifically small- and micro-scale farmers, manufacturers and traders, to encourage markets close to the areas where the food is produced and promote food security and sovereignty.\nSecondly, there must be an effective policy to combat speculative trade and finance, and there must be information for consumers and guarantee of transparency.\nThe report, however, pays little attention to these issues; on the contrary, it advocates positions that are more concerned with defending the interests of economic and financial groups and liberalising services than with consumers as a whole, although in parts it does contain some positive proposals, except that this is in a totally neoliberal framework in which consumers are the weakest link in the whole process.\nFor example, the report stresses that enhanced liberalisation of the services market in particular is needed to promote competition, thus offering lower prices for consumers, which we well know is contradictory and serves only the interests of companies. That is why we were unable to vote in favour of this report.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) Consumers are at the heart of the common market and should therefore be its main beneficiaries. In my view, though, a balance should be maintained between legislation that strongly protects consumers and the conditions for the functioning of businesses.\nNobody underestimates consumers' rights to press their claims. I think, though, that we should in particular provide consumers with the opportunity to put their rights into effect rapidly and effectively. In my opinion that extra-judicial means should be especially strongly emphasised when considering consumer complaints. I would like to make the point that, according to data from Business Europe, as many as 90% of disputes relating to consumer rights are settled without recourse to the courts. The cost element of proceeding in this way is also not without significance, as it is very much lower than when courts are involved.\nI feel that the amendment voted through in Parliament calling for the creation of a European system of collective redress does not guarantee more effective consumer protection. This matter should be considered by the European Commission, and we should delay taking a decision until such time as the results have been published. It may be that this matter is adequately regulated by the Member States' legislation. Moreover, I fear that this system creates conditions for actions the real beneficiaries of which will not be consumers, but the world of lawyers who profit from the rise in rates for proceedings conducted.\nAnna Hedh  \nin writing. - (SV) I think it is a good thing that the EU is taking responsibility for consumers and I therefore voted for the report. On the other hand, I am opposed to ideas of harmonising consumer protection in the EU and appealing to more countries to adopt the euro.\nJens Holm, S\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - The report proposes to establish an EU consumer ombudsman. We are sceptical towards this idea for several reasons: This post may create significant expenses which risk undermining the funding of consumer organisations.\nMoreover, the creation of another post at European level risks being too remote from citizens. Having said this, we still support the report since its strengthens consumers access to collective redress, which is fundamental for consumers' trust in making safe cross-border purchases.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted against the Lehtinen Report on the consumer policy strategy because, whilst there was much in the Report with which I could agree, I fundamentally reject the call for enhanced liberalisation of services. It is true that certain services can benefit from a liberalised economic environment and the freedom of movement for services is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU.\nHowever I consider that public services should be run for the benefit of the communities and individuals they serve and not for private profit. Services in areas such as health, education and lifeline transport links should remain publicly owned, publicly accountable and the responsibility of Member States.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Lasse Lehtinen's report on the EU Consumer Policy Strategy 2007-2013 reiterates the need to empower EU consumers and enhance their welfare and protection across the Union. My vote reflects the need for improved consumer protection across the EU.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) EU consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 presents the proper directions for the development of consumer protection, but the point should be made that ad hoc actions are far too little. We must draw up a plan for further specific and consistent steps that will lead to consumer protection becoming an element in all EU regulations. We must make sure that consumer protection itself does not become a separate area in European policy, but is written into every European policy establishing the European internal market.\nWithout the proper protective mechanisms, this important European project of creating a single market will not be completed. We must also bear in mind that protection of EU consumers has an external dimension - one reminder of this at least being the recent problem with imported Chinese toys. Our aim should be to achieve full consumer confidence in all products on sale on the internal market.\nFurthermore, a true internal market should offer a European system of pursuing collective claims. In setting this up, we must draw conclusions from the US system of class actions, with all its drawbacks.\nMarianne Thyssen  \nin writing. - (NL) Mr President, in principle, the report by Mr Lehtinen has my support. As approved in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, it contains all the essential issues we must deal with in response to the Commission communication: the pursuit of a horizontal approach, attention to contract law, the acknowledgement of the role of consumer organisations, the need for balance, the particularity of SMEs, the importance of soft law and of an improved knowledge base, and the need for more attention to the services sector. We also consider the passage on access to redress important. This is a dimension of the maintenance of law and order. It is a pity, however, that an amendment to section 40 was adopted in the plenary sitting that favours group actions before an analysis is available, based upon the examination requested in the report. Group actions encroach fundamentally upon procedural law. It is therefore unacceptable to put the cart before the horse. This is why I have abstained from voting.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI abstained from voting on the own-initiative report by my British fellow Member Mrs Lynne regarding the progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the Union since the transposition of the directives of 2000.\nI agree with the fundamentals of the principles laid down in the report, in particular in terms of non-discrimination in fields such as education, lifelong learning, employment, social protection, housing and healthcare, the images of groups that are victims of discrimination in the media and advertising, physical access for disabled people to information, telecommunications, electronic communications, the different methods of transport and public spaces, social benefits and access to them, as well as the goods and services made available to the public, etc.\nNevertheless, I am not convinced of the need for a new directive on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The political debate needs to continue. To be continued ...\nPhilip Bushill-Matthews  \nin writing. - Conservative MEPs abhor discrimination in all its forms: we have tabled our own amendments to this report to make this crystal clear. But while some aspects of ongoing discrimination may still be a problem, to suggest that more EU legislation is somehow the solution is way off the mark.\nThe UK already has a full body of law regarding discrimination, which continues to prove difficult to implement in practice. There needs to be better implementation of existing laws, and better understanding of the problems in their implementation, before we go down the road of yet more EU Directives.\nThis Report, an own-initiative Resolution calling for yet another 'comprehensive and broad' EU Directive against Discrimination, is at best political posturing and at worst an open-ended invitation to the Commission to produce yet more and more one-size-fits-all EU legislation in a very sensitive area.\nAs one UK Chamber of Commerce member succinctly put it, 'Most discrimination is not going to be solved by extra legislation. Time would be much better spent on multi-cultural, multi-faith events to change perceptions'. We agree.\nBrian Crowley\nin writing. - This report seeks to go beyond the competence given to the EU by the Member States in the area of anti-discrimination. The Treaties clearly set out those areas where the EU has the power to propose legislation and what Member States can do on their own.\nThis report, which is an own-initiative report, i.e. there is no proposal for legislation from the Commission, goes beyond what the present Treaties allow and also goes beyond the position if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. In fact, any anti-discrimination measures which fall within EU competence are a matter for our Member State Governments and each Government has a veto. This is NOT for the European Parliament.\nUnder existing Treaty powers, all Member States must agree to laws in the area of anti-discrimination. Indeed Ireland has a very robust body of National anti-Discrimination law, e.g. Equal Status Act, and has an excellent record.\nImproving the rights of the disabled and specifically addressing restrictions to goods and services is commendable. This report, however, has gone beyond the competence of the Union and as such the Fianna F\u00e1il delegation have rejected it.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Lynne on progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU, since we need to urge the European Commission to keep a strict check on the transposition of Directives 2000\/43\/EC and 2000\/78\/EC on equal treatment between persons, and on the implementation of national laws based on those directives.\nI would stress that women are particularly vulnerable to acts of discrimination at work, above all as regards their maternity choices.\nThe right to be protected against any form of discrimination is a fundamental and basic principle of the European Union, and yet effective legal instruments and implementation are lacking, so that it is in danger of being emptied of all meaning.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThe report contains some positive aspects, namely the insistence that the Commission and the Member States should end all discrimination based on the employment contract by ensuring equal treatment for all workers, health and safety protection, provisions for working and rest time, freedom of association and representation, protection against unfair dismissal, collective bargaining and collective action.\nIt also emphasises the importance of access to training as well as the continued protection of acquired rights by covering periods of education and training, improved care opportunities, the maintenance of essential social rights such as pension rights, training rights and the right to unemployment benefits during changes in a person's occupational situation, between employment contracts and between dependent and autonomous employment.\nIn view of all the above, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats tried to amend the report in various aspects, in particular as regards the content of the demand for a non-discrimination directive; they were not successful since the voting went against them.\nFor our part we reject the PPE-DE's proposals and supported the rapporteur, although we disagree with some points in the report.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The Lynne report on combating discrimination in the Member States, in particular in employment, is entirely in keeping with the texts adopted by Parliament on this subject. Behind the general terms and the few mentions of women or the disabled, it is not at all difficult to distinguish the real, obsessive focus of your attention: immigrant populations.\nIn order to evade the issue, everything is intentionally mixed together: discrimination against women, young people, the elderly, people of ethnic origin, etc., but also national origin. If there is any type of discrimination that can be perfectly justified morally, legally and politically, it is national and European preference in terms of employment and social benefits. Correlatively, your proposals for 'positive action', as you do not dare to use the real words, are well and truly reverse discrimination, the first victims of which would be, and already are, Europeans themselves in their own countries. You think, however, that this type of discrimination is normal.\nGenowefa Grabowska  \nin writing. - (PL) As a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I entirely support Mrs Lynne's report. I have no doubt that the international law in force and our own EU adjudications are - from a formal aspect - desirable and good solutions. I therefore regret that their entry into force is continually coming up against numerous obstacles, even in our Europe, which would appear to be more democratic and less discriminatory.\nIt is astounding that we might need to call on EU Member States to treat the provisions of Directive 2000\/78\/EC with full respect and to carry out constant and systematic monitoring of progress in the elimination of all forms of discrimination from political, social and economic life.\nThis is of particular importance for the citizens of my country, Poland, who, enjoying the benefits of the common market and freedom of personal movement, live and work in many EU countries. I am very sorry to have to say that there is increasing evidence of discrimination against my fellow countrymen solely on the grounds of their nationality. Disturbing information of this kind is increasingly coming to light from Germany, Great Britain and Ireland. It would be a paradox if the European Parliament were to become so heavily and effectively involved in combating manifestations of discrimination in the world yet were unable to cope with respect for human rights at home - that is, in the EU Member States. All EU citizens surely deserve equal and non-discriminatory treatment!\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) First of all I would like to stress that conducting a debate and taking action in the sphere of opposing discrimination and equal opportunities is very important.\nAs the rapporteur herself points out, however, some Member States have not yet fully implemented the Directives on equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000\/43\/EC) and on equal treatment in employment and occupation (2000\/78\/EC). Because of problems in implementing their provisions, the key would seem to be to concentrate on proper transposition and more effective execution of the regulations these directives embody.\nThe situation will not be improved by covering more categories of people through more legal enactments. What is most important is to run educational and information campaigns and actions aimed at raising awareness, conducted chiefly at Member State level, which will constitute the right response to the problems in question. The challenges linked to discrimination and equal opportunities are not the same in all Member States.\nThis is also why I am against the creation of more and more legislative acts, as they will not cause problems in the sphere of equal opportunities and discrimination to disappear.\nMeanwhile, I am of the view that discrimination against disabled people, whose specific situation creates a need for urgent drafting of a comprehensive proposal with implementation at Member State level, requires separate consideration. I hope that the European Commission will take up this initiative in the very near future.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Elizabeth Lynne's report entitled 'Progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU'. I believe that we should not be aiming to promote a hierarchy of discrimination in the EU.\nColleagues in the Conservative Party obviously feel differently and I would defy them to find an explanation for a position that I find fundamentally indefensible. We need a horizontal Article 13 directive and I voted in favour of Ms Lynne's report.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - The Fine Gael members of the PPE-DE Group, Mairead McGuinness, Avril Doyle, Gay Mitchell and Colm Burke abstained in the final vote on the Lynne report on 'Progress made on equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU'.\nThe report points out and criticises Member States for 'deficiencies in the transposition and implementation' of Directive 2000\/78\/EC and calls for more rigorous monitoring of Member States' transposition and implementation as well as strengthening of EU law in this area.\nWe support the call for full transposition and implementation of EU Directives, but note that infringement procedures against some Member States have still not been concluded.\nWe strongly support measures to end discrimination, including additional measures, but cannot at this stage support a call for further EU Directives in this area. It is important that existing EU Directives are fully implemented and the Commission should continue to ensure compliance at Member State level before there could be any consideration of new EU measures.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for this report and I consider it important for the progress achieved, but especially for the future actions required in order to achieve equality of chances and the fight against discrimination. The provisions of this report represent one of the most progressive parts of the legislation, with real benefits for an important number of European citizens for increasing life quality.\nAccording to the data provided by the Commission, 51% of European citizens believe that not enough efforts are made in their country to combat discrimination and provide equal chances.\n77% of EU citizens believe that women are under-represented in management positions and 72% believe that the population over 50 is under-represented at the workplace.\nThe success of the report is guaranteed by two things: important support of the population for adopting measures in order to combat discrimination, which would ensure equal opportunities for everyone, as well as our political solid commitment, of the European social-democrats, for building a society where nobody is excluded and where all citizens have equal chances. I congratulate Mrs. Lynne on the report.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The active and energetic defence of non-discrimination is not to be confused with relativisation in which everything is equal, everything is equivalent and all choices, options or circumstances have equal value in the legal order. For example, the promotion of policies protecting larger families in no way constitutes a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. Just as the refusal to set legal frameworks for all possible forms of relationships between human beings could not be compared to any type of discrimination. What I support, and think it is my duty to support in the field of non-discrimination is, above all, the defence of a broad concept of individual freedom and not a collectivist State view of freedoms, in which only what is promoted by the State is regarded as non-discriminatory. Society may and does have preferences, that find their expression in public policies. It cannot and must not impose conduct or restrict conduct that does not conflict with the freedom of third parties.\nLydia Schenardi  \nThere are currently no less than five directives on equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the European Union. Twenty-eight actions for infringement are in progress against Member States that have not transposed them. This can only be deplored.\nNevertheless, should we systematically impose gender equality by force and through repression?\nI do not think so, quite the contrary. Let us stop stigmatising this discourse on discrimination by classifying minority groups and populations as 'good', in particular immigrants, and making Europeans feel guilty as if they were constantly practising discrimination.\nWe need to put an end to these leftist refrains that do not do anything to help people who are being discriminated against, who are on the contrary stigmatised by them.\nLet us place more emphasis on each person's personal responsibility to end discrimination of any kind and on the need, especially for immigrants, to adapt to our rules, our laws and our values.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Discrimination, both indirect and direct, with regard to gender, age or disability, is still with us in Europe.\nThe Internet portal Pracuj.pl ran a questionnaire among people in work and seeking work, employers, students and graduates. According to the questionnaire, the social groups most discriminated against in the labour market are the over-50s and disabled people.\nThe most common manifestation of discrimination in the labour market is employers being guided by prejudices and stereotypes when selecting a candidate for a job - nearly 62% of respondents saw that as a major problem. After that we have unequal access to job offers\/lack of suitable job offers (56%), unwillingness to provide employment for an undefined period\/on a work contract (44%) and lower-than-average pay for the particular environment or industry (43%).\nMy view is that an anti-discrimination policy, as one of the fundamental principles of the EU, has a very definite task to perform in this sphere.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote for this own-initiative report since it contains several worthwhile considerations relating to the creation of a system for the sustainable ecological and economic management of the EU's marine environments.\nWe have also chosen to support the idea of a European Maritime Day. There is reason for scepticism over grand campaigns launched by EU institutions, but in this case we chose to support the idea since the environmental situation in the seas is a matter of urgency.\nHowever, we think that the report contains passages which can be interpreted as being too favourably disposed to commercial fishing. The fishing fleets in the EU currently suffer from overcapacity and need to be reduced for the sake of the declining fish stocks. It is wrong to guarantee commercial fishermen jobs in fishing. Active vocational training projects are among many measures which can be applied to assist workers and regions which are dependent on the fishing industry.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my German fellow Member Mr Piecyk on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, drawn up in response to a Communication from the Commission on the same subject. The maritime areas (two oceans - the Atlantic and the Arctic - and four seas - the Baltic, the North Sea, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea) and the coastline (70 000 km) of Europe are essential to its well-being and prosperity; they are the trade routes, the climate regulators, sources of food, energy and resources, and popular places to live and for leisure among Europeans.\nI would like to add that they are a reservoir of water, which will be a rare commodity. In a context of globalisation and rapid climate change, there is an urgent need to act by establishing an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, based on the acknowledgement that all the issues relating to Europe's oceans and seas are linked to each other. Maritime surveillance, which is essential for ensuring safety and security in the use of maritime spaces, maritime space development, which is an essential planning instrument for making ecologically viable decisions and a complete and accessible source of data and information, are very interesting paths to follow.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nEurope, partly because of its strategic geographical location, must set an international example in its maritime policy, harnessing the economic potential of the oceans and seas as an invaluable source of renewable energy. Similarly, setting up regional centres of excellence and providing encouragement and support for university research centres already in coastal areas, accompanied by an action plan based on innovation, research and environmental protection of oceans and seas, would represent a further step forward towards fully sustainable use of marine resources.\nThe report also suggests that the action plan must make an important contribution towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the use of fair emissions trading systems, by consolidating research into the oceans and seas as a renewable energy source and by introducing equal tax treatment of electricity and marine fuels. This would mean that, when docked, ships would be encouraged to use a land-based electricity supply.\nFinally, the proposal for coordination between the European agencies responsible for maritime surveillance would discourage and prevent attacks on European vessels and at the same time combat illegal activities such as smuggling, drug and human trafficking, thereby rendering international waters decidedly safer.\nAdam Bielan  \nGiven the opportunity to discuss Mr Piecyk's report on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union, I would like to draw attention to implementation of the Water Framework Directive, which envisages action aimed at the identification and disposal of chemical weapons left behind in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea after World War II. I am referring to the plans surrounding the NordStream pipeline, the construction of which may disturb weaponry dating back to World War II that is lying on the bottom of the Baltic Sea. According to preliminary estimates, there are somewhere between 40 000 and 60 000 tonnes of chemical ammunition, of which about 12 000-13 000 tonnes are poisonous combat material. We do not even have detailed information on the location of a large part of this weaponry, so the risk of a disaster is enormous. Moreover, when the pipeline is commissioned, chemicals may be used that are harmful to the environment. This may lead to an environmental disaster with very serious consequences. This constitutes a direct threat to the life and health of people living on the shores of the Baltic Sea. The report mentions bringing about a situation in which 'Europe's oceans and seas will be the cleanest in the world'. I am therefore appealing for the European Union to take specific action on an integrated maritime policy and to ban the construction of projects that threaten the safety of European residents.\nOle Christensen, Dan J\u00f8rgensen, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen  \nin writing. - (DA) Shipping must be included in CO2 quota trading.\nThe socialist delegation is working to have shipping traffic included in the CO2 quota trading system. Although this mode of transport is particularly environmentally friendly compared with most modes of goods transport, shipping accounts for very significant CO2 emissions that clearly exceed the share from aviation traffic, for example, which is also set to be included in the quota trading system soon.\nToday, the delegation has therefore voted in favour of the point in the report on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union that clearly states that we must include shipping in the trading of CO2 emissions.\nWe have therefore discarded an amendment proposal from the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance concerning the same issue. It is unclear whether the Green amendment proposal refers to a specific model for emissions trading. If this is the case, we have had no explanation of what exactly it contains. At present, we therefore do not wish to adopt a particular model, which in the worst case could hamper and delay agreement on the inclusion of CO2 emissions from shipping.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We entirely agree with some of the views presented in this report, for example that it is urgent to combat sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from ships and that the common fisheries policy is too bureaucratic and centralised.\nHowever, most of the proposals put forward are negative. We have trouble seeing what could be gained from the introduction by the EU of a 'European Maritime Day'. We also question the value of EU financing for maritime research and a plan to survey and map wrecked ships and submerged archaeological sites, and we are critical of the idea that EU institutions should address the subject of maritime spatial planning.\nThe report constitutes a further example of how the European Parliament seeks to gain influence in ever more areas of policy. Respect for the subsidiarity principle, which is often paid lip service but seldom applied, is conspicuous by its absence. We cannot accept that. We have therefore voted against the report in the final vote.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) We think that a maritime policy based on cooperation between the Member States, that add value and promotes policies and measures linked to the sea set by each country, could have a positive impact.\nNevertheless the EP is reaffirming objectives - for the integrated maritime policy - although less strongly than in the previous report, that we cannot agree with.\nApart from being imbued with a federalist and geostrategic vision of the use of the exclusive economic zones of each Member State, it advocates the rapid integration of intra-Community maritime transport into the single market, i.e., its liberalisation; it stresses the initiatives aimed at establishing a European coastguard, an area falling within the competence of each Member State; it advocates incorporating shipping into emissions trading - yet more bargaining; and, paradoxically (or perhaps not) it declares itself in favour of maritime policy being given appropriate consideration in the EU budget (?) after 2013; i.e., it is once more advocating centralised EU political and economic authority whilst offering nothing in return (even if that could ever be acceptable).\nCertainly the EP motion for a resolution contains some proposals with which we agree - some of which we tabled - but they do not make up for the negative content of the motion for a resolution.\nWe therefore voted against it.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Piecyk Report on the EU's maritime policy. I particularly welcome the section which recognises that the CFP has been an unmitigated disaster and that the EU must learn from its failures in delivering an integrated maritime policy.\nMy own country, Scotland, is at the very heart of Europe in maritime affairs and we can benefit from an EU-wide policy which covers areas as diverse as the environment, transport, tourism and employment. However, recognition must be had for the diversity of Europe's maritime areas and decisions must not be taken on the \"one-size-fits-all\" basis which has come to represent Europe's failed fisheries policy.\nRoselyne Lefran\u00e7ois  \nI voted in favour of this text because I consider it to be essential for the European Union to equip itself with an Integrated Maritime Policy as quickly as possible.\nThe EU would in fact have a great deal to gain from adopting a coherent strategy for implementing the different sectoral policies that have an impact on the maritime field, such as for example certain social, industrial or environmental policies, and also promoting the establishment of a real 'mutually supporting system'.\nI also welcome the will to step up the fight against climate change and pollution through the emergence of real centres of innovation, which will also be a source of competitiveness and social welfare for the coastal regions of the Union.\nFinally, I support the report's proposals regarding the security aspect of maritime policy, and in particular the idea of drawing up common rules in this area and sharing surveillance methods within the Community maritime space. This would enable us both to combat maritime piracy, a phenomenon that we have seen the return of in recent years, and to protect the natural heritage and archaeology of these areas in order to prevent any catastrophes that would have disastrous effects on the development of the Union's coastline.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Willi Piecyk's report 'An integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union' addresses the challenges that Europe's maritime industry now faces. Its recommendations will help facilitate Europe-wide decision-making in the area.\nIt is only in establishing an integrated maritime policy that global issues such as globalisation and climate change and their effects on our oceans can be effectively engaged with. I voted in support of the report.\nLuca Romagnoli\nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express myself in favour of Mr Piecyk's report on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union.\nI agree that an integrated maritime policy is necessary not only because the oceans and seas represent one of the most important economic and trading resources for the EU and thus must be protected, but also because effective and sustainable concerted action between the Member States would improve the way in which it is managed and developed. One of the points I consider to b fundamental is that maritime traffic should be regulated and improved in accordance with the objectives for tackling climate change and that the marine resource should be the focus as a potential source of clean, alternative energy.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - Our seas are our common resource. We need a coordinated approach against the exploitation and pollution of our seas. We can only do this by working across EU countries which have an interest in maritime policy. I hope that next year more EU citizens will be able to participate in the European Maritime Day. Perhaps, as next year this day will fall during the European Elections, all candidates will use 20 May to highlight maritime policy issues.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"2024-10":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried \nin writing. (DE) I cast my vote for the recommendation on the approval of partitioning systems to protect passengers against displaced luggage, supplied as non-original vehicle equipment, since this, firstly, makes easier trade in motor vehicles between one contracting party and another and, secondly, also guarantees a high standard of safety and environmental protection.\nWith these considerations in mind, I can do no other than support the harmonisation of the rules applicable to motor vehicles.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried \nI cast my vote in favour of a regulation concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the forward field of vision of the motor vehicle driver. The harmonisation of regulations applicable to motor vehicles will, on the one hand, reduce obstacles to trade between various contracting parties and, on the other, guarantee high safety standards.\nThe draft guarantees an adequate field of vision through the windscreen and other windows on the motor vehicle, which, from the point of view of general safety, is to be endorsed without exception.\nGlyn Ford \nI will be supporting this report which reinforces our agreement with the Republic of Korea on scientific and technological cooperation. Seoul is an increasingly important global industrial player and it is vital that the EU engages with this country which traditionally has been closer to the US rather than us. I presume that this agreement will cover scientific and technological research in the Kaesong Industrial Zone jointly administered by North and South Korea, and in that I am sure the Republic of Korea will welcome our commitment that is currently withheld by Washington.\nGeorgios Toussas \nWe are radically opposed to the Council proposal on scientific cooperation between the \u0395U and Korea, because the orientation and fragmentation of research contributes to the profitability of the monopoly groups of companies and to capital in general. It is contrary to the real needs of the workers. It is in the people's interest to fight this reactionary choice for research and similar agreements and the anti-labour policy overall and the EU itself and to fight for radical change so that research can be oriented towards satisfying the contemporary needs of the working and grass-roots classes.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Lithuanian MEP Mrs Budreikait\u0117, on mainstreaming sustainability in development cooperation policies. She rightly points out that sustainable development is based on the idea that the needs of the current generation should be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It is right to mainstream sustainable development concepts in public policy at European and Member State level, concepts that include economic prosperity, social cohesion and respect for the environment. This is essential when it comes to development cooperation, which is very difficult to achieve given the planet's demographic development and the need to eradicate poverty. The EU should be at the forefront of the worldwide affirmation of sustainable development concepts. This, after all, is one of the EU's key missions.\nPedro Guerreiro \nThe report omits to mention the underlying causes of the increasingly deep social inequality and disparity in development, of the unchecked exploitation of natural resources and of the massive destruction of the environment around the world, and fails to mention the real culprit, which is capitalism. Despite this, it does contain a wide range of proposals and points that we welcome, such as the call for the target of 0.7% GNI to be met in order to achieve effective development cooperation characterised by solidarity.\nHowever, we cannot accept the following points, for example:\nbecause 'local authorities in developing countries are not always in a position to provide the volumes of financing required to make major investments in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure networks, for example to supply water or provide sanitation', the report concludes that the solution is 'only supplementary injections of private capital, through public-private partnerships, will be able to provide the requisite volume of funding', thus handing this fundamental resource for life on a plate to private capital;\nand making the reduction - rather than the cancellation - of the debts of the least-developed countries contingent on what is termed 'good governance', the criteria for which are dictated by the whims of the major powers.\nHence our vote.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. (DE) Over the past fifteen years we have made progress in combating poverty, albeit far from to the extent we had hoped, for even if we manage to drive a country's economic development forward, this does not mean by a long chalk that poverty has thereby been reduced. Funds intended for those in disadvantaged circumstances must not be allowed to seep away into corrupt systems or be able to be used even for such things as the purchase of weaponry or the shoring up of dictatorial regimes.\nIt is here that effectiveness needs to be better monitored if development funds are to be applied in the right place and for the right purposes. It might also be worth considering concentrating them on what are termed 'anchor countries', which are capable of fast-forwarding a whole region's development, and we should also be open to new approaches, including the use of microcredit as a means of getting the poor permanently back on their own feet.\nCharles Tannock\nI just wanted to expand on what I said earlier regarding the way the resolution on Dalits' human rights went through the House without an opportunity to amend it, and in particular to point out a number of factual inaccuracies in the report which never came before either the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Human Rights Sub-Committee for an opinion. I would like to protest at the way in which Rule 90(4) is being used by certain Members of this House. For instance, the resolution highlights the incidence of crimes against the Dalits and talks about frequent heinous crimes against them, e.g. murders. Well, I would like to point out that in fact the incidence of murders in India against Dalits is 2.04%, whereas they constitute 14% of the population. So actually, if you are a Dalit, you have a safer lifestyle than if you are somebody from one of the other castes.\nThe resolution makes no mention of the workings of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, which was designed to help convict those who have attacked Dalits, and in addition it makes no mention of the fact that the rate of literacy, although very low for Dalits, is extremely close to the national average. It does not mention that there is a national reward from the government, basically designed to eradicate untouchability, and there are cash incentives given to encourage inter-caste marriages.\nThis report is very unbalanced; it is full of factual inaccuracies and I lament the fact, Mr President, that you were not in a position to refer it back to committee, but my case rests.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution tabled by the European Parliament's Committee on Development on the human rights situation of the Dalits in India. Although I believe that the European Union should be very careful when it comes to interfering in countries' constitutions, I support this resolution denouncing the unacceptable situation of the Dalits, which is due to the non-application of various provisions prohibiting caste discrimination.\nAccording to the report and numerous studies, the Dalits are the victims of unpunished crimes and offences. Added to this are the abuses of children and women, who are the victims of two forms of discrimination - caste and gender discrimination - throughout their lives, with sexual abuse being included in this. Yes, the European Parliament was right to denounce this disgraceful situation.\nDavid Martin \nThe treatment of the Dalits in India presents some serious human rights concerns. There should be a universal right to decent work and non-discrimination and the caste system as it currently exists in India guarantees neither of these right to Dalits. As the EU and the European Parliament's very foundations are based on shared values, of which non-discrimination is a key element, then it is our duty to voice concern where we see these values being violated and these rights denied to others in third countries.\nMargrietus van den Berg \nThe huge problem involving people who are, to this day, considered outcastes and therefore 'untouchable' is disturbing. The social segregation experienced by Dalits can be likened to Apartheid as it used to be in South Africa.\nThe largest group of these 'untouchables' live in India, where more than 160 million people are affected. They are often excluded from basic provisions, such as education, health care and clean drinking water, are not allowed to own land and are regularly at the receiving end of violence and exploitation.\nThis is why I intend to vote in favour of this resolution which insists on the Indian Government stepping up its efforts in effectively stamping out caste-based discrimination and in promoting equal opportunities. It is to be welcomed that the European Parliament is making specific proposals in order to counter this structural discrimination against a people.\nAs the Indian Prime Minister himself said on 27 December 2006: 'Dalits have faced a unique discrimination in our society that is fundamentally different from the problems of minority groups in general. The only parallel to the practice of 'untouchability' was Apartheid in South Africa.' I hope that the EU will be discussing this in its relations with India and will help stamp out this gross social injustice.\nJosu Ortuondo Larrea\n(ES) Mr President, I would like to express my support for the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and Gabon, as well as the other similar agreements with other ACP countries (Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific) and with certain other States.\nThese agreements are based on the principle of reciprocal cooperation and are in line with the partnership approach which is being applied to the external dimension of our common fisheries policy. By means of these agreements, we achieve a twin objective: firstly, we guarantee that the interests of the Union's deep-sea fishing fleet are protected and, secondly, we improve the conditions with a view to achieving sustainable fisheries in the waters of the partner countries.\nIn this regard, I would like to end by stressing that the Union and our deep-sea fishing fleet, in contrast to others that operate illegally - has committed itself to ensuring that world fishing activities are sustainable and has accepted the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.\nWe must support this and other agreements, because they promote the development of our partner countries.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. (PT) The new Partnership Agreement with the Gabonese Republic, which entered into force on 3 December 2005, is valid for six years and contains a protocol that will lead to a 40% reduction in the fishing opportunities available to the various fleets of the EU Member States operating in these waters, including the Portuguese fleet.\nFurthermore, in common with other tuna fishing agreements, fees for ship-owners have increased from 25% to 35% of the total cost, obviously with the reduction in the Community contribution.\nWhat may now happen is low uptake of the opportunities offered by the agreements, and the scrapping of many long-distance fishing vessels, which is already happening in Portugal.\nThis situation leads us to question the actual impact of these agreements, the costs of which to the fleets are rising while fishing opportunities are falling.\nIt is alarming, not least for the Portuguese fleet, that this agreement will undermine the proportionality and the relative stability of the previous one in terms of the distribution of fishing opportunities with other fleets.\nPortugal is to lose 50% of the fishing opportunities for surface longliners, with only three licences as opposed to the six under the previous agreement.\nDavid Martin \nI support this report amending the Fisheries Partnership Agreement. I particularly support the call for greater parliamentary involvement prior to any extension of the agreement. I am also glad that the development needs of coastal populations are addressed.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, I have, needless to say, voted in favour of the resolution on a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty, because I am a staunch opponent of capital punishment, not least at a personal level.\nI do want to make myself absolutely clear though. I may be opposed to capital punishment, but I do firmly believe that we should come down hard on crime. What I am trying to say here is that it is because of the apathy and cowardice on the part of many European governments that, as is the case in my country, serious common law criminals, assassins and child rapists, are systematically given early release, and so it is because of this laxity and this cowardice that people are calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment in Europe. As an opponent to capital punishment, I can see where these people are coming from, and my view is that proper account should be taken of the complaints lodged by them.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the joint motion for a resolution that was tabled by five political groups and that concerns an initiative in favour of a universal moratorium on the death penalty. At a time when the third international congress against the death penalty is being held in Paris, it made sense for the European Union to restate its convictions and to ask that everything be done to obtain a universal moratorium on executions, with a view to the complete abolition of the death penalty.\nI write this with a certain sense of pride in belonging to a Member State that, on the proposal of its President, the President of the French Republic, Mr Chirac, and thanks to the wisdom of its elected representatives, will shortly be amending its Constitution to include a ban on the death penalty, as is already laid down in law.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour of this resolution, because I am opposed to the death penalty, which, in the 21st century, is an appalling example of barbarity and a violation of human dignity.\nThis state of affairs cannot be allowed to go on. I therefore agree with the proposal to call for a universal moratorium on the death penalty at the United Nations General Assembly.\nHanna Foltyn-Kubicka \nI did not sign the draft joint resolution, tabled by several political groups, on a global moratorium on the death penalty, nor do I intend to vote in its favour.\nI fully endorse the undertakings Poland entered into under international law on joining the Council of Europe and the European Union, but I do not consider that the abolition of the death penalty in other parts of the world is a solution to the problem of violence and brutality.\nI believe it is right to condemn the abuse of capital punishment and its barbaric implementation, as was the case at the execution of Saddam Hussein and of Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti.\nNonetheless, the total abolition of the death penalty for criminals, terrorists and bloodthirsty dictators in the most unstable and violent parts of the world is an irresponsible, nonsensical and harmful proposal.\nAs it seeks to achieve the introduction of this global moratorium, the European Union is unable to offer countries ravaged by violence any significant aid in the area of public security. Consequently, the Italian Government's initiative, which is to receive the European Union's support today, may also be deemed hypocritical.\nGlyn Ford \nThe EU has as part of its requirements for membership for Member States that they do not exercise or have on their statute books the death penalty. It is only right that we try to promote this around the globe.\nIt is a disgrace from the US to China, from Central Asia to Central Africa. The problem is that we exhibit a degree of hypocrisy when some executions are more acceptable than others. It is just as wrong to execute Saddam Hussein and Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, as Ken Sara-Wiwo, the Nigerian human rights activist, or the hundreds of victims of Saddam Hussein's brutal, totalitarian regime. I can only hope that in future we oppose those barbaric public spectacles in the same way we oppose China's executions, as now modern technology allows public executions to be replaced by execution broadcast via mobile phone.\nMarcin Libicki \nI did not sign the draft joint resolution, tabled by several political groups, on a global moratorium on the death penalty, nor do I intend to vote in its favour.\nI fully endorse the undertakings Poland entered into under international law on joining the Council of Europe and the European Union, but I do not consider that the abolition of the death penalty in other parts of the world is a solution to the problem of violence and brutality.\nI believe it is right to condemn the abuse of capital punishment and its barbaric implementation, as was the case at the execution of Saddam Hussein and of Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti.\nNonetheless, the total abolition of the death penalty for criminals, terrorists and bloodthirsty dictators in the most unstable and violent parts of the world is an irresponsible, nonsensical and harmful proposal.\nAs it seeks to achieve the introduction of this global moratorium, the European Union is unable to offer countries ravaged by violence any significant aid in the area of public security. Consequently, the Italian Government's initiative, which is to receive the European Union's support today, may also be deemed hypocritical.\nDavid Martin \nFundamental human rights are a core part of the European Union's role and identity. As an institution of the EU, the European Parliament has a duty to support efforts to spread these values outside of the borders of the Union. Supporting the moratorium on the death penalty sends out the message that certain human rights should be upheld universally. I particularly support the reference in the resolution to the disgraceful manner in which the execution of Saddam Hussein was carried out.\nJean-Claude Martinez \nin writing. - (FR) Of course, there is France with its judicial imbroglios; yes, there is Iraq, where those charged with judging the Head of State turned up astride the missiles of the invaders; and, naturally, there is China, where everything is up for sale, even bullets for people to blow their brains out with. Then there is Libya and the case of the Bulgarian nurses.\nIn the 21st century, where, increasingly, the issues are wilfully confused, the death penalty is now carried out in French hospitals, where the old are finished off in order to free up beds and balance the accounts. It is carried out in the Europe of Maastricht where, by pulling the plug on vital investment, we have killed off our future.\nThe ideological scourge of the Reverend Malthus - of zero growth and sustainable underdevelopment - has infected our decision-makers. There would seem not to be enough room at the banqueting table of the human race. So we leave the old to the mercy of heatwaves and lethal injections, and we retire folk early and reduce their working hours. Tax law exerts its stranglehold, labour law may leave no room to breathe and budgetary law short-changes us. Meanwhile, at the top of this ladder of Malthusian penalties, criminal law tops off this society of ours with the culture of death. In the Malthusian economy, the 'euthanazi state', the 'precautionary principle' and the ultimate penalty of execution are the bedfellows of pride and complacency.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries \nin writing. - (FR) There is a long list of countries that permit the death penalty, and the list of victims is longer still. In 2005 alone, 2 148 people were executed.\nSo what about Europe? Is it possible to be a European state and, at the same time, to permit the death penalty? No, it emphatically is not. Moreover, countries that are candidates for accession to the European Union are actually obliged to abolish it.\nWe MEPs even think that there is a need to go further than that. That is the objective of the resolution against the death penalty, adopted today by Parliament. With the predictable exception of the extreme right, all the political groups in Parliament had already signed the declaration in favour of a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to its universal abolition.\nThe majority required for the adoption of the resolution has been obtained, constituting an unusual consensus in Parliament. This majority makes it clear that being a Member of the EU is not only about agreeing to fishing quotas. Above all, it makes it clear that Europe does not compromise on its basic values. Europe is at the forefront of the fight to abolish the death penalty, a fact worth pointing out.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski \nI did not sign the draft joint resolution, tabled by several political groups, on a global moratorium on the death penalty, nor do I intend to vote in its favour.\nI fully endorse the undertakings Poland entered into under international law on joining the Council of Europe and the European Union, but I do not consider that the abolition of the death penalty in other parts of the world is a solution to the problem of violence and brutality.\nI believe it is right to condemn the abuse of capital punishment and its barbaric implementation, as was the case at the execution of Saddam Hussein and of Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti.\nNonetheless, the total abolition of the death penalty for criminals, terrorists and bloodthirsty dictators in the most unstable and violent parts of the world is an irresponsible, nonsensical and harmful proposal.\nAs it seeks to achieve the introduction of this global moratorium, the European Union is unable to offer countries ravaged by violence any significant aid in the area of public security. Consequently, the Italian Government's initiative, which is to receive the European Union's support today, may also be deemed hypocritical.\nChristofer Fjellner\n(SV) Mr President, Mrs Ries's report and the fight against obesity make serious inroads into issues that I think come within the competence of the Member States. Moreover, the report addresses issues with which politicians ought not to concern themselves at all. In my view, the individual's perspective is entirely missing.\nTo state that obesity is a chronic disease is not only mistaken, it is to accept responsibility for people who are overweight or, worse still, to deprive a great many overweight people of the hope of being able to influence their own situation. Being overweight can, in fact, be a symptom of a chronic disease, but to assert anything more is to create the stigma that the report maintains it wants to do away with.\nWhat, in my view, is most serious, however, is something quite different: namely, the desire to steer the media in a direction that, in the present situation, is opportunistic. That is unacceptable, and it is not what politicians should be doing. It amazes me that so many of my fellow Members from Sweden have voted in favour of this report. We Swedish Conservatives obviously voted against the report.\nJan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund \nin writing. (SV) We do not believe that the assessment of what may be referred to as chronic obesity is a political issue. That needs to be a task for medical science. We therefore abstained in the vote on this issue.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my fellow Member, Mrs Ries, on a European dimension for the prevention of overweight, obesity and chronic diseases. The number of people in Europe who suffer from obesity has increased spectacularly over the last 30 years. This development is comparable to what happened in the United States during the 1990s: today, in Europe, 27% of men and 38% of women are classed as overweight or obese.\nThe European Parliament's proposals are based on healthy eating, physical activity and treatment from childhood and throughout adulthood. Health professionals, sport, the quality of agricultural produce, school canteens, education, communication and nutritional labelling are all factors, among others, on which the European Union must rely in order to fight this scourge.\nIt is very important for the European Commission to carry out a socioeconomic study into the consequences of diseases linked to a person's being overweight, not only at the level of health care spending, which we know represents between 4% and 7% of total spending, but also at the level of employment: unemployment, lost time and invalidity.\nLiam Aylward \nEarlier this week I called on the Irish Government to bring forward proposals which will have the effect of totally banning television adverts of food and drink products that are high in fat, salt and sugar and which specifically target children under the age of 16.\nChild obesity is a serious problem in Ireland and in Europe and this problem must be effectively tackled head-on.\nA ban such as that to which I am referring is being introduced in Britain after four years of extensive research and consultation. This research included 2000 interviews with children, parents and teachers as well as details of family eating habits drawn from a panel of 11 000 people. This research clearly found that television advertising does have an effect on the dietary preferences of children.\nIt is estimated by the British Government that in households where children's viewing includes a large number of programmes targeted at adults as well as at children and young people, children would see 41% fewer adverts of food and drink products that are high in fat, salt and sugar.\nWe are talking about the protection of our children, and that must be our overriding interest at all times.\nLena Ek and Olle Schmidt \nin writing. (SV) Public health issues are very important, and people with health problems need all the support they can get.\nIn our opinion, this resolution oversteps the limits of subsidiarity, however. The issues concerned should instead be dealt with at national and regional levels, which is why we chose to abstain in the vote.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour of this report, because the fight against obesity should be a political priority for the EU. After all, 27% of men and 38% of women in Europe are overweight.\nMore worrying still is child obesity. More than 5 million children (in the EU-25) are obese and around 300 000 new cases come to light every year. This is a trend that, as a matter of urgency, must be reversed.\nI endorse most of the measures proposed, for example informing consumers from childhood; restrictions on television advertising; nutrition and health claims on food labelling; and greater consistency between the common agricultural policy and health policies.\nIlda Figueiredo \nWe welcome the adoption of this report, which, among other points, includes the following key issues: the recognition that promoting a healthy diet and physical activity should be a political priority for the Member States and the EU as a vital component in the fight against obesity, and the recommendation that obesity be officially recognised as a chronic disease.\nObesity is the most common form of malnutrition and arises from an excessive storage of fat. It is associated with progressive debilitating diseases and constitutes a greater risk of death rate among the rest of the population. As such it is a growing public health problem.\nAs the report says, according to data from 2006, more than 300 million people around the world are obese, a figure that has more than doubled in the last 15 years.\nAccordingly, in addition to boosting the fight against the disease in terms of providing patients access to healthcare, medicine, psychological advice, and so forth, a prevention strategy must be adopted that involves promoting healthy diet and lifestyles, with particular focus on women and children because, as studies have shown, they are particularly vulnerable to this disease.\nChrista Kla\u00df \nEverything that we try to do on the environment and health fronts is aimed at protecting health. Responsibility for this rests with the Member States, and that is where it must remain. The idea of prevention is becoming ever more prominent. The Ries report describes the health risks involved in obesity, excess weight and chronic illness. Why is it that our children are overweight?\nWhat are the causes? These issues need to be discussed in order to raise awareness, particularly in families. The ability to keep our bodies healthy on a day-to-day basis is something that must be communicated through school and general education. Preventing these illnesses will, of necessity, involve social changes, but that will be accomplished not merely through bans on advertising, providing information relating to health and giving children sports bags when they start primary school. We live in a fast-living society; when both parents work, time for the family, for bringing up children and for cooking is often lacking.\nThis makes it ever more important that society should take preventive action, and schools and educational facilities must be entrusted with the communication of day-to-day life skills. Even so, we must not stop reminding families of those tasks and duties that are inherently their own, and empower them to perform and fulfil them. Not even the EU can make people be slim and enjoy life and health. The Member States must produce action plans and measures, but people have to put them into practice themselves.\nAstrid Lulling \nin writing. - (FR) It is to its credit that, in order to combat excessive weight, obesity and chronic diseases, the European Commission is concerned that everyone should have a healthy diet and engage in physical activity.\nThe marathon motion for a resolution, with its 18 recitals and 53 paragraphs, produced by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is, however, unacceptable inasmuch as it proposes provisions recommending dubious interference in the competences of the Member States, partly in the form of a Community legislative framework.\nI do of course sympathise with the warning that we wish to sound, faced with the epidemic of obesity affecting three million children and between 20% and 30% of adults at a time when 14 million children and half the adult population are overweight.\nIn the fight to promote healthy eating habits and the use of high-quality products, we have high-calibre allies in the form of the Eurochefs - an association bringing together 4 000 cooks from 17 Member States who stick to a code of honour, championing the intrinsic quality of food and acting to safeguard rural products.\nI believe that we should do well to benefit from their knowledge and their readiness to promote best practices ...\n(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)\nDavid Martin \nI strongly support this report as well as the Commission Green Paper entitled 'Promoting healthy diets and physical activity: a European dimension for the prevention of overweight, obesity and chronic diseases', which the report addresses. Public health issues are of increasing concern in Europe, and this report provides a welcome contribution. The report's emphasis on the key role played by schools is to be welcomed, as is the call for action to be taken to address the alarming decline in the nutritional value of fruit and vegetables.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. (DE) The fact of the matter is that we all know what is healthy and what is not, even without labels prescribed by the EU, yet our eating and living habits have changed to such a degree that obesity, with all its consequences for our health, has assumed disturbing proportions. However, the combination of lack of movement, poor nutrition and too much television also makes people more aggressive.\nVarious action plans on health have been running for some time, and it is only right that they should start in children's early school years, since it is then that the risk of compulsive over-eating is very great, but nutritional certificates, health-oriented playgroups and even bans on advertising will not get us where we want to be. It is in the family that the love of sport, which is so important in reducing stress and aggression, and healthy eating habits, must be experienced and encouraged.\nYet it is this, the fundamental building block of our society, that is under constant bombardment from the modern working world, with its flexible working hours, weekend and shift working patterns, and the constantly-renewed call for longer opening times. When people are tired to the point of exhaustion from a long working day, it is easier for them to grab fast food than to make the effort to cook; they find themselves wanting to flake out in front of the television with crisps and a fizzy drink, and their children imitate their behaviour.\nWhile preaching that people should exercise more, we reduce sports lessons on budgetary grounds or excuse foreign children from them on religious grounds, and sports clubs see their support ebbing away.\nCatherine Stihler \nI support the report by Mrs Ries on promoting healthy diets and physical activity. I agree the fight against childhood obesity should be a political priority of the European Union and its Member States. We should take urgent steps to encourage children to enjoy a healthy lifestyle and to urge Member States to increase the amount of physical education available in schools.\nI am glad to see the report recognises the importance and potential of food signposting systems in place in several Member States. I welcome calls to the Commission to research and develop a scientifically based EU-wide 'front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme'. I feel this is a straightforward but very effective way of encouraging people to choose healthier options. We must act urgently in informing people that their health and that of future generations is in their own hands.\nMarianne Thyssen \nLong-term bad eating habits and a lack of sufficient exercise result in thousands of people in the European Union being faced with obesity every year. This increases the risk of numerous serious diseases, including heart diseases, higher blood pressure and respiratory disorders.\nNot only does this affect public health, it also increases the cost to health insurers in the Member States. I would therefore argue in favour of an integrated way of addressing the problem. Providing information, as well as educating, consumers, exchanging best practices among Member States, clear labelling on foodstuffs or campaigns in schools in order to promote healthier life styles: these are all ways of bringing about the necessary behavioural changes.\nThe battle against the bulge transcends borders. We in Europe can make a positive contribution and learn from each other's ways of addressing the problem. Cooperation with the Member States, industry, the media, education and civil society strikes me as being the right way.\nLars Wohlin \nin writing. (SV) There is no doubt that obesity and excessive weight are a major public health problem in Europe too, and one that must figure high on our agenda. It ought not, however, to be regarded, as it is in the report, as a chronic disease. It is also important that school children be given opportunities for sports education and for physical activity during breaks. However, it is for each Member State to determine what priority to give to this issue. In view of the principle of subsidiarity, it cannot be transferred to EU level. I have therefore chosen to vote against the report as a whole.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Mrs Wallis, which contains a range of recommendations on limitation periods in cross-border disputes involving injuries and fatal accidents. As part of the construction of our European area, we should do everything we can to make our fellow citizens' lives easier. This applies to the timeframes for harmonising limitation periods. The introduction of the country of origin principle, at least provisionally, is a very interesting idea insofar as it would confer on victims rights with which they are familiar. This report sends a strong message to the Commission, and demonstrates that Parliament is expecting a legislative proposal that should be preceded by a study into this issue.\nIlda Figueiredo \nAs cross-border traffic has increased, so has the number of accidents involving people from other EU Member States. An inquiry into the effects of the existence of differing limitation periods and in particular into the number of personal injury cases involving citizens in cross-border areas and differing limitation periods may help us understand the situation.\nThere are limitation periods that vary from as little as 12 months in some countries to 30 years or more in others. This may lead to injured people having their right to compensation denied because they did not initiate legal proceedings in accordance with the applicable foreign law on limitation.\nThe most vulnerable members of society are thus at great risk of seeing their rights curtailed. That includes those who have been most seriously injured or those who for some reason are incapable of protecting their own rights adequately.\nIt might therefore be appropriate to find a fair and workable solution that helps the victims and their representatives without insurance costs becoming prohibitive and without undermining the principle of subsidiarity, or that of seeking countries in which the costs to insurers is lower, as may happen when the country of origin principle is applied to them.\nDavid Martin \nI have voted in favour of the proposals on limitation periods in cross-border disputes involving injuries and fatal accidents. I believe it is essential that Europe's citizens can enjoy the freedom to travel in the European Union, and be safe in the knowledge that should problems arise they will not face unnecessary constraints in getting proper legal redress across borders. This report will play a part in ensuring that. It calls for the European Commission to carry out an inquiry into the effects of the existence of differing limitation periods on the internal market, and particularly on citizens exercising their freedoms under the Treaty. It is important that any new legislation in this area is based on sound evidence, not least to ensure that any future law brings forward specific and focused measures to tackle the problems. I have therefore voted in favour of the Wallis report, which demands that the Commission bring forward the evidence to enable this law to go ahead.\nNina \u0160kottov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what struck me in the report was the emphasis on the fact that women achieve significantly fewer academic qualifications than men. Only 15% of full professors are women, whereas the number of women graduating from university is higher than that of men, at 59% of the total. The low proportion of women with academic qualifications cannot be put down to discrimination against young women and girls concerning access to education. There are a number of other factors behind this low figure. If we really want to reverse the trend, it is crucial that we define and analyse these factors, and try to address the matter in a targeted fashion. For example, take the need to eliminate stereotypes in organisational hierarchies. Women are very much welcomed and accepted as members of research teams. Their capabilities are less trusted, however, when it comes to being team leaders. Yet it is precisely these positions which enable and allow the formation of scientific schools and contribute to the development of various disciplines and specialisations in university faculties. Declaring from time to time that the number of women in academia should be increased is all very well, but it falls a long way short of what is required. What we need to do is to define the conditions of the process carefully and to work on optimising them in such a way that women become more involved. Thank you.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Flasarov\u00e1 on educational discrimination against young women and girls. The current situation, in which fewer women than men obtain post-graduate level qualifications and go on to pursue lifelong learning for reasons of gender, is one that we must combat collectively. Education is one of the essential prerequisites - albeit not the only one - for citizens to enjoy all their other social, economic, cultural and political rights, and to assume all their duties as citizens. I have high hopes for the activities of the future Institute for Gender Equality. It is also essential to fight against the discrimination with which women, and in particular the youngest women, have to contend when they live in communities where gender equality is not respected, by rejecting all forms of cultural and religious relativism which could violate women's fundamental rights. Young girls, as well as boys, should have access to compulsory schooling.\nIlda Figueiredo \nAs the rapporteur says, although there has for a long time been evidence to show that young women and girls are no less capable than men and boys when it comes to education, there is a series of factors that continues to place them at a disadvantage, especially in higher education and lifelong learning.\nIn 2004, eight out of ten girls studying in higher education in the EU Member States completed their studies. This figure is higher than that for boys, of whom only three out of four completed their studies, which proves that girls are no less motivated or capable when it comes to education.\nYet the proportion of girls who took their studies further or embarked on an academic career is lower. Although women outnumber men in university education 59% to 41%, only 43% of PhD graduates and only 15% of full university professors are women. These figures demonstrate the major inequality between the sexes in terms of lifelong learning and in the continuing vocational education of women outside the academic world, thereby confirming that both phenomena are rooted in the continued inequality between the sexes, which can clearly be seen in pay discrimination.\nDavid Martin \nI voted in favour of this report as it seeks to address the inequalities for women which still persist, mainly in gaining access to and obtaining higher academic qualifications, including at postgraduate level and in scientific research, and in the area of lifelong learning.\nThere is a need to reform the content of school textbooks and to ensure that the training of educational workers be directed towards fulfilling the requirements of a balanced gender policy. I think it is important that the Commission and the Member States implement a policy towards national, ethnic and cultural minorities, paying particular attention to a multicultural approach and allowing access to quality education in order to avoid double discrimination.\nI voted in favour of this report as it has the potential to eliminate stereotypes discriminating against women in the workplace.\nBernadette Vergnaud \nin writing. - (FR) The progress made when it comes to equality between men and women in the field of education is mainly quantitative. From now on, we need to fight for a qualitative improvement and for a change in attitudes, paying particular attention to the situation of girls and young women, who are the victims of two-fold discrimination.\nI therefore voted in favour of the report by Mrs Flasarov\u00e1, which recommends to the Commission and the Member States that they put in place a policy targeted at national, ethnic and cultural minorities, ensuring in particular that a multicultural approach is adopted and permitting access to high-quality education, and this with a view to preventing two-fold discrimination. The report also asks the Member States to make the option of lifelong education available to women and men who choose to look after their children and to make it easier for women to obtain jobs involving responsibility and decision-making.\nFinally, the Member States and the Commission should use all the means available to them to eliminate the stereotypes that contribute to discrimination against women in the workplace.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by United Kingdom MEP Mr Deva on EU relations with the Pacific Islands, calling for a strategy for a strengthened partnership. The EU has a significant presence in the Pacific Islands, against a backdrop of the majority of island states in the Pacific having recently gained their independence. The policy of helping the poorest island countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals is a decent and legitimate ambition for the EU. Whether we are talking about issues such as fisheries, the problem of climate change, the protection of biodiversity, farming and tourism, providing funding for infrastructure, support for education, the fight against corruption, support for democracy in the parliaments of these countries and the use of the euro, there are many areas in which the presence of the EU can bring unquestionable added value, but much remains to be done.\nMarie-Arlette Carlotti \nin writing. - (FR) After 30 years of EU-Pacific cooperation, it is now time to move up a gear. That is why I am delighted about the adoption of this 'strategy for a strengthened partnership'.\nIt entails a strengthening of political dialogue inasmuch as we have to support our Pacific partners in their efforts to overcome ethnic tensions, as in Fiji, or to promote reconciliation after a civil war, as in the Solomon Islands or in Timor Leste. Over the next few years, this political dialogue must also enable us to face a major challenge together: that of global warming. In order to launch this enhanced political dialogue, we can join with our regional partners in organising the 'regional conferences' provided for by the new Cotonou Agreement.\nThe strategy involves common responses to the economic and social problems of the region and, here too, the priority is to attain the Millennium Development Goals within the timescales set. The ongoing negotiations on the conclusion of an EU-Pacific regional partnership agreement appear to have got off to a bad start in this respect.\nMost of the proposals of the countries in the region have been rejected by the Commission. It would be paradoxical to vote today in favour of a strategy for a strengthened partnership aimed at development only to find that, tomorrow, the conclusion of a bad economic partnership agreement emptied it of all content.\nDavid Martin \nI voted in favour of this report and welcome the fact that it calls for the banning of nuclear tests and that the Pacific region should be made nuclear-free.\nJos\u00e9 Ribeiro e Castro \nIn view of the fact that some EU Member States have a historical relationship and continued links with this region, either in political or in cultural and economic terms, the EU as a whole should strengthen these ties for the mutual benefit of both the countries in the region and EU Member States.\nGiven the heterogeneity of the region, the dispersal of its communities and the specific problems arising from the insular nature of many of the countries in the region, there needs to be a European approach that is both flexible and balanced, with Europe already one of the biggest international donors.\nComing from Portugal as I do, I can only welcome the rapporteur's calls for the Commission to set up programmes aimed at combating malaria in East Timor. I feel, though, that this call should be extended to other infectious and contagious diseases that are also devastating the country.\nI also welcome the attention drawn to the particular problems of Timor and endorse the call for the Commission to support the Timorese leaders in their efforts to build a democratic, stable, peaceful, free, prosperous and fair society.\nMargie Sudre \nin writing. - (FR) In the Pacific Ocean, fishing constitutes a vital resource for the local economies, and ships from all over the world, and in particular from Europe, operate there. That is the justification for consulting the Committee on Fisheries, of which I am a member, on this report.\nThe Committee on Development and its rapporteur sought to impose this report on us in October, with no possibility of its being amended, and its request was rejected. The Committee on Fisheries has therefore been able to propose improvements to the report in the form of better regional cooperation and, above all, the inclusion of overseas countries and territories.\nThe opinion of the Committee on Fisheries was adopted unanimously by its members in November. What now happens is that, on the eve of the debate in plenary, we are told that our opinion will not in the end be included and that only a few arbitrarily selected aspects of our opinion will be proposed as new amendments.\nIn view of our indignation, it was decided to add our opinion to the final report as an 'erratum\/addendum', without a vote, which is scarcely any better.\nThe strategy in question was designed, in particular, to strengthen the political dialogue between the EU and the Pacific islands. More dialogue between our parliamentary committees, which are not, for their part, separated by thousands of kilometres, would certainly be just as desirable.\nJan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund \nin writing. (SV) If a new company statute is to be established at European level, it is important for existing legislation in the Member States on workers' influence, codecision and representation on boards not to be impaired. Of the amendments tabled prior to the vote, we have therefore chosen to support those by the Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left and by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, because they are better than the amendment tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Mr Lehne, which sends a very important message to the Commission on the need to provide entrepreneurs with a means of ensuring the functioning and development of their businesses in the internal market. Like Mr Lehne, I feel that the time has come to enact laws to set up the European Private Company as a reliable legal form for small and medium-sized undertakings (SMEs) engaged in cross-border business. It is not possible, on a sustainable basis, to try to construct the internal market without simplifying life for SMEs that want to develop. The report contains some very interesting proposals, for example to allow SMEs with capital of EUR 10 000 to have a single entity that can develop in all European countries without having to register in each Member State, and whereby one single set of European rules is observed, rather than various national regulations. Naturally, workers' rights are not affected by these proposals, which deal solely with the European Private Company.\nDavid Martin \nI voted in favour of this report as the public hearing held in the Committee on Legal Affairs on 22 June 2006 underscored the need for an European Private Company as a legal form for small and medium-sized undertakings engaged in cross-border business. In order to consolidate the single market and thereby achieve the desired improvement in the economic and social conditions in the Community, one clear priority is the elimination of barriers to trade.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Community action programme in the field of health - Action to tackle cardiovascular disease (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is:\nthe recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2007-2013) (16369\/2\/2006 C6-0100\/2007 Rapporteur: Mr Trakatellis, and\nthe debate on the oral question to the Commission B6-0134\/2007) by Mr Ouzk\u00fd, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on action to tackle cardiovascular disease.\nAntonios Trakatellis \nrapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I call on you to give due attention to the question of promoting health, which must be seen not only as a valuable commodity and indicator of social prosperity, but also as an investment-generating parameter.\nThis approach is particular evident in the field of prevention, on which the programme under debate mainly focuses, because prevention means restricting morbidity and hence reducing the costs of treatment and hospital care. There is no need to analyse the beneficial results of such a development for health insurance and, by extension, public finances.\nImproving the health of the population undoubtedly drives progress, strengthens citizens, by guaranteeing them a longer, better and more productive life, and constitutes the precondition to economic prosperity. By limiting the number of man-hours lost, prevention also helps to increase the productivity and employability of workers, two indicators which are in keeping with the Lisbon process.\nPrevention, therefore, is the key issue for a revised, efficiency-orientated health policy and a preferential field of action for a Union programme. That is why the European Union needs its second public health programme: because we must jointly defend ourselves against the health risks which have appeared so dramatically, with the possibility of a 'flu pandemic and with the bird 'flu epidemic, and that is one of the aims of the programme.\nWe must jointly promote a healthy lifestyle for our children, with a proper diet in a society free from smoke and stress and with proper socio-economic conditions in general that have a serious effect on health, and that is one of the aims of the programme.\nWe must jointly fight to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates of serious illnesses which destroy the body and the mind, and that is one of the aims of the programme.\nWe must recommend that better medical practices, which are not only the most efficient way of combating disease but which limit further loss of health, be within reach of everyone, both of those working in the health professions and of simple citizens, and that is one of the aims of the programme.\nParticular importance is attached to collating data on the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, which is currently the scourge of hospitals in Europe. Particular importance is also attached to the effect of environmental factors on health. It is also extremely important that we collate data and develop strategies on patient mobility.\nI could continue by describing one by one all the aims of the programme. I think that it is not necessary, because we are all convinced that we must act jointly and at European level, while at the same time giving the Member States the possibility of increasing their efficiency on health matters. This is the second programme, which will apply in the years 2008-2013. It is better, more comprehensive and more ambitious and is marked by an integrated perception both of health and of the means, mechanisms and practices for combating health problems.\nIt will assist convergence and the integration of the European Union, which we must look on not only in economic terms or foreign policy terms, but also in terms of convergence in the fields of education and health, because that is when the fabric of stability and prosperity of European society is really woven.\nThis sort of ambitious plan which, at the same time, is of exceptional benefit not only for the health, but also for the economy of the European Union, needs financial investments that will yield exponential results, because it will considerably reduce the onerous costs of health services in the Member States.\nUnfortunately, the Council made huge cuts to the European Union budget in December, which for certain programmes, such as the programme under debate, were exceptionally painful. One wonders how we can progress along the difficult path of European integration when the programmes which fundamentally build and create a European society of the future are subject to significant cuts.\nThe good news is that the need for adequate funding for the health programme has been understood by the Council and by the Commission and by Parliament and I believe that the arrangement brokered through unofficial consultations allows for adequate financing within a framework of the rules of the Community budget.\nI call on my honourable friends to vote in favour of the agreed amendments brokered through unofficial consultations.\nMiroslav Ouzk\u00fd \nauthor. - (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express my support for the words of my dear colleague Dr Trakatellis on the particular issue of cardiovascular diseases. In my question to the Commission, I focused on a widely known issue, namely the seriousness of cardiovascular diseases, which in the EU alone kill almost two million people per year. This is an established and universally acknowledged fact. As long ago as 2004, the Council recognised the importance of providing decisive solutions to the problem of cardiovascular diseases. There has been extraordinary medical progress in this field in the last 10 to 15 years. The problem, however, is the dramatic increase in costs. For the purposes of illustration, I always tell Czech citizens in debates - and I emphasise the point here in this Chamber - that treating a coronary thrombosis 15 years ago, using the methods of the time, cost around EUR 20 per day, and after streptokinase was introduced the cost rose to EUR 1,000 per treatment. Nowadays, with the advent of stents and acute catheterisation, the cost has risen to EUR 10 000 for a single treatment. In other words, there has been a huge increase in the financial cost. On the other hand, there has been enormous growth in the range of opportunities for treating a significant number of patients who would previously have had to suffer and die. Today, patients with acute coronary thrombosis, provided they are treated quickly and properly, can return home on the very same day and go back to work few days later. The money we spend, therefore, can be recouped later.\nA further problem is the differences that exist not only between the various Member States but also within individual countries. According to one study in my country, the death rate from cardiovascular diseases rises according to how far from the clinic the patient lives. In this regard, the EU varies enormously and what we are proposing is a path towards a more systemic solution. Although I do not wish to go against the subsidiarity principle and tread on the toes of the various national governments, I should like to ask the Commission how it intends to bring about an exchange of information and experience, because we certainly have the resources for that, and it is one of the ways in which we can make substantial improvements this area. What steps does the Commission intend to take to reduce the economic burden and the impact of cardiovascular diseases on the economies of the Member States? What funding possibilities does the Commission have which can be recommended? In one of the amendments to which I put my name today, I called for a study into the option of mass public provision of defibrillators. We know that this has proved to be extremely effective in Japan, and I have also learned of defibrillators being made available in public places in a number of other countries, including the United States. I am aware that this is a very expensive option, and that opponents of such an indiscriminate approach would argue that a certain amount of prudence is called for. Yet this approach will in many cases save lives before the ambulance arrives. This is why I should be interested in the Commission's response to this additional question.\nMarkos Kyprianou\n\u039cember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, I should like to start by extending my warmest thanks to all the honourable Members for the interest they have shown in the Commission proposal for the adoption of a second programme of Community action in the field of health.\nI should like in particular to thank the rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, and the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts, which will allow us - and I am sure of this - to reach an agreement at second reading.\nWe have before us today an overall compromise which is the outcome of a number of very positive unofficial contacts between the three institutions. The compromise amendments strengthen the text in numerous sectors which are of particular importance to Parliament, such as the follow-up to Community initiatives on cancer and the more accurate wording on action for the environment and health.\nAs far as the budget is concerned, which we have also had the opportunity to debate in the past, unfortunately the room for manoeuvre was very limited and the Commission is strictly bound by the agreed financial framework.\nNonetheless, according to the text of the tripartite statement, the special requirements of the programme will be taken into account during the annual budget procedure. In addition, the present text will provide the legal basis, which will safeguard the more effective disposal of resources for achieving the aims of the programme.\nI do not think that anyone can doubt that Parliament, the Council and the Commission made a great deal of effort to reach an acceptable compromise. I honestly hope that the vote to follow will express this positive and constructive stand, so that we can start to finance plans relating to important new public health sectors from 1 January 2008.\nI should like now to turn, on the basis of Mr Ouzk\u00fd's question, to a more specific aspect of public health and one of the most serious problems; I refer to cardiovascular diseases, which are certainly one of the main causes of early death and disability of the citizens of the European Union.\nThe causes and the risk factors are well known; they include smoking, a poor diet and obesity, lack of physical exercise and excessive consumption of alcohol.\nI know that Parliament has an acute interest in this sector and that a motion for a resolution on cardiovascular diseases is being submitted to plenary by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.\nAs you know, the Commission puts particular emphasis on prevention. Within the limited resources at our disposal and within the balance of competences set out in the Treaty, we put particular emphasis and expend a great deal of effort on prevention. We also do this on the question of smoking and you are all well acquainted with the 'Help' strategy, which has also been received in Parliament, the various laws and the Green Paper we have adopted on banning smoking in public places, and I really do impatiently await the view and opinion of the European Parliament.\nAs far as diet is concerned, we published very recently - in May - a White Paper on diet and obesity and, as you know, we have already started applying and implementing the strategy on alcohol, starting with the Alcohol and Health Forum, in cooperation with non-governmental organisations and private-sector undertakings in the aim of combating this new problem.\nThrough public health programmes, the Commission supports activities and networks relating to cardiovascular diseases, including an extensive catalogue of data on cardiovascular diseases in the Member States and the development of indicators for monitoring cardiovascular diseases.\nThe creation of centres of reference, the exchange of best practices, the combating of the inequalities which unfortunately exist in the European Union - not only from one state to another, but also within the Member States themselves - are the objectives addressed by the new programme.\nHowever, I must emphasise for the sake of accuracy that we simply provide possibilities; they must be used by the Member States, which are responsible for providing health services.\nAs far as research is concerned (because the question also refers to research), the European Union has made over EUR 100 million available for research into cardiovascular diseases through the Sixth Framework Programme on research and development. These diseases are still one of the priorities of health research within the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme on research and development which started this year. Consequently, there is the facility to continue research in this sector under the Seventh Framework Programme.\nI shall not comment in detail on the European Heart Health Charter, because an event and debate were held on the subject here in Parliament and we all remember the presentation event in Brussels last month. However, this cohesive document is important, because it unifies all the bodies which can help to combat this problem and, of course, it is safeguarded by the public health programme.\nMore action to combat the decisive factors which cause cardiovascular diseases and inequalities in health will be included in the new health strategy of the European Union which I hope - and I am sure - will be adopted later, before the end of this year.\nAs far as the financial part is concerned - because this too is important - there is the European Development Fund for developing countries, where the Commission is responding to the priorities set by the countries themselves through dialogue and, of course, the health sector is one of the priorities.\nThe same applies to the Structural Funds which exist in the European Union for the Member States and which can be used for health even more extensively in this period than in the previous period, but there is still a need for health to be a priority issue in the take-up of Funds by the Member States themselves.\nWe provide possibilities, by which I mean that I do not fail to raise the issue with the ministers of health whenever we meet but, at the end of the day, the decision will be taken collectively by the governments of the Member States. I advise and urge the Member States to make use of the Structural Funds in the health sector, but I must say that there is still a great deal of room for improvement.\nHowever, it is also our priority to strengthen the national health systems which allow for the management of public health priorities, which cover not only communicable diseases, which of course are the first and obvious threat, but also non-communicable and I hope here that I shall have the support and cooperation of Parliament.\nJohn Bowis\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, there is no wealth without health. That is the theme of this debate and the sub-plot is that we have both to care and cure, but also to prevent ill-health and promote wellbeing. The Commissioner recognises this and has come forward with an ambitious programme, as our rapporteur has said, but the budget was savaged by two-thirds. So it is clear we must do better on budgets in the future; it is clear we must use our limited resources now wisely; it is clear we must target the non-communicable diseases that cause 86% of deaths in Europe and devastate lives and families - cardiovascular disease, cancer, mental illness, diabetes, respiratory and musculoskeletal conditions. That of course links into the resolution that you have before you: 42% of deaths in the EU come from CVD problems.\nOur emphasis must be on lifestyle. Some 80% of heart attacks, stroke and diabetes, and some 40% of cancers could be avoided by changing lifestyle and cutting out the risks that come from a bad lifestyle. We will sometimes need education or legislation on smoking, drugs, alcohol, salt, saturated and trans fats, lack of exercise, as well as things like stress management and all the causes of hypertension. We need partnerships between people, governments, health services and employers. And we need ideas such as the one on the defibrillator that my colleague referred to.\nI could end by saying the road to hell is often said to be paved with good intentions, but the health promotion case studies show that, as in North Karelia, if good intentions are translated into action, then the road can lead not to hell but to health.\nLinda McAvan\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, my first thanks go to Mr Trakatellis for his excellent work on getting agreement today on a package of amendments on the public health programme.\nIt has not been easy: we have had lots of meetings over the course of the last few months, but we finally have a package that the Socialist Group welcomes. We welcome the very clear commitment to tackling health inequalities which is contained in the package. We welcome, as Mr Bowis said, the action on major diseases which are the biggest killers in Europe.\nWe want to see better use made of the centres of reference across Europe and we are also pleased that NGOs and patients' organisations will have better access to funding thanks to this programme that will see emphasis placed on the wider environmental determinants of heath. We all know that health suffers because of environmental issues and we want to see that tackled.\nLike the other speakers, I think it is regrettable that we have a lower budget than we had thought in the first place but, as the Commission has said on many occasions, there are other framework programmes where health can be investigated so this is not the only money made available for health research in the EU.\nI want to draw your attention to Amendment 19, which the Socialist Group has tabled separately from the package. In recital 14 we talk about increasing healthy life years, and we want to delete the words 'also called disability-free life expectancy indicator'. We have had many approaches from disability organisations, which make the point that you can have a disability and be healthy and that, therefore, this terminology seems to suggest that if you are a disabled person you are automatically somebody who is unhealthy. Therefore, we would like the Commission and the Council to look at that when they look at the final wording for the document.\nFinally, I want to put on record my thanks as well to the German Presidency negotiating team who helped us to reach agreement today and took on board so many of our parliamentary amendments from first reading. I look forward to getting the programme up and running on time next year. That is what everybody wants at this stage and that is why we have been prepared to compromise on the budget, but we are very pleased with the content.\nMarios Matsakis\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I should like to express my congratulations to the rapporteur for his excellent report. Professor Trakatellis has spent many years dealing with health issues, both as a clinician and as a politician; therefore, he knows the subject matter of this report very well and it is thus not surprising that he has tackled the issue with efficiency and wisdom. Most of us share the rapporteur's views on the main issues brought up in this report. One of the most important of these is the problem of health inequalities. Such inequalities occur not just from one Member State to another but also within Member States. They can be very substantial indeed and, in many cases, such differences exist right across the whole range of healthcare, from prevention and diagnosis to treatment. It is well known, not just amongst medical professionals but also amongst ordinary citizens, that such discrepancies more often than not make the difference between life or death.\nThe right to life should be accompanied by the right to health - equal health, not one health for the rich and another for the poor. In a fair and humanistic society such as the one we aspire to achieve in the EU Member States, all citizens should be equal in terms of healthcare. I agree entirely with the rapporteur that this issue should become a very major aim of the health programme and I am sure that the Commissioner also agrees with this.\nA second area referred to by the rapporteur on which I would like to offer some brief comments is that of cancer. Cancer is the second commonest cause of death in Europe and the world in general, yet it is absolutely unthinkable why in this day and age no proper Community system for cooperation between centres of reference is fully functioning unhindered. And it is shameful that shortcomings exist in the establishment of a Europe-wide register for those cancers which are covered by the Council recommendation on cancer screening. The rapporteur addresses both of these issues and many others adequately and proposes appropriate amendments which we fully support.\nAdamos Adamou\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (EL) Commissioner, we must indeed congratulate the rapporteur, Professor Trakatellis, on achieving today's compromise. I, however, shall comment on the financial problem because, as we all know, the biggest bone of contention between Parliament and the Council from the outset was the budget to support this policy.\nThe compromise between the Member States in December 2005 on the new financial framework for the period 2007-2013 left funding for numerous policy areas at much lower levels than initially proposed by the Commission. One of the policy areas which suffered the biggest cuts was public health and the biggest victim was the health programme.\nThe consequences of the negotiations between the Commission and the Council were very unfortunate in terms of financial support for the action programme. The budget was reduced to EUR 365.6 million, a very small sum for such an ambitious programme.\nNonetheless, the rapporteur, with the support of the shadow rapporteurs, explored every way of improving the situation. However, given the rigid stance of the Council, he accepted that the room for manoeuvre as far as the budget was concerned was very limited and accepted the compromise between the Council and the Commission.\nAlthough the limited budget for the programme is not of course to our liking, we welcome the rapporteur's efforts in managing to keep a plethora of Parliament's recommendations and amendments intact and to avoid the conciliation procedure.\nWe are most relieved to see that the rapporteur's compromise includes the need to reduce inequalities in health and a reference to alternative medicine. Nor does it omit the strengthening of cross-border care and patient mobility or better access for citizens to information, which will make them better able to take decisions which are in their interests.\nIt is worth noting that a large part of the budget will go to non-governmental organisations, which are non-profit-making and independent of industry, trade and the undertakings which specialise in the promotion of health and the aims of the programme.\nLet us hope that it will be possible to meet the ambitious actions and expectations we all have of this programme, which will finally enter into force in 2008, despite the reduced budget.\nCommissioner, I should like to emphasise at this point, as my honourable friends and previous speakers have indicated, the importance of prevention and of prompt diagnosis. We must invest in this sector. You cannot imagine not only the lives we shall save, but also the money that the Member States will save by applying programmes which address this specific sector, especially heart disease and cancer. You mentioned cancer as the second cause of death. I tell you with mathematical accuracy that, in a few years' time, cancer will be the first cause of death as a result of the progress being made with cardiovascular diseases.\nCommissioner, we are with you and we shall support you in applying the programme.\nUrszula Krupa\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the 2007-2013 Community action programme in the field of health aimed to set a course for European health services. From the outset, however, the programme has generated controversy. This was due not only to the lack of clarity in the provisions on funding but also to other reasons.\nThe funds allocated relate only to international NGOs, and other programmes have been cut out. Pursuant to the document, substantial sums amounting to 60% Community input and to as much as 80% in exceptional circumstances are to be allocated to non-governmental organisations at international level. The programmes of many such organisations include pro-abortion policies. In some cases the organisations are offshoots of pharmaceutical concerns.\nFunding laboratories without establishing the type of research they are engaged in is also cause for concern. Unfortunately the programme only deals in a cursory manner with access to health services and the care of the elderly. It makes no provision for supporting the family, combating the diseases of contemporary society or for access to highly specialised advice.\nThe programme does, however, deal with healthy food and a healthy lifestyle. The issue of cross-border health care arises again, along with its negative impact on certain health care systems. It would seem that in view of the limited funding available, this programme cannot deal with the whole range of problems affecting European health care services.\nIrena Belohorsk\u00e1\n- (SK) With regard to this report, I subscribe to all of the observations made by the rapporteur.\nOut of an original budget of EUR 969 million, the Commission has cut healthcare allocations to EUR 365 million. It did so despite the fact that Parliament had not regarded EUR 969 million as sufficient and had topped it up to EUR 1.5 billion. I view this cut of nearly 60% as highly irresponsible. It is all the more shocking in the current climate, with healthcare systems across Eastern Europe weakened by the exodus of large numbers of physicians and nurses, who are leaving to seek work in the EU-15. In a situation where other programmes have been cut to the tune of a mere 2 to 5% and when every third citizen in Europe develops cancer, I believe that in assuming this stance the Commission is ridiculing and disparaging the patients and citizens of the European Union. It is therefore necessary to support the rapporteur in his efforts to have this small budget increased by at least 10%, that is, to EUR 402 million, while keeping the variation ceiling at no more than 5%.\nAt the same time, the programme should explicitly stipulate that structural funds, as you mentioned, Commissioner, can be used to finance healthcare projects, provided that Member States designate health care as a priority in their national programmes. Until now, these funds have been primarily used to finance environmental projects or build up infrastructure, and only a few citizens know that the funds could also be employed to finance the modernisation of hospitals, purchase equipment and train healthcare professionals.\nI very much welcome the establishment of European-wide registries for major diseases, notably cancer, which will be instrumental in collecting data and highlighting even more the fact that there are discrepancies of up to 30% between Member States in the survival rates of patients suffering from certain types of cancer. On the basis of statistics such as these, I believe that the Commission will review its healthcare priorities and endorse the appropriate allocations.\nThomas Ulmer\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the action programme on health and the prevention of cardiovascular disease are very closely related subjects. I would like first of all to offer Mr Trakatellis my sincere congratulations on his tireless fight for this programme. Prevention is better than cure. Prevention means longer life, better life, better quality of life, less medical care, less sickness, lower sickness costs.\nI am sure we would have liked more resources than 20 cents per head of population per year. We are however modest and conduct many action programmes for little money. We can only set priorities of course, and I must make it absolutely clear that we are talking here about prevention, about educating people, and not about treatment, which after all is a subsidiary matter and the responsibility of the nation states. Prevention means stopping diseases from occurring in the first place, especially in the area of cardiovascular diseases, involving heart attacks and strokes, of tumour diseases and their causes, as with lung cancer and smoking, of unhealthy lifestyles such as the wrong kind of food or even doping in sport, of accidents and accident prevention, and of research and statistics, where the aim is to detect and understand diseases better in order to develop better guidelines for treatment.\nI will now reply to the oral question from Mr Ouzk\u00fd, to whom I also express my thanks here. Much can be done to prevent cardiovascular disease by changing one's lifestyle: exercise, health, sport, balanced nutrition and ultimately also avoiding trans fatty acids. We also need a catchy slogan for cardiovascular prevention, so that people know what is at stake. We could say, for example, 'Save your heart, save your life' or in German 'Herzlos kannst du nicht leben'.\nEUR 325 million for prevention over five years is not much. I visited a German heart hospital this morning. There, 200 million were invested in just one year!\nGlenis Willmott\nMr President, as my group's shadow on the motion for a resolution on action to tackle cardiovascular disease, I would like wholeheartedly to endorse this worthy initiative and thank Mr Ouzk\u00fd, Mr Andrejevs and Mr Bowis for all their hard work. I feel I can but reiterate the content of the resolution and add my voice to the call for action and other points raised in the oral question.\nI find it shocking that nearly half of all deaths in Europe are caused by cardiovascular disease and that it is the main cause of death for women in all European countries. I welcome the specific mention of cardiovascular disease in the 2008-2013 health programme, but I am somewhat disappointed at the vastly reduced budget allocation given the fact that cardiovascular disease costs the European Union's countries EUR 169 billion each year.\nThe EU has so much to offer in terms of added value which would surely repay many times any money spent on combating it. Nevertheless, I fully support the compromise reached and recognise that it is necessary to have this funding in place as soon as possible. Any further delay in adopting the programme would not be desirable.\nThere is much action at EU level where value can be added and it is for this reason that we need a tangible European strategy on cardiovascular disease which can help Member States to improve and coordinate their prevention strategies, identify those who are at high risk, raise awareness, inform the public and promote exchange of best practice. A set of clear political guidelines should form part of this strategy.\nI would like to conclude by reiterating my support for the motion for a resolution and I urge the Commission to bring forward without delay a comprehensive and coherent EU-wide strategy on cardiovascular disease incorporating the European Parliament's suggestions.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Ma\u0161t\u00e1lka\n(CS) I too should like to congratulate Mr Trakatellis and thank him for his report and his proposals. I would also like to make one or two comments. I do not want to go into financial details, because this has already been done. I should merely like to point out, speaking as a doctor, that if financial resources are cut, the common programme that we are debating will simply be less effective. I firmly believe that healthcare cannot, in budgetary terms, be a peripheral issue.\nI should like to support Amendment 1, which contains proposals for Council recommendations as regards the necessary delivery mechanisms. I feel that this is much needed, because we have often called for documents relating to healthcare or the fight against civilisational diseases, and we of course did not have the effective instruments needed to combat such diseases. The second amendment that I should like to mention and support concerns patient awareness. We need patients to be well informed. This is not, however, solely a matter of improving access to information, it is also, in my view about access to better quality information. Such information can help our citizens not only to become more interested in their own health, and in looking after themselves, but also to be less susceptible to advertising. On the subject of advertising, I believe that we shall have a unique opportunity to show our fairness and honesty with regard to issues such as alcoholism when we debate the proposed measures in the Foglietta report on combating alcoholism. On this issue, we will certainly table amendments regarding the advertising of alcoholic products.\nI should like, if I may, to express my support for the initiative of Mr Ouzk\u00fd, which applies to his question regarding cardiovascular diseases. As a former cardiologist, I feel I have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. I should like to say that cardiologists today know much more about the causes and have put the conditions in place for patients to receive very effective treatment and to return to a normal working life. The problem is the extent of the desire to invest in such programmes, in particular when it comes to prevention. At the same time, there is a failure to understand that these resources can certainly be recouped. In this respect, the Czech Republic is a very good example. I believe that as MEPs we have a duty to call for a level playing field in the healthcare sector as well as the economic sector. This is a matter of financial solidarity between the EU Member States.\nKathy Sinnott\nMr President, yesterday's media revealed the shocking results of a study of children in a large area of England. One in every 58 children has a form of autism. How could a seriously debilitating condition have increased from 1 in 2000 to 1 in 58 children in 17 years?\nMr Trakatellis's work on the programme of Community action in the field of health 2007-2013 comes at a time when the need for some joined-up, collaborative thinking about Europe's major health threats is urgently needed. One of the most important contributions Europe can make to health is statistical research and investigation, establishing the true situation of disease threats - contagious or not, chronic or acute - because, in comparing disease treatment in the Member States, we get the overall picture that helps us develop a standard of best practice and clues to both treatments and even cures.\nThe Commission, I am glad to say, has made a start by funding the European Autism Information System project to establish an effective method to be used by Member State health authorities to gather the essential information on the autism epidemic in Europe. However, we are very late in this. The USA has been tracking this epidemic for a decade now. On foot of the figures, the US Congress has passed 16 pieces of legislation channelling billions of dollars, but Europe has done nothing yet.\nI urge the Commission to find a way to foster the highest quality healthcare in the Member States, a system that will never again allow an epidemic like autism to go unchecked as it ravishes children, robbing them of their normal development.\nChristofer Fjellner\n(SV) The role and responsibility of the EU within the health sphere is, and must remain, limited. Perhaps the most important contribution to be made by the EU, however, is to enable people to seek health care in other EU countries. For many who are ill, health care in another EU country may be a matter of life or death. It is therefore incomprehensible that so many Member States do everything they can to limit that very option. European health care consumers should have access to the whole range of European health care, but that means having knowledge and information, and, where these are concerned, the health programme could play an invaluable role in disseminating information about health and health care to all patients throughout Europe.\nI and many like me therefore think how unfortunate it is that, in many respects, precisely this area appears to have been curtailed when, for budgetary reasons, the Commission revised its proposal for a new health programme. I understand, however, that there has been a very great deal of opposition to this happening. Why, in actual fact, is increasing the transparency between different health care systems in the Member States such a delicate issue, however? Why not focus on measuring the likely results in terms of health care and of how many people would actually be helped to get better, rather than focus on available resources such as beds and days spent in hospital? The only explanation I can see is that there is a desire to keep patients uninformed and powerless.\nIt is equally incomprehensible that the EU Member States' compromise with our rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, should have called, for example, for the removal of the wordings I included precisely in order to give patients more power. Why, for example, is there no desire to confirm that patients have rights also in their capacity as health care consumers? They have deleted the sentence whose meaning was precisely to that effect. I find that embarrassing.\nIn accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, health decisions must be made at the lowest possible level. For me, that means at patient level, irrespective of what is said by politicians and bureaucrats in the Member States. We must therefore use European cooperation to strengthen the position of patients and give them more knowledge and more power. In a nutshell, patients should be allowed to take control of their own illnesses.\nDorette Corbey\n(NL) Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Trakatellis and our shadow rapporteur, Mrs McAvan. Health is a great good, as well as an important political topic. In the first instance, health falls within the national remit but, for Europe, it constitutes clear and important added value.\nAt present, the access European citizens have to adequate treatment is very unequal. Cancer patients stand a considerably better chance of survival in some countries than in others. Treatment methods differ and access to the health care is imbalanced. Patients' knowledge about their illnesses differs from one country to the next, and prevention does not in all countries have the attention it deserves.\nThis is why action is needed. We must pool knowledge. Member States, hospitals, patients' associations and general practitioners can learn from one other. We should combine our knowledge about the prevention and treatment of the most important diseases, including cancer, rheumatism, diabetes, lung disorders and obviously cardiovascular diseases, and we should learn from other countries where improvements can be made. Knowledge centres and networks, which should be dedicated to the most important diseases, can be a vital source of information for doctors and patients alike.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) It is a proven fact that money invested in human health makes the best investment. It offers the best return on investment. I am therefore gratified that the Commission's original proposal for a joint healthcare and consumer protection programme to be established for the period up to 2013 has been defeated.\nParliament did well to increase healthcare allocations to EUR 1.5 billion from the initial level of EUR 969 million, thus sending a clear signal and message to both the Council and the Commission. In the meantime, the budgets for new multiyear programmes in all policy areas have been the subject of negotiations concerning the new financial framework for 2007-2013; in this context, ladies and gentlemen, I must express great dissatisfaction with the fact that many programmes, including the health programme, have been allocated far less than the Commission originally proposed.\nEven though the European Parliament later managed to remedy the situation somewhat, in the spring of 2006, the outcome is wholly inadequate from the perspective of some of the programmes, including healthcare. I am referring to public health, where the topped up budget was cut to the scarcely credible figure of EUR 365.5 million. It is a good thing that the political agreement in November 2006 for the area of health accepted the Commission's revised proposal, including the budget.\nI believe that the specific programmes designed for people and for patients, such as the screening programmes for cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and many other disorders, will not be jeopardised. Nor will we put in jeopardy the necessary cooperation across the Community between specialised centres, or the establishment of Europe-wide registers of such diseases.\nI fully support the approach taken by the rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, and I believe that Parliament will again take a wise decision.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\n(LT) I congratulate the rapporteur, who faced the challenging task of adapting the significantly reduced seven-year health budget to the growing expectations of EU citizens. A coordinated Community approach in this field would significantly increase the effective utilisation of funds. Now the programme has to be approved as soon as possible in order that at least the funds for 2008 are reclaimed in time.\nIn the expanded European Union, differences in medical care in various countries have become evident. The programme under discussion ought to help reduce these differences. Every EU citizen in any EU country has the right to receive quality medical services. It is particularly important that the new EU countries participate in the European projects.\nI would also like to underline the need for attention to preventive projects, which reduce the influence of risk factors and improve the health of the Community. Preventing illnesses is always cheaper than treating them, especially at times like this, when resources are decreasing but needs are growing.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this Community action programme establishes priorities for projects, funded at European and national level, to address the biggest causes of death in Europe, including cardiovascular diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, cancer, digestive diseases and respiratory diseases. We all have to die of something, especially when we reach a certain age. The high quality of European medicine, along with improvements in living conditions, and in particular people's economic wealth, have led to longer life expectancy among Europeans. There are fresh challenges that lie ahead of us. One is how the health and social systems in Europe are to be funded in future from the public purse and the second is how to improve treatment for polymorbidity, which becomes more common as people live longer. Such treatment is crucial to older people's quality of life. Both of these concerns are common to all Member States, and yet neither has been included in any detail among the main goals of the Union's action plan in the area of health. Perhaps next time.\nResolving the first of these economic concerns will entail, among other things, an assessment of priorities within the Community, both in terms of government programmes and in terms of people's private lives. My professional experience has taught me that the main priority is to make people much more responsible for their own health and disease prevention. Patients are not stupid and are capable of making up their own minds. They do need adequate information for this, however, and it must be formulated in an appropriate way. I therefore strongly support the proposals in the second reading, including Amendment 2, for example, which calls for the programme to provide citizens with better access to information, and Amendment 9, which concerns policies aimed at leading a healthier lifestyle. As regards the second problem, I would like to believe that the Member States will actively support the coordination of scientific activities aimed at achieving the complex treatment of associated diseases, despite the large and regrettable reduction in the European budget for the action plan in support of health.\nMarkos Kyprianou\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to thank the Members once again for a very interesting debate and for the support expressed.\nI do not want to repeat what has already been said and what I said in my introductory remarks, but I shall make some clarifications. On the issue of cancer, I should like to clarify that cancer remains one of the Commission's top priorities and is part of the health programme. I referred specifically to cardiovascular diseases because that was in a question tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, but through research and other programmes we support many initiatives regarding cancer. We had an opportunity to discuss this issue in this House quite recently.\nI should like to correct one mistake. Mrs Belohorsk\u00e1 is not here and I think that she did not follow the debate closely on how the financial perspectives were adopted and how it was decided who took the decision. It was not the Commission who reduced the budget - we are not that suicidal. As you know, it was the Council who decided unanimously that there should be a reduction, and the areas that suffered most, unfortunately, were health and education and culture. I have to say that it is regrettable and I have had the opportunity to express this on many occasions in discussions here and I understand the frustration of Mr Trakatellis when he had to deal with this issue.\nHowever, at the end of the day we want to take action, we want to help our citizens and we want to move forward, and therefore we have to make do with what we have and make the best possible use of our limited funds and resources. That is why I agree with many of you, and it is our priority, that prevention is one of the main targets because it has added value and a multiplying effect so that we can make better use of the funds by concentrating on prevention. That is one of my main arguments. I have been trying repeatedly to convince Member States that spending on health is not a cost but an investment. It has to be viewed as such. We will benefit in the long run, and that is a disincentive for taking measures when benefits will appear sometime in the future.\nNevertheless, I think that the time has come when we cannot expect to solve the problems only through reforms of the health systems or through patient mobility or through increasing the insurance costs but we have to invest in prevention and on health and this is one of the main priorities. I am looking forward to working with you all in the next period.\nPerhaps I could refer to just one specific amendment, that raised by Mrs McAvan. We have no objection to agreeing to the deletion of that sentence. You realise that for us it is a big achievement to have the healthy life years included as an indicator and this was the purpose. It was just a way of expressing it differently, but we see the point so we do not object to removing it, especially because it is the wording that is the problem and not actually the validity of the indicator.\nRegarding the point raised by Mr Fjellner on the issue of patients' rights, we had the opportunity to discuss this issue in this House and we are looking into it through the healthcare initiative which should be adopted towards the end of the year. There are different systems in different Member States so we do not always agree on a common approach, but at least the first step will be taken and many issues like information for patients and other aspects of patients' rights will be tackled through the healthcare initiative.\nI should like to conclude by thanking you all, in particular the Environment Committee, as well as Mr Trakatellis for being patient and persistent. I am looking forward to working with all of you in the implementation of the programme.\nPresident\nI have received one motion for resolution pursuant to Article 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Tuesday 10 July 2007.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (decision) (12059\/1\/2008 - C6-0188\/2008 -, and\nthe report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (regulation) (11925\/2\/2008 - C6-0189\/2008 -.\nCarlos Coelho\n(PT) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Vice-President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are examining two instruments: a regulation and a decision on migration from SISone4ALL to SIS II, including a comprehensive test that will assess whether the level of performance of SIS II is equivalent to that of the current system. These proposals are the result of a change in the migration strategy.\nFour points: firstly, the initial plan was to have a migration of 15 Member States in a process lasting around 8 hours. In the meantime, the number of Member States increased to 25, which made the process much more complex and difficult. Secondly, an interim technical architecture will have to be created that will allow SIS1+ and SIS II to operate in parallel for a limited transitional period. This is a wise solution that we should agree to and it will enable us to have a fallback in the event of something going wrong. Thirdly, a technical tool - a converter - will be made available during this interim period that will connect the SIS I central system to the SIS II central system, enabling both to process the same information and ensuring that all Member States stay on the same level. Lastly, the mandate given to the Commission in 2001 expires at the end of this year.\nWe raised four concerns. Firstly, the need for the European Commission to continue to have a mandate to develop SIS II until it is operational. We are opposed to the idea, which was considered, of the Commission's mandate finishing when work on the C-SIS central system is concluded. Secondly, for there to be a clear definition of the European Commission's competences and of those of the Member States. Thirdly, that all the conditions laid down in No 2 establishing the legal basis for SIS should be fulfilled before the migration of the data takes place. Lastly, that this migration should be carried out in a single, one-shot phase, processed by all Member States.\nThe proposals we received on 3 September, on the same day that they were approved in Coreper, make major changes to the initial proposals. Normally Parliament should be consulted again when the texts presented involve substantial changes. However, once again, we are up against a tight schedule; the Commission's mandate expires at the end of 2008 and it is essential that the Council approve these proposals at the end of October. Once again Parliament is showing it is living up to its responsibilities and it is not our fault that the process is delayed. As a matter of fact, the changes that have been made do answer most of the concerns outlined in my draft reports, especially in terms of clarifying the Commission's responsibilities and those of the Member States and that the Commission will continue to have a mandate to develop SIS II until it is operational.\nIn conclusion, I should like to congratulate the French Presidency on the excellent work it has put into achieving a good agreement between the Commission and the Member States, which had looked as if it was going to be difficult. The European Parliament wants to contribute to avoiding further delays and to having SIS II operational by the new date set: 30 September 2009. We are, however, concerned, as various experts have said informally that it is more than likely that this date will once again not be respected.\nThere are two essential points that the European Parliament considers as key and that all the political groups support. Firstly, that the European Parliament should be updated on a six-monthly basis on the development of the project and, secondly, that the mandate given to the new Commission should not be an open-ended mandate and that a rule be included whereby the European Parliament has to be consulted again if there is a delay of more than one year. We sincerely hope that this time the project will be concluded in a timely fashion and that SIS II can start operating on the scheduled date.\nPresident\nWe will now hear from the Council. Mr Jouyet, on behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to thank you for being here all day. I believe that your attentiveness before this Assembly is a reflection of your commitment to Europe.\nJean-Pierre Jouyet\nMr President, thank you for your kind words. Obviously I return the compliment in terms of commitment to Europe, and to the Vice-President of the Commission, Jacques Barrot.\nMr Coelho, ladies and gentlemen, redesigning the Schengen system is necessary to develop the new functions that crime prevention and border control will demand in future. The 'SISone4ALL' system, Minister, developed on the initiative of the Portuguese Presidency, is a happy compromise that allowed the Member States that joined in 2004 to be included and, more importantly, led to the removal of controls at internal land borders, in December, and then at air borders, in March.\nWe all felt emotional seeing the last iron curtain come down, seeing Slovak and Austrian ministers symbolically cut down the wooden barrier at the Berg-Petr\u017ealka crossing point to the east of Vienna. I think that this is a proud moment for any staunch European supporter, knowing that we have an area of free movement of 3.6 million km2. This is the largest area in the world, although - as you know - the necessary corollary of this great freedom is an electronic system that allows us to identify suspected criminals and to follow the trail of false papers and stolen passports, while applying stringent data protection rules to guarantee individual freedoms. I would like to emphasise this point.\nHowever, as you quite rightly said, the current system does not allow the use of modern technology, even if this complies with the fundamental principles of data protection and especially the principle of proportionality. How can the police be efficient with a central database that does not currently allow them to look at digital photographs of wanted criminals, to identify them with any certainty? This is why the aim of the Schengen II or SIS II information system must be maintained; as you clearly explained, this is the real issue in our debate. Mr President, on behalf of the Council, I would like to thank the Vice-President, Mr Barrot, who, under a new mandate, has agreed to continue overseeing the development of the new SIS central database, in addition to the connection with national databases. I would like to thank him for being personally involved in this project.\nThe draft texts that you will be asked to vote on tomorrow set out a clearer division of responsibilities between the Member States and the Commission during each phase, whether in terms of project development, final tests, the interim phase, with the converter, or the final migration of one system to another, in the interests of establishing an overall balance between the obligations of Member States and the responsibilities of the European Commission.\nI would particularly like to thank Mr Coelho, who has worked swiftly, effectively and imaginatively on this important project, together with his colleagues from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I would also ask him to pass on my thanks to the committee chairman, Mr Deprez. Mr Coelho has encouraged support for the texts needed for today's plenary, and these texts incorporate the proposals that you made, Mr Coelho. Parliament's support today allows us to embark on a new phase in the transition to SIS II, in time for the expiry of the Commission's current mandate - an ad hoc mandate, I should point out - which is due to expire on 31 December. I would just like to reassure the Vice-President on this point.\nOf course, the launch of the new system represents an enormous technological challenge, and one that was no doubt underestimated at first. In fact, the transfer of 22 million records involving more than 24 parties whose national databases are in different formats is, as you can imagine, no mean feat. However, the efforts that have been made in this project are, I think, up to the task. In view of these technical and financial efforts, the European Parliament deserves to be kept fully informed of the progress and of the difficulties that exist in the transition to the new system. A deadline should be set - as you said, Mr Coelho - to test the new system and check that it will be fully operational - as we all hope - in September next year, as agreed during the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting on 6 June.\nWe realise that we have set ourselves a tight deadline. The technical experts realise this. We can only meet this deadline if everyone is wholeheartedly committed to the SIS II project and shoulders their responsibilities. With this report, the European Parliament is sending out a positive signal this evening by asking perfectly legitimate questions. This is why the Council proposes to unconditionally approve the amendments tabled, which, I should point out, have received the support of all political groups within the European Parliament. Thank you so much for all your hard work.\nJacques Barrot\nMr President, I too would like to thank the Presidency and Mr Jouyet for agreeing just now with Mr Coelho's report, since I truly believe that progress needs to be made in this crucial area now, without delay. I would also like to thank Mr Coelho for his report and for his personal commitment to the success of SIS II. If SIS II ever sees the light of day, then we will owe much to you, Mr Coehlo.\nYour report again highlights the level of interest and ongoing support within the European Parliament for plans to develop the second generation Schengen Information System. Evidently, SIS II will be a key tool in the Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice and, to that end, it is clearly essential that this system should be operational as soon as possible.\nI am pleased, therefore, that an agreement has been reached on legal instruments relating to the migration of SIS I to SIS II. This agreement is acceptable because it respects the following three key principles:\na clear delimitation of the tasks and responsibilities of those involved (Member States, Commission, Council);\neffective and unambiguous decision-making processes;\nthe setting of compulsory milestones.\nThe adoption of this legal framework by October will help ensure that the work necessary for SIS II continues in 2009. It is true, as Mr Jouyet pointed out - you pointed this out, President-in-Office - that 30 September 2009, a date now recognised in the proposed legal instruments on migration, is an ambitious deadline. Even this summer we actually had to suspend some tests with Member States following an informal expert consultation.\nThe contractor now has a period of 20 days in which to correct the existing problems. However, there is no doubt that we need to keep a close eye on all of the potential problems that might arise and prevent us from keeping to the timetable for SIS II. We are currently in discussion with Member States on the best way of finishing the work on SIS II. We also need to find the right balance between the political priority attached to this system and, at the same time, the guarantee of excellence of the service rendered to the national authorities that will use it.\nIn any event, the proposed adaptation mechanisms give us some flexibility and oblige us to adopt the necessary transparency with regard to the development plan. Therefore, Mr Coehlo, we are in full agreement with your amendments; that goes without saying.\nOn the one hand, setting an expiry date for legislative acts on migration for the end of June 2010 will give us sufficient room for manoeuvre in the event of problems with finalising the development of SIS II or with migration. This date will also ensure that SIS II is fully operational by mid-2010.\nOn the other hand, the twice-yearly presentation by the Commission of reports relating to the development and migration of SIS I to SIS II will ensure that work on SIS II is transparent for the European Parliament.\nFor my part, Mr President, I would like to emphasise - like Mr Jouyet, speaking on behalf of the Presidency - that for Schengen to truly be a complete success - which it already is - we need SIS II. This is a real technological achievement, illustrating what Europe can do when it decides to use new technology. It is also absolutely essential.\nThis is why I am extremely grateful to Parliament, which, almost without opposition, has accepted all of these aspects and has approved Mr Coehlo's report.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu\non behalf of PPE-DE. - (RO) I endorse the rapporteur's proposal of setting the deadline for this new legislative package for 30 June 2010; this is important in order to prevent any possible delays in the implementation of the second generation of the Schengen Information System, SIS II.\nThe removal of border controls on land and at sea, which started on 21 December 2007, as well as in the air (March 2008) is a relevant step for nine of the ten Member States. The Council decided that border control in the three outstanding states, Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria, would cease when the operability of the Schengen System has been guaranteed following an evaluation. However, the working of the Schengen System in the three states depends on the working of SIS II in the current Schengen countries. As is known, SIS II was initially scheduled to start operating in May 2007, then it was delayed for December 2008, and now it has been postponed again to September 2009. This rescheduling may trigger delays in the three Member States. We should not forget that all of these three Member States are border states of the European Union and that they have both land and maritime borders.\nThe first two measures in the Schengen acquis are the removal of border control, its movement to external borders, and common procedures for the control of persons crossing external borders. These measures in the acquis are undermined by the fact that countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus depend on the delayed implementation of SIS II in countries which are part of the Schengen Area. Therefore, I call on the Commission and the French Presidency to solve the problem of managing SIS II and to negotiate with the contractor, so as to avoid the imposition of a new timeline for the implementation of SIS II.\nRoselyne Lefran\u00e7ois\nMr President, I wanted to say that Mrs Roure is the shadow rapporteur for this report. She could not be here today and so I am speaking on her behalf and on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.\nI share the comments made by the rapporteur, whom I thank for his work. This situation is in fact totally unacceptable. The launch of SIS II is considerably behind schedule. We have already had to extend the Commission's mandate once until the end of December 2008 to carry out the migration. The Commission has again fallen way behind schedule and is now asking for an unlimited extension of its mandate to carry out the migration. This seems unacceptable to me, as any future consultation of the European Parliament on this issue would then be impossible.\nHowever, we do not want the migration of SIS to SIS II to be rushed, since this would impact on the quality and security of the data and of the system as a whole. Consequently, every precaution must be taken to ensure that data is protected and that the system is secure. This is why we could agree to moving the calendar back and extending the Commission's mandate to carry out the migration properly.\nHowever, there is no way that this process can continue without democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. This is why the PSE Group supports the rapporteur, in order to safeguard the powers of the European Parliament.\nHenrik Lax\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would also like to extend my recognition to the rapporteur of his very good work.\nThe Schengen Information System is the largest common European database which operates as a joint information system for the Member States. This information can be used by the police and the judiciary when cooperating on criminal matters, as well as for checking individuals at external frontiers or on national territories, and also for issuing visas and residence permits.\nThe decision to create the second generation of the SIS - SIS II - took account of the need to introduce biometric data and new types of alerts, for instance because of the European arrest warrant. SIS II is also needed to bring on board the new Member States, as we have heard.\nThe new system was originally scheduled to begin operating in March 2007. We know there have been many delays, and a new timetable was announced providing for it to become operational by the end of this year. And, thanks to the transitional solution presented by the Portuguese Government and also mentioned here by Minister Jouyet, the so-called 'SIS One 4 All', it is now fully operational and it has allowed nine of the new Member Sates to be connected to the SIS. Nevertheless, as underlined by Commissioner Barrot, in this enlarged Schengen area, the reinforcement of security requirements has become even more urgent and can only be fully achieved by a full transition to the next generation of a system.\nA must for this transition is that SIS II meets all the legally-defined technical and functional requirements, as well as other requirements such as robustness, response capacity and performance. Parliament is now asked to give its opinion on the two current proposals aiming to establish the legal framework governing the transition. As the ALDE shadow rapporteur, I fully support the line taken by the rapporteur, notably that the Commission shall submit by the end of June 2009, and then by the end of every six-month period, a progress report to the Council and to Parliament concerning the development of SIS II and also concerning the migration from the Schengen Information System to the SIS I+ to the second generation SIS II.\nIt has been extremely disappointing to face the fact that SIS II is not yet operational. With this new mandate and the rigorous testing that will take place, I hope that SIS II is finally on track to a successful launch by September 2009.\nTatjana \u017ddanoka\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like first of all to thank Mr Coelho for his customary productive work on the reports concerning transition to SIS II. The reports cover mainly technical things, but I would like to look at SIS II from a broader perspective.\nFirstly, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the Portuguese presidency provided an opportunity for the 10 new Member States to join the old version of SIS. Otherwise, the new Member States, including my own, would have had to wait at least until September 2009 - in other words, almost two more years.\nOn the other hand, 'late' does not necessarily mean 'bad'. SIS II will operate under two pillars. Nevertheless, we still do not have a legally binding framework decision on data protection within the third pillar. As SIS II introduces the processing of biometric data, the issue of data protection remains largely unresolved.\nI would like to stress that my political group is extremely cautious where biometrics is concerned. Maybe we really have to wait for a solid legal background for data protection before we start using SIS II.\nAnother field where the operation of SIS might be useful is the entry bans introduced by the Member States for third-country nationals. According to the Schengen Convention, national law is applicable when a person seeks the deletion of an alert concerning him or her. In this respect, the regulation on SIS II provides for better procedural guarantees at European level.\nTo sum up, in some fields SIS II gives us a better Europe. Nevertheless, we will have to continue working on various significant flaws. If we have to wait in order to get more guarantees, perhaps we should be prepared to wait.\nPedro Guerreiro\nAs various organisations that follow the process of communitarisation of justice and home affairs, areas at the very core of States' sovereignty, have emphasised, with the 'migration' of the Schengen Information System to its second version, the characteristics of this information system and database have been extended with the inclusion of new types of alerts, such as the European arrest warrant, the addition of new data categories, such as biometric data, and access being given to new entities. New characteristics and functionalities have also been developed that interlink alerts and connect the system to the visa information system. It is also worth mentioning the worrying possibility that records may be kept, where necessary, for a long period of time, yet I wonder who will decide when this is necessary. Clarification is also needed on the all too vague area of the possible exchange of data with third countries.\nIt is our belief that this extension compared to the previous system brings with it risks as regards safeguarding citizens' rights, freedoms and guarantees by adding new elements to a database which will be more accessible and which will mean a greater degree of information sharing. Basically, much more than responding to the enlargement to new countries, there is an attempt to adapt SIS to the dangerous preoccupation with security that is part of the increasing communitarisation of home affairs in the European Union, which we reject.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (SV) Mr President, the subject we are now debating is of much greater importance than others that are regularly debated in this Chamber. We are discussing something as fundamental as the mobility of people within the so-called Schengen area. There is no doubt that this system eases travel for many individuals, but the downside of the system, it has to be said, overshadows its positive aspects.\nI am referring to the fact that Schengen also results in the mobility of huge numbers of people being restricted because of social systems. Schengen is a further step towards the creation of a superstate, Fortress Europe. The creation of a society of control with immense powers. I do not wish to contribute to that.\nThere is indeed no doubt that cross-border crime is one of the greatest problems we are faced with today. Hence there is a need for cross-border solutions. However, I do not believe that Schengen, or the EU for that matter, is the right forum for the purpose. There is already Interpol, an excellent and efficient international police body in which sovereign states throughout the world participate. Instead of building up parallel systems, more should be done to strengthen Interpol. We know that criminality is not limited to our continent, but consists of worldwide networks. These were a few points of a general nature; now for the more specific ones.\nOne aspect, which in my opinion is treated all too lightly when it comes to the Schengen information systems, is the question of confidentiality. The personal data which will be processed and stored are of a highly sensitive nature. One of the most important tasks for the State is to provide its citizens with full safeguards against unauthorised access to personal data. Hence I see this as a national matter, since it is my firm opinion that the EU is in no position to provide the safeguards required. Besides, I consider it unnecessary and costly to establish new structures. After all, it is taxpayers' money which has to finance the system.\nI have long been of the opinion that the development of the EU, or European integration as some like to call it, can be compared to the growth of tyranny by small steps. Frighteningly enough, the steps are no longer particularly small. Instead we are witnessing large, determined and rapid strides towards the creation of an EU State. No true Europhile should accept that.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) Ladies and gentlemen, we are once again discussing the Schengen Information System (SIS) which is the main tool for the application of the Schengen principles. It is undoubtedly the backbone of a 'borderless' Europe and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and therefore it is essential that SIS II should begin to operate.\nAt the present time, the SISone4ALL system is fully operational as a transitional technical solution, allowing the nine new Member States to be connected to the SIS and of course, through accession to the Schengen area, to become full members of the Union. The date of 21 December 2007 was a great day in the history of my country, Slovakia, and of the entire EU. It marked the real fall of the iron curtain.\nThis is why I should like to thank Carlos Coelho for producing this report and for the tremendous efforts he has made. I am convinced that, but for him, the Schengen area would not have nine new members today. I believe that the new generation SIS will also manage to operate equally quickly and without any problems.\nJean-Pierre Jouyet\nThank you very much to all of the speakers for an excellent debate and for the wide support for the principle of the new mandate, as well as the position of the rapporteur, expressed by various speakers.\nMr Marinescu, I have praised the excellent work of the Portuguese Presidency, which has allowed new Member States to join the system. I have made a note that Romania wants to join the system as soon as possible under the supervision of the Commission, subject to any technical adjustments that might be necessary in this regard.\nConcerning the observations made by Mrs Lefran\u00e7ois and Mr Lax, the Council can only apologise for the delay, but we all recognise the efforts made by the Commission, the personal pledge from Vice-President Barrot to get things back on track and the strict measures imposed on the contractor. The Council will also remain vigilant alongside the Commission and all the Member States, who will remain strongly committed to completing the project, as planned, by ensuring that it is both technically feasible and effective, as well as guaranteeing citizens' freedoms, of course.\nIn answer to Mrs \u017ddanoka and Mr Guerreiro, I understand - and Mrs Lefran\u00e7ois underlined this - that several of you would like a further discussion on incorporating new functions into the system, but it is vital that we complete SIS II before we allow these. Therefore, I believe that it would be natural for there to be a political debate on what these new functions should be. However, as several of you have pointed out, this should not hinder the launch of the new system. In fact, it would be unacceptable to abandon these functions for the sole reason that an obsolete system - in this case SIS I - could not accommodate them. First of all, before we have this debate, it is essential that we have the system and that the technological development is completed.\nIn terms of the other speeches, which were mainly concerned with data protection, I would like to point out - as the President did, and we took part in this morning's debate on personal data protection with Commissioner Barrot - that we effectively want to continue the work undertaken at European level, and that we believe that the guarantees you requested, in terms of protecting this data and sharing information with third countries, must be in place. Without returning to the general debate that we had this morning, I would just like to say that, in terms of the protection of this data, it was agreed that we would follow the recommendations of the European Data Protection Supervisor so that these concerns are taken into account.\nJacques Barrot\nMr President, I too would like to thank all of the speakers and the rapporteur once again. To follow up on what Mr Jouyet said, I would also like to remind everyone that we are very mindful of compliance with data protection rules. As you said, President-in-Office, the services are in regular contact with those of the European Data Protection Supervisor to ensure that these rules are properly integrated into the development and management of SIS II. A visit to Strasbourg by the European Data Protection Supervisor is planned in the first half of 2009, before the migration takes place, to ensure that data protection is secure.\nThe converter, which is in the process of being developed, will also enable secure data transfer from SIS I to SIS II. Mrs Lefran\u00e7ois quite rightly said that this migration should not be rushed, and she is right. We need to be very careful.\nIn any case, the legal instruments contain specific provisions aimed at ensuring compliance with the principles of data protection. That is all I can say about data protection, bearing in mind that we need to pay close attention to ensuring that this system is consistent with what we are trying to achieve elsewhere in Europe in terms of data protection.\nNow, going back to the matter of the delay: I completely understand Mr Marinescu, Mr Lax and Mrs Lefran\u00e7ois, who clearly expressed their concern following the series of delays that we have had. As for SIS II preparations at central level, we are keeping a close watch on progress, we have introduced measures that will help us monitor things closely and the Commission's services will specifically see to it that there are enough resources to follow up on the work of contractors.\nEvidently, if necessary we can resort to the penalties provided for in the contracts, as my predecessor did by imposing a fine of more than EUR 1 million on one of the contractors. However, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rather than resort to penalties, I would prefer to see contractors working efficiently and keeping to our timetable.\nNevertheless, the implementation of SIS II does not just concern the central SIS II. Clearly we also need a considerable effort from the Member States. I am glad that the French Presidency is here today, because I know how committed it is to this.\nTo assist the Member States in their preparations at national level, the Friends of SIS II, established by the Slovenian Presidency and recognised by the French Presidency, is extremely useful. This high-level group, in which the Commission is actively involved, has the task of monitoring the implementation of SIS II in the Member States. It is only through solid cooperation that we will succeed in overcoming the problem.\nI would just like to say that we are not trying to turn Europe into a fortress with SIS III; we are simply trying to make sure that the removal of internal borders does not mean a greater risk of uncertainty, violence and terrorism for the European Union and for European citizens. Therefore, I cannot allow it to be said that by creating SIS II we are closing the doors to Europe. It is not a question of that. It is simply a case of ensuring that, having removed our internal borders, we can offer European citizens a space - yes, I will say it - a space of security and freedom.\nThat is all, Mr President. In any case, I would like to thank the European Parliament and Mr Coehlo personally for investing so much in the construction of SIS II, which again is key to the success of Schengen.\nCarlos Coelho\nMr President, I am taking the risk of making my final comments in French in response to the courteous remarks made by Mr Jouyet and Vice-President Barrot. Therefore, I am now going to thank you in your own language. It has not been easy to reach a consensus within the Council, but you have succeeded. For us, two things are truly important: a clear division of competences between the Commission and the Member States, and the issue of the Commission's mandate.\nThe Commission's mandate cannot end until SIS II is working properly. I would also like to thank the Council, the Commission and all political groups in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for their work on drafting the amendments that we will vote on tomorrow. For us, the transparency clause is crucial: citizens have the right to be kept informed about Schengen and SIS II. As for the question of the Commission's mandate, an unlimited mandate is unacceptable. However, we have managed to address that problem.\nTo finish, Mr President, I would like to explain why we like SIS II to those who have spoken rather negatively about the system. We like SIS II because we like freedom of movement in Europe. However, for there to be freedom of movement in Europe, we have to be sure that our external borders are secure. The security of our external borders is a condition of the freedom of European citizens, and that is why we urgently need SIS II.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Christian communities in the Middle East (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Christian communities in the Middle East.\nMario Mauro\nauthor. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, religious freedom is an objective factor in recognising respect for human rights. The violence suffered by Christians around the world is both an affront and a challenge to human dignity.\nI intended to table this draft resolution at the last plenary in October, but the coordinator of the political groups asked me to postpone the resolution until the November plenary, to give us time to prepare a more detailed text backed by a broader consensus. In the text that we will be voting on this afternoon, which is the result of a compromise between socialists, liberals, the Union for Europe of the Nations Group and the Independence and Democracy Group, the salient features of the initial draft resolution have remained.\nWe have also been able to insert concrete references to acts of violence and abuses committed this year not only in the Middle East, but in other parts of the world against Christian communities. These events mainly concern Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, China and Vietnam, and in fact the intense coordination carried out in the last few days and the consequent unearthing of numerous episodes that have occurred outside the Middle East has led us to find a new, more fitting title, which is 'serious events which compromise Christian communities' existence and those of other religious communities'.\nObviously the text does not include all violence perpetrated against Christians, such as in Eritrea and North Korea. However, ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to recognise the political message of this text, which is also aimed at those countries and incidents that have not been mentioned. From the outset, having to liaise with other groups has allowed me to clarify that this resolution in no way intends to rekindle conflict between civilisations. Europe has always been first in line when it comes to protecting minority rights and cannot continue to ignore the increasing harm being inflicted on so many Christians.\nToday, ladies and gentlemen, our Parliament can express itself on an urgent and important subject, for the protection of life and religious freedom, not only of Christians, but of millions of people of all faiths. I would therefore ask...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nGlyn Ford  \nauthor. - Madam President, I speak on behalf of the Socialist Group to give our total support to this joint motion for a resolution on religious persecution.\nIn one minute I can only touch on some elements of that resolution, and want to focus on the plight of the indigenous Christian community in Iraq, which at one time represented almost 10 % of the population. As someone who supports and is supported by the Save the Assyrians campaign, I have to say that this Parliament is wont to rest on compromising consensus, which sometimes results in a levelling and a loss of meaning.\nThat is true of this resolution. Recital K deplores the situation of Assyrian villages in Turkish border areas. Why? Because the Turkish Government is actually shelling Assyrian villages, claiming that they contain PKK militants, which seems to be an unlikely situation. In recital S it also refers to the situation in Syria, to where tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of refugees have fled from Jordan and Iraq, but the border is now being closed.\nWhat is needed is help and assistance.\nAdam Bielan  \nMadam President, may I begin by expressing my satisfaction and by thanking the other co-authors of the resolution dealing with such an important problem as the events surrounding Christian communities in certain Middle Eastern states, as well as on a world scale.\nAt the same time, as one of the signatories to this resolution, I would like to emphasise that a guarantee of religious freedom is the first step towards assuring fundamental human rights, and the instances of persecution of Christians that occur around the world are a basic example of violation of these rights.\nFurthermore, while mindful of the fact that we are seeing a lack of any reaction on this matter from authorities, institutions and political movements around the world, I would like once again to stress the significance of the resolution under discussion for defence of the rights of Christians and to emphasise that the Union for Europe of the Nations Group fully supports it.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Flautre  \nauthor. - (FR) Madam President, I dare not think what the expressions on the faces of my PPE fellow Members would be if they found out that a resolution on Muslim communities in Europe had been adopted by the Gulf States or by ASEAN. It would be felt as a nasty shock, a sign of aggression, an unacceptable intrusion by a religious authority in a non-EU country into relations between our Member States and religious minorities. Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you is also a Christian precept.\nSeriously, would such a resolution be perceived as a call for tolerance and intercultural and religious dialogue? Certainly not! The European Union, so proud of its values, would be well advised to demonstrate on these ultra-sensitive issues a modicum of discernment and respect for international conventions.\nTo tackle violations of the rights of people from religious minorities, to condemn the murder of Christians or restrictions on freedom to worship, we have a choice between two equally well-founded approaches. The first is to talk to a country, on the basis of its international commitments and the agreements between us, and ask it to investigate, try those responsible, and ensure the rights of religious minorities are respected, and that is what we do here regularly.\nThe second approach is that taken by the United Nations, through a resolution tabled by 12 countries and by all the EU states, concerning the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion, beliefs, and freedom of thought and conscience because, in international law - and this is very valuable - they are linked. An individual's rights to belief, to religion, to thought and to conscience are interdependent.\nWhat will we be doing today if we adopt this unacceptable text you are proposing? We will be ignoring the work being done by our Member States at the United Nations and taking a different approach which is likely to encourage certain countries to exploit religious issues in their international relations. We will be going against the balanced approach recommended, for example, by Mrs Jahangir, United Nations Special Rapporteur, currently under house arrest in Pakistan, and at the end of the day we will also be making the situation of religious minorities throughout the world, including Christians, more fragile.\nOnce again, together with experts working on religious freedom, such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, I say that this resolution simply increases the danger for those we want to protect.\nBastiaan Belder  \nauthor. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if we really have fundamental rights at heart, we cannot fail to be concerned by the precarious position of Christian communities in the Middle East. The present motion for a resolution spurs all the European institutions on in this regard.\nA recent delegation visit by our Parliament gave us more insight into the daily life of Lebanese Christians. They fear ending up in a kind of second-class position like their co-religionists in almost all the countries of the region.\nThey are faced with a direct choice between personal safety and personal dignity, their religious convictions. Today's Lebanese Christians want to retain both.\nThe actual political violence of recent years is now directly affecting Christians in the land of the cedar. An informant in Lebanon said just this week that, even though Christians are not the primary targets, the majority of politicians assassinated are from Christian backgrounds, as are the journalists who have become the target of attacks, and this intimidates the Christian population in Lebanon.\nMarios Matsakis  \nauthor. - Madam President, for thousands of years man's presence on earth has been subjected to the perils of lethal forces outwith his powers of defence or understanding. Such forces range from disastrous natural phenomena to incomprehensible somatic and mental illnesses. Man's powerless status has been made easier to cope with through his belief in a superpower entity he called 'God'. Different human groups developed a different understanding and a different approach to God.\nThe result has been the creation of a large number of religions. Such religions are, of course, man-made and not God-made and therefore suffer from several weaknesses. Such weaknesses include fanaticism, dogmatism and failure to accept other people's right to believe differently. These weaknesses differ in number and in intensity amongst different religions and unfortunately they have often been exploited by extremist religious leaders and unscrupulous politicians.\nThis has led to religious wars and to the committing of despicable crimes against human beings in the name of religion. Both Christianity and Islam, two of mankind's main religions, have not been exempt from these sad inflictions and history is full of shameful examples to illustrate the point. Of course, with the passage of time, most religions became more mature and more humanistic and this is certainly true with Christianity. But this change has not happened with some other religions, unfortunately.\nThis is why in some countries, mainly Islamic countries, Christians are being persecuted, sometimes with extreme criminal vigour and sometimes with the consent of political groups and even governments. This is indeed a very sad state of affairs, which involves a range of countries or regions worldwide - some of them have already been mentioned in this Chamber today - but it is more specific in the Middle East.\nWith this resolution we hope to bring attention to the persecution of Christians in these countries and hopefully to help in making sure that the authorities, both political and religious, in such countries fully understand that such aggressive behaviour is neither compatible with the principles of respect for human rights nor with the true teachings of a caring religion.\nThank you Madam President, as you can see I still have 20 seconds to spare!\nErik Meijer  \nauthor. - (NL) Madam President, the Christian communities in the Middle East date back to the early years of Christianity. They predate both Christianity in Europe and Islam in the Middle East.\nYet these days they are often seen as an alien element in what is now a predominantly Islamic area. This is not merely the result of religious intolerance from certain quarters within Islam; the blame also lies with Europe.\nThree times in history, Europe and Christianity have aroused aversion and hatred in that region. The first time was the crusades in the late Middle Ages, when occupying European armies took control of sites holy not only to Christians but also to Jews and Muslims. The second time followed the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of last century, when Egypt, Sudan, Jordan and Iraq came under British colonial control and Syria and Lebanon under French colonial control.\nWe are currently in the third phase. Europe's positions on Israel, Palestine and Iraq arouse great opposition in the Middle East, where Europe is suspected of focusing primarily on its own energy supplies, on safeguarding its own transport routes and on giving preferential treatment to those ethnic or religious minorities best disposed towards it.\nOne possible consequence is that Christian minorities may be unable to hold their own in the Middle East in the long term and be doomed to flee to Europe. Giving Christians and Jews in the Middle East leeway is a better solution, as indeed Europe must do to its Islamic minority.\nBernd Posselt\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, if you will pardon my saying so, Mrs Flautre is talking nonsense. Muslims do a huge amount for Muslim minorities. We support Muslim and other religious minorities. However, it is unfortunately true that if we do not do anything for Christians, nobody will.\nThe Islamic or Arab League has never championed the rights of Christians as we have the rights of Muslims. It is therefore high time that we put this matter on the agenda. It is an act of justice, whereby I must say emphatically that the problem is not Islam. Christians in the Middle East have survived 1 200 years under Islamic rule. It is in our supposedly so advanced age that they are seriously endangered, especially in Iraq, which is occupied by the West.\nWe must acknowledge our own responsibility to make it possible for them to survive and live in freedom and dignity. Most religious persecution takes place in communist China, in pseudo-Christian nationalist Russia, in communist dictatorships - and also under Islamic regimes. For me, Islamism is simply a perverse dictatorship and ideology of the twentieth century. We Europeans have a duty in this regard, and we shall perform it.\n(Applause)\nPaulo Casaca\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Madam President, congratulations to the authors of this joint motion. I should like to mention that it is appropriate to remember that before the persecution of Christians we had the persecution, for example, of the Jews, and we had and still have persecution of the Yazidis, the Mandians and the Muslims themselves, whether Shiite or Sunni, in Iraq.\nIt would not be fair or proportionate to compare what is happening in Iraq to what is happening in Europe. In fact it must be remembered that those who are persecuted in Iraq unfortunately do not have, in Europe, the protection to which they are entitled, whether Christian or non-Christian. There are absolutely incredible cases of a total lack of sensitivity on the part of our European Union as regards persecuted Iraqis. May I end by reminding you, not to detract from all others, of Father Ragheed Ganni and the entire congregation of the Church of the Holy Spirit in Mosul, perhaps the most monstrous crime committed this year.\nMarcin Libicki\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, we are talking here today about the brutal persecution of Christians, particularly in the Middle East. We should not lose sight of the fact that Christians are persecuted throughout the world, however, and I do not agree with what Mr Casaca said about there being very many religious minorities who are persecuted.\nPlease could he provide examples of where these minorities are being persecuted on any major scale; I am not talking about the chance killing, however reprehensible, of an infidel, but of cases where another religion is persecuted in the way that Christians are persecuted. I fully agree with Mr Posselt, and I agree with much else that has been said, where dozens of examples of persecution of Christians have been mentioned, but not, as Mr Casaca claims, of many other religions. It is not true. Christians are the main objects of persecution, and it is mainly Christians who are persecuted.\nYesterday in Parliament we heard a speech from President Sarkozy, who spoke of the need to defend Europe's identity. What is this identity? Who will defend us if we do not defend ourselves and the roots of our identity? Christians in the Middle East bear witness to our European identity. They have been there for 2 000 years and we must defend them if they are to remain there.\nGiusto Catania\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that today, with this motion for a resolution, we are taking an important step, because this Parliament must always condemn acts and events that endanger the lives of men and women on the grounds of their faith, religious beliefs or political opinion.\nReligious freedom is a value that we must bring to the fore. Although it is true that in some cases Christians risk persecution and criminalisation, it is for this reason that Parliament must protect and defend them, just as this Parliament has always protected and defended Muslim citizens who have been the victims of discrimination in the West. We believe that all religions can play a positive role, a peacekeeping role, to encourage respect for diversity. For this reason we must strongly condemn any form of religious fundamentalism, which is so often a factor in conflict. I believe that this Parliament must always endeavour to listen and promote interreligious dialogue.\nThere are some notable examples that show how it is possible to construct a solution in which religions can listen to each other and build on common ground. I am also anxious to recall the sacrifice of some Catholics, some Christians, who have fought to free the poor, for peoples and for social liberation. This is why our group is voting in favour of this resolution, in memory of priests such as Peppino Diana and Pino Puglisi, who died because of their stance against the mafia and organised crime in general.\nKathy Sinnott\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, I welcome this joint motion for a resolution, since I regard it as vital that we protect Christian minorities in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. It is important that we protect all religious communities from persecution. I regard it as appalling that people have to face constraints in their daily routine, in what they can do and where they can go, in their ability to own property and to get an education or a job, as well as threats on their life, because of their Christian affiliation.\nThe freedom of religious observance is a fundamental human right and thus it is essential that governments ensure that even the religious minorities in their countries can practise their beliefs free from any restraint, that is to say without there being a threat to their life or anything else.\nMuslims must realise that they must promote the principle of religious freedom and tolerance, the same freedom and tolerance for their adherence that they enjoy and expect to enjoy in our countries, many of which have large Christian populations.\nEija-Riitta Korhola\n(FI) Madam President, I set great store by Mr Mauro's initiative. Every day peace-loving Christians are under threat of systematic oppression and are used as scapegoats in crises they are not involved in. This is totally reprehensible and an issue it is necessary to highlight. Actually to improve the position of Christians, however, it is important to understand the problem as part of a wider whole. It is not only Christians who are having difficulties, but in many countries Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs and Ahmadis also have problems. The list is long.\nFreedom of religion is essential for a society which respects human rights and civil liberties. It is, as it were, a meta-right, in practice a prerequisite for the existence of other human rights, which reflects the condition of society as a whole. If a society starts to get ill, it is visible first in the shape of restrictions on freedom of religion and in the status of religious minorities. For this reason we have to show our firm support for the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on freedom of religion.\nIt is worth noting that in many countries, like Pakistan and Indonesia, religious communities are striving jointly to establish freedom of religion and the protection of minorities. Religion itself might therefore also be a solution. A pluralist dialogue always leads to less tension and benefits freedom of religion and society as a whole.\nAna Maria Gomes\n(PT) The persecution of religious minorities in many countries should make us reflect upon the fragility of the aspects of civilisation which we think we have achieved. Religious freedom is an essential and inalienable pillar of universal human rights. Despite the laudable intentions, this resolution is incomplete.\nThe EP must speak up about the persecution of Christian minorities in particular, but first on all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on faith or religion which, in fact, affect all religious communities. We should also be worried about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism which are on the increase in Europe and elsewhere. If we focus almost exclusively on discrimination against Christians, we might give the wrong impression. It therefore needs to be stressed that the EP fully supports the resolution on the eradication of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief presented by the EU Member States to the UN General Assembly.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski\n- (PL) Madam President, the Middle East also has its Christian roots. Regardless of the differences between them, the Christians there have managed on many occasions to demonstrate that they are able to live alongside Muslims, Jews or followers of other religions in peace and mutual respect.\nLately, however, we have seen actions by adherents of the Islamic faith that have come down to a practical implementation of the false notion that being anti-Christian shows what a good Muslim you are. The Lebanese journalist Hazem Saghieh made this point recently. Numerous and often drastic instances of violations of the rights of people who, solely because of their Christian faith, are treated as second-class citizens are evidence of the violation of the fundamental principle of human freedom: the freedom to practise a faith.\nThe question needs to be asked: What can we in the European Union, which is open to and respects the rights of Muslim co-citizens, do for Christians who do not even have a modest fraction of such rights in those countries? Where is there the slightest reciprocity? There is none to be found in religiously motivated murders, nor in widespread discrimination, nor in the failure to give consent to the building of Christian churches, nor in the ruination of memorials to Christian culture.\nThe whole world wants peace, and people want freedom, including religious freedom.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\n- (PL) Madam President, the current political situation in the Middle East means that Christians who live in that region are feeling increasingly threatened. One reason for this is the rise in the influence of Islamic fundamentalists, who heap blame on them for every failure suffered by the people of the region. Because of their religious ties with people in the West, they are also accused of westernising the traditional social structures, about which people in the Middle East are very unwilling to speak.\nOne way in which the fundamentalists express their dissatisfaction is by organising anti-Western demonstrations, during which they destroy symbols associated with Christianity and shops run by Christians. In extreme cases even murders are committed. The passiveness of governments means that increasing numbers of Christian families are deciding to emigrate.\nThe resolution outlines a number of problems encountered by Christians in the Middle East. These are not all the examples, however, so in my view the European Parliament should prepare a full-scale report on the situation of Christians in the Middle East, or the situation of religious faiths generally. We should also give some thought to how to conduct a dialogue between civilisations that enables Christian society and Muslim regions to be involved effectively.\nJerzy Buzek\n- (PL) Madam President, I congratulate Mr Mauro. I have no doubts whatsoever about this resolution. I support it wholeheartedly. The only problem is whether we are effective, whether we will be effective and whether we will change anything. There are three ways in which we can act.\nThe first way is through diplomatic pressure. That is what we are currently doing. European governments need to be mobilised too, however. Every diplomat should bear this in mind. We must push for such actions in bilateral and multilateral talks. The only way to get a good result here is through large-scale diplomatic pressure.\nThe second way is through economic sanctions. I know from my own country's experience 20 or 30 years ago what economic sanctions meant for the Communist government in Warsaw - well selected sanctions, so as not to cause harm to citizens. We must use this method too.\nThe final way is through thorough analysis of our actions, because countries in the Middle East and other parts of the world have their ups and downs. This also depends on our actions, which are not always very coherent or prudent. This means intervention, cultural events, and also speeches from diplomats. We do not want to hide our convictions. Quite the contrary - we want to show them clearly. However, we must act not only firmly but also judiciously.\nDanuta H\u00fcbner\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission is aware of and strongly condemns discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief. Our policy is to fight all types of discrimination, and we do it in bilateral relations and multilateral forums such as the UN.\nAt the UN General Assembly, the EU has taken the approach of tabling its customary resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. Last year, the consensus on the text of the resolution gathered a record 99 co-sponsors.\nTogether with the Member States, we are paying very close attention to the human rights and democracy situation in partner countries. We raise those issues in political dialogue meetings via demarches and public statements, reminding partners of their commitments under international law prohibiting discrimination on any grounds.\nThe EU is actively seeking to advance the cause of human rights protection under the Neighbourhood Policy. The European Neighbourhood Policy action plans cover a wide range of issues in this regard. The individual meetings of the Subcommittee on Human Rights with Jordan, Israel, Morocco, Lebanon and Tunisia have already reviewed the progress made in the implementation of the ENP action plans' commitments on human rights and fundamental freedoms. The first meeting of the Human Rights Subcommittee with Egypt is scheduled for later this month.\nIn parallel with bilateral contacts with governments and support for political reforms, we are supporting non-governmental organisations worldwide that are active in protecting and promoting human rights. We believe that human rights defenders play an indispensable role in society.\nWe find it equally important to maintain and further increase freedom of religion in Europe. The EU can show and share good practices.\nPresident\nMr Casaca has asked to make a personal statement, in accordance with Rule 145 of the Rules of Procedure.\nPaulo Casaca\n(PT) Madam President, I am sorry if I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I stand in total and unreserved solidarity with the Christian communities persecuted throughout the Middle East, especially in Iraq. I merely pointed out, and I intend to provide my fellow member with everything he regards as necessary, that such persecution was unfortunately not confined to the Christian community and that the Yazidi community, the Mandian community, the Shiites and Sunnis themselves, who are outside the majority communities, have also been subject to terrible persecution in that country; that is a fact that no one can ignore. I just wanted to stress that and say that I am willing to provide all the documentation required.\nPresident\nMr Casaca, you have exceeded the time limit for making a personal statement.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at the end of the debate.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Transatlantic Economic Council (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Commission statement on the Transatlantic Economic Council.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, taken together, the European Union and the United States have 60% of the world's gross domestic product and 40% of world trade. Transatlantic commercial services and revision flows amount to USD 3 billion a day. Transatlantic economic relationships create jobs for 14 million people. That is the scale of what we are talking about here today.\nIn April 2007 the European Union and the United States signed a framework agreement to strengthen transatlantic economic integration between the United States and the European Union. This agreement is based on recognising not only that the European Union and the United States are each other's most important economic partners but also that we have common interests and challenges and share a wide range of shared values, such as a commitment to free trade and openness for investment, a commitment to free, undistorted competition, respect for property rights, including intellectual property rights, and effective protection for consumers, employees and the environment.\nThe transatlantic agreement is a strengthening of our shared commitments to achieving closer economic cooperation and speeding up the dismantling of transatlantic barriers to trade and investment. The Transatlantic Economic Council was created to ensure that this cooperation will function. Its goal is to dismantle barriers to a true transatlantic market. At the same time, however, we are also involved with common challenges in our relationships with other countries. The Transatlantic Economic Council has already proved a valuable forum for strategic dialogue on how to proceed in relation to China and in relation to state funds. The product security of imported goods and the assertion of intellectual property rights in third countries are specific examples of practical cooperation in specific matters.\nThe biggest barrier to trade between our highly developed economies is different rules and approaches to regulation. Non-tariff barriers to trade have been virtually eliminated in the eight major world trade rounds over the last 60 years. Non-tariff barriers, such as unnecessarily strict regulations and administrative procedures that limit trade, are now the main type of barrier. These barriers are often less visible and more complex, and they can be very politically sensitive, as they are frequently the result of deliberate internal political decisions.\nThe good news for us is that the United States, which in the past was always very sceptical of regulations that it had not passed itself, is increasingly open to international cooperation on regulatory issues, especially with us. The decision by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to accept the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) was a historic step forward.\nAs the European Chair of the Transatlantic Economic Council, I have grasped an important concept in these early stages. Transatlantic cooperation is not possible without political leadership. To agree that it is desirable to have a market without trade barriers is one thing; but as soon as we begin tackling specific barriers, we find that economic integration requires a great deal of hard work, patience, perseverance and, as I said, political leadership. By the way, it was the same when we wanted to make the European internal market a reality. I recall that 30 years of economic and political integration paved the way for our European internal market project.\nChanging existing regulations and ingrained procedures is not always popular. There will always be groups who, thanks to the status quo, do not have to surrender their privileges. Some group always feels threatened on its home ground. When we give in and ease off this pressure, losing sight of the advantages for the European economy as a whole, then we are sealing ourselves off and putting our collective head in the sand.\nToday I would like to point out not only that economic integration and reducing the regulatory load are being hindered by existing regulations, but also that new statutory initiatives can undermine the desired goal. One example is the act by the US Congress that proposes prior checking of 100% of the freight that leaves our ports destined for the United States. Naturally, this is something that will be discussed within the framework of the Transatlantic Economic Council.\nThe Transatlantic Economic Council's next meeting is next Tuesday, here in Brussels. It will be the first meeting on European soil. The Americans are bringing a large number of government politicians. We have a broad agenda that will feature progress in many areas. As at our first meeting, in Washington, this meeting will continue the strategic dialogue. The topics planned are the integration of Russia into the world economy, the question of how to respond to the growing dangers of protectionism and, most especially, what conclusions we can all draw from the crisis in the financial markets. As you can see, we cover a very broad spectrum.\nThe Parliaments on both sides of the Atlantic have a major role to play in the whole process. I am very grateful to the European Parliament for the keen interest it has shown in this process. I am also grateful to the European Parliament for the close contacts it maintains with Congress and I must say that as Members of Parliament, you have a very important task, because much of what we want to, and can, agree upon politically then has to be formalised in law. For that to happen, we need approval from Congress in the United States and from you in Europe. This is also the reason why the statutory dialogue is included in the overall project.\nTo close, let me point out that the approach recently chosen is very different from all previous attempts, all of which failed, more or less spectacularly, and that both sides are convinced that it is the most promising approach so far in terms of achieving real change. It is important to have permanent political scrutiny and a clear allocation of responsibilities for the initiatives, as initiatives were taken in the past but unfortunately did not achieve the goal.\nTherefore, it is very important to clarify the point that this is an exercise in cooperation that is not being put together in a hurry. It is a long-term project. Both sides are fully agreed that neither the lifespan of the current US Government, whose term of office expires next January, nor the lifespan of the current European Commission, whose term of office expires in November next year, can be allowed to play a role in the medium- or long-term planning of this work.\nWe are absolutely determined to ensure that this project will extend beyond legislative terms and terms of office.\nJonathan Evans\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking Vice-President Verheugen. He has spoken of the need for political leadership, for hard work and for patience. He has demonstrated all of those qualities, and I must say we would not be at the stage we are at today were it not for the hard work and personal commitment that he has shown to this project.\nThe joint motion for a resolution that will be before the House is one that, I think, reflects representations that have been received on this occasion from all of the parliamentary committees. I want to congratulate them firstly for their engagement, and secondly also for their focus, because this is a document limited to 47 paragraphs, believe it or not, coming from all of the committees of Parliament.\nThis is a positive process. It is one that must continue, in my view, for the future. I want to thank the business dialogue and the consumer dialogue for engaging with legislators. I also draw attention to the remark made by Vice-President Verheugen about the engagement of Congress. In fact I met with our congressional colleagues last week in Washington and, amazingly - I think a first here - I have been asked to present their viewpoint at the meeting that is to be held on 13 May. I think that that is a very different relationship to the one that we had as a Parliament with the Congress going back three or four years ago.\nWhy are these things important? Because what we are aiming to do is to take forward regulatory cooperation, proper risk assessment - including on the safety of imported products - bridging differences on technical standards, resisting protectionism, removing barriers to transatlantic trade and promoting capital markets liberalisation.\nBut I also think that we can mark out for ourselves a role as a global standard-setter against the challenges of globalisation. We can show that, on a transatlantic basis, we can ensure that standards are not reduced in the challenges that we face with China and India.\nWill you please allow me just at the end to say a word about one other person who has contributed to this process? The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of Congress, chairman Tom Lantos, who sadly died a few weeks ago. I just want to say that he was the only Holocaust survivor to serve in the US Congress, a man whose life was saved by Raoul Wallenberg. I think that his commitment to this process is something I want to read into the record of our Parliament and to thank him on all of our behalf.\n(Applause)\nJan Marinus Wiersma\nWe too compliment Commissioner Verheugen on his commitment to cooperation between the EU and the United States and to the development and establishment of the Transatlantic Economic Council with the aim of strengthening economic cooperation, of creating one large common market - not only in the interests of the EU and of the United States, but also in order to tackle the problems facing both of us, such as the shaping of globalisation, the regulation of matters needing to be regulated at global level, and sometimes also deregulation where necessary.\nCommissioner Verheugen is right in saying that political factors play a tremendously important role in this regard, and that the role of the political executive is also important here - which is an issue in itself. It is election year in the United States: a year leading to uncertainty regarding the country's future direction. We do not know who the new president will be, although I do have a personal preference. The country's economic development differs from ours. We are still doing reasonably well; in the United States, pessimism has set in. Overdevelopment of the economy, rising unemployment, bitter complaints about high energy prices, for example: all of this leads to a degree of uncertainty, which will of course have an effect on the leading actors in the country.\nNevertheless, we need each other so that we can implement a broad agenda, as Commissioner Verheugen has already said. This is not just about the development of a common market; it is also about our commitment to the global problems associated with trade and trade policy and with our relations with the new economic powers known by the acronym BRIC. This is an important aspect.\nIt is also important to consider how we can develop a common trade agenda that also includes social and environmental aspects. The points I have highlighted are some that are very important to my group.\nI should like to mention a number of priorities for the shorter term in addition to the development of this market. I think that tackling the food crisis should also be on the agenda, as should secure and sustainable energy supplies - we are both primarily consumers of energy and dependent on producer countries - and of course the stability of the financial markets. I think that what this is ultimately about is preventing the development of a Fortress Europe and a Fortress America as a reaction to all kinds of new economic developments; we must endeavour to act together in the international arena when it comes to our own economic future and that of the many other countries dependent on us. Thank you.\nAnnemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Verheugen has reminded us of a number of very important elements in connection with today's topic: firstly, that trade between the United States and the European Union is worth USD 3 billion a day.\nSecondly, he has reminded us that the single market between our Member States has taken more than 30 years to develop - and, as we all know, it is still not perfect. In other words, we are reminded that the development of a single market between the United States and Europe can only be a long-term project.\nFinally, he has emphasised the importance in this regard of the role of politics: of political circles and institutions.\nMy group helped work on the present resolution and therefore backs the leitmotivs it contains. Firstly, we must strive for the maximum possible harmonisation of standards, be it regarding product safety or other financial elements; a system of unified, harmonised standards, therefore. However, we know how difficult this is, so if this should prove impossible or if it would take too long, the resolution advocates acceptance of each other's standards with regard to the various economic aspects, on the principle that if it is good enough for us it must also be good enough for our partners - and vice versa, of course.\nNow, as we all know, that too is easier said than done, and there are still a number of problems that we need to solve together, be it regarding poultry, hormones, cattle, or the very sensitive issue - which the Commissioner mentioned - of the US requirement that every container be scanned.\nWith the necessary positive attitude, I believe we can succeed in solving all these problems one by one; and, if both our Parliament and the US Congress make a contribution, a good outcome is possible.\nDariusz Maciej Grabowski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, some words of recognition for Commissioner Verheugen for taking up and involving himself in such an important matter. The 19th century was a time of European expansion, the 20th century was a period when the United States was dominant, and the 21st century appears to be the era of China and South-East Asia. In order to avoid a repetition of the conflicts that accompanied the economic changes of the 19th and 20th centuries, and in view of the rapidity of the economic processes of the last few decades, we must anticipate potential battlefields and come up with methods for preventing confrontation.\nNow something needs to be said about the three most important threats - inequality of access to information and transmission of information; inequality of access to raw materials; and thirdly, inequality of access to research and technology. This is where the role and significance of the Transatlantic Council become apparent.\nWe must diagnose, foresee and prevent crises, and economic freedom must not mean economic anarchy. Europe should not show disregard or protectionism in relation to the United States, nor the United States in relation to Europe. Both the United States and Europe, which have a dominant superiority where access to information is concerned, should act in such a way that disproportions in development do not become deeper, and should prevent this from happening.\nUmberto Guidoni\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that there is a need for greater consistency between bilateral trade agreements and WTO multilateral rules to ensure that international trade becomes more balanced. Without such consistency, the Transatlantic Economic Council risks being used to create a special economic relationship between two major powers, a protectionist market straddling the Atlantic versus other global markets.\nInstead Europe and the US should join forces to create fairer trade, putting the application of environmental and social standards on the agenda and giving priority to development, poverty reduction, protection of the environment and of cultural diversity, rather than imposing deregulation, which helps move capital around rapidly and means more profits for the multinationals.\nIt is partly because of financial speculation that the food crisis is spreading across the world. The Commission must put the issue of commodity prices, and food in particular, on the agenda, so that a mechanism to stabilise prices can be defined to tackle speculation on the main capital markets.\nWe need to work to ensure that the protection of intellectual property rights does not create barriers to knowledge by encouraging and rewarding the transfer of knowledge and technology to developing countries.\nNumerous trade disputes between the EU and the US relate to the use of GMOs and meat hormones. The Council and the Commission must act in line with and in defence of EC legislation so that European citizens are guaranteed the right to secure food and a safe environment. We need to start with European agriculture and look at whether there is really a need to have GMO-contaminated products, as always based on the precautionary principle and providing for the traceability and labelling of products containing GMOs.\nThe EU and the US must also take the lead in the development of renewable energy sources, finding ecologically sustainable technical solutions.\nBernard Wojciechowski\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, I am pleased that there is political will on both sides of the Atlantic for the great partnership between our two continents. I would like to extend my thanks to the Commission for their work on building this mutually beneficial structure. I am glad that this House, despite there being some communists among us, supports the efforts to lower barriers to trade and investment between the United States and the European Union and awaits the establishment of a transatlantic market by 2015.\nThere were great hopes across Europe that the new President of France would bring economic reform to a country stuck in socialist hibernation. Yet it seems that he is more concerned with a retired fashion model than liberalising the economy. There were high expectations that the new Chancellor would reform Germany's outdated social security model, while at the same time sending a fresh impulse to the rest of Europe during the German Presidency. The result: nada, zero, zip. What was once the engine of European integration is today a stumbling block to a liberal European economy. The jargon of 'social Europe' or a 'Europe of solidarity' is misleading to our people. It is high time that we set to work on reducing economic barriers at home and building a thorough partnership with the United States. That is the only way we can pursue a competitive Europe.\nJana Bobo\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I expect the upcoming Transatlantic Council to seek first and foremost solutions to prevent further rises in food prices. I expect a reaction to this jump in prices but also to the fact that this year tens of millions of people will die and a further 100 million will sink into deeper poverty.\nThe situation whereby famine in developing countries can lead to uprisings while developed countries ration foods is not a result of a natural disaster. It is a result of unwise policies on both sides of the Atlantic. Due to high subsidies and import customs charges, agricultural products are not grown where the highest quantity could be grown at the lowest price. Instead of crops in the fields we find rape, corn, reeds, which once processed end up in the fuel tanks of cars. At the same time it is well known that the price of wheat would immediately drop by 10% and the price of corn by as much as 20% if states issued a moratorium on biofuels, and I am not even dwelling on the comical aspect of matter, namely that in order to produce one litre of biofuel more than one litre of diesel is often needed.\nLadies and gentlemen, I believe that in one week of discussions in the Transatlantic Council it will become clear whether the EU and the US really feel a true global responsibility or whether they are maintaining a purely populist stance. In the light of the literally deadly results of food policy to date, they should put an immediate end to the unjust agricultural subsidies and customs charges and stop promoting senseless biofuels. This is the only way to ensure that food prices drop and more people on the planet have the chance to live without the fear of dying of hunger. It is the only way to ensure true global responsibility.\nErika Mann\n(DE) Madam President, I must say, I am startled at what Mr Wojciechowski has just said about Germany, and what a disturbance to the fabric of Europe Germany represents. I have always seen it differently. I find it odd to hear comments like that made here in the European Parliament.\nCommissioner Verheugen, I believe you addressed the most important points, but there was one thing you did not mention, and that is how difficult the negotiations were this time. It is still very early days for the Transatlantic Economic Council and expectations are, naturally, very high. There is a lot on the 'to do' list and I personally believe that healthy realism would be appropriate, because there are some on the team who are simply overloading the Council with too many topics - including psychologically difficult matters such as the poultry issue. My personal recommendation would be to be a little more realistic here, and perhaps to pare down the agenda.\nMr Wiersma also pointed out that it is a difficult year politically for the United States. Here in Europe we are also facing a difficult year; in fact, it is already beginning. Many are involved in pre-election campaigns and need to ensure that they will be re-elected and from next year we will have a different Parliament and a different Commission, so it would be good for both sides to cultivate realism so as not to get into difficulty, as has happened so often.\nWe should never forget why we did this. We did it so that we could better understand what the integration of the two markets means - not that we want to integrate them, but that they are in fact already integrated. Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck was right to highlight the figures. What we would still very much like to do - and that was the goal, after all - is to remove the barriers that we can remove. We cannot remove them all. We will just have to live with some of them. We live with barriers within the European market too, not all of which can be removed, yet the world does not fall apart. We need only remove those barriers that we can remove, the ones that are difficult to live with, that are difficult for consumers to live with, the ones whose removal will create more jobs, the ones that are irrational.\nSome barriers are ridiculous. You have only to visit small businesses; they will tell you that there are some absolutely stupid barriers. Indeed, there are many silly barriers, and those are the ones we should get rid of.\nI very much hope that the Commission and Parliament will continue to work together in such a committed way. Many problems start in Parliament or have to be dealt with by Parliament. Therefore, thank you very much for the close cooperation, and all the best for a successful next meeting.\nSarah Ludford\nMadam President, in 2000 there was an agreement on safe harbour arrangements for business data transferred to the US. But we have never got beyond that to draw up common transatlantic standards. What is happening increasingly is the transfer of commercial data, notably passenger data but also banking and telecom data, to public authorities for security purposes.\nThis is not the context to raise the civil liberties concerns, but there is an important economic dimension. Obviously, if business travellers experience undue delays, that is a cost. But even more burdensome is the considerable cost imposed on companies.\nIn the United States my understanding is that there is provision for cost reimbursement, but in the EU there is no consistent policy. For instance, in the Data Retention Directive, we left it to Member States to decide if they would compensate telecoms companies. It would be interesting to do a check how many actually do. But the result is that the European Union is hardly in a strong position to push for a common transatlantic framework not only for privacy standards, which is vitally important, but also for dealing with the economic impact of data collection when companies are used as agents for public authorities.\nKarl von Wogau\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years, Europe has made great progress towards a common market. However, even today there are still markets, even within the European Union, that are being opened only gradually, for example in the area of financial services, where we do not really have a common European market. For vehicles, too, although there is a common market within Europe, we stopped half-way through the process in the transatlantic area. Progress towards a common market in the area of security and defence has been achieved. A first step in this direction was the introduction of the European Defence Agency, and another step was the decision to make EUR 1.4 billion available for defence research as part of the Seventh Research Framework Programme.\nHowever, the most important step forward is the current directive proposals by the Commission, firstly for procurement in the area of security and defence, and secondly in the area of the internal shipment of defence goods. These are decisive steps towards a common European market in the area of defence, but how does the transatlantic market fare in this area? Here there are two important changes. One becomes apparent in that the United States recently decided to purchase refuelling aircraft from a European firm. Secondly, the proposed directive put forward by the European Commission for the procurement of defence goods does not contain any 'Buy European' rules comparable with the present 'Buy American' rules. The crux of the matter is to obtain the best equipment for our armed forces and this involves intensive dialogue between the European Union and NATO.\nIt is equally important to seek direct discussions between the European Union and the United States in these economic matters, however. The Transatlantic Economic Council will therefore have to discuss this matter - either this time or perhaps at some later opportunity.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\n(ES) Madam President, the strengthening of relations between the European Union and the United States is key in the transatlantic context and in an increasingly multipolar world.\nIn economic terms, the United States and Europe have the best bilateral relationship of economic cooperation, trade and investment in the world.\nBreaking down the barriers to transatlantic economic integration will promote mutual prosperity. In order to complete the transatlantic market by 2015 there will need to be political will.\nThe adoption at the 2007 Summit of the framework agreement to enhance economic integration was a major milestone in restoring the spirit of the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda of Madrid and giving fresh impetus to the Transatlantic Economic Partnership.\nWe need to send a message to the Transatlantic Economic Council that it has the support of the European Parliament to move forward in this direction.\nThe United States and Europe are two giants of the global economy, and are therefore particularly responsible for shaping a globalisation with a human face. Their economic integration is a positive reference point for building an open, reliable and globally sustainable economy.\nThis process, which is compatible with the multilateral commitments, should go further, opening up new pathways and setting new guidelines for developing more transparent, reliable and equitable relationships under common standards.\nIt will also help to unite efforts in response to the problems of financial stability, climate change and the needs of human development.\nProduct safety, consumer protection, fair trade, defending reputations, promoting technological inventions and innovation, accounting rules, developing financial services and regulatory cooperation are all on the agenda.\nWe hope and trust, Mr Verheugen, that you will not return to Parliament empty handed.\nSophia in 't Veld\nMadam President, although I am aware of the risk of overburdening the agenda of the Transatlantic Economic Council, I would still call for the insertion of the issue of data protection in the agenda, because data protection - contrary to what many people think - is very much an economic issue. It actually used to be the responsibility of DG Internal Market in the Commission, but that has since changed.\nPersonal data has become big business, and it is a growing business. We are currently witnessing, for example, some multibillion mergers in the sector. Think of Google\/Double Click, which we discussed back in January; the merger between Microsoft and Yahoo!, which has now been called off; and, shortly, Reed Elsevier and ChoicePoint. That indicates the importance of personal data.\nThe business is also global in nature. Businesses are increasingly confronted with different legal regimes across the world, or even within Europe or within the United States - for example: rules on breach notification, data protection, profiling and behavioural advertising. Businesses and citizens need global rules for more legal certainty and transparency. Therefore we should start elaborating global standards. I think that the Transatlantic Economic Council would be the appropriate platform for doing this and, therefore, I would like to hear whether Commissioner Verheugen agrees with me that this issue should be included in the agenda for the TEC.\nUrszula Gacek\nMadam President, the recent subprime mortgage crisis in the United States has sent shock waves through Europe's largest financial institutions, showing us all how closely the US and European markets are interconnected.\nThe ensuing reluctance of bankers to lend - even to themselves - has resulted in a credit crisis which will have a negative impact on economic growth and on the prosperity of businesses and households alike, whether they are in Paris, Texas, or Paris, France.\nMany governments have failed ordinary citizens. They have been ineffective regulators of financial markets, where increasingly novel financial instruments have been allowed to circulate, like in a child's game of pass-the-parcel. But when the music finally stopped, no one wanted to be holding this parcel, which was just a bundle of bad debts.\nThe report very rightly stresses the need for strengthening cooperation between supervisory authorities on both sides of the Atlantic, especially at a time when governments will focus on short-term salvage operations, bailing out or propping up bankers and individual creditors.\nGovernments must be careful not to give the wrong signal to the unscrupulous and foolhardy. Via their financial market regulators they must demand transparent accounting methods and prudent lending criteria from financial institutions.\nA concerted effort by both US and European parties will, hopefully, allow us to avoid such crises in the future.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\n(FR) Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, you are right. After other attempts have failed, this one aims to improve our transatlantic relations on a case-by-case legislative basis. However, there is immediately a dimension that is clearly lacking from our examination of the situation today, and that is the context in which this debate is taking place. Dossier after dossier, we can see what progress has been made on each piece of legislation on either side of the Atlantic.\nWhat about the basic discussion we should be having, though, with our American partners about the situation, the risk of their economy going into a recession, the problem with organising decoupling at the start of this recession, and of course, the exchange rate issue? The purpose of this resolution is not to deal with the exchange rate, and yet we know very well that the state of transatlantic relations will depend largely on our ability to regulate trade internationally. When you look at the status of discussions with our US counterparts on dossier after dossier, we are also entitled to talk about dossiers that are perhaps not part of the transatlantic dialogue in the Council which you helped to establish.\nI will give you just one example: the property market situation. Obviously it is up to US legislators to decide how to improve their ability to issue property loans that reflect the real needs and borrowing capabilities of the US population and to take account of the reality of what it means to finance social housing. We in Europe realise that restoring the financial markets to normal conditions of operation depends largely on the American financial market returning to normal. In our dialogue with our American partners we should therefore also be stressing these issues, which depend on their ability to change their legislation.\nCorien Wortmann-Kool\n(NL) After last night, it does not look as though a female president will be elected in the United States. Nevertheless, regardless of who is elected, trade will continue to play an important role in relations with the United States.\nWe are each other's main trading partner, and therefore constructive economic cooperation is very important. Compliments are due to Commissioner Verheugen on his approach, therefore. We have high hopes of this Transatlantic Economic Council, although we must realise that it will be a long-term investment. However, this Council must play an important role in regulatory harmonisation, bureaucracy reduction and the elimination of barriers to trade - so that our companies can do business more easily in the United States and our markets mesh better with each other.\nAlso, Commissioner, would you please prioritise die verr\u00fcckten Ma\u00dfnahmen, as Mrs Mann so nicely put it: we do not have such a good word for it in Dutch. These verr\u00fcckte Ma\u00dfnahmen certainly include the 100% scanning of containers, which should actually be off the table, as it is an absurd measure that would have a very negative impact and be far too costly.\nMadam President, we must also join forces with the United States when it comes to our interests in the rest of the world, particularly the fight against unsafe toys from China and the production of counterfeit articles in Asia. With these counterfeit articles it is like banging our heads against a brick wall; we do not seem to be able to stem the influx to any real degree.\nI should also like to draw attention specifically to joint action in the current financial crisis. There, too, the Transatlantic Economic Council must play a positive role as a matter of urgency.\nMadam President, the responsibility to sustain the dialogue with the US Congress lies not only with the Transatlantic Economic Council and the Commissioner, but also with us: if we join forces, we can reinforce each other; indeed, this is our goal.\nBeno\u00eet Hamon\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the Transatlantic Economic Dialogue comes in a context which is marked by a triple crisis: the global banking and financial crisis, to which we still cannot see an end, the crisis in food prices, and finally, the ongoing crisis in oil prices. All these shocks have appeared against a general background of global warming and climate change, which calls for cycles to be reversed and certain dogmas on which we have based the prosperity of Western society to be challenged.\nCould strengthening our transatlantic relations serve this objective? I do believe so, though it will be difficult, complex and not without conflict. This resolution sketches out a few responses that chime with the demands and aspirations of European and American public opinion. Firstly, it is not a matter of lowering our sights merely to the creation of a transatlantic free trade area, but of making sure the development of our trade serves other more laudable objectives, which promote social and environmental standards.\nFrom this point of view, the resolution we will be voting on tomorrow is well balanced. It recognises that the so-called obstacles to trade between the European Union and the USA are often laws with a specific social, environmental, cultural or public health purpose, and that these obstacles cannot be removed without a democratic decision and positive legislative action to protect these objectives.\nThe text also encourages the European Union to draw inspiration from certain bilateral trade agreements signed by the USA, containing detailed provisions on labour law. It is for these reasons in particular that I believe this resolution is useful for the transatlantic dialogue.\nMalcolm Harbour\nMadam President, it is a great tribute to the work of G\u00fcnther Verheugen, Jonathan Evans and others that we are meeting here today to follow up this really important initiative.\nI particularly want to pay tribute to Mr Evans for his political leadership because I think that political and parliamentary component has been absolutely crucial.\nI had the privilege of going to Washington for the first time with the delegation of the Internal Market Committee last year when we were able to go to Congress and to emphasise the fact that engagement with these issues was widely spread across Parliament.\nAlso, I want to record that we were privileged recently in the Internal Market Committee to have a visit from Nancy Nord, acting chairman of the Consumer Products Safety Committee. That resulted directly from our visit to Washington and it shows, I think, that we are now grasping the political dimension.\nNow, why do we need to grasp that political dimension? The answer is because the work on technical product-safety issues and harmonisation issues in particular does have to have a political dimension. The problem lies at a bureaucratic level. If we take motorcars that Mr von Wogau talked about earlier on, the problem there is actually that the experts in the European Union and the experts in the United States - not the politicians - are still failing to agree on fundamental issues like emission standards for heavy trucks or how we test cars for safety.\nThose are not political issues. They are issues that bureaucrats are failing to agree on. I think we need to get to grips with that because it is actually costing all of us large amounts of unnecessary money that we should be spending and investing on making safer and greener products for consumers. That is what it is all about in the end.\nI know I can count on you, Commissioner, with your political leadership to deal with that, but I think we all need to be engaged in that process, not to make those detailed decisions but to say to the people involved: get together and step up those efforts, because we all want you to succeed.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik\n(PL) Madam President, the Transatlantic Economic Council set up a year ago is a good idea for enhancing transatlantic cooperation on the economic front. We must not forget, after all, that the United States is our largest trade partner. I am convinced that the effective identification of existing barriers followed by their removal will do the most to stimulate economic growth. I hope that the two sides will soon be drawing up a detailed plan that will highlight the actions to be taken by individual sectors in order for the creation of a transatlantic market to be crowned with success.\nLadies and gentlemen, cooperation under the Transatlantic Economic Council encompasses problems that are important for the functioning of a common market. I am particularly pleased that among the priorities for this cooperation were issues concerning the protection of intellectual property rights. May I remind you that last year the European Commission published a Communication on enhancing the patenting system in Europe, in which an attempt was made to revitalise the debate on a Community patent. This year I am impatiently awaiting a Communication on strategy in the field of intellectual property rights. Transatlantic cooperation is particularly important in this area. Our economies are to a large extent knowledge-based. This is one reason why the protection and execution of intellectual property rights is so very important.\nIt is in the interests of our economies, however, that the solutions promoted by us should be respected by third countries. Without their understanding and involvement, our efforts will not bring the anticipated effects. This is why applying influence to improve the protection of intellectual property rights in third countries has to be part of transatlantic cooperation.\nI am counting on the Transatlantic Economic Council publishing a report in the near future on progress in cooperation in the sphere of the introduction of intellectual property rights, in which it will present the actions to be taken in the future to strengthen cooperation in combating counterfeit goods and piracy.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, the Transatlantic Economic Council is an institution that exists in order to come up with better solutions for economic cooperation and an increase in turnover of trade between the EU and the United States. This Council is also a place where the foundations of a consolidated common market are being worked out. Let us recall that we are approaching a time when we must jointly propose to other regions of the world a change to the regulations and principles of functioning in the world economy and in global trade.\nOne important area of our cooperation is the monitoring of financial markets and the adoption of transparent principles in this area in order to avoid the hazards that we have experienced as a result of the crisis on the mortgages market, which has moved on to cause turbulence in world food markets.\nCorina Cre\u0163u\n(RO) Our debate takes place before the Ljubljana meeting of the European and the American lawmakers, which you have also mentioned, Mr. Commissioner, as well as the head of our delegation, Mr. Evans, and I am convinced that this meeting will emphasize, one more time, the need for consolidating transatlantic dialogue.\nThe creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council reflects the need to harmonize both parties' positions in managing the crises we are dealing with globally, especially as regards the food and energy crisis, as well as in other fields.\nUnfortunately, poverty is and remains the main enemy for humankind and it cannot be mitigated without real cooperation between international bodies and national states, but especially between the European Union and the United States of America.\nLastly, I would like to use this opportunity to request again the support of the European Commission in solving the visa issue, as a sign of necessary solidarity with the new European Union Member States that have not solved this problem yet.\nPeter Skinner\nMadam President, many have spoken about very serious issues. Of course it is quite important that we realise that there is always an ongoing dialogue between the United States and the European Union, but TEC really is about deliverables. It is about punching through the rhetoric and removing some of the scurrilous excuses on both sides of the Atlantic for those things that we need to do in order to be able to lift our economies and reward the people in those economies with growth, especially at the present time with the financial crisis around us.\nThat is why I am so pleased to see that progress really has been made. I welcome the fact that many like Jonathan Evans and Commissioner Verheugen and colleagues around this Chamber worked very hard on this issue to try to move things along. International financial reporting standards have been mentioned, as have broker-dealer agreements. These are all good steps forward and very solid issues, but this cannot be a shopping list. TEC has seven priorities which should move forward and make sure that they cut through the rhetoric. Insurance is one of those and it is one which could be a deliverable - maybe not today but definitely tomorrow.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first to thank you very much for the broad support this debate has shown for the transatlantic economic cooperation project and reemphasise that this project can be successful only if all institutions are involved. The Council has its role to play, Parliament has its role, and the Commission is making an effort to play its part too.\nI would like to disagree with and reassure those who expressed the concern that this is a type of transatlantic protectionism or that the two largest and most powerful economic regions in the world are walling themselves in. Transatlantic economic cooperation is not directed against anybody. It is very interesting to know that the economic regions already mentioned in this debate are already showing great interest in this work and have already asked, more or less outright, whether we could imagine doing something similar with other entities.\nMy answer is always the same: we would like to wait and see whether the model that we have created here actually works, because we are still in the early stages. I would like to try again to show that there are a variety of dimensions here. The actual core business is eliminating trade barriers. It is just as Mr Harbour said: these are trade barriers. When you look at it closely, it is incomprehensible, unbelievable, that we have been carrying on like this for so many years. He is absolutely right. It is because the bureaucrats cannot agree. What we are doing here is prodding the bureaucrats into action, forcing them to speak to each other, setting terms of reference for them.\nMadam President, let me add an aside here. Although I have been in this business for a long time, I learnt something new by being involved in this. I always thought that if a political process in the United States was controlled by the White House, all it took was the touch of a button and the entire administration and the executive did what the President wanted. Even in the United States, that is not the case. Europe is not alone in having problems activating its bureaucracy - the Americans have the same problem. That, then, is our core task. We are talking here about things that free the economy on both sides from many many billions of euros of unnecessary expenses, money that could be invested, or used to create jobs and promote clever innovations. That is the key task.\nThe second dimension involves looking much farther ahead to consider whether we could perhaps manage to work with common standards. For example, the US co-chairman and I agreed that it does not make sense for the United States and Europe to develop standards and compete against each other with these standards in third markets. The attempt to do a lot more together and to prevent problems in future regulations is one reason why we are holding close talks about nanotechnology, and why we are discussing standards for biofuels. We are doing all this so that it does not have to be repeated in the future, so that things will not grow apart.\nI also wish to share my personal vision. I think that, given the very different philosophies on both sides of the Atlantic, for example about how to achieve product safety, we can ultimately achieve the goal only if we are prepared to recognise each other's philosophies and regulatory methods, if, for example, we recognise that the Americans are just as reluctant to poison their citizens as we are, and if the Americans admit that we are just as reluctant to expose our citizens to danger from electrical appliances as they are. Thus there is a basic foundation of mutual recognition of sensible regulations.\nNow the third dimension. This is the area that this afternoon's discussion concentrated on almost exclusively - the big, far-reaching issues, sometimes involving global politics, that have been mentioned here. I agree with Erika Mann and would like to ask you not to overload the Council, apart from the fact that we have a framework agreement that prescribes what topics we can tackle and what we cannot. Many topics were mentioned that were definitely not provided for in the framework agreement and for which there are other forums. Nevertheless, experience has already shown that practical cooperation does make it necessary to debate the big strategic issues with each other, such as the future of the world trade system, the issue of protectionism, how to deal with investments from state funds, the issue of food and energy prices and that of the potential need to regulate financial services. That is exactly what we are doing. We have found a way of responding very quickly and very flexibly. Therefore, I cannot exclude that over the long term, we may discuss topics that go beyond what was actually set out in the framework agreement.\nLet me repeat: this debate has encouraged me to keep going along the well-worn path and to make sure that this time we will be successful. Together, we have enormous potential, which we have not even begun to make the most of. When we eliminate the barriers that prevent us tapping our full economic potential, then we can do a great deal more to achieve our political, social and ecological goals. That is what it is all about.\nPresident\nI have received six motions for a resolution in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nTunne Kelam  \nin writing. - The global challenges are looming large on the background of today's debate. Instead of bickering over the past problems and details of mutual relationship we need to realise that on the global scale the EU represents 7% of the world's population. To really face these ever growing challenges, there is only one solution: the two biggest democratic free-trade areas have to join forces. There is absolutely no alternative to the closest possible transatlantic cooperation. This is not a matter of a wishful long-term perspective.\nLast year the European Parliament and the US Congress made a promising start. An ambitious goal, to complete the transatlantic market by the year 2015, has been set. To realise this goal, we need the full cooperation of both the Council and the Commission.\nThe first task is to chart and remove all existing obstacles - political as well as technical. The second task will be to draw up a concise document that will explain its essential reasons and advantages to the general public.\nFinally, let us not forget that the goals of the Lisbon Strategy will be best achieved by creating genuine and efficient transatlantic integration.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Costa on amendment of the agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services. This relates to a proposal for a Council decision on agreeing a Protocol amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Romania.\nThe Protocol provides for essential changes to bilateral agreements on air services between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Romania pursuant to the accession of the latter two countries to the European Union.\nBoth Bulgaria and Romania had previously concluded agreements on air services with Morocco, in 1966 and 1971 respectively. The European Community, however, concluded a horizontal agreement in December 2006. It is therefore necessary to adjust the agreements to Community legislation and enable both new Member States to accede to the horizontal agreement.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nin writing. - (RO) The Romanian Members of the European Parliament from the Group of European Socialists abstained from voting on the report regarding the agreements between the EC and Georgia, Lebanon, Maldives, Moldova, Singapore and Uruguay on certain aspects of the air services due to the reference, in the text of the Agreement with the Republic of Moldova, to the Moldavian language in the phrase \"Concluded in Luxembourg in two counterparts in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovakian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish and in the Moldavian language\".\nThe delegation of Romanian Social Democrats emphasizes that Romania's participation in this agreement does not involve the acknowledgment of the designation of \"Moldavian\" language. The Romanian Members of the Group of European Socialists reiterate that, in compliance with the factual and scientific evidence, including the interpretation of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Moldova (of September 1994), the correct designation is the Romanian language.\nIt is necessary to take into consideration the fact that, in many other agreements, the Commission has used the neutral wording \"Concluded at...... in ........ day of ........... of the year ............ in two counterparts in each of the official languages of the Parties, each text having equal legal power\".\nWe regret the fact that this wording was not used in the agreements with the Republic of Moldova and recommend the use of this neutral wording in the official documents regarding the EU relationship with the Republic of Moldova.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - Briefly I want to raise through my support of this report the problems still being experienced by EU airlines in regard to rights to fly over Russia.\nThese rights are not only restricted by the Russian authorities but they are also expensive, issued in a discriminatory way, and in a manner that clearly disadvantages EU carriers, particularly those flying a number of routes to the Far East.\nThis problem has been known about for some considerable time but the unwillingness of the Russian authorities to renegotiate with the EU on this issue has been both expensive and unhelpful.\nWe now need the Commission and the Russian authorities to reinvigorate their efforts to find a solution to this very serious problem.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Even though various reactor accidents occurred many years ago, we are still paying the price of past mistakes. Immediately after nuclear accidents, things like game, berries and mushrooms are temporarily removed from our menus, only to reappear after a short while. It is important to set restrictive maximum permissible levels, but there is still a shortage of studies on the effects of radiation on humans, just as the emerging field of genetic engineering has been insufficiently researched.\nThe EU must devote itself without delay to these important and urgently awaited impact studies, make preparations for the abandonment of nuclear energy and leave it to the Member States to take their own decisions on the use of genetic engineering. Since the aforementioned points were not adequately addressed in the report, I abstained.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The common organisation of the market in fisheries products is intended to ensure stability in the market and security of income for those involved in the sector. These aims and, indeed, the aims set out in the EC Treaty are worthy and should have led to prosperity in Europe's fishing communities.\nUnfortunately the past two and a half decades of centralised Brussels control in the form of the CFP have been disastrous for those communities. A thriving market with job security are not achievable within the context of the CFP and control of fisheries management must be returned to the nations dependent on fisheries.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) I voted against the report because it deals with provisions for the common agricultural policy, which we want to abolish. The common agricultural policy needs to be radically reformed, and for a few years now we have been calling for a discussion to start as early as possible. We think that the EU should already start to cut back on agricultural support in 2010, after the so-called health check on the long-term budget for 2007-2013.\nThis is why the Junilistan Members are usually unable to vote for the various reports on agriculture which come before the European Parliament.\nDiamanto Manolakou  \nin writing. - (EL) Plant hygiene and the certification of propagation material for fruit-bearing plants and fruit trees are of the highest importance for the producer because the initial establishment of an orchard, when properly accomplished, is a guarantee of good produce. Undoubtedly the legislation needs to be adapted to developments in the sector.\nHowever, although we agree with most of the amendments to Mr Gklavakis's report, we have reservations and disagree with those amendments which accept genetically modified propagation material, even as rootstock, because it poses risks to human health and the environment. As yet there are no scientific studies guaranteeing that there are no effects. As regards imports from third countries, we agree that there should be no deviations because there are risks of the spread of pathogens in the European Union, with repercussions on production, product quality and agricultural income.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We defend the application of the principle of subsidiarity. As a result, we agree that the Community should not impinge upon Member States' competence. This is the case, for example, with locally supplied services which do not involve cross-border activities and therefore have, in principle, no effect on the functioning of the internal market. As a result, in the area of indirect taxation and as regards the setting of VAT rates, each State must be totally free to act.\nEven if the Council decides on a definitive system for the taxation of intra-Community transactions, Member States should be able to apply reduced rates or possibly even zero rates to goods and services which meet basic needs, such as food and medicines, and also to locally supplied services, including services and provision of goods linked to education, welfare, social security work and culture.\nEven if a definitive system for the taxation of intra-Community transactions is decided by the end of 2010, Member States should be able to apply reduced VAT rates in order to reinforce the existence and maintenance of locally supplied services as well as their role in the formal economy.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) For once we were tempted to vote in favour of a report on VAT by this Parliament. It favours abandoning the aim of definitive arrangements based on taxation in the country of consumption, and this objective alone justified the increased harmonisation of rates. It also favours applying the principle of subsidiarity, which would allow the Member States to apply zero VAT to services provided locally, such as catering or other aspects, as a solution to social, educational and cultural aims etc. It also seeks to maintain many derogations which should have terminated in 2007 until 2010. We agree with all this.\nHowever, we cannot agree with the desire to maintain European legislation on VAT and the wish to secure identical rates whatever happens, in the name of simplification of trade and customs formalities for intra- EU trade. Taxation is a sovereign responsibility of individual countries, and the disparities concerning one type of tax often offset inequalities in another. They are not, therefore, always illegitimate.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) In the context of the ongoing debate on transitional VAT rates, the European Parliament was asked for its opinion regarding extension of the temporary provisions concerning these rates. We are today voting on this opinion. It somewhat belated, as we are aware that the European Union has decided to continue applying preferential VAT rates after 1 January 2008. Nonetheless, I believe this is a very important opinion.\nIt certainly is the right decision for the countries that joined the Union in 2004, and we fully endorse it. Parliament's opinion on the subject is unambiguous and advocates retaining certain temporary provisions concerning VAT rates. The decision merits broad support.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the van den Burg report on VAT. The report highlights the importance of the subsidiarity principle in taxation matters and, correctly I believe, states that the principle should apply where services have no cross-border element and accordingly have no impact on the internal market.\nJean-Claude Martinez  \nin writing. - (FR) The Commission can never get it right on the subject of VAT. In the 1980s the Cockfield Report called for a range of VAT rates. In fact, there was only a minimum rate of 15%, 5% as the normal rate and the lower rate.\nThen the European Commission wanted VAT at the rate applied by the country of origin. In practice VAT was levied at the rate applied by the country of destination. It was a provisional system that became a definitive system: the so-called 'Bolkenstein VAT' was not introduced. There were now lower rates of VAT for French catering entities, CDs and activities generating a workforce.\nThe Commission gave in at least provisionally in its list in Annex H to the Sixth Directive in 1977, because it realised that Germans could hardly drive their Mercedes to a cross-border lunch at the low-VAT restaurant.\nWhat a shame it did not realise in 1993 that with no border controls intra-Community VAT was an inexhaustible source of large-scale fraud. The philosophical logic of VAT, an intelligent tax since it is economically neutral, is inaccessible to the vast majority of Commission officials. That is why their legislation has failed constantly on this issue for the past 20 years.\nJoseph Muscat  \nI would like to draw attention to the two amendments that I proposed and that have been approved in the final report.\nThe first proposal states that every country should have the right to apply reduced rates of VAT or, in exceptional circumstances, possibly even zero rates to basic goods and services, such as food and medication, for social and environmental reasons and for the benefit of the consumer.\nThe second proposal states that it should be possible to apply reduced or even zero rates of VAT to goods linked to education, social security and culture.\nAt present, reduced rates of VAT can already be applied to goods linked to education. This amendment reinforces this.\nI appeal to the Council of Ministers to follow the European Parliament's policy.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Our abstention on this report is due to the doubts surrounding the establishment of ARTEMIS, its functioning and its management. The formation of joint undertakings in the context of public-private partnerships, as is the case with the establishment of ARTEMIS in order to implement a Joint Technology Initiative, as set out in this report, includes the idea of using public funds for private purposes and interests, whereas cooperation in the other direction, either financial or involving the transfer of knowledge, seems to be absent.\nIn this context, the objectives seem to be contradictory as the private initiative pillar is founded on the accumulation of profits whereas the public service pillar is founded on the service of public interests and on the response to the concerns of the population.\nHowever, investment in research, particularly in the area of integrated IT systems, is a contribution which we regard as essential for the development of technology in Europe.\nJanusz Lewandowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, ARTEMIS is the first of four proposed joint undertakings with a joint aim and justification. The others are Clean Sky, ENIAC and Innovative Medicine. All four enterprises even have a joint headquarters in Brussels, which remains a joint capital for the Fleming and Walloon peoples.\nParliament's Committee on Budgets expressed its support for the four new institutions provided for under the Seventh Framework Programme. It did so in the hope that the public-private partnership model devised for them will prove more realistic than was the case for the Galileo Programme. It should be noted, however, that the time frame and budgetary arrangements for ARTEMIS and the other joint undertakings (2008-2013) are not in line with standard financial arrangements laid down in the seven-year financial perspective 2007-2013. This could give rise to certain problems in the future.\nWe also noted the relatively low figure allocated to administrative costs in the breakdown of total expenditure on the four joint undertakings, namely EUR 84 million for the years 2008-2017. This represents around 3.5% of the total expenditure and substantiates our concerns. The question of proliferation of institutions within the framework of the European Union remains open, however, and does not only involve the institutional reconstruction of the Seventh Framework Programme.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) The Innovative Medicines Initiative is a unique initiative instigated by the European Commission and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, which will have a budget of EUR 2 billion to 2013. That is why I also voted in favour of the report.\nI am convinced that this partnership between the private and public sectors will help to speed up the distribution of better and safer medicines.\nI am happy that the Innovative Medicines Initiative will improve research conditions and with them the chances of developing better medicines for the treatment of neglected diseases.\nSecondly, as a member of the small and medium-sized enterprises association I am thrilled with this first public-private partnership, which includes funding for cooperation between small and medium-size enterprises, universities, research centres, academies and associations, which are members of the EFPIA.\nThis method of financing will at last provide access to the required resources and thereby create a favourable environment for research in the European Union and increase its competitiveness. Our Member States should expect results....\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, I am one of the critics of the lack of cooperation between large corporations and universities and I also object to the low level of resources available for research within the EU, due to the fact that, compared with the US, only one third of funding here comes from the private sector. Today at last we are sending very good news from Strasbourg to the European research industry by adopting a seven-year plan for innovative medicine at the cost of EUR 2 billion. The format of this undertaking is innovative in itself as it represents a partnership between the private and public sectors. This can double the available resources and also helps to unify research targets. I believe it will give a fresh impulse to knowledge management, education and vocational training. I am convinced that we can reverse the trend of falling efficiency in the European pharmaceutical industry and achieve a more easily accessible high-quality treatment, especially of cancer and Alzheimer's disease. I would like to thank the rapporteur for getting the report to its successful second reading.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nin writing. - (FR) In my capacity as rapporteur I am very pleased with the adoption of this report on setting up an Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (IMI).\nImplementation of this public\/private partnership between the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries' Associations (EFPIA) and the European Commission represents a major promising step forward for large-scale research programmes. The European Commission is duty bound to consider European needs from another angle.\nThe IMI will have a total budget of EUR 2 billion between 2008 and 2013. The European Commission's contribution of EUR 1 billion will be disbursed to SMEs and universities. In return, major companies will match this amount with a contribution in kind. They will involve the SMEs and universities by providing them with tools and methodologies to better predict the harmlessness and effectiveness of medicines, intelligent infrastructures and knowledge management.\nThis cooperation between leading businesses, small-scale research centres, SMEs and universities will help fashion their research projects. IMI will also make improvements to knowledge transfer at universities and in business, and to the involvement of smaller companies in European research.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) The subject of innovative medicines is particularly close to my heart, because I am actively involved in Poland with helping children suffering from rare genetic diseases. Unfortunately, these children are not covered by any health insurance programmes, and the medicines they require are too expensive. In most European countries, the cost of the medicines needed to keep such children alive and give them the opportunity to live near-normal lives is refunded.\nAs a Member of the European Parliament, I realise how important a European approach to the whole issue of medicines is. I refer to innovation, Union support for research and for scientists, and also to Union encouragement of pharmaceutical concerns, urging them to develop new medicines. In my opinion, the report by Mrs Grosset\u00eate is very important indeed.\nI agree that the Union must change to a new and more effective method of managing research and innovation aimed at promoting the economic development of our continent, bringing relief to our citizens and even saving their lives in some cases. The European Commission's proposal to create joint technology initiatives will harmonise and simplify project financing.\nWith regard to research programmes on innovative medicines, it is important to involve SMEs, universities, patients, hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry, to ensure that medicines are safer, cheaper and more readily available. The public-private partnerships proposed by the Commission are therefore an excellent solution. They represent a new option for the pharmaceutical research sector.\nTeresa Riera Madurell  \nin writing. - (ES) The Spanish Socialist Delegation voted in favour of the Ek report on the creation of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, but I wish to make it clear that the basic principles of openness and transparency must be strictly observed in all Joint Technology Initiatives. In particular, with regard to Clean Sky the Spanish Socialist Delegation has always supported the need for open and competitive invitations to tender to ensure equitable access for participants in all the Member States on the basis of excellence.\nIn view of all this, the Spanish Socialist Delegation wishes to place on record that the Clean Sky undertaking must not constitute a precedent for future Joint Technology Initiatives or for other instruments of the Seventh Framework Programme, and considers it is essential that all the Member States participate on an equal footing.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) As European citizens, we enjoy a series of rights, including the right to diplomatic and consular protection. All EU citizens may be protected by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any other Member State where their country does not have an embassy or consulate in the territory of a third country.\nThis issue is even more relevant if we consider that there are only three countries - China, Russia and the US - where all the EU Member States have diplomatic and consular representation.\nIn addition to the fact that the representation of Member States in third countries can differ widely, there are also cases where this representation is non-existent (such as the Maldives).\nI support this initiative which aims to ensure that the provisions of Article 20 of the EC Treaty and Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights can be effectively used in practice, by laying the foundations for a genuine harmonised fundamental right to diplomatic and consular protection for all EU citizens, regardless of their nationality.\nThe establishment by the Treaty of Lisbon of a European Foreign Service with its own competences and responsibilities is also positive.\nAgreeing that it is essential to inform the people, I support the establishment of a single European emergency telephone number which will enable EU citizens to obtain the information they need, particularly in critical and emergency situations.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Varvitsiotis report, which seeks to enhance diplomatic and consular protection for EU citizens living or travelling in countries in which their home Member State does not have representation. My own country, Scotland, does not currently have independent diplomatic representation anywhere in the world. I believe that situation is likely to change in the next few years, and I look forward to Scotland's overseas representatives being there for all EU citizens in time of need.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) The case of Muhammad the teddy bear has brought home to us once again how easy it is to get into a tight spot in a foreign country. It does not always take a natural disaster, an accident or the loss of a passport; a cultural misunderstanding can be enough. We still have a great deal to do in this area. In Turkey, for example, an applicant country for accession to the EU, life can be dangerous for Western travellers, since - as a very recent study demonstrates - the oft-proclaimed improvement in the protection of minorities exists only on paper, and the situation on the ground has actually deteriorated.\nTwo things, therefore, need to be done. The first is to establish a sound network of diplomatic missions that can serve our citizens as an anchor, and the second is to ensure that the travelling public are not only aware of an ambassador's responsibilities but also know that they can seek assistance from the embassy of any EU Member State. In the light of these considerations, I voted for the envisaged action plan.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski  \nin writing. - (PL) There are only three countries in the world where all European Union Member States have diplomatic and consular representation, namely China, the United States and Russia. There is no representation whatsoever in certain popular tourist destinations.\nPursuant to the Commission's initiative, every European citizen is entitled to diplomatic and consular protection from any other Member State with a representation in a third country on the same conditions as the citizens of that other Member State. This is only relevant, however, when the home Member State has no embassy or diplomatic representation in a third country. I am in favour of such a solution.\nUnfortunately, in view of the content of the second part of this motion for a resolution, I was obliged to vote against it. Mutual practical diplomatic and consular assistance in the broadest sense of the notion must not involve assuming the competences of any other Member State. Regrettably, that is what the motion for a resolution aims to achieve.\nEwa Tomaszewska  \nin writing. - (PL) I abstained in the vote on diplomatic and consular protection for citizens of European Union Member States. Clearly, however, I would like such protection to be provided.\nOn 11 September 2007 the Belgian police beat up and arrested Mr Borgheio, a Member of the European Parliament, in front of the European Parliament's building even though he identified himself as an Member of the European Parliament and informed the police about his parliamentary immunity. This incident shows that it is not necessary to seek out third countries to appreciate that the protection provided is not as good as it could be, even in the case of parliamentarians. I believe we should first deal with the situation in our immediate vicinity.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) This seventh Amending Budget for the year 2007 includes a further EUR 4 324.8 million in revenue and also a decrease of EUR 1 651.4 million in expenditure, thus allowing the Member States to reduce their contributions to the Community budget by around EUR 5 976.2 million.\nWhile the increase in revenue is largely due to the VAT and GNI balances, budgetary under-implementation is mainly responsible for the significant reduction in expenditure, with the cuts essentially affecting the headings of cohesion, fisheries, environment and agriculture.\nThe late adoption of many operational programmes of the Structural Funds for the 2007-2013 period (and others) is the justification given by the Commission and by the Council for not using the appropriations forecast for 2007. However, these amounts are not transferred to the 2008 budget to respectively boost the appropriations for these policies. It is noted that the amounts forecast in the 2008 Budget for these headings are within those agreed in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-2013.\nThe non-implementation of these amounts in the Community budget is very worrying and should be very closely monitored given that 2007 is the first year of the new financial framework 2007-2013 and that Rule N+2 is still being applied in relation to the previous financial framework within which the appropriations must be fully used by 2008.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) We are living in the 21st century, and have no option but to adjust to new and fast-changing circumstances.\nThat is why I warmly welcome the report by Mr Heaton Harris on the introduction of a paperless environment for customs and trade.\nThe provisions of this document are very relevant to modern Europe and should be introduced as a matter of urgency. They refer to the tools with which to create a new generation of working environment in customs and trade. I refer to the establishment of a paperless environment, which is so necessary mainly to relieve our officials, who are reeling from the demands of unnecessary administrative paper documentation. We should also keep in mind issues pertaining to environmental protection and the quantities of trees that have to be sacrificed to meet the demand for paper required for this purpose.\nI consider the introduction of electronic customs systems to be particularly important and urgent. I also advocate the creation of 'Single Window' and 'One-Stop Shop' facilities. I am convinced Europe should invest more in this type of solution, to ensure that the statements in the Lisbon Strategy become more than empty words.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1  \nin writing. - (CS) We are now confronted with a serious problem of trying to control the immense volume of imported goods, mainly from Asia. Solving this problem requires customs systems that are electronic and interconnected. Electronic trade and customs have already become a necessity for an efficient European market, even prior to the introduction of the modernised customs code. I would like to point out that we also need a system capable of intercepting goods which do not conform to the European safety standard and preventing such goods from entering the EU. The text we adopted today will provide for much more effective control of imports. It also has the advantages of a single window and a one-stop shop, which will provide access to information on international transactions not only for customs authorities but also for suppliers, buyers and hauliers. No doubt this system will also be used by the national supervisory bodies responsible for controlling the safety of goods on the market. The Commission has slowed down the implementation of the system into three stages to be introduced in 3, 5, and 6 years. I am afraid, however, that much faster action is needed and I hope that the Commission will soon be pressurised to revise its decision.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) I am glad that the Baltic Sea, the most polluted sea in Europe, has been selected as a pilot area for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.\nThe Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council leaves implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to the Member States, having drawn up an integrated framework for marine policy in the Baltic Region.\nNine countries in the Baltic Region are EU Member States and there is only one third country - Russia. There are substantial doubts as regards improvement of the Baltic Region's environmental status 2010. These doubts arise because of the plans to develop the Russo-German gas pipeline across the whole of the Baltic Sea. We will all suffer the consequences of the construction and exploitation of this gas pipeline. The sea water will be used for testing the pressure in the gas pipeline; afterwards it will be pumped back into the sea.\nIn addition, chemical weapons from the Second World War lurking at the bottom of the sea also represent a danger.\nI support the document; nevertheless, I find it hard to visualise the integrated EU framework for improving the environmental status of the Baltic Sea. Moreover, in my opinion, we should involve Russia in the development and implementation of this framework.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of Mrs Lienemann's recommendation for second reading on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).\nThe compromise reached between the European Parliament and the Council will enable a framework to be established for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, the prevention of its deterioration and, where practicable, the restoration of that environment in areas where it has been adversely affected.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Today we adopted the recommendation for second reading on the common position establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy.\nBearing in mind the economic, social and environmental aspects, it seems fairly important to have a policy for the marine environment with the necessary cooperation and coordination between the various countries, while all retaining their full sovereignty over their territory and resources. However, the central issue is respect for the sovereignty of the Member States, particularly over their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and their capacity to adopt independent measures to protect their resources.\nAs a result, we cannot forget that the proposed 'Reform' Treaty contains a clause which aims to give the European Union exclusive competence for the management of marine resources within the common fisheries policy.\nFurthermore, it must also be taken into account that marine pollution and intensive maritime transport impact on fishing activity and the protection of marine resources. Fishermen are therefore the first to be interested in protecting and regenerating marine resources. As a result, measures to ensure recovery of stocks must include measures with adequate financing in order to offer economic and social compensation to the sector and its workers.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted against this report, which encourages the Member States to take the necessary measures towards 'good environmental status' in marine affairs by 2020.\nThe marine environment hosts vital resources and its ecosystem provides essential services such as climate regulation and oxygen production.\nPolicies concerning maritime transport, fishing, energy or even tourism have evolved separately, occasionally leading to failures, inconsistencies or usage conflicts.\nA more global approach was necessary, taking account of all aspects of a sustainable development policy for Europe's marine environment.\nThe Member States must devise strategies for the marine environment in a number of stages for waters falling under their sovereignty. By 2015 these strategies ought to produce a programme of measures designed to achieve good environmental status. Member States sharing the same marine region or sub-region will have to cooperate to coordinate the various components of marine environment strategy.\nWork must continue with the creation of marine parks, as highlighted by the Grenelle Environmental Forum. The report provides for the creation of protected areas, but it could have been more restrictive.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I was able to support the compromise package reached across this house on the Lienemann report on the marine environment. It is essential for future policy in this area that a holistic and balanced approach is taken. The Common Fisheries Policy perhaps serves as a template for how not to nurture the marine environment. Central control from Brussels is no way to manage the seas and oceans of Europe and the wider world. I therefore recognise that the EU has a valuable role to play in marine environmental policy but also believe that the needs and views of individual maritime communities must be factored into the equation.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as a representative of one of the eight countries most directly concerned and fully aware of what is involved. I did so because in Poland there is a significant concentration of particles, in excess of the permitted daily and annual levels. Silesia is the area most affected. It is the most industrialised region of the country. I consider this to be a step in a very positive direction as regards protecting the environment in my country in general and in Silesia in particular.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) (The beginning of the speech was inaudible) ...and cleaner air for Europe is a very good example of the way the Union works. The joint undertaking is based on Article 251 of the EC Treaty. This Directive simplifies the legislation, replaces several other Directives and also stipulates the permissible levels of small particles in the air. It is the result of a consensus between political groups as well as between countries. Moreover, it is an example of a sensitive approach to the delimitation of competency in this area between the Union and the Member States. I appreciate the work done by the rapporteurs and I am happy that we have adopted this modern Directive, which simplifies and underpins our high ambitions in this area.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of Mr Krahmer's recommendation for second reading on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. I did this because I consider that the text negotiated between Parliament and the Council is generally positive, both in terms of protecting public health and in terms of environmental protection.\nIn Europe, 360 000 people die ten years early due to air pollution. Studies show that the effects of air pollution particularly impact on children's health which is why air quality plans must include measures to specifically protect vulnerable population groups such as children.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) The natural resource of 'air' is every day becoming increasingly polluted, mainly in urban centres and regions of EU Member States with the highest population densities. Air pollution is harmful to human health, in terms of diseases of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, and also to ecosystems. We know that children, the elderly and people living in the most populated and congested urban centres and also those living close to major traffic routes are particularly vulnerable.\nThe European Parliament has today expressed, at second reading, its position on the Council common position on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. The text of this common position includes some of Parliament's proposals that we tabled at first reading. However, there are some points on which the Council's position is immovable; for example, it does not accept any changes to the provisions regarding daily and yearly limit values.\nFor its part, the European Parliament intends to defend three main points of its position: the setting of more ambitious target and limit values; more flexibility in the adoption of stricter measures at source, and the establishment of long-term goals.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of this report.\nOf all the types of pollution, air pollution is the main concern of 54% of the French population. It is therefore important to supply daily information to the public, particularly people with allergies, on the particles suspended in ambient air.\nAs Chairwoman of the Loire departmental air quality network since 1991, I am extremely pleased that regulations have been introduced for finer particles, often the most harmful, which had hitherto not been covered. This will allow us to take better consideration of the upsurge in respiratory illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.\nPreservation of the quality of exterior air must not neglect air in closed spaces, where we can spend over 80% of our time. Little importance is attached to the studies on air quality inside buildings, although it certainly has at least the same impact on our health as exterior air.\nThis new Directive means that the Member States will also have to set up particle sampling points in urban areas. This measure follows the same lines as our work in France with the Grenelle Environmental Forum.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I supported the compromise package reached by the various political groups on the Krahmer report on air quality. Air pollution causes serious health damage across the EU, leading to many thousands of premature deaths. The compromise package will introduce monitoring obligations in relation to certain fine particles and, hopefully, marks a step in the right direction in improving the quality of air and, accordingly, the quality of life for European citizens.\nJean Lambert  \nin writing. - I voted for this report not because I believe it makes the major step forward we need in tackling air quality, but because it is at least some advance, despite the attempt of some in Parliament to weaken this protection.\nWe are now recognising the importance of tackling smaller particulates, which are so damaging to people's health, and have avoided increasing implementation periods.\nLocal authorities have a vital role to play in the implementation of air quality directives, and these standards need to be borne in mind when considering new developments - such as airport expansion or new road infrastructure near schools or hospitals.\nJules Maaten  \nin writing. - (NL) The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe voted today for the agreement on air quality, in which strict standards are agreed for particulate matter. By 2015 a maximum of 25 micrograms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) will be permitted. It has also been agreed that certain areas with high concentrations may be given an extension if they can demonstrate that they have done everything they can to improve air quality and they have an effective source control policy in place. That is very important for the Netherlands, as it will mean that construction projects are not brought to a standstill. This will allow the protection of public health and the environment to go hand in hand with economic development.\nAll the same, the ALDE Group considers that the target of 20 micrograms of PM2.5before 2020 in the compromise is unfeasible. It would be wiser to wait for the evaluation date of 2013 before setting later targets.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The goal set by this report is to improve the interoperability of the Community rail system or, in other words, to increase the possibility of obtaining authorisation for a train from one Member State to travel through another Member State.\nAside from the other important aspects considered in this respect, including certain technical aspects, the fundamental aim of this directive is to remove all obstacles to the movement of 'Community trains'.\nIt should not be forgotten that this report fits within the strategy of liberalising (and privatising) rail transport in the EU. As we have seen in other Community legislative initiatives on transport, as well as in this one, the main objective is to remove all obstacles to the liberalisation of international rail transport, in this case by removing, through harmonisation, any different rules or requirements applied to rolling stock in each country.\nFinally, it must be pointed out that the harmonisation and simplification of the national authorisation procedures and the principle of mutual recognition should never override more appropriate rules established at Member State level or remove the prerogative of each Member State to lay down such rules.\nRobert Navarro  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the Ortuondo Larrea report on the recast of the Interoperability Directive, for interoperability is the key to revamping our European railway system. Rail transport, in fact, can only become competitive again - compared with road traffic in particular - if it moves up to a continental scale, and this mainly depends on the ability of trains to cross borders. Even though the administrative obstacles have been largely removed, we are still left with some very real technical obstacles. Thus I am very glad that this text was agreed at first reading, since urgent progress must be made in this field. The text, which now makes rail interoperability a political priority, should represent a great leap forward for European railways.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The report on which we have voted today on the interoperability of the Community rail system is most important as an incentive for investment in rail transport and is vital for creating genuine freedom of movement in the European territory.\nThe measures proposed to facilitate the interoperability of locomotives in the Community are measures for which we have all been waiting. In order to create a European area of transport without borders which genuinely encourages the free movement of people and goods, we must create the necessary conditions so that a journey from Lisbon to Helsinki is viable on all modes of transport.\nRail transport must be able to develop as a fully fledged partner in order to achieve the objectives of the common transport policy. We cannot forget that this is a safe and environmentally friendly means of transport that enables the transport of large quantities of goods and passengers. It is a mode of transport that is at the forefront of the fight against the negative effects of air pollution, dangers on the roads and road congestion. I therefore voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Mr Ortuondo Larrea.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - I welcome initiatives that might help to improve rail systems throughout Europe in a substantive way. The East of England is crying out for improvements in both passenger and freight capacity and greater use should be made of opportunities for TEN funding for the lines serving east coast ports. However, there is another aspect to this matter and that is the through-running of trains from the continent and the opportunities this might give illegal migrants. The report aims to boost the free movement of trains through the removal of technical and operational barriers. There is no consideration of the security aspects. There were major problems at the Frethun rail freight depot in Northern France which impacted on Channel Tunnel operations until, in 2002, additional security was introduced. Given the absence of consideration of this matter, I abstained on the report.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We voted for the Commission's proposal for a directive. We think that there is a need for common provisions on systems of direct support and that it is a positive move to replace a system in which support is linked to production with one in which, for example, rural development, open landscapes and quality are the main focus.\nWe support the Commission's proposals for simplifications. A simplified procedure is a way forward if we are to gain the acceptance of the farmers themselves. Unlike the committee, we consider that controls are also important in order to give the system legitimacy in the eyes of the EU taxpayer. However, the controls must be proportionate to the circumstances which they aim to bring about. The regulatory systems should be organised in such a way that they do not lead to misunderstandings.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We do not agree with the opinion expressed in the report on scrapping production aid in favour of a single payment scheme for producers based on a history of their production, thus forcing them to meet the objectives of the cross-compliance system. This system has led to production being abandoned by many small and medium-sized farmers and family farms and to rural areas being abandoned, to losses of biodiversity and to a reduced chance of achieving the goal of food sovereignty in certain Member States, particularly Portugal.\nHowever, we agree with the need for more information in the agricultural sector so that this can adapt to the cross-compliance rules. We also feel it is vital to provide adequate training for those carrying out inspection of farmers' activities and that inspectors should have the discretion to take into account unseasonal and sudden factors which mitigate against full compliance with the requirements, due to no fault of the farmer.\nThe importance of agricultural activity should be taken into account as farmers provide a genuinely public service to society. That is why support measures must be maintained, including the timely payment of aid.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The amendments made by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to the Commission's proposal are good in part and very bad in part. Junilistan agrees that it is now too difficult for individual agricultural businesses to understand the content of the EU's various directives and regulations on agriculture. Simplification is absolutely essential.\nBut I object to the proposed text of the Committee on Agriculture to the effect that there is no real place in the system for unannounced checks 'as they contribute to a disproportionate but valid sense of fear'. There must be effective checks when public funds are paid to individuals. We cannot compromise on that, yet this is what the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament wants to do for some reason.\nI have therefore chosen to vote against the European Parliament Resolution on this matter.\nDiamanto Manolakou  \nin writing. - (EL) The simplification and reduction of bureaucracy is desirable, but here it is being used as a pretext for more policing of farmers.\nMultiple conformity is therefore an extremely hypocritical notion because it knowingly overlooks substantial issues relating to the environment and public health, such as GMOs, and places particular emphasis on matters of only minor importance. As regards animal welfare, this is an excuse for serving external interests, mainly those of the transport companies, at the expense of stock breeders and consumers, since the cost is being increased with no substantial benefit to the community.\nOverall, multiple compliance, without any substantial benefit to the environment, public health or the health of animals, for which purposes it was supposedly introduced, has placed a heavy financial burden on farmers and stock breeders. In our country, the costs of compliance for livestock facilities are intolerable for goat and sheep farmers, with negligible benefits for the environment, public health and the health of animals, although these are areas where the problems can be dealt with effectively if production methods are suited to the physiology of animals and plants. If, for example, a ban is placed on GM crops, meat meal, mineral oils and hormones, and systematic checks are carried out for pesticide residues in agricultural products, then the results for public health and the environment will indeed be much better.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":2,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"12. Integrated pollution prevention and control: industrial emissions, titanium dioxide industry, use of organic solvents, incineration of waste, large combustion plants (\nBefore the vote:\nGraham Watson\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, if I understood you correctly, you are indicating that the presidency does wish to apply the recast procedure to the Krahmer report today and the Cashman report. In that case, my group requests that we delay the vote until tomorrow so that we can study the implications of this.\nGuido Sacconi\nMr President, as I said earlier, I am in favour of this proposal, although I would like to point out that if amendments had not been tabled that go somewhat beyond what was adopted on the basis of a general compromise within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, this problem would not have arisen, since the compromise amendments were completely in keeping with the nature of this revision, namely a recast. If this had been the case, then we could have voted today, but we accept the deferral as it makes sense.\nCaroline Jackson\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. -Mr President, it behoves Mr Watson, if he is making a suggestion that we should consider the recast implications, to explain to us now what the recast implications are. He might like to have a word with Mr Corbett before answering.\nI am fairly relaxed about this, but it would be much more sensible, since we are teed up to vote on this and we are unlikely to change our opinion on the actual voting - plus, minus or abstention - in the light of the recast procedures, to vote now when we have the time rather than hurry and add this vote to the list tomorrow when we have a lot of other things to do. Therefore, I am opposed to moving it.\nHolger Krahmer\nMr President, I am very pleased that the President has finally given the floor to the rapporteur. I am also quite surprised!\nAt this time, we are still getting used to the recast rules. I would, however, like to draw attention to the fact that the application of these rules is no surprise, even just before a vote. We have already applied these rules consistently in committee and it is only logical for them to be applied consistently in plenary.\nIf we were to vote now, there would not be a single amendment and not a single compromise up for voting that have not been discussed. Everything is itemised on the voting list. For the same reason as Mr Sacconi, but with a different conclusion, I see absolutely no reason to postpone. We can vote now!\n(Applause)\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, as we have decided to vote, maybe you could indicate why so many amendments were ruled to be inadmissible. That is the problem, and that is the point originally raised in relation to the recast versions under review. We do not understand why some amendments are inadmissible. Could you clarify that as we proceed to the vote?\nPresident\nI know in general terms what the issue is about, but I regret that I am unable to inform you of the specifics. We are now, however, voting on amendments which have gone through committee, which are regarded as admissible, which are substantive and which may or may not represent the view of the House.\nMonica Frassoni\n(IT) Mr President, I would just like to say that today's episode clearly shows that the recasting agreement does not work and that it will affect our powers as a sovereign authority. That is the problem with this procedure, as we are now demonstrating so well.\nAnders Wijkman\nMr President, I am sorry to prolong this discussion, but may I build on what was just said by my colleagues, Mrs Doyle and Mrs Frassoni? As one of the authors of several of the amendments, I was in contact with the President's office until 11.50 and could not obtain a clear 'yes' or 'no' as to whether the amendments we tabled - 136 to 139 - would be voted upon or not. It was unclear, and the last word was that the vote would probably be postponed. As Avril Doyle said, we simply cannot understand why these amendments are inadmissible. In the interests of clarity, we should have some more time and have clarification from the President's office.\nPresident\nI am advised that it has been ruled on and only certain amendments have been declared admissible, as is normal in any House. I think it might be helpful if a statement is made tomorrow by the President taking the vote so that there is clarification. But we must proceed to the vote now. I am sorry for those who are disappointed.\nBefore the vote on Amendment 88:\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, on most of our voting lists, Amendments 88 and 89 are down as inadmissible and there is no indication as to how we should vote. Whilst you might well be wanting us to vote, we have a small problem with this, because we do not know what we are voting on and we do not know which way we should be voting.\nMay I suggest that some more thought be given to this new procedure we are using for recast, because there seems to be a lack of coordination and communication around the different political groups.\nHolger Krahmer\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can help you out here and even point out to the President what he himself decided. We now have Amendments 106, 139, 88 and 89. The President has ruled Amendment 88 admissible. You all have a note to that effect in the voting list. If not, you will have to speak to those responsible within your group. I am sorry for that.\nChris Davies\nMr President, some of the amendments you ruled inadmissible were also ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public health and Food Safety under the recast procedures. This Parliament has no right to introduce legislation. Its chance of influence is in amending legislation put before us. It seems that, in the way we have interpreted the recast procedures, we have castrated ourselves. Could you inform the President that if this Parliament is to demonstrate its true virility, we need to review these?","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":7}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Formal sitting - India\nPresident\nMr President, honourable Members, it gives me great joy to be able to welcome, today, to this House, to the European Parliament, the President of the Republic of India, Mr Abdul Kalam. A very warm welcome to you, Mr President.\nBefore your election as President, you were well known as the architect of the Indian space and atomic energy programme, and you enjoy international renown as one of India's most important scientists. Most of your previous life has been devoted to science and technology, and you have always given voice to the view that developing countries should take second place to others when it comes to harvesting the fruits of the most highly-developed technology, because technology - when used rightly - creates growth and can help to improve the day-to-day life of the poor. I do not doubt that this House agrees with your views and is therefore glad that India is participating in the research programmes funded by the EU, collaborating, for example, with us on Galileo.\nAlongside the key role you played in promoting science and technology, we were also impressed by your election as President of the Republic of India in 2002, in which you achieved an overwhelming majority with votes from across all party divisions, and that, for you, as a Tamil and a Muslim in a country with a Hindu majority, was no mean achievement; it is evidence of your great ability to bring together people of every background, culture and religion. India is a country of many peoples and religions, and, as the largest democracy in the world, it can encourage new and young democracies.\nThe relationship between the European Union and India has been in existence since the early 1960s, when India was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with what was then the European Economic Community.\nOur contacts and cooperation at the parliamentary level are among the positive results of a long-term process, for the first meeting between the European Parliament and the Lok Sabha took place in 1981. For a number of years, parliamentary contacts between the European Parliament and India have taken the institutional form of a delegation of the European Parliament for relations with the countries of South-East Asia and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the SAARC. Both the European Union and India have undergone fundamental changes over recent years.\nI rejoice to be able to tell you that, over the past month, the European Parliament has set up - quite separately from the delegation to SAARC - a parliamentary delegation for relations with India, an action that takes account of the ever-increasing importance of your country to the European Union. We would very much welcome it, Mr President, if the Lok Sabha were to be able to respond by setting up a delegation for relations with the European Parliament in order to derive the maximum benefit from this deepening relationship and to make contacts between the two parliaments easier.\nMr President, you were invited by my esteemed predecessor in office Mr Borell Fontelles, who is present here today, and it gave me great pleasure to reiterate that invitation to you.\nThe relations between India and the European Union are not only of the greatest economic importance, but also of the greatest political importance. The dialogue of cultures is also of the greatest importance. It is therefore a great pleasure to invite you, Mr President, to take the floor to address the Members of the European Parliament.\n(Applause)\nAbdul Kalam\nFriends, my greetings to all of you. I would particularly like to greet Mr Hans-Gert P\u00f6ttering, Mr Harald R\u00f8mer, Mr Klaus Welle and Mr Ciril Stokelj.\nGood afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.\nI am delighted to be with the honourable Members of the European Parliament on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee year of the European Union. I was wondering what thoughts I could share with you. As you are aware, as a democratic nation India has experience in providing leadership to over one billion people with multi-language, multicultural and multi-religious systems. I wish to share this experience with you, friends.\nEuropean civilisation has a unique place in human history. Its people were valiantly engaged in the adventure of exploring the Planet Earth, resulting in the discovery of many ideas and systems. Europe has seen the birth of pioneers in science, leading to the development of technologies. Europe was the theatre of conflicts among the nations lasting hundreds of years, including the two World Wars. Now, with this backdrop and these dynamics, you have established the European Union with a vision of peace and prosperity for the entire region. The European Union has become an example for connectivity among nations, probably with no possibility of war, leading to lasting regional peace.\nBefore I started out on my journey to Europe, I was thinking: why are Europe and India unique and natural partners? Do we share a common history and heritage and, possibly in the future, a common destiny? This was the question. I was astonished by what I found: the depth and vitality of our inter-connectedness, through language, culture, ancient beliefs, ideologies and the movement of people, have stood the test of time. This has matured into a very strong bond through sustained trade and intellectually satisfying collaboration in many areas of science and technology. For example, on 23 April 2007, the Italian scientific satellite Agile was launched by the Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle rocket system into a very precise orbit. Scientists from India and Europe are very excited. Let us congratulate them.\nIndia is a country that has learnt over the years to evolve and maintain a unique unity amid diversity. Similarly, the European Union's greatest contribution has been to demonstrate to the world that it is possible to build a strong union of nations without compromising national identities. It has become an inspirational model and an example to emulate for every region in the world. The European Union and India support a social form of economic development and we encourage a model of growth with equity. Both are conscious of the need for growth to respect the environment and to make it sustainable for future generations. With India's and the European Union's centuries of valuable experience, we can develop a doctrine of global cooperation based on the foundation of regional collaboration and core competencies of our nations.\nThe European Union and India radiate a message to the world that regional cooperation and interregional collaboration will lead to a win-win situation for all, so that we can have a politically and socio-economically emergent civilisation. Our contribution will be successful if, before the 21st century is over, we are able to make all regions transform into happy unions leading to the emergence of a world of unions. In this context, I am reminded of the dream of an Indian poet who said 3000 years ago in the Tamil classic: ,which means, 'I am a world citizen. Every citizen is my own kith and kin'. He said that 3000 years ago.\nAgainst this backdrop, I have brought from India a message to launch three important Indo-European tasks that could contribute to global peace and prosperity. I propose these missions on the basis of India's experience and the European Union's dynamics.\nThe first task is the evolution of an enlightened society, in which citizens have a system of values, leading to a prosperous and peaceful world.\nThe second idea is creating energy independence. Normally people talk about energy security. I am talking about energy independence: a three-dimensional approach to energy choice that aims to achieve a clean world.\nThe third aim is a World Knowledge Platform to bring together the core skills of the European Union and India in certain areas in order to provide solutions to critical issues like water, healthcare and capacity-building.\nWhen nations join together to build a cohesive society, it is necessary to ensure that the benefits of development encompass all sections of society. Worldwide poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and deprivation are driving forward the forces of anger and violence. These forces are linked to some earlier real or perceived historical enmities, tyrannies, injustice, inequalities, ethnic issues and religious fundamentalism that are flowing into an outburst of extremism worldwide. Both India and the European Union have witnessed and are witnessing the unsavoury acts of certain misguided sections of society. Together we must address the root causes of such phenomena in order to find lasting ways to promote peace. How do we do that?\nWe need a carrier of eternal goodness and wholesomeness in human conduct, which is called 'righteousness'. As we say in India:\n'Where there is righteousness in the heart\nThere is beauty in the character.\nWhen there is beauty in the character,\nThere is harmony in the home.\nWhen there is harmony in the home,\nThere is order in the nation.\nWhen there is order in the nation,\nThere is peace in the world.'\n(Applause)\nHonourable Members, this is true for the whole world. When we need peace in the world, we need order in the nation. We need harmony in the home. Whether in Europe, India or in any part of the world the origin is righteousness in the heart. How do we instil righteousness in the heart of every citizen of the world? This is my area of specialisation and I would like to talk to you about it.\nFirst, I wish to discuss the evolution of an enlightened society. With this spirit of righteousness in the heart, I would like to present to this important gathering a methodology for developing a happy, prosperous and peaceful society in our world, which I call 'Evolution of Enlightened society'. I have shared these thoughts with many intellectuals in national and international circles. We need to create an enlightened society with three components: 1) education with a value system; 2) religion transforming into spirituality; and 3) economic development for societal transformation.\nBeginning with the first component, we have seen that the seeds of peace in the world have their origin in the righteousness in the heart of every individual. Such righteous citizens lead to the emergence of an enlightened society. Education with a value system has to be designed so that the righteousness in the heart is developed in young minds. That should be the mission of education. The prime learning environment is five to seventeen years of age. That reminds me of what an ancient Greek teacher said a few thousand years ago: 'Give me a child for seven years; afterwards, let God or the devil take the child. They cannot change my child'.\nThis shows the power of great teachers and what they can inculcate in young minds. Parents and teachers must instil moral leadership in children. It requires the ability to have insight into the uniqueness and universality of human consciousness. True education is the acquisition of enlightened feelings and enlightened powers to understand daily events and to understand the permanent truth linking man to his environment, human and planetary.\nI remember the lectures given when I was a student a long time ago - nearly 57 years ago - at the Jesuit institution of St Joseph's College in Tiruchirappalli in southern India by the college's highest authority, the Reverend Father Rector Kalathil. Every Monday, the Reverend Father would take an hour-long class. He used to talk about good human beings present and past and about what makes a good human being. In this class, he used to give lectures on people such as Buddha, Confucius, St Augustine, Caliph Omar, Mahatma Gandhi, Einstein, and Abraham Lincoln and to tell moral stories related to our civilisational heritage. In the moral science class, Father Kalathil used to highlight the best aspect of how these great people had evolved as good human beings through parental care, teaching and the companionship of great books. Even though these lessons were given to me in 1950 during my college days, they inspire me even today.\nIt is essential that in schools and colleges in every nation, important teachers at the institution give hour-long weekly lectures on civilisational heritage and the derived value system. This may be called a Moral Science class and will teach young minds to love their country and other human beings and to elevate them to higher planes. I have suggested this methodology to education experts in my country. The European Union may like to consider developing a system that would enable a student to learn these fundamental lessons for the benefit of all.\nLet me turn to the issue of transforming religion into spiritual force. Many in the world believe it is a difficult task, but I disagree. I would like to share an experience that convinced me that it is possible for religion to be transformed into a spiritual force.\nHow do we do that? As you all know, religion has two components: theology and spirituality. Even though theology is unique to every religion, the spiritual component spreads the value to be absorbed by human beings in order to promote a good life and the welfare of society in the pursuit of material life. I witnessed the coming together of religion and science in a major task.\nIn the early 1960s, the founder of the Indian Space Research Programme, Professor Vikram Sarabhai, and his team had located the most technically suitable place for space research after considering many alternatives. The town of Thumba in Kerala in southern India was selected for space research as it was near the magnetic equator. This made it ideally suited to ionospheric and electrojet research in the upper atmosphere. I was fortunate to work with Professor Vikram Sarabhai for about eight years.\nThe major challenge for Vikram Sarabhai was to locate the site in a specific area. As was usual, Professor Sarabhai approached the Kerala Government administrators first. After seeing the land and the sea coast, he was told that thousands of fishermen lived there and that the place had an ancient church, the St Mary Magdalene Church, a Bishop's House and a school. It would be very difficult, therefore, to allocate this land and the administration was willing to provide land in an alternative area. Similarly, the political authorities also believed that it would be a difficult situation owing to the existence of important institutions and concern for people who were to be relocated. However, the Professor was very determined.\nIt was suggested that he should approach the only person who could advise and help. That was the Bishop, Father Peter Bernard Pereira. Professor Sarabhai, approached the Bishop one Saturday evening. I still remember their meeting, which proved to be historic. Many of us witnessed the event. Father Pereira exclaimed, 'Oh Vikram, you are asking for my children's home, the fishermen's home, my home, the Bishop's House, and God's home, the church. How is it possible?'. Both had a special quality: they could smile even in difficult situations. Father Pereira asked Professor Sarabhai to come to church on Sunday morning at 9 a.m. and he turned up on Sunday with his team. Prayers were taking place with a reading from the Bible by Father Pereira. After the prayer was over, the Bishop invited Professor Sarabhai to come to the dais. The Reverend Father introduced him to the congregation. 'Dear children', said the Bishop, 'here is a scientist, Professor Vikram Sarabhai. What does science do? All of us, including this church, experience the light from electricity. I am able to talk to you through the microphone because of technology. Doctors treat patience thanks to medical science. Science through technology enhances the comfort and quality of human life. What do I do as a preacher? I pray for you people, for your wellbeing and for your peace. In short, Vikram and I are doing the same: both science and spirituality seek the Almighty's blessings for human prosperity in body and mind. Professor Sarabhai says that he will build within a year alternative facilities near the coast. Now, dear children, can we give our homes, my home and God's home for a great scientific mission?'\nHe asked the question. There total silence, as there is now. Then the entire congregation got up and said 'Amen', which made the whole church reverberate.\nThat was the church where we had our design centre and where we started rocket assembly, and the Bishop's house was where the scientists worked. Later, the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station led to the establishment of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and the space activities led to the emergence of multiple space centres throughout the country. This church has become an important centre of learning, where thousands of people learn about the dynamic history of India's space programme and the great minds of a scientist and a spiritual leader. Of course, the people of Thumba received well-equipped facilities, a place of worship and an educational centre elsewhere as promised.\nWhen I think of this event, I can see how enlightened spiritual and scientific leaders can come together to give reverence to human life. Of course, the birth of TERLS and the VSSC gave the country the ability to launch vehicles, spacecraft and space applications that have accelerated social and economic development in India to unprecedented levels.\nProfessor Vikram Sarabhai and Father Peter Bernard Pereira are no longer with us, but those who are responsible for creation and making flowers blossom will themselves be a different kind of flower, as described in the Bhagwat Gita. It says, 'See the flower, how generously it distributes perfume, honey. It gives to all, gives freely of its love. When its work is done, it falls away quietly. Try to be like the flower, unassuming despite all its qualities'. What a beautiful message to humanity on the purpose of life, reflecting the spiritual component. Can we bridge the spiritual component of the religions to bring peace to nations and to the world?\nI was asked to talk about cultural dialogue and would like to recall an incident that commonly occurs in many parts of my country. I witnessed this event as a young boy of 10. In our house, periodically, I used to see three unique people meet: Pakshi Lakshmana Shastrigal, who was the head priest of the famous Rameshwaram temple, a Vedic scholar, Reverend Father Bodal, who built the first church on Rameshwaram Island, and my father who was an imam in the mosque. All three used to sit and discuss the island's problems and find solutions. In addition, they built several religious connectivities with compassion. These connectivities quietly spread to others on the island like the fragrance from the flowers. This sight always comes to my mind whenever I discuss with people the dialogue of religions. India has had this advantage of integration of minds for thousands of years. Throughout the world, the need to have a frank dialogue among cultures, religions and civilisations has been felt now more than ever.\nThese two instances give me confidence that religions can be bridged through spiritual components. Whenever I meet the young and experienced in my country, I narrate these two experiences. Many in my country and the world over may have such experiences. We have to spread such 'glad tidings' to every part of the world.\nNow let us discuss the third important component of enlightened society, which is to achieve economic development for societal transformation. Let me take India as an example; it may be true to many parts of the world, including the European Union.\nThe Indian Economy is in an ascent phase. There is considerable growth in the manufacturing and service sectors. We have a mission of spreading this economic growth throughout the country, including the rural sector. Nearly 220 million people out of a billion people must have their quality of life raised in both rural and urban areas. Even though GDP growth indicates our economic growth, people's participation is essential to achieving the required targets. It is essential to ensure that citizens are empowered with good quality of life encompassing nutritious food, good habitat, clean environment, affordable healthcare, quality education and productive employment, integrated with our value system drawn from civilisational heritage leading to the comprehensive development of the nation that will bring smiles to one billion people. These are indicators for the growth of the National Prosperity Index. To achieve that growth rate, we have identified five areas where India has a core competence for integrated action: 1) agriculture and food processing; 2) education and healthcare; 3) information and communication technology; 4) infrastructure development, including PURA (Providing Urban Amenities in Rural Areas); and 5) self-reliance in critical technologies. We propose to realise the vision of transforming India into a developed nation before 2020 by energising and igniting the minds of the 540 million youth of the nation below 25 years of age.\nSo far we have discussed the three-dimensional approach of providing value-based education, religion transforming India's spiritual force and economic development for societal transformation leading to the evolution of an enlightened society. This integrated three-dimensional methodology for the evolution of enlightened society will pave the way for peaceful, prosperous, happy nations and, thereby, for a world free from extremisms and further seeds of extremism. On my website www.presidentofindia.nic.in, I have stated how an empowered world body is essential to evolve the nations of enlightened citizens. I will be very happy to exchange thoughts, ideas and action related to this mission with the honourable Members after they have seen my website.\nLet me now discuss the second mission, 'Leading to Energy Independence'. When we analyse the critical problems facing the planet today, two important issues come to our minds. Firstly, the continuous depletion of fossil-material-derived oil, gas and coal reserves, as predicted by the World Energy Forum, of which you are all aware. The second is the continuous degradation of the environment, primarily due to extensive use of fossil materials to generate energy. The solution to these problems can be found through energy independence, which I have presented to my country. It may be applicable to many nations. What form of energy independence do I propose in India?\nIndia has 17% of the world's population, but only about 0.8% of the world's known oil and natural gas resources. Based on the progress visualised for the nation during the next two decades, its power-generating capacity has to increase to 400 000 MW by the year 2030 from the present capacity of 130 000 MW. This takes into consideration the energy economies planned and the design and production of energy-efficient equipment and systems.\nI have proposed various systems. Solar cell efficiency, common to the European Union and India, has to increase from the present level of 20% to 55% through intensified research on carbon-nanotube-based solar cells. Regarding thorium reactors, thorium is a non-fissile material. It has to be converted into a fissile material using fast breeder technology. In the biofuels area, the challenge is biofuel plantation for higher yield, esterification technologies for higher output and changes to automobile power plants. These three research areas need intensive cooperation between the European Union and India. I would suggest setting up an India-EU renewable energy development programme for advanced R[amp]D in all forms of renewable energy, leading to the availability of commercial-class large-scale power plants within the next decade.\n(Applause)\nI should like to conclude with the 'World Knowledge Platform'. With India's experience of two successful international cooperative ventures from concept to realisation and marketing, I would suggest developing the 'World Knowledge Platform' to bring together the core competences of the nations of the EU and India in science and technology, leading to the development of unique systems for global applications. The 'World Knowledge Platform' will enable joint design, development, cost-effective production and marketing of the knowledge products, systems and services in various domains based on the core competence of partner nations in the international market. The 'World Knowledge Platform' is a meeting place for science, technology, industry, management and marketing.\nYou may ask about the missions of the 'World Knowledge Platform'. The convergence of biotechnology, nanotechnology and IT is expected to touch every area of concern to humanity. The 'World Knowledge Platform' will take up missions in some of the areas discussed further, which are of the utmost importance to all of us and to making our world a safe, sustainable, peaceful and prosperous place to live.\nThe first is water: desalination of sea water using solar energy, channelisation, networking of rivers and cost-effective safe drinking water.\nThe second is healthcare: diagnosis, drug delivery system, development and production of vaccines for HIV, TB, malaria and cardiac diseases.\nThe third is agriculture and food processing: increased production of food grain in an environment of reduced land, reduced water and reduced manpower; preservation of food; food processing; cost effective storage and distribution.\nThe fourth is knowledge products: hardware, software and networking and storage products, including handheld micro and nano electronic devices.\nThe fifth is transportation systems: fossil-fuel-free transportation systems using renewable energies, safety systems, hardware and embedded software integration.\nThe sixth is habitat: an energy-efficient, water-efficient, pollution-free habitat.\nThe seventh is disaster prediction and management: earthquake forecasting, assessing in advance the quantum of rain for particular cloud conditions.\nFinally, capacity-building: quality human resource development for all the above areas, including the development of personnel with world-class skills.\nThe European Union represents a wealth of scientific potential with a rich culture for research. India has emerged as a leading country, with its demonstrated scientific and technological potential in many societal missions, and is now on the ascent. The combined strength of the nations can be utilised for the advantage of both India and the EU by joining together as partners in creating the 'World Knowledge Platform'.\nIn conclusion, as we have seen, there is a visible common thread to our dreams and problems. When I am with you, I have a feeling that there are beautiful solutions from beautiful minds. Beautiful minds generate creativity. This is the common heritage of both India and the European Union.\nI have presented three missions: 'the evolution of an enlightened society', 'leading to energy independence' and 'creating the 'World Knowledge Platform'. These Indo-EU missions will reinforce further our strategic partnership and become the foundation for making changes to the life of 1.5 billion people, ultimately leading to the confluence of civilisations.\nTo meet the challenges of these missions, we can draw inspiration from the saying of Maharishi Patanjali from about 2 500 years ago. He said: 'When you are inspired by some great purpose, some extraordinary project, all your thoughts break their bounds. Your mind transcends limitations, your consciousness expands in every direction, and you find yourself in a new, great and wonderful world. Dormant forces, faculties and talents come alive, and you discover yourself to be a greater person by far than you ever dreamt yourself to be.'\nI have great admiration for the European Union. In this context I have composed a poem which I should like to share with you.\n(Applause)\nThe title of the poem is 'The message from Mother India to the European Union'.\n'Beautiful environment leads to beautiful minds.\nBeautiful environment leads to beautiful minds.\nBeautiful minds generate freshness and creativity,\nCreated the explorers of land and sea,\nCreated the European Union,\nCreated the explorers of land and sea,\nCreate minds that innovate,\nCreate great scientific minds everywhere. Why?\nGo back to the many discoveries.\nDiscover the continent.\nDo you realise you have discovered a continent?\nDiscover the continent and unknown lands.\nVenture into unexplored parts.\nCreate new highways.\nIn the minds of the best,\nIn the minds of the best was to us also born,\nGenerated seeds of the battle and hatred,\nHundreds of years of war and blood.\nMillions of my wonderful children lost in the land and sea.\nTears flooded many nations,\nMany engulfed in an ocean of sadness.\nThen came the vision of the European Union.\nTook the vote never to turn human knowledge against ourselves or others.\nUnited in their thinking, action emanated to make Europe prosperous,\nAnd peace bound the European Union.\nThose glad tidings captivated the people of the planet of my galaxy.\nThose glad tidings captivated the people of the planet of my galaxy.\nOh, European Union let your mission spread everywhere like the air we breathe.\nThat is my poem.\n(Applause)\nFinally, friends, let me convey the greetings of the one billion people of my country to all the honourable Members of the European Parliament and, through you, to all the citizens of European Union countries.\nMay God bless you all.\n(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)\nPresident\nPresident Kalam, on behalf of the European Parliament, I thank you for that important and inspiring speech. That was one of the most extraordinary speeches we have ever heard.\n(Applause)\nDelivered by a statesman, scientist and poet, it was unique. Thank you. I believe what is most important is that we listen to each other, in order to understand each other better and to respect and cooperate with one another. That was your message. I wish you and your great nation all the best, and convey my best wishes too in respect of our cooperation between the great nation of India and the European Union.\n(Sustained applause)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":8}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Statement by the President\nPresident\nBefore we begin, I should like to make the following statement.\nToday marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the public transport system in London, which killed 52 people and injured nearly 800. We remember what happened on 7 July 2005 in London, and we will never forget. On this day especially, our thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims.\nThe bombings in London were one of the worst acts of terror perpetrated on European soil. Let me say to bombers and terrorists: no matter what they do, they cannot win because we value every single life. No terrorist or terrorist action will ever be able to diminish or destroy our faith in core values such as fundamental and human rights.\nTerrorism is an attack on all of us, an attack on the very fabric of our democratic society. It can never be justified. Europe will always stand united in its fight against terrorism of all kinds.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) As our group says, this proposal, which introduces biometric data information into the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals, 'raises several concerns as regards its technical feasibility, financial costs and risk of its abuse'.\nAs we have highlighted, it is highly debatable whether the introduction of biometric identifiers really does increase security, or whether it is rather a threat to security through the risks of abuse, technological flaws and lack of transparency and sound data protection\nThis is a disproportionate measure that forms part of a supranational dynamic, a measure that is aimed at setting up EU-level monitoring and control instruments. It is not in any way accompanied by 'particularly consistent and serious safeguards, especially regarding the way they are collected and used' and it is completely impossible to guarantee its use in a 'relatively safe environment'.\nThis proposal is both a consequence and an integral part of the trend towards excessive preoccupation with security pursued by the EU institutions, and as such we reject it.\nMary Lou McDonald \nin writing. The second modified proposal introducing biometric data information into Regulation 1030\/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third country nationals raises several concerns as regards its technical feasibility, financial costs and the risk of its abuse. It is still not clear whether the introduction of biometric identifiers really does increase security or whether it is rather a threat to security through the risks of abuse, technological flaws and lack of transparency and sound data protection. The original Commission proposal has also turned out to be technically impossible and the financial resources destined for its development have been partly wasted. Due to these reasons, we cannot support the Commission's modified proposal, which would again only raise the financial costs and technical difficulties and would be entirely inadequate to the aim of added value in security.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. (DE) Thanks to the visions of some multi-cultural dreamers, a situation has arisen which is becoming increasingly difficult for the native population to endure. In many cases, immigrants and their children have no consideration for the native population; on the contrary, they demand more and more rights for themselves and seem bent on eradicating our Western Christian heritage; conversely, they simply turn a deaf ear when it comes to civic duties or to obligations of any incomer, such as willingness to integrate.\nThe widespread provision of social housing for nationals of non-EU countries and for neo-citizens of the Union who are not integrated has not only created a profound sense of insecurity among the indigenous population but also led to a massive deterioration in people's housing conditions and quality of life, a situation in which outbreaks of violence are almost a daily occurrence. In the light of these realities, a general tightening of the right of immigration is needed. The Coelho report does not offer a basis for such action, which is precisely why I voted against it.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n(SK) My formal background is that of a dentist. Mercury is used in dentistry for amalgam fillings, and I have been watching with interest the EU strategy concerning mercury and the elimination of mercury from all areas of life where there is an appropriate alternative. In principle, I agree with many of the measures the Commission has been submitting in the form of draft legislation in line with the mercury strategy.\nHowever, I am anxiously waiting to see how we deal with the opinion that mercury should also be banished from dentistry, where mercury amalgams have been used for 150 years now and quite successfully at that. There are no conclusive indications or evidence of the toxic effects of amalgams if used appropriately. At the same time, there is no clear opinion on whether there are appropriate alternative filling materials. I believe that if amalgam waste is properly separated in dentistry departments and if we dispose of it properly, safely and on a permanent basis, as proposed in the report, there will be no need for the time being to do away with amalgam as a filling material.\nRichard Seeber\n(DE) Mr President, I wish to give the report my firm backing, and I have voted in favour of it. It is important that we should have a European strategy for mercury, because it is one of the most toxic environmental pollutants, and Europe must certainly lead the way here. I did vote against some proposals designed to tighten the rules, because I believe it is necessary to provide incremental arrangements for businesses and to allow for a smooth transition so as not to jeopardise the general level of competitiveness. I am also wary of creating too much red tape, and a steady hand is needed if we are avoid that risk. On the whole, this is a very encouraging report.\nLiam Aylward, Brian Crowley, Se\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain and Eoin Ryan \nin writing. We have voted against amendments suggesting that liquid mercury should be stored in above-ground facilities. No impact assessments have been carried out by the Commission on the safety of such storage and there is no technology available to solidify liquid mercury. Storage of mercury in an above-ground facility is therefore questionable in terms of safety and in terms of time (the amendments suggest that this storage would be temporary). Without new technology, storage would not be temporary. On the other hand, impact assessments have been undertaken by the Commission for the storage of liquid mercury in salt mines and deep underground hard rock formations and has been confirmed safe.\nWe are very much aware that technology could be developed in the near future. We very much welcome the Council's agreement to a European Parliament request to include in the proposed regulation a review on extension of the scope of the regulation and a review of other options available for the storage of mercury in 2010.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) In 1990 the Oslo-Paris Commission (OSPAR) recommended that all mercury cell chlor-alkali plants (MCCAPs) be converted to mercury-free technology by 2010. Parliament's March 2006 resolution on the Community strategy concerning mercury urged the Commission to take action to implement OSPAR.\nApart from ongoing mercury emissions from MCCAPs, when these plants convert to mercury-free technologies, the vast quantities of mercury in their cells need to be managed in an environmentally appropriate manner.\nTo prevent this surplus mercury from flooding the world mercury commodity market, a proposal for a Regulation banning exports of metallic mercury by 1 July, 2011, was adopted in October 2006, and attempts have been made to bring that date forward.\nThe proposal includes parallel provisions on safe storage of the excess mercury which will mainly be coming from decommissioned MCCAPs, to prevent its re-sale. Currently there are around 12 000 tonnes of mercury sitting in mercury cells in Europe. To that end Euro Chlor (the EU chlor-alkali industry federation) has been asked by the European Commission and has agreed to develop a Voluntary Agreement for the storage of surplus chlor-alkali mercury.\nMarie-No\u00eblle Lienemann \nin writing. - (FR) The management of mercury is an important issue for the conservation of the environment.\nIf Europe has more waste mercury to store, it is because our industries did not foresee the risks involved in the use of this metal, in particular for the production of chlorine.\nFirst lesson: we must very quickly rethink our production methods in order to be prepared for a vital ecological revolution.\nNext, it is necessary to constantly monitor the storage of waste, by setting up regular checks. That is why I voted in favour of Amendment 25 which rules out permanent storage above-ground and underground. Alas, it did not receive a majority of votes. Nonetheless, the other improvements in the text justify a vote in favour of the final report.\nGeorgios Toussas \nEven though it recognises that there is currently no absolutely safe method of storing metallic mercury, the report endeavours to legalise a special type of territorial 'racism', by imposing the choice of the Spanish province of Almaden as the site for permanent landfill of the most toxic element on the planet. The worst thing is that it endeavours to justify the imposition of this specific area with the existence there of infrastructures and 'manpower'. In other words, it is using unemployment as a means of blatant coercion of the workers, so that they agree to turn their area into a landfill for toxic mercury waste from the entire EU, with incalculable risks to the health of the inhabitants and the environment.\nThe proposal in the report for the involvement and funding of all sorts of NGOs in the crucial question of the application of mercury-free technologies in developing countries and in so-called 'economies in transition' comes under the same dangerous policy by circumventing the rules which derive from binding bilateral agreements in this sector.\nThat is why the Greek Communist Party abstained from the vote.\nThe Greek Communist Party maintains that the question of where metallic mercury should be stored and managed is a subject for science and the application of its conclusions and not of choices that reflect the interests and profits of business.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n(SK) Supplementary pension schemes, collectively referred to as the 'second pillar of the social insurance system', are an inseparable part of modern society. We have witnessed in the past the reform of labour markets and social insurance systems in several Member States, and these have included pension system reforms. Let me use Slovakia as an example of a country which introduced supplementary pension schemes within the context of reforming the social security system. A large number of Slovak nationals have already joined the second pillar.\nSavings generated in the second pillar are privately owned. They are more secure than the promises of the state to pay out pensions from public coffers. An advantage of the second pillar is that pension benefits no longer depend on the country's demographics but on savings accumulated in one's own account. For these reasons and in the spirit of encouraging worker mobility in Member States, I have welcomed the draft directive designed to improve the portability of supplementary pension rights, and I believe that this will make it possible to reduce the number of problems associated with eligibility for pension rights, retaining suspended pension rights and with the portability of acquired rights.\nAgnes Schierhuber\n(DE) Mr President, the single market and mobility depend on social security, which must extend beyond a person's working life. It is important in this respect to maintain the balance between employers and employees on which the acquisition of pension rights depends.\nThis was the first reading, and we still have numerous discussions ahead of us. The delegation from the Austrian People's Party has given the Oomen-Ruijten report its unreserved support, because we believe that this is the right way to continue developing mobility and the single market.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur Ria Oomen-Ruijten and other colleagues who prepared this report concerning the improvement of portability of the right to a supplementary pension. I voted for this document, as I believe it will positively affect most European Union Member States, especially the newest EU members. In the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Malta, supplementary pensions have not yet been legislated, whereas in the Scandinavian countries and Slovenia, by contrast, the majority of workers participate in such pension schemes.\nOur Parliament's urging to oblige EU countries to gradually seek easier portability of pension rights should provide a new impulse above all to the new Member States, and likewise to Greece, Italy and Portugal, to amend their legislation in such a way that the mobility of people in the European Union be encouraged, not penalised.\nCarlo Fatuzzo\n(IT) Mr President, it is with pleasure that I take the floor to say to Europe: 'if you are there, let us see some action'. Europe must show greater courage, it must have the heart of a lion and not be a chicken.\nThe Directive on the transferability of pension rights is absolutely crucial for all European citizens and workers. By approving this proposal we are doing something for workers, but we will not really succeed in obtaining a result for which European citizens can applaud Europe. Therefore, Mr President, let us not mourn over the referendums in France and the Netherlands that rejected the Constitution. Europe must be more courageous.\nLena Ek, Olle Schmidt\nin writing. (SV) As a Liberal, I find it difficult to vote against a proposal aimed at improving Europeans' opportunities to move around more freely. It is not made any the easier when the proposal is also aimed at encouraging people to take more active responsibility for saving for their pensions, this being one of the genuinely key issues for the future. Nonetheless, I was unable to vote in favour of the original proposal.\nThe problem is twofold. Firstly, it is debatable whether this complicated issue is suited to being raised at European level, given the various Member States' very different systems for pension savings. Secondly, I could not help but note that Sweden, in common with Germany, has systems particularly ill-suited to this type of changeover. The Swedish model, in which the social partners decide about the issue, is incompatible with the rapporteur's proposal. Considerable problems could also arise if huge sums by way of invested funds could suddenly be released in a short period in order to guarantee the ability to transfer pensions.\nI am, in the long run, in favour of a system in which people can change jobs and move from one country to another and still not need to worry about how doing so might affect their pensions. I therefore in the end voted in favour of this House's amended version of the report in which national derogations are permitted.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) On the issue of the transferability of pension rights, there are at least two key aspects that must be taken into account: ensuring workers' rights and guaranteeing the sustainability of public social security systems.\nThe issue before us is specifically supplementary pension schemes and not public social security schemes. With regard to these two aspects, we are opposed to the amendments tabled in the report amending the Commission's original proposal. These amendments propose, for example, to increase from 21 to 25 the age of access to supplementary pension schemes and to make the acquisition of pension rights conditional on a minimum five-year period.\nSupplementary pension schemes must not, however, replace public schemes. Public social security schemes based on solidarity and universality are among the cornerstones of any state and something that must be guaranteed in a fairer and more egalitarian society.\nLastly, we are very disappointed at the rejection of the amendments we tabled, including the proposal to combine the Commission's original position on the minimum age of 21 with a two-year period of acquisition of rights, which would have been more favourable to the workers. Hence our final vote against.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) We have chosen to vote against this report. The June List wholeheartedly supports an efficient internal market. We thus support the principle whereby an employee must be able without difficulty to transfer earned pension points between the Member States. We do not, however, believe that the EU should have views on the form to be taken by the Member States' respective pension systems, provided that all EU citizens are treated equally within the system in force. We are thus critical of quite a few individual proposals in the report, such as the views on vesting conditions for policyholders in supplementary pension schemes, the views on minimum ages for earning pension rights or EU rules on the qualifying period for entry into a pension scheme. How the Member States choose to design their respective pension systems needs to be an entirely national matter, provided that all EU citizens are treated equally within the system in force.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nin writing.- (PL) I am voting in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights - C6 0331\/2005 -\nDemographic changes and an ageing population have made us aware of the need for supplementary pension and social security insurance systems, which will ensure dignified living conditions. The new directive and Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten's report both aim to improve the mobility of workers, within and between the Member States of the European Union, by establishing minimum requirements concerning the acquisition and retention of supplementary pension rights.\nThe report aptly highlights the role of the Member States in providing consistent support for the transfer of acquired pension rights, especially in the event that new, supplementary pension systems are established. Over the five years following the implementation of the directive, the European Commission will draw up a report which will take into account the conditions governing transfers of capital corresponding to employees' supplementary pension or social security entitlements.\nThomas Mann \nin writing. (DE) I voted against the report on the portability directive. The report goes well wide of the real target of increased cross-border mobility of labour between Member States. On average, only 10% of all employees in the EU receive company pensions. Because of the cost increase of at least 20% that can be expected to result from the high minimum standards which have just been adopted, there will scarcely be any interest in the creation or expansion of company pension schemes. My fear is that what employers and employees have achieved to their mutual advantage in the national context over several decades is now being put at risk.\nThe minimum age for the acquisition of company-pension rights has been entirely scrapped. The five-year vesting period has been abolished. The minimum standards are to be applicable retroactively, which is in outright contradiction to the principle of safeguarding legitimate expectations. I also voted for the deletion of index-linking, which would most probably be interpreted by the European Court of Justice as 'equitable adjustment' and as an obligation. The German Bundesrat has calculated that treating employees who have changed companies on equal terms with those who have not will increase the cost of supplementary pension schemes by 30%.\nEuropean Commissioner Vladim\u00edr \u0160pidla has announced the presentation of a new proposal. Following the failure to reach agreement in the Council, the proposal will be largely based on today's parliamentary resolution and will thus jeopardise company pension schemes - and not only in Germany.\nBart Staes \nDirective 98\/49\/EEC guarantees the rights to supplementary pension for workers and the self-employed who move within the EU, but provides no guarantees in the area of portability of supplementary pensions and flexibility of the acquisition conditions.\nThis is something which the Commission proposal addresses. It lays down terms and puts forward three minimum rules regarding the portability of rights: either they remain within the business (dormant rights), they are transferred within a certain period of time, or they are paid in cash (up to a certain threshold). According to the Commission, the new directive must apply to all supplementary pensions that are work-related.\nI particularly regret the fact that the Oomen-Ruijten report excludes the proposal of portability of pension rights from the directive. As it stands now, it only deals with dormant rights.\nAs I see it, the new directive should do everything in its power to support workers who invest in supplementary pension rights. Accordingly, nobody should be excluded by imposing minimum conditions in terms of age or period of time. I can only endorse the report if the directive retains the broad scope proposed by the Commission. If not, I will be voting against.\nGeorgios Toussas \nThe proposal for a Commission directive, as formulated with the anti-labour changes voted jointly by the Christian Democrats, the socialists and the liberals, supported by the New Democracy and PASOK MEPs, blows national supplementary insurance schemes sky high throughout the EU. It marks a deterioration in the terms of insurance and retirement of the workers, a reduction in pensions and an increase in the retirement age. It speeds up procedures for private insurance companies to increase their share of this sector. The basic direction of these reactionary changes is the so-called 'three-axis' system of main state pension, with a supplementary and occupational pension from private companies. The blow to the workers' rights in the supplementary pension sector is linked to the ambition of the monopolies to use the reserves in these insurance funds to fund their investments, while at the same time legalising the acceptance of the 'investment risk' or possible loss of the workers' money.\nNew Democracy and PASOK vote in favour of all the anti-grassroots measures in the European Parliament, on the one hand, and harangue and deceive the workers in our country, on the other hand, by endeavouring to show the people a supposedly friendly mask.\nThe Greek Communist Party calls on the workers to step up their fight against the anti-labour, anti-grassroots EU policy, to defend state social insurance schemes and to demand satisfaction of their contemporary needs, higher pensions and a lower retirement age.\nThomas Ulmer \nin writing. - (DE) I voted against the portability directive, because it misses the real target of increased cross-border mobility of labour between Member States. The rules on the transfer of company-pension rights only have the force of a recommendation for the Member States. For this reason I had repeatedly advised outright rejection of the directive, since it has become superfluous.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, even though the introduction of the euro has made life easier in many respects, as in the case of cross-border trade, it would be wrong to overlook its less savoury aspects, such as the surrender of sovereignty and price increases.\nAs in the case of any enlargement of the EU, the introduction of the euro in new Member States will ultimately affect the fragile stability of the entire system. This is why I believe it is imperative to ensure that the overall balance is not upset by the inclusion of weak national economies.\nNow it may well be that Cyprus and Malta are ready. In the past, however, governments have all too often played with marked cards in order to qualify for the euro club. In my opinion, such an important decision must on no account be taken over the heads of the population, and that is why I have abstained in this instance.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) We abstained from the vote on account of the fact that it is entirely up to each Member State to make the sovereign decision on whether or not it wants to join the Eurozone. Our opposition to the creation of Economic and Monetary Union and to the Eurozone is well known. The example of Portugal has amply demonstrated how the euro is a tool for promoting wage moderation and flexibility in the labour market. By sustaining nominal and not real convergence, it has been to the detriment of growth, employment and living standards, and to the benefit of the large European multinationals and financial groups.\nI wish to point out that the issue of speeding up the enlargement of the Eurozone is also based on the political criteria of strengthening both political integration and the Eurozone itself. With two new Member States - Malta and Cyprus - the Eurozone will boast over half of EU Member States. This is a significant psychological barrier, when dissatisfaction among the workers and the people as a whole in the Eurozone is on the increase and when the future Constitutional Treaty is under discussion. The majority therefore accept the idea of joining, even though Malta does not fulfil all the nominal convergence criteria. As in the past, this is not an 'economic' decision, but a political one.\nCem \u00d6zdemir \nin writing. (DE) On the basis of economic criteria, the decision is no doubt justified. From a political point of view, it is nevertheless a regrettable decision. It squanders an opportunity to let both parts of the island of Cyprus enter the eurozone. Instead of bringing North and South closer together through a single currency, it will only deepen the divide between the two parts of the island.\nJohn Attard-Montalto\n(MT) Thank you, Mr President. The government has adopted as its policy the target of introducing the euro by 1 January 2008. In order to do so a number of criteria had to be reached, for example regarding deficit and inflation. Obviously these had a negative impact on the government's financial policies, as well as on the more vulnerable section of society.\nIndeed, we believed that there was an alternative, which still entailed adopting the euro, but adopting it at a slower pace. Obviously, our entry into the eurozone will have a number of positive effects, yet it will also have adverse effects in other areas. However, in view of national interests, the Maltese Labour Party delegation has voted in favour.\nSylwester Chruszcz\n(PL) Mr President, today we debated and voted on the expansion of the eurozone and Malta and Cyprus' membership of this zone. I leave the sovereign decision on the abolition of the national currency in Cyprus and Malta to the citizens of these countries. However, as a representative of the League of Polish Families in the European Parliament, I am opposed to Poland's membership of the eurozone and the negative economic and social impact this would have on Poles.\nAll current public opinion polls confirm that the majority of Poles do not want the euro. I think that we should not only avoid acting hastily, but we should also not introduce the euro in Poland at all. I also disagree with the opinions expressed today that the Member States have a duty to join the eurozone. Poles should decide on this issue in a national referendum and I hope that the Polish zloty will remain a national currency in Europe, alongside the British pound and the Danish and Swedish currencies.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) It is well known that we opposed the creation of European Economic and Monetary Union and the euro. Indeed, we voted against Parliament's resolution of 2 May 1998 establishing the Eurozone, which was originally made up of 12 countries, including Portugal. We feel that monetary policy, and the prerogative of issuing currency, lies exclusively with the Member States, and therefore reject this transfer of sovereignty, which will make it impossible to address the economic and social problems in each country, including Portugal.\nAt this time, the enlargement of the Eurozone is based on political criteria - for example the strengthening of political integration and of the Eurozone itself - as this issue amply demonstrates, given that Malta does not fulfil all of the nominal convergence criteria. However, with two new Member States - Malta and Cyprus - the Eurozone will boast over half of EU Member States. This is a significant psychological barrier, when dissatisfaction among the workers and the people as a whole in the Eurozone is on the increase and when the future Constitutional Treaty is being discussed.\nIn our view, it is entirely up to each Member State to make the sovereign decision on whether or not it wants to join the Eurozone, and this is why we abstained from the vote.\nJonathan Evans \nin writing. British Conservatives have always opposed the entry of the UK into the euro zone. Nevertheless, we have never opposed the right of other sovereign nations to form a common monetary system. Our abstention reflects our belief that it is for the members of the euro zone to decide how best to conduct monetary policy in the interests of a stable currency.\nBruno Gollnisch \nin writing. - (FR) Our vote concerning the adoption of the euro by Malta and Cyprus will be identical to the one for Slovenia: we shall abstain. We will not go against what we hope will be the conscious will of sovereign peoples.\nWe must, however, recognise that a threshold has been crossed: it is not at their express request, but because they almost fulfil the 'stupid' Maastricht criteria, as Mr Prodi would have said, that these countries have to adopt the euro. Have their citizens been told about it? At least one of these countries does not meet these famous criteria and neither of the two, it seems, has supplied the statistics necessary for a proper assessment of their state of preparation. Why rush? The practical and technical measures for actual transition to the single currency are a great unknown. Also, the euro zone's capacity for absorption, which at another time was a matter of concern for Mr Langen, has disappeared from the picture and from the analysis.\nHere we are again faced with the bicycle syndrome, from which European construction appears to suffer: if it does not go forward, it falls down. The euro zone must be enlarged at all costs. Full stop! The truth is that it is the citizens of Europe who will have to pay the price!\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. - (SV) We have chosen to abstain in the final vote on these reports. It is up to the people of Cyprus and Malta to decide, preferably through a referendum, whether they want the country to be part of EMU.\nWe do not believe that Sweden should be part of the currency union. Nor do we recommend other countries to participate in it.\nMarie-No\u00eblle Lienemann \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the introduction of the euro in Malta and Cyprus, because it is a matter of supporting strengthened integration of these countries in the sense given by the European Union. Nonetheless, this decision ought to have been accompanied by measures enabling more democratic control of the single currency (establishment of real economic government of the euro zone capable of balancing the power of the European Central bank (ECB), changing the Central Bank's objectives so as to include research for growth and full employment, changing the criteria of the Stability Pact so as not to penalise public investment policy in the future).\nLet us take care not to pursue endless enlargement of the euro zone without any new perspectives.\nRichard James Ashworth \nin writing. The British Conservative delegation supports the Committee on Budgets resolution calling on the Commission to resubmit its proposals for financing the Galileo project. However, we have grave reservations about proposals to fund it through the existing European budget.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) We are very disappointed at the significant rejection by the majority in Parliament of the amendments tabled by our group, which were aimed at ensuring that 'the Galileo programme must not, under any circumstances, by used for military purposes', and that 'safeguards must be put in place to prevent the programme from being privatised' thereby guaranteeing that its implementation is funded entirely with public money.\nDoes this rejection mean that, following much-vaunted public investment, the unacceptable option of tendering the programme out to the private sector is already being considered?\nOur position is clear.\nWe feel that the Galileo programme (European programme of satellite radionavigation) will be able to contribute towards cooperation, scientific and technical advancement and to foster the exchange of, and access to, information.\nThis is a project that should be based on a strategy of public investment and public control, so that a public service can be provided. That way, there can be equal access and the free use of available information for all users.\nIt is a project in which the citizens' rights, guarantees and freedoms must be guaranteed. It must also be ensured that it is not used for military purposes and\/or as part of the trend towards an excessive preoccupation with security.\nJens Holm, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Helmuth Markov, Erik Meijer, S\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson \nin writing. In order to conclude GALILEO, the European satellite navigation system, EU member states are asked to pay another \u20ac 2 400 000 000. For many years it has been argued that this project would bring technological innovation, satisfaction of consumers' needs, employment, and independence from the United States. These assets could justify the spending of community funds, instead of leaving it solemnly to profit-orientated multinationals or the American war industry. As long as GALILEO remains a peaceful process, we do not principally reject it. Unfortunately, GALILEO will be developed 10 to 20 years too late, and in the meantime GPS, the American counterpart, has conquered the world market. This makes GALILEO into a costly prestige project. Spending a lot of community money on this, might sound attractive to big business, but voters and consumers will increasingly regard this as a scandalous waste of money. European companies refuse to participate in Public Private Partnerships, because they do not expect any profit due to the arrears with GPS. They do hope to receive a large community investment in 2012 for free. Consequently, we do not want to spend even more money on GALILEO. If there are no real perspectives, we should dare to stop.\nNils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) EU Member States will be technologically dependent on current and future military superpowers, such as the United States, Russia and China, if we cannot develop our own satellite-based radio navigation.\nGalileo is undoubtedly needed, but this expensive project should for the most part be funded by private actors with political support. Paragraph 6 of the resolution states that, in the European Parliament's view, the Galileo programme should be funded entirely from the European Union budget. I am not prepared to go so far and therefore choose to vote against the resolution as a whole.\nLydia Schenardi \nin writing. - (FR) We support the Galileo project, even if we had a few reservations about supporting it.\nWe cannot, however, support this resolution. It is deplorable that, after the predictable failure of the public-private partnership, this Parliament should be saying it is prepared to give up an independent GPS system if it ceases to be purely a Community project to include direct funding by Member States.\nGalileo is useful! By whatever means, it must be financed. The Commission cannot find EUR 2.4 billion, from the hundreds of billions that it intends spending, not always usefully, by 2013? Then what? Why should the Member States be pushed aside? Galileo is not a toy, nor is it the exclusive, symbolic project of Brussels' Europe that wants us to believe that it is not concerned only for itself, its competences and its sustainability.\nJust for once, leave aside dogma. Put into this industrial venture a quarter of the political willingness that a handful of Member States put, a few years ago, into building a European aeronautical and space industry, and prove what you refuse to admit: intergovernmental cooperation works. In Brussels, on the other hand, it is at a standstill.\nGeoffrey Van Orden \nin writing. The clear intention of the resolution is for Galileo to be financed with a blank cheque from public funds to further EU political ambitions. Collaborative technological projects have a dubious track record. They do not require EU involvement and should only be undertaken for clear economic, strategic and industrial motives - not to further EU ambitions to be a global actor.\nBritish Conservatives want opportunities for British industry and British R[amp]D, but this resolution does not guarantee that. It supports the Commission's proposal to use public funds - through the EU budget - for the entire Galileo project. This course of action will be another drain on taxpayers in the United Kingdom and other EU Member States, and one in which they have had absolutely no say.\nWhereas, in the past, there was reluctance by the EU to admit military applications, this coyness has now been dropped. In the Commission's Communication on European Space Policy (26 April 2007) the aim of meeting 'Europe's security and defence needs as regards space' is one of the key objectives. As long-standing opponents of ESDP, the British Conservatives oppose proposals that extend the Commission's hand into the defence arena.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) All it took for us to decide to vote against this report was the first recital. Community law on public procurement aims to open - liberalise would be a better word - public markets in the Member States to cross-border competition, in order to support the development of the internal market, in keeping with the liberalising agenda contained in the Lisbon Strategy.\nWe are of course in favour of national rules on the transparency of tendering, provided they do not block opportunities to use public markets to boost the economic fabric and national SMEs, bearing in mind their size and importance. There is a substantial difference in this case, however, leading us to vote against, which is that responsibility for this issue should continue to rest with the Member States.\nPublic procurement is also an important instrument in promoting social and environmental policy, given that it may contain criteria relating to social and environmental issues involved in awarding contracts. It cannot be restricted to supranational level, with rules on non-discrimination or on other economic interests used as a pretext.\nGay Mitchell, Mairead McGuinness, Colm Burke and Jim Higgins\nin writing. We voted in favour of part one of paragraph 40 and against part 2 of paragraph 40. Similarly, we voted in favour of the first part of paragraph 41 and against the second part. We abstained on the vote for the resolution as a whole.\nThe reason for this is that we did not wish to indicate that we support any interpretation of the word 'rights' as indicating a support for abortion. We do, of course, support the general thrust of the Millennium Goals and therefore did not vote against the resolution as a whole.\nEdite Estrela \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Kinnock report 'On the Millennium Development Goals - the midway point' because I feel that we need a broad partnership in order to be able to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. It is therefore desirable for the national parliaments and civil society in all the interested countries to become involved.\nOne of the key factors in achieving the Goals is that of a 50% reduction in poverty by 2015, with special focus on issues such as HIV\/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria. Gender inequality and discrimination against women are further points that must be taken into account in development programmes.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) I welcome the fact that the report acknowledges the seriousness of the world situation.\nAs the UN report on the Millennium Development Goals revealed, progress in the fight to reduce hunger has been too slow. Indeed, the figures have worsened in recent years: 854 million people (17% of the world's population) per day suffer from hunger and almost 16 000 children die every day due to hunger-related causes.\nNevertheless, once again the report glosses over the causes at the root of this intolerable situation.\nIt is important to highlight the fact that, at the same time as 16 000 children die every day:\nThe US Administration has earmarked USD 600 billion for military spending in its budget;\nThe 691 richest people in the world have a net fortune equivalent to USD 2.2 billion, which is equal to the combined wealth of the 145 poorest countries;\nThe 500 richest people have a combined income higher than that of the 416 million poorest;\nThe 8 million richest people in the world have a net fortune equivalent to 80% of the GDP of all the countries in the world.\nThis is the root of the problem.\nDavid Martin \nin writing. The rapporteur's approach to this highly important subject is to be commended. There is urgent need for efforts to reach the MDGs to be redoubled. This means wholesale debt relief and scaled-up, better coordinated and better targeted aid.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nin writing. - (PT) In the space available in an explanation of vote, there are two points that deserve to be highlighted.\nThe first paragraph of the resolution says: 'the overarching aim of development cooperation is and must be the fight against poverty; stresses, however, that this fight is not limited to material growth and therefore, democracy-building and the promotion of basic human rights, rule of law and the principles of justice, equity, transparency and accountability must always be central themes of any such cooperation.'\nI did not oppose this resolution because I understand that these concerns require us to contribute as much as we can, but I feel that the idea must be stressed that the fight against poverty cannot be effective unless the causes of poverty are combated. Among the structural causes of poverty is always bad governance. It is for this reason, and not out of a desire to impose some sort of model, that it is so important to fight on these two fronts at the same time. Otherwise, we will be resolving a problem today only for it to come back tomorrow.\nLastly, the report tells us that 'Portugal, which is due to host the EU-Africa Summit during its Presidency, achieved only 0.21% ODA\/GNI in 2006', which is terrible.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski \nin writing. (PL) I was forced to vote against the report on 'MDGs at the Midway Point'.\nIncluding proposals to fund abortion using EU budget aid will inevitably lead to divisions concerning the aid strategy for Africa. This will undermine the effectiveness of our actions. From both a moral and a medical point of view, abortion does not hold the key to solving the problem of maternal deaths during childbirth.\nUsing European Union resources to fund abortion in Africa is contrary to the principle of providing support. It forces all European Union citizens to become indirectly implicated in this matter. It also represents a kind of moral imperialism towards Africa. The consistent support of this House for funding abortion in developing countries is the biggest mistake we have made in terms of shaping humanitarian aid policy.\nGerard Batten, Roger Knapman and Thomas Wise \nin writing. The UKIP does not recognise the legitimacy of the ACP-EU JPA and therefore cannot support this amendment. However, we agree with the spirit of the text and sincerely hope that the international community as a whole will ensure that the international travel bans on key figures in the Zimbabwean regime are fully respected.\nDerek Roland Clark \nin writing. The UKIP does not recognise the legitimacy of the ACP-EU JPA and therefore cannot support this amendment. However, we agree with the spirit of the text and sincerely hope that the international community as a whole will ensure that the international travel bans on key figures in the Zimbabwean regime are fully respected.\nDavid Martin \nin writing. The work of the ACP-EU JPA is vital when we consider the large number of least developed countries within that grouping and the volume of development assistance the EU targets at the ACP countries. I support many of the demands made in the report, such as those calling for national parliaments and civil society to become more involved in the process of national aid programming in the ACP.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nin writing. - (PT) The report clearly reveals how the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly - both in 2006 and before - is an excellent instrument for creating the crucial structures, relationships and dialogue necessary for the creation of sound foundations for good relations between both sides and for the development of genuinely useful projects.\nThat being said, although it should be noted that whilst progress so far has been laudable, our concerns should be based on what lies ahead. We have an obligation - one that is, on the one hand, both moral and ethical and, on the other, in our own interests - to support development in associated countries, to help them develop mechanisms to open up their economies and together to turn globalisation into a virtuous movement; it is up to us to circumvent, reduce and remove the potential pitfalls involved in this movement.\nAgainst this backdrop, in relation to some of these partners, it is vital that the forthcoming EU-Africa summit, set to take place during the Portuguese Presidency, yields results. Realism with results is preferable to utopian ideals without history.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"3. Iran, in particular, the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Iran, in particular, the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh.\nBastiaan Belder\nMr President, exactly one week ago, Nobel Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, published a penetrating article in The Wall Street Journal about her friend, the Iranian human rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, who had just been sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment. Ebadi called for the West to pay greater attention to the Sotoudeh case and to all the brave human rights defenders in the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran.\nThe debate in this House is part of the response to Ebadi's urgent appeal. We cannot and shall not forget Nasrin Sotoudeh, nor her fellow fighters for fundamental rights in Iran. That will also be the message, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, of the report that I hope to present on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the plenary sitting in March, and I count on all of you to vote in favour of it. A powerful, united European voice for the rights of the Iranian people.\nMarietje Schaake\nauthor. - Mr President, once again, we are forced to speak about human rights in Iran, after Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced to 11 years in jail. She is banned from practising law, but let us serve justice.\nThe Rule of Law is no longer practised or existent in Iran, and the judiciary is highly politicised. Defending human rights is now considered an act against national security. Nasrin Sotoudeh, lawyer and mother of two, is charged with acting against national security. She defended, among others, Zahra Bahrami, an Iranian-Dutch citizen who was sentenced to death before Dutch diplomats had talked to her, and in a climate of serious doubts about due process.\nAs strong a woman as Nasrin Sotoudeh is and was, by standing for justice, we see a weak regime that represses its citizens instead of providing for their wellbeing. High Representative Ashton will be in Istanbul later this month in an attempt to bring the Iranian regime to cooperate with the international community on the nuclear issue. Economic sanctions have the same aim. I doubt they will render the desired result before disproportionately hurting the people of Iran who, as a result, become more and more dependent on the hard-line government.\nHowever, while I am sceptical about the impact of economic sanctions, I am confident that sanctions against individuals responsible for violating human rights through, for example, censorship, rape, torture and executions, will be an effective and necessary step to end impunity and to honour the justice that Nasrin Sotoudeh stood for. Human rights are clearly the Achilles heel of the Iranian regime.\nMr President, while I have the floor, may I ask you to encourage our Italian colleagues to be quiet because it is really distracting when they start speaking in the Chamber after their business has been dealt with.\nPresident\nColleagues, you heard the request made by Mrs Schaake. Other colleagues have also asked if you could be quiet. If you have something private to discuss, you can do so outside.\nStruan Stevenson\nauthor. - Mr President, it was my intention today to compare the Islamic Republic of Iran to Nazi Germany but I have to say that I think in many ways, it can be even worse. The mullahs have hanged 65 people so far this year. Ten were hanged yesterday: first, they were heavily fined and had their homes confiscated, and then each was mercilessly flogged before being dragged to the gallows. Eighty-seven people have been hanged in the past four weeks.\nAhmadinejad is a holocaust denier and a hater of the Jews; he says he wants to wipe Israel off the map and he is now building nuclear weapons that will enable him to do so. He and Khamenei preside over the ruthless suppression of the citizens of Iran, with hangings, torture, stoning to death, amputations and floggings all commonplace, and the execution of children, and even pregnant women, routine. Two prisoners in Mashhad had their hands amputated this week; two others have been sentenced to amputation and these verdicts will be carried out soon.\nAnyone who tries to expose this evil is immediately targeted. Nasrin Sotoudeh is a case in point: a courageous human rights lawyer who has defended many of the innocent people unjustly sentenced and executed by this fascist regime. Her outrageous sentence of 11 years' imprisonment for doing her job is an insult to humanity. The real criminals are the tyrants in Tehran and they will be held to account. They believe that their critics in the West are part of an international conspiracy to topple their regime. Well, I for one would sign up to that project today. Evil must never be allowed to prevail, and the sooner we can see freedom, democracy, humanity and women's rights restored to Iran, the better it will be for the whole world.\nRosario Crocetta\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, by asking for the immediate release of Nasrin Sotoudeh, we are urging the Union and its Member States to do more to liberate Iranian citizens and the world from one of the cruellest and most authoritarian regimes in history.\nThe Islamic Republic of Iran is characterised not only by the threat it poses to world peace with a nuclear project capable of evoking the terror of nuclear war, but also by the illegitimacy of its elections; mass arrests of people requesting free elections; the killing of objectors; the rape and physical abuse of those who do not support the regime; the iniquity of judicial processes, where decisions can be predicted as soon as the accusations have been made; serious discrimination against women and homosexuals; and the absence of freedom of expression and of association. The conditions of Iranian prisoners in Camp Ashraf, where they are subjected to violence and even stoning, are absolutely incredible.\nEvery day, at least two people, including children, are sentenced to death in Iran, and they are guilty of nothing more than of not pleasing the regime. Legal evidence is often created through the cruel and skilful use of brutal methods of torture. These criticisms are certainly not aimed at Islam, which is based on peace, but at the Iranian regime. The arrest and conviction of Nasrin Sotoudeh bring to light a new level of judicial deceit, since in this case, the attack and conviction are against a defender of the people, which means that citizens of Iran cannot even defend themselves.\nCristian Dan Preda\nMr President, while Iran might be starting to open up on nuclear matters, we unfortunately must conclude that the door is clearly closed in this country when it comes to human rights.\nThe case of Nasrin Sotoudeh demonstrates this completely. She was punished for her work in support of human rights with an extremely harsh sentence: 11 years, banned from practising as a lawyer for 20 years and from leaving the country. This verdict was reached following a mockery of a trial.\nThis case is far from an isolated incident. It is part of a deliberate strategy by the Iranian regime to systematically silence human rights activists. A whole series of very harsh sentences are targeted at lawyers who are active in human rights matters, and we must show solidarity with these courageous people who support and take action on human rights in spite of threats, torture and imprisonment.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nauthor. - Mr President, I have to stay that I deeply deplore the fact that we once more have to talk about Iran, but we have to. We really have to because the situation in Iran is gravely problematic and dramatic.\nThat is why it is important that this Parliament reiterates once again its call for the release of all prisoners of conscience, including all those who have been detained over the last year in connection with their peaceful - and I repeat, peaceful - political and human rights activities. This Parliament has to call again on the Iranian authorities to respect the internationally recognised rights to freedom of expression and assembly, and strongly condemn the extraordinarily harsh sentence against Nasrin Sotoudeh and to commend her for her courage and her engagement.\nThis is also why this Parliament has to consider Mrs Sotoudeh, as well as her fellow human rights activists and prisoners of conscience, and demand her immediate release. We have to express our concern over the ever more frequently imposed sentence of a ban on leaving Iran, which can lead to the logical conclusion that staying in Iran is considered a punishment by the authorities.\nWe have to call on the authorities to combat the impunity of human rights violators within the security forces and also reiterate our demand for an independent investigation into allegations of extra-judicial executions since June's disputed presidential elections and for alleged violators to be brought to justice. Evidently, we also have to strongly condemn the bomb attack in Chabahar and to express our condolences to the victims' families and the injured.\nFinally, I should like to say that we are seriously concerned about the persecution of certain religions and ethnic groups in Iran. We have to express our conviction, supported by recent European history, that peaceful and balanced social and political development can only be achieved by taking the cultural and social aspirations of differing regions into account.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\nMr President, Nasrin Sotoudeh gave us reason to talk about her in a previous European Parliament debate on the lack of protection of human rights in Iran, when, on 4 September 2010, she was arrested on charges of propaganda against the state, conspiracy and assembling to act against national security. She has been held for four months. Now, following a trial, this distinguished human rights defender and dedicated co-worker of Nobel Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, has been sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment followed by a 20-year ban on practising law and leaving Iran. Let us remember that long prison sentences have also been handed down to other political prisoners. The 26-year-old women's rights activist, Shiva Nazar Ahari, has been sentenced to four years in prison and 74 lashes for the same crime.\nWe need to emphasise clearly our opposition to flagrant violations of what are fundamental human rights: freedom of association, freedom of expression, the right to freedom of thought and the right to a fair trial. Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has devoted her life to the fight to defend human rights - defending minors who have been sentenced to death and people accused of causing peaceful protests as well as working closely with the opposition - has become living proof of the human rights violations in Iran. The European Union cannot continue to be a passive observer of this uneven fight on the part of Iranian society against the regime.\nCorina Cre\u0163u\nMr President, we also support the demands for the immediate and unconditional release of Nasrin Sotoudeh and all prisoners of conscience in Iran. After the electoral fraud that kept the Ahmadinejad regime in power, thousands of Iranians paid the price of freedom for their courage in protesting against an increasingly repressive regime. Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced, after months of isolation and torture, to 11 years in prison because, as a lawyer and campaigner for human rights, she defended opponents of the Tehran government, including a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.\nAlong with numerous dissidents, dozens of journalists and bloggers who dared to exercise their basic freedom to express their own conscience are also suffering ill treatment in Iranian prisons. I believe that the European Union's commitment to the release of these fighters for democracy should not only take the form of public protest, but also of concrete steps from the European External Action Service, with a view to mobilising the international community to exert increased common pressure to end these human rights violations in Iran.\nCharles Tannock\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, we should never forget in this House that the freedom to debate and dissent that we so much enjoy in Europe is scarce and non-existent in many parts of the world. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Iran.\nYet again in this House, we find ourselves discussing the appalling human rights situation in that Islamic Republic. As a lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh has helped many opposition supporters who were detained and harassed following the rigged presidential election 18 months ago. She has also represented minors on death row, truly a heroic job in a country that executes children with alacrity. She was arrested in September last year on charges of spreading propaganda and conspiring to harm state security. Now she has been sentenced to 11 years in prison and banned from practising law for 20 years.\nShe should be released immediately and unconditionally. I call upon the Vice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to make that point.\nParliament and Commission have been resolute in highlighting the human rights abuses of the brutal - almost disgusting - Ahmadinejad regime. It is time that the Council put the EU's common values ahead of Member States' individual commercial interests in that country.\nMarco Scurria\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are tackling yet another debate on the violation of human rights and democracy in Iran. This time, it is the case of a lawyer who protects human rights activists in Iran.\nIndeed, the idea is to solve the problem at source by no longer merely imprisoning people who fight for their rights, but to go directly to those that defend them, just to show which way the wind is blowing for those who wish to oppose the Ahmadinejad regime.\nI would place a bet today, Mr President, that in a few weeks' time, we will be back in this Chamber to speak about another different case of all basic rights being violated in Iran. The violation will be disguised by some criminal motive that would be laughable were it not so tragic, such as acting against national security or propaganda against the regime, as in the case we are discussing today.\nI really do wonder, Mr President, whether Parliament should continue to have a delegation for relations with a regime that is the exact opposite of everything the European Union is founded on.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, once again, we have an appalling situation coming out of Iran. Prior to Christmas, we discussed the situation of Sakineh Ashtiani, who was condemned to death by stoning for alleged adultery, a sentence subsequently commuted to death by hanging for alleged murder. Today, we have the unfortunate situation of Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has been condemned to 11 years in jail for doing her job. She has had her assets frozen and has been denied access to her own lawyer. Her husband was arrested during the week for - and I quote - 'spreading lies and disrupting public opinion'. Figure that one out!\nI think all we can do is use our influence to the best of our ability to try and bring an end to this evil madness, particularly the maltreatment and disrespect of women. Those two examples have been cases in point.\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f\n(RO) Mr President, the conviction of human rights activist, Nasrin Sotoudeh, reflects the fragility of the respect for human rights in Iran. Since the controversial re-election of President Ahmadinejad in June 2009, all protests have been brutally suppressed, thousands of citizens arrested and several hundred have already been convicted.\nThe harsh punishment received by Nasrin Sotoudeh of 11 years in prison resulted from the fact that, as a lawyer, she had defended numerous opponents of the regime who had been arrested during the demonstrations following the presidential elections. Moreover, she was reprimanded for interviews given to the foreign press during this period. We can see here a typical case of the violation of the right to freedom of expression, of the right of lawyers to practise their profession without pressure or duress, and also of the right of a defendant to an impartial trial.\nIn this context, I would remind the Commission and the Council that any cooperation between the European Union and Iran needs to start from the premise that respect for human rights is an absolute must.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, this is another matter which outrages European public opinion and which outrages the Members of this House. If we keep seeing situations in the same country which evidently violate human rights, we need to think about the structure and responsibility of that country. It can be seen clearly that respect for one's own traditions and customs does not, however, go together with the acceptance of certain declared standards or European standards - I am thinking, here, of human rights. That is obvious. It is good that the European Parliament has taken up this matter. There is still a question, however, about political pressure, because that is, as it were, the next matter on which the European Parliament speaks, when we are talking about Iran, and is not achieving any great success. Perhaps it is necessary to begin applying pressure which is very much stronger than at present.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) Mr President, activists and advocates fighting for human rights in Iran have long been persecuted and detained, and the verdict against the lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, comprises a sad example of this persecution.\nThe Iranian regime has done the same to the activist, Shiva Nazar Ahari, the lawyer, Mohammad Seifzadeh, and the advocate, Mohammad Oliyafar. Other activists are threatened with a similar fate.\nRepression in Iran continues to get worse, and our attempts to improve the situation have no effect. The action of the government against those who have reservations about the regime has now reached such a level that we must seriously begin to consider a change of policy towards this country and to consider other possibilities for more effective pressure on the Iranian administration so that we can help the Iranian people to breath more freely. It will surely not be easy, but I believe it is our responsibility to try and change the situation in Iran.\nSari Essayah\n(FI) Mr President, Nasrin Sotoudeh is one of the best known human rights lawyers in Iran and she defended Shirin Ebadi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, among others. Her clients have also included underage persons who have been sentenced to death and the victims of family violence. Her only crime is that she was practising her profession, which is defending people unable to defend themselves against Iran's brutal regime.\nThe unrest following the elections in 2009 and their consequences have resulted in the Iranian authorities taking harsh measures against human rights defenders and activists. It is the aim of the Iranian Government to silence all opposition once and for all both inside and outside the country.\nThis Parliament has appealed on behalf of the people in Ahvaz, for example, and submitted a unanimous written declaration on the matter. It is strange that the international community can do nothing to get rid of this barbarous regime.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg\n(PL) Mr President, during the last debate on human rights violations in Iran, which took place in this Chamber barely four months ago, I said in my speech that five Iranian citizens every day are told they are soon to lose their lives under sentence of capital punishment. To this tragic statistic must also be added the sentences of many years in prison for Iranian lawyers who defend the victims of the country's justice system. Those last two words should probably be put in inverted commas. Forty seven year-old Nasrin Sotoudeh, who was arrested on 4 September, tortured and who has now been sentenced to 11 years in prison, is an example of this.\nOther Iranian lawyers have also met with repression. Shiva Nazar Ahari, co-founder of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters, has been given a sentence of four years in prison, Mohammad Seifzadeh has been given nine years in prison and a ban on practising law for 10 years, and Mohammad Oliyafar has received a year in prison just for representing his clients in court. I think that by using the negotiating position of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, we should press for the subject of human rights defenders to be included in talks with Iran as a matter of urgency.\nMonica Luisa Macovei\n(RO) Mr President, the case of the lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, is very serious. She has received 11 years in prison, has been banned from practising law and from leaving the country for 20 years. What has she done? She has defended Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, other political and human rights activists, journalists and minors sentenced to the death penalty.\nSince 2009, at least 15 human rights lawyers have received prison sentences in Iran. Through such measures, Iran violates fundamental human rights and fundamental UN principles for the role of a lawyer. I urge the Commission and the Council to intervene for the immediate release of the lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh.\n\u0160tefan F\u00fcle\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, the European Union remains extremely concerned about the grave and deteriorating situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Over the last two years, conditions have gone from being difficult to being near impossible for those who work to defend human rights.\nFor Nasrin Sotoudeh and many others like her who work to defend the just causes of fundamental rights and freedom, working from jail is not an option. The impact of her arrest is clear: those in Iran who are brave enough to stand up for those whom the state itself is supposed to protect risk being intimidated, imprisoned or worse.\nThe European Union has been speaking out; more than ten statements were released in 2010 by High Representative and Vice-President Ashton on both the general situation and on individual cases. At the same time, the European Union undertook discreet demarches with the Iranian authorities seeking clarifications and explanations, and conveying clear messages on the need to improve the situation in Iran. A statement on Nasrin Sotoudeh's case was made by High Representative and Vice-President Ashton on 14 January 2011, which mentioned both Ms Sotoudeh and Ms Shiva Nazar Ahari, a lawyer and a journalist, sentenced respectively to eleven and four years in prison.\nThe Islamic Republic of Iran was recently elected to the membership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Mrs Sotoudeh and Ms Ahari are two women who have been deprived of the very rights they were fighting to protect. The European Union will continue reminding the Iranian authorities that, first and foremost, they must comply with those international obligations stemming from the multilateral agreements and conventions they have signed and ratified. We will continue seeking ways to make our action in defence of human rights more effective, using all the means at our disposal. The Iranian people deserve no less.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, we have a completely superfluous working group here in Parliament whose job it is to look at ways of making the plenary sessions more interesting. This group would have done well to study today's plenary. All we need is sufficient time, which is why we should also be allowed time on Thursday afternoons. We also need the right President in the chair, who can exercise a judicious measure of rigour and flexibility. This will produce a lively and interesting plenary.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place shortly.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nEija-Riitta Korhola\nThe situation of active human rights defenders in Iran is becoming ever more difficult. In addition, we read about the increasing number of death sentences. The Dutch national, Zahra Bahrami, who had been mentioned in our hurried resolutions previously, was sentenced to death, and her lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, received an 11 year prison sentence 'for acting against national security'.\nAs we know, the hallmark of Iran's legal system is a serious lack of justice and transparency. It is therefore important that the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy does not let the country off the hook, but continues to raise human rights issues in relations with Iran. Let me list the minimum requirements: the immediate and unconditional release of human rights lawyer Sotoudeh and other prisoners of conscience, Bahrami's death sentence to be reconsidered and the Dutch authorities to be included in handling the case, allowing representatives of the Red Cross to meet with prisoners, and letting human rights organisations into the country to assess the situation.\nR\u00f3\u017ca Gr\u00e4fin von Thun und Hohenstein\nThe European Parliament must react to cases of human rights violations. We have to remember that thanks to the publicising of specific cases, the international community can exert greater pressure on countries which do not respect generally accepted democratic standards. Nasrin Sotoudeh represented Iranian civil and human rights activists at their trials and defended minors who had been sentenced to capital punishment. The Iranian authorities considered her activities to be 'spreading hostile propaganda' and sentenced her to 11 years in prison. It is a good thing that her case has appeared on the agenda of a plenary sitting of the European Parliament. The European Parliament, when it calls for the release of Nasrin Sotoudeh and other prisoners of conscience, and also for the establishment of an independent commission to examine the prosecution of human rights defenders, should not be ignored.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Environmental protection from radiation following the crash of a military aircraft in Greenland (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Diana Wallis, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the public health consequences of the 1968 Thule crash (petition 720\/2002).\nDiana Wallis \nrapporteur. - Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe's citizens in the event of nuclear incidents.\nThis nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen.\nLet me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War - indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold - indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them.\nThis is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96\/29\/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report - the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply.\nBut this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument - an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures - not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe's citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention.\nI am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended.\nAndris Piebalgs\nMadam President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work on this very important petition. The Commission has full sympathy with the petitioners who have undergone a very difficult time following their participation in the rescue operations after the air crash in 1968. At the same time, I would say that over the past five years the Commission has followed this case very closely. It has studied it carefully from the legal point of view and has cooperated with the Committee on Petitions and with its rapporteur.\nThe Commission reached the conclusion that the claims brought by the petitioners in this case cannot be based on Community law but solely on the basis of Danish national legislation before the Danish administration and courts. In view of these elements, this case calls for a political, rather than a legal, solution. I believe that the proposed European Parliament resolution could be one of the elements to help such a political solution.\nIn order to ensure that Euratom legislation covers future situations such as the one which originated in the petition, the Commission will examine the possibility of making a relevant provision on the application of the radiation protection requirements in situations arising from military applications. The inclusion of such a provision could be undertaken in the framework of the forthcoming revision and recasting of Directive 96\/29\/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. However, the compatibility of such a provision with the case-law needs to be examined in detail.\nMichael Cashman\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I will not read from my notes. I will say what I feel, not what I ought to say.\nThe Commissioner offers his sympathy, but we do not need sympathy. What is needed is the enforcement of fundamental rights, which are critical here; the right of access to information in order for you to be completely certain that what has happened to you is not life-threatening.\nThe easiest thing here would be to attack the government of one of the Member States. I do not what to do that. I want to seek to achieve a solution on behalf of the petitioners.\nCommissioner, you talk of a political solution. Well, I wish to inform you that this is a political institution, which is why we are approaching the European Commission to help us achieve that solution.\nThe solution will not come through sympathy, but through the determination to ask the Danish Government, under the auspices of good and loyal cooperation, which is enshrined in the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, to acquiesce to the request for information from the petitioners and workers who formed an association and cleaned up after this tragedy. Therefore, do not sympathise with them, but lend them the Commission's political clout and support and enquire of the Member State as to whether it will release information that is essential to these people in terms of ensuring that they are not at risk and that their lives are safe and in good hands. That is all we ask.\nI shall detain the House no longer. I am tiring of the Commission's response to the effect that 'it is nothing to do with us'. That is the simplest way to reinforce the Euro-scepticism that is growing across the EU and which, sadly, is prevalent in Denmark.\nMarios Matsakis\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, this is a unique report on a unique petition and Mrs Wallis has dealt with it excellently. Legal matters aside, the petition on which the report is based raises some important points. I shall briefly mention three of them.\nPoint one. Even with the greatest of safety precautions, a nuclear weapons accident is always possible. In a way, the US B-52 crash in Greenland was very fortunate. Imagine the effects of it happening in a highly populated area, for example near a US base in central Europe. So anybody who claims nuclear weapons are absolutely safe in peace time is not telling the whole truth.\nPoint two. After a nuclear accident, well-prepared plans should immediately be put in action which would minimise the short-term and long-term effects to human health and to the environment. It seems that the relevant authorities, in this case the US air force and the Danish Government, were ill-prepared and did not deal with the problem properly, especially as regards protecting the civilian personnel and providing them with long-term health surveillance and monitoring. This shortfall has led to numerous premature deaths from cancer in cases where early detection could have provided a much better chance of survival, so anybody who claims that the relevant authorities can deal most adequately with the after-effects of a nuclear weapons accident is also not telling the whole truth.\nPoint three. After a nuclear weapons accident, one expects that the government concerned would display a spirit of transparency and cooperation in dealing with the affected population. This was not the case with the Greenland crash, as the Danish Government refused to provide access to the relevant environmental radiation records needed to estimate the radiation doses received by affected workers. Furthermore, the information given by the Danish authorities was dangerously misleading. So even scientific reports issued by governments after a nuclear weapons accident cannot be trusted.\nThe overall message is therefore clear. Nuclear weapons can cause death and suffering even in peace time, so the best way to deal with them is not to have them at all. After listening to the Commissioner, my final observation would be that petitioners who have endured years of suffering and struggle seem only to receive a lot of sympathy from the EU, but no practical assistance.\nMarcin Libicki\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Diana Wallis for her - as usual - excellent report, and take pleasure and satisfaction in saying that we have in this House a rapporteur who always delivers highly accurate reports, particularly from the legal point of view, which is extremely important here.\nIn 1968, a US aircraft crashed with nuclear weapons on board. The writer of a petition which reached our Committee, suffered problems with his health and believes that he was not adequately compensated.\nThe Committee was again the last resort for a large number of people who had nowhere else to seek justice. This gave rise to an interesting legal aspect which Mrs Wallis dealt with excellently. The accident took place in 1968, while Denmark together with Greenland joined the European Union in 1973, and in 1985 Greenland left the European Union, while the Directive establishing basic safety standards in the event of such accidents (that is, Directive of the Council 96\/29\/EURATOM), dates from 13 May 1996. Although from the dates themselves it appears that the author of the petition stood no chance of seeking justice here, Diana Wallis proved that according to the precedents of the ECJ, new provisions of community law are fundamentally applicable to the future outcome of events that took place before prior legislative acts came into effect, such as Greenland's withdrawal from the European Union.\nIf states actually applied the relevant directives, the Committee on Petitions would have fewer problems to deal with. I would like to recall just three cases - the Lloyds case, the Equitable Life case and the matter of local planning abuses in Spain, which were brought simply because the relevant directives were not properly implemented in the countries in question. The injured parties are entitled to remedy for damage suffered, and we are all entitled to security in the future.\nMargrete Auken\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DA) Madam President, this is a grim state of affairs. It is absurd and quite indefensible that nuclear weapons should have been flown around in this negligent way during the Cold War. That is what is really scandalous about the Thule case. Unacceptable though it is to treat nuclear weapons so carelessly, that is no reason for allowing ourselves to state something that has proved to be untrue. We have no documentation to indicate that any of the Thule workers died as a result of radiation. Nor can we maintain that the relevant health checks were not carried out. They were, in fact, carried out, and the results show the opposite of what the petitioner, and now also the report, assert. That is something that we have to respect.\nThe amendments by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance are designed to remove errors and unwarranted assertions. That being said, we agree with Mrs Wallis that Denmark cannot avoid the fact that the EU has powers to exercise in this matter. What happened involving the B-52 bomber is not the only nuclear activity that has polluted the Thule area. Every aspect needs to be looked into, and the EU should make sure that the relevant investigations take place. If, however, the report is to have some significance, it must not contain factual errors. If we adopt a report containing errors, all we do is damage our own credibility. I have no interest in defending the Danish Government on this matter. On the contrary. It has treated Mrs Wallis badly, and it has been all too slow in forwarding the results of the many investigations to Parliament. We nonetheless very much hope that we get the report properly adopted so that it is practical and effective enough subsequently to influence events and is not merely set aside for not having respected the real facts.\nS\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DA) Madam President, the plane crash on 21 January 1968 in North-Western Greenland triggered not only 850 metre-high flames but also extensive radioactive pollution. The Danish authorities wanted the matter kept under wraps. They knew that their tacit acceptance of American aircraft armed with nuclear weapons in Greenland's airspace was unpopular among the populations of both Denmark and Greenland. That is why 18 years went by before the authorities began to take an interest in the health of the Greenlanders affected and of the civilian workers involved in the clean-up operation. Even today, the people concerned have still not been given a complete picture of what happened to them. This is partly because successive Danish governments have refused to comply with the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty, which they nonetheless signed.\nIn the view of the Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left, that is the crucial point in Mrs Wallis's proposal. We are able to support the first four of the five amendments by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, but we shall in any case vote in favour of the proposal in the final vote.\nJens-Peter Bonde\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (DA) Madam President, for the first time in 28 years, I shall vote tomorrow in favour of criticising my own government in Denmark. I am ashamed of the way we behaved towards the few hundred survivors of the American nuclear accident in Greenland in 1968. In order to conceal the fact that this accident was a nuclear one, the authorities failed to supply them with personal protection when getting them to clean up after it. Many have since died of cancer, while animals have been born with defects, which can presumably be traced back to the accident. Mr Carswell has raised this matter in the Committee on Petitions. He has himself been in hospital 50 times due to the effects of the accident. Mrs Wallis has done some detailed work for the committee over the last three years, involving hearings and visits, and now Mrs Auken comes along to the actual sitting at which we are to vote and wants to see all the work begun again from scratch. The matter is very simple and is not about the presence or otherwise of radiation. What it is about is the fact that, under the EURATOM Treaty, the survivors are entitled to annual health checks, however much their health may or may not have been affected, and they are entitled to have access to their own medical reports. Denmark should now comply with those two requirements.\nI should like to thank Mrs Wallis and the committee for the very responsible work they have done on this matter. I myself took part in all the meetings, and if Mrs Auken had shown her interest when the matter was discussed, she would not have tabled amendments at the last minute. Imagine if all the other reports from Parliament had to be debated again because Mrs Auken had not taken part in the committee reading. I urge you to vote in favour of the report tomorrow without last-minute amendments.\nThe Commission now says that there is a need for a political solution. There are some of us who have tried to obtain such a solution. I have sent private letters to the Prime Minister in order to get this matter cleared up politically. His attitude was sympathetic, but no solution was found because officialdom does not want to give way on this matter. What a good thing it is, then, that people have access to a Committee on Petitions to which they can turn when officials are not disposed to listen to them.\nAndris Piebalgs\nMember of the Commission. Madam President, honourable Members, enforcement of rights could be done on the basis of legislation. The Commission has analysed this thoroughly. Unfortunately I cannot add anything further, even after this very professional debate.\nAt the same time, I could also say that the report will be a reference document for future Community action in this field.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Iran (vote) \n- Resolution: Iran (RC B6-0406\/2007)\n- Before the vote on paragraph 15\nMarios Matsakis\nMadam President, I ask for your leniency, and that of my colleagues, in submitting a last-minute oral amendment on account of the fact that we have just been informed of the arrest of a prominent human rights defender in Iran. The amendment is to add to paragraph 15 the following sentence: 'Condemns the arrest and imprisonment of human rights defender Dr Sohrab Razzaghi on 24 October 2007 and calls for his immediate and unconditional release;'\nI have already spoken with most of the other political groups, and they are in agreement.\n(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":2,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Advanced therapy medicinal products (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001\/83\/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726\/2004 C6-0401\/2005.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nMr President, honourable Members, I am very glad that we are able today to talk about the regulation on medicinal products for advanced therapies, which has been long awaited, and is of enormous importance to innumerable sick people in Europe, to many of whom these new therapies offer hope of new and life-saving treatment. I am not talking here about the common cold, but about such conditions as cancer, Parkinson's disease, AIDS, and other dreadful scourges. So far, no single legal framework has been put in place, with the consequence that many patients are not in a position to benefit from the treatments that are available, or they end up being prescribed medications that are not safe. By means of this regulation, we are preparing the way for easier and safer access to the ones that will save their lives.\nThe proposal is also of great importance for Europe as a centre for research. With things as they stand at present, European researchers and manufacturers - who are often small and medium-sized enterprises - can neither grow nor hold their own in international competition.\nLet me now say something about the legislative process. While it is self-evidently a matter for your House as to how the procedure is handled, I would, however, ask you to bear with me as I appeal to you to come to a decision and to refrain from dragging the process out any longer, in view of the need to create unambiguous conditions for these innovative therapies, for which people have been waiting for so long, and it is for that reason that I am all the more pleased that three groups have put forward a comprehensive compromise package that will make a speedy agreement of that sort possible.\nI am able to say, on behalf of the Commission, that we are able to endorse this package as a whole without any changes needing to be made, and I believe that the Council Presidency, too - although we have yet to hear it say so - is persuaded that the Council will be able to adopt the package as it stands.\nI am perfectly well aware that we are dealing here with a particularly tricky topic, and we must be especially sensitive when considering ethical issues as important as this one, and so let me once again make it clear that our sole intention, with this regulation, is to ensure that patients get safe and effective medicines. There is no other objective in mind.\nThe fact is that the regulation does not actually lay down whether or not medicines are ethically acceptable, and in this respect, we are abiding strictly by the subsidiarity principle, for ethical matters are reserved to the Member States, and we, in the European Union, cannot end up in a situation in which one of them can impose its ethical convictions on another; that is not on. The only thing that is workable is that we leave the ethical issues to the Member States, for that is what we have always done. There is nothing new about it; that is a policy that has been clearly established for many years, and there are many examples of it.\nIt follows, then, that the proposal neither compels the licensing of ethically problematic technologies at national level nor prohibits them from being used throughout Europe; the proposal goes no further than respecting decisions taken at national level. The important principle that donations of organs and tissue must be voluntary and unpaid applies as a matter of course, and is already enshrined in other legal acts. Reiterating it in this proposal would therefore be superfluous.\nWhat we should do, whatever happens, is lay down common safety standards for such products. I do not think there is any argument by which we might justify acceptance of a standard of protection that varied from one Member State to another, which - among other things - would result only in patients and their various diseases travelling the length and breadth of Europe.\nDespite the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs, then, we should not remove ethically problematic products - those derived from embryonic stem cells, for example - from the scope of the regulation.\nLet me say once more - and I do so in all seriousness - that today presents us with a unique political opportunity to adopt a regulation for which sick people in Europe, and the European medicines industry, have been waiting for a long time. It is because this is an opportunity that we cannot allow ourselves to miss that I ask all the Members of the European Parliament to endorse the compromise package submitted by Mrs Roth-Behrendt, Mrs Ries and Mr Adamo on behalf of their groups, and to reject other motions. If this regulation is adopted, it will promote innovation, make our research and industry more competitive, and, above all, help to save lives and deliver people from grave suffering; all these things you can bring to pass by endorsing this package.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik \nrapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to address you today as the rapporteur on the proposal for a regulation on advanced therapy medicinal products. Furthermore, as a medical doctor, I should like to address the progress in medicine of highly specific medicinal products emerging onto the European market to treat patients with the diseases enumerated by the Commissioner.\nI should like to seize this opportunity to thank the Commission for its proposal. The time has come to treat patients with products which are safe, efficient and based on non-controversial grounds.\nSince the beginning of 2006, the European Parliament has been working hard on this proposal with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Legal Affairs. The final report was adopted by a large majority. There is a broad consensus within Parliament that the report by the Committee on the Environment, as presented for the vote in this House, is excellent. All stakeholders, representatives of both the bioindustry and of patient groups welcomed it after its adoption last January.\nLast week three Members of Parliament, on behalf of their political groups - Socialists, Liberals and GUE - tabled a number of amendments presented as a so-called compromise with the Council and the Commission. This individual action was undertaken without the knowledge of the rapporteur.\nI would like to underline that no agreement was reached with the other two institutions at the end of the informal trialogue that took place last month. Ninety per cent of these amendments are a copy-and-paste of the committee report with cosmetic changes. The most relevant are the 10%. These amendments concerning the more sensitive political issues are the result of an individual initiative of three of our colleagues. As they mentioned in their letter last week, the interinstitutional agreement has not been finalised. Furthermore, many of the amendments presented in the package do not have the support of the committee responsible, the other two committees nor of the rapporteur. Therefore, I should like to urge all my colleagues to support the responsible report by the Committee on the Environment in the vote on Wednesday.\nIn order to speed up the legislative procedure, the informal trialogue with the Council and the Commission took place last month. The three meetings showed discrepancies. From a substantial point of view, several politically sensitive questions have not been solved. From the point of view of procedure, the question was raised of the two amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs which were directly incorporated into the report under the enhanced cooperation procedure. As the main rapporteur, I have tried to underline that the remit of that committee should be respected. In spite of the clear provisions in the Rules of Procedure on enhanced cooperation between parliamentary committees, colleagues from the two other institutions and some shadow rapporteurs refused to consider these amendments in the light of the first reading agreement. Apparently, enhanced cooperation is respected only when it suits certain colleagues. It is welcomed in files such as REACH, but as far as advanced therapies are concerned. Some go even further and misuse the voice of patients' groups, declaring that the enhanced cooperation procedure is undemocratic.\nI would like to raise one aspect of the proposal which still worries me: the principle of subsidiarity. In its fully harmonising proposal, the Commission introduces an op-out for Member States to apply their restrictive national legislation concerning certain contentious products. In practice, this would mean that certain products would not have access to the market of all Member States. Following the opinion of our Legal Service, this provision presents serious problems of incompatibility with the legal bases and could therefore be annulled by the European Court of Justice. If this is the case, this regulation would become a fully-harmonising measure for all products including those prohibited in some Member States. Here, the two amendments from the Committee on Legal Affairs bring legal certainty by excluding from the scope products containing or derived from embryonic stem cells.\nAs rapporteur, I have to respect the diversity of 27 sets of legislation relating to embryonic stem cell research, from the complete freedom of research to the prohibition of killing embryos for research purposes. If we do not support the amendments from the Committee on Legal Affairs, this regulation would de facto promote the development of products derived from embryonic stem cells, although this might be considered as ethically unacceptable by citizens and Member States.\nAs an elected representative of this House, I have the responsibility to listen to all opinions, to marry positions and to propose to our citizens a text which can be considered as modern, progressive and respecting universal principles and values such as human dignity. I welcome the tone of the recent Berlin Declaration regarding European values, as well as the programme of the President of the European Parliament, who stated that the question of human dignity is at the core of his and of our approach when voting on European legislation.\nGiles Chichester \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to thank the Commissioner for his remarks about this proposal and report. I warmly support them.\nI should also like to state quite clearly that my committee, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, supports this proposal and hopes that it will go forward smoothly. So we share that objective.\nNext I would like to remind colleagues that the interest groups - the patient groups who are most likely to be affected by this measure and to benefit from it - strongly support the measure. I regularly see reports in the press of exciting new therapies and developments in this field, but usually they are in the USA and not in Europe, which is to our loss.\nI would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his work, but I have to respectfully disagree with him with regard to the two amendments from the Committee on Legal Affairs which seemed to me, and to many on my committee, to be pushing in exactly the opposite, retrogressive direction to that of this proposal. So I join in supporting the compromise package which has been put forward, particularly by my distinguished colleague Mrs Roth-Behrendt, not least because independent observers tell me that this package is in line with the ITRE Committee's position. So naturally I support it.\n(Interjection from Mrs Breyer: 'Are you speaking for the committee or on your own behalf?')\nI am speaking for the committee, Madam; I am speaking in my turn, and you should wait for yours.\nI would like to remind everybody that the world around us is changing technologically, socially (although manners may not be changing), scientifically, and, as we can see in this report, biomedically. We must not deny the patients of the future the therapies of tomorrow.\nHiltrud Breyer \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. - (DE) Mr President, before I speak for the committee, I should like to point out an error to Commissioner Verheugen. I think it is improper that he should give the impression that those who tabled the compromise had made sure it would make rapid progress; the very opposite was the case, for it was those individuals who put forward the compromise who voted 'no' in the first vote in the committee.\nNow, though, for what I have to say on behalf of the committee. The Rules of Procedure give the committee a most prominent role in the treatment of ethical issues, and I trust that everyone here accepts that - not just the Council and the Commission, but also many Members of this House, none of whom, I hope, are seeking to deny the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs their authority in matters of law. We have considered this report in very great depth and adopted a multitude of amendments, two of which in particular - I am referring to Amendments 3 and 17 - were referred directly to the plenary in accordance with the enhanced procedure and are extremely important.\nThe committee calls for the reference to embryonic stem cells to be deleted, but why? As you know, the Court of Justice's interpretation of Article 95 is that a fully harmonised measure must not allow derogations for Member States, so, it being a matter of doubt as to whether the article would stand up to the Court's scrutiny, the committee has therefore proposed a precise wording supplementary to Article 28; that alone makes for legal certainty and clarity and is, most important of all, capable of standing up in the European Court of Justice.\nJohn Bowis\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, as the Commissioner has said, it is an exciting time in medical research. We are on the verge of new breakthroughs, and the root for these is the development of advanced therapies, using gene and cell therapies and tissue engineering.\nGene therapy and somatic cell therapy products are already being clinically tested. Some of the tissue engineering products are already with us. This proposal is there to ensure that we deal with a complex issue in a sensible and universal way, through central authorisation so that we can pool scarce expertise at Community level, ensure the highest standards of patient safety across the EU and enable access to the European market and thus to all patients. That is what it is all about and on that basis, I welcome my honourable friend's report and congratulate him on the work that he did, not only in bringing the report through our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety but in the subsequent work he has done negotiating with the Presidency in the trialogue. We needed to look at various issues: the hospital issue, the small and medium enterprise issue, the medical devices issue. Of course, with this comes a number of ethical issues and those are important. However, my belief is that the EU's job is to guarantee safety and efficacy, and Member States should take the ethical decisions.\nI believe that is where we will conclude on this important measure. We now have to look very carefully at the options before us in the votes on Wednesday to make sure that we take something through which has the wholehearted support of this House.\nDagmar Roth-Behrendt\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I shall say just two sentences about the substance of the matter in hand - with which all of us present here are familiar - and would then like to say something about the procedure.\nThousands of patients right across the European Union are waiting in desperation for new kinds of therapy that might alleviate their suffering or even save their lives. To all those who think certain categories of therapy have to be excluded, in whatever country and with whatever laws being in force, I say, once more, here and now, what I said in the committee, and yes, I do mean it: you are cynical, you are irresponsible, and you should be ashamed of yourselves; now take your ideas and put them to the patients - face to face. Mrs Breyer is not squeamish either, so you can say it to her as well.\nI should now like to say something about the procedure.\nI will do this in English so that Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik will understand me directly. Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik spoke about tabling amendments without the knowledge of the rapporteur. It is not necessarily usual that one clears it with the rapporteur, Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik. I would have loved to do that with you, but you stopped cooperating at an early stage in the trialogues.\nI want to read out what we - Mrs Ries, Mr Adamou and others here - did, so that everybody is clear.\nWe tabled a package of 75 amendments. 32 are exactly identical to the amendments from the committee; 18 amendments are slight linguistic changes; 10 amendments are working on a compromise which you and I already agreed on before you stopped cooperating, and 15 amendments are linguistic or legal concerns. That is the situation we are in at the moment.\nI now want to add something concerning what you said before on the interinstitutional agreement. I think we should just have a result as soon as possible. Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, you also said that we should have a first-reading agreement. I agree, because thousands of people are waiting for it.\nI am very grateful to the Commission and to the Council, who really supported us in reaching a result. From my point of view, they have come as close to Parliament's positions as they could - going further than I have seen before and further than I expected them to go.\nNaturally, Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, we compromised, you compromised and I compromised. In fact I made a compromise as regards your group's position on hospital exemptions and other things, because I thought, as some of you think, we should have a strong, safe regulation which makes sure that patients get the best scientific support and the best therapies in safe surroundings.\nAs regards the so-called 'ethical' amendments, yes, Member States who want to ban the use of foetal stem cells should be allowed to do so, and, Mrs Breyer, everybody who says that the Court of Justice would deny that and would put it under Article 95 is either not knowledgeable - which you are not - and then giving the wrong impression, I am afraid. If you read Article 30 of the Treaty, you are exactly sure that it says that public morality is always a reason to make sure that a Member State can ban something. And that is what happened in the past. That is what is happening at the moment in the European Union. We have always said that those Member States who allow research on it could continue.\nHowever, the patients also deserve the right to have the safest, best products available, and that is why I tabled an amendment on subsidiarity, to make sure of that again. That amendment is in the package. It says that every Member State which thinks a product should not even be produced there, nor marketed, should be allowed to ban it. In other Member States, the patients should have the freedom to obtain it. That is what we are here for.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries\nMr President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, given that the rapporteur has already done so at length, I do not wish to launch into a detailed description of advanced therapies. I shall merely reiterate the point that this is an extremely promising area of research and medicine, offering real solutions for people with third-degree burns, patients suffering from venous ulcers, diabetes, hereditary diseases and cardiovascular diseases, offering hope, too, for Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, and offering a solution finally, one day perhaps, to the tragic shortage of organs, which results in the deaths each year in Europe of thousands of patients awaiting donations.\nIn other words, there are countless numbers of patients - millions of them - who are awaiting this regulation. It is not just patients who are awaiting it, but businesses in this sector, too, for, quite apart from the quality, safety and effectiveness of the products, quite apart from the need to make them accessible to everyone, without discrimination, the idea here, with this text, as the Commissioner pointed out, is also that we stimulate research and innovation. Well, on three occasions already, those seeking to impose on us their vision of ethics and morality - and the rapporteur is one of them - have delayed and are still delaying the adoption of this regulation: in committee, in the informal trialogue - as my fellow Member, Mrs Roth-Behrendt pointed out just now - and perhaps again on Wednesday, I fear, with a request for referral of the report.\nAt the heart of the controversy and the deadlock are medicines made from embryonic or foetal stem cells, which the rapporteur wants to exclude from the centralised procedure and thus leave outside the scope of this legislation. Things must be made clear, as clear as our Amendment 62, which is in the package, and validated by the legal services of the three institutions, I should also like to point out: the Member States and they alone will decide which research and which products will be available on their territory. Nothing will be imposed on them that contravenes their national legislation on ethical matters. That is indeed, I believe, the definition of subsidiarity, and those who intend, in the name of subsidiarity - it is quite a feat, after all - to ban these products throughout Europe and prevent countries that want them from making progress, puzzle me. For that reason, I formally reject Amendments 3 and 17 tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs, together with the package of amendments endorsed by Mr Gargani and others.\nLadies and gentlemen, the choice is simple, after all. Our credibility is at stake here, as is, I would say in passing, the consistency of our work and of our decisions. I would remind you that, last June, we were authorising the funding of research into embryonic stem cells in the seventh framework programme for research. I urge you today to support this compromise package tabled by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Confederal Group of the European United Left\/European United Left. Something that has not yet been said is that this package also has the support of a number of MEPs from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and, contrary to what was explained by the rapporteur, it is accepted by the Commission and by the Council. This package solves all of the technical issues; it is a compromise that makes it clear that it is not Europe's role to legislate on ethics, because, ladies and gentlemen, if the next few years are to be characterised by all manner of revolutions, it is up to us to give meaning to them, and to offer hope, not destroy it.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, despite the tremendous efforts made by Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, the rapporteur, there may be significant weaknesses in our position on advanced therapies. If the ethical amendments package is not supported, adequate guarantees will not be provided for countries that do not wish to destroy human life for therapeutic purposes. Guarantees for human dignity may also be lacking. Human dignity is currently under threat from the commercialisation of the human body, interference with the individual's genetic heritage and the possibility of creating animal-human hybrids.\nEurope is right to set human rights standards for the world, even though this sometimes seems a hopeless task. The question arises as to why we adopt such a passive stance with regard to biotechnology and advanced therapies? We may be forced to give in twice. Without a clear ban on the commercialisation of the human body we risk being forced to give in to the market, which will handle trade in cells. Without a clear ban on interfering with an individual's genetic heritage we risk being forced to give in to a cruel, eugenic and inhuman philosophy. Such a philosophy always gives precedence to the quality of life over its inalienable value and dignity. We should be ashamed that Asia is now setting standards for the European Union in this area. The legislation in question cannot be endorsed without the ethical amendments package.\nHiltrud Breyer\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, the vote, the day after tomorrow, will put to the test how seriously we take the Berlin Declaration, which had a lot to say about values, and of whether we are willing to express those values in European law, or whether they are only empty words and a waste of paper.\nThere are three principles that we see as indispensable. One is that the human body should not be exploited for commercial gain, and I have to tell Commissioner Verheugen that this is not laid down elsewhere; nowhere, in fact, is this principle laid down and made binding in law. I am amazed at the aggressiveness with which some seek to prevent it from being so.\nSecondly, we do not want any interference in human beings' genetic identity: we do not want tailor-made human beings. Not only is that laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but it is also present in the bio-patent directive. We do not want the choice of treatment to be determined by people's wallets any more than we want, in the future, modifications of genetic material that would no longer be reversible.\nNor do we want monsters and hybrids; what we want is for these things to be quite explicitly banned. Were this House to unite against these three ethical principles, it would send a devastating message and would, indeed, in moral terms, represent a breach in the dam.\nSince it is intolerable that na\u00efve hopes and false promise of cures for conditions with which embryo therapies have next to nothing to do should be used as a means of sending this House down slippery ethical slopes, we must instead send out a clear signal for European values and ensure that ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nAdamos Adamou\nMr President, Commissioner, I too should like to take my turn in emphasising that the purpose of this proposal is not to harmonise questions of ethics or morals; it is for the national competence of the Member States to be respected as regards whether or not sensitive products are used.\nSuch decisions must be taken on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity and must remain within the national competence of each Member State. The personal, moral and ethical views of each of us must not conflict with this approach, especially as each Member State will be responsible for deciding which type of products it will allow to be imported and which not. The crucial question is whether or not we agree that Europe should decide which products we shall market and which we must ban. My answer is no.\nLet me now remind you of the package of amendments - Amendments 82 to 156 - which also reflects the six months of consultations and attempts to reach a compromise with the Council and the European Commission. Our objective is to reach a compromise at first reading, which is what is wanted by most of the associations of patients whose lives, in many cases, depend on a leading edge medicinal product. In short, the immediate application of the regulation would mean easier, faster and safer therapies for European patients. Europe needs this regulation and it needs it now.\nJohannes Blokland\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, imagine someone who is in financial difficulty and who is racking their brains to find a way of making ends meet. They decide to sell tissue and cells of their body for payment in order to eke out a living. This situation is conceivable if we exclude the ban on the commercialisation of the human body from the scope of this regulation. I would argue in favour of backing the amendment in this respect, not least to remain in line with the Oviedo Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.\nI am also extremely anxious about the technical scope in the area of medicinal products modifying the human germ line as well as those derived from human-animal hybrids, as these techniques greatly affect human dignity. Moreover, there are major differences in opinion among the various Member States. I therefore hope that we can keep these products outside the scope of this regulation out of continued respect for the dignity of the human body and for the choices of the individual Member States. We would, in my view, also reinforce the principle of subsidiarity by keeping these products outside of the regulation's scope. Since the regulation's legal basis is Article 95, which deals with the internal market, it appears possible, as the proposal is worded at the moment, for legal entities to bring charges before the Court against a national ban on medicinal products that are authorised at European level and to win their case. This is something that must be avoided.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate\n(FR) Mr President, this evening we are debating a particularly important advance, which should enable future generations to benefit from high-technology medical treatments. European patients therefore need to be able to have access to these revolutionary products, on a non-discriminatory basis, because of the potential that they offer. It is also important to guarantee that these products are safe and effective.\nThe fact is that, without Community legislation, the situation varies from one country to another and is unfair for patients: some have access to products, when others have to go without. As you yourself said, Commissioner, in a situation such as this, there will be medical tourism. Therefore, if we are to overcome these obstacles, we need a clear, strict, framework encouraging investment and the growth of the biotech industry in Europe.\nThe technical section is therefore totally pointless in this context since, on account of subsidiarity, each Member State has the freedom to decide whether or not to ban this type of cell technology on its national market.\nI particularly support the technical package that Mrs Roth-Behrendt has tabled in the form of amendments and that takes up all of the points of agreement that were reached during the various informal trialogues with the Council and the Commission. I truly hope that we vote in favour of this technical package because, by doing so, we will be able to reach an agreement at first reading and to fulfil patients' expectations quicker.\nI absolutely regret Amendments 3 and 17 tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs. They simply prohibit any form of centralised authorisation for advanced therapy medicinal products derived from embryonic stem cells. I should like to point out that the aim of this text is to guarantee the safety of new therapies, while facilitating research and development and the authorisation of products derived from these advanced therapies. Amendments 3 and 17 put patients' safety in real danger by excluding certain products from the very strict public heath requirements laid down by the regulation.\nWhen patients' safety is at stake, any form of discrimination is unacceptable. The implementation of a European technical framework, which patients and the industry have been awaiting for several years now, must not serve as a pretext for imposing any particular ideological point of view.\nProinsias De Rossa\nMr President, I would like to thank those Members who participated in the detailed processing of this regulation. It is extremely important that issues as sensitive and complex as this are dealt with under the codecision procedure. It reassures our citizens, whose national parliaments cannot vary a regulation, to see their MEPs engaged in preparing balanced and effective legislation which seeks to enhance their lives.\nThe therapies which this regulation seeks to deal with have great potential for treating cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Regrettably, and not unexpectedly, some reactionary elements are falsely claiming that this proposal overrides Member States' rights on ethical issues. They want to exclude products derived from embryonic stem cells from the scope of this regulation. The effect of doing so would be to leave such products unregulated in many parts of Europe as regards their safety, quality and efficacy.\nContrary to these wild claims, the regulation does not circumscribe a Member State's right to refuse to countenance embryo, stem-cell-based therapies. Indeed I would deplore such a ban by any Member State. This regulation is about saving life and about enhancing the quality of life, not its destruction - as is being claimed by some in this House tonight. We owe it to tens of thousands of patients and their families to do everything we can to encourage and make available the most advanced treatments for some of the most intractable illnesses facing our societies today. We also need to guarantee insofar as we can that they are safe and of the highest quality and that they actually work. This is what this regulation seeks to do.\nI fully support the PSE Group's position and call on all Members - and indeed I would particularly call on all my Irish colleagues - to support this regulation.\nMarios Matsakis\nMr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God's real wishes for mankind.\nSuch misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages' comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone's life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child's cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?\nUrszula Krupa\n(PL) (text missing) and advances in biotechnology and biomedicine lead to the development of therapies described as advanced, including gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and genetic engineering, all of which should aim at preventing disease and improving the state of human health. What has happened, however, is that experimental technology has been used to create animal-human hybrids and chimeras. It has also been applied in cloning and in experiments to change the genetic heritage of individuals. Techniques of this nature infringe ethical principles, and they are also problematic from a medical point of view. They can cause side effects as they have a negative impact on health and they lead to the commercialisation of the human body.\nThe situation is aggravated by the intense competition between medical and pharmaceutical concerns. It is not the first time this has led to the production of medicines or the use of D therapies with dramatic side effects.\nRejection of the amendments banning immoral practices reveals the irresponsibility of people who endanger the health and even the life of those they should be helping by condoning disregard for human dignity. At the same time, solutions at European level can be a way of forcing acceptance by those who do not agree with infringing moral principles. This amounts to a distortion of values and to putting the brakes on scientific research that complies with the principles of respect for human dignity.\nPeter Liese\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we should be clear in our own minds about the fact that all those who have given their attention to this regulation want to help patients; Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik is a doctor, and so am I. Even though we may take a different line on some amendments, you should not take that as indicating any opposition to helping the sick. Speaking personally, I do agree with Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik and with the amendments from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market that have now been brought back in by Mr Gargani, Mr Morillon, Mrs Auken and others, which - and this is something you need to know, too - represent the position taken by the overwhelming majority of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, as determined by a vote we took last Wednesday.\nI would like to turn to a subject that has not featured in this debate so far, but is very important if we want to know how we can create the right conditions for the companies that want to help patients. There is at present a whole array of small and medium-sized enterprises that are already carrying out treatments in hospitals, whether the people treated are in-patients or outpatients. Quite some time ago, these firms came to me and told me that, if the regulation goes through unamended and without easier arrangements for small and medium-sized businesses under national licensing schemes, they would no longer be able to offer those services.\nThat, rather than this or that promise of miracle cures, is what we need to bear in mind - the real live businesses that are there today helping patients and who say that the proposal for a Commission regulation is not as good as it is made out to be. Nor does the so-called compromise package offer the small and medium-sized businesses a proper solution for their problem.\nAmendment 127 provides for SMEs working in tandem with a hospital to be exempted from the requirement for a European license. SMEs working outside hospitals, though, and facing fewer risks, are obliged to go to London to get their licences, incurring many charges and having a complicated process to go through. As one Member of this House always says, there are times when consensus becomes nonsensical, and this is one of them, thanks to those who cobbled together this so-called compromise.\nCommissioner Verheugen said that we are not talking about ethics. He went on to say that the principle that the human body must not become a commodity has been complied with. What now, then? Are we going to talk about it or are we not? If the principle has been taken into account, then a European regulation on the subject exists, and, that being so, we have to examine whether or not it is any good. Having been a rapporteur on this, I know that this House wanted more stringent regulation, but, back then, the Commission said no, citing the legal basis. The legal basis has now changed, and so you ought at the least to think up a proper justification, rather than simply saying that the matter has been taken care of.\nWe need this regulation; I am all for us getting it, and have been so for the past five years. For three of them, it was on ice in the Commission - not, admittedly, on Commissioner Verheugen's watch, but the Commission does nevertheless bear responsibility for this three-year delay. Mrs Roth-Behrendt, Mrs Ries and others bear responsibility for another six months' delay, having rejected the report back in September. Now you are giving us another month in which this House has to talk the matter through in proper parliamentary fashion.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nJorgo Chatzimarkakis\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the regulation we are discussing today is indeed urgent and of particular importance, dealing as it does with advanced therapies, across-the-board quality standards, the more rapid availability of high-quality products, and, ultimately, the competitiveness of European businesses.\nI therefore want to congratulate those Members who had a hand in putting together the compromises; that was the right thing to do, and it was done at the right time. I, too, find this or that part of it indigestible, particularly those that have to do with small and medium-sized enterprises, which the compromise package rather tends to disregard, but this is one of those times when we all have to make a superhuman effort for the sake of coherence, in order that we might achieve uniformity of regulation, and, not least with the Seventh Research Framework Programme in mind. To be sure, this does have to do with ethics, but it is also about the way in which different ethical standards collide and the challenge that that presents us with. At the end of the day, though, it is about people, and they should come first.\nWhat we are fighting about is the prevention of suffering, and that is why I should like to congratulate the Presidency of the Council, for I know, Mr Schroeder, that you too have done the seemingly impossible, and that is why I find so much of the hysteria, indulged in by the Greens in particular, quite incomprehensible.\nKathy Sinnott\nMr President, last month the Ukrainian Prime Minister came to the European Parliament. In a discussion in committee, I asked him about the trade in human body parts, especially of infants before and after birth. The Prime Minister acknowledged this gruesome trade and called it painful. He reminded me that it also included embryos. He said the problem was not only Ukrainian sellers but also the wealthy international buyers\nHe asked for our help to end this form of human trafficking. Our help. Tomorrow's vote will determine whether we have any help to give. If we uphold the ban on commercialisation and if we exclude human embryos from the scope of this directive, then we will be able to do something about the wealthy buyers within the EU. If, however, we give the green light to commercialisation and destruction of embryos, not only will we be unable to help Ukraine with the buyers who keep the trade alive, but we will also cause the same painful situation in the EU, whereby those who are desperate for money are exploited for their body parts to benefit those who are rich enough to pay for them.\nAntonios Trakatellis\n(EL) Mr President, this regulation is needed and it is needed quickly, because medicine has advanced, progress is being made and there are also high hopes of innovative therapies.\nI do not think that anything should be exempted. Everything must be included in this regulation and the reason is very simple and very practical: does anyone believe that, if in the European Union we ban the licensing of certain innovative therapies which have been approved elsewhere, the citizens of Europe will not go and find these therapies? I, of course, much prefer central licensing. The only thing that I personally am calling for at the moment - and I think that the regulation covers this - is a strict scientific evaluation of these innovative therapies and full safety. Apart from that, if we fragment and stop licensing by each Member State, just imagine what will happen in the European Union. We shall have Member States which will have allowed it and Member States which will not have allowed it.\nMoreover, as many speakers said, no one is prohibiting any Member State from allowing or banning something which has been licensed. Consequently, I do not understand why there is all this debate, when the world is waiting for new therapies, when there are chronic illnesses and when patients' hopes are very high. I do not think that we should be the obstacle to a future cure for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, certain types of cancer and so on.\nI therefore think that we should go ahead and vote for the regulation, as tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and, of course, I am against the two amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs.\nP\u00e9ter Olajos\n(HU) Every time we begin talking about advanced therapy medicinal products, stem cell or embryonic cell therapies, or embryo research or organ transplantation, vehement debate inevitably ensues. Our points of view differ widely, regardless of age, sex, nationality or political convictions, a sure sign of the complexity of the question.\nIt is no small undertaking to have decided to draw up a piece of legislation that seeks to provide a unified regulation of this border area between ethics and science. For these therapies and medicines increasingly represent life and death. By using, or by not using them, either way we are making decisions about human lives. Advanced therapy means life for many thousands of European citizens. It is the last ray of hope offering the prospect of a healthier, fuller life.\nIn the developing world, however, it can mean death, since the illegal trade in organs is already causing the maiming and death of thousands of people. At the same time, our goal cannot be to stop the development of technology. What can, however, be our goal is to find answers to the moral and ethical questions raised by technical advances. We need the current legislation to point the way, to help ensure that technical development means an affirmation of life. This is not a question of the struggle between good and evil, but of what is technically possible and yet ethically permissible.\nI owe Mr Mikola\u0161ik and my other colleagues gratitude for the fine compromise they have prepared, and trust that the legislation to be brought into effect by our votes will be on the side of life.\nJohn Purvis\nMr President, there are many European families with members suffering from serious diseases. There are also many medical researchers and therapists with the means to help those patients, and they are all waiting for this important piece of legislation. It will provide the common legislative framework which will make these innovative therapies more readily, more widely and more safely available. It is urgently required, it will be of great benefit and there is no reason for delaying its implementation by loading it with unnecessary ethical provisos and carve-outs that are impossible to agree with the Council.\nIt has been firmly established that ethical restrictions are properly within the power of individual Member States if they wish to limit or forbid. Subsidiarity is the essential rule. But there is every reason to have a European standard for regulating the safe use of such therapies where they are used. So I ask my colleagues, and particularly my good friend the rapporteur, to let this vitally important piece of legislation proceed this week, so that agreement with the Council can be reached.\nMany of our less fortunate fellow Europeans will thank us when this legislation comes into effect, but they will have great difficulty understanding if it is further delayed, emasculated or stopped altogether by this Parliament. This is one of those occasions when it is really important for us to exercise our powers carefully and responsibly and let this matter be finalised.\nCarlo Casini\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can say that I agree with the rapporteur and therefore am also in favour of the two points included in Amendments 3 and 17, in line with the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, as well as all the amendments proposed by that committee.\nSomeone said that they did not understand why this debate was so heated. It is heated because it has to answer two important questions. The first one is, 'Does the end justify the means?' I recall that in Article 2 of the Oviedo Convention on bioethics we wrote that the interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science. The first question is therefore as follows: 'In view of the fact that science is capable of crossing new boundaries, should we always do what science tells us? Does the fact that something can be done make it right, or is there an ethical rule to say whether it is right?'\nThe second question is as follows: 'The human being takes precedence, but what is a human being?' We can no longer ignore this question, which is of momentous, planetary importance, because the whole human rights doctrine, from which everyone claims to draw inspiration, turns on this one point: 'What is a human being?' When we talk about embryos, we need to answer the question of whether an embryo is a human being or not. This is not merely an ethical question, but rather a legal and political one, even more than it is an ethical one. It is not a quibble, either, but a serious question, and it should at least make us hesitate for a moment when we come to vote.\nSince we have already decided that the Member States can do as they see fit, I do not see why a different view of things should be imposed on them through a European regulation. At any rate, I hope my speech will make my fellow Members think carefully about a complex issue that involves human beings - not just those human beings who are hoping for new kinds of treatment, but also those whose bodies and very lives might be sacrificed for the sake of others.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\n(PL) Mr President, essentially, the draft we are debating concerns the introduction of a centralised procedure whereby the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products could issue authorisation for the marketing of advanced therapy medicinal products. The European Commission also wishes to ensure financial support for the firms manufacturing these products.\nThese proposals are worthy of support, or rather, they would be worthy of support if it were not for the fact that products that could be developed using controversial technologies have been included amongst advanced therapy products. I refer to products created using human embryos, or developed from animal-human hybrids or chimeras, and also to pharmaceuticals that change the genetic heritage of human beings.\nSeveral European Union Member States such as Germany do not allow products developed using unethical methods onto their markets. The Commission's proposal contains an exclusion which would allow these states to opt out of the principle of a common market in the case of these controversial products. It is now being stated that there is a legal error affecting both the draft currently under debate and the 2001 directive. Supporters of that view argue that pursuant to Article 95 of the Treaty, which aims at full harmonisation of the market, citing it as a legal basis for a draft regulation on advanced therapy products implies creating an open European market for these products.\nThe European Parliament therefore found itself in a situation in which it had to choose between going along with the European Commission's draft or exercising caution and not condoning controversial experiments. Members of Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs were opposed to the idea of including unethical products in the regulation, arguing that regardless of Member States' rights and despite rapid progress in certain areas no compromises concerning human rights can be permitted. They maintained that the principles banning the use of the human body for commercial purposes must be upheld, and that creating animal-human hybrids or chimeras amounts to an infringement of the principle of human integrity and an affront to human dignity.\nKlaus Theo Schr\u00f6der\nMr President, honourable Members, you will, on Wednesday, be voting on the regulation on medicinal products for advanced therapies, which has since early 2006 been promoted initially by the Austrian Presidency of the Council and then by its Finnish counterparts, and we have, since the beginning of this year, done everything in our power to bring about agreement without delay. The regulation aims, in the highly-innovative and extremely important area of medicine production, to protect all the patients who need those medical products, and to do so by means of quality standards that are uniform across Europe. The need for high-quality products for everyone in Europe means that it is true to say, as some of you have, that what is on the agenda today is in fact life itself, improved quality of life and the chance of new life. What is also on the agenda, and not least in importance, is the competitiveness of the European biotechnology sector.\nIn negotiations on the regulation in the Council working party, aimed not least at achieving agreement with your House, it has proved possible, over recent weeks, to make decisive progress, and it is on these negotiations, which take into consideration a very large number of amendments drafted by experts and submitted by the lead committees, that the prospects for a good compromise, and also a rapid agreement between the Council and Parliament, depended, and still do depend; as the negotiations currently stand, agreement is possible on the basis of that which is to be the subject of Wednesday's vote. The rapporteur has submitted a parcel of amendments, and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and the Group of the European United Left have drafted their own sets of them. Both packages draw to the fullest possible extent on the debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and on the amendments drafted by it, and are therefore close to one another, although it is clear that it is the package produced by the shadow rapporteurs of the named groups on which agreement is possible at Council level.\nHowever great our differences in debate, it strikes me as essential that it be stressed that what this is all, primarily, about is the quality and safety of these new and advanced therapeutic products. Clear though it is that ethical considerations have a part to play in these deliberations, there has, ever since the cells and tissues directive was resolved upon, been agreement to the effect that we in Europe see ethics as subject to subsidiarity and hence as something for which the Member States bear responsibility, and it is for this reason that two ethically-motivated amendments proposed by your House's Committee on Legal Affairs could not be agreed to by the Council working party and would represent a definite obstacle to agreement between the Council and your House. The German Presidency strongly asks you to bear this in mind when the time comes for you to vote.\nApplication of the subsidiarity principle ensures that national legislation - and I would draw Mrs Breyer's attention to the example of stem cells - is not touched by the regulation. It is not we who have stated that, but rather the Committee on Legal Affairs of your own House that has made that clear, so that, for example, my own country's legislation on stem cells is not affected, while, on the other hand, the regulation gives all the others the highest possible degree of certainty.\nCertain among you have - and quite rightly - had comments to make on the ethical framework, with warnings as to what might come to pass. I certainly share your misgivings, and I am quite sure that the Member States are taking them into account already; moreover, I know of no doctors in this Europe of ours who would do the things that some of you have so graphically described today. In view of the importance of the document you have to vote on, which touches upon the future of many patients in this Europe of ours, the German Presidency has a great interest in concluding this legislative process as successfully and speedily as possible. We have a great opportunity to show the public how we are, in a very important field, capable of being very purposeful and consistent in working towards adding European value, and our sense of ethical responsibility leaves us no alternative to a rapid and necessary decision that will be a basis for quality products of high value.\nWe therefore strongly urge you, whatever misgivings some of you may have, to perhaps put these to the backs of your minds in view of the vital and higher objective of getting this regulation in place without delay. For that, we - and in that I include the citizens of Europe and the patients - would owe you the utmost gratitude.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nMr President, honourable Members, if, if in a community of twenty-seven states, there is no consensus on an ethical issue - such as is the case in this instance - then the only way in which civilised people can deal with this state of affairs is with tolerance and respect, for we have to tolerate and respect the views of others.\nI might add that it is also a fact of life for all of us that, while we do well to pay attention to what our consciences tell us, we cannot make that a yardstick for the conduct of others. On this issue, for example, my conscience tells me that I could not take upon myself the responsibility not only for leaving this new medical sector in a legal no-man's land, but also for putting it in a situation in which - in certain parts of Europe at any rate - everything would be possible, with no legal bounds set and no stipulations as to quality. That, then, is why my conscience tells me that we need this regulation.\nMy conscience also tells me that I could not take upon myself the responsibility for saying, to a sick person at death's door, 'here is a medicine that could help you, but there were some ideological objections to it, and so we are not allowed to use it.' My conscience tells me that I do not have the right to do that, and that is why I say to you that the only way in which we can handle this issue is to do as is suggested here, that is to say, to allow those with ethical objections to act accordingly and to allow those without them to do whatever they want to do within the bounds of that which will be permitted by the regulation, which - heaven knows - will not allow everything.\nLet me now say something about some of the arguments that have been adduced today. As regards the principle that the human body should not be exploited for commercial gain, I would say, yes, that is indispensable, and you will find nobody who is more in agreement with that than I am. This principle is already firmly enshrined in the directive on human tissues and cells. The anonymity of donors and recipients, and the altruism of donors, are European principles that must be adhered to, and that is certainly true in this context and is something about which nobody can be in any doubt.\nIt has been said that the Commission proposal is ambiguous, that it is, so to speak, not watertight when it comes to the issue of national prohibitions and their remaining in place, but the representative of the Presidency has already given the answer that needed to be given to that, and all I can do is confirm it. The changes needed in order to take account of the objections raised by your House's legal service are contained in the compromise package, which, as I have already said, the Commission supports, and I want to repeat what Mr Schroeder said, namely that your House's legal service has explicitly stated that these amendments resolve the problem, and that it welcomes that.\nI would like to make it plain that it is a misreading of the Treaty to say that Article 95 - the internal market article, that is - would not guarantee that no products would be licensed that a Member State did not want to see licensed. On this point, the internal market rules are as clear as daylight: every Member State has, at all times, the right to refuse to allow a specific product onto its market on ethical grounds or by reason of public morals; about that there is no doubt. Since we can be certain about the case law, about its practical implications, and about the legal basis afforded by the Treaty on European Union, you really do not have anything to worry about on this score.\nFinally, the technical package has been described as inadequate, and to that I have to say that the Council and the Commission really have been extremely willing to make compromises in order to get this dossier wrapped up early. We did indeed accept the great majority of your House's amendments, particularly as regards small and medium-sized enterprises, in the form, for example, of reductions in charges and derogations from central licensing; all that is in there. That which is in this proposal for legislation goes well beyond what we did earlier, for the Commission has already enacted its own regulation allowing small and medium-sized businesses going through the approval process a reduction in costs of up to 90%, and here too, or so I believe, everything that could be done has been.\nSo, then, let me ask you again to consider whether it is not indeed really high time that this debate were brought to a proper end, with a good outcome for those researching in this field, because they want to help people, and a good outcome for those who depend on these medicines for dear life.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.\nWritten statement (Article 142)\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1 \nin writing. - (SK) We live today in a world of incredible technical progress. But despite the advances that medicine has made, modern diseases still inspire fear. The use of progressive treatments, including gene- and cell-based therapies as well as tissue engineering, are innovative developments that give great hope to patients.\nThere is no doubt about the huge potential of advanced medical therapies when it comes to providing revolutionary cures for serious conditions such as cancer, Parkinson's disease and skin burns, and therefore I welcome the regulation of the European Commission aimed at harmonising procedures in this field across the EU, and ensuring that sufferers have safe cures for these serious ailments.\nThe elimination of barriers on the European market will give patients greater access to existing cures through the Europe-wide licensing of these products.\nHowever, in order to maintain the underlying principles of the internal market and in the interest of its proper functioning, as well as to secure the legal bases, this regulation should apply only to cell-based products that may in the near future be actually introduced on the market and which do not arouse controversy.\nFor this reason it is quite unacceptable to ignore the position of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which is the main body responsible for ethical issues in new technologies in the European Parliament.\nFinally I would like to congratulate rapporteur Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik and thank him for his principled position on ethical matters and for his personal integrity based on the Oviedo Agreement and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. The case of Gilad Shalit\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate about cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure), initially the case of Gilad Shalit (four motions for resolutions).\nBastiaan Belder  \nauthor. - (NL) Mr President, at around 8 o'clock this morning, here in Parliament, I visited the website dedicated to Gilad Shalit and a painful fact immediately caught my eye: for 1355 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes and 37 seconds, Gilad, who has been abducted, has been denied any contact with his father, mother, brother and sister. However, on the same website I also came across a passage from the Book of Jeremiah: 'So there is hope for your descendants, declares the Lord. Your children will return to their own land'. Noam Shalit, who is with us here today, is placing his hope and confidence in you, as well as in the God of Israel, to obtain the release of his precious son.\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating the case of Gilad Shalit. During a special meeting with the Israeli delegation yesterday afternoon, I already assured Noam Shalit that his cause - the release of Gilad Shalit - is our cause, too. Let this debate and this resolution be clear signs of that, which obviously call for follow-up by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs. Yesterday morning, I spoke to Baroness Ashton personally about this. The case of Shalit is our cause, a European cause.\nLadies and gentlemen, please remain loyal to this cause in the coming period as well. I am counting on you. Let Europe make a difference in the Middle East. Together with Noam Shalit and his family, we are looking forward to the fulfilment of the rabbinic prayer for Shalit, psalm 126, verse 1: 'When the Lord brought back the captives to Zion, we were like men who dreamed'.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries\nMr President, Commissioner, Gilad Shalit was 19 years old when he was kidnapped in a Hamas attack near Gaza. Not in Gaza, but in Israel, in a kibbutz where his unit was stationed.\nFor nearly four years, this young man has been living in a cellar; there is no right to receive visitors, no doctor, no lawyer, no mail, no trial and no Geneva Convention for Gilad, nothing. He who is known - wrongly, in fact - as soldier Gilad Shalit was carrying out his military service like all young people in his country.\nHe is a rather shy young man - like his father for that matter, whom we have met on several occasions and whom we have the pleasure of welcoming today again in this Chamber - a young man who loved maths, who loved football and who would have returned to civilian life, of course, had he not been living, for four years now, in a hole, cut off from the world and cut off from his family.\nCommissioner, I do not want to talk to you about politics this afternoon; I do not want to talk to you about the Middle East, conflicts, bargaining or prisoner exchanges. Our Parliament is unanimous today in calling for you to help a young man - a young Israeli, a young Frenchman, a young European - return home.\nThat is why I, together with my fellow authors of this resolution and members of six political groups, Mrs Essayah, Mr CohnBendit, Mr Howitt, Mr Tannock and Mr Belder, who spoke just now, am writing today to Baroness Ashton.\nWe call very strongly for Baroness Ashton, who will travel to Israel and Gaza next Wednesday, to exert all her influence in order to demand the release of Gilad Shalit, the influence with which she is endowed by the mandate of our resolution today, the influence of 500 million European citizens whom we represent in this House.\n(Applause)\nProinsias De Rossa\nauthor. - Mr President, I welcome this cross-party resolution calling for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit held captive since 2006 by the military wing of Hamas. I agree with Gilad's father, who has asked that his son's case be addressed as a humanitarian issue and not be turned into a political football. In the cut and thrust of political debate we must never lose sight of the suffering of both Israeli and Palestinian families whose loved ones have been taken from them in this conflict.\nThe Geneva Conventions must be respected by all sides. It is totally unacceptable that Gilad Shalit has been denied his rights as a prisoner of war to which the Goldstone Report categorically states he is entitled. His family have no information on the state of his health, either physical health or mental health.\nAt the same time, amongst the 7 200 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, also held in breach of the Geneva Conventions, 1 500 are held for an indefinite period and 13 have already served 25 years. Forty-four are children while 23 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council are detained in retaliation for the capture of Gilad Shalit. Again, Goldstone is clear: these detentions of PLC members are contrary to international law.\nI will raise these issues at the Euromed Parliamentary Assembly in Jordan this weekend. I urge Catherine Ashton during her upcoming visit to the region to press the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, including those in Gaza, for the release of Gilad Shalit and of Palestinian children and PLC members and to ensure their safe and early return to their families.\nCharles Tannock\nauthor. - Mr President, Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit has now been held hostage by the Jihadi fanatics of Hamas for over three years. Hamas claims it is a legal actor observing the Geneva Conventions and therefore he is a prisoner of war, but Israel, in my view rightly, regards him as an abductee from the moment he was seized. Irrespective of his legal status and international law, he has been cruelly kept incommunicado in Gaza, deprived of any contact with the outside world and even denied Red Cross access, which the Geneva Conventions mandate. His family has no information about his well-being beyond one video and sporadic indication from Hamas that he is still alive and well.\nIf Hamas has any claim to be taken seriously by the international community, it should at least now show unequivocally that the conditions of his incarceration adhere to international humanitarian laws.\nBut we demand more than that. We demand his immediate and unconditional release. I make no secret of my opposition to dialogue with the terrorists of Hamas, an organisation committed to Israel's annihilation, but, if we are ever to deal with Hamas, it must only be after Gilad Shalit has been liberated from his squalid captivity.\nSari Essayah\nauthor. - Mr President, usually when this House makes a resolution which has even a slight connection with the situation in the Middle East, it is hard to find mutual understanding. That is not so in this case, thanks to the colleagues who have made it possible.\nThe situation of Gilad Shalit is a humanitarian issue and our joint resolution underlines the fact that, since being taken hostage nearly four years ago, he has been kept in an unknown place in Gaza, where he does not enjoy basic rights according to any humanitarian standards, including the third Geneva Convention. It is from this humanitarian perspective that we demand the immediate release of Gilad Shalit. Meanwhile, the minimum requirement is that the Red Cross and Shalit's parents may be allowed to be in contact with him.\nThe value of a human person cannot be measured. It is immeasurable. Gilad Shalit should not be made a bargaining chip by the terrorist organisation Hamas but should be released immediately. This is the message that we would like the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, to take with her to Gaza during her forthcoming visit.\nTakis Hadjigeorgiou\nauthor. - (EL) Mr President, yesterday I and other members attended a meeting at which Shalit's father was present and I should like to say that it is impossible not to be affected by this family's tragedy. That is why our position is that Gilad Shalit, a member of the Israeli armed forces arrested in Israeli territory on 24 June 2006, meets the criteria for him to be considered a prisoner-of-war under the Third Geneva Convention.\nAs such, he should be given humanitarian treatment and be allowed to communicate. The International Red Cross should be allowed to visit him and his family should have every right to be informed of his situation and, of course, to visit him. At the same time, we express our belief and our desire that this person will be released.\nHowever, without wishing in any way to detract from what I have said so far, I believe that our position that this issue can be differentiated from a series of other Palestinians in gaol is somewhat apolitical. Their presence in these gaols is also a humanitarian issue. I believe that we are giving false hopes to this family if we think that, by focusing, as a Parliament, solely on the release of this particular person, for whom I repeat our demand that he be released, we shall achieve something.\nIs the fact that dozens of 16-year-old Palestinian children are in gaol not a humanitarian issue? How can you differentiate between these two issues? We cannot not mention the fact that Gaza itself - as someone said earlier that he is living in a hovel and indeed he is living in a hovel - that Gaza itself, I repeat, is an immense hovel. One-and-a-half million Palestinians living there are living in a collective hovel. There are 7 200 Palestinians in Israeli prisons; they include 270 children aged between 16 and 18 and 44 children below the age of 16. Seven hundred and fifty thousand Palestinians have been arrested and put in prison since 1967.\nSo we are calling for the release of Shalit, but our position that we believe that this can be achieved by divorcing it from the overall picture in Palestine is apolitical.\nTo close, I should like to add that the only area in the world with a minister for prisoners is Palestine. I would like to express once again our love and sympathy for the family and I trust that this problem will be resolved shortly.\nNicole Kiil-Nielsen\nMr President, the resolution on Corporal Gilad Shalit, which we are examining today, supplements the many resolutions previously adopted by the European Parliament on the human rights situation in the Middle East.\nCorporal Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage for 1 355 days, must be released as soon as possible. We demand and we hope very sincerely that he will be released. The young Franco-Palestinian, Salah Hamouri, who has been detained by the Israeli authorities since 13 March 2005, must be released. The children imprisoned in Israel, in violation of the provisions of international law and the conventions on the rights of the child, must be released. The militants of the NonViolent Popular Resistance Against the Occupation, such as Abdallah Abu Rahmah from Bil'in, must be released. The elected representatives, the members of the Palestinian Legislative Council - including Marwan Barghouti - must be released.\nIt is time for the European Union to insist strongly that human rights and international law be respected in the Middle East. The solutions do not lie in oneupmanship, exercised under repressive and violent conditions, an example of which was the assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai, which we condemn, not least because it makes securing the release of Gilad Shalit even more difficult.\nElena B\u0103sescu\nThis is the second occasion in the last two weeks that I have spoken about Gilad Shalit in plenary, and I am pleased that the joint efforts made with my fellow Members have resulted in this resolution. 'The case of Gilad Shalit' demonstrates the particular concern the European Union has for the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Gilad's rights, which are set out in the Geneva Convention, should not be made conditional upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, Gilad Shalit's father Noam has repeatedly confirmed that neither he nor his family is involved in politics. They have not chosen to be in this situation at the moment. The ideal scenario for us Europeans would be two states coexisting in peace and security.\nNegotiations for Gilad's release have been going on right since 2006 via different intermediaries, with, in actual fact, one highly controversial proposal being put forward for him to be handed over in exchange for 1 000 Palestinian prisoners. Gilad and his family need our help.\nThank you very much.\nOlga Sehnalov\u00e1\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (CS) The case of Gilad Shalit has become a symbol of the endless desperation and frustration in the Middle East. This is true both for the people living there and for the international community, which is engaged there. Gilad Shalit is a hostage with a name, whose eventful fate we follow with sympathy and concern. The people of the Middle East are the nameless hostages of this never-ending conflict. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Or is there another hope for Gilad and all the other victims?\nAll of the standards of international law will not make up for what we hear so desperately little of in this conflict - an appeal for humaneness. To try and abandon the geopolitical view of the world, where human beings and their fates are manipulated like playing cards. To try and put ourselves in the position of the families of victims and of all innocent detainees and destitute people.\nWhat then prevents the release of Gilad Shalit and all those whose guilt has not been established beyond doubt by the courts? Not to mention the encouragement of those who want to live in peace.The key to peace is trust, compromise and the courage to defend peace against all those who are implacable. I would like to ask you to take the first step.\nMargrete Auken\nMr President, the purpose of our debate today is, in all earnestness, to put a name and a face to human suffering, and in that way expand our compassion and our empathy. In this regard, it is very valuable indeed that we have chosen Gilad Shalit as a topic for our debate today. This will lead us to extend our empathy to others, so that we can identify with their suffering and their families' suffering. There are thousands of Palestinians who are being detained under totally unacceptable conditions, something that is contrary to international rules in every respect, and that is just as difficult a situation for them as it is for Gilad Shalit and his family. We must do our utmost to take this problem seriously, and my feeling is that all of us in this House are prepared to do so. The issue here is not just one prisoner, but thousands of prisoners who are victims of this major conflict.\nI would also add a further point: it is important that we face up squarely to the cause of this suffering and that we realise that, if we do not do something, not only about the siege of Gaza, but also about the occupation of Palestine as a whole, and if we do not create a two-state solution which I believe all of us are calling for and want, there will be no future for these people. I think this is a really productive way to go about finding a common solution, and I hope that Baroness Ashton will put the EU in a position where it does not only have to pay, pay and pay, but where it can also make its voice heard every now and then.\nLouis Bontes\n- (NL) Mr President, on 25 June 2006, an Israeli Army conscript, Corporal Gilad Shalit, was abducted following a terrorist infiltration from the Gaza Strip. He has since been held hostage by Hamas. Hamas has kept Shalit completely cut off from the outside world. He has been incarcerated in deepest darkness and not even the Red Cross is allowed access to him.\nThe Shalit case proves once again that Europe and Israel are on the same side. Barbaric Islamic forces are waging an all-out war against Western civilisation. Israel is in the frontline of that war. In Israel and Europe, every human life counts. For Islamic terrorists, human life counts for nothing, or rather, one human life is worth a thousand lives, because Hamas is demanding that, in exchange for Shalit, Israel release 1000 prisoners, including a large number of terrorist murderers.\nIt is important that we obtain Shalit's release, but without Israel having to release terrorists in return. After all, we have seen where exchanges like this have led in the past: the euphoria of victory for the terrorists, for their followers and leaders, and inevitably more terror. We cannot allow people to profit from terrorism, and it would be irresponsible if we encouraged Israel to respond to such hostage-taking with an exchange, because the next Hamas hostage could be somebody from Paris, Amsterdam or Brussels. And what kind of a position will we be in then?\nThe boot must be put on the other foot immediately: it is Hamas, not Israel, that must pay for taking Gilad Shalit, a European, hostage. The price should be so high that they release him of their own free will. In this regard, we ask that a complete ban on travel to and through Europe be imposed on all officials of the Hamas regime, including those who are not formally allied with Hamas and those who are not on the European terror list.\nTunne Kelam\n- Mr President, this young man has been kept in captivity for almost 1 400 days with absolute disrespect for any international norms and no access to him even by the Red Cross. I think this case should be seen and solved exclusively as a human tragedy. I am encouraged by the wide support in the European Parliament for this debate and by the warm reception our colleagues expressed yesterday to Shalit's father.\nShalit's case should not become a bargaining chip. Instead it will be in the interests of Hamas if they want to gain legitimacy in the peace process. To conclude, the best proof for their credibility would be to release Gilad Shalit unconditionally and to abstain from further kidnappings.\nFilip Kaczmarek\n(PL) The resolution we are discussing, today, is not of a political nature, and we are not trying to solve the Middle East conflict. All we want is that an innocent son be allowed to return to his father and to his family. I do not know if fellow Members know of the existence of an organisation called the Parents Circle. It is an organisation of Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost relatives in the conflict. We are talking, today, about an individual case precisely because we do not want Gilad Shalit's father to join those who have lost the closest of loved ones - their own children.\nWe are appealing for the release of a hostage, because we do not agree with the idea that the end justifies the means. Fighting in a just cause does not excuse actions which are universally considered to be wrong or acts of terrorism. Organisations which want to gain our approval, our respect, must not hold hostages.\n(Applause)\nCristian Dan Preda\n(RO) I too wish to add my support to those who have called in this Chamber, both today and yesterday, for the release of Gilad Shalit, and I also wish to express my sympathy to his family.\nI would like to address my speech to those who are perhaps asking themselves the question: 'Why have a resolution on the Gilad Shalit case, and why now?' Other fellow Members have reminded us that it will soon be four years that young Gilad Shalit has been held hostage in brutal conditions and in breach of the international standards recognised by the Third Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. As every one of us can imagine, every extra day in captivity means awful suffering for Shalit and his family.\nI would also give another reason for support, namely that Gilad Shalit is a European citizen, he is a European victim of terrorism, and on this day, which is European Day for the Victims of Terrorism, I can think of no more symbolic gesture than this resolution.\nAna Gomes\n- Mr President, first of all I would like to salute the efforts made by Gilad Shalit's family to seek his release, which we wholeheartedly support. That is the message we want to convey through this resolution. We believe, as the Goldstone Report highlights, that he is indeed entitled to the status of prisoner of war, as the prisoners kept by Israel, including many children, should be.\nWe want all of them to be released. We want Gilad Shalit and all the Palestinian young men and women to be released. Indeed this is only way for peace to be achieved in that region. We urge Baroness Ashton to spare no effort to press for the release of Gilad Shalit and all the other Palestinian prisoners of war, especially those young people who are enduring this captivity.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) The case of Gilad Shalit has a particular, personal dimension. It is the tragic case of a very young man the same age as my son, and it is also the tragic case of his family. However, let us not pretend that the case does not also have a broader political context. It does, in fact, make us aware that the black and white film which is often very one-sidedly presented also in this Chamber, the film which speaks of victims only on the Palestinian side, is something which is, really, not very objective.\nI think that, today, we should demand very clearly the release of this young man, but let us also remember that those who are firing missiles at Sderot are responsible for the fact that he is still a prisoner.\nEija-Riitta Korhola\n- (FI) Mr President, as we know, the background to this resolution was a very politically sensitive set of circumstances, but that ought not to prevent us from passing a clearly humanitarian resolution that is not watered down by general political remarks on the situation as a whole.\nI am pleased that this resolution has kept to the point. I intend to vote in favour of it. It stresses the idea that all parties involved in the crisis in the Middle East must comply with international humanitarian law and human rights legislation. I hope that it receives the firm support of this House.\n(Applause)\nJanez Poto\u010dnik\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, the case of the abducted Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, is of great concern to the European Union.\nMy former colleague Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner called urgently for Mr Shalit's release in this very House already on 5 July 2006, less than two weeks after his capture. Over the years and on a number of occasions, including at the latest Association Council with Israel last June and in the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of December 2009, the EU has consistently called on those holding Mr Shalit to release him without delay. Therefore we join with today's Parliament motions calling for his release.\nIt is our opinion, in line with the assessment of many human rights organisations, that the terms and conditions of Mr Shalit's detention are contrary to international humanitarian law. Therefore we urge his captors to respect such obligations and in particular to allow delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit him. Finally, we are aware that mediation activities have been ongoing, aimed at the release of Gilad Shalit. We encourage all efforts made in this direction and we express our hope that they will soon be successful. I will also personally pass on a clear message from you to my colleague Cathy Ashton.\nOf course our thoughts are with the family of Gilad Shalit. I know that his father has been in this House this week and I understand that he is at this very moment sitting here with us.\n(Applause)\nI want to reassure him that our thoughts and efforts are with him and, of course, with all the others who are suffering the consequences of this long lasting conflict.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at the end of the debate.\nWritten Statements (Rule 149)\nIndrek Tarand  \nin writing. - I wish to express my regret in view of the imprisonment of Gilad Shalit. His abduction alongside the detention of the rest of the prisoners in the area is unacceptable. This situation needs to be amended as soon as possible. I believe that release of Shalit would contribute to the Middle East peace process in general.\n(FR) For the rest, France has just decided to sell a Mistral class warship to Russia; we believe that it will sincerely regret its action.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":4,"2013-48":1}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080\/2006 concerning the European Fund of Regional Development and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development - Delivering a single market to consumers and citizens - Long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy - Contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU 2020 objectives (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the following:\nthe report by Mr van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked Funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080\/2006 concerning the European Fund of Regional Development and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development in cities and regions as well as in the Member States and the Union,\nthe report by Mr Grech, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens,\nthe report by Mr Hoang Ngoc, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy [COM(2009\/0545 - 2010\/2038 (INI))], and\nthe report by Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU 2020 objectives.\nLambert van Nistelrooij\nThis is indeed a very coherent package. Following this morning's debate on the support package and on tighter, sounder financial and economic governance, we are now discussing a number of underlying dossiers that are important as regards the commitment required in connection with the EU 2020 strategy.\nParliament wishes to expressly steer these proposals by the Commission and, particularly, the Council; it is unacceptable for the Council to take decisions in June without us having expressly reached agreement on a number of underlying matters. We are talking about the direction, and also about implementation in the near future. Take, for example, the flagship projects that will also require our joint support before long. It is really important, therefore, that we invest enough time in this now.\nWell, then, both the Cort\u00e9s Lastra report and my report on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development concern policy synergy with a view to increasing output, or results, for Europe. The beauty of it is that we can do better; indeed we must do better. Our activities are rather fragmented in various fields - if we look at developments in the world, competition and the kind of things we want to tackle. To summarise: things must be made smarter, greener, more sustainable and more inclusive.\nThe reports tabled by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs also concern governance and ensuring sufficient financial resources, including for education. In short, it is my hope that, this afternoon, we shall lay clear foundations for this resolution. I do not know whether a vote will be held tomorrow, whether a consensus will be achieved on governance. In any case, however, I anticipate that Parliament will be able to adopt a final position on the EU 2020 strategy in June.\nReturning to my report: it is an implementation report. We have taken a proper look at how things work in the fields of research and development, regional policy and small and medium-sized enterprises, and I wish to thank my fellow Members, including those from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy - the committee with joint responsibility in accordance with Article 50 - for helping us achieve a good result.\nWhat have we laid down?\n1. In Europe, we have first-class research. Yet what is lagging behind is the utilisation of this research. Knowledge is free; it travels around the world, and cannot be kept to oneself. Although we are very good at investing in research, we are lagging behind in the utilisation of this research, in bringing innovation to the market and, subsequently, keeping high-quality production in this part of the world.\n2. My report notes that we are currently spending one quarter of regional funds on research infrastructure and innovation. That is a substantial change, a prioritisation that has been working in the current period thanks to Commission initiatives. Earmarking is among the instruments that have been effective and have also definitely influenced the agenda in the regions, towns and cities. It leads to a better profile in the knowledge-based economy into which we are evolving, and to greater specialisation.\n3. In my report, together with my fellow Members, I have made a series of proposals for improvements throughout the research\/innovation\/production chain with a view to greater effectiveness. We must also realise the importance of the territorial dimension laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. We need to focus on a number of areas in order to achieve a large-scale effect; we need the courage to specialise production in a region - incidentally, the principle of specialisation is an old one in the European Union - provided that good links exist for transmitting that knowledge (broadband or traditional infrastructure). If the Union invests money, there should also be cooperation between the ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nLiem Hoang Ngoc\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, the own-initiative report on which we are voting this week is of particular symbolic importance at a time when the markets are unable to assess the risks associated with the economic situation in the euro area.\nHaving demanded severe budget adjustment policies, they now doubt the capacity of Member Sates to kick-start their growth and, hence, to obtain the tax revenue necessary to pay the interest on their debt. Unfortunately, no risk assessment can be carried out in the deeply uncertain context in which the global economy now finds itself. Such an assessment is all the more important in the European Union, where the production capacity utilisation rate is at an all-time low.\nInstead of investing, companies are mothballing machines because, despite the initial signs of recovery at the end of 2009, demand is lacking. Growth would even end up going into reverse if restrictive measures were to nip the recovery in the bud. The first aim of our report was precisely to determine the optimum time for launching policies for emerging from the crisis. We proposed maintaining the support measures until the normal production capacity utilisation rate was restored. We therefore suggested ratifying the principle of anti-cyclical budgetary policies, which were successfully established during the first phase of the crisis in 2008 and 2009, and which are in line with the spirit of the reform of the 2005 Stability Pact.\nThese policies entail using automatic stabilisers, in other words, in earmarking surpluses from the primary budget for debt repayment at the top of the cycle, and in allowing Member States to borrow the resources necessary for stimulus packages at the bottom of the cycle. We are currently at the bottom of the cycle. Interest rates are definitely under pressure and are threatening the sustainability of the debt. This being the case, the European Central Bank was right to announce that it would buy back some debt to enable Member States to diversify their sources of finance.\nNevertheless, in addition to the fact that this concept of sustainability has never been defined in the economic literature, can the risk premiums demanded by the markets be deemed justifiable? No, if we consider that risk in the mortgage derivatives market, just as in the public-debt market, is impossible to assess. This is why, in our report, we proposed that particular attention be paid to the structural deficit indicator rather than the focus being ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nThis is why, in our report, we proposed that particular attention be paid to the structural deficit indicator rather than the focus being on the current account deficit, the scale of which is due to the deterioration in the actual budget deficit. This is the result of the crisis, which has weakened growth and concomitant tax revenue. This revenue has also been adversely affected by the lowering of taxes, which did not have the expected impact on supply.\nOur report seeks to offer three recommendations combined with some operational indicators. The first is to maintain support measures until the recovery has been consolidated. The second is to monitor the structural deficits, which are still close to equilibrium, despite the deterioration in actual budget deficits, in order to send a reassuring signal to the markets as to the state of public finances. The third is to assess the efficiency of tax expenditure and, in particular, of certain tax reductions which are related to the fall in tax revenue.\nUnfortunately, for the liberals and the conservatives in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, common sense counts for little; the impact of the crisis counts for little; and the fact that the massive debt is also due to the bank bail-out plans counts for little. Only their blind faith in the efficiency of the financial markets counts; only dogmatic compliance with a manifestly out-of-date Stability Pact counts. They do not see any need to create the tools required for economic governance, which is essential in order to strengthen the Union. It is a case of putting Europe on a starvation diet and doggedly trying to meet the criteria in the pact without any guarantee of success and at the risk of destroying the recovery, and too bad for social cohesion. That is the position that they have defended in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Since that vote, the economic health of Europe has deteriorated further. The European Central Bank and the Commission have finally come up with monetary and budgetary instruments which should enable us to improve economic governance in the euro area. However, the markets have fallen once again, unsettled as they are by the austerity plans.\nThe Ecofin Council had to start all over again on Monday. Against this background, the amendments which we are tabling are, all in all, very moderate; and we are tabling some new ones too. They argue for flexible implementation of the Stability Pact, so that an unwelcome austerity cure can be avoided. They advocate a public credit rating agency to shield Member States from the diktat of the markets. These are the signals that Parliament must send out. Mr Karas, the time for ideological knee-jerk reactions has passed, as has the time for short-term national electoral moves. Europe needs policies which are motivated by a real desire to strengthen the Union. If you and your group are not up to this task, if you are no longer capable of representing the general interest, you can be sure that our citizens will be able to draw their own conclusions, for the future of the euro area is now at stake.\nRicardo Cort\u00e9s Lastra\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and their assistants, the Secretariat of the Committee on Regional Development for their contributions, as well as the European Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy and the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the trade unions and the European regional networks and associations for their cooperation.\nI had meetings with several regional associations and institutions while preparing this report, especially the Committee of the Regions, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, the Assembly of European Regions, the European Regions Research and Innovation Network, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy and its Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. I would like to thank all of them for their availability and interesting contributions.\nHaving changed the title, which now includes the reference to the Europe 2020 strategy, the main aim of the report is to defend Cohesion policy as a strong, well-financed policy, and one that is present in all European Union regions, as well as its key role in the Europe 2020 strategy.\nThe report was approved practically unanimously by the Committee on Regional Development: 40 votes in favour, 1 abstention and 1 vote against.\nThe first part of the report makes a brief analysis of the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the Lisbon Strategy and points to the limitations of the involvement of regional and local authorities, of the social, economic and civil society actors in the Lisbon Strategy, which made its adoption, communication and effectiveness difficult. The report also calls for the need for assessments, not only of the actual expenditure, but of the real impact as well.\nThe second part deals with recommendations for the future Europe 2020 strategy and highlights the importance of the regions, multi-level governance and the principle of partnership, basic pillars of the Cohesion policy that must be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy as a prior and necessary condition for its successful implementation.\nMoreover, it is essential that the participation of the social and economic actors, as well as those of civil society in general, be strengthened in order to avoid the strategy becoming disconnected from and discredited by its key stakeholders.\nThis part underlines the key role of education, training, research and innovation, the importance of facilitating the establishment of the so-called knowledge triangle, and the need to support small and medium-sized enterprises, which quite often play a pioneering role in innovation.\nHowever, at the same time, we should not overlook the specific needs of the regions and social groups with the most difficulties. Thus, a certain flexibility should be allowed for.\nSpecifically, in order to foster the leverage effect of investment in research and development, in education and in training, we defend the need to increase the synergies between the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the National Reform Programmes, as well as greater coordination and coherence between the different European, national and regional policies linked to strategy objectives.\nThe European Investment Bank plays, and must continue to play, an important role by means of the financial engineering, cooperation and support instruments in supporting the regions and small and medium-sized enterprises. However, in order to facilitate its task, and that of all the beneficiaries, advances need to be made towards greater simplification.\nIn conclusion, the report defends a solid and well-financed Cohesion policy for the future, one that is present in all European regions and which has a key role to play in the Europe 2020 strategy.\nLouis Grech\nMr President, in essence, my report is concerned with the protection of the Single Market from a micro perspective, to regard the market as a single project and to take the 2012 framework, the 2020 strategy and the recent financial crisis into consideration.\nStrategies and courses of action that are intended to breathe new life into the European Single Market and the European Market ought to be based on a pragmatic, extensive and comprehensive agreement which is inclusive of all Member States and which focuses primarily on the priorities that the Member States are truly willing to take on.\nEurope needs to develop 2020 strategies enabling the market to be the leading agent in economic regeneration while, at the same time, generating acceptance by the citizens by protecting their interests, by the consumers by defending their rights, and by small and medium enterprises by providing them with the right incentives. My report proposes a series of strategic legislative and non-legislative initiatives, geared towards the rehabilitation of the European Single Market. These initiatives reach their pinnacle in the creation of the Single Market Act, which combines immediate action (2012) together with the long term vision of the 2020 strategy.\nI have also put forward specific non-legislative proposals on the drawing up of the citizens' charter which lays down their rights and what they are entitled to. It is also encouraging that I received positive reactions from Commissioner Barnier and Commissioner Dalli regarding my proposal on the top 20 frustrations as expressed by European citizens, on the creation of a collective remedy mechanism and on a communication strategy specifically targeted at every day problems experienced by our citizens.\nWe need to adopt a truly new political line of thought that is based upon consumer protection and the social dimension, which will serve to draw up the laws and tasks to be undertaken by the European Union. Only in this way can we achieve a truly social market economy as is stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon.\nUnfortunately, in the past years, the Single Market has not managed to convince our citizens that it represents their interests and aspirations. What is even more alarming is that our citizens and consumers are experiencing an increasing sense of uncertainty and lack of faith in the Market. We need to come to terms with the fact that the traditional definition of the Single Market as something solely tied to the economic dimension needs to be revamped. We need to come up with a new common line which is holistic and which fully integrates the sentiments of our citizens, consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises. This can be done by offering them a leading part in the re-launch of the European Single Market. Every effort that is wasted by trying to explain away the Single Market in a dogmatic fashion will be underestimating the challenges, inconsistencies, interests, differing beliefs and perplexities that we must face up to.\nThe Single Market integration process is not an irreversible one. Its current situation needs to be challenged. The European Single Market is in danger of becoming extremely weak and therefore irrelevant due to the protectionist attitudes that the crisis brought along with it.\nThe Single Market is not an end in itself but an instrument that has to contribute in a significant manner to a better quality of life for all European citizens so that, as Evelyne Gebhardt said, 'the Single Market works for the citizens and not against them.'\nSo as to guarantee a viable and strong Single Market, we need to reconcile what Mario Monti referred to in his analytical and stimulating report as the tensions between market integration and social objectives. In the final analysis, the predominant system is one that succeeds in striking a balance between a vibrant and competitive economy that incentivises innovation and job creation and which provides consumer protection as well as social and environmental safeguards required by our citizens. All this needs to be achieved within a spirit of compromise and solidarity.\nFinally Mr President, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and coordinators for their contributions.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\nMr President, Commissioner, firstly, I do nonetheless wonder for a moment about our programming and our ability to organise our debates. I am very happy to share this debate with all these European Parliament initiatives, but I do feel as though I am in a melting pot which I am not sure offers an exact definition of the European Parliament's vision for the EU 2020 strategy. Perhaps I am being too demanding, though.\nOn the other hand, I hope that you share my concern, Mr President, because, on behalf of this House, you raised an extremely important question with President Van Rompuy, on 10 May, which relates to the following.\nWith regard to the adoption of the employment guidelines, this year - dare I say it, as an exceptional measure - as part of a special partnership between the Commission and the European Parliament, and in a spirit of good cooperation with the Council, bearing in mind the somewhat revised timetable - the employment guidelines are normally published at the end of the previous year; this year, they were published in April and, even though they commit us to a long cycle for the years to come, we will have to deliberate them before the spring European Council - you kindly supported, on behalf of us all, the request we sent to President Van Rompuy calling for the European Council to grant the European Parliament the right to exercise its powers under the Treaty of Lisbon itself.\nClearly, neither the Commission nor the Council has any intention of considering this request and they therefore consciously intend to violate the treaty. I think that the authorities in this House will have to shoulder their responsibilities and learn lessons from this.\nAs regards the challenge of these employment guidelines, which will be a factor in the implementation of the 2020 strategy, we must draw the attention of the authorities to their importance at a time when 17% of Europeans are living below the poverty line - I would point out that these figures are taken from 2007, that is to say, from even before the start of the crisis - and when 23 million of our fellow citizens are going to end up unemployed.\nThere is currently great concern within the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs about two issues. Firstly, about the poverty reduction target, which I think was the initiative of Commissioner Andor; this target was included in the 2020 strategy, and we welcome that. We do not understand how this issue can be the subject of discussions, hesitations and the calling into question of the Union's competences within the Council, when the treaty clearly indicates that this is an area in which the EU also has responsibilities.\nThen, the other issue relates to the relationship and consistency between the various policies, because the Commission clearly tells us that it has fundamentally changed things in this 2020 strategy, since it has reduced the number of targets.\nI believe that fundamental change must be about much more than simply reducing the number of targets. However, what we are convinced about is that the 2020 strategy must take account of the reality of the situation in the EU. The reality is that those who are currently suffering the most as a result of the crisis, those who will be hardest hit, are the ones who actually create the EU's wealth.\nThe fact is, we are seeing debates starting up here and there which are liable to go against Europeans' very interests, because they would lead to a reduction in investment just when it is needed the most, in other words, in our long-term capital: education, training and health.\nThis is why, faced with this challenge, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the authorities to be aware of how public investment might be reduced in these fields, at the very time when weak growth and reduced private investment cannot take up the slack and, therefore, ensure the recovery of public finances in the short term.\nThis is a crucially important timetabling issue, and we cannot but regret that the Ministers for Economic and Monetary Affairs were able to argue for a withdrawal of non-conventional employment support and unemployment reduction measures, when the Ministers for Social Affairs had not been consulted in what we know is a tragic employment and social affairs situation in our European Union.\nMary Honeyball\nauthor. - Mr President, the EU 2020 strategy proposes action to enhance the performance of education systems, reinforce the attractiveness of Europe's higher education, open up more mobility and training programmes for young people, modernise labour markets, boost labour mobility and develop skills and competences to increase labour market participation.\nThis has been endorsed by the Spring Council, which stated that key objectives requiring action at EU level included better conditions for research and development, improved education levels, a reduction in early school leavers and increased participation of youth, older workers and low-skilled workers in the labour market.\nHowever, the global economic crisis has led to budget cuts in the education sector in Member States across the European Union. For instance, Latvia is suffering a deep economic crisis and it has faced severe budget cuts in the country's 34 higher education institutions with a threatened 50% cutback to the higher-education budget. Irish universities face a 6% cut, and Britain is not exempt from this because in England, the Higher Education Funding Council reckons there may be a cut of up to EUR 500 million from higher education.\nThis is not all doom and gloom. Some Member States, such as France, have been doing well, but the problem is that there is a divergent level of funding across Member States. In order for the EU 2020 strategy to work, we need a strong, coordinated approach. I am therefore asking for the Commission to explain, firstly, how it intends to ensure that Member States make good on their commitments to the educational goals in the 2020 strategy by ensuring that this area receives sufficient support and funding and is not forgotten amid the rush to balance the books in the light of the economic crisis and, secondly, how it intends to secure extra budgetary means for these important EU-level strategies and programmes.\nMichel Barnier\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Commission, and of President Barroso, I should like to make a few comments about the 2020 strategy and echo the very interesting reports from Mr Grech and Mr Hoang Ngoc; next, my colleagues and friends, Commissioners Hahn and Andor, will speak in turn - in this debate in which we are participating - on the other oral questions which affect other sectors: cohesion, employment, the social dimension, research and development.\nOn behalf of all three of us, please allow me to thank all the rapporteurs and Parliament for this initiative, which is being taken at an extremely serious and challenging time for all of us, at a time of economic crisis, with the recent difficulties of the euro, which clearly highlight the interdependency of all our Member States and the need to coordinate our countries' economic policies. This is the time to respond and to act and, as far as possible, together, in this context of uncertainty and crisis. The decisions taken over the last few days are - we think - very important.\nI will not go back over the long debate which was held this morning with my colleague, Commissioner Rehn. It is obvious that we have to put in place instruments for improved coordination of our economic policies, and we think that this Europe 2020 strategy may be the first instrument of a new, strengthened and coordinated economic policy.\nIn its proposal concerning this strategy, the Commission had already emphasised, at the beginning of March, the need to stabilise our public finances. The euro crisis which we have just been through proves to us just how relevant this position still is. Like my colleague, Commissioner Rehn, I have taken note of the proposals in Mr Hoang Ngoc's report on these issues.\nMoving on, there is, ladies and gentlemen, a second preliminary requirement for the success of 2020, which is putting our economy, our economies on a sound or improved footing. I am, of course, thinking about the need to supervise and regulate the financial market, so that it serves the real economy and not the other way around.\nI promise you that the Commission will keep to its roadmap in these areas. Within the next year, we will have put all the necessary legislative proposals on the table, so that we can formalise the commitments we made together at the G20 on four major issues: transparency, responsibility, supervision and crisis prevention. With regard to several of these issues, which have already been considered in the legislative debate, I truly hope that Parliament and the Council will be able to rapidly overcome their differences with regard to the texts under discussion. I am thinking about the 'financial supervision' package and the hedge funds document.\nWe must restore confidence. We must also utilise every single resource to free up the growth potential of our economy. This work clearly comprises many aspects. The debate, this afternoon's debate in fact, demonstrates this: the relaunch of the internal market, regional policy for all the regions, including the most distant ones, such as the outermost regions, cohesion, economic governance, the viability of public finances, employment, education and research.\nWhen we talk about Europe 2020, what are we talking about? I think that this 2020 strategy must enable us to have a better perspective on the economic policies of our Member States, in order to avoid certain imbalances or even certain instances of competition in the future. These imbalances have been very obvious in the current crisis but, at the same time as urgently addressing this crisis, we must work on the economy in the medium and long terms. This is why, on the basis of the Commission proposals, the European Council adopted five common objectives: an employment rate of 75%, 3% of GDP invested in research and development, as well as a restriction on leaving school too early, increasing the number of people with a university diploma to 40%, and the 20-20-20 targets in the field of energy and climate change. Finally, there is also the promotion of social inclusion by combating poverty.\nQuantified indicators for education and social inclusion will have to be set at the June European Council. Work on these two objectives is in progress in various forums of the Council. It is very important to clearly understand that the 2020 strategy is not merely a vision. It is, above all, a concrete programme of reforms to be implemented, and that is why we are proposing seven flagship initiatives as part of this strategy.\nIn addition to these flagship initiatives, European instruments, in particular the single market, financial levers and foreign policy instruments will also be mobilised to eliminate certain obstacles. I should also like to commend the Monti report presented a few days ago, and I wish to pay homage to the intelligent work of Mr Grech, who is giving a humanist and more concrete dimension to the internal market, as I myself should like to do.\nThere are also certain requirements where implementation is concerned. Therefore, more efficient governance mechanisms have been proposed, which require the involvement of the Member States, as well as the Commission, at every level of the monitoring process. Europe 2020 also means adopting reforms to be implemented within the Member States themselves. The latter will have to submit national reform programmes between now and the end of the year in a coordinated fashion, with a stability and convergence programme, while also showing respect for the Stability and Growth Pact. Mr Hoang Ngoc, I should like, if I may, to point out that this pact has been supported for about 10 years now by both left- and right-wing governments.\nFinally, the Commission is calling on the European Parliament to do what it does so well and play a still greater role in this new strategy. During a crisis, we wish to send out clear messages to the Member States. This is the purpose of the integrated guidelines proposed by the Commission. These will only be adopted once you have tabled your opinions. However, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation, we must implement this strategy. We must aim for a political agreement at the European Council meeting in June.\nLet us be clear, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen: in the rest of the world, socio-economic strategies are already being implemented for the medium term. Europe cannot be left behind.\nTo conclude, the European Parliament is playing its role, and we thank it for doing so, for mobilising the citizens, in particular, via the national parliaments; I was very impressed by the initiative taken by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and its Chair, Malcolm Harbour, on the Services Directive, which brought together national parliaments and the European Parliament. There are other examples, and this is a very important undertaking.\nTo conclude, I should like to confirm that the Commission will do as you wish and play its role in a purposeful manner so as to implement this strategy and to build, with you, this new, higher quality, more sustainable and fairer growth, which the citizens expect.\nIvaylo Kalfin\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (BG) Mr President, Commissioners, if we were discussing the Europe 2020 strategy without the economic crisis having occurred, everything would be fine. The problem is that in the current crisis and after what has happened, the Europe 2020 strategy is not ambitious and dynamic enough.\nThe problem which all the questions asked in recent weeks have been about is whether there is a sufficient degree of coordination, as was the case even up to now in European policies, for the European Union to make progress. From what we see, this coordination is good at a time of growth, but during a crisis it is not up to requirements. Alternatively, many more functions need to be transferred, not only coordination, but also decision making at European level so that Europe can set itself much more ambitious tasks and play a much more leading role in this coordination.\nThis is the fundamental question to be answered. If we fail to do so, we will not be able to set out the 2020 programme properly either. I think that in the coming weeks, we ought to focus mainly on this issue.\nOthmar Karas\nMr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to see Mr Hahn, Commissioner for Regional Policy, and Mr Barnier, Commissioner for the Internal Market, sitting side by side because it is essential that we do not play off regional policy against the internal market. Instead, we should ensure that the one complements the other and that both of them are strong so that we can achieve the objectives of Europe 2020.\nEurope 2020 must begin here and now and should not be just a catalogue of objectives. Europe 2020 is a project for growth and employment and we need concrete projects, we need the instruments, we need the procedure, we need mechanisms for sanctions, so that this can be successfully implemented. I am convinced that we will only be able to implement Europe 2020 if we are ready, if Europe is ready to think of the EU in terms of the United States of Europe! To think in those terms and with each of us making a contribution to the whole.\nEurope 2020 means the willingness to bring about a political union. That presupposes reinforcing and expanding the monetary union, reinforcing and expanding the internal market, unfettering it and calling on people to use the opportunity that is Europe, to use Europe and break through borders. We have to create an economic union which is part of a political union, as well as a social union. None of these things are ready and there is a great deal that has not even been addressed. Europe 2020 is a community Union, not a nationalist or obstructive Europe.\nWe therefore need a financial review, an EU impact assessment, implementation of the Small Business Act and, obviously, very specific European projects for growth and employment and the expansion of the freedoms of education, science, research and innovation in Europe.\n(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))\nWilliam\nMr President, I would like to ask Mr Karas if the United States of Europe to which he referred in his speech is going to take place with the consent of the peoples of Europe or without the consent of the peoples of Europe.\nOthmar Karas\n(DE) Mr President, each one of us who represents the citizens of Europe and is constantly in contact with them has one objective: working with the citizens of Europe in order to further develop Europe and make it more competitive and to achieve growth and employment for the benefit of Europe's citizens. Unless we take action together to become stronger and if each person looks after their own interests, this Community will not be reinforced, but weakened, in these times of increasing globalisation. The citizens are our most important allies in achieving our joint objectives.\nMarita Ulvskog\nMr President, the Europe that we are taking decisions about today is also the one that decides how Europe will look in 2020. The decisions that we are refusing to take today will lead to new crises. The decisions that we take today must be long-term decisions.\nIt is a serious problem that so many of the decisions continue to be short-sighted and governed by a right-wing philosophy where economies in crisis are put on a starvation diet. It is also a serious problem that we are discussing Greek pensions instead of the behaviour of the big bankers and of the players in the property and financial markets. We need to correct this situation or else the Europe that we will see in 2020 will perhaps be in a worse crisis than the one we are in at present.\nI call on the Commission to make a serious effort to bring about a change of course so that we abandon our blind faith in market solutions, we regulate the markets and we make major investments in those things that are for the good of everyone. This may mean the transport system, it may mean energy supplies, it may mean other important solutions where the Member States cannot stand alone but where the EU and the Commission must act.\nI also hope that the Commission is ready to table proposals that show that we take the transition to a sustainable society seriously. We will, in other words, restructure our industry so that it is competitive and can create new jobs. We cannot do this by convincing ourselves that we can keep following the same old tracks. This also requires investment, but it may make an impact on the current figure of 28 million registered unemployed.\nI also call on the Commission to show the workers of the EU the respect that will be required in this economic crisis in order to bring them with us to build a stronger and better society. For us to be able to master this crisis, we need trade union rights and we need Europe's workers to be made into stakeholders.\nLena Ek\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I used to say that we had a triple crisis in Europe with financial markets, jobs and climate. But now, sadly, we have a quadruple crisis if we add the state budget crisis. It has made it painfully clear that the European Union is in dire need of vision. European integration has, until now, focused on creating new projects without making sure that they work properly. I believe that the time has now come for us to deal with our problems and instead work hard to deepen the existing institutions. The mistakes that have been made can be corrected and the Union can still work for - and with - its citizens.\nEurope needs a forward-looking Union. For me, the direction is clear: I want a Europe which is open, inclusive and green. The flagship proposals in the Commission's Europe 2020 strategy are important tools to create that Europe, provided that we can make them come true. And here I have some question marks.\nFirstly, the overarching goal of the strategy is to create a more dynamic and competitive economy. In some countries, the participation of women in the labour market is as low as 40%, and this is shameful. A gender-equal labour market is a precondition for boosting jobs and for tackling the demographic challenges. I hope that the Council and Commission really take seriously the fact that the Council's conclusions have included gender equality for a couple of months. An inclusive society needs more jobs. Unemployment is the main reason why poverty exists. Youth unemployment in Spain, at 44%, is devastating.\nWe have endless opportunities to create green jobs, but our policies must be aimed in the same direction. An energy-efficient Europe is also a driving force of innovation, and the energy equivalent of fast trains, supergrids and high-tech smart grids is needed to improve Europe's competitiveness.\nI must commend the Liberal Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, on being the first to really outline a clear flagship proposal on the digital agenda, and I am looking forward to having the same kind of in-depth material on the rest of the flagship platforms before June, so that we can also cooperate in the decision making.\nBut, Mr Commissioner, we have the EU strategy pointing in one direction, and your budget proposal is, to be truthful, pointing in another direction. As well as regional funds, social funds and the agricultural fund, we have to streamline and have coherence in our common tools. We need transparency, and we need the same kind of statistics and we need sticks and carrots for Member States, not only to sign up to promises, but also to keep them. This is important for the European citizens and for us in Parliament. We need to strengthen the Growth and Stability Pact, and we fully support the package of Commissioner Olli Rehn.\nTo re-establish trust, as you mentioned, Commissioner, we need the indicators on the rest of the flagship proposals. That would re-establish our trust in you as a Commission, and maybe, if we can cooperate on decision making, citizens' trust in us.\nPascal Canfin\nMr President, Mr Barnier, in your speech you mentioned Mr Monti's report, which was submitted to you a few days ago.\nThere is a very interesting aspect in Mr Monti's report, and that is the emphasis it places on the pressing need for us to move on to the next stage of fiscal cooperation. It clearly explains that the Stability and Growth Pact criteria do need to be applied, but that if they are applied solely to expenditure, through cuts in expenditure, this will almost certainly lead to a recession. It is therefore crucial to use both pillars and, in particular, the fiscal pillar, to enable the Member States to collect a number of additional receipts from the economic activities and economic operators whose tax burden has been repeatedly reduced over the last few years: the profits from companies, capital, and financial transactions.\nTo do this, we absolutely must have European coordination. This is the conclusion reached in Mr Monti's report, which was submitted two days ago. However, there is no mention whatsoever of this issue in the EU 2020 strategy presented by the Commission. There is no mention whatsoever of this issue in Mr Rehn's communication published a few days ago. This is one of the major pillars, one of the fundamental added values which the Commission can provide at the present time. Do this, and this will establish the link - Mrs Ber\u00e8s was just saying that this debate is a bit like a melting pot; fiscal coordination will help establish the link between the EU 2020 strategy, the report on the governance of the euro area, on the single market, and employment and education issues.\nWe are well aware that, if we abide by the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact - which, incidentally, is vital - but do so only by cutting expenditure, then we are on course for social regression and economic recession.\nTherefore, my question is very clear: Mr Barnier, as a representative of the Commission, what are you going to place on the table over the coming weeks? How are you going to convince your colleagues - assuming that you are already convinced yourself - of the need for an action plan, for a fiscal coordination plan so that Member States are able once more to raise new revenues on the basis of a number of agreements?\nWhat are your proposals? You are not entitled to stay silent. The Commission has a right to initiate legislation, but, today, on these issues, that right has become a duty.\nMalcolm Harbour\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, first of all, on behalf of my Group, I particularly wanted to welcome all the reports, but especially the report from Mr Grech, for which I was the shadow rapporteur in the committee. I want to refer to some points on that in a moment but I just want to support what Mrs Ber\u00e8s said about the wide-ranging nature of the debate this afternoon. But, on the other hand, it is rather an unfocused debate. There are some really important contributions from many colleagues but, frankly, and I say this to the Commission and Commissioner Barnier, this also reflects the nature of the EU 2020 document. It has lots of great ideas but it is very unfocused and it is also very underdeveloped at this stage. He talked about the seven flagship initiatives. Well, we do not know the details of those yet.\nSo the first point I make is, please, can we ensure that the Council does not adopt in detail this proposal at its next meeting in June, because it is not ready to be adopted? We need to spend more time on it together to work through the details.\nMy second point is that I think we need to make the relaunch of the single market an eighth flagship initiative. That will not be overcomplicating things because it ought to be the number one initiative. Colleagues, you heard from Mr Grech that the potential is there to create jobs, to encourage more innovation and to move towards a more sustainable economy but we need to get the support of citizens and consumers for this proposal.\nIt was like the question addressed to Mr Karas just now by the Earl of Dartmouth. Citizens need to buy into that process, but it is there for them to do. They will get the benefits. We have this instrument of huge potential and, particularly with public budgets still amounting to 16% of the European economy, why are we not using our public procurement budgets to drive innovation, to buy those new technologies, to encourage SMEs to take those up? It is the biggest single underdeveloped policy that we have. We heard from Mr Barnier and Mr Grech today, and we made a contribution with Mr Monti's report. We have the instruments, but we need to carry them out.\nGabriele Zimmer\nMr President, we are in the middle of the most fundamental crisis the European Union has witnessed in its history and yet almost all decisions on the strategic direction are taken at government level. The European Parliament has been allowed to sit on the sidelines but no more than that.\nTime and again, the entire debate today has circled around specific issues concerning the Europe 2020 strategy for employment and growth, which gives the false impression that we are talking about the future of Europe and the course of its further development. We might be able to ask oral questions about the political relevance of the EU 2020 strategy in the context of the current economic and financial crisis, but we are not allowed to bring our demands to bear on this strategy and change it, make up for shortfalls or, perhaps, even change the priorities.\nInstead of being involved in this strategic cross-roads, what we have experienced on almost every single point that we have debated here in this House in recent months is getting caught up in the power play between the institutions in spite of, or perhaps even because of, the Treaty of Lisbon. This has mainly been to the detriment of the European Parliament. Both the EU 2020 strategy and, for example, the integrated employment guidelines, which the Chair of the Employment Committee has spoken about, regard Parliament as a body that is merely to be informed or consulted.\nAlso, all the individual reports tabled here today far from present an overall view of the demands or the positions of the European Parliament regarding the European strategy. We want to introduce a whole raft of specific changes.\nIn the last parliamentary term, the European Parliament put specific demands to the Council and Member States concerning the fight against poverty, the introduction of minimum income benefits and an EU-wide poverty-proof minimum wage. None of that has been incorporated into the strategy. On the contrary: there is even the risk that objectives, such as the fight against poverty and the reduction of poverty by 25%, may even disappear from the current strategy text because they do not accord with the skill and the interests of the Member States or the governments.\nEven the EU's employment record over the past ten years has clearly shown that atypical and precarious jobs, in particular, have risen to 60%. However, the huge rise in atypical jobs should lead us to set up a model in the strategy and in the guidelines which is directed at secure and poverty-proof jobs. Now, that is a fundamental demand which we are dealing with here.\nHowever, as long as the European Union, the institutions and their specific policies do not send out signals to those who are marginalised, who live in poverty or who have no work, or to young people who have no future prospects, we will not be able to win these groups over to the idea that a common European Union is a future-proof project. That is a democratic deficit which the current EU 2020 strategy does nothing to address and we should be fighting it together with our citizens.\nBastiaan Belder\nThe problems experienced by Greece and the euro area make for a serious situation, which calls for a structural approach. The proposed EU 2020 strategy aiming to contribute to economic growth and employment seeks to provide this.\nThe strategy rightly covers healthy public finances. However, the initiative will be useful only if two conditions are met. Firstly, the functioning of the Stability and Growth Pact needs to be strengthened so that this kind of situation does not recur. It is not just a matter of structures and rules, then, but of mentality. The crucial point is that Member States meet their budgetary commitments, as I pointed out during a conference in Athens last week.\nIt is to be welcomed that Member States are to call each other to account more intensively in a Council context regarding the structural reforms needed to put their public finances back in order. As far as I am concerned, strengthening of economic coordination ought to cover this.\nThe second condition I wish to draw attention to is the undesirability of the European Union turning its attention to the policy fields of social affairs, employment and social cohesion. Objectives in those fields cannot be enforced at European level; and rightly so. We saw in the case of the Lisbon Strategy that such an approach does not work. Here, too, it is true that it is in restraint that the master is revealed; the European master.\nBarry Madlener\n(NL) Today, we are discussing Europe's economy from a long-term perspective, and how to achieve sustainable economic growth. When Europe discusses this, I do not sleep as easily, as Europe has not proposed a great deal up to now. I would remind the House of the Lisbon Strategy, in which Europe agreed to become the most competitive economy in the world. That proved to be a complete failure, of course.\nAll that this European Union has done is to increase bureaucracy, create unnecessary rules - particularly in my country, the Netherlands - and bring tax increases, mass immigration, crime and a lack of security. Moreover, let us now take a look at the list of countries wanting to join the EU, with whom we sit round the table every day: Albania, Bosnia, Turkey - all poor countries, Muslim countries, and corrupt and criminal to boot - and Iceland - a bankrupt state.\nIn addition, every day in this Chamber we hear members of the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, and even the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, say that we need a green economy, that we must provide billions of euro in subsidies for wind turbines and green electricity, even though our industry is becoming increasingly less competitive in relation to China, the United States and India.\nAre you surprised that our economy is stagnating? There is only one recipe for an economically strong Europe, and that is less bureaucracy and fewer officials in Brussels, and also less bureaucracy in the Member States; tax cuts instead of tax increases; and putting a stop to mass immigration. Greece clearly must be expelled from the euro area. Let us hold up a mirror to ourselves for once and look at the MEPs here: what have you done in recent years to hold Greece to its commitments under the Stability and Growth Pact? I already know your answer: absolutely nothing. You have all been asleep here while countries such as Greece, which have received billions from Europe each year, have squandered that money and let the government grow out of hand.\nIf Europe does not succeed in this, I predict that my country, the Netherlands - and also Germany - will leave the euro area.\nGunnar H\u00f6kmark\nMr President, the financial support package that was presented almost two weeks ago was a necessity, but not a solution to the problems that Europe is facing. Now there is a need for action, for decisions and for restored confidence in public finances. I would say that we need to discuss the 2020 strategy, but we need even more a 2010 strategy, describing the action that needs to be taken now in order to restore growth, reduce deficits and create optimism.\nBut there will be none of the growth which is needed without restored confidence in public finances. On this point, the Socialists are failing. They are defending the same policies that led to the deficits and the crisis of Greece, Spain and Portugal and other countries. The rapporteur, Mr Hoang Ngoc, is saying that we should prolong those policies and that we should wait before reducing the deficits. Mrs Ulvskog from Sweden proposes increased spending. The Socialists have become a threat to prosperity, recovery and the new jobs that Europe needs. I can assure you that, where Socialists fail, we in the EPP will stand up for the action needing to be taken - reduced deficits, restored confidence and the reforms for growth and new jobs. That is what Europe will need, and we will stand there and take the tough decisions and take the responsibilities where others fail.\nAlejandro Cercas\n(ES) Mr President, I have to take a few seconds to ask that the speaker before me go to Greece and ask there who is responsible for the problems workers are experiencing at present. They are not waiting on the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). No, Sir. They are hoping for a real political change, such as that which can be brought about by the 2020 strategy.\nIf our analysis is faulty, our solutions will likewise be faulty. The analysis we need to make is that Europe is suffering greatly from greed, from a lack of regulation, from a lack of economic governance, from an insufficiently educated and cohesive population, from a lack of social justice, from low economic growth, from low employment growth and from having enormous groups of poorly skilled people outside the job market.\nMr President, the effort over the next ten years must be aimed at increasing the amount of people that work and ensuring that people are much better prepared, in educational terms, to win the productivity battle. Europe will not gain in competitiveness without winning the productivity battle. We will not gain a place in the world by lowering salaries, by destroying social standards, but rather by increasing our level of knowledge, by raising the level of solidarity and social cohesion in our society. These are our strong points. We must turn Europe into a genuinely united continent, with a clear project, clear objectives, with an economic governance that not only enables us to respond to the emergencies of today, but also to the challenges of tomorrow.\nThese are our hopes. These are the hopes that have been forged by a sizeable majority of the Members on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, leaving aside the siren calls of those who want to return the 'every man for himself' idea, thus destroying solidarity with all.\nThat is, Mr President, what we hope: that the 2020 strategy will get through to all European citizens, who are asking us for more jobs, more high-quality employment and for economic governance and tax consolidation. Tax consolidation is fine, but there must also be social and economic consolidation, otherwise we will not achieve anything.\nMichael Theurer\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, as we have heard, the financial markets need to be packaged in a new regulatory framework so that in future, we can avoid the excesses that have led to the crisis.\nHowever, if we highlight the underlying causes of the indebtedness of governments, then it becomes clear that, here in Parliament, we talk too much about public debt and too little about how we can achieve prosperity and growth. What determines our growth? Our growth and prosperity depend on people in the European Union developing products and generating new ideas that can also be sold on the global market.\nIt is therefore right that one chapter in the EU 2020 strategy is Innovation Union. We need to focus on inventions and on how we can reinforce research and development. With that, it is important that we enhance the synergies of research funding and regional development policy. A great deal more could be done in those areas. Together with the Liberals and the German Free Democratic Party (FDP), I would argue that we focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. We should see to it that we, as the EU, spend our funding so that SMEs really get access to that funding and so that there is a technology transfer between universities and colleges and SMEs. We should encourage people to take their destinies into their own hands through personal responsibility and self-initiative. Governments cannot create jobs; they need to be created in the economy itself.\nElisabeth Schroedter\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that you have recognised that the transition to a green economic development must begin now, because climate change will put the EU's economic successes at risk.\nHowever, what is missing in the Europe 2020 strategy is a link between environmental change in the economy and a green employment strategy. There are studies which have shown that 8 million new jobs can be created through the energy transition alone. In the Europe 2020 strategy, we therefore need an initiative for green jobs. This initiative must be reflected in specific measures and integrated guidelines. Therefore, we need stable legal and political frameworks, so that investors really do invest in green jobs. That equally includes establishing links between research and development and the economy, the promotion of innovation clusters and also the opportunity to promote such clusters in disadvantaged regions. That is what the van Nistelrooij report states and I endorse it. Although I do not endorse those who would seek to impose demands on regions from above as regards the earmarking programme, the impetus stemming from this report and from the proposals made are nevertheless heading in the right direction and will contribute to the creation of green jobs.\nHowever, in the employment strategy, we must focus equally on shaping the course of transformation towards a green economy, on carrying the workers with us and preparing them for the transition. I address those words to Commissioner Andor. Fundamentally, the structure of the employment policy guidelines presented is right and balanced. Of particular importance is the fact that education has been emphasised as an independent area of focus. This area offers great opportunities for breaking the cycle of poverty. It forms a cornerstone for a green employment strategy and is thereby key to the success of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, we also to need to improve the guidelines. The employment guidelines have a key role to play and that is to enable us to really exploit the potential of green jobs.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\n(PL) Very different conclusions can be drawn from Europe's slow economic growth and the collapse caused by the crisis. One can certainly agree with those in this House who are calling for a reduction of the concession, administrative and information burdens which are generated not only by the Member States, but also by the European Union and by this Parliament. However, there is the risk of applying a treatment which is much worse than the disease. One such measure which would be harmful for European growth would be increasing the role of the European Union in the area of tax cooperation and coordination, and the tax harmonisation which would follow. Tax competition, like every kind of competition, is good for the citizens and the markets. It creates the chance for a better result, and is an important factor in our competitiveness at global level. Therefore, common freedoms and a common market, and not extending Union competences, should be the central principle of the Union's economic policy.\nIlda Figueiredo\n(PT) Mr President, we would like to say in this debate that it is time to stop playing word games and talk about the real problems that the majority of women and men are experiencing in our countries; about suffering; about the more than 85 million people living in poverty in a European Union which is one of the richest parts of the world and in which scandalous profits continue to be made without any measures being taken to check them. We want to talk about the lack of job security and poor pay faced by workers; about the young people and women who cannot find work; about the 23 million unemployed. We want to talk about the elderly people who are being denied a decent retirement and the children whose futures are being mortgaged.\nLet us be clear: what is being proposed in the Europe 2020 strategy is the same path as was there at the start of the crisis. The European Commission did not want to analyse the causes of the current situation or make anything of the consequences of the cornerstones of the policies that it followed in applying the Lisbon Strategy: the liberalisation of economic sectors, including financial services, and the labour flexibility that it called flexicurity.\nWhat they are now aiming for is to open the way for greater concentration of wealth using various directives that will facilitate the privatisation of strategic sectors of the economy, and attacks on public services that interest economic groups in areas of health, social security, and education; anything that could turn a profit. They prefer to hide the fact that only a break from these policies will allow a change of course and that only this can bring social progress. Nevertheless, we insist on this break and say that it is time to drop the Stability Pact and replace it with a programme of social development and progress. This programme must prioritise production, quality public services, the creation of jobs with rights, salaries, decent pensions and retirement conditions, social inclusion, and fair wealth division and distribution. These priorities will require true economic and social cohesion, with the clear reinforcement of the Union budget, solidarity, public policies, and the control of the essential sectors of the economy by the state.\nWe are certain that the workers and the people will continue to fight for this, for example, in Greece tomorrow or on 29 May in Portugal; we here salute their struggle.\nWilliam\nMr President, doubtless the 2020 strategy says lots of interesting things, but, under enlargement, by 2020, five new countries will have joined the EU and more likely eight. Already in the EU of 2010, 12 countries are net contributors to the EU. The other 15 Member States are subsidised.\nNone of the new countries are likely to be contributors. In 2020, therefore, there are likely to be no less than 23 countries being subsidised. By 2020, therefore, the EU will have become, in practice, a transfer union, which transfers money from 12 contributing countries to 23 subsidised countries. Unfortunately and unfairly, the UK taxpayer is caught up in this. The comparatively impoverished UK is the second largest contributor to the EU budget.\nAt the last provincial elections in Germany, the voters of North Rhine-Westphalia said 'no' to their coalition and were also saying 'no' to the transfer union. Voters in other contributing countries will also say 'no' in the next 10 years. By 2020, the gap will be unbridgeable. It is not in the UK's national interest for there to be economic chaos across the channel but, unless enlargement stops forthwith, economic chaos is what there will be. The 2020 strategy, therefore, misses the point.\nKrisztina Morvai\n(HU) Ladies and gentlemen, I respectfully wish to ask whether you do not think that there is something incredibly bizarre in what is going on here. For an extremely important debate on the financial and economic crisis that is the cause of tragedy among many millions of Europeans, only some 40 people are present. We urge European economic operators and citizens to save energy while, for the past three days, but this is also true at every plenary sitting, we can see, if the cameras show it, the waste of energy in lighting a chamber the size of a stadium where no more than 40 people are present except at voting time. In the 27 interpreters' booths, there are 27x3, which makes 81 highly qualified simultaneous interpreters, translating for us. For 40 MEPs, that makes two interpreters per person. Do we not think that it is time to look in the mirror and stop urging pensioners, fire-fighters, nurses and teachers to keep tightening their belts?\nLena Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska\n(PL) In times of crisis, when the integrity of the European Union is under threat, we should, in supporting economic growth, pay particular attention to the cohesion of the Union. We still do not know if the crisis will act to deepen the differences between different regions of Europe. Historical differences in the level of development of regions may grow, and we may also witness the appearance of new differentiating factors.\nIn this situation, what is particularly needed are mechanisms which reduce differences between regions, and continuation of strong regional policy is the way to achieve this objective. It would be unwise, in this situation, to give up this policy and reduce significantly the financing available to local and regional authorities, for this would pose a serious threat to the stimulation of economic growth, but would also be a threat to European unity as such.\nBoth the Europe 2020 strategy and Cohesion policy aim to achieve the same goal. They have a crucial effect on economic revival and huge significance for European solidarity policy. However, what is needed is better coordination between them. Creating new and separate thematic funds to respond to new challenges would be a waste of time and money, and would also delay realisation of the 2020 strategy and condemn it to the fate of the Treaty of Lisbon. We must ensure the financing of key infrastructure projects and reject the renationalisation of regional policy.\nAt the moment, we often hear of strong pressure from governments of certain Member States and also from the European Commission to cut or reduce expenditure on regional policy. However, the message of the European Parliament in the report, of which I was shadow rapporteur, is clear. We need stronger, not weaker, Cohesion policy. We need true European solidarity.\nEvelyne Gebhardt\n(EN) Mr President, Mr Grech, I would like to congratulate you on the truly excellent report which you have tabled before us here and which provides us with a basis from which to move forward. Thank you also for using a phrase which I myself use all the time, namely that the economy is there for the people and not the other way around. That is precisely what the policy of the European Union should be based on.\nIn your report, you also quite rightly point out that an adequate assessment of the social, consumer-related, environmental and economic impacts of the internal market, and the decisions we make in the internal market, are of particular importance. That is precisely what has been missing so far or what has not been made sufficiently visible to our citizens. It is a very important approach to point out the actual humanist and holistic elements of our policy, even when it comes to the internal market.\nIn your report, you also state one thing which is particularly important for us Social Democrats, and that is that social policy should be considered as a core of internal market policy and that protecting services of a general economic interest is of particular importance. In addition, you call for the development of a strategy for improved communication of the social advantages of the internal market.\nIf we consider just these few points, we realise that we could achieve a great deal if only the European Commission gave us its backing. I also very much hope that the Commission will genuinely take the opportunity presented by the Grech report to put the progress of EU citizens centre stage. I make that plea very strongly and, as we know, Mr Barnier has already agreed to do so. If we approach the internal market from that angle, the policy of the European Union will meet with greater acceptance and we will be able to look towards a better future.\nRobert Rochefort\n(FR) Mr President, in this debate on the 2020 strategy, I should also like to take advantage of Mr Grech's very interesting report to tell you that I am convinced that consumers must not be left out of this future strategy.\nWhen I look at the Commission's text on the 2020 strategy, I note that virtually no mention is made of consumers. In the current crisis, you must remember that, while investment is, of course, the key variable, consumption in our various countries represents between 60 and 70% of our GDP.\nI would therefore like us to move further in this direction in the 2020 strategy. I would love to see Europe pioneer a different type of consumption, one that is based on the knowledge triangle, on sustainable development, a Europe that is capable of developing production conditions and products which are of interest to consumers, which are created with them, a Europe which is focused on quality and no longer on quantity for quantity's sake. I would love to see a kind of enhanced competition which does not encourage 'discounting for discounting's sake' but which serves to ensure greater consumer satisfaction.\nCommissioner, my question is therefore very simple. Are you going to suggest to President Barroso and within the College of Commissioners that a group be formed to work in this field, so that consumers are no longer considered as adjustment variables, as passive individuals, but rather as active participants who are on your side, on our side, so that we can build this future society that we so desperately need?\nEmilie Turunen\n(DA) Mr President, I would like to take some time to talk about the social and employment aspects of EU 2020 and the Commission's efforts in this connection. I am sure it is no secret that the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance would have liked to have seen a much more ambitious 2020 plan than is currently on the table, with a genuine desire to define how Europe is to support itself in future and with a desire to set high social and employment targets. However, right now we have a situation in which the Member States had no intention of developing the plan that the Commission put forward. Instead they are moving backwards.\nFirstly, with regard to combating poverty: many Member States have questioned whether the EU actually has the competence to combat poverty and to set specific poverty targets. To this, I would simply say that there is a legal basis for this in numerous places in the new Treaty of Lisbon, for example, in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 9 and 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is therefore simply a matter of getting started. Secondly, other Member States, including my own, Denmark, have criticised the definition of poverty. Of course we need to come up with a good definition. However, these arguments cannot hide the fact that this is about one thing: whether we actually want to combat poverty in Europe. That is what the real debate is about.\nDo we want to reduce the number of poor people in Europe, which currently stands at 84 million? Do we want to reduce the number of poor workers, of which there are nearly 17 million? Do we not only want everyone to have jobs, but to also have good and proper jobs? Do we want young people to have access to the labour market? Yes, of course we do, and that is precisely why we need specific objectives with regard to social matters and in the area of employment. Europe is currently in the midst of an economic crisis, but we must not allow it to give us a mental block and make us afraid to set ambitious targets in these areas. If we do not have the courage to do this now, it will undermine the economic situation in Europe, as well as our social cohesion. Therefore, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would say to you that it is the political will that will be crucial. I hope that Parliament and the Commission will take the lead and urge those Member States that are hesitating to instead commit to a social Europe in 2020. I hope that, as Commissioners, you are prepared to do this.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\n(CS) We have spent the entire day discussing a desirable strategic focus for the European Union. In my opinion, however, we should first have put the question of desirable future development to our citizens and to those it concerns most closely, in other words, mayors and local councillors. In this regard, it is a great disappointment to me that the role of local authorities is not sufficiently reflected in the EU 2020 strategy. The strategy correctly mentions the need for greater links to regional and local partners, but it is not clear how the principle of partnership should be applied in practice. Moreover, the consultation process is voluntary, so it is not in any way binding on the decision making of the Member States. I can confirm this with one concrete example. When the Federation of Municipalities of the Czech Republic raised comments on the position of our government towards the EU 2020 strategy, not only were these comments not incorporated, but the Federation did not even receive a proper response on how the comments were handled.\nIf we want to avoid repeating the failure of the Lisbon Strategy, we must not continue to ignore the voice of local authorities, who form part of public administration in all of the Member States and whose role is key to the fulfilment of any European policy. On the contrary, mandatory consultation with the actors 'below' would contribute vital findings on the correct, efficient and effective implementation of adopted measures. I would therefore like to call on the Commission to monitor thoroughly the method of linking local authorities in to the whole process.\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\n(EL) Mr President, the current Lisbon Strategy has simply been renamed Europe 2020 strategy. In essence, the Commission's proposals as a whole do not overturn the current objectives, and not only were these objectives not attained, but progress over the last ten years has shown that the standard of living of the citizens of the European Union has slipped. Despite this, the proposals tabled by the Commission do not include sufficiently social criteria. We therefore ask: what measure does the Commission propose in order to prevent unaccountability of the market, redundancies at will and the extension of insecurity to labour? Does the involvement of the International Monetary Fund not mean more onerous terms for the Member States and people? In our opinion, if the Stability Pact is not replaced by a pact to achieve social objectives, the noose around the people's neck will tighten still more and greater sacrifices will be needed.\nTimo Soini\n(FI) Mr President, when I was studying at the University of Helsinki in the 1980s, the Soviet Union was still going strong. When there were problems there, they called for more socialism. Now I am the middleaged father of a family here in the European Union, and when there are problems here, we call for greater integration. This philosophy is astonishingly similar and the outcome, too, will be the same: it will not work.\nLet us build on a foundation of nation states. For that, we have to bake our bread before we distribute it, as we say in Finland. Let us create jobs and the right conditions. That will be the source of our strength. That is how we will make progress. We have a shortage of employers - not a shortage of employees, but of employers, who can provide people with work.\nSmall enterprises are crucial. We should postpone the debate on the owner drivers' working time directive until the next partsession. That is a typical example of a situation where we should be speaking up for independent entrepreneurs, who create jobs, who do good and who employ people. There is a danger now, however, that we will lose jobs on account of administrative decisions. I really love Europe, even if I do not love the European Union.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Mr President, in the year of the World Cup, the ladies and gentlemen of the Council could learn a lesson from football and that is that it is not possible to have a good game of football if you have got a referee overseeing each player. However, conducting a game without rules, without a referee and without penalising fouls, now that would end in chaos. That is precisely the state of affairs right now!\nIt is high time that the Europe 2020 strategy put a stop to hedge fund speculators. Those who have made a nice living from speculation and exorbitant interest rates for years should now make a contribution. Not small savers, but companies with their high speculative profits should be asked to foot the bill.\nNor should the Cohesion policy ignore the euro crisis. Apart from the current rescue package, Greece has benefited disproportionately in the past from agricultural and regional funding. Without the necessary structural changes, this money has clearly seeped away and, despite years of funding, the country has been brought to the brink of ruin. I do not see why we should leave the money tap on in such a situation. Why do we not listen to Commissioner Rehn who has made the rather reasonable proposal that we cut funding? Finally, we cannot allow the EU to degenerate into a union of transfers. A centrally planned economy, which is what some of you would like to see, has not proved its worth yet, even if it comes from Brussels.\nWhat is needed then? A self-responsible budgetary policy, and if it does not work, courageous and effective sanction mechanisms. All of that should be included in the Europe 2020 strategy.\nJean-Paul Gauz\u00e8s\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the economic and financial situation in Europe fully justifies the drastic measures which have been taken, in particular, to stabilise the euro area and to avoid the undermining of our single currency. The urgency of the situation justifies the practical approach adopted. However, when it comes to implementing the adopted measures, it should be ensured that Parliament is involved, within the scope of its powers, and can exert its democratic control in appropriate conditions.\nIndeed, we must ensure that our fellow citizens do not lose confidence, and can regain confidence, in the political institutions. Without such confidence, no structural reform or acceptance of the necessary austerity measures will be possible.\nFaced with the financial crisis, Europe has not been inactive. We do not say this often enough. In 2009, we drew up and adopted regulations on the credit rating agencies, the implementing provisions of which will be published very shortly by the Commission. Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs voted a few days ago for the package on the supervision of financial activities. Last Monday, the same committee adopted the report on regulation of hedge fund managers by a large majority.\nTrialogues have been initiated to seek an agreement with the Council. This agreement must be obtained rapidly, so that our institutions retain their credibility. Our fellow citizens often ask us: 'What is Europe doing?' We must meet their expectations.\nIn this regard, I should like to congratulate you, Commissioner, on your determination, and to encourage you to continue with the work programme which you have set out, in accordance with the undertakings made at your hearing. Your ambitious but essential timetable has our support. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with you so that the necessary regulation of financial services takes place. This is not a question of bullying the finance sector, but of establishing the rules to ensure that an activity which should be regulated is regulated, and of making transactions more secure and transparent.\nCsaba S\u00e1ndor Tabajdi\n(HU) Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, two great tasks face Europe today: designing a new strategy, which we are currently debating and which I feel is taking shape nicely. However, Europe is at a turning point if it does not find a new modus operandi. The events of the past weeks with regard to the Greek crisis - and here I would disagree with Mr Gauz\u00e8s, since unfortunately, the European Union and the Member States, and especially Mrs Merkel, have been late in responding to this situation - mean that Europe is at a turning point. This is an extraordinarily dangerous turning point, one that will determine whether we will move in the direction of renationalisation, national withdrawal and egoism, or in the direction of communitarianism. If we do not move towards communitarianism, the programme outlined by Mr Barnier will not be implemented and is worthless. It is very important that we do not forget, when setting out new objectives, about our previous policy, the Cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy or, if I look at Commissioner Andor, about renewing the European social model. We are at a turning point, fellow Members. The past few weeks have proven this to be the case: the previous model does not work and the current model does not work properly. I am in favour of the Commission monitoring national budgets before they are submitted to the Member States' parliaments.\nCarl Haglund\n(SV) Mr President, my contribution concerns Mr Hoang Ngoc's report on sustainable finances within the public sector. It has been a very interesting report to work on. The situation was - and the rapporteur's speech made this clear, too - that, from an ideological point of view, we had quite differing views on this question.\nIn this connection, it is important to remember what has happened in Europe in recent weeks, where we have an economic crisis, the like of which we have seldom seen before. The crisis is largely due to a failure on the part of Member States to look after their own finances and to keep their own house in order. It was therefore perhaps a little surprising that we had such major ideological differences about whether it was actually judicious to borrow and spend as much money as many countries have done in recent years.\nAs I say, there were quite major differences on these issues, something that we have also seen in the Chamber. Fortunately, a very broad majority in the committee was also of the opinion that there was a need for tougher measures to remedy the situation we find ourselves in. The Commission has brought forward very good proposals in recent weeks. A start has finally now been made on taking decisions that will actually lead to us getting order back into Europe's economy. That is exactly what we need.\nThat is why the discussions in the committee were exciting, to say the least. It is important to remember that we are not only dealing with our current borrowing, but also with future challenges such as Europe's demographics, its ageing population and so on. This was an important report, and I think we made positive amendments to it. I am convinced that the decision this House reaches will be a sound one.\nBas Eickhout\n(NL) The present discussion on this crisis has mainly covered budgetary discipline; and rightly so, as it is important. It is not the whole story, though. Let us also keep this crisis in the right perspective, which is that we are actually still talking about a banking crisis.\nFor many years, the banks made money out of thin air using opaque structures and, in 2008, this bubble burst. Countries then transformed that private debt into public debt, and this is the problem Greece is having to contend with now: an unbearable level of public debt. In the light of this, when we discuss a 2020 strategy, we must also look at the role of the banks. The Commission has a total lack of ambition in this regard. Hardly a word has been said about the banks. What this crisis has shown is that a clear distinction must be made between savings banks and investment banks. Where is the Commission's ambition when it comes to plans for tackling this? That was my first point.\nHowever, we must also look at the economy of the future. The economy of the future will make efficient use of its natural resources. Here, too, the Commission has too little ambition. Either its objectives are too vague or its targets too low; for example, a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which is woefully inadequate to promote green innovation. How are companies to get the message that they should invest in green technology? We feel the Commission's plans should cover this, too.\nFinally, with regard to our own budget, this, too, must be in line with our own strategy. This means that the Structural Funds must ultimately be used to promote new green technology. At the moment, we are mainly subsidising more greenhouse gas emissions. Where is the money for innovation, and where are the appropriations for sustainable agriculture in the agricultural budget? We need the Commission to be specific and ambitious rather than producing vague plans; these are not the way to solve this crisis.\nKay Swinburne\nMr President, the central component of EU 2020 should not be stabilisation funds and bailouts. It should be a new strategy that all of our countries should want to follow to re-launch and re-energise the internal market of the EU. We need to be looking at how to change our economies so that they are fit for those challenges. The only way forward is to look at new industries via research, development and innovation. The EU should be encouraging a new economic dynamism in the European research area, creating networks for excellence, research clusters for integrated projects based on innovation in new products and services, looking at new processes and technologies and new business concepts. We should be looking at existing successful projects and using EU links to find best practice.\nIn my own constituency, I visited Glynd\u0175r University, which has fostered direct links with hi-tech firms in North Wales, achieving a 90% graduate placement, even last year. It has not just improved the job prospects of the young people who attend, but it has revitalised an entire region of North Wales. Instead of looking at the billion-dollar projects and silver-bullet solutions, we need to get back to the nuts and bolts of what makes a successful economy. South Wales has five significant pharmaceutical development companies with world-class technology. With a little EU assistance, this hi-tech company cluster could be elevated to being a world-class centre, lifting an entire economy that currently qualifies for cohesion funds into a brighter future. We need solutions to work effectively for our citizens.\nJacky H\u00e9nin\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you will not admit it, but the reality is blatantly obvious: the idea or, at least, the myth of a liberal Europe has run out of steam. How can anyone continue to believe in a deepening of its federal dimension when it is getting ready to fleece the most indebted countries to help out the financial markets?\nYet liberal Europe's project and activities have also run out of steam, and spectacularly so. With the successive crises, the last of which was the deepest of all, public debt has exploded. Worse still, however, the credibility of the euro area has gone up in smoke. The situation calls for real solidarity. However, the Treaty of Maastricht rules out any solidarity between countries in the euro area. This is the ultimate European paradox.\nThe end of the line for Europe is also apparent in the negotiations at the WTO and in the story regularly sold to us claiming that the EU will protect us from globalisation. Far from being our shield and protection, EU directives have frequently stolen a march on the WTO. In fact, we are now hugely vulnerable as a result of the EU, and we are now paying the price with the deindustrialisation process and the various forms of relocation. For the sake of the peoples, EU policy must be urgently refocused.\nMara Bizzotto\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 308 billion is the total amount of the funds earmarked for implementing Cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013. To date, Europe has spent, and judging by the results, wasted, some of these priority funds established by Lisbon. For EU 2020 to be a success and for the mountains of cash that remain to be spent to be used to stimulate economic growth and support competition, two types of intervention are needed: simplification and review.\nSimplification will be a key to disentangling access to these resources from paralysing red tape: regions, citizens and businesses want to be able to act more freely to unlock their potential.\nAs for review, this is urgently needed in order to change the criteria defining how the funds are allocated, by rethinking the general spirit underlying Cohesion policy.\nNow as never before, our Cohesion policy needs to be able to prove its strength as a multilevel governance tool, by giving a genuine voice to the problems that affect our territory and, in Brussels, formulating its long-awaited response regarding the future of our social and economic model.\nLadies and gentlemen, it is the duty of anybody that, like the European Union, is responsible for handling these kinds of sums, to impose stringent supervision of the projects that are supported and to vigorously combat waste. This is the only way in which the EU 2020 strategy will succeed in not being a bad copy of a bad original.\nRegina Bastos\n(PT) Mr President, we are facing accelerating global change that has devastating consequences for our economic, political and social systems and, therefore, for all our citizens. We are currently witnessing an unprecedented weakening of the capacity of states to respond. The European Union must, therefore, identify common causes and allies, and act in a clear and united way on the world stage.\nExtraordinary situations require clear joint action. If we do not take the necessary strong measures and collective responsibility, Europe will be consigned to marginalisation and impoverishment. Only a strong Europe that respects collective rules will be able to give an adequate response to the new era.\nWeakened and indebted states do not have the capacity to protect their citizens. We therefore need to be able to win back the public trust, win the battles on stability, budgetary rigour, job creation, the stability of the monetary union, globalisation, strategic choices.\nWe must do this or risk compromising our future. The future is won by committing to social cohesion, ensuring peace, constructing a new model based on the values of liberty, social justice and responsibility. So, the 2020 strategy and the integrated Europe 2020 guidelines constitute essential elements of a new cycle of growth and employment in Europe.\nIn order to correctly implement this and carry it out, clear quantifiable objectives must be set out for employment, education and poverty reduction. It is also essential that everything be done to facilitate the Member States' transposition of their national objectives if the strategy is to be successful and correctly implemented.\nConstanze Angela Krehl\n(DE) Mr President, the current Cohesion policy started life with the title of the Lisbon Strategy. However, I firmly believe that the Cohesion policy can, and will, make an enormous contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy, not just because we command a considerable budget in comparison with other European policies but, above all, because the Cohesion policy allows us to have sustainable development in our regions and ensures good monitoring of the restructuring processes and challenges in our regions.\nHowever, there is one core issue here that I would like to clarify once again, and that goes for our group as well: our Cohesion policy can only work if economic development is considered to be equally as important as social development and providing training for workers. In principle, we need to take joint responsibility for the funds that are available to us. It is a bit like hardware and software - one cannot work without the other.\nRamona Nicole M\u0103nescu\n(RO) I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra for his efforts in drafting his report. This report emphasises yet again the important contribution made by the Cohesion policy in achieving the EU 2020 strategy objectives. We must therefore ensure that the Cohesion policy's regional focus is recognised as part of this strategy.\nWe are all aware that the strategy's effective implementation will depend hugely on the way it is devised. As a result, I believe that local and regional authorities must be involved even in the drafting phase in order to guarantee that really effective results will be achieved later on. At the same time, better governance at a number of levels guarantees the effective implementation of the Cohesion policy at national, regional and local level.\nAs beneficiaries of these policies, I believe that Member States must maintain the key role which they have in the decision-making process regarding the Cohesion policy within the Council. Finally, I wish to welcome the acknowledgement given to the role of the Structural Funds in achieving the strategy's objectives. However, I want to draw your attention to the fact, once again, that we must avoid the pitfall of using these funds in future as a means for punishing Member States. I believe that such a measure would run completely contrary to the Cohesion policy's real objectives.\nFran\u00e7ois Alfonsi\n(FR) Mr President, the key word in this 2020 strategy is growth. It does not matter whether we choose to call it intelligent, sustainable or inclusive, we are now in the grip of a crisis in Europe that will not come to an end tomorrow. The quantified targets for this 2020 strategy - increasing the employment rate, reducing the poverty rate, and so on - are just pious hopes, because they use the same model as the Lisbon Strategy, which failed.\nEurope is faced with a crisis which requires a much more visionary and political project, one with new ideas, which are completely lacking in this 2020 strategy.\nI should like to highlight one such idea. Should we not, at long last, set a target for enhancing Europe's cultural diversity, a founding value of the EU, which could provide the raw material, unequalled on any other continent, for the economic development of our Europe, through the use of intangible assets, such as the economy of culture, and of tangible assets, such as our regional specialities?\nWhat is more, a strategic vision is being developed that is almost entirely focused on the Member States. Yet these States, with their borders, traditional ways of thinking and centralised administrations, continue to preserve Europe in aspic.\nA greater regional dimension is required in the EU's future strategy. Macro-regional strategies which reorganise land use policies around the continent's life-sustaining natural basins, which are also its cultural and historic centres - the Baltic Sea, the Western Mediterranean, the Danube, the Alps, the Atlantic Arc, and so on - must also be encouraged.\nThis approach is gradually being adopted, for example, in the Baltic Sea, but it has not been taken up in the 2020 strategy, and therefore could very well be nipped in the bud when the funds for its implementation need to be released. The 2020 strategy being presented to us is therefore, in our view, characterised by a highly conventional and technocratic approach; it lacks political vision.\nZbigniew Ziobro\n(PL) The EU 2020 strategy is a document intended to establish the direction of the Union's development over the next decade. However, if this document is not to share the fate of the Lisbon Strategy, it has to be more realistic and closer to the ambitions of Member States. With this in mind, we should appreciate the amendments adopted by Parliament to the Commission's proposal which, in particular, concern strengthening the common market, reducing protectionism, continuing Cohesion policy and supporting agriculture.\nHowever, and this still needs to be stressed, there is a need to conduct climate policy more fairly, in other words, in a way which does not, by its excessive burdens, mean the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will always be the poor relatives of the European Union.\nFinally, I would like to point out that the central concept of European Union strategy is innovation, but we should remember to continue Cohesion policy and support for agriculture, because it is this which makes it possible for the poorer regions to bridge the gap in development.\nMario Borghezio\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, an industrial policy that focuses exclusively on companies operating internationally and using advanced technologies is not the best route to success. We must not forget the whole small and medium enterprise sector, including both small-scale manufacturers and retailers. Innovation policy should be aimed at them also.\nIn particular, this strategy should guarantee conditions that place small and medium-sized enterprises on an equal footing with their competitors outside the EU by adopting safeguard clauses and strong, effective measures to combat the extremely serious problem of counterfeiting, including through effective trade defence instruments. It is important that governance of the Europe 2020 strategy should not rest in the hands of the Commission alone, but should be carried out at different levels, including the national and macro-regional levels.\nWe need to start formulating a policy and strategy that focus on the local level and the reality of manufacturing on the ground, and I would like to stress here the need for attention to be paid to the manufacturing situation in Padania. In other words, we are asking for more attention to be paid to the actual manufacturing situation on the ground, focusing, in particular, on the SME structure, as I said, which is the backbone of manufacturing in every country in Europe and is therefore where the real hope for the future of manufacturing and development of the European Union lies.\nBendt Bendtsen\n(DA) Mr President, well, our aim was to become 'the most competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world', but that did not happen. The challenges facing Europe over the next few years are enormous. The problems that we are currently seeing in Greece, and will perhaps also see in a number of other countries before too long, are the result of two things: the lack of competitiveness in Europe and the fact that Europeans have been living beyond our means, in other words, we have spent more money than we have earned and we have spent more money than is supported by our productivity.\nMany economists like to make economics more complicated than it is, but the explanation is quite simple: the markets have simply lost their belief that Europe's debt-ridden countries can compete and live up to their own responsibilities - that is the reason for all this. Europe's major problem, as I said, is a lack of competitiveness, and this is the problem that the 2020 strategy is intended to tackle. We must increase our competitiveness in relation to other countries and the Member States must put their economies in order while, at the same time, investing in the future.\nIndeed, it may be necessary to make cuts in what we call welfare services in order to use the money for education and research. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of Europe's economy. We therefore need to take them seriously in this strategy. They lack capital and they are finding it difficult to borrow money. We need to do something about this. Many small and medium-sized enterprises are excluded from public invitations to tender, both in the Member States and, in particular, when it comes to EU tenders, where large undertakings are given priority.\nFinally, I would like to say that administrative burdens are also something that we have to struggle with all the time. The administrative rules that we lay down are, of course, a greater burden for small enterprises, which have very few employees. Finally, we must help small and medium-sized enterprises to enter the export markets.\nSergio Gaetano Cofferati\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are all running a serious risk of focusing purely on the crisis. After the action that has been taken in setting up the fund to defend the euro in order to help those countries in difficulties and to stop speculation, discussions in this House have focused heavily on the subjects of renewal and stability, neglecting everything else. These are subjects for the Member States.\nWe have focused our attention so narrowly that the issues of the finance and banking system and the related problems of oversight and regulation have been put to one side and almost forgotten. However, I firmly believe that a sense of perspective is needed in our formulation of policy. It is not by accident that the pact was called the 'Stability and Growth Pact'. An even more accurate title would have been the 'Stability for Growth Pact'.\nWe need to start talking about growth and development again. This is the best way to stop speculation and to give genuine investors confidence instead. Without proposals relating to growth - I am thinking about the fiscal uniformity that Mr Monti has been talking about; investment resources; making eurobonds available and cohesion instruments, as cohesion is a very important factor for competitiveness - it will be hard to create this positive climate, particularly at the moment.\nOlle Schmidt\n(SV) Mr President, recent times have shown us the importance of healthy government finances. It is therefore curious, to say the least, for the rapporteur, Mr Hoang Ngoc, to want to tone down - and even remove - strict requirements for the Stability and Growth Pact to be followed. The truth is, on the contrary, that it is essential for the EU now to focus on getting its run-away debt under control. Otherwise, the future could be even more terrifying.\nI was a member of the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag, during the 1990s and I was on the Finances Committee when our public finances collapsed. I am not particularly proud of this, but it is true: for a period, we had interest rates of 500%! They were heading towards 2 000%, which meant we were well on the way to banana republic status, but even the 500% rates were not enough - our currency crashed and George Soros won.\nHard times lay ahead for the Swedish people, but, Mr Hoang Ngoc, we learnt one thing, and that was to keep our finances in order. The same applies to Europe - good order provides stability and growth.\nMichail Tremopoulos\n(EL) Europe still faces a multi-dimensional crisis today, which is hitting employment and low incomes particularly hard. When the European Union started, poverty only existed where there was no work. Today, 9.6% of Europeans are unemployed and 8% of workers are living on incomes below the poverty line. What are the prospects for 2020?\nThis combination of unemployment and poverty is exacerbated by the pressure created by the ease with which redundancies can be made. At European level, there is no protection against redundancy and national legislation is being watered down, as in Greece. All this is happening in the Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.\nWe therefore need a minimum framework of disincentives for redundancy. Proposals have been made. The starting point is to recognise mass redundancies by companies which report a profit in the same country as an abusive practice. The logical consequence is for them to be excluded from European subsidies and to be subject to higher taxes and fines and to have to refund financing. The question is: is the corporate responsibility of companies included in their obligation to function as part of society or do they consider it acceptable to behave as competitors of the workers?\nVicky Ford\nMr President, I welcome many of the aims of the EU 2020 strategy: the focus on growth led by innovative businesses, on sustainable growth and on achieving high employment. However, to achieve this, the EU must not just talk the talk: we need to walk the walk.\nFor example, when undertaking the essential reforms of financial services, we must remember that innovative businesses and those employers need access to capital in global markets. Our Member States also need to access those global capital markets and, whilst all eyes are focused on the European Stabilisation Fund, and whether it has achieved any current reduction in the immediate volatility, fundamentally, long-term confidence will only be achieved if, as well as this ambitious growth, our deficits are brought under control and public finances themselves are seen to be sustainable.\nJohannes Hahn\nMr President, I believe that today's debate has shown and proved that Parliament can and should make a significant contribution to the development of the strategy. Because of my remit, I would like to thank Mr van Nistelrooij and Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra, in particular, for their reports. I thank also all those who have been intensively involved in this work because they will have a major say in the shaping of regional policy and because both reports have shown how important it is to consider all regions in Europe and that regional policy can and must be a policy for all regions, and that in future, it should be.\nBoth reports ultimately stress the positive impact of this measure. I would like to thank Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra, in particular, for this significant contribution and for pointing out what the Lisbon Strategy ultimately did deliver, despite all the criticism. It was, after all, not just the idea, but the subsequent implementation of the concept of earmarking that has made a significant impact here, especially in the fields of innovation and research.\nMrs Schroeder might consider this a bitter pill, but obviously you need to set a target. However, the regions that have local structures and individual project developers have had, and will have in future, the possibility of carrying out individual projects and achieving objectives under one general umbrella. Of course, we need points of emphasis and we need to set priorities, and that is the idea behind earmarking. However, we can achieve a great deal by using a bottom-up and a top-down approach at the same time.\nIn addition, the strategic report I recently presented on the reports of the 27 Member States concerning the state of implementation hitherto of the current programming period shows how sustainable and sensible earmarking actually has been, because EUR 63 billion of the EUR 93 billion allocated so far has been spent on Lisbon objectives, that is, for research, innovation, investment in training and, finally, on transport and infrastructure, in the broadest sense of those terms, as well.\nRegional policy - and this was shown very clearly by the van Nistelrooij report - is a driving force behind innovation which is able to move things forward and to make and keep European society more globally competitive. It has been demonstrated that out of the more than 450 operational programmes, only 246 are focusing on research and innovation. This quite clearly shows that points of emphasis, such as research and development, are necessary and that that must remain the case.\nFor this reason, it was obvious in the current programming period that we should allocate just EUR 86 billion for this area, which is three times more than in the 2000-2006 period. However, we need to ensure better coordination of course, especially in the areas of research and innovation. There is no conflict between excellence, on the one hand, and a broad geographic spread, on the other. It must be our objective to promote brain circulation, not brain drain from some or many regions into a few. On the contrary, we need to ensure circulation of knowledge and of the people involved, particularly when it comes to research, innovation and development.\nOne of the major objectives should be, especially if we consider the next programming period, making a transition from a merely performance-based approach, which is to say, proper financial management, to a stronger result-targeted approach and perspective. That must be one of EU 2020's major steps forward in comparison with Lisbon, one which really enables us to break down European objectives into national, regional and, ultimately, local objectives and thereby make the strategies tangible, visible and comprehensible.\nOne final comment: my understanding of regional policy is that it is investment policy, and by that I mean investment in all regions. Finally, all regions can benefit from successful investments made in individual regions because, we have to keep remembering that two thirds of the European exports of each individual Member State are destined for the European Union, to the 26 other countries. That means that if these countries are doing well, the 27th Member State will do well too. That must be one of our objectives. If today we also talk about how to tackle the crisis, then restructuring the budget cannot be our only concern, because growth constitutes a very important factor as well. That alone will provide our successful exit from the crisis in the long term and regional policy can make a significant contribution to that.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 Andor\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, there are five plus two questions put forward concerning economic governance and Europe 2020. I will do my best to answer in five minutes, and in order to do that, I will use English as opposed to my native language.\nHonourable Members, the first question is on how the Commission intends to strengthen the monitoring of the broad economic policy guidelines and how the Commission intends to ensure an active role of the national parliaments and the European Parliament in the multilateral surveillance process.\nIn reply to this first question, I would like to refer to the Commission communication on Europe 2020, in which the Commission proposes that the European Parliament should play an important role, not only in its capacity as a colegislator, but also as a driving force for mobilising citizens and the national parliaments. The Commission also emphasises the importance of establishing a permanent dialogue between various levels of government, including national, regional and local authorities and national parliaments, as well as social partners and representatives of civil society.\nThe second question concerns the Stability and Growth Pact and the additional instruments the Commission may foresee to complement this pact. Here, I would like to refer to our communication on reinforcing economic policy coordination, which we adopted last week. In this communication the Commission set out proposals on reinforcing compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact and deeper fiscal policy coordination. Specifically, the Commission intends to make budgetary surveillance and policy coordination more forward-looking. In the euro area in particular, a more far-reaching approach to the assessment of budgetary policies seems justified, including a more pervasive review of the weaknesses of national budgetary plans ahead of their adoption. Furthermore, in order to provide the right incentives for Member States to tackle fiscal imbalances, the functioning of the excessive deficit procedure could be improved by speeding up the individual procedures, in particular, with regard to Member States in repeated breach of the pact. The Commission also proposes to reinforce the macro-economic prevention framework for euro area Member States by establishing a permanent crisis resolution framework. Under the proposed mechanism, the EU would be able to issue debt to finance emergency loans to a euro area member in distress.\nThe third question concerns the differences between two Commission papers: on the one hand, the communication on public finances in the EMU 2006 of June 2006 and, on the other hand, the 2008 EMU 10 report. The policy recommendations that we made in 2006 focused on the changes brought about by the reform of the Pact in 2005. The 2008 EMU 10 report is consistent with what was written at the time, for instance, on the relevance of long-term sustainability, on the need to set incentives in good times and on the positive role of national fiscal frameworks. At the same time, the lessons of more than 10 years of EMU and the recent impact of the crisis call for an updated but still consistent assessment. Last week's communication on reinforcing economic policy coordination focuses on making the pact more rigorous with regard to both its preventive and corrective arm. It also makes detailed proposals against the background of the new opportunities provided by the Lisbon Treaty.\nWe propose reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact framework, both in its preventive and corrective dimensions; broadening the surveillance of macro-economic imbalances and competitiveness trends within the euro area; introducing a 'European semester' to strengthen ex ante integrated economic policy coordination; and, finally, working towards a robust and permanent crisis resolution mechanism for euro area Member States in fiscal distress.\nThe fourth question refers to the task force established by the European Council in March 2010 in order to improve economic governance in the Union. The Commission will cooperate constructively in the interest of the Union and in full respect of its right of initiative. Last week's communication already constitutes a significant contribution to the task force. The European Parliament, in this context, is obviously a very important stakeholder in the EU economic governance reform. Through its work and reports in the relevant committees - economic crisis committees in particular - Parliament is already providing valuable contributions to the deliberations of the task force.\nThe fifth and final question is about the trust that needs to be rebuilt in European banks and financial markets and in the European project in general. I will just sum this up very quickly, because it is a broad subject. I think there are three important issues to be underlined here: first, the importance of financial regulation to create a much safer financial system; second, to make the fiscal stability rules very clear, transparent and understandable for all; and, third, to restore the growth potential of Europe. That is why Europe 2020 plays an important role in this context as well. So these elements, in my view, are equally important in restoring trust in the European project.\nThis leads me to the two questions on the Europe 2020 strategy. In line with the conclusions of the Spring European Council, in particular, as regards the headline targets for the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission has started working with the Member States on setting national targets to underpin the headline targets. To facilitate this work, the Employment Committee Indicators Group has produced two alternative technical approaches that show what each Member State would need to do to ensure the EU meets the 75% target in terms of employment levels.\nDuring the last week of April and the first week of May, the Commission and the Presidency held a round of bilateral discussions to exchange initial ideas on potential national targets for the strategy. These discussions were very fruitful and allowed us to gain a first idea of where Member States stand and to understand the very peculiar economic circumstances that are a feature of each Member State. The bilateral meetings showed that most Member States strongly supported the headline targets and were ready to set ambitious national targets to meet the headline targets set by the Spring Council. Basing itself on the overall outcome of these meetings, the Commission will compile the results, which will then serve as an input for the various Council configurations in May and June. If there are discrepancies between the EU target and the sum of the national targets, we intend to continue the discussion with the Member States to see how national or EU-level action could bring the EU closer to the targets. The European Council has said that it will review the headline target in June on the basis of further work.\nThere is particular interest in an explanation on the poverty target, if you will allow me. The Spring Council asked the Commission to help the Member States to identify suitable indicators underpinning the EU headline target for social inclusion, in particular, through poverty reduction. After hearing the concerns of the various Member States, the Commission has presented a possible compromise proposal. The proposal is based on three main EU poverty indicators, namely: at risk of poverty; material deprivation; and the number of jobless households. Together, they reflect the multifaceted nature of poverty and the range of situations in the Member States. While a number of delegations have expressed support for the Commission proposal within the Social Protection Committee, some insist on including a labour market dimension in the EU target set. The Commission is actively exploring the possible solutions.\nOn governance, I wish to reassure you that we set great store by your role in the new strategy and by your input. President Barroso has made it clear that involving Parliament more closely in Europe 2020 is one of his main concerns for his second term. We are doing our best to make sure that Parliament has enough time to come to an opinion this year. I am personally fully committed to helping you in the process in every possible way. We need to have all the main EU institutions on board if the political ownership needed is to be there and the strategy is to succeed.\nConcerning education and training, which is the subject of the second question on Europe 2020, I would just like to say the following. As early as the crisis recovery plan of November 2008, the Commission called on Member States to retain investment in education and training, and we will maintain this focus. In general, Member States have responded positively to the call to target the recovery measures at smart investment in resources of future growth. Many governments have neither reduced student support nor scaled back enrolment. On the contrary, many recovery packages have included measures to support wider participation in education, particularly in higher education. In spite of the crisis, education budgets announced for 2010 have remained constant or increased in many Member States. However, we do see signs of planned decreases in the education budgets of other countries.\nWe should bear in mind that some governments had already planned - and in some cases executed - general cuts in public budgets before the onset of the crisis. Many such cuts would affect education. Other Member States are exploring ways to diversify the sources of funding. The Commission will continue to watch this issue carefully. In some countries, financial constraints will only appear now. We will monitor general state budgets as well as the efficiency of investment.\nAt European level and within the existing multiannual financial framework, the Commission intends to prioritise action supporting the Europe 2020 objectives. Boosting economic recovery, investing in Europe's youth and building tomorrow's infrastructure are the priorities of the 2011 draft budget that the Commission recently adopted. Support for the 'Youth on the Move' flagship initiative means strengthening the 'lifelong learning' and 'youth in action' programmes as well as the 'Marie Curie' and 'Erasmus for Entrepreneurs' actions.\nLet us not forget that we also intervene in this area through the Structural Funds. The European Social Fund, with a budget of EUR 76 billion over the 2007-2013 period, helps young people move from education to the world of work. It also helps people to return to education to renew and expand their skills. Around one third of the beneficiaries of the European Social Fund are young people. The Fund also allocates EUR 8.3 billion, which represents roughly 11% of its overall budget, to the reform of Member States' education and training systems.\nAll of this demonstrates that the Europe 2020 strategy reinforces the concept of the knowledge-based economy and that education and training are at the heart of this. We will make sure that we have the resources to reach our targets.\nDavid Casa\n(MT) It is worrying that the economic crisis is going to give rise to long-term repercussions. As the population age increases, so will the Member States' challenge in guaranteeing sustainability in the area of social welfare. While I can understand that public spending needs to be diversified in order for Europe to fulfil its 2020 vision, I also believe that this spending needs to form part of national fiscal policy. The drop in birth rates and an ever-increasing ageing population call for a change in policy if we are to guarantee fiscal sustainability. In addition, the rise in pension demands and medical assistance must be kept in mind.\nWith regard to demographic change patterns, the European Union needs a motivational strategy for senior citizens in order to keep them in employment for a longer period of time. It is essential that we consider such strategies in light of the specific requirements among the various Member States. We cannot employ a one-size-fits-all policy. Each case merits individual attention. Consequently, it is fundamental that there are more employed persons on the labour market, and that we increase opportunities for high level employment. This will not only reduce the dependency on social services but will also ensure a higher number of contributors to these schemes.\nOn the subject of jobs and training, it is essential that the European Union focuses on active and inclusive employment, that is to say, exploiting the full potential of all those who can work, especially women, to promote the integration of those most alienated by the world of work and to supply them with all the necessary tools to help them succeed. Mr Commissioner, after having been in our respective posts for some weeks now, it is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work so that these objectives are reached, which will increase employment within the European Union.\nOle Christensen\n(DA) Mr President, every day, thousands of jobs are lost in Europe, and the Europe 2020 strategy is intended to be the EU's answer to future challenges in this regard and to how we can maintain and strengthen our competitiveness so that we can create growth and more jobs. We need to choose the route we are going to take: whether we will compete on the basis of low wages and poor working conditions or whether we will compete on the basis of knowledge and skills, quality green jobs and decent conditions in the labour market.\nIn this regard, it is a little worrying to see the Commission's unbalanced focus on flexibility in the flexicurity model. That will not achieve anything. People need to be safe and secure in order to be flexible. There needs to be some form of support that people can live on if they lose their jobs. Further training needs to be provided so that people can move around the labour market to the best job opportunities. Investments are needed in the Member States, but they must be investments that pay off in the long term.\nThe Commission must do more to address social dumping. Anyone moving from one country to another for a job should work under the conditions applicable in their new country. The Commission must ensure that everyone is covered by the rules on migrant workers - by the rules applying at EU level - and the rules of the internal market must not take precedence over the rules governing workers' rights.\nMarian Harkin\nMr President, I would just like to say that the debate this afternoon reflects Parliament's willingness, indeed insistence, on being fully engaged in this process. Given my limited time, I would just like to make three brief points. I support Commissioner Rehn's statement - and indeed Commissioner Andor's statement today - in regard to the scrutiny of Member State's budgets. At one point, it looked like the eurozone and the EU might not make it to 2020 as an entity. So to ensure that not only do we survive but thrive, it is crucial that Member States deliver on commitments and promises already made. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted has always been a useless exercise.\nSecondly, for the past 18 months, Member States and the EU have focused almost exclusively on the stabilisation of financial institutions. In fact, we have been consumed by it. While this is important, very many citizens have lost trust and are now feeling abandoned. They are looking for support from Member States and they are looking to the EU to put in place a framework that is conducive to job creation, to entrepreneurship and to the support of SMEs, but crucially, that framework must link growth in the economy with the creation of decent jobs and an improvement in the well-being of all citizens, especially those below the poverty line.\nFinally, there is a major crisis in youth unemployment. A Commission document issued yesterday confirmed that youth unemployment in the EU stands at 20%, which is twice that forecast for overall unemployment. This crisis is every bit as real and as immediate as the economic crisis and, while I heard the Commissioner's comments on youth initiatives and I welcome them, there must be real coordination between, and strong influence on, Member States to translate those initiatives into concrete jobs.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) The 2020 strategy contains ambitious objectives with which it is difficult to argue, but the objectives are defined as if the European Union were already wealthy, free from worries and thinking only about building a successful future. Meanwhile, we know there are many things to worry about and, above all, there are many differences between the level of development of the rich and poor countries and regions of Europe.\nI note with astonishment that among the priorities of the strategy, there is no place for the development of agriculture, while we know, after all, that by 2050, the world has to increase its production of food by 70%, because there are more and more people in the world, and less and less land is being used for agricultural production. It is difficult to understand why the development of agriculture is not being treated as a priority in the strategy.\nAgriculture means food security, agriculture means ecological security, and these things are so important for us and for future generations. I cannot imagine a responsible development strategy for the European Union which does not include concern for the development of European agriculture.\nGeorgios Koumoutsakos\n(EL) Mr President, before speaking about the 2020 strategy, an answer is needed, I believe, to certain points made earlier by one or two members about the position of the Greek centre-right party on the support mechanism for the Greek economy. We need to clarify certain points. Our party has never opposed the European support mechanism for Greece. Our party simply had a perception of the measures that should have been applied. The measures which are now being applied will certainly cause a deep recession and stagflation and the government decided on these measures itself, without any prior information or agreement with the other political parties in Greece and Greek society. The majority in government refused any prior agreement which might have resulted in broad and necessary political and social assent. I repeat, the New Democracy party did not oppose the European support mechanism of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. We respect our partners' every last euro and we thank them for their support. That is why we responsibly supported a different, more effective policy mix. We support the need for strict financial discipline and a growth policy, so that Greece can break out of the vicious circle of deep recession and galloping inflation, with disastrous consequences for Greek society and the economy and, ultimately, a negative impact on Europe.\nAs regards our debate on the economic crisis and the 2020 strategy, I believe that the time has come for specific acts and tangible results. Enough talk. That is the point of my speech. Keep it simple. The euro is an historic success of European integration and we should defend and rescue it. That is why we need strong financial and economic governance because, without this 2020 strategy, it is at risk of failure and of following the precedent set by the Lisbon Strategy.\n(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))\nMarc Tarabella\n(FR) Mr Koumoutsakos, you do have some cheek! I have just heard you talk about the Greek Government and how it did not bother to consult you, the various parties or civil society before implementing the measures. Although, I must say that the current Greek Government is not in any way responsible for the situation. It is a victim of speculators, who I will be criticising in a few moments, when I speak. Yet it is also my duty to highlight the responsibility of the previous government, which massaged the figures over many years, and the fact that your party was in power for at least two parliamentary terms. I therefore think that responsibility rests more with Greece and that political responsibility rests with your party. Do you have a reply to this question, Mr Koumoutsakos?\nGeorgios Koumoutsakos\n(EL) Sir, your speech is the result of poor information. The previous Greek Government took over an economy deeply in debt, very deeply in debt, an economy on rotten foundations, and these problems, chronic problems, deeply rooted over 30 years, were highlighted and dramatised by the huge international economic crisis.\nOf course, mistakes were made by the previous government, but much bigger mistakes have been made, either due to weakness or due to a lack of courage, by the present government, which was at least five months late taking the measures needed to contain the situation, and thus the deficit crisis, which exists in every country, as you know full well, became a borrowing crisis.\nThat is how we arrived at today's drastic situation. This is the answer which I am giving you with a view to our engaging in self-criticism; but this is where the ancient saying 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' applies.\nEdward Scicluna\n(MT) Mr President, never more than today has the importance of long-term sustainability of public finances been pushed to the forefront in such a dramatic manner. It is easy and natural to say 'we warned you not to let your deficits and debts spiral out of control' and we have every reason to. However, now that many Member States of the European Union, including those in the euro area, have come to this unsustainable situation, we cannot simply reverse the situation and try to do so in as short a time as possible while ignoring the serious economic environment we find ourselves in.\nThis is not an appeal to postpone our actions in the field of public finances. I am not implying anything of the sort. However, to demand the implementation of austerity programmes unscrupulously within European Union countries would mean condemning the entire European region to a long period of slow economic growth, if not worse. We cannot afford to curb demand, even in countries which boast surpluses, both on an internal and external level, and which have the means to spend more and not less.\nWe must help the weaker European Union countries to stimulate their economies through exports and therefore help to stimulate job growth prospects. Let us not be dogmatic. This situation requires that we act intelligently. It also necessitates an element of flexibility in many sectors, not least in economic policy.\nElizabeth Lynne\nMr President, we have quite rightly heard a lot about economic recovery in the Commission's proposal for the EU 2020 strategy but not enough, in my opinion, about poverty, and that is why I was delighted that you mentioned poverty reduction in your speech.\nWe have to remember that the most vulnerable in society suffer in any economic recession more than anyone else, and that is why we have to put in place mechanisms to protect them. For instance, I would like to see a target of a 25% reduction of EU citizens living in poverty, as well as ensuring that those who are currently excluded from the labour market can gain access to good-quality work, and that, at the same time, we have targets to eradicate undeclared work.\nWe must also make sure that Member States invest in social security and social protection systems as well as guaranteeing access to rights, resources and universal services. I would also like to see an EU-wide target to end street homelessness by 2015 by Member States, and to develop integrated homelessness strategies.\nIn all these areas, not only should Parliament be consulted more - and I was pleased that you did mention that - but NGOs working in the field as well. As far as the open method of coordination is concerned in the social field, it needs to be strengthened. We all know it has not worked as well as it could have done, but I believe it can work well in the future if the right mechanisms are put into place - but only if those mechanisms are put into place.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) The strategy is being adopted at the worst possible moment, when industrial production in Europe has fallen to the level of the 1990s and the gross domestic product of the European Union fell last year by 4%. However, it is not the timing which is worst here. The worst thing is that as many as four of the five priorities which have been presented to us as the main draught horses of European development are hard to treat as European measures, specifically employment, research and development, education and combating poverty. Basically, there is nothing supranational about these issues. They are matters for which individual countries are responsible. It can be said that only climate policy is an area in which we can take a certain amount of action at European level. The others, quite frankly, are matters for individual Member States.\nMarc Tarabella\n(FR) Mr President, the 2020 strategy ought to incorporate opinions on the economic crisis and propose a new form of governance rather than try to mend the current failing system.\nFirst of all, let us get rid of some false ideas, particularly those concerning Greece. This is not a Greek crisis. Greece and its population are the victims today of a predatory economic and financial system, a system which has seen the G20 countries fork out, all in all, several thousands of billions of dollars in a few days in order to save the banks, but which leaves Greece in agony for several months.\nInternational summits are now ignored; what will be, will be. Finally, finance was going to be regulated and Europe had its endless discussions, but the vultures have not gone away. So now what is everybody saying? That the market must be reassured. Who is the market, though? Speculators, whom we must appease as if they were demigods and to whom we must make offerings so that we can beg them for mercy.\nHow much longer do people have to endure this cynical approach? How much longer do we have to live under the illusion of a market which gives financiers more than they deserve but which impoverishes the people? We cannot allow the terrorism of financial markets to bring whole countries to their knees.\nA counterfeiter runs a huge risk because he is attacking an element of a State's sovereignty: its currency. However, when a trader speculates on a country's debt, he does not risk a thing. When will the white-collar criminals of high finance be properly punished? Speculators who greedily feed off the public should be outlawed; the casino banks that gamble with the lives and futures of citizens should be abolished; and the EU should be required to properly supervise financial markets, rather than attack public services.\nLadies and gentlemen, to finish, I think that they have been playing this joke on us long enough. We can hold an extraordinary summit every Friday and release billions, but if we do not tackle the roots of the wrongdoing, one of these Fridays, we will end up announcing that the EU is bankrupt.\nFiliz Hakaeva Hyusmenova\n(BG) Mr President, the European Cohesion policy has demonstrated its vital role over the years and has become a key policy for the Community. It provides European citizens with a visible, quantifiable indicator of solidarity. Its role is also recognised through its inclusion among the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon. All of this earns its rightful place in the Europe 2020 strategy.\nIn the draft strategy, this policy was not given its necessary place. This is why I highly rate the report on including the Cohesion policy among the objectives to be achieved by the Treaty of Lisbon and the 2020 strategy, which provides invaluable guidelines. We also need a strong Cohesion policy at the moment when the economic crisis is reducing the number of jobs and weakening our competitiveness and in the future too, so that we can confirm the European Union as being a strong global player.\nReliable benchmarks are needed for indicating the effectiveness and efficiency of the resources invested in this policy. As it states in the report, an assessment is required of the impact of the Cohesion policy's expenditure on regional development, based on specific indicators. In order to determine evaluation indicators, the Commission should consider and propose a clear definition of the concept of 'territorial cohesion' because this is precisely what appears in the Treaty of Lisbon. Objective, precise evaluation criteria can only be established after considering the definition of the actual concept. This will provide a concrete basis for the policy, as well as for institutions and citizens.\nTam\u00e1s Deutsch\n(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to express my appreciation to the rapporteurs for their outstanding work and to thank the Commissioners for their significant, valuable reflections.\nA few years ago, a good friend and mentor told me that throughout life, you will always come up against situations where you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. In my view, the EU 2020 strategy is, at the moment, still much more a part of the problem than of the solution. I believe that it is our shared responsibility to make this strategy much more a part of the solution. Allow me to stop for a moment and ask you kindly to consider that the strategy's very name is problematic. In the vast majority of the European Union's languages, the name EU 2020 strategy has no meaning whatsoever. It is hard to imagine that a community of more than 500 million citizens could identify with a strategy, based on a notion providing a recipe for resolving the problems in their personal lives whose name is so intangible and distant from the realities of their personal lives. This name may be very meaningful when discussed by marketing specialists. However, we are not talking about marketing specialists here, but about ordinary Europeans.\nThere is another wise Hungarian saying: he who grabs a lot takes little. In my judgment, the strategy - which is still part of the problem - grabs a lot and takes little. The best thing would perhaps be for it to deal with the most important question. In this regard, let me point out that, in my view, what we need to do is to strengthen regional development. Strengthening regional development involves investment, growth and job creation, and I think that the most serious problem facing people today is that they need jobs and more jobs. These are the points I wish to offer for your consideration.\nFrancesco De Angelis\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the launch of the European Union 2020 strategy effectively marks the end of the previous Lisbon Strategy phase and it will have to tackle the negative structural effects that the financial, economic and social crisis has produced and is continuing to produce.\nI believe that if the 2020 strategy is to be effective, it must focus on two key aspects, the first being a system for evaluating progress which factors in the use of the carrot and stick mechanism; the second being a vigorous policy of investing in infrastructure, in addition, of course, to tools for regulating the financial system and policies aimed at restoring social dialogue and cohesion.\nInfrastructures are the cornerstone of the relaunch of innovation policy in industry, SMEs, manufacturing consortiums or research institutes and in the relationship between these and universities and local institutions. The van Nistelrooij report should therefore be warmly welcomed since, in addition to providing an in-depth picture of the work that has been done to date in the Member States, it starts to deal with the question of criteria for harmonisation of financial instruments and operational plans aimed at innovation.\nThe harmonisation of rules, procedures and administrative practices for the management of EU projects and the simplification and streamlining of procedures are the solutions that the stakeholders on the ground and citizens have been asking us for for a long time. I believe that on this point, Europe can and must do much to promote growth, development and employment.\nMarietje Schaake\nMr President, as we seek to solve the financial and economic crisis, I would like to point out an essential deficit: that of knowledge. I regret to say that Europe is becoming a more stupid continent every day, even though knowledge is our most fruitful and rich resource. Investing in it bears no risk.\nThe young generation of Europeans pays the price of the crisis, however, as youth unemployment grows and education and innovation budgets are frozen or cut. We have to cut budgets, but let us do so with a 21st century attitude, because where is half of the EU budget going now? To agriculture! It should go to the young generation, and their development. Not just a traditional education but one that focuses on e-skills and entrepreneurship for example.\nWe know that the higher one's education is, the lower the chances of losing a job. Yet Member States are not meeting the necessary commitment in fostering an ambitious knowledge economy. Europe thus punishes the next generation of Europeans by not allowing them to develop their talents and ambitions to their full capacity, and it allows China, India and the United States to become more attractive places for talent, research, creativity and innovation.\nShort-term measures will have a high long-term cost. Entrepreneurship, excellence and a sustainable future of the European economy can only be fostered if we are willing to invest in knowledge, because whoever thinks knowledge is expensive does not know what stupidity costs.\nToday, Commissioner Kroes presented her vision for Europe's digital agenda, one of the EU 2020 flagship programmes. It is an ambitious yet concrete strategy which seeks to make Europe's digital market stronger in a global economy as well as connecting many Europeans to an open Internet.\nI believe we need to take more smart decisions now and make sure the current crisis does not become a mortgage to the youth and the young generation charging an interest that they can never pay back.\nDoes the Commission support a coordinated approach, moving away from the intergovernmental procedure in decision making and giving a stronger role to the Commission and Parliament to ensure that Member States fulfil their commitments?\nThomas Mann\n(DE) Mr President, the Lisbon Strategy did not have any sustainable success. Why not? Member States, social partners and large parts of civil society were too little involved and so they had no sense of shared responsibility. The EU 2020 strategy can be different. It could be a success, Commissioner, if it also deals with those who are excluded, who are losing out and who often do not have a lobby.\nIn the EU, not even two thirds of those who are capable of work are in work. Only just under a half of all older workers have a job. Eighty million Europeans are insufficiently qualified and have increasingly fewer opportunities in the labour market. This is a situation we cannot accept. However, a genuine future strategy needs a social orientation. Qualitative growth in the economy and employment on the one hand must be reconciled with social equality and with sustainability. Commissioner Andor, we are both working on that.\nWhat does this mean in concrete terms? The social security systems of Member States must be adapted to democratic change. Through exchange of best practice throughout Europe, we could make our contribution to that and we could learn from and with each other. The European Social Fund - one of your hobby horses - must be adapted to the new challenges, so that we can be even more efficient on the ground. The European Globalisation Fund is so constructed that those at risk of unemployment are able to find their feet. Our society must be integrative and integrate young people, for example, through appropriate education and training, so that they can develop professionally and personally.\nDespite all the necessary consolidation of national budgets - which is exactly what we are going through and debated this morning - there is one thing we must not seek to save money on: investment in our citizens - in economic, sustainable and social terms. The EU 2020 strategy will rise and fall with these three pillars.\nJutta Steinruck\n(DE) Mr President, Mr Mann, I hope you are in regular contact with your Chancellor, if you see things in the same way that I do.\nThe EU 2020 strategy is a real opportunity to make Europe more social and we need that opportunity at this very moment when many hostile words are directed at Europe and when it has distanced itself from the people. We absolutely need to offer something positive to our citizens that will offset that situation. When it comes to growth and employment, we should stop putting people's interests behind those of business. Indeed, that must be the key objective of the EU 2020 strategy because Europe needs social progress.\nI already pointed that out last Monday at the committee debate on employment policy guidelines: we must not lose sight of the goal of full employment, but we cannot have full employment at all costs because we need good jobs. We always say we need jobs, but what matters to me is that these jobs are good, that there is social security, that people do not have to receive subsidies and that they can actually make a living from these jobs.\nThe ever more precarious nature of working life, the increasing income inequality and also growing poverty - which many speakers have talked about today - must finally be brought to an end with the EU 2020 strategy. We need a more active labour market policy and one which covers many areas. Finally, people expect more specific answers, very specific answers, in fact, and not an umpteenth strategy!\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\n(PL) The economic crisis which has hit our continent has focused our attention - and rightly so - on rescuing the economies of Member States and building a common European mechanism to give protection against economic collapse. It is understandable that, today, the attention of Europeans is focused on increasing the speed of development and on job creation, but we cannot, when building a strategy for the European Union, restrict ourselves for many years just to economic debate. The European Union must not behave as if it were only an efficient businessman who is building the economic success of his firm.\nThe Europe 2020 strategy should contain significant reference to the role of culture in achieving the social and economic objectives which have been set. After all, these priorities are going to influence distribution of the future budget, so we should maintain the possibility of financing such areas as development of cultural infrastructure and protection of cultural heritage as part of the European Regional Development Fund. In the European Union's 2020 strategy, we should emphasise the significant influence of culture on social and economic development in the Union, for after all, it is intellectual capital and the creative industries which have brought Europe renown. It is this sector in which we can build competitiveness in relation to other parts of the world. Creativity requires stimulation and development from the earliest years of life. Only then will we be able to count on its turning to a significant degree into innovation, including in fields of modern technology, in the European Union.\nCulture must not be neglected in European policy. We must not dismiss all proposals to increase its role in European Union policy simply by saying that it is a competence of the Member States. Europe, today, is proud of projects such as the European Capital of Culture, but this is a project which was created by European cities, and it is these cities which bear the main burden of this spectacular programme.\nI expect, therefore, greater determination from the European Commission to ensure that the final version of the 2020 strategy includes culture.\nSilvia Costa\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 10 years since the introduction of the Lisbon Strategy and on the eve of the Europe 2020 strategy, in the middle of a full economic, social and employment crisis, we know that we cannot come out of this crisis, nor lay the foundations for new and sustainable growth and a new social cohesion, as you have said, unless we strengthen the mechanisms and instruments that the European Union has at its disposal to sustain investment in the knowledge triangle: education, training and research.\nJust now, Commissioner, you confirmed that as regards this objective, some European governments are performing well, others a little less so. In order not to fall within the limits revealed by the Lisbon Strategy, I believe that in this area, the Commission has to strengthen the open method of coordination with Member States, provide incentives and penalties in the European Social Fund and monitor the results.\nI do not consider it to be consistent for governments, as the Italian Government has done, to cut EUR 8 billion in three years from education and the universities, without reinvesting the savings in these areas, especially as we have a 19% early school leaving rate and 25% youth unemployment.\nIn conclusion, do you not consider it opportune to strengthen the legal powers in Directive 2005\/36\/EC to facilitate the mutual recognition of professional qualifications among Member States? According to Professor Monti's report, currently, less than 3% of European workers in fact work in another Member State, and one of the reasons seems to be precisely this difficult issue of mutual recognition of qualifications.\nAmalia Sartori\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too have an observation to make on what happened in the last decade, 2000-2010, as far as Lisbon is concerned. It is true that many of us, given also what happened until 2008-2009, viewed the results obtained with less than complete satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly the case that that decade gave rise to hopes and aspirations, and that much was done to achieve the objectives that had been set, particularly in the area of employment.\nToday, we find ourselves at the beginning of a new, more problematic, more difficult decade, and as regards the proposals that have been presented to us so far, I partly agree with them, although when reading them thoroughly, I still see too many shortcomings. I would dwell at length on what are the guiding principles of this proposal, but I shall limit myself to considering growth and employment.\nMore jobs, more economic growth: this is the target that we must set ourselves, taking into account that we do so in a situation of excessive levels of public debt, of low structural growth, and of high rates of unemployment. Hence, the targets that we set ourselves are too ambitious and, at times, too inflexible. So, perhaps with a little less ambition and a little more flexibility, the growth and employment targets will be achievable.\nZita Gurmai\nMr President, while Commissioner Reding confirmed, and President Barroso reconfirmed in his letter today, that the Women's Charter commits the Commission to promoting and ensuring gender equality and women's rights in all policy fields, I am disappointed that this has not been put into practice for the EU 2020 strategy. Should we not be more ambitious than we were for the Lisbon Strategy? Ignoring 52% of the available skills, knowledge and workforce of Europe for any sector or any level would be a serious loss.\nIf Europe wants to exploit all its potential and get out of the crisis, we need to ensure that the women's employment rate is raised to at least 70% - to be shown through specific gender statistics. We also need specific targets so that we can measure the commitment of each Member State to gender equality, and make improvements thereto.\nHow? We need to decrease the gender pay gap by 10% in each Member State. We need to revalue the predominantly female health sector by increasing wages and improving conditions, as well as the availability of the services, as it is an increasingly important sector for our ageing society.\nWe need to increase the numbers of women in decision-making bodies such as managerial and executive board positions based on a Norwegian 40% quota model. We need to increase the possibilities available for women in research and development and innovation, and train them in new green jobs.\nMember States cannot neglect to expand, improve and implement the Barcelona targets in all Member States. We need the true commitment of the European Union and all Member States by involving all people when working towards a smart, green progressive society. I am convinced that our Commissioner, Mr Andor, is going to do it.\nJan Olbrycht\n(PL) Discussion about the Europe 2020 strategy must take account of the experience of the previous strategy. We all know the failures of that strategy were caused, firstly, by basing the strategy on the responsibility of individual Member States in the open method of coordination, and the successes came, among other things, from 'Lisbonisation' or the inclusion of certain of the Lisbon objectives in Cohesion policy.\nIn relation to this, we have to ask how to approach the new strategy. It now seems absolutely crucial, firstly, to show clearly that we are dealing with 'treaty' policies, which are not policies prepared for the purposes of a strategy, but operate over a longer time scale, such as Cohesion policy. This means we need to use individual policies to put the strategy into effect, but the strategy, as previous experience shows, will only be successful if individual policies are integrated with each other. All measures which separate individual policies, split up funds and divide roles will end in the same failure as the last strategy. Therefore, we need to combine, integrate and produce actions associated with synergy.\nLiisa Jaakonsaari\n(FI) Mr President, the indebtedness of national economies and an ageing population together constitute a real time bomb for Europe. We know that, for example, the incidence of agerelated illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, will double over the next ten years. That will mean a huge burden on national economies. We should not, however, make a mystery out of debt. As I recall, Ceauc\u015fescu's Romania was a country without debt, as is North Korea. There is also 'smart productive debt' - intelligent debt if that debt is invested in people. In this respect, the elimination of poverty, for example, is a very lucrative investment for society, as is reducing youth unemployment.\nWhat I am quite rightly afraid of at present, while the Member States start to reduce their deficits, is where the cuts are to be made. Will they be in education, the employment of older people, the employment of the disabled, or what? That will not be smart or intelligent. That is why this EU 2020 strategy is a very important document, and I am one of those who say more Europe and not less Europe. More Europe means something like root canal treatment: Member States will be obliged to accomplish the targets that are set out in this EU 2020 strategy.\nAngelika Niebler\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Europe 2020 strategy - to be honest, I do not feel like discussing the Europe 2020 strategy at all. Ten years ago, we adopted a strategy, the Lisbon Strategy. When you now look back at this past decade, the results are limited, if I may put it in those modest terms.\nI think that we should currently be focusing on what really matters to people at home in our Member States, rather than making the same mistake again. They are wondering whether we will be able to ensure the stability of our currency. Will there be inflation? What lessons do we need to learn from the developments over the last two years, from the financial and economic crisis, and now from the currency crisis? Are we really taking to task the players in the financial markets who have contributed to the crisis?\nI would emphatically call on the Commission, first and foremost, to take steps to ensure rapid financial market regulation and progress in Europe in order to prevent, as has been the case in recent years, money being sent around the globe five times in the same day and many people making a profit on this while losses are being nationalised. I would ask the Commission to demand that Member States exercise strict budgetary discipline and implement appropriate rules. I would also ask for the earliest possible tightening of the Stability and Growth Pact.\nThis is where we should be focusing our efforts. I urge the Commission to take requisite measures, but not as before, off its own bat or by discussing them thoroughly with Member States. Instead, it should finally take Parliament seriously as an equal legislator alongside the 27 Members States.\nSylvana Rapti\n(EL) I agree with the previous speaker; the Stability Pact needs to be applied. However, a number of other things need to be applied before the Stability Pact. The decision makers in the European Union need to have quick reflexes, to act when needed, because if Mrs Merkel had decided in time and if the European Union had taken the measures it needed to take, we would have saved a lot of money for the citizens of Europe.\nIn order for the European Union to be strong economically and to count globally, it needs its citizens. The citizens must be healthy and educated and must have work. The European Union needs to bear this in mind when planning for 2020, when planning for the single market. The single market must be centred on the citizen and must be a single market with a human face.\nArturs Kri\u0161j\u0101nis Kari\u0146\u0161\n(LV) Thank you, Mr President. I have a dog at home. Recently, my dog took a sausage from the table and ate it. The question is - who is to blame for the fact that the dog ate the sausage? Is the dog to blame, for doing what is natural to it? Or rather, am I to blame for not clearing away the sausage and putting it back in the refrigerator after I had finished my meal?\nOn the global financial markets, the value of the euro keeps falling every day. Who is to blame for this? Many fellow Members say that the speculators are to blame, that the market is to blame, for attacking the euro and depreciating its value. Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you the suggestion that, perhaps, the market is not to blame. Rather, it is the market that has pinpointed the underlying fault, the underlying cause. The underlying cause for our difficulties today is quite simple - European countries have been living beyond their means far too long, spending vastly more than they are able to earn. The markets react to this in the same way that my dog reacted to the smell of the sausage that I had left on the table. A year and a half ago, Latvia experienced a crisis similar to the crisis that we are now experiencing in the rest of Europe; namely, the financial markets attacked our currency and had lost all confidence in it. Instead of complaining about this situation, we corrected our fundamental indicators, we repaired and collected our public finances. In my view, if we wish the Europe 2020 strategy to be meaningful, we must have as our first and most important priority the necessity for European countries to control their public spending, for their income to match their outgoings. This would restore confidence, ease the crisis and restore calm to the financial markets. Thank you.\nGeorgios Stavrakakis\nMr President, today we are discussing, among others, two excellent reports by Ricardo Cort\u00e9s Lastra and Lambert van Nistelrooij. These both demonstrate in a clear fashion the important contribution of Cohesion policy in achieving the goals of competitiveness and employment and the significant role in promoting innovation and growth that the knowledge economy plays.\nThe EU 2020 strategy is, on several counts, similar to the Lisbon Strategy, but tries to improve on focusing on and narrowing down the objectives. There is, however, one area - a quite significant one - that still remains unclear, namely the delivery mechanism. It is left to the Member States and peer review supported by monitoring by the Commission.\nIt seems to me that we have not learned our lesson from the experience of the weak delivery of the Lisbon Strategy. I urge the Commission to come up with proposals which will ensure a stronger delivery mechanism for the EU 2020 strategy to make sure that all its targets will be met with action and not just words.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou\n(EL) The Lisbon Strategy set high targets, but Europe did not manage to implement them. We are moving towards a new strategy for the next decade, to be true, and in an exceptionally difficult and unfortunate environment. We all agree that the priority and the emphasis on the development triangle 'education, research, innovation' is the best investment if we are to get out of the crisis and it allows us to be optimistic about the future of Europe.\nIt is important to emphasise that this strategy must be implemented in an environment of solidarity, in an environment of close cooperation between the Member States. At this point, I would clarify, for the avoidance of all misunderstanding, that the support mechanism for Greece, despite any delays, demonstrates this solidarity and you should be in no doubt as to the fact that we recognise it.\nIn the New Democracy, in our centre-right party in Greece, we made it clear that we respect the money of the other European peoples being put into the support mechanism. However, together with the sacrifices required, and which must be divided fairly, and on this point we were critical of certain measures, together with the spending cuts required in order to reduce the debt and to reduce the deficit, growth initiatives which will take the country out of recession are also needed, initiatives which we have not seen to date. That is the only way we, too, in Greece shall be able to approach the ambitious targets of the 2020 strategy, which is the only way we shall come out of the crisis stronger.\n(The speaker agreed to reply IN DUE COURSE to a blue card question under Rule 149(8))\nDerek Vaughan\nMr President, I have seen for myself how important Cohesion policy is for Wales and I, therefore, welcome the Lastra report on Cohesion policy and Europe 2020. There are many projects right across Wales that are benefiting individuals and communities. So, I have no doubt that structural funds can help deliver the 2020 goals. However, I would like to make the following points.\nThe 2020 strategy, the fifth cohesion report and the budget must all be aligned. In future, structural funds should be properly financed, the structural funds should not be renationalised and the transitional status should be made available to those regions that fall out of convergent status.\nIf we can achieve all these things, I certainly believe that the Cohesion policy can help us deliver 2020. It would also make the EU 2020 strategy relevant to individuals and citizens right across Europe.\nSylvana Rapti\n(EL) I should like to take this opportunity, following the position taken by my close fellow Greek member, Mr Papanikolaou, from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), to make the following clarification, which I consider extremely important in these times of crisis, especially for Greece:\nGreece is not taking money from other nations. The Member States of the European Union borrow at a lower rate of interest and lend, give money to the mechanism and, via it to Greece, at a higher rate of interest. We are not taking money from other nations.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou\n(EL) You are absolutely right Mrs Rapti. Of course, Greece's borrowing requirements would be smaller and Greece would be able to raise money more easily on the markets, had there not been such a delay, six months now, on the part of the present Greek Government.\nThomas Ulmer\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Niebler has already said a great deal that very much concerns me too. I am greatly concerned about our future together in the EU. I cannot just move on to the agenda without mentioning the crisis.\nOne of our major objectives, the euro and its high monetary stability, is at risk of total collapse. Prosperity and jobs are not feasible without a secure monetary value. We are talking about Europe 2020, but we do not even know what Europe will look like in 2011. We are debating meat glued together with thrombin and we are debating driving times for self-employed drivers, as if the major problems of the Union will solve themselves.\nWe need to send out strong and rapid signals about regulating, organising and improving the deficits in both state budgets and in the banking sector. Let me give you a couple of examples: we need clear definitions and harsh penalties for deficit offenders, such as withdrawing funding. We need clear rules for banks, such as banning credit default swaps or requirements for insurance and depositing these against corresponding nominal values. Let me also add a sentence from a famous German mayor who was chair of the German Association of Cities and Towns for many years: He who does not spend money he does not have is a long way from being a saver!\nKerstin Westphal\n(DE) Mr President, I would like to come back to the report by Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra, which I think is a very good report. Indeed, the Cohesion policy is actually the best instrument for mobilising investment in growth and employment. However, I would like to highlight again the importance of towns and cities here, because they will play a key role in achieving the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy.\nFour out of five Europeans live in urban areas. Towns and cities are the driving force of economic growth in Europe. At the same time, they are experiencing many problems particularly acutely. Key words here are social integration, the environment and transport, for example, but also demographic change. Therefore, towns and cities have a particular role when it comes to actually improving the living conditions of citizens.\nIn addition, Europe's towns and cities are key players in the fields of innovation, research and education, and therefore play a fundamental role in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the EU 2020 strategy. All of this should be taken into account during the implementation of these strategies and during the shaping of the future course of the Cohesion policy.\nRaffaele Baldassarre\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the last two years have left millions of unemployed people in their wake, have been the cause of further national debt that will remain for many years still, and have put renewed pressure on and new tears in our social cohesion.\nWe must react in a timely and incisive manner, and, in order to avoid making the errors of judgment that the Lisbon Strategy succumbed to, Europe 2020 must be extremely realistic in its objectives and balanced in the goals it sets itself. Three of these seem to me, Commissioner, to be priorities. The first is certainly a stable currency and stable national budgets, which, however, must not be divorced from development and economic growth. We need investment in research and innovation to make our industries ever more competitive and our products of the highest quality. We must support SMEs and new industries, such as IT and sustainable energy and, of course, our infrastructure. Let us raise the overall level of education, yes, but chiefly we must mould training to the needs of the labour market and production. It is a paradox that businesses are still demanding specialisms that the market is in no position to offer. It is clear that every target should be related to the national context, but within the framework of a broader European strategy.\nI shall conclude by saying that the Greek crisis and the economic and employment crisis in the whole of Europe testify to the fact that in order to safeguard social cohesion, development and stable national budgets, we need strong and solid economic governance at the European level, to enable European institutions, including Parliament, to take effective and preventive action.\nDamien Abad\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed on the major objectives of the EU 2020 strategy and, if we are all agreed on its objectives, we should now provide ourselves with the means to implement them. These means include, for example, the establishment of an EU economic government.\nIn order for these fine words and major objectives to become realities and this time avoid what I would call a kind of collective disenchantment with the Lisbon Strategy, it is essential that we provide ourselves with the resources necessary to take action. This is also why I fully support the Commission's proposal to have the national budgets inspected in advance by the EU, with the proviso, however, that the national parliaments and the European Parliament are involved in these inspection arrangements.\nHowever, I should like to speak in more detail about the crisis and young people. I think that young people have been the main victims of this crisis, and that we must take advantage of the opportunity provided to us to put young people back at the heart of this Europe 2020 strategy.\nFirstly, the EU 2020 strategy must be an inclusive strategy. Mobility, which is the concrete expression of the concept of free movement within the EU, must become a real possibility for all young people, not only for young students. That is why I hope the Commission will support my proposal for an extension to the European mobility programmes for young apprentices.\nFurthermore, I also believe that this strategy must promote the upskilling of young people so as to eliminate the curse of unemployment among the young, because we all know that the transition from a learning environment to a first job is one of the major challenges faced by young people. The way to make progress in this area is to enhance their skills, for example, by channelling EU funds more effectively towards policies for young people.\nFinally, all young Europeans need to be given mobility opportunities and upskilled because what we need, above all else, is an innovative young generation. It is young people who, today, will create the growth and innovation of tomorrow. This is why I do not want young people to be left out of this Europe 2020 strategy.\nRosa Estar\u00e0s Ferragut\n(ES) Mr President, we approved the Lisbon Agenda with its very ambitious objectives in 2000. Some of these have been met, but a lot of them have not. There is no doubt that the regional funds contributed to the Lisbon Strategy.\nTen years on, we find ourselves shaken by the worst economic crisis we can remember. I believe that this crisis has served to enable us to identify, in this new Europe 2020 strategy, where we went wrong, as well as enable us to improve so as to achieve better results.\nFirstly, we have learned that coordination between all governance levels is essential, as is clearly stated in Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra's report. We have also learned that the contribution of regional funds is essential to meeting the objectives we are proposing.\nWe believe that the combination of specific actions at all levels - European Union, national, regional and local authorities - is an absolute necessity. If we work together, we will be much stronger. It is also important that a Cohesion policy covering economic, social and territorial aspects be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy.\nI would also like to make an observation as regards the Cohesion policy issue here, namely that the bureaucratic procedures should be much more flexible and efficient. Furthermore, in the disability sector, that difference will have to be taken into account in some way.\nFinally, I would like to underline the important role to be played by European regions and towns and cities, and especially, the need to pay more attention to those areas with special needs, such as mountain areas, coastal areas and islands.\nIn short, if we want to be successful, we have to be able to count on the European regions, the towns and the cities and on a reformed Cohesion policy in line with the new situation.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) Europe 2020 must be a Europe for its citizens and meet their needs. This is the approach which I consider must form the basis of this strategy. It is important that, within the new European framework, we continue with the course of action promoting development and the objectives already set, which must be monitored for tangible results so as to achieve a positive impact. I am referring here specifically to investments in any kind of infrastructure, enabling us to become much more competitive from an economic perspective.\nWe need to continue to pursue economic, social and territorial cohesion policies in order to narrow the disparities between regions and establish a platform for balanced economic development, as is also stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon.\nEurope 2020 must be a Europe of global action which can be achieved if the European Union has a common level of development which enhances the ability of local and regional players to respond to the global challenges.\nEurope 2020 is a Europe where regions develop according to their specific potential and use the regional aspect of research, development and innovation for promoting economic development and increasing employment.\nRichard Seeber\n(DE) Mr President, when we talk about Europe 2020, then we are, first and foremost, talking about the future of our continent: Where do we want to go? What sort of life will our citizens be able to live here?\nWhat we need to do first, in my view, is to analyse the actual situation so that we can find the right tools to achieve these objectives. It is also important to make a distinction between cause and effect. What really are the major issues we face today? I think one of them is certainly the ageing of our European societies. So far, we have unfortunately failed to make Europe attractive enough for people to even start families and have children. That means that we will face a major pressure on public budgets in future, because our pension systems are at risk of being underfunded.\nSecondly, we already have high government deficits. According to Keynes's classical teaching, we have spent a lot of money in this crisis. Now it is time to save. However, that also means of course that our currency will come under pressure. We can see signs of that in the current Greek crisis and, here, we are all facing the problem of actually having failed to make our economy competitive enough to generate economic growth so that we are able to address these high government deficits.\nHere in Europe, we have rules governing these areas, like the Stability and Growth Pact, but unfortunately, no one is sticking to them. This is one of the main problems. We are creating new rules, but I think that it would sometimes be much better to apply our existing rules so they can really achieve their full effect. I therefore urge the Commission, in particular, to create a climate of stringency, so that we can achieve these agreed objectives.\nSabine Verheyen\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to pick up on what Mr Seeber has already said. If we really want to successfully carry off the objectives of the 2020 agenda, we first need to attend to the job in hand.\nWe need strong financial market regulation, regulation that really will be better at supervising and regulating future conduct in these areas. However, we must also put our own houses in order, and that means ensuring that we have better controls in place for how effectively money from relevant structural funds is spent and in what ways we should support further development. We also need to involve local and regional authorities more in our structures and planning because, ultimately, they are the ones who have to implement tasks on the ground, and make it clear which tasks need to be fulfilled if we are to achieve the objectives we have quite rightly set for ourselves. However, setting objectives without robustly and consistently addressing the status quo and the tasks to be completed and without analysing what needs to be done now makes little sense in my view.\nAs Mr Ulmer said earlier on, we have moved on to the agenda and we are debating the day-to-day business of this House, food safety and so on, without really being aware of what priority issues we need to resolve. That has to be our starting point. We first need to focus on bringing our financial situation under control and ensuring that everyone adheres to these rules. We must also ensure that Parliament and, in particular, the Commission apply the control mechanisms that have been available to them in the past more stringently in the future and we must have a greater say in what is happening in some Member States.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\n(GA) Mr President, I am proud to say a few words in relation to this debate about the 2020 strategy and here are the points I would like to make.\nI must say it is disappointing and sometimes depressing to hear speaker after speaker here in Strasbourg and in Brussels talk about the failure of the Lisbon Strategy. It was not all a failure and if it were, I do not think 67% of the Irish people would have voted in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon last October. There have been many benefits for all to see, in particular at regional level, as the Commissioner pointed out. However, there are a number of areas which I would be concerned about.\nFirstly, where does the six-month rotating presidency fit into this? I see each country coming in here outlining their priorities for the six months rather than where they fit into the overall targets set down annually for the 10 years. I think that is a very important point; no football team changes its manager every six months for him to come in with a different set of priorities which you cannot achieve in a short period of time.\nSecondly, I welcome the instruments which have been brought in to make Member States stand up to their responsibilities, and pay for their failures if they do not do so. 'Softly, softly' will not do anymore. If you are part of a team, and you play badly, you are either dropped or told to up your game. We have to up our game.\nFinally, I want to say that I also welcome the suggestion to empower the regions and the cities as part of this process.\nSophie Auconie\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 9 May, the EU, at the behest of the Ministers for the Economy and Finance, gave a firm response to the financial markets. Although the European Parliament is subject to longer parliamentary procedures, it must not be condemned to inaction.\nI think that this House, and we, its Members, have three essential roles to play. First of all, we must throw all our weight behind governments and the Commission in the initiatives they have taken recently. Secondly, we must immediately set to work to find the solutions that will enable us, in the medium and long terms, to emerge from the crisis and encourage a growth model that is truly dynamic and supports the real economy. That is the entire challenge of the EU 2020 strategy and of the priority objectives which we will earmark for the EU Structural Funds for the period 2014-2020.\nMrs Bowles, I should like to say to you that, if the Lisbon Strategy is, to some degree, a failure, it is because it was designed several years ago when the economic situation was different from what it is today. Therefore, those who condemn this strategy do so because it is inflexible and inappropriate for the current situation. This is the problem with strategies. Therefore, this 2020 strategy will be all the stronger if it can be adapted to prevailing circumstances.\nFinally - and this is the most important issue to my mind - we must explain at a local level what is happening at EU level and obtain the public's approval. European citizens woke up on Monday, 10 May to a new Europe. They had not caused this metamorphosis. No one can assess its long-term consequences at this stage. This metamorphosis will not bear fruit if it is not rooted in democracy. We were united in diversity; now we must be united in adversity.\n(Applause)\nAntonio Cancian\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened a great deal today and it has been quite useful, but I also have to draw your attention to a matter that I consider to be important. We shall not succeed, in my opinion, by locating all this strategy in the context of a market that is today out of joint, subject to continuous speculation, and in deep crisis. As we discuss Europe 2020, we need to bear a situation of this type in mind.\nI would divide the discussion into two parts: first, the market must serve the real economy, and not vice versa; second, I believe that Europe must be the locomotive for this economy. As far as the first part is concerned, it has been much discussed, and it is high time that we set up a hedge against this market, so that we do not have to depend on anyone at all, but what is important is the locomotive, and for the locomotive to pull, we also need the means.\nLet us have the courage to change this budget, let us have the courage to take responsibility for setting up a significant fund to serve as a financial hedge, but especially one that can get the TEN-T, TEN-E and E-TEN networks going. This is the locomotive that we must bring into play, and to pull the real economy, we also need the private sector, through the PPP mechanism. That is the task, Commissioner, which we must tackle immediately, because the crisis is not over, the crisis is with us, and we must make this strong push right now.\nDiogo Feio\n(PT) Mr President, a debate on the Europe 2020 strategy naturally leads to acceptance of better coordination of the various national policies, more Europe, and acceptance of the path of structural reforms to attain growth for our economy. However, in order for us to reach 2020, we will have to get through 2010 and, on that subject, I would like to call attention to the balance needed between budgetary consolidation policies and the need to avoid falling back into recession.\nI am a Portuguese national and at this very moment, the proposal that is being made is to increase taxes. Fundamentally, the path that the Member States should choose is that of seriously reducing public spending: having tax systems that are competitive and making structural reforms so that we can achieve the necessary growth.\nAs well as the long and medium terms, we must think about the short term and start encouraging the existence of creative companies right now. We must make a commitment to universities and to research and development, because that is very clear now. In order for use to reach 2020, we will have to make it through 2010 in one piece.\nI would like to leave this worry behind now. It is clear that we have a Stability Pact, but there is also a Growth Pact, and the key word for our economies in the near future is growth.\nVeronica Lope Fontagn\u00e9\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, the future 2020 strategy must enable the European Union to correct the shortcomings detected in the Lisbon Strategy if we really want to create a competitive economic space, and one that is economically, socially and territorially cohesive.\nIn spite of the fact that the postulates of the by now outdated Lisbon Strategy are still valid, I would like to point out that one of the reasons why it lost force was because of its highly complex structure, particularly its lack of clarity in defining the responsibilities and tasks incumbent upon the European Union and other levels of government, particularly those of a regional and local nature.\nRegions and local authorities must be included in the design and implementation of policies if we want the 2020 strategy to bear any fruit in the medium term.\nOur regions and cities are key agents in the development and implementation of a great deal of EU public investment related to growth and employment.\nThe allocation of regional policy resources thus becomes a key factor in terms of meeting the European objectives that we are defining. I would like to point out that the resources invested from 2000 to 2006 by way of the European Regional Development Fund have enabled the creation of 1 400 000 jobs in the European Union, as well as the building of over 2 000 km of motorways.\nI would like to finish by pointing out once more the value of the European regional policy with respect to strategic goals such as growth and employment. Economic, social and territorial cohesion represents a basic objective guaranteed by the treaties.\nJoachim Zeller\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to extend a special greeting to the visitors to our Parliament who have followed this debate about one of the key issues for the European Union over the next ten years more attentively and in greater numbers than many of our Members.\nWe are conducting this debate in much too technocratic a way. I grew up in a country where society was organised according to multiannual plans. This country, the German Democratic Republic, no longer exists. That is why I still have a certain scepticism for programmes which jumble together strategies, desired objectives and planned economy codes, which stretch over a lengthy period of time and which pass on the implementation to others. No matter what decisions we make for the European Union in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy, it is Member States, national governments and parliaments and regional and local authorities that will have to shoulder the implementation. The disquiet with such procedures is very much in evidence.\nA top-down Europe cannot work. The united Europe can only work if we continue to build it jointly with national and regional institutions and with citizens. The Commission has abandoned the Lisbon Strategy too fast, without carrying out a thorough analysis of why the objectives of this strategy were not achieved. Therefore, it is probably no coincidence that, today in Parliament, the reports and questions were lumped together under the title of 'EU 2020', although every one of them deserves a separate debate. They contain at least two points on which European policy has been successful so far: creation of the internal market and the cohesion and structural policies. However, the EU 2020 strategy indicates that the Cohesion policy will only have a supporting role in the attainment of its objectives. Now, that is a contradiction. We do not need more planned economy in the European Union; others have failed on that front before.\nBefore we then confront Member States with a list of planned economy codes, which nobody at present knows how they are supposed to be achieved, and bearing in mind the uncertainties and turbulence in the economic and financial markets now and in the past few years and their impact on jobs and the social situation in Member States, what we need is an in-depth debate about where the European Union has been successful, where we can achieve common goals, for example, a pact with the EU's regions, and how we can create more community without infringing the subsidiarity principle.\nIf we did so, this debate could and would culminate in an overall strategy. However, this debate - as we have seen from the example today - has only just begun, and we in the European Union should be the ones to lead it.\nCsaba S\u00f3gor\n(HU) Commissioner, I think that the guiding principle of any plan or strategy for European development must be to build a Europe that acts as a truly unified region in the service of European citizens. We have said a great deal about the economic and social dimensions of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, the European Union today is much more than that. The EU is not just a community of interests but one of values; that is what gives it its economic strength and political clout. If, by the end of the decade, we truly wish to create a more successful and competitive Europe, we need to pay serious attention to ensuring that our common values receive due respect, are strengthened and implemented. We also need to focus on closer harmonisation of Member States' education policies, the reduction of regional inequalities and the continuation of the enlargement process, as well as on the protection of fundamental rights and minority rights, to mention but a few policies that are based on European values. Economic growth and the improvement of citizens' living conditions are unthinkable without such values-based policies.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Daerden\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the 2020 strategy is comprehensive and covers many issues, as demonstrated by this afternoon's debate. I should just like to emphasise two particular aspects.\nFirstly, with regard to the social dimension of this strategy, I fully support Mrs Ber\u00e8s in her questioning of the Commission, in particular, concerning the setting of quantified poverty reduction targets in this strategy, which, for me, is a sine qua non. Also, the principle of an EU-wide minimum income to meet these objectives seems to me to be an obvious need, and must be implemented in practice.\nSecondly, the coherence between the EU budget and this strategy. Neither the Council nor the Commission has given any indication so far as to whether it wishes to review our multiannual financial framework for the current period, even though it has revealed its limitations. However, if we do not adapt it in accordance with the new challenges in the strategy, we are collectively running a great risk. Neither the EU budget, which is too restricted, nor the national public budgets, will be able to start making the investments needed to support the various flagship initiatives in the 2020 strategy.\nAndrew Henry William Brons\nMadam President, on page 7 of the Europe 2020 document, it says: 'Europe has many strengths: we can count on the talent and creativity of our people'. It does not, of course, say that other people are less talented or creative - that would be terribly unkind and almost certainly unfair - but it certainly singles out the population of Europe for special praise.\nElsewhere, it bemoans the fact that Europe has an ageing population. This, of course, is attributable mainly to sharply falling birth rates, though the document does not say so. Perhaps nation states should encourage, as far as states can, a rise in the birth rates of their populations. This would certainly redress the population balance. Furthermore it might even produce at least a proportionate increase in those talented and creative people who are so necessary for economic and cultural development. I do hope I am not tainting the Commission document by linking its parts with reasoned argument, but I have kept within my time limit!\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) The Europe 2020 strategy cannot do as much as we are saying, here, today. It is not possible to do so much for just under 1% of GDP, because that is the value of the European Union budget. Let us show what we can do, by creating appropriate and modern legislation, and let us show the purposes to which funds will be assigned from the European Union budget.\nLet us say clearly: there is not enough realism in our expectations of the Europe 2020 strategy, there are too many things to be done and too much hope being created, and the role of Member States has not been defined. A rise in employment, reduction in poverty, education and, above all, economic growth are the big tasks and the main priorities which should be put into effect in the present situation, when we are in a crisis and should take action to revive the economy - because this is the number one problem in the Europe 2020 strategy: resuscitating the economy today.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103\n(RO) The EU's Cohesion policy has helped, and still helps, generate synergy with the research and innovation policies. It has also placed the focus on the role of territorial cohesion.\nI believe that the regions should specialise in smart and green developments and define for themselves a set of innovation priorities based on the EU's objectives and their needs, and channel Community resources into these priorities which have been identified. At the same time, they must promote models of success as part of the triangle of knowledge and the relations between businesses, research centres, universities and public authorities, especially those established via public-private partnerships.\nI also believe that the exchange of knowledge within regional groups can be facilitated by the Structural Funds as well because European policies are consistently targeted at sustainable development, offering tangible results at regional level. All these elements form the concrete bond for achieving territorial cohesion within the European Union.\nIosif Matula\n(RO) I wish to congratulate today's rapporteurs, especially Mr van Nistelrooij, for the excellent report that was presented. Research and development will provide us with the solutions to be taken into account in future in tackling successfully the major challenges we are facing, whether it involves the severe economic crisis or achieving the 2020 strategy's long-term objectives. With the impetus provided by the Cohesion policy, whose aim is to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship and develop a knowledge-based economy, research and development must be approached from two directions.\nBased on a top-down approach, research and innovation will be the main areas for identifying solutions aimed at overcoming the problems which we are facing and for boosting economic growth and sustainable development. It is just as important for innovation to come out of the laboratories and research centres and be pitched at a level which suits European citizens' needs as appropriately as possible. We must encourage local and regional economies to improve their ability to innovate and to identify themselves the most effective solutions as part of a bottom-up approach, thereby utilising regional and local potential.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) The European Union is facing an economic, financial and social crisis at present. The policy of deindustrialisation pursued in recent years has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, the relocation of European industry to third countries and to a 10% unemployment rate, which is even 20% among young people, thereby jeopardising the EU's competitiveness.\nI believe that the European Union needs to make huge investments in the transport and energy infrastructure, in agriculture, health, education and research but, above all, in sustainable economic development. The development of industrial production and, by extension, the creation of jobs in the EU requires investment in modernising European companies so that these developments can lead to greener production. In the next 10 years, energy efficiency must be our top priority.\nOn top of this, the EU population is ageing and the birth rate is falling, while the high unemployment rate is affecting the sustainability of the pension systems. I believe that the time has come for the European Union to defend its fundamental principles and assets, and the biggest asset which the EU has is its 500 million European citizens.\nAngelika Werthmann\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the Europe 2020 strategy and its key priorities. There is a lesson to be learned from the Greek crisis: we need to act instead of reacting.\nA coordinated and monitored budgetary policy and supervision and regulation of the financial market are indispensable. For the sake of our citizens, we need to pay attention to investment in growth and employment, in order to reduce unemployment and to create and secure jobs. That also means strengthening the education sector and investing in education, research and innovation as cornerstones of a sustainable social market economy, and of a sustainable and more environmentally conscious economy.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1\n(SK) The 2020 strategy and the Lisbon Strategy have something in common: a belief that the economy must be managed. The Commission's recipe of 'competition or crisis' unfortunately remains unchanged. The 2020 strategy states that easy access to credit and short-term thinking resulted in the behaviour which led to unsupported growth and major imbalances.\nHowever, further on in the text of the strategy, it states that the Commission will seek to improve access to capital and to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access finance. This has again sanctioned greater access to credit, which will again lead to speculation and unsupported growth.\nIn 1991, the Malaysian premier of the time announced the Vision 2020 project, or Vavasan 2020 in Malaysian. According to this, Malaysia was to catch up with Great Britain, France, Germany and Japan by 2020. Ladies and gentlemen, planned economies do not work, as all of our colleagues from the new Member States, including the Commissioner, can confirm.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 Andor\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, this discussion today on the Europe 2020 strategy has been extremely interesting and useful for us, the Commission, as was this morning's discussion on economic governance. I would like to thank you for this opportunity and for all the messages you sent on this strategy. On behalf of the European Commission, I am particularly grateful to Mr van Nistelrooij, Mr Grech, Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra and Mr Hoang Ngoc for their reports.\nI am prepared to continue a discussion on various details and even nuances concerning the Europe 2020 strategy. However, at this time, let me concentrate my answers on some of the key aspects of the discussion with a few concluding remarks.\nFirst of all, I would like to stress once again the importance of the strong involvement of the European Parliament in the various upcoming steps linked to the Europe 2020 strategy: first of all, the opinion of the European Parliament on the integrated guidelines; secondly, at a later stage, the role of the EP as colegislator on various proposals to be made under the flagship initiatives; and not forgetting, thirdly, the next multiannual financial framework to make sure the future EU budgets better reflect the priorities set for the European Union through the Europe 2020 strategy.\nLet me also be very clear about the objectives of the strategy. It has a dual objective. First and foremost, it is an essential pillar of the response of the Union to the current crisis. It is an essential tool for strengthening coordination of economic policy inside the EU-27 and, of course, within the euro area. But besides this short-term objective, this new strategy is about equipping Europe with a strategy - actually, as Michel Barnier outlined in his opening statement, a programme for action - to enable the European Union to exit the economic crisis by restoring economic growth and making sure this growth translates into more and better jobs.\nBut we must aim for a different kind of job creation than in the past - a more sustainable one, not only in ecological terms but also economically, socially and financially sustainable. It is about restoring a competitive European Union capable of ensuring the sustainability of its unique social model - a competitive EU that is a global leader in terms of tackling climate change, an EU that invests more in its people through more and better education and, finally, an EU that strengthens social cohesion by combating poverty.\nOf course, as outlined in the Commission's conclusions during this morning's debate, this return to strong growth is only possible if we make sure that in the coming years, our Member States undertake the necessary fiscal consolidation, taking account of their respective starting points, not undermining a fragile recovery, and looking at the expenditure side at the same time as the revenue side. These are all very important elements.\nI would like to stress once again the importance and the complexity of the fiscal problems that are currently on the agenda, but I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that this financial and economic crisis is much more complex than just speaking about budget deficits. At the root of the crisis, you will find a fundamental malfunctioning of the financial sector, starting with the banking sector, the correction of which is also essential if we want to start a sustainable recovery from this situation. We also have to address other causes of the recent recession - like the lack of an industrial policy and, to some extent, the lack of a complete success of our previous strategies - to achieve a knowledge-based economic growth and spread this growth to every region, every corner of the European Union.\nThat is why we have to reinforce our efforts in terms of economic governance, reinforce our efforts for financial regulation, and also achieve better economic, social and territorial cohesion.\nAltogether, I strongly believe that there is no alternative for Europe but to launch this strategy and to launch it very quickly. If Europe does not restore its growth path, it will decline economically and will therefore also decline politically. While we are discussing this new strategy, most of our main trading partners have not only already put in place 10-year long-term social economic development strategies but they are already implementing them.\nBut, if there is one lesson to be learned from the current economic crisis and from its predecessor, the Lisbon Strategy - and I agree with Mr Kelly that often this Lisbon Strategy is exposed to too harsh a criticism - it is that delivery of reforms is key for success. It is therefore urgent to launch Europe 2020 at the June European Council and make sure that both the EU and its Member States start the implementation immediately thereafter.\nAt this point, I would also like to thank the Spanish Presidency for the efforts it made in bringing together the Member States and for supporting this strategy in recent months and, no doubt, in the coming weeks. There can be no delay, considering the current economic situation and the crisis we are currently going through. We owe it to the citizens to provide them with solutions to exit the current crisis and enhance the coordination of economic policies, while, at the same time, preparing a return to smart, sustainable and inclusive economic growth. By acting together in a coordinated way, we will have the necessary weight to be successful on the global stage as well. The Commission counts on Parliament's support in making sure the Europe 2020 strategy can be launched rapidly and successfully.\nLambert van Nistelrooij\nFollowing the debate, I should like to express my thanks for your support for my report. I wish to make a couple more comments; to raise a few points about social and economic governance in the short term. The financial side has attracted sufficient attention and has been made a major priority. We have also been able to discuss the medium term this afternoon and make several comments on this.\nWe shall be including everything in a Parliament resolution that we shall be discussing in this Chamber before the June summit.\nI wish to make two more comments: one about governance. It has been asked whose strategy this actually is. One of Lisbon's faults was that the decentralised parties - the municipalities, the regions, our partners - were not sufficiently involved in the process. Therefore, I propose a territorial pact with the regions, towns and cities, in addition to the agreement in the Council with the Member States and the Commission. Otherwise, this will happen again, and we shall be talking about, rather than to, the regions, our partners.\nIf these things do not reach citizens this time, I know one thing for sure, and that is that one can deck out large flagships, but they will soon be more flag than ship. Participation in the Lisbon Strategy and the EU 2020 strategy should be made more exciting. Indeed, this is possible, by saying when it comes to providing subsidies, providing encouragement, that those who stick their necks out, who also provide financing, can participate. The whole thing is far too flat. Therefore, I invite the Commission to enter into a territorial pact with the regions, towns and cities.\nFinally, integrated policy, particularly across sectors, is crucial; the fragmentation of all kinds of new financing structures does no good and will not help us achieve this agenda. My report concerns synergy between research, development, innovation, production and employment in Europe. We must fight against fragmentation, and so I urge Commissioner Andor to keep the European Social Fund intact in the regulations, and not to split it up as is sometimes suggested in this House.\nLouis Grech\nIn the little time I have available, I would like to reply to a few of my fellow Members' comments on my report.\nI agree with Malcolm Harbour in that there does not seem to be much willingness to consider the Single Market as being the fundamental tool in the 2020 strategy - which is still not properly defined and developed. This is a real shame, considering that a Single Market that embraces a wider and more holistic perspective can be among the top - if not the top - initiatives to provide European citizens with a better quality of life within the Union's strategy.\nEvelyne Gebhardt is also right in saying that today, it is clear that the Single Market, within the scope of the 2020 strategy, requires new momentum that calls for strong leadership on the part of all the Union's institutions, especially from the Commission's side, so that the Single Market can once again restore confidence and trust in our citizens.\nTo conclude, Madam President, we need to ensure that the new 2020 agenda does not become over-ambitious and over-burdened, since this will lead to an agenda full of priorities where nothing gets implemented, as happened the last time round.\nLiem Hoang Ngoc\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, two taboos have been broken in recent weeks. Firstly, the ECB can now monetise sovereign debts. Secondly, EU expenditure can now be financed by borrowing and, in particular, when the stabilisation and support funds are created.\nThere is a third taboo, which unfortunately has not been broken, and it is the Stability and Growth Pact, which some Members of this House are dogmatically demanding be strengthened. Commissioners, we socialists are in favour of federalism. We are in favour of the coordination of budget policies. However, if the coordination of budget policies means overriding national parliaments so as to put their citizens on a starvation diet, then I fear that that might be a fine EU idea which will itself end up starving to death. This is the real threat which we are all facing at the moment.\nCommissioners, the austerity plans in Greece, Spain, Portugal and France do not have any chance of succeeding. I ask you to acknowledge this.\nRicardo Cort\u00e9s Lastra\nMadam President, I would like to thank all my fellow Members for their contributions and the climate of constructive criticism that has prevailed during the course of this important debate.\nThis report on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to Lisbon and Europe 2020 strategy objectives represents one of the key contributions of the European Parliament to the future Europe 2020 strategy for growth and employment, one of the priorities of the Spanish Presidency.\nThe report highlights job creation, the fostering of a sustainable economy, education and training to promote development, employment and competitiveness, as well as the key role of investment in research and development, bearing in mind the need to adopt specific measures for regions with natural handicaps.\nHowever, it will not be possible to implement the Europe 2020 strategy successfully without the participation and full approval of regional and local authorities, as well as that of civil society.\nRegions not only contribute to project cofinancing, but are also capable of gauging the needs of citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises better due to their proximity, as well as being in a position to establish a direct link with universities and innovation centres, thus promoting the knowledge triangle.\nIn this context, Cohesion policy is not merely a source of stable financial allocations, but also represents a powerful tool in the economic development of all European regions.\nIts objectives of eliminating existing inequalities between regions and of introducing economic, social and territorial cohesion, along with its basic principles of an integrated focus, multi-level governance and genuine collaboration, are all essential elements to the success of the Europe 2020 strategy.\nPresident\nThe item is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 20 May 2010).\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi  \nThe EU 2020 strategy's principles are vital for boosting the European economy's competitiveness. Structural reforms are the key to exiting the crisis we are in. The solutions deployed so far for exiting the crisis have not been targeting the causes which have put us in this situation. The causes of the crisis can only be eliminated through structural reforms. We must focus more attention on our economies' innovative ability because this is where the key to EU competitiveness will lie in the coming period. We need to adopt a coordinated approach for using funds earmarked for innovation and regional development. Innovation must feature as part of regional development. Innovation was an objective in the Lisbon Strategy but, unfortunately, it only remained a principle on paper. There were very wide variations in the progress made by Member States and the overall objective was not achieved. This is the reason why I am urging all Member States to show some responsibility and abide by the commitments which they also take on. The Commission should also play a more active role in coordinating the implementation of this strategy in order to prevent it from failing as disastrously as the Lisbon Strategy.\nAlain Cadec  \nThe EU 2020 strategy proposed by the European Commission to stimulate growth and employment in the EU emphasises research and innovation. Various instruments are already providing a great deal of support to projects being carried out in these fields: the Structural Funds, the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme. These various programmes provide finance to the tune of EUR 86 billion for the period 2007-2013. The EU 2020 strategy also emphasises the interdependence of the various EU policies. For efficiency purposes, it is therefore essential to establish synergies between the various instruments. This being the case, I welcome the importance given by the rapporteur to the role which a strong, properly financed regional policy can play in the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy objectives. I also agree with the rapporteur that potential beneficiaries are not always fully aware of the possibilities that exist for establishing synergies in the area of funding. I therefore think it crucial to improve communication, for example, on the model of the Practical Guide to EU Funding Opportunities for Research and Development.\nEl\u017cbieta Katarzyna \u0141ukacijewska  \nIn the context of discussions on the effective use of all funds earmarked by the European Union for research and innovation, we have to raise the problem of appropriate promotion for innovative solutions which arise in individual Member States.\nIt often happens that as a result of the poor flow of information, investment is made in research projects which have already been carried out by scientists in one of the Member States. This is a waste of EU money, which we cannot allow in a time of economic crisis. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on improving communication and supporting the purchase by the European Union of existing new technologies, which will also allow additional financial support for innovative businesses.\nIt is also important to finance soft projects such as training and the dissemination of knowledge about the significance of innovation for economic growth, better informing of local entities about the programmes which are available, and also flexibility in defining the conditions for granting support, so that countries which currently have a low level of innovation can, by development of the sector concerned, contribute to creation of the competitive advantage of the European Union on a global scale.\nIt is also essential to create incentives to investment in local research centres. Small and medium-sized enterprises cannot afford to do this, while large, international firms do not want to use them, which deepens the disproportions in the level of innovation between the Member States of the European Union.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":2,"2024-30":1}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) Today in the European Parliament we have adopted the resolution on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community at second reading.\nWe are amending the Regulation that has been in force since 1992, and I would like to point out once again the amendments that are of the greatest importance to our citizens, and primarily to passengers and aircraft crew. I am talking about the measures under consideration that would enable us to achieve transparency in air fares and to be more active in banning misleading advertising and dishonest competition in the sphere of air transport.\nThe amendments intended to ensure greater adherence to flight security standards as well as social guarantees for aircraft crew are of great importance. It looks as if all disagreements between the Commission and the Council have been resolved, so the Regulation should enter into force at the end of the year.\nI do hope that the amended Regulation will be implemented appropriately in all EU Member States.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, today, after 16 years, we have finally given the green light to simplification, unification and at the same time tighter restrictions in regard to the granting and revoking of air operating licences. I hope that the regulation will not result in the liquidation of small sports companies. I voted for the regulation. I sincerely believe that the regulation will truly make it possible to revoke the operating licences of companies that cheat customers by giving just their tariffs without any taxes, fees or fuel surcharges and therefore not giving the full price of air tickets. I hope that the supervising agency will also focus on price discrimination due to the place of residence. I believe that the amended regulation will lead to improved safety in the operation of air services, in particular by unifying the conditions governing the leasing of aircraft with crew in the EU, as well as from third countries.\nGyula Hegyi\n(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. As the Socialist responsible for this topic, I have supported the compromise recommendations brokered by Mr Ouzk\u00fd. I regard it as a success for Parliament and also for the Socialist Group that the Council has also accepted the fact that we should restrict the two glycol solvents more, thus protecting the health of our citizens.\nThe substance called DEGME damages health when absorbed through the skin. It is well known that it also limits reproductive ability, so it is a major success that we have prohibited its use not only in paints but also in cleaning materials and floor care products. Originally, the Commission would only have prohibited DEGME in paints, but through collaboration by all the parties we have also achieved its restriction in cleaning materials.\nInhaling the solvent called DEGME is harmful to human health. According to the report by the European Commission, it would only have been banned in spray paints, but yet again, upon a recommendation from the Socialists, it has also been restricted in aerosol cleaning materials. Since there was no plenary debate, I wanted to mention the substance of the compromise recommendations.\nJohn Attard-Montalto\n(MT) It is important that the European Parliament is aware of the situation in my country regarding water and electricity prices and the effect of today's decision, that is, regarding this case. That is why I am explaining my vote. Ever since the government raised the price of oil, it has raised the consumer's bill by imposing a surcharge. This month it announced that this will increase to 96%. This will cause new poverty, poverty that will be known as energy poverty. At the same time, the government is not putting forward any short-term or long-term solution. Policy on alternative energy is non-existent, despite the fact that in my country we have a lot of sun and wind, even with regard to cleaner energy such as gas, to the extent that the Government has still not begun to give it any consideration. That is why I voted in this way and that is why what we have done today is important, if not historic.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\n(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me explain why I voted the way I did on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003\/55\/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas. The key part of the directive undoubtedly concerns the proposal for the separation of ownership, which would expressly prevent vertically integrated companies from holding an interest in both the supply and transmission of gas. I voted for the amended compromise proposal because I am convinced that the concerns of countries that were against full ownership unbundling must be taken into account. I agree with the Commission that the European market in natural gas suffers from lack of investment in transmission infrastructure and a low degree of coordination between individual transmission system operators. In my opinion, however, we have to take into account the structural diversity of the natural gas and electricity markets and therefore make a distinction between them. The liberalisation of the gas market must be conducted gradually and symmetrically. It is necessary to focus especially on harmonisation of the degree of openness of the national markets.\nMarco Cappato\n(IT) Mr President, I abstained from the final vote and voted against the proposal for the so-called 'third option' as regards the separation of suppliers and networks in the gas market, because we have lost a major opportunity to affirm the principle of free competition in the gas market. We should have followed what has taken place in the electricity market; in contrast, this third option in practice offers a guarantee to monopolies and former monopolies in Europe; our national markets will therefore continue to lack comparability, thereby making any prospect of a genuine European energy market even more remote.\nWhat is even worse is that this ambiguous third option in practice means that the former monopolies will be further encouraged and helped to enter into agreements along the lines of those with the Russian gas giant, Gazprom.\nHubert Pirker\n(DE) Mr President, as everyone in this House knows, we have had an EC Regulation on the coordination of the European social security systems since 2004 but, unfortunately, no implementing regulation. The decision taken by the European Parliament finally gives us implementing rules too, which means that we have an instrument with which we can encourage mobility in the European Union without loss of social security.\nThe establishment of liaison bodies also enables us to provide practical assistance to those who work outside their home country, for example by answering questions on where and how they should apply for pensions. In other words, we in the European Parliament have ensured that people can obtain real help on welfare matters.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) I abstained in the vote on the Bozkurt report, although in principle I have no objection to a limited form of coordination by the EU Member States of their various social security systems, certainly not if that works to the advantage of European citizens living in a Member State other than their own.\nHowever, I would once again warn against harmonisation, or worse still, uniformity in the different social security systems in the various Member States. As a Fleming I am, in a manner of speaking, a privileged observer of how a unitary system of social security in Belgium for just two population groups, Flemings and Walloons, is totally unworkable and leads to enormous abuses. For goodness' sake let each Member State organise and finance its own social security itself, otherwise one way or another you end up with an abuse-ridden system which is worse, more expensive and less efficient, and ultimately that creates less, not more solidarity amongst the peoples of Europe.\nHubert Pirker\n(DE) Mr President, I also wanted to explain that I voted in favour of this report because it proposes a new regulation in place of the old one, thereby ensuring that our systems of social security can now be more effectively coordinated, because the relevant legal provisions have been simplified and amended. The Lambert report also enables us to achieve our objectives of making another contribution to greater mobility in the European Union and enabling people to take their entitlement to welfare benefits with them when they find employment in another Member State.\nThat is a contribution to social security in the European Union.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Thank you, Madam President. So here we are today at stage two of Mr Corbett's efforts to groom Parliament still better as the lapdog of the politically correct Eurocrat caste.\nYesterday it was decided that we MEPs are scarcely to be allowed to table parliamentary questions, and there is to be a system of self-censure by the President of Parliament. Today it is being made easier to form groups, and the rapporteur emphatically, and to some degree honestly, acknowledges that this measure is aimed primarily at the Eurosceptic right in Parliament. So things have come full circle. Eurosceptic opinion in this House, certainly that on the political right, has to be muzzled. The Eurosceptic vote in referendums in Ireland, the Netherlands and France is, as usual, simply ignored as if it did not exist. This is a European version of Mugabe-style democracy. Some democracy!\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, the rapporteur, Mr Corbett, actually expressed his views, using offensive language, I might add, outside the Constitutional Affairs Committee regarding the political family of which I am one of the representatives in this House; this clearly gives rise to serious doubts as to his impartiality.\nThe report is highly questionable and its content was drastically reduced in committee; all that remained were arrangements to ensure the survival of politically correct groups whose total number of members would fall below the minimum number required, and an amendment has been sneaked in specifically to prevent our political family from forming a group. The reasons given are completely at odds with the facts; you need only refer to the annex to the report to see that there is no national parliament where the minimum number of Members required to form a group is higher than 20. Incidentally, that number is often much lower, at 15, 10 or 8, and in some cases a single person is enough to form a political group.\nThe Corbett report is therefore an attack on democracy and, quite simply, on the basic rules of fair play.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) This Corbett report has just one purpose, and one purpose only, namely to muzzle the right-wing national voices in the European Parliament. Mr Corbett's group chairman makes no secret of the fact. When the ITS Group was formed in January 2007, he said quite openly that the Regulation would be amended specifically in order to block the formation of right-wing groups in future.\nOther groups will undoubtedly suffer collateral damage as a result, but Mr Corbett will not lose any sleep over that. His proposal is probably aimed at a Eurosceptic group. Clearly it is anathema to the socialists in Parliament that groups of all political colours should have the same means and political rights. This Mugabe-style thinking is an integral part of the democratic deficit in Europe, in the same way that the democratic verdict of the voters in France, the Netherlands and Ireland is being steadfastly ignored. Rest assured, Mr President, we shall make this an election issue next year in Flanders.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, the fact that we voted at all on this today seems to me a breach of this Parliament's Rules of Procedure. The committee voted down the report because I think the chairman of the committee had miscalculated who was in the room, at which point he simply tore up the rule book and proceeded on an amended version of it.\nWhy have we gone to such lengths? What is it that is so important that it requires us to tear up our rules like this? Well, the answer of course as we know - and the rapporteur has been clear about it - is to prevent Eurosceptics from forming a group.\nBut why are you so frightened? What is it that makes you so nervous? We are only 50, maybe 60 people maximum, out of 785 MEPs. Could it be that the people you are really worried about are your own voters and that you are sublimating and projecting on to us the contempt and fear you feel for the electorates of Europe who vote 'no' whenever given an opportunity, that you take out on us, their visible spokesmen in this Chamber, what you dare not express about the people who return you to this place.\nIf I am wrong, prove me wrong: hold the referendums that you once promised. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!\nBogdan P\u0119k\n(PL) Mr President, I voted against Mr Corbett's report, as I believe it to be a symptom of extreme discrimination at the heart of the allegedly democratic European Parliament, which is trying to use administrative methods to make it impossible to form political groups that do not think or act in the way the majority consider to be politically correct. This is a two-fold discrimination because administrative methods are being used to stop the formation of groups and, at the same time, considerable amounts of additional financial support are being given to organised political groups, which gives them an additional advantage. This discrimination goes against the basis of the European Union and the foundations on which the EU is supposed to be built. I protest most strongly against this move; you should not have any illusions about the fact that even if you are able to carry this through, you will not be able to push it through the nations of Europe, which will definitely object.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, I have rarely heard such nonsense as I have just heard from the Vlaams Blok, the Front national and Dan Hannan. This report does not censor anybody, nor would this rule change lead to anyone losing their vote, their right to speak and their right to act as Members of the European Parliament.\nWhat this rule change is about is: at what threshold do you set the figure to enable Members to create a group and thereby access extra taxpayers' money and extra resources to pursue political activities? Every national parliament that has a group system sets a threshold. We had a particularly low one - lower as a percentage than almost any national parliament. It is quite right that we stand back and examine it.\nI notice that in the end almost all groups supported the compromise - large groups and small groups. I notice that the speaker for the Independence\/Democracy Group itself - the Eurosceptic IND\/DEM Group - proposed an alternative figure of 3%: 22 MEPs. So they themselves recognise that our current figure needs to be raised, that it is currently too low. Frankly, is the difference between their figure of 22 and the figure of 25 that has been adopted really an attack on democracy? Oh, come off it!\nLeopold J\u00f3zef Rutowicz\n(PL) Mr President, Mr Buzek's report provides a detailed appraisal of all strategic measures in the area of energy technology. Unfortunately, a lack of financing for all the research needed, together with the sudden increase in the prices of gas and oil, meant that we had to direct our research to issues linked to reducing their use for power generation purposes. This priority will also reduce CO2 emissions and should be included in the strategy. I believe it is important to promote research into the construction of safe, modern nuclear power stations and into the construction of the newest power stations based on producing helium and hydrogen, as well as on third generation biofuels that can be produced within local areas, easing overstretched fuel costs. In the voting I supported the amendments that spoke of these priorities.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Ladies and gentlemen, we have accepted the important report prepared by Professor Buzek. The European Union's growing dependence on energy imports, which, in 2030, are to reach a level of 65%, has forced us to take steps to ensure the security of supplies of raw materials used for power generation, based on the principle of solidarity. Additional instruments should also be created to reduce the risks to energy security of individual Member States caused by continuing liberalisation of the energy sector. In order to reach EU objectives as regards renewable energy and the reduction of greenhouse gases, we must promote the development of new technologies, especially technologies for carbon capture and storage. It is important to support clean coal technologies and to intensify our activities as regards second and third generation biofuels as well as to increase research into nuclear power. Work on improvements in efficiency and energy savings has also become much more important.\nWritten explanations of vote\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, I am voting for this resolution. I am the Development Committee's rapporteur on the Erasmus Mundus programme and my report has recently been adopted unanimously. I hope that we will be able to endorse the final text in the September plenary, so that the new programme can start in January 2009.\nThe aim is to export the excellence of our university system beyond the borders of the Union, enabling foreign students to come to study in our faculties - and giving students from the EU an opportunity, through support, to gain experience in a non-EU country. I believe that Erasmus is a key instrument for sustainable development since, as my report stresses, it should promote the return of students to their own countries and thus contribute, through the fund of ideas, knowledge and international contacts that they have gained, to the growth of their country's economies.\nA substantial proportion of financing, in relation to action 2, is taken from the appropriations earmarked for development. In my view it is necessary to ensure that the financial appropriations for the 2008 annual action programmes for Argentina and Brazil, specifically earmarked for the promotion of economic development and welfare, are actually used for both education and concrete action in the field and that they provide infrastructure and means of production geared to sustainable development.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As it is impossible to mention all the important points in this report, I would like to highlight that after the Irish people's emphatic NO to the Treaty of Lisbon, this Parliament continues to pretend and act as though nothing has happened.\nHowever, very much to the contrary, as shown by this report's shameless ambition. Among other aspects, the majority of the European Parliament considers that:\neach country's position, that is, their foreign policies should be linked to a binding political platform established by the EU;\nthe EU should consider a reorganisation and expansion of its offices at the UN, in view of 'the increased powers and responsibilities that the EU's representatives will be expected to exercise with a view to ratification of the Lisbon Treaty';\nthe Council should define, 'as soon as possible, the operational nature of the EU's observer status at the United Nations';\nMember States should agree 'a more cohesive position on the reform of the UN Security Council - one which, whilst maintaining the ultimate objective, within a reformed United Nations, of one permanent seat for the European Union, aims in the meantime at augmenting the weight of the Union'.\nFederalism, under the thumb of the great powers, with Germany at the head, in one of its ambitious and clear expressions ...\nRichard Howitt  \nin writing. - The European Parliamentary Labour Party welcomes this report and in particular welcomes the strong calls on EU Member States to concentrate and strengthen their commitment towards the Millennium Development Goals. We strongly agree that the focus must be on meeting the promises made and scaling up the existing procedures.\nLabour Euro MPs, however, do not agree with the recommendation for a single EU seat on the UN Security Council and cannot support this recommendation. We do not believe this would be a good thing for the scale of European representation. Under Article 19, European members of the UNSC do not explicitly present EU positions in the Council. Furthermore, the UN Charter itself stipulates that this cannot be the case. However there is a healthy informal co-ordination process both in New York and more widely, and it is this which should be encouraged.\nAlexander Graf Lambsdorff  \nin writing. - (IT) The Verts\/ALE Group has always considered that the European Union should have a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, as set out in the Lambsdorff report. Our Group does not, however, accept the 'priority' status that has been afforded to the initiative known as the 'Overarching Process' under which there would be an increase in the number of permanent national members and which, in our view, has to be seen as only one of a range of initiatives.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Mr Lambsdorff's report setting out the EU priorities for the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly. I particularly support the need to continue to push for an ambitious commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) at the Summit. The EU MDG Agenda should set a global example and we should be pushing for this example to be followed by the rest of the international community at the UN General Assembly in September. I voted in favour of the report.\nErik Meijer  \nin writing. - Today the proposal of Mr. Lambsdorff for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the EU priorities for the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly was adopted without a vote in plenary. Not only is this practice - that is enabled by 'rule 90' - very dubious, it also gives the false impression that the whole EP agrees with the content of the report, which is certainly not the case. We strongly reject the recommendation that the current status of the Lisbon Treaty would call for a 'reorganisation and expansion of the offices of the Council and the Commission in New York and Geneva in view of the increased powers and responsibilities that the EU's representatives will be expected to exercise with a view to ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.' Not only is this an insult to the Irish voters that rejected the Lisbon Treaty by a wide majority during the referendum, it is also an attempt to interpret the Lisbon Treaty in such a way that it would 'confer legal personality upon the EU', thus making it a superstate.\nCristiana Muscardini  \nin writing. - (IT) The Lambsdorff report (and related recommendation) gives a clear political signal for the strengthening of the European Union's profile within the United Nations; taking the Commission and the Member States together, the Union provides the UN with over 40% of its funding, but has not as yet acquired any political sway or capacity of influence in return.\nHowever, one part of the text is misleading and prejudicial to the discussions under way in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While stressing the ultimate objective of a permanent seat for the EU as such, the recommendation cites, among the various negotiating initiatives, only the so-called 'Overarching Process', an exercise led by those countries committed to supporting only one of the various proposals on the table, i.e. that of an increase in the number of permanent national members. That proposal, which has been supported by less than one third of the membership, has from the outset seemed divisive and unbalanced, as the President of the General Assembly has himself pointed out.\nWhile we would stress that we very much welcome the political attention that the European Parliament is focusing on the overall strengthening of the European Union's profile in the United Nations, we consider that our reservations and objection to the part of the recommendation on the 'Overarching Process' should be minuted.\nPasqualina Napoletano  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, I should like to give a favourable opinion on the Lambsdorff report, which once again highlights the European Parliament's commitment to strengthening the European Union's profile in the United Nations.\nI should like, however, to stress that, on the issue of the reform of the Security Council, the report puts forward a value judgment prejudicial to the discussions still under way in New York.\nIn particular, among the various reform options on the table, mention is made of the 'Overarching Process' (paragraph Q), a proposal to increase the number of permanent national members of the Security Council.\nThat proposal has up to now been supported by less than one third of the Member States of the United Nations General Assembly.\nI would therefore ask you to minute my reservation about this section of the recommendation.\nGianni Pittella  \nin writing. - (IT) The Lambsdorff report gives a clear political signal for the strengthening of the European Union's profile within the United Nations; taking the Commission and the Member States together, the Union provides the UN with over 40% of its funding, but has not as yet acquired any political sway or capacity of influence in return.\nOne part of the text is misleading and prejudicial to the discussions under way in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While stressing the ultimate objective of a permanent seat for the EU as such, the recommendation cites, among the various negotiating initiatives, only the so-called 'Overarching Process', supported by countries which would like only one of the various proposals on the table, i.e. that of an increase in the number of permanent national members. That proposal, which has been supported by less than one third of the membership, has from the outset seemed divisive and unbalanced, as the President of the General Assembly has himself pointed out.\nWhile I would stress that I very much welcome the political attention that the European Parliament is focusing on the overall strengthening of the European Union's profile in the United Nations, I consider that my reservation and objection to the part of the recommendation on the 'Overarching Process' should be minuted.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) It is worrying that the issue of United Nations reform crops up so regularly. The need for reform has been recognized for some years, but so has the impossibility of carrying out such reform. This impasse is serious for two reasons. First, it aggravates the factors contributing to the organisation's failures, and there are quite a few of these. Second, it promotes the emergence of a discourse sustained and justified by the need for alternatives.\nStrengthening cooperation between democracies is clearly a worthy idea to promote, even though this does not imply comprehensive adherence to the League of Democracies project. However, it would also be wise to be realistic. That is why the UN needs to adapt to the realities of power, not so much because of the question of legitimacy but rather because of the question of viability.\nRegarding the European Union's role, we must recognise that none of the countries with a seat on the Security Council or that might gain a seat on it agree to their replacement by a single EU seat.\nFinally, we have seen that the new United Nations Human Rights Council is a long way from overcoming the deficiencies of its predecessor.\nJos\u00e9 Ignacio Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra  \nin writing. - (ES) With regard to the recommendation to the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly to be held in September in New York, Rule 90(4) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that a recommendation within the framework of the CFSP, which has been voted on in committee, shall be deemed adopted and be included on the agenda for the plenary sitting without the need for the plenary to ratify the text, and without any debate and amendment procedure.\nTherefore, since we are happy with virtually all the document, except for one paragraph, my Group would like to reserve its opinion on the paragraph referring to sexual and reproductive health services. That concept, which is somewhat ambiguous, incorporates questions which to a large extent are a matter for the individual conscience and morals, and we consider that they should NOT form the subject of any pronouncements on the part of this Parliament, especially in relation to the new session of the United Nations. Our Group requested a separate vote in the AFET Committee and voted against for the reasons just given.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski  \nin writing. - The Lambsdorff report and recommendation are of high political importance in as much as they promote a reinforcement of the European Union inside the United Nations. It may be useful to remember that though the Commission and the Member States provide more than 40% of the UN budget, the EU impact and influence in the United Nations is still much weaker than it should be.\nHowever, the text of the report contains a misleading part about the discussions which are currently taking place in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While confirming the long-term target of a permanent seat for the EU, the recommendation quotes among many others only one of the various proposals on the floor, the so-called 'overarching process'. It is well known that this proposal has turned out to be highly divisive and has obtained the consensus of less than one third of the UN members, as noted by the President of the General Assembly.\nTherefore, while expressing a strong appreciation for the overall content and structure of this European Parliament recommendation, I consider it necessary to stress our explicit reservation and objection on the part mentioning the 'overarching process'.\nMarcello Vernola  \nin writing. - (IT) The Lambsdorff report (and related recommendation) gives a clear political signal for the strengthening of the European Union's profile within the United Nations; taking the Commission and the Member States together, the Union provides the UN with over 40% of its funding, but has not as yet acquired any political sway or capacity of influence in return.\nHowever, one part of the text is misleading and prejudicial to the discussions under way in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While stressing the ultimate objective of a permanent seat for the EU as such, the recommendation cites, among the various negotiating initiatives, only the so-called 'Overarching Process', an exercise led by those countries committed to supporting only one of the various proposals on the table, i.e. that of an increase in the number of permanent national members. That proposal, which has been supported by less than one third of the membership, has from the outset seemed divisive and unbalanced, as the President of the General Assembly has himself pointed out.\nWhile I would stress that I very much welcome the political attention that the European Parliament is focusing on the overall strengthening of the European Union's profile in the United Nations, I consider that my reservation and objection to the part of the recommendation on the 'Overarching Process' should be minuted.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) I am very pleased that the European Parliament has today considered the issue of European Union priorities for the coming UN meeting. The rapporteur's proposal mentions the fact that the UN is looking for 'the establishment of new bodies, the radical overhaul of others, the reshaping of the management of its ground operations, the reorganisation of its assistance delivery and an in-depth reform of its Secretariat'. This is extremely important.\nHowever, we should not forget that the purpose of all these activities is man and the human rights that flow from human dignity. Pope John Paul II spoke of this some years ago at a UN forum, saying that the first type of systematic threat to human rights was linked to the area of the division of material goods, which was often unjust; that a second type of threat related to the various forms of injustice in the field of the spirit, and that it was possible to harm a person in their internal attitude to truth, in their conscience, in the sphere of what are called citizens' rights, to which all are entitled without discrimination on grounds of their background, race, sex, nationality, religion or political convictions. In my opinion, his words should provide a signpost for the activities of the United Nations.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The current proposal forms part of a package (along with the proposals for directives on interoperability and the European Railway Agency) that seeks 'the facilitation of the free movement of locomotives across the EU', as part of the liberalisation of railway transport in the EU.\nBefore any other considerations, we must therefore emphasise that this directive's main objective is to eliminate any obstacle to the liberalisation of railway transport by harmonising railway safety legislation in each country.\nThere is no doubt that the most advanced standards regulating railway safety in each country must be adopted and applied. However, we should remember that the liberalisation and privatisation of the railways was called into question in some countries, for example the United Kingdom, after a deterioration in services and other serious developments led to a rethink of the attack on this public service.\nI stress that the harmonisation of railway safety legislation at the community level must never threaten the most advanced laws established in each country, nor should it remove each country's right to keep such laws.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of Paolo Costa's report concerning the amendment of Directive 2004\/49\/EC on safety on the Community's railways.\nSafety on the European rail network cannot be achieved without common objectives and joint action, which is why I very much welcome the railway package. One of its key aspects is the authorisation of rail vehicles; according to manufacturers and railway operators, there is little technical justification for the current authorisation requirements imposed by the competent authorities. The directives relating to the interoperability of railway systems must also be consolidated and merged.\nAnother good thing is that the new legislative proposal provides for clear rules on the maintenance of vehicles. The next step is therefore a decision by the Commission in favour of a binding regulatory system for maintenance.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in support of Mr Costa's report \"Safety on the Community's railways\". The rapporteur's recommendations will help streamline legislation and facilitate free movement of trains across the EU. These recommendations will cut red tape and should boost the development of rail transport in Europe.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) It is essential to harmonise national safety procedures in Member States. This issue provides one more example of how necessary it is to insist on investment in railway transport. If we want sustained development of Europe's transport system and if we are going to achieve the goals and respect the commitments made to citizens and also at the international level in recent years, we have to invest in railways and guarantee the interoperability of the European railway system.\nSimplification measures and introduction of the principle of mutual recognition are the fundamental points in this report. Another very important point is the use of more rigorous training and certification measures for all interested and responsible parties in the Community railway market, from railway companies to infrastructure managers.\nI think that this report is one more positive step in our search for multi-modality as the main axis of European transport policy.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I voted to exempt heritage railways from the scope of this directive. This continues to reflect my appreciation of the very special case which these companies represent. Had those companies had to comply with the terms of this directive it would have meant a crippling series of costs on largely volunteer\/subscription organisations. Such railways as the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway and the Kent and East Sussex Light Railway (of which I am a life member) are part of the historic fabric of the tourist industry in the South East of England and across the EU. It is a shame that some in this House who purport to be 'nationalistic' in leaning could not support this exemption.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) The creation of a common railway market for transport services requires changes to existing regulations. Member States have developed their own safety standards, primarily for national routes, based on national technical and operational concepts. It is becoming vital to create harmonised regulatory structures in Member States, common texts for safety regulations, uniform safety certificates for railway companies, similar responsibilities and competencies for safety authorities and for rail accident investigation procedures.\nIndependent bodies for regulating and monitoring rail safety should be created in every Member State. In order to ensure proper cooperation between these bodies on the EU level, they should be given the same minimum range of tasks and responsibilities.\nThe protection of public safety and order, which includes maintaining order in railway communications designated for public use, should be one of the basic tasks for which the EU is responsible.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I supported all the amendments to the Committee on Transport and Tourism's report on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 881\/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency.\nIn the United Kingdom we have seen a growth of more than a fifth in the number of passengers on the train. In the short term this has led to enormous difficulties as over-crowded trains have led to enormous congestion and as passengers in certain regions - including my own, the South West of England - have resented and protested at the movement of rolling stock around the country. At the same time campaigns are moving to re-open long closed stations and lines to cope with demand and the need to reduce carbon emissions, such as the campaign in Radstock, Somerset.\nIn the longer term, new orders for rolling stock will alleviate the crisis but, if Europe's railways are to continue to flourish, we need some strategic thinking that hopefully a strengthened European Railway Agency can provide.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The current proposal forms part of a package of measures (along with the proposals for directives on interoperability and safety) to liberalise railway transport in the EU, in which the 'agency' takes on the central role of 'regulator'.\nThis policy will promote the gradual deterioration of railway transport as a public service and give the more profitable routes to private companies through privatisation (public-private partnerships), at the cost of the taxpaying public and irrespective of the interests and needs of each country and their people.\nIn Portugal, as time has shown, implementation of this policy has led to a deterioration in public services, restricted mobility and increased fares. It has resulted in the closure of hundreds of kilometres of railway track, the closure of stations, a reduction in the number of passengers and in service quality, a reduction in the number of workers employed in the railway sector and an attack on their pay and labour rights.\nThe railway sector is strategic for socioeconomic development. We need a policy that promotes the development and improvement of public railway transport systems in our countries.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I voted for Paolo Costa's report on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 881\/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency.\nImproving the technical legal framework for the Community's railways as part of the third railway package is an essential and welcome development, which includes measures to strengthen the European Railway Agency. As the central body, the Agency must ensure that a uniform strategy is pursued throughout Europe. Particular importance attaches in this respect to the continued development of the European Railway Traffic Management System, the interoperability and compatibility of which must be ensured at all costs.\nThe creation of an EC verification procedure is a suitable means to this end, but its effectiveness will depend on a robust and efficient European Railway Agency. For this reason I support further development of the Agency as proposed by the rapporteur.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Paulo Costa's report on the establishment of a European Railway Agency notably supports the call for a European Railway Traffic Management System, consisting of the most advanced rail safety technology. I support this initiative which, in tandem with the \"Safety on the Community Railways\" report, will allow for a more cohesive European rail network. I voted in favour of the report.\nRobert Navarro  \nin writing. - (FR) The issue of rail interoperability is critical to the development and the success of Europe's railways. I am therefore very pleased that we have been able to reach a compromise in the interest of improving Community legislation in this area. Although I voted in favour of the proposals put forward by the rapporteur, Paolo Costa, I am not any less aware of the limits of this compromise. Ten years to achieve the certification of all types of rolling stock is a considerable amount of time. As for the role of the European Railway Agency, it could have been much more extensive, particularly with regard to the development and implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The Member States decided otherwise for fear of seeing the railway agencies and other national bodies - newly established, it is true - doomed to obsolescence. However, if this is where we are at now, then it is because, back in 2004, they did not have the courage to give a truly European impetus to the railways. This is how European integration proceeds: in fits and starts and in small steps. However, if we adopt this cautious approach, we are likely to miss some opportunities, which is why I hope that the Member States will play the game by rigorously applying what they themselves have proposed.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Reaffirming our critique of its main objective, that is the liberalisation of air transport as a public service within the EU, we would like to remind you of what we pointed out one year ago. There is an attempt here:\nto hide the fact that liberalisation had a negative impact on employment and working conditions. The effects of this on safety and the maintenance of quality fleets should be evaluated;\nto avoid safeguarding full respect for workers' rights and avoid mentioning that:\na) the contracts and working conditions of cabin crews will be regulated by legislation, collective agreements and related rights of the country in which workers habitually perform their job or in which they begin and to which they return after work, even if temporarily deployed in another country;\nb) employees of 'community' air transport that provides services from an operational base located outside the territory of the Member States will be subject to the social legislation and collective agreements of the country in which the operator has its main office;\nc) participation of representative workers' organisations in the decisions taken on the air transport sector will be guaranteed.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) The regulation that has been passed by the European Parliament changes the legislation regulating the provision of air services in the European Union, to the benefit both of air carriers and of passengers. The Regulation is important for the proper functioning of the internal market. It creates a more competitive environment for the activities of European carriers that pit themselves against their international competitors.\nThrough it, the same conditions will be set out for the issue and revocation of operating licences, which should eliminate the distortions of competition that are currently prevalent in the market and which are due, among other factors, to different regulations as regards requirements for operating licences, to discrimination against certain EU carriers because of their nationality, or else discrimination in servicing routes to third countries.\nHowever, the greatest beneficiary of the changes that have been introduced will be the consumer. By making it compulsory to include all the taxes and additional charges in the price of air tickets, there will be greater price transparency and support for the principle of making additional payments voluntarily. It will also stop consumers from having to pay higher tariffs and will make it possible for consumers to make informed decisions. In addition, by eliminating airlines that are financially unsound, passengers will be free from the risk created by the possibility of their carrier going bankrupt.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of Ar\u016bnas Degutis's report on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community.\nMoves to strengthen and improve the existing legal provisions are to be encouraged, especially as regards the transparency of air fares. Passengers are entitled to a full breakdown of the price of their air tickets. The new instrument will make fares more transparent and comprehensible. In this way the European Union is acting to combat misleading advertising and to create a level playing field based on quality, not on the apparent attractiveness of deals, particularly on the Internet.\nThe measures to ensure compliance with welfare provisions represent another improvement made by the new instrument, giving employees better cover and more uniform working conditions. The common rules will safeguard consumers' and employees' rights and guarantee the necessary transparency and disclosure of information on the part of air carriers in the Community.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) I am in favour of the rapporteur's view concerning adoption of the Council common position without any amendments. I also think that this Regulation strengthens and improves existing legal provisions concerning monitoring of operating licences, leasing of aircraft, air traffic distribution and price transparency.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Ar\u016bnas Degutis' report on the rules for the operation of air services in the Community will ensure that the price you see for flights is the actual price you pay. Final prices for flights must now include fares, taxes, airport charges and other charges. This is a positive move towards greater transparency in the aviation sector and consumer protection. Workers in the air services sector will also experience greater social protection under the report's proposals. I therefore voted in favour of the report's recommendations.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - I fully support this report, which will put an end to the unfair practice of airlines advertising fares that exclude taxes, charges and a wide range of other extra fees. The present situation allows airlines to get away with advertising misleading fares that, very simply, prove to be false.\nAs a result, there is a serious lack of price transparency regarding airfares, which is distorting competition and affecting the consumer's ability to make informed choices. In many cases, people end up paying a lot more than they originally expected, as the advertised fare bears little resemblance to the final cost.\nThe Commission and Parliament have worked together to ensure that this will change. This report will mean that airfares must be advertised simply and clearly, inclusive of all taxes and extra charges. The European Union's 'crackdown' on this practice is great news for the consumer.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) Statistics are widely used, not just by companies or institutions involved in the economy. They play an important role in planning or following market trends. For this reason it is important that the indicators used to collect these statistics should be reliable and should properly reflect reality and market changes. Existing indicators should be reviewed, but consideration should also be given to new areas of data collection.\nThe need to modernise our statistics results also from the existence of different systems and different statistical practices in Member States, which often makes it difficult to compare data across the whole European Union.\nOf course, changes in this area should not increase the reporting burden on companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. The sophisticated approach used in the Programme for the Modernisation of European Enterprise and Trade Statistics should encourage rationalisation as well as the coordination of methods used to obtain statistics from different sources and, what is most important, will mean that companies will not have to supply the same data to different institutions that are involved in data collection.\nI believe that the Programme for the Modernisation of European Enterprise and Trade Statistics is a good step towards reducing the administrative burden on businesses, which will help to achieve the target set by the European Commission, to reduce that burden by 25% by 2012.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support Mr Konrad's report on the programme for the modernisation of the European enterprise and trade statistics. The report seeks to provide investment to improve the efficiency of statistical production so that new demands can be met while business burdens are reduced. I voted in favour of the report.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) I am in favour of this report. Batteries and accumulators that do not comply with the requirements of Directive 2006\/66\/EC should be withdrawn and should not be allowed to be sold. The Commission decided that batteries that comply with existing regulations that are placed on the European Union market prior to 26 September 2008 will not be withdrawn. I consider this to be a very reasonable solution.\nThe withdrawal of batteries that do not comply with requirements will result in an increase in waste. I believe that the simplest and best way to deal with this situation is to put stickers on these batteries and accumulators stating that they do not comply with EU regulations.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - With Mr Ouzky's report the use of two substances 2-(2-methoxyethoxy) ethanol (DEGME) and 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol (DEGBE) will be greatly restricted and in some cases banned in products marketed to the general public. The report's recommendations bolster consumer protection and I voted in favour of the report.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Toxic substances contained in products used for cleaning, rinsing and disinfecting, as well as in paints and solvents, can pose a risk to human health by irritating respiratory pathways and eyes and by causing allergies.\nRestricting market access to products that do not fulfil set safety standards could significantly help to protect our health and the environment. The majority of these products can be harmful in use, causing various unpleasant symptoms. They can also be harmful to the environment after entering the ecosystem. Where they pollute the soil or water sources, it is often impossible to predict what the results will be.\nLimiting the levels of MEE and BEE in various types of detergents or cleaning products is a very positive step and for this reason I believe that the European Union should make every effort and commitment to eliminate these unhealthy substances from our lives and from the environment.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted against this report because it forms part of the gas market liberalisation package and expressly supports steps to complete the internal market as quickly as possible even though it does not, in general, approve the instruments and regulations proposed by the European Commission.\nThere are some interesting critical observations directed at: the impact assessments submitted; the failure, at times, to observe the subsidiarity principle; and the inconsistent allocation of powers between the European structures.\nHowever, the line taken by the report is to facilitate company access to the natural gas transmission networks, that is, facilitate the privatisation of what is left of the public sector and place it at the service of the strategy of economic groups that want to enter the market.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Atanas Paparizov's report on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks will facilitate the integration of the EU internal gas market. The report tackles cross-border issues between Member States and will increase regulatory oversight at European level. It is important for the EU to work towards an internal market in gas and I voted in support of the report.\nJos\u00e9 Albino Silva Peneda  \nin writing. - (PT) This report deserves a vote in favour from myself and all my colleagues who believed that the consistency of the third energy package depended on the effective and not merely cosmetic regulation of trade in natural gas.\nI welcome the willingness to create the conditions to increase investment in gas networks. In itself, this will allow a potential increase in competitiveness and competition in the sector.\nI welcome the efforts towards the effective liberalisation of national gas markets and third party access to the network, which increases the level of transparency.\nFinally, I welcome the inherent willingness of this document to put into practice the desire of European citizens to see a more transparent and less monopolised energy market.\nThe third energy package needs the approval of this report as do our fellow European citizens.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - The position I have taken reflects my opinion regarding the importance of natural gas and its availability for consumers at the lowest possible price. A gas pipeline is going to unite Libya and Sicily. This will pass in the vicinity of Malta so that, in order for my country to benefit, it will have to either join the pipeline or, as has been proposed, there will have to be a pipeline from Sicily to Malta. My country does not have a large domestic market and its consumption varies between 16 to 18 million units annually. Should the use of natural gas become more widespread, it will no doubt change the policy on energy in both Malta and Gozo. This can take place if gas is used in the production of energy itself. I drew the attention of the then Nationalist Government to the importance of having gas-powered stations some 15 years ago.\nThe government did not pay any heed and eventually installed only one small gas-powered station as an extension. Also, as distances in Malta are small, it is feasible to use gas for the propulsion of private and commercial vehicles. The conversion of vehicle engines is not a problem. Also gas is much cheaper and much cleaner than petrol or diesel. But the government and its agency, EneMalta, have not even considered the infrastructure needed regarding its distribution.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe proposal for a directive on the internal gas market forms part of the 'third energy package', which completes the privatisation of natural gas supply services.\nThe proposal for a directive and the report aim to eliminate the high level of centralisation that still exists in certain countries, in order to complete the penetration of EU monopolies into the market, thus accelerating the implementation of liberalisation, while also imposing sanctions on the Member States that have not yet fully implemented it.\nThe package has two key points: ownership unbundling between gas supply activities and gas transportation and storage activities, so that capital can effectively make use of that public infrastructure for the production, storage and transportation of gas that remains in the Member States. The empowerment of supposedly independent regulatory authorities, aimed at eliminating any ability on the part of the Member States to make national adjustments or state interventions, guarantees total immunity for the business groups that will be preying on the gas sector.\nThis EU policy will have the same dreadful results for employees as the privatisation of other energy sectors: increased prices and a deterioration in the quality of services. The struggle against monopoly interests to overturn this policy is the only way to meet the current needs of working-class families.\nJos\u00e9 Albino Silva Peneda  \nin writing. - (PT) This measure unequivocally demonstrates our shared willingness to achieve the objective of liberalising the energy market. I therefore vote in favour.\nI believe that the ownership unbundling of natural gas production assets and transmission networks is necessary for this, but not per se a sufficient condition.\nHence the concern to create the necessary conditions to encourage transnational investments in network infrastructure.\nHence the concern to demand equal treatment for third countries that intend to invest in the European energy market.\nHence the concern to improve coordination between national energy sector regulators.\nThis measure will make the market competitive and is therefore in the interests of consumers, who will benefit from the new rules of a more healthy, free and transparent energy market.\nCarl Schlyter  \nin writing. - (SV) I am voting for this report because it will make life easier for people relocating and travelling between Member States, without any powers being transferred to the EU.\nMarian Zlotea  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for the Lambert report because it is an answer to the citizens' needs. We are living in a world of globalization where thousands of people are working in another country than their country of residence and we need a coordination of the social security systems for all people using their right to work in other states, in order to ensure and support mobility, which is a fundamental right in the European Union.\nEurope allows us to move freely, but it should also provide us with more social rights, which should not stop at national borders.\nHoping that the European citizens will be able to benefit, from the point of view of social security, from equal treatment and non-discrimination, I support the initiative to facilitate the workers' freedom of movement. We have to eliminate all barriers to mobility.\nCarl Schlyter  \nin writing. - (SV) I am voting against this report because it contains proposals for the detailed regulation at EU level of such matters as the payment of Swedish parental allowances, which will create difficulties in individual assessments, and it gives the EU too much power.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) The purpose of this document is to make EU rules as regards the coordination of social security systems in individual Member States better and more effective. The regulations it contains will definitely simplify the lives of the average EU citizen who benefits from the freedom of movement throughout the European Union. Whether someone is an employee, an official in administration, a student, a pensioner or a businessman, everyone will be able to keep their entitlements to social security payments after changing their country of residence. I definitely support the ending of yet another obstacle to the free movement of persons within the EU, and this document is another important step in this direction.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) I have two comments on the Lambert report and the regulation that it amends.\n1. In spite of the rapporteur's denials, the draft regulation assumes that third-country nationals enjoy free movement, freedom of establishment and free access to the labour market throughout the European Union; it must be remembered that these are all things that, thank goodness, have not yet become a reality. What it does is chip away a little bit more at the Member States' prerogatives in the field of immigration policy, in other words, their sovereign right to select the foreigners who are permitted to enter their territory and to control the entry, residence and extent of the rights of those foreigners.\n2. It seems appropriate to enable the citizens of the EU Member States to benefit from a coordination of social security systems and ensure that the social protection that they are entitled to expect (owing to their work and their contributions) is not adversely affected by 'international' mobility in which they are encouraged to participate. However, going all out to ensure, in this area, full equality of treatment between European citizens and nationals of third countries, without any concern for guaranteeing any reciprocal treatment, merely serves as a strong incentive to immigrate that already exists in the form of the enormous, indiscriminate and suicidal generosity of our social security systems.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) People's trust in the EU depends to a great extent on their confidence in the social stability of Europe, and that is one of the areas that has seen the greatest changes in recent years and decades. In practice, because of part-time work and new terms of employment ('McJobs') European employees often end up earning little more than some unemployed people. The dark side of unbridled economic growth and constant welfare savings is an increase in poverty and social exclusion.\nIn the European Union, one of the wealthiest parts of the world, 16% of the population were living below the poverty line in 2005. As a result of the increasing oil and food prices, even more people have subsequently slipped below the poverty line or are now living on the brink of poverty. The EU must devote itself to combating poverty among its own population as a matter of urgency, and welfare systems must be available primarily for Europeans.\nCatherine Boursier  \nin writing. - (FR) Today, I voted in favour of the Corbett report on the amendment of Rule 29 of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure regarding the formation of political groups, namely the requirement that a political group's members represent at least one quarter of Member States (instead of the current requirement of one fifth) and that the minimum number of members is 25 (instead of 20), and I did this for several reasons.\nFirstly, because I think that this reform is absolutely necessary to enable our institution to operate more efficiently and to put an end to its highly fragmented state, with rules that have remained unchanged despite successive enlargements and the increase in the size of our Assembly since 2004.\nIn addition, the solution proposed by my Socialist colleague, thanks to whose untiring efforts a compromise was reached with the majority of political groups, seems to me to be very reasonable compared to what is practised at national level within the European Union.\nMoreover, given the resources, both human and financial, made available to the political groups by the institution, clear representativeness also seems to me to be enough to justify this change.\nFinally, the purpose is purely and simply to promote a certain consistency among political forces at European level; our democracy can only emerge stronger.\nSylwester Chruszcz  \nin writing. - (PL) This document is yet another attempt by the majority to take over control at the cost of the minority. The arrogance of the largest political groups within the European Parliament has reached new heights. The thrust of this document is to increase the minimum number of MEPs required to create a political group from 21 to 30. Small groups such as, for example, the Independence and Democracy Group are seriously threatened by such a condition. Obviously I voted against this document.\nAndrew Duff  \nin writing. - The ALDE Group voted against a reform of Rule 29 for the following reasons:\nthe existence of the current seven groups causes no real problems of efficiency;\nminority opinions have just as much right to be organised professionally as majority opinions;\na decent European Parliament must reflect the wider diversity of political opinion that we find in the Union: we need not copy exactly national parliaments whose job is to supply a government;\nclosing down smaller groups would either force reluctant deputies to join larger groups, adding to their incoherence, or inflate the ranks of the non-attached, adding to inefficiency;\nthe size of the Parliament is in any event set to fall from 785 to 751 (Lisbon) or 736 (Nice).\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Our vote against this report and the respective commitment is coherent with our defence of pluralism, democracy and respect for different opinions. It is unacceptable that this report changes the rules for the formation of political groups and imposes more barriers to the formation of political groups in the European Parliament after the next elections.\nUntil now, a minimum of 20 MEPs from six Member States were allowed to form a political group.\nThe proposal that has now been agreed requires 25 MEPs from seven Member States to form a political group. This means it will be more difficult to form small political groups in the European Parliament, which is one more obstacle to the affirmation of positions that differ from those of the dominant ideology in this increasingly neoliberal, militarist and federalist European Union.\nOne final remark on the process followed by the majority groups, the PPE-DE and the PSE Groups. They began by presenting a proposal requiring 30 members to form a political group. They then blackmailed some smaller political groups to gain their support for a so-called compromise proposal, the one that has just been approved. As far as we, the Portuguese Communist Party MEPs, are concerned, we have maintained, from the beginning, a coherent position against the creation of any additional barriers to forming political groups.\nMikel Irujo Amezaga  \nin writing. - (ES) My abstention in relation to this report is because, although pragmatic rules for the creation of parliamentary groups are certainly necessary, I feel that the proposed number of members and of Member States is too high. If this Parliament is to defend plurality and diversity, it is better for those affected to form a political group rather than swell the ranks of a non-attached group which would become increasingly heterogeneous and inefficient.\nAnneli J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki  \nin writing. - (FI) The bigger groups originally proposed that 30 members from seven Member States would be needed to form a group. Fortunately, the project failed in the narrow vote by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in May, when the vote was 15 to 14.\nI have also voted against the proposed amendments now, because the small groups will often remain on the sidelines when decisions are made. It is wrong that a diversity of views should be restricted or the functioning of the small groups should now be made more difficult than previously.\nIt is also strange in light of the fact that the greatest differences in opinion are often found within the groups. The largest group, the Conservatives, has split into two or even three groups on many large issues.\nTimothy Kirkhope  \nin writing. - Conservative MEPs have voted against both of Mr Corbett's proposed amendments to raise the threshold for the establishment of political groups in the European Parliament. The balance between the efficient operation of the Parliament and the need to recognise the plurality of voices and opinions within the Parliament must be struck with care. This would be better achieved by retaining the thresholds for the constitution of a political group as they currently are. Although we recognise there is a fair case for increasing the number of Members required to form a group, any increase in the requirement of the number of Member States would unfairly and unnecessarily disadvantage smaller groups and delegations. Accordingly, after consideration of Mr Corbett's report, the Constitutional Affairs Committee did not recommend any changes to the thresholds set out in Rule 29.\nConservative MEPs did however vote in favour of the one amendment, originally tabled by Mr Kirkhope, that had been approved by the Constitutional Affairs Committee. This amendment provides for a more pragmatic and reasonable approach to the circumstances in which a political group may fall below the required thresholds.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support Richard Corbett's report amending the Rules of Procedure regarding the formation of political groups. With 27 Member States the EU's rules on this issue need to be updated. The European Parliament cannot justify using millions of euros of taxpayers' money to fund groupings of parties, especially fascists, who come together for nothing other than financial gain.\nThe European Parliament has the lowest threshold of almost any parliament for constituting groups. There is no threat to any existing group - nor is the rule change an attempt to squash Eurosceptics, who have more than the new minimum number. Consequently, I voted in favour of Mr Corbett's report.\nErik Meijer  \nin writing. - (NL) The two biggest groups far prefer a two-party system. The main feature of that kind of system is that the two parties share a common interest, namely that second, third or fourth parties are unable to get a toe in the door of political decision-making and so remain totally irrelevant in the eyes of the electorate. Only the biggest groups count; protests and alternatives have to be sidelined. If, exceptionally, others still manage to get into parliament, they are ideally given the most unattractive place possible, as individuals with restricted rights.\nSome members of this House do not belong to a group. That is usually the result of pressure on the part of others. That same pressure obliges other members to join a group with whose views they partly disagree. For reasons of self-interest groups take in members even when they know that those members' views deviate significantly from the party line. The reason is that you cannot form a group here unless you have at least 20 more or less like-minded members. If all shades of opinion in society are to be democratically represented it is better to do away with that minimum figure, instead of raising it to 25 or 30 and introducing rigid rules against dissenters. I am totally against that.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) There is no plausible reason, in my opinion, to increase the minimum number of MEPs required for the creation of a political group. On closer inspection, the arguments advanced by the rapporteur are spurious, particularly his reference to supposedly higher thresholds for the formation of a political group in the parliaments of Member States. If a fair comparison is to be made with the European Parliament, the equation should include only directly elected chambers. Second chambers generally comprise delegates from federal states or regions, and for this reason they are not comparable. The average value used by directly elected national parliaments for the formation of political groups is virtually identical to the threshold used by the European Parliament.\nIn any case, this move to increase the cut-off figure for the formation of political groups is evidently driven by a different agenda. In committee, for example, the rapporteur referred to the formation of the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) Group as an unfortunate circumstance and emphasised the need to prevent any future recurrence. Because of this attack on democracy and freedom of expression and on the equality of MEPs which is enshrined in the Treaty and in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, I naturally voted against this report.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe report, in its adopted form, complements the unacceptable Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament that aim to control and stifle the powers of those who do not fully subscribe to the EU. This is a new undemocratic and authoritarian decision that further hinders the establishment of political groups. The political objective is obvious: they wish to exclude radical forces, especially communist ones, to silence all voices that are opposed and every form of expression that challenges the EU and its policies.\nThis undemocratic operation was accompanied by the supposed political blackmail by the coalition of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament to also push other forces to accept this increase, threatening that, if they did not succumb to it, they would vote in favour of a proposal for an even greater increase in the number of MEPs required, to 30. The progress of the vote demonstrates that this match has been fixed by the forces of the European one-way street, as an alibi for their undemocratic decision.\nThe Nea Demokratia and PASOK MEPs and the Synaspismos MEP have voted in favour of this despicable amendment and the decision in its entirety, proving that, on key issues, the forces of the European one-way street are on a common course.\nWe, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, have voted against the increase in the number to 25 and against the report in its entirety, thus denouncing undemocratic machinations and political games.\nJos\u00e9 Ribeiro e Castro  \nin writing. - (PT) To make excessive restrictions and create barriers to the formation of political groups can never be a good thing for any parliament. In addition to possibly being considered a violation of fundamental rights, the effect of such steps is often exactly the opposite of what the advocates intended. This is therefore a bad reform.\nThe European Parliament must affirm itself as an essential democratic reference point, both in the European Union and in the world. It will not achieve this if it falls short of maintaining an exemplary position. I do not agree that this is the right direction to take.\nIn addition, more than ever, Europe needs to continuously maintain the confidence of its citizens, all its citizens, in its institutions. All Europeans must feel they are represented, independently of their political positions. That is why this is a bad and untimely reform. I vote against.\nEva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - (SV) I am opposed to all attempts to reduce democracy and diversity of opinion in Parliament through such measures as altering the number of Members and Member States entitled to form political groups. Despite this view, I voted for the compromise amendment of the Corbett report. The reason is a pragmatic one - it was the only way of voting in order not to risk a decision which would be even worse from a democratic point of view and which would make it more difficult to form a political group.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) Today the European Parliament accepted an amendment to the Rules of Procedure, as a result of which the guidelines for the formation of political groups will change. Following the elections in June 2009 political groups in the European Parliament will have to consist of at least 25 Members representing a minimum of 7 Member States.\nI would like to give my full support to this increase in the threshold for the creation of political groups in the European Parliament, as this will help to avoid excessive parliamentary divisions and will make its work more effective. Both the cohesion and the effectiveness of Parliament have suffered as a result of the excessive number of small groups in the House. However, to strengthen democracy, small political groups need to be protected against temporary reductions in the number of members, if they fall below the required threshold.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We voted for the report, since better cooperation and more openness between national courts\/judges and the EC Court of Justice is of the utmost importance for the working of the European legal system. It must be made more transparent and its application improved through better training and facilities for networking and exchange of knowledge. However, we consider that the discussion in paragraphs 26 and 27 regarding the jurisdiction of the EC Court of Justice in certain areas is a Treaty matter on which the European Parliament has already stated its opinion.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted against this report because of the unacceptable pressure it will put on Member States, including our national judges, who are the cornerstone of the judicial system in any sovereign country.\nThis report makes clear what was intended with the so-called European constitution and the defunct Treaty of Lisbon, which it seeks to revive in a truly anti-democratic way. The report itself affirms the intent to establish a single European legal order. To achieve this, they want 'to involve national judges more actively in, and accord them greater responsibility for, the implementation of Community law'.\nNational judges play an essential role as guarantors of the rule of law, including Community law. However, the principle of subsidiarity and constitutional issues in each Member State cannot be called into question in the name of 'the primacy of Community law, direct effect, consistency of interpretation and state liability for breaches of Community law', as intended by the Commission and the majority of the European Parliament. It is unacceptable to continue with this pressure, now that the Treaty has been rejected.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) This report is completely frank with us. Right from paragraph 1, it sets its goal: the establishment of a single European legal order.\nIndeed, this report, a veritable pamphlet in favour of Community law, seeks to involve national judges more actively in and accord them greater responsibility for the implementation of Community law. Accordingly, it is suggested that Community legislation and related case-law be integrated into national codes as soon as possible.\nThe report proceeds with the idea of merging national and Community legal systems without, at any time, raising the issue of excessive Community standards, their confused wording and their frequent lack of consistency.\nThis move towards the simplification and codification of Community legislation is certainly a good thing. The same applies to the adoption of regulations to ensure legal certainty; I am thinking in particular of those relating to harmonisation of the rules governing conflicts of laws. However, the case-law of the Court of Justice often proves to be unsafe for the enforcement of national laws that are subject to the Court's binding principles and dogmas even if they are clearly contrary to the best-established legal traditions of the Member States.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) 'Friends, friends, business aside'...\nI refer to one more contradiction between the EU and the United States, this time in the aircraft industry where, despite the 1992 agreement on government support, each side tries to defend its interests, because that is how capitalist competition operates.\nThe European Parliament complains that 'the EU has consistently adhered to the spirit and letter of the 1992 Agreement and has regularly provided documented evidence of compliance' while 'the US has largely ignored its obligations', 'unilaterally purported to withdraw' from the agreement and brought 'a WTO case against the EU, citing European repayable financing which fully complied with the 1992 Agreement and which is similar to that benefiting Boeing'.\nAt the same time, faced with the 'bitter attacks' by Boeing and the US Congress, against the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corporation EADS for the US Air Force aerial tanker recapitalisation programme, the European Parliament seeks to pour oil on troubled waters, by pointing out the need to 'to arrive at a pragmatic balance between European civil support and the US military-industrial scheme'.\nIt seems that not all countries are entitled to sovereignty and 'free trade'...\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I will be voting in favour of this report, not because I enjoy WTO disputes or have a paranoia about the United States, but because I am fed up with the protectionist actions of the United States over many years, particularly in the area of civil aviation.\nThe Americans have perfected the art of whinging and complaining about other countries and their lack of free trade, when they themselves have adopted measures which allow bankrupt airlines to carry on trading, and have allegedly sifted millions of dollars of aid into Boeing.\nThe International Trade Committee is right to support the EU in its case against the United States at the WTO.\nWhat we all should be aiming for here is fair and open competition between aircraft manufacturers with a freedom of choice for airlines to choose the best aircraft to suit their needs at the best price.\nThe official motto of the USA is 'In God we Trust.' Perhaps that should change to 'Don't do as I do. Do as I say.'\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish social Democrats voted in favour of Mr Buzek's report on the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan.\nWe take a positive view of CO2 capture and storage but question whether it is necessary to support such things as coal to gas conversion for the further development of that technology. We also take a positive view of research into and the development of new sources of energy with low or zero CO2 emissions.\nWe are in favour of the Union cofinancing this research, but do not think that we should pre-empt the budgetary process by calling on the Commission at this stage to set aside particular sums. We have therefore chosen to abstain on these two points.\nMarian Harkin  \nin writing. - I am voting against the second part of Paragraph 26 because I do not support Nuclear being one of the priority initiatives. However I will vote in favour of the report because its objective is to accelerate innovation in cutting edge European low carbon technologies. It is crucial that Europe has an energy research plan to support its ambitious energy policy and climate change goals.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) I agree with Mr Buzek's views as regards the issue of introducing new power generation technologies in the light of the challenges facing the European Union, namely environmental protection, guaranteeing the security of energy supplies and maintaining the European Union's high level of competitiveness.\nI also agree with the point made by the rapporteur concerning insufficient resources allocated to new power generation technologies in the current financial framework of the European Union. We must remember that success in the area of new power generation technology should be achieved by a partnership between the public and the private sectors.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) As we know to our cost, the EU's aim of rapidly increasing the percentage use of biofuel has had adverse repercussions. Monocultures, the felling of rainforests and competition with food and feed crops, which has contributed to the current food crisis, have seemingly prompted the EU ministers to think again and have dealt a blow to their target of increasing the share of renewables in the production of motor fuel to 10% by 2020.\nWhile we should welcome the fact that biofuel is no longer to be produced from food crops and that there is a general desire to wait for second-generation biofuels such as those obtained from waste products, this must not lead in any way to a relaxation of EU efforts in the domain of renewables. The alarming upward trend in the price of oil makes it more important than ever to promote the production and use of energy from renewable sources. All those billions that are being spent on nuclear power generation, with all its problems, must be invested in renewables.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Sovereign wealth funds, these state-owned funds that are invested all over the world, are they a good or a bad thing? Rather a good thing, if we are to believe this resolution. However, it is true that a Europe that is stagnating economically on account of its own economic and monetary policies cannot afford to dismiss the thousands of billions of euros of potential investment that they represent.\nIt is true that, for the time being, sovereign wealth funds do not disturb the financial markets (they have even come to the aid of the US banking system) and would tend to be directed more towards long-term investment. However, that may change. We are all aware of the opacity of most of these funds with regard to the scale of their resources, the distribution of their assets, their governing structures and their investment strategies that range from ethical investment to the pursuit of high yields, positions of control and perhaps the potential to cause serious damage in the future. The states that hold these funds are not all friends of Europe, far from it. One of them has already evoked the threat of its 'financial nuclear weapon'.\nHowever, we shall abstain on this text instead of voting against it because, although it supports the free movement of capital worldwide, it cautiously calls for some monitoring of and protection against these funds.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - This resolution covers an important subject. Sovereign Wealth Funds are playing an increasingly important role in global trade and investment. Some of this is positive but that is not always the case as the unaccountable administrations make decisions that maximise short-term profits at the expense of countries, communities and families. We must look at ways of increasing transparency and accountability to these resources that often outweigh those available to nation states.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) Mr President, Mr Rack's report on a new culture of urban mobility, in favour of which we have voted, is an important part of the new comprehensive approach of the Commission's energy and climate package: significant reductions in emissions can be achieved in Europe using sensible, efficient community and transport planning.\nIt must, however, be taken into account that the Member States are different in their geographical locations and living conditions. It is precisely for this reason that I voted in favour of the two amendments by our group. I come from a country of long distances and comparatively small towns. It is quite clear that the opportunities for reducing private motoring are significantly weaker in, for example, the sparsely populated urban communities of Finland, in the north, than in the densely populated areas of Central Europe.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I voted for Reinhard Rack's report on a new culture of urban mobility. The draft report on the Green Paper is an important contribution to the subject of urban development. The economic development of a town or city and its accessibility depend on better mobility, but the latter must not be achieved at the expense of people's wellbeing or the environment.\nFor this reason, the report ought to give more consideration to social factors and employment policy. It must also be rooted in awareness that the diversity of the Member States will not permit a uniform European solution and that strict adherence to the subsidiarity principle must therefore continue to prevail. I also believe that, in the countries where liberalisation has already taken place, its impact on employment should be assessed. In addition, I call for a certification system for the retrofitting of particulate filters to cars, goods vehicles and off-road vehicles.\nWhile the Green Paper highlights most of the problems that affect urban mobility today and also presents some new and innovative ideas for solving them, it falls far short of covering all the aspects that need to be addressed and so can only be regarded as a starting point for the discussion of this issue.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) The most important matter raised by the rapporteur is that of delineating the areas in which the European Union should participate in issues relating to urban mobility.\nThe rapporteur is right to point out that there are similar problems throughout the European Union in the area of urban mobility, but it is not possible to develop a uniform method to deal with these problems. At this point, the rapporteur's views concerning the town or city being able to choose a method to achieve set objectives is sensible and I would like to express my support for these views.\nErik Meijer  \nin writing. - (NL) Towns and cities are densely populated, with few open spaces and a lot of traffic travelling relatively short distances. With space at a premium there just is no room for heavy motor traffic, and excessive noise and air pollution are further reasons to make us try to limit the number of cars in our towns as much as possible. Of course towns must be accessible to the fire service, the police, ambulances, removal vans and the vehicles of persons with limited mobility, but scarce open spaces must be kept primarily for use by pedestrians, cyclists, trams, children's playgrounds and parks and gardens. Only then is the town somewhere you can live in.\nThe text being voted on today does not make that clear choice, but simply seeks to reconcile opposing interests and ideas. Fortunately the EU has no competence in this area. All the EU can do is help to foster best practice, good experience which has been built on and improved. Such improvements are important not only for the town which has already made them, but also as an example to others. Examples include central London's congestion charging system, the new tram networks in Strasbourg and Bordeaux or the long-established restricted-traffic city centre of Groningen. Unfortunately the EU will contribute hardly anything on the back of this report.\nGabriele Stauner  \nin writing. - (DE) I voted against this report, because the EU is not responsible for these matters. It does nothing for legal certainty and brings Europe no closer to the people when Parliament takes the initiative to produce reports on matters that do not fall within the regulatory competence of the EU.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We voted for Olle Schmidt's report on the ECB annual report. However, we would point out, with reference to the passage in the explanatory statement which speaks of the need for Sweden to introduce the euro, that we respect the outcome of the Swedish referendum in 2003 in which it was decided that Sweden would retain the krona as its currency.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted against this report because it reaffirms support for the work of the European Central Bank, makes no criticism of successive increases in the base rate, even though this has already reached 4.25%, much higher than the United States Federal Reserve base rate.\nMoreover, the report ignores the fact that the bank's activities are harming workers, the population in general and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. It only serves the objectives of the major economic groups and finance capital, even when they cause problems for the more fragile and dependent economies, such as that of Portugal.\nFor example, in Portugal, where the level of debt has reached 114% of GDP, this increase, allied to the overvaluation of the euro, is another nail in the coffin of micro and SMEs, worsens the deficit in the balance of trade and increases the country's dependency. It will be more difficult to deal with unemployment, casualisation, low wages and the generalised increase in prices, considering that the level of debt of Portuguese families has now reached 129% of their disposable income.\nWe therefore reaffirm the need for a break with this right-wing policy and the false autonomy of the ECB, which only serves to hide the fact that it is at the service of big capital.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The Schmidt report is the annual pat on the back given by Parliament to the European Central Bank for its benevolence.\nAs usual, it seems to miss the key point: the dreaded margin squeeze that is crushing Europeans' purchasing power and for which the ECB and the European Union are partly to blame. No one believes that the official inflation figures (3% for 2008, according to the report), which are merely composite indices, reflect the reality of the rising cost of living for citizens, especially for commodities, energy and housing. Everyone recalls the statements made by the ECB authorities, warning against the inflationary effects of wage increases, as if the salaries of those same Europeans were not subjected to constant downward pressure because of unfair global competition and the immigration policy promoted by the European Union.\nWith regard to the highly overvalued euro exchange rate, it is true that it is sparing us the worst in the face of rising oil prices. However, it is threatening the competitiveness of many industries which are tempted to relocate, as Airbus has done, to the dollar zone.\nWe therefore cannot support this mutual back-patting.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) In his report on the ECB annual report, the rapporteur has focused on the challenges facing the Bank. There has been a great deal of worrying information for European economies over the past few months; and unfortunately there is much more of this than in 2007. The crisis in financial markets and the sudden increase in the price of oil and food are slowing down economic growth and increasing inflation, and there are concerns about a rise in unemployment figures. The ECB will be one of the leading institutions that have to try to deal with these challenges.\nThe steps taken in August 2007 provided liquidity to financial markets, but they did not resolve the problem. There is also an increase in the number of countries joining the common currency. Slovakia will be the first country from Central and Eastern Europe to take this step. However, Slovakia will definitely not be the last. Entry into the euro zone by the other new EU Member States seems to be just a matter of time. The experiences of Slovakia in this regard will no doubt be closely observed by countries in the region that are also thinking about joining the single currency.\nThe rapporteur is also right to note that different levels of economic growth, different indicators of growth or different levels of maturity in EU economies could create problems for the ECB's decision-making process. For this reason I believe the suggestion to undertake a review of possibilities as regards making changes to the decision-making process to be a sensible one. Such a review should include not just the present members of the euro zone, but also future and potential members.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Olle Schmidt's report on the ECB annual report. I join the rapporteur in calling for the ECB to continue to improve its relationship with other central banks and relevant institutions. Indeed, I would also echo Mr Schmidt's recommendation that caution should be taken regarding further interest rate rises so as not to endanger economic growth. I voted in support of the rapporteur's evaluation.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe resolution that we, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, have voted against attempts to provocatively portray the 10-year implementation of the EMU and the establishment of the euro as a great 'success', while workers and the poor working-class sections of society in EU countries, including Greece, are experiencing their dire consequences, such as high prices, the wages and pensions freeze, unemployment, excessive taxation on employees and poor self-employed workers and the removal of employment, social and democratic rights. Any 'success' achieved relates solely to the profits and surplus profits of European plutocrats and runs absolutely counter to the interests of workers and the people. The European Central Bank, as a pure instrument of European capital, is required to play a more active and effective role in that direction through anti-popular measures, such as interest rate increases and so on.\nHowever, the remarks and concerns of the resolution on the monetary 'turmoil' and the 'cohesion' issues of the EU that remain and are, in fact, becoming more widespread, confirm our assessment regarding the continued and unavoidable crises of the capitalist system and of its disproportionate growth, as well as regarding the need to overthrow it and replace it with a planned popular economic system with power to the people and the need to cut the ties with the imperialist EU. Within the EU there can be no path to growth that prioritises the common people.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":2,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Towards a common European foreign policy on energy (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on a common European foreign policy on energy.\nJacek Saryusz-Wolski  \nrapporteur. - Madam President, I am presenting to you an own-initiative report recommended by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our report advocates a common EU foreign policy on energy in order to face challenges of energy security. It would bring necessary and substantial added value to efforts made at national level, according to the subsidiarity principle, and would allow better protection of Europe's energy interests.\nWhat should this policy look like? It should be based on the following four principles: diversification; unity in defending the EU's interests and the EU speaking with one voice; solidarity in crisis; and strengthened cooperation with partners.\nWe need to develop a proactive broad energy diplomacy aimed at strengthening our cooperation with all major producer, transit and consumer countries, and to create an energy market based on the principle of reciprocity.\nThe report welcomes the proposals of the third energy package, as adopted last week by the Commission, which addresses these concerns and is in line with the report. The EU has to be active, determined and united. The geopolitical dimension of energy security has been so far neglected and it is high time to fill the gap. Hopefully the new Treaty will equip the EU with a legal basis for energy solidarity, thus allowing for the EU's institutional competence to negotiate an energy security framework with third countries. The report recommends including in our agreements with producer and transit countries a so-called energy security clause which lays down a code of conduct and explicitly outlines measures to be taken in the event of disruption of supply.\nWe should replace the current EU Member States' preference for energy unilateralism with a new common policy of energy solidarity based on a multilateralist approach. Meanwhile, there is a necessity to establish a good practice of consultation among Member States on strategic decisions which may affect the EU or one of its members.\nThe new common foreign policy on energy must be consistent with all EU policies having an external aspect, e.g. internal market, competition, transport, trade, environment, consumer protection, budget and others. One cannot create a new common policy overnight. We propose, therefore, to adopt a gradual approach and furthermore, to be efficient, this new policy should be equipped with appropriate instruments.\nWe suggest the creation of a new post of High Official for Foreign Energy Policy after the new Treaty enters - hopefully - into force. This office would allow for the coordination of all the above-mentioned sectoral policies of the Union and especially those aspects related to the external side of energy security, working under the authority of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, who would, in future, also be Vice-President of the European Commission. That would reinforce the synergies inside the Union.\nThis institutional novelty therefore constitutes an important anchorage of the new approach. We also propose to elaborate a precise roadmap indicating short-, medium- and long-term objectives with a specific timeframe for implementing them and obviously subject to the European Parliament's scrutiny.\nTo be successful, we need to engage the EU's internal dynamic and to secure the necessary public support. The citizens' interest is in secure and affordable energy. This interest of our citizens should be at the core of the project, thus constituting one of the targets of our 'Europe of results' approach.\nCommon threats to secure energy for Europe should therefore produce a common response. But we may also achieve more: a new common policy can become a trigger for further European integration, giving it a new impetus and new strength to the EU as a global actor. A demanding and courageous approach should be an ambition of the European Parliament.\nToday's European Union started a long time ago with energy. Then, it was coal giving an initial push to our reconstruction. We should not miss the opportunity to let it happen once again. We need energy for Europe, indeed, both in literal and in metaphorical terms.\nAndris Piebalgs\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I welcome very much the initiative of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and in particular the chairman, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, to propose a report on a common European foreign policy on energy. Recent developments have confirmed that this is a very timely initiative. The report serves to underline the growing importance of energy issues in the Community context, particularly the external aspects and the importance of the European Union speaking with one voice on external energy issues.\nI appreciate that the report clearly highlights that substantial progress has been made over the past year by the European Union and its institutions towards the goal of speaking with one voice. This includes the establishment of the Network of Energy Security Correspondents (NESCO), in addition to the existing gas coordination group and oil supply group. NESCO has been active since the early summer, which has permitted a very useful and early exchange of energy information between Member States.\nHowever, an earlier exchange of information on planned initiatives by particular Member States would still be highly welcome. Therefore, as the report underlines, a lot still remains to be done.\nThe call for a suitable Treaty basis for energy and energy security is particularly important and timely, as is the call for concrete provisions in the Treaties that will lead to the creation of a common European foreign policy on energy. I very much welcome this approach, including the proposal from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy that the principles of the common energy policy be included in the EC Treaty at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, so that there will be a solid basis for joint action in the energy field directed towards third countries.\nI also note that the Committee has reflected further on the proposal on how to anchor external energy policies more firmly both in the Commission and the Council. We will need to reflect further on this important subject.\nI believe that this version of the report is also balanced geographically, recognising the importance of enhancing our energy relations not only with our eastern neighbours but also with our Mediterranean, Middle East, Asian and other partners.\nI already enjoy the genuine energy partnership with the United States but I do believe that we can achieve more in this area. I also believe that we need to continue to work with like-minded energy partners, such as Norway, Canada and Australia, to strengthen the consensus on the value of open, transparent and competitive international energy markets.\nRecognising the value of the Energy Charter Treaty, I agree with the Committee that Russia's ratification would be very important. However, at the same time I firmly believe that the principles of the Charter also need to be included in a robust energy agreement within the framework of the post-PCA agreement with Russia.\nI do have a practical concern about the number of reports that it is suggested that the Commission should produce. I know that each of them per se is important but I believe that most of the issues raised will be covered in the framework of the regular review of the Energy Action Plan or are already covered in the Commission's annual reports on the application of competition law.\nI do, however, favour more involvement by Parliament and I will examine the suggestions proposed to my colleagues in the College to determine what, in practical terms, the Commission can do to address the concerns raised.\nFinally, with respect to the substance, the Commission intends to press ahead with the work in which we are engaged since early last year and which reflects most of the priorities identified in the report, in particular, on the feasibility study to examine the existing legal arrangements in the EU if its neighbours' energy sectors fall short, and how to strengthen them.\nEqually, it is important to put concrete proposals on the table on reciprocity, and I welcome the fact that your report recognises the importance of reciprocity measures aimed at protecting our internal energy market.\nThis is a very timely report, both politically and also in terms of substance. The Commission has been actively working over the past year and a half to reinforce the EU's external policy on energy and, as the report recognises, there have been a number of significant achievements.\nHowever, we do need to go further and I therefore fully support the call in this report for concrete provisions in the Treaties that will lead to the creation of a common European foreign policy on energy.\nWith energy security, we are talking about the security of our economies and our way of life. As the EU is becoming increasingly dependent on imports of energy, it is crucial that we have a coherent and focused response to the challenges that this presents, not least in our relations with our major external energy suppliers. This has already been reflected in the Commission's latest package on the internal electricity and gas markets, and I very much welcome your appreciation of the proposal.\nI can also announce that the Commission will be a holding a rapid and in-depth review of the wider aspects of the EU's external policy in energy and that we will definitely make the results of that work public.\nI would like to thank the Committee on Foreign Affairs and particularly the chairman, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, for taking this initiative and for giving Parliament an opportunity to debate this extremely important issue for Europe, and I look forward to continuing our cooperation in the future.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my first words will be to congratulate my colleague and friend Mr Saryusz-Wolski for his excellent report.\nIt is now time for Europe to speak with one voice on energy, because we face serious threats to security of supply, transit and investment.\nHowever, it is a shame that paragraph 62 of the report is too categorical as regards full ownership unbundling of energy production, transmission and distribution, since other solutions exist to reconcile the creation of a European energy market with the essential political security that we must maintain over our networks.\nIn terms of international trade, we need to insist on the inclusion of chapters on energy in any new trade agreement. Fair competition must be established at international level, particularly through and under the supervision of the World Trade Organization.\nFinally, we must support international scientific initiatives such as the ITER thermonuclear experimental reactor programme, which, apart from the European Union, also involves a number of other partner countries around the world.\nUmberto Guidoni  \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the depletion of fossil fuels and changes in the geopolitical situation have placed energy security at the top of the European Union's political agenda.\nThe European Union's growing dependence on external energy supplies, mainly from unstable countries, gives rise to concerns regarding the economic and political interests of the Member States as well as the EU's overall security. I do not believe, however, that we can respond to these challenges and problems solely by increasing production and supplies from abroad, but should rather seek a response to energy demand within Europe.\nIt is for this reason that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety urged a focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources during the next decade, as the major way of reducing dependency on oil and gas. Since production and consumption of energy are the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions, an integrated approach to the environment and energy is required to achieve the objectives of a sustainable energy policy.\nTherefore, combating climate change should not remain the preserve of environmental policies, but ought to lie at the heart of the European Union's policies, both internal and commercial. For example, with regard to biofuels it is vital for the European Union to ensure that they will not threaten security of food supplies worldwide and will not create pressure on the economy of the global South to expand monoculture and deforestation.\nSupport for the development and use of renewables can ensure a fair transfer of technologies to non-EU countries and bring benefits in terms of European leadership in the development of international markets. The proposal for energy partnership with Africa is therefore important, and we should add similar partnerships with China and India in view of the growth of these countries. The attainment of the millennium objectives for developing countries is a priority.\nLena Ek  \nDraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - Madam President, the cornerstones of the energy policy for the European Union are transparency, reciprocity and the rule of law. And, as we have all experienced in the last two years, this is also a vitally important issue when it comes to energy and foreign relations.\nWe already have problems in Europe when it comes to security of supply, consumer rights and environmental concerns, and we have to do something about the greenhouse effect.\nWe also have a disturbance on the market that is severe, which Neelie Kroes's report showed us very clearly and which puts on the table the need to unbundle, which is also a foreign relations concern. This is a very important aspect of this issue. So we have to rebuild our energy system in Europe with regard to production, distribution and consumption.\nI would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Saryusz-Wolski for very good cooperation. He has taken account of all the texts from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. What I am not so happy about is what he added with regard to the new Solana-like function, to be able to talk with one voice for the European Union. This new institution would, as I see it, cause uncertainty of roles, a divide-and-conquer situation, and it takes completely the opposite approach to our cornerstones in our energy policy. We cannot check on reciprocity with an institution like this, transparency is ruled out and the powers of Parliament are diminished, which is also completely the opposite of what we want in all other areas. We have therefore asked for a split vote on this topic tomorrow.\nFinally, I want to agree with the Commissioner that it is vitally important that we add the energy issue to the new Treaty.\nChristopher Beazley\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, this report is a serious, thorough and inspirational piece of work. The rapporteur has rallied support across the Committee on Foreign Affairs but also across the other four committees that we have just heard from. In my view it will meet with widespread acclamation tomorrow, including my own support, and, I am very happy to say, that of my British colleagues.\nCommissioner Piebalgs, you went a very long way in your introduction to support the initiative that the Committee chairman, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, has raised with, as I say, a lot of innovation and skill, because, to many, there were challenges.\nI have two specific questions to which perhaps you might reply. You stated, in terms of one of our major suppliers, Russia, that you look forward to a new agreement under the action plan. What is wrong with the old agreement that Russia has actually signed, the Energy Charter, including the Transit Protocol? Because, if our neighbours and suppliers, with whom we have mutual dependency, constantly renege on agreements, what confidence can we have in the future? We are looking for harmonious relations, but we have to defend our own corner and not merely agree with those who are in a supply situation.\nI disagree with Ms Ek in her reservations - perhaps she might listen - about the High Official. It seems to me that Mr Saryusz-Wolski is absolutely right in that we must have an institutional representative, whether it is yourself or whether it is, as we foresee, a double-hatted responsibility - both the Commission and Council. I disagree thoroughly with Ms Ek. This increases transparency, because Parliament would have a direct contact in the Vice-President of the Commission role of this High Official.\nCould you dwell, in your reply, a little bit on this institutional issue, which seems to me to be extremely important and which Parliament is going to stress very strongly?\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (LT) Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and express my thanks for the good cooperation in coordinating the changes to the report on this new, brave issue.\nThe European Union is uneasily implementing its common foreign and security policy and is just starting to create its energy policy. It is proposing to go even further, that is, to create a common European foreign policy on energy. I believe that this is the right step, because the interlacing of foreign and energy policy is becoming more and more apparent and we need to look to the future.\nThose countries that manage energy sources can fall into the temptation of managing the entire world or at least having a special impact on certain regions. This report presents ways of avoiding this by using a justified EU measure - solidarity. I am sure that the creation of a High Representative for Foreign Energy Policy with dual subordination is very important. Bringing to mind Henry Kissinger's well-known expression, the officials of countries that supply resources, transit countries and the representatives of large companies would call him and he would not be able to stop calls from the capitals of the EU Member States.\nThe Members of the European Parliament would expect to receive reports from the European Commission on the implementation of the proposed policy and the assessment of how third countries are complying with the principles of transparency and mutuality. If this policy is acceptable to the European Union, we will avoid any stumbling when bilateral agreements are concluded, bypassing their neighbours in the European Union.\nThe EU and Russia depend on one another in the areas of energy imports and exports. Both are searching for possibilities to diversify and they will not stop doing this. However, they will still remain natural partners in supplementing one another for quite some time. It is very important that agreements between the EU and Russia are based on international law and are transparent and clearly monitored. The way forward for this is also presented in this report.\n(Applause)\nIstv\u00e1n Szent-Iv\u00e1nyi\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who has written an excellent report on a very important and topical issue, and I would like to thank you for working together, for your cooperation and your willingness to reach a compromise.\nThere is no doubt that the issue of energy security is one of the biggest challenges facing the European Union. Nowadays this is not primarily a technical issue, or an economic issue, or even a matter of energy sector management. Fundamentally, it is a strategic issue.\nThe European Union as a whole currently obtains 50% of its energy requirements from outside the EU. According to estimates by experts, by 2030 it will be importing 70% of its energy requirements. This means that its energy dependency is very high. Even now, many Member States depend to a much greater degree on energy supplies from abroad, and a good few of the new Member States depend on a single external supplier. Moreover, this supplier is one that is increasingly exploiting energy as a means of asserting its own political interests. Sometimes it is bent on punishing the Member States, at other times dividing them. Ladies and gentlemen, I am referring to Russia.\nA common energy policy is urgently needed, an energy policy based on unity and solidarity, exactly as Mr Saryusz-Wolski has just set out. It is vital that we diversify our sources and our transport corridors since the areas of the world we are dealing with in both cases are unstable, or largely unstable, and this also poses a threat to our security of supply.\nThe report proposes appointing a High Official for Foreign Energy Policy, but the ALDE group does not support this. We are concerned that it could lead to conflicts over competences; we are concerned that the European Parliament's powers of scrutiny would be curtailed and we fear that it would not represent real added value.\nAt the same time, however, we believe a very important aspect of the report is that it highlights the significance of energy projects, notably Nabucco, as a major common energy undertaking of the European Union, which could represent the first step towards a real common foreign policy on energy.\nThe report, and Mr Saryusz-Wolski, deserve particular credit for drawing attention to the concerns surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline. These concerns are partly environmental, but they are also at least as much political, and this pipeline can only be constructed if we find satisfactory solutions and satisfactory answers to all of these concerns. The Energy Charter Treaty is especially important because it is the basis of European cooperation on energy matters, and Russia too must ratify it. Thank you.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) We have a good chance of achieving a common energy policy. The most recent communication from the Commission indicates that we are on the right road. The report from Mr Saryusz-Wolski is also an important step in this direction.\nIn the first place, we have here a reasonable picture of the problems of energy trade in the context of foreign policy. The European Union has been avoiding this for a long time. It took the hostile abuse of energy by Russia to make us realise that trade in energy had become a narrowly political instrument. The report builds energy security into the EU's security priorities.\nWhat we find here is a well-defined principle of solidarity and the requirement to diversify suppliers and transport corridors. We find very reasonable doubts about the Nord Stream pipeline, the demand for Russia to respect the principles of the Energy Charter, the involvement of the WTO and the expansion of our energy policy beyond the context of European Union Member States.\nFor all of these reasons, our political group is happy to support this report. I congratulate the rapporteur.\nRebecca Harms\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I share the assessment of the rapporteur, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, concerning the problems of dependence on imports and the growing dependence on imports of energy fuels and I have little disagreement with it - the report describes it very well. I do not, however, agree with the solutions this report puts forward and am of the opinion that important strategic objectives of internal, intra-European energy policy should have been reflected in this report.\nIn my opinion, the most important instrument for reducing this growing dependence on imports is the reduction of energy consumption in all areas and I am also of the opinion that the 20% increase in energy efficiency which Europe has undertaken to achieve by the year 2020 has to be a target that must leave its mark on strategic foreign energy policy. When we realise that in the construction sector in Russia alone, as much gas is consumed unnecessarily as is otherwise exported from Russia to the European Union, then it is clear how much we can gain if we implement our efficiency strategies at home and then also turn the outward-looking energy strategy of the European Union into a viable method for Russia. This would therefore also involve influencing Russia's internal energy policy by example.\nOn the subject of oil - dependence on OPEC is always a disadvantage in the light of the heated debate about Russia - I would say: if Europe manages to make economical, efficient cars on a pilot model and implement an aviation fuel tax for aviation gasoline, then we would gain more than with heated debates with OPEC on markets and export opportunities.\nWe support some parts, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, but not other parts!\nTobias Pfl\u00fcger\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, this is in some respects a very honest report. The wording is clear. There has been no Treaty basis for this energy policy to date. Correct! Then for me the question is: why is this initiative being taken?\nThe initiative is being taken - we have now heard this more clearly in the spoken contributions than could be read in the report itself - on account of Russia's energy policy. This base line is precisely the thread that runs through the entire report. It is an anti-Russian report - as clearly worded in a variety of ways at various points - and it is a report that clearly states that the European Union wants to be a global player and a foreign policy on energy is virtually a means to that end. This, too, is honest in some respects and something which may or may not be politically desirable. We do not want this!\nClear demands are being made in relation to certain projects. The lobbying policy for the Nabucco pipeline project, which is also being pursued within this Parliament, can also be found in this report. Countries are dealt with collectively: Turkey is regarded almost exclusively as the transit hub for energy supplies. However, Turkey is rather more than this. I find the wording with regard to the USA particularly good. Here it states: 'underlined the importance of enhanced energy dialogue with the US and other key energy partners that share EU values.' I would just remind you that the USA is conducting a war in Iraq with a range of allies, also partly because of energy issues. If these are the same values, we must be very clear about saying 'no' to this development!\nThe wording is clear that, in the G8, the various Member States involved will be backing interests in the energy sector, and a link will be established with the military components. As I have said: it is in some respects a very honest report. A colleague of mine has described it thus: this report has a whiff of the Cold War about it. I believe this is right and my Group will therefore be rejecting this report.\nBastiaan Belder\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, time is pressing for concrete steps to be taken towards a European external energy policy. Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report does not push forward the Nabucco project in particular without good reason. Our Commissioner for Energy, Mr Piebalgs, eloquently dubbed this gas pipeline 'an embodiment of the existence of a common European energy policy'. Sure enough, words must be followed by action and it is for that reason that we also greatly welcome the appointment of Jozias van Aartsen to the position of EU coordinator for the Nabucco project.\nThe recent British and Austrian missions in respect of potential gas suppliers for Nabucco, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan also serve as evidence of European decisiveness. In any event, the positive responses from Ashgabat and Baku offer perspective. Two issues are of essential importance for an effective follow-up to the Nabucco project, the cost of which runs into billions of euros. First of all, there must be harmony between the current group holders. In short, Austrian project manager OMV must immediately discontinue its stubborn attempts at a hostile takeover of group partner, Hungarian oil and gas firm MOL. A clearly urgent task for the new Nabucco coordinator and on behalf of the EU will be for Mr Van Aartsen to also be on the alert for further attempts on the part of Russia to infiltrate this interesting energy diversification project.\nMadam President, in the event that the Nabucco project and similar European plans are unsuccessful, there will be insufficient energy diversification for the new EU Member States. This will result in a fragmentation of the European energy market and the diplomatic curtain will then unfortunately fall on a European external energy policy. The European institutions must never let it come to this.\nAlessandro Battilocchio\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in common with the rapporteur, I also believe that it is necessary and important to align foreign policy with energy policy.\nI hope it is not necessary to elaborate on how appropriate coherence between the two policies, which would both be strengthened by a common strategy, would lead to economic growth and prosperity for European citizens as well as greater political stability worldwide, and a probable domino effect for our major European partners.\nThe priority, however, should not relate exclusively to security of supply, but we should at the same time focus on a sustainable, efficient energy policy that makes Europe increasingly self-sufficient in energy terms and thus independent of external pressures that may have an influence, and at times a strong one, on the EU's commitment to the promotion of democracy, human rights and peace.\nAn effective common policy must be based on increased resources for research into renewable energy as well as investment in nuclear power, and so we should focus on what we have: skills, professionalism and technologies. If we also add political will, we can transform the European energy crisis into a unique opportunity: gaining a full technological advantage in order, when the imminent world energy crisis arrives, to beat our major competitors at the economic challenge.\nTunne Kelam\nMadam President, today's debate could well be titled 'who is going to have the upper hand in conducting the EU's foreign policies?' Will it be big corporations and third countries or will it be the EU institutions?\nBy creating a common policy on energy, as proposed by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, the EU will become a much stronger player on the world stage, better placed to defend the interests of all its Members. A common energy policy has to become an essential part of our common security policy.\nAs late as January 2006, the EU countries started to realise that energy has been used and will be used by Russia as a central instrument of its foreign policies. President Putin has openly defined the state-owned Gazprom in such a role. For my country, Estonia, this is nothing new: Estonia experienced a full-scale energy blockade 16 years ago, when Russia punished its former colony for trying to become genuinely independent.\nThis report shows that it is high time for a united approach. Too often, bilateral agreements have in fact led to looking away from democratic standards and have caused real damage to the EU's unity and credibility. For example, the Baltic Sea gas pipeline project should be seen first of all as a political tool, which will enable Putin's Russia to further divide the EU, by playing certain states against the others.\nTherefore, I strongly support two key ideas of this report: creating a special EU official to coordinate foreign energy policies and including an energy solidarity clause in the future Treaties. But I am especially encouraged by Commissioner Piebalgs for his deeply professional, constructive and forthcoming approach and I look forward to our good cooperation.\nHannes Swoboda\n(DE) Madam President, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, for the opportunity to work with him well and to be able to reach a compromise. One of these compromises has just been mentioned and concerns those responsible for a foreign policy on energy. I know this is a difficult field, not without controversy, and the Commissioner will still have to do a great deal more work on it. If it comes to it, not only will the foreign affairs politicians need to be involved, but also the Commission's energy politicians.\nOne important aim of our foreign policy on energy is diversification. This does not mean that we want to take action against those countries from which we obtain crude oil or natural gas, but we do want to tap other sources. Even Russia is trying to gain access to sources in order to supply crude oil or natural gas to Europe. It is our legitimate right to try to gain this sort of access as well. In addition, the question of reciprocity is an important aspect in relation to Russia. For our Group this does not entail a policy vis-\u00e0-vis Russia, but a policy of equal rights. If Russia is opening up its markets, we shall do so too. But we cannot be asked to open everything up while Russia is closing everything down. It makes no sense for us.\nThe final point I would like to mention is a very difficult matter, also included in the amendment, and that is the relationship between energy policy and human rights policy. When I was in Azerbaijan for a short time with my colleagues, we did discuss this. Unfortunately, most of our sources of supply are in countries where the issue of human rights is not the top priority. This cannot lead us to say we will not source any more energy from these countries. But it must mean - if we want to remain credible - that we will do both: energy policy, but also human rights policy, and improving the human rights situation in these countries. It cannot mean that we say 'we are sourcing energy; nothing else is of interest to us'. We must offer a parallel strategy. This is the only credible thing to do.\nSamuli Pohjamo\n(FI) Madam President, I too wish to congratulate Mr Saryusz-Wolski on an excellent report on a very important issue. The report shows that the Union still has much to do to establish a common policy on energy.\nI would like to emphasise the importance of renewable energy as a way to improve self-sufficiency in energy, diversify energy sources and control climate change. We still need to invest considerably in research and product development if we are to increase the share of renewable energy.\nMember States must be able to maintain their right to take decisions on energy and exploit their own energy sources, but at the same time we need cooperation, an exchange of best experience and also common rules and regulations to promote the establishment of a common energy policy.\nIt is also important to implement joint projects on renewable energy in collaboration with the Union's neighbouring countries, so that all Europe's renewable energy resources can be used more efficiently, effectively and sustainably.\nInese Vaidere\n(LV) Ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, for his very comprehensive and extremely topical report. Energy is a sphere in which EU competence is shared with the Member States. It is clear that under these circumstances working towards a common foreign policy in the energy sphere is not an easy task. Resolving the situation as quickly as possible, however, makes us dependent, for our energy supplies, on unstable countries with doubtful democratic credentials. Security of energy supply is an important element of general security. Experience to date has shown that energy can be a highly effective instrument of political pressure. The only counter-measure is a common policy and solidarity. One of the largest suppliers to the European Union is Russia, with whom a new partnership and cooperation agreement is currently being prepared. The principles of the Energy Charter need to be worked into this agreement, and of course Russia must ratify the charter. In relation to non-EU countries in which a growing need for energy can be observed, the European Union ought to ensure that technology relating to renewable energy sources is supplied to them on preferential terms. This will definitely be worthwhile in many ways in the future. Last week the Commission published a proposal for further liberalisation of the market. Unfortunately, this immediately met with opposition from certain Member States and from Russia. It is symptomatic that opposition comes from those countries where businesses have attempted in the recent past to benefit from the creation of special bilateral relations, ignoring the rights and interests of other Member States, as is the case, for instance, with regard to the north European gas pipeline project. I would like to hope that we will nonetheless be able to agree, and that this will also make us stronger in foreign relations. Thank you.\nMarie Anne Isler B\u00e9guin\n(FR) Madam President, I would like to thank our rapporteur. Energy has become a geostrategic issue once again. It is also the Achilles heel of the European Union. Since it cannot meet its energy needs alone, the EU is striving to diversify its sources of supply under trade agreements signed with countries in Latin America, Africa and Eurasia.\nThe recent disagreement between the European Union and Russia over the Energy Charter is a sign that energy security has entered a new era. Faced with dwindling oil resources, the ever-present nuclear risk and the advent of energy powers such as Russia and Brazil, it is also vital to restate the EU's sustainable development policy. In this respect, a coherent foreign policy will reflect the renewable energy targets set by the Spring European Council. It will also make energy efficiency a premise of our external relations. It is not enough to insist on guarantees of uninterrupted supply from other countries, particularly neighbouring countries. We must also ensure that there is real coordination between the 27 Member States.\nIn fact, energy security means a loss of sovereignty in a European sector which has now become strategic. The pressure that energy supply places on governments should not make us rush these decisions or neglect the principles we have worked on together. As the previous President of the European Parliament reminded President Putin, human rights cannot be negotiated in return for our energy needs. On the contrary, we must make our supply conditional on respect for human rights.\nMiguel Portas\n(PT) This report starts with a real problem - the Union's energy dependence - but it comes to the wrong conclusion. The enemy is not Russia, whatever our opinion of Puttin, nor Algeria, whether or not we approve of their armed forces. Climate change, the fossil fuel burden and a way of life that involves high energy consumption, those are our adversaries - internal and external. We shall not beat them by focusing on security issues belonging to the Cold War era.\nThe obsession with security undermines cooperation and leads to an 'anything goes' internal policy: from nuclear fusion to reliance on biofuels. Only yesterday Le Monde revealed Paul Crutzen's conclusions: a litre of agrofuel can contribute up to twice as much to the greenhouse effect as the equivalent amount of fossil fuel.\nIn conclusion I should like to paraphrase Jos\u00e9 S\u00f3crates: It would perhaps be a good idea to start listening to the scientists and economists once again rather than to couch geostrategists.\nThomas Wise\nMadam President, when the EU talks of a common foreign policy on energy, you need to be very aware of exactly who you propose to do business with. President Putin is on record as saying 'The Commission should be under no illusions. If it wants to buy Russian gas, it has to deal with the Russian state.'\nGazprom is not a private company. It is a state-controlled tool of Russian foreign policy. It is, moreover, in the hands of President Putin's political henchmen and, allegedly, organised crime. Take, for example, Alisher Usmanov. This gentleman, the son of a Communist apparatchik, is Chairman of Gazprom Invest Holdings, the group that handles Gazprom's business activities outside Russia. He is the man we are doing business with. He is the man who cuts off gas supplies if client states dare to question Gazprom's demands. Allegedly a gangster and racketeer, he served a six-year jail sentence in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, his eventual pardon coming at the behest of Uzbek mafia chief and heroin overlord Gafur Rakhimov, described as Usmanov's mentor.\nUsmanov bought the newspaper Kommersant. Three months later the journalist Ivan Safronov, a critic of the Putin regime who just weeks earlier had been vigorously interrogated by the FSB, as the KGB is now called, mysteriously fell to his death from his apartment window, still clutching a recently purchased bag of shopping.\nAccording to Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, it was Usmanov who ordered the cutting off of supplies to Georgia earlier this year. Please take note, Madam President, the Kremlin has now refused to sanction the construction of a pipeline to the EU over Georgian territory. These are the people you want to do business with. These are the people around whom you want to mould your foreign policy on energy. Commissioner, good luck. You will need it.\nGodelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl\n(DE) Madam President, first of all I would like to compliment the rapporteur, Mr Saryusz-Wolski. You can see by the very high attendance at this late hour how important the report is and you can also hear how emotionally charged the atmosphere is as we listen to the various contributions from different nationalities and groups. It is therefore a compliment that the paper has actually been written and adopted.\nAs rapporteur for trade and economic relations between the EU and Russia, I would like to raise two aspects and then make a general comment.\nThe first aspect concerns the bilateral energy agreements. If I read it correctly, the Saryusz-Wolski report is 'towards a common European foreign policy on energy'. In other words, this common foreign policy on energy does not yet exist. While it still does not exist, it must therefore be possible to find other ways to talk about energy. The Member States are able effectively to agree among themselves - this is highly desirable, it is not a chore. It is not possible to impose a veto on bilateral agreements. It is a credit to the rapporteur's realism - because I know that he wanted something else - that he has written this in his report in this way.\nMy second point: combining the energy charter with Russia's WTO membership. Linking ratification of the energy charter with accession to the WTO is a backward step. It is also advantageous for the EU if Russia is a member of the WTO. Moreover, we are not able to make a decision on this alone.\nThe rapporteur's report in favour of the common energy policy leans towards Russia, but this is simply consistent with the situation today.\nLibor Rou\u010dek\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is increasingly dependent on traditional energy sources, in particular oil and natural gas. Many important measures must be taken to limit and reduce this dependence. For instance, it is necessary to make substantial energy savings and step up research in this area. It is necessary to start making greater use of alternative fuels, from wind, water and biomass to nuclear reactors. It is necessary to ensure territorial diversification of supply, with a greater variety of countries and routes.\nAll these challenges and tasks cannot be approached independently, at national level alone. It is becoming clear - and even the politicians in many Eurosceptic countries are beginning to understand this - that we have to find the solution together, through our common European policies. This also applies to the common European foreign policy on energy.\nI therefore welcome the report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski as a necessary step and a vital element in the debate on introducing this policy. The report contains important principles and recommendations: the European Union should follow them so that it can defend the interests of all its members, so that it can speak with one voice, including to those outside the Union. Among these tenets and important principles is the very important principle of solidarity, solidarity in situations of crisis. It is possible to support all these tenets and principles. However, in order to realise them we also need a new, stronger legal basis, in other words we need a Reform Treaty. In my opinion, we should bear this aspect in mind when debating the establishment of our common foreign policy on energy.\nHenrik Lax\n(SV) Madam President, I thank the rapporteur for seeking to make the Russo-German Nord Stream project into a common concern for the EU. Indeed that is what it is in reality. The EU needs gas, and Russia needs its export income. At the same time the project gives rise to fear and anxiety among the inhabitants of the Baltic region and is perceived as a threat. We need confidence-building measures in order to dispel this mistrust. Russia cannot continue to fan the flames of antagonism between itself and the peoples around its most important export route. But only a united EU can turn what is now perceived as a threat into an opportunity and a step forward in relations with Russia.\nFor the project to be given the green light, the EU must demand the following: a reliable assessment of its consequences for the environment, guarantees of compensation in the event that the gas pipeline causes accidents and full inspection of operations by a monitoring body with representatives from the countries around the Baltic Sea.\nZbigniew Krzysztof Ku\u017amiuk\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to make the point that, from the aspect of individual countries and societies, there are three types of security that are paramount: energy security, food security and personal security. So my thanks go to the author of the report on European foreign policy on energy, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, for drawing up this complex set of ideas on the subject of European Union energy security. May I at the same time express the hope that a common energy policy will be written into the European Union reform treaty.\nPoland, which I represent, is experiencing for itself the effects of a divergence of interests in energy policy between individual Member States. A striking example of this is the way in which Russia and Germany are implementing their Baltic Sea gas pipeline investment to the detriment of the interests of both Poland and the other Baltic States.\nTwo years ago, at a meeting of the EU Council, Poland announced a proposal for a common energy policy which could be described by the slogan 'one for all and all for one'. It is good that the report being discussed today is moving in that direction by proposing common solutions that would put the above principle into effect. There can, after all, be no doubt that without unity in protecting the energy interests of the European Union, without observance of the principle of solidarity in crisis situations, the European Union will not be viewed as a single body.\nJana Hyb\u00e1\u0161kov\u00e1\nMadam President, Commissioner, I should like to thank and congratulate you and Mr Saryusz-Wolski for your current work and achievements.\nAllow me today to open a debate on a new proposal, not on a high commissioner but on a whole new issue. Let us create a European fund for alternative energy resources. You might be surprised at why I am speaking about this issue. Have you ever heard about one terrific night in a frozen US in 1965 which led to the baby boom? You must be able to recall early May 1986 - Chernobyl - hours, days and months afterwards. And, Commissioner, you probably did not have the opportunity to land and stay in Kuwait in 1991 when 300 oilfields were burning.\nThese are all cases of a lack of energy security. Why do we have this lack of energy security? Because we do not have freedom of choice; we are heavily dependent. As a granddaughter of the founder of \u010cEZ, I know that we can say that the \u010cesk\u00e1 republika is no longer '\u010cesk\u00e1', but '\u010cEZk\u00e1'!\nWhen you asked for 2020 for 20% of renewables, Prime Minister Topol\u00e1nek came to us and he told us, I could sign it because it is total nonsense. With this approach, we will stay insecure because we will not have freedom of choice. How to achieve it? Of course, not only by external diversification - we Europeans have to find our own resources. Therefore, using energy tariffs to create a European fund for alternative energy can help us, not to create another Lisbon Strategy for 2020, but to really reach such people as Topol\u00e1nek and give us the ability to have new resources, so as not to be dependent.\nAna Maria Gomes\n(PT) This resolution reveals the glaring inadequacies of European policies in the field of energy. In fact, the European Union is not a global actor here. Those who, like me, believe that the European Union should guarantee itself a minimum strategic autonomy, can only view with consternation our vulnerability in this matter. It is not a question of aiming for a Utopian self-sufficiency, but rather of recognising the need for greater coordination of national policies, ensuring there is solidarity between Member States and developing relationships with global partners which are less asymmetrical but predictable and based on a truly European approach. For example, it is up to us Europeans to work against the 'divide and rule' attitude which has marked relations with Russia in this area.\nThis report underlines the political dimension of the European energy market. As long as the Member States, in an approach comparable to that adopted in the European defence equipment market, continue to insist on promoting, internally, a sovereignist and anachronistic protectionism and, externally, a liberalism that is more 'Adam Smithian' than Adam Smith's, then Europe will remain out of step in a world in which all the principal actors regard energy as an eminently political and strategic issue. The rapporteur's proposal to create a post of High Official is therefore helpful and we should act upon it as quickly as possible.\nHowever, in this area the EU not only faces the strategic imperative of guaranteeing security of supply. The actual sustainability of the European energy policy and the environmental implications of lack of diversification of our energy sources require an urgent change of course. Europe cannot therefore continue to support corrupt and oppressive regimes in oil-producing countries. The EU's external energy policy must include imperatives concerning human rights, good governance and environmental sustainability.\nIn conclusion, pollution and the post-Kyoto scenario, oil prices, moral and human rights imperatives, political and economic instability due to dependence on hydrocarbons, the potential of new environment-friendly technologies to stimulate a new industrial revolution in Europe and throughout the world, everything around us means the EU must develop a multi-faceted yet coherent external policy.\nFinally, Madam President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Saryusz-Wolski.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis\n(LT) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent report. I will repeat myself once again by saying that it is very necessary and well-timed, if it is not too late. I have already emphasised the issues of the common energy policy and the security of energy supply several times because these are issues of vital importance for Lithuania and the other Baltic counties.\nRemember the report by Mrs Laperrouze on guidelines for trans-European networks considered two years ago. Unfortunately, here in Parliament, the understanding was completely different and still remains so in some countries, for example regarding the Nord Stream project. Life will show who is right.\nToday it is gratifying that the situation is changing and the European Commission has taken brave initiatives. On 19 September the package with this report has finally begun to meet our expectations.\nAnna Ibrisagic\n(SV) Madam President, first let me congratulate the rapporteur on a report which is not just extremely good but is also timely. Mr Saryusz-Wolski has done an extremely important job in shifting the focus from energy as a matter of our convenience to energy as a question of geopolitical importance. It is precisely the geopolitical and security dimension which is uppermost in the minds of those of us who were born behind the Iron Curtain, but which western Europe has long neglected. For that reason, perhaps, it is the most important element that the rapporteur brings to this debate.\nWe need to develop a common policy in order to protect our common interests better in this extremely important strategic area. I am grateful to Mr Saryusz-Wolski for having the courage to present this report, which contains a number of important and innovative ideas. We should indeed bear in mind that secure energy supplies are of vital interest to hundreds of millions of Europe's citizens.\nFinally, Mr Saryusz-Wolski is quite right to say that we need to speak with one voice on this matter, precisely because the energy question is also quite clearly a security question. All our experience of foreign and security policy shows that, every time we have failed to speak with a single voice, we have lost out and our citizens have paid the price. Hence I can only urge that we support Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report in its entirety.\nAdrian Severin\nMadam President, Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report is important and timely. Energy today is strategic for the European Union, as coal and steel were decades ago. Yes, the European Union needs a common European foreign policy in energy. Starting from this statement, I believe two questions are legitimate.\nFirstly, how could one have a common external energy policy without a common internal energy policy? We need a common agency for technological development in this field; we need a European budget funded in an appropriate way and from appropriate sources; we need a coherent strategy for the energy production; we need an integrated network of energy transportation, compatible systems of distribution and a European Union policy to balance consumption and production. We need a truly free internal energy market.\nSecondly, how could one have a common foreign policy on energy without a general common foreign policy? The Russian factor is crucial. Unfortunately, Russia perceives any common European strategy on energy as being directed against its interests. How can we figure out a convincing win-win strategy on energy in our relations with Russia? Russia's behaviour today is unacceptable. However, we could not only tell Russia to behave, we have to motivate it to behave. Therefore, I believe we should welcome Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report, but we should see it as one necessary important step in a long way towards our common goal.\nAlejo Vidal-Quadras\n(ES) Madam President, Mr Saryusz-Wolski should be congratulated because his report clearly states the essential points that the Union should take into account in order to establish a genuine common foreign policy on energy: reciprocity with exporting countries, the need to better coordinate our energy diplomacy at European level, and the importance of establishing an integrated and competitive market.\nIn the field of external energy policy it is crucial to remember that a business that controls its market from generation to the final sale, as is the case for electricity, is not the same as another business whose product is dependent on factors that are largely out of its control, as is the case for gas.\nMoreover, we should not confuse protectionism, which we condemn, with protection, which is a cautious measure. We need to refocus the problem from the point of view of interdependence, as the Union represents around 500 million consumers, which gives us considerable weight on the global market.\nHowever, we are repeating the error of not harmonising diplomatic efforts at national and European level, which weaken us economically and geopolitically. We need to ensure that the bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries do not endanger the efforts made at European level. A considerable number of Member States depend on imports for more than 90% of their energy consumption, which obliges us to maintain well functioning and stable relations with producer countries.\nHowever, there are times when the links are weakened due to unexpected events, which tends to bring negative consequences for trade between regions, that we are currently suffering from in Spain and that we saw in Poland and other Member States in the very recent past.\nI will conclude, Madam President; it is only through a genuine European external energy policy that we will be able to avoid similar situations in the future, and therefore any new legal basis and any new institutional instrument that contributes to building this has to be...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nRoberta Alma Anastase\n(RO) Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Rapporteur for the laborious work and the openness showed in approaching the multiple aspects of a joint European policy in the field of energy.\nOne of these aspects that I would like to mention in my speech is the importance of the Black Sea region in the above-mentioned future policy. Over the last years, we have witnessed several energy crises that have also affected the European Union. The objectives of ensuring stable energy delivery, as well as a transparent market, have become an unquestionable priority for the European Union.\nIn this context, the Black Sea region represents an important key to securing the European energy sector by diversifying the energy sources and transit networks, and the European initiative to consolidate the Black Sea regional cooperation, by creating synergies, and should be used to the maximum for this purpose. I particularly emphasize the strategic importance of the Nabucco and Constan\u0163a-Trieste projects.\nConsequently, I welcome the attention given to these projects in Mr. Sarvusz-Wolski's report, as well as the recent appointment of a European coordinator of the Nabucco project. The objectives to consolidate the network of energy coordinators and to implement the Energy Community Treaty are no less important. I hope that these initiatives will be followed by even firmer steps in establishing a joint energy policy, steps that will turn to good account the Black Sea region and will lay the foundations of a dialogue with the external partners, based upon reciprocity and mutual confidence, joint values and, of course, on complying with the international obligations.\nBogdan Klich\n(PL) Madam President, this excellent report from Jacek Saryusz-Wolski shows that the most important aspect of the EU's energy policy is currently security of supply. We are already half dependent on foreign supplies: in the case of gas this is actually 57%, and in the case of oil 82%. What this means is that any crisis involving a supplier and the European Union, or involving a supplier and a transit country, could have a disastrous impact on our economies and our citizens. This makes it all the more important to introduce the principle of solidarity between Member States in the event of crises into our legal order together with the reform treaty.\nFor this principle to be observable in practice, however, it is essential that we set up a system of strategic reserves, increase the number of links between transport networks, and, in short, construct a working response mechanism that would provide technical assistance to countries that have suffered the most as a result of crises. Solidarity between Member States must also be manifested in the shape of a common foreign policy on energy, and it is good that the Commission is assuring us that it has the intention of creating such a policy, as we have heard from the lips of Mr Piebalgs, the Commissioner. Member States still need to be convinced of this, to get them to give up their self-interests in favour of a common approach and the common good.\nIt is important that this policy be based on the principle of diversification of both sources and suppliers, and further, of routes and methods of delivery of energy. It is therefore necessary to ensure political and financial support for new infrastructure projects like the Odessa-Brody-P\u0142ock pipeline, or the Nabucco gas pipeline. However we are also obliged to act against projects that are divisive, for example the Baltic gas pipeline. And finally a constant element in the game the European Union plays with its neighbours, especially the nearest ones, as part of the European neighbourhood policy, should be an energy clause following the model of the anti-terrorist clauses which we in this place, the European Parliament, insist are included in agreements with third countries.\nAndris Piebalgs\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I will start by thanking the rapporteur.\nI think you see how complex the issue is, and it is very difficult to address all aspects, but it is good to try to address the complexity of the issue. In my work, I am not pretending to be 'Mr Energy'. There are three pillars of external energy relations: one is supply transit (and here I work with my colleagues Benita Ferrero-Waldner and Peter Mandelson); the second pillar is clean energy and energy efficiency such as launching a global energy efficiency platform (here I work with Stavros Dimas and Janez Poto\u010dnik; and the third pillar addresses energy poverty (where I work with Louis Michel).\nThat indicates how complex this is, and on top of it we have the Member States. The Treaty, and also the Reform Treaty, says a very important thing: each Member State is responsible for its energy mix. That is why I think the report calls for speaking with one voice. I think that is the main message that I got from the report. This is far from simple, and we are far from being there. I believe that this report gives us a good chance of advancing the whole Union along this path.\nI now come to Mr Beazley's question, because I think it was addressing the heart of the whole process: Why do energy issues need to be addressed in a partnership and cooperation agreement, a post-PCA agreement with Russia, if you have an Energy Charter?\nThe Energy Charter is a multilateral instrument. For Russia, our relations on energy are definitely much bigger. We invest in Russia. Russia invests here. A Russian nuclear reactor will perhaps be constructed in Belarus. That means we need to build confidence on both sides, and confidence could be built if there are very clear legal requirements describing both sides' duties and also rights.\nIf these are described, then we can also conclude that there are areas where we also need an External Energy Representative. I hear this call for a High Official coming from other partners. If we have Treaty provisions making provision for Union development then we should agree to a mandate - by a mandate I mean on a basis like Committee 133 for external trade policy - then on the basis of this mandate the person delegated could speak with external suppliers, transit countries, or any other participants in the energy market.\nIf we deal with this separately, then definitely it loses all power. We should see it as a symbiosis because it is not a separate issue from speaking with one voice. If you do not speak with one voice, then you do not need a messenger. If you speak with one voice, then you definitely need a messenger.\nSo I will stay with this position. I would like to thank you for a very good debate. It was very interesting. After the Commission produces this paper on external energy relations, I believe that Parliament will return to the issue because you cannot resolve this issue with just one report. That would be too optimistic. Again, I should like to thank the rapporteur for very good work.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - Today, more than ever, economic powers are scrambling for energy resources. China is providing enormous amount of aid without strings to developing countries in recompense for energy supplies. Russia is using its gas and oil clout so as to become once more a global player. The United States is foreseeing a future more dependent on nuclear technology. Where does this leave the European Union?\nIt has become essential to close ranks for the supply and security of energy. Problems facing those EU countries such as Malta which have the potential of becoming energy suppliers have to be dealt with by the European Union as a whole. Just as in issues of illegal immigration, where questions of energy arise, it is the EU which should intervene. A common foreign policy on energy should not only be limited to supply and security but must also encompass two essential subjects: the emission of greenhouse gases and secondly the quest for alternative energy. A common foreign policy on energy can only make sense in this wider context, a triangle, with supply and security at the top, climate change and alternative sources at its base.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - In our efforts to tackle climate change we should not jeopardise efforts to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and Europe's food security. The 8\/9 March Council conclusions specify that the 10% target for biofuels is an appropriate target only if it is subject to sustainable production. The impacts of first-generation biofuels maybe greater than originally thought, for instance the USA's desire to use bioethanol has led to a massive increase in the use of grain for biofuels production. This demand is having a negative effect on European grain supplies with predictions that it will get much worse as the US surplus of grain diminishes. The OECD-FAO foresees a significant impact of biofuels production on agriculture commodity prices with possible knock on effects on food importing countries. A comprehensive international certification scheme for biofuels is therefore needed - as referred both in the Saryusz-Wolski and Thomsen reports - where both exports and imports to the EU are certified. The certification criteria should be designed to ensure that biofuels provide significant greenhouse gas savings over the whole life cycle and that their production does not cause a loss in biodiversity or major socioeconomic problems such as serious food price inflation.\nAndr\u00e1s Gy\u00fcrk  \nin writing. - (HU) The report entitled 'Towards a common European foreign policy on energy' makes the important point that Europe's energy supply depends to a growing extent on unstable and non-democratic countries. This increasingly evident dependency is exacerbated by the fact that energy is being used more and more often as a means of exerting political pressure.\nThese processes make it all the more urgent to create a common European energy policy based on solidarity.\nLarge-scale European energy management projects may be the way to implement a common policy in practice. The recent appointment by the European Union of a coordinator to head the most important of these projects, Nabucco, is therefore to be welcomed. This, along with the fact that the hitherto reluctant Hungarian government has decided to support the construction of the pipeline, could mean that the gas pipeline connecting European consumers with energy sources in the Caspian Sea region could now become the symbol of a successful common energy policy instead of being an emblem of vacillation. Within a few years the Nabucco pipeline, which represents a diversification both in terms of sources and transport corridors, may demonstrate that common action means increasing security of supply and affordable prices for consumers. This is in the interests of all Member States, but it is especially important for Hungary, which at present is reliant solely on Russian gas.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu  \nin writing. - (RO) The European energy policy has focused on creating, stabilizing and regulating the internal market, a visible trend in the latest energy package of the European Commission as well.\nIt has been believed that the internal market liberalization will turn the EU into an important actor on the international energy scene, but it has been found that, in fact, the Union lacks an external and homogenous energy policy dimension.\nThe new reality, in which competition and liberalization are interconnected with climate changes and security of resources, generates not only external challenges (fear of energy dependence on a single supplier, which uses its position as a political weapon), but also an important internal challenge, which tests the Member States' ability to place their national interest second in order to create the premises for developing a joint and coherent energy policy.\nThe next step is to diversify resources through enhanced cooperation with neighbouring countries, especially with those from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. This way, the convergent development of Member States and their neighbours is ensured and regional and interregional cooperation is encouraged, which is indispensable for making the European external energy policy more efficient.\nThe enlargement of the European Energy Community towards the East would stimulate the completion of energy liberalization, providing a joint advantage for possible future European Union enlargement.\nGay Mitchell  \nin writing. - It is vital we ensure that the principles and goals of the EU's development policy are respected and promoted through the measures foreseen in the field of energy and foreign policy. Access to energy is an essential enabling factor for economic growth and for the provision of basic living conditions for all human beings.\nEU Member States and European energy companies cooperate extensively with developing countries in the field of energy, yet it is not always clear how much the citizens of these resources actually benefit. For this reason, I support all steps aimed at promoting transparency, the rule of law and improved governance in the energy sector.\nEconomic development does not have to mean repeating the polluting practices of the industrialised countries. Many developing countries are heavily dependent on high carbon-emitting sources of energy. They need assistance to be able to diversify their sources of energy to achieve a more sustainable mix. I deplore the widespread use of coal-fired power stations in China. We should take all reasonable steps to encourage their transition to clean technologies through building sustainable energy capacity and facilitating the transfer of clean technologies.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2017-13":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Application of Directive 2004\/38\/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (short presentation) \nPresident\nThe next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs V\u0103lean, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the application of Directive 2004\/38\/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.\nAdina-Ioana V\u0103lean\nrapporteur. - Mr President, of all the fundamental rights granted to EU citizens, the one that helps unite all of us the most is the right of freedom of movement in the European Union.\nThat right, provided for in the Treaties, is implemented by Directive 2004\/38\/EC, which lays down both the conditions and the restrictions for EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the EU.\nAs of 1 January 2006, over 8 million EU citizens have exercised this right to reside in another Member State, and millions more have used it to travel through the EU.\nAs the European Parliament rapporteur on the evaluation of this Directive, I must say that the concrete application of the right of free movement for our citizens is seriously undermined by Member States which erect dams in breach of the Treaties and of the Directive.\nFirst, talking about the transposition by Member States, we can say it has been poor at best. The Commission, along with two separate studies commissioned by Parliament, points to a series of problems, some of them being breaches of the core rights of EU citizens. These problems are highlighted in my report.\nThere are many unjustified administrative burdens, particularly for third-country-national family members, which include: entry requirements and lengthy procedural delays; a lack of recognition of free movement rights for certain registered partners, including those in same-sex relationships; public policy exceptions to serve economic or security aims which ignore the principle of proportionality, resulting in abuses of expulsion orders; and discrimination against certain nationals and ethnic communities in relation to the rights they should be granted by the Directive.\nSecond, to those who chose to focus solely on abuses and misuses of this right, I agree that these issues are important, but I say that Article 35 of the Directive already provides Member States with the possibility to fight against those abuses, such as marriages of convenience or fraud - one just has to implement it.\nI also want to mention that I have constructively cooperated with national parliaments, the Commission and the Committee on Legal Affairs rapporteur, Mrs Frassoni, who all share my concern over the aforementioned transposition problems and the need for all parties to help to resolve them immediately.\nMy report also calls for a number of measures aimed at providing solutions. One of the most important and immediate steps that must be taken is the creation by the Commission of comprehensive transposition guidelines. Those guidelines would serve to provide clarity in the interpretation of such notions as 'sufficient resources' and 'public security'. Once this has been done, it will be up to the Member States to implement those guidelines, preferably by the end of 2009.\nDiscriminatory transitional agreements that restrict the movement of workers from Member States that joined the EU after 2004 must finally be repealed or revised.\nMore funding must be allocated to help local integration measures for EU citizens residing in other Member States and, finally, the Commission must not hesitate to open infringement proceedings against Member States who are not complying with the Directive.\nWe have to recognise that Member States need finally to correctly apply and transpose the Directive so that these and other problems are resolved expediently. They should not try to escape their duties in ensuring free movement by asking for a revision to water down the Directive. The European Parliament firmly opposes such revision and thanks the Commission for doing the same.\nIt is time for the Member States and the Council to ensure that Europe is a place where not only capital, services and goods, but also our citizens, can circulate. Without free movement, there is no Europe.\nLet me conclude by saying that I shall move a revised oral amendment to a footnote in my report in order to take away any excuse for those who oppose free movement on a nationalistic, racist or xenophobic basis, but who do not dare to declare it openly, to vote against my report.\nWith the roll-call vote tomorrow, we will see who supports Europe and European citizenship, free movement and citizens' rights without discrimination, and who does not.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I should like to offer the rapporteur my most sincere thanks for what is a remarkable report, and also thank her for her excellent, constructive cooperation in a very difficult and sensitive field.\nThe free movement of persons is one of the most fundamental freedoms of the European internal market. This freedom lies behind the functioning of the internal market and thus also behind the competitiveness of the European economy. We must recognise quite clearly that shortcomings in the implementation of Community law in this field are indeed contrary to the fundamental principles constituting the foundation of Europe. This is an absolutely crucial issue, therefore.\nThus I welcome this report, which supplements the Commission report adopted on 10 December 2008 on the application of Directive 2004\/38\/EC. I am pleased that virtually all the results of the EP report tally with those of the Commission report.\nI believe we now have a complete picture of the Member States' transposition and application of the Directive on the ground, and I think that the time has now come for real action. The report emphasises - quite rightly - that responsibility for the proper transposition and application of the Directive lies with the Member States. It does call on the Commission to take action in certain fields, however. Allow me to explain, therefore, where the Commission's immediate priorities lie in this connection.\nThe Commission sets great store by the complete, correct application of the Directive. This is one of the priorities of the 25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2009).\nThe Commission will continue to make efforts to ensure that the Directive is properly transposed and applied throughout the European Union. In the coming months, we shall be holding bilateral meetings with Member States to discuss the extremely numerous cases of faulty transposition and application. If no satisfactory progress can be achieved, the Commission will not hesitate to open infringement proceedings against the Member States concerned immediately.\nThe Commission intends to offer information and assistance to both Member States and the citizens themselves. One way in which this is to be done is by issuing guidelines on a series of issues that have proved problematic in relation to the transposition or application of the Directive, for example those of expulsion and tackling abuses. The guidelines will also deal with issues recognised as problematic in Parliament's report.\nThe Commission will continue to work together with Member States at the technical level in the experts' groups to define difficulties and clarify interpretation issues in relation to the Directive.\nNevertheless, I must say at this point, Mrs V\u0103lean, that the Commission cannot endorse proposal No 23. This proposal envisages on-the-spot visits by teams of experts and the introduction of a mutual evaluation system based on these visits. I must draw your attention to the fact that such peer reviews are usually carried out under the third pillar but not within Community law. Legal and administrative traditions and the solutions chosen by Member States for the transposition of the Directive mean that the anticipated added value of such reviews would be fairly limited. After all, as you know, Member States are free to choose the form and methods for the transposition of directives.\nHowever, the Commission will continue to pay particular attention to the dissemination of information on the Directive, will distribute updated, simplified guidance to EU citizens and will use the Internet to disseminate information. It will also call on and help Member States to inform citizens about their rights by means of awareness-raising campaigns.\nLet me say that the Commission is prepared to comply with the vast majority of the proposals contained in Parliament's report. I should like to thank the European Parliament for its support and suggestions as to how to ensure correct application of this important Directive, one that is about nothing less than the proper connection of one of the four fundamental freedoms in European integration.\nPresident\nThe item is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nAlin Lucian Antochi  \nI give my full support to Mrs V\u0103lean's report on the application of Directive 2004\/38\/EC, all the more so as the recent events which have occurred in some Member States have highlighted the blatant violation of one of the four fundamental freedoms, namely, the right of citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.\nFurthermore, the ineffective transposition or even no transposition at all of this directive into Member States' national legislations has resulted in a number of abuses involving administrative formalities and the restrictive interpretation of the legislative provisions on the idea of 'residing without authorisation', culminating in the unfair detention and expulsion of European citizens. However, the solution is not to close borders, but to look instead for concrete measures to facilitate citizens' integration into the diversity of European societies.\nI believe that the report being discussed will make a significant contribution to the monitoring of the transposition of the regulations stipulated by this directive if Member States and the Commission can successfully cooperate in this respect.\nAt present, it is every European citizen's wish to live in a European Union where fundamental values, such as the free movement of persons, are respected. However, we must not forget that to attain this goal, we all need to make our own contribution.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Rights of passengers in bus and coach transport - Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the following:\nthe recommendation for second reading on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position adopted by the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006\/2004 (05218\/3\/2010 - C7-0077\/2010 - (rapporteur: Antonio Cancian) and\nthe draft recommendation for second reading on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position adopted by the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006\/2004 (14849\/3\/2009 - C7-0076\/2010 - (rapporteur: In\u00e9s Ayala Sender).\nAntonio Cancian\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of the rights of passengers is highly topical, as shown by the fact that in recent days, the European Commission has launched a campaign to better inform citizens of the rights they enjoy when travelling by different modes of transport. I believe that this is an important initiative and also that it is Parliament's duty to make its contribution by adopting texts which shall have a beneficial effect on the travelling conditions of passengers.\nComing to the regulation that is being discussed today, I make no attempt to hide the feeling that I have taken from this negotiation, which is that the Member States do not want this regulation. The dossier for which I have had the honour of serving as rapporteur is very delicate, since it requires a balanced solution which, while providing rights for passengers, avoids penalising businesses involved in the public road transport sector. Indeed, almost all business in the sector are of small or medium size.\nThe work which I have carried out over these months of negotiations therefore had two main objectives: firstly, to not hurt SMEs, small and medium-sized industrial enterprises; and secondly, to protect passengers, especially people with disabilities and reduced mobility, improving efficiency and seeking a greater sense of responsibility.\nThe report adopted at first reading by the European Parliament was a very courageous report - the Albertini report. The main amendments made by the Council regarded the following items: the scope of application, liability, the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, refunds and compensation for delays and cancellations, as well as other minor issues. Some of the amendments made by the Council were and are acceptable, and this was recognised during the negotiations.\nUnfortunately, however, during final negotiations, we were unable to adopt the same point of view as the Council on several important aspects, in particular: the scope of application, where, given Parliament's willingness to consider excluding regional transport - even though we had proposed to exclude regional transport if integrated with urban and suburban transport - the Council refused to give any ground at all on those articles for which the exemption was applied; the timeframe for the entry into force of the regulation, which, in Parliament's view, may not exceed a period of three years which may be renewed once, whilst the Council spoke of a period of five years which may be renewed twice; assistance for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility; the right to free accommodation in a hotel in case of interruption of a journey or, at least, and more realistically, free transport to and finding of a hotel was sufficient for us; the rights of passengers in case of delays, particularly for delayed departures; accessibility of information, an issue which is of great interest to persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, for whom we do not believe it would be acceptable to adopt a report which would only come into force 15 years from now and which would only refer to 20% of travel by bus or coach.\nThe negotiations carried out over these months have been conducted seriously and openly by both parties thanks to the contribution of the European Commission. In recent weeks, however, stances on the issue have hardened. For our part, we have sought compromise on all the most sensitive issues, aware of the potentially devastating effects on the companies which operate in the sector, as it would not be fair to impose further, excessively burdensome obligations upon them.\nOn the other hand, as I said, the other objective was - is - to protect passengers, and particularly the most vulnerable of these, for whom complete and assured access to public transport services is an indispensable means of social integration.\nI have said that downgraded choices are no longer acceptable: the ageing of the European population is a phenomenon that will have important consequences and it would be an error to forget this when establishing the processes for supplying such an important service. How on earth can we possibly think that it would be an excessive obligation that travel information be available on the Internet in 2020?\nI would like to thank my fellow Members who have worked with me during these negotiations and I would ask this House to vote for the text which I am proposing, so that in conciliation, we may reach a result in line with the two objectives which I have mentioned and reaffirm.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\nMr President, it is now July, the month in which, even in spite of the crisis, many Europeans decide to spend their holidays on a cruise, or to travel by ship. Indeed, passenger sea travel and cruises have increased considerably and become a key factor in the development and wealth of both the European coastal area and ports and Europe's inland waterways.\nThe European Parliament has good news today for all entrepreneurs, workers and, of course, for passengers in this important sector, given that the agreement we have reached with the Council, with great help from the Commission, represents the establishment of a common framework for passengers' rights, which were already in place in the air and rail sectors. Thus, an unacceptable shortcoming has been resolved for a sector that is undergoing full-blown expansion and modernisation processes.\nThis agreement, which was reached under the Spanish Presidency - which I would especially like to thank for its efforts, along with the rest of the Permanent Representations and, of course, my fellow Members and the services of this House - substantially improves passengers' rights. This is particularly true for persons of reduced mobility, as we have been persistently asked by disabled persons' associations.\nOn the one hand, the scope of application has been extended, thus falling into line with Parliament's original position, that is to say, there is provision for all ships with more than 12 passengers in this regulation. However, there is room for certain flexibility with respect to small businesses that offer excursions and historical ships, and for ferries making short trips carrying truck drivers and hauliers on inland waterways, for which the immediate implementation of this first provision would be too costly.\nOn the other hand, Parliament has also managed to remove any mention of the possibility of refusing embarkation on the grounds of disability, merely limiting such an option to those situations which, for safety reasons, may endanger the safe transport of the person in question. The Council has also rejected the possibility of refusing embarkation on the grounds of health, an extremely controversial issue given that this was the first time a regulation for passengers referred to health.\nMoreover, the time delays for which passengers have a right to compensation have also been improved, becoming 90 instead of 120 minutes; in the event of having to stay overnight, a sum of EUR 80 per night has been obtained; as regards the total of EUR 120, we have managed to double this to EUR 240; provision has now been made for obliging the haulier to bear the burden of proof in those exceptional circumstances in which he is exempt from complying with obligations, as well as the need to modify equipment in ports, etc. We have also managed to reduce the maximum ticket reimbursement threshold by having it reduced from the initial EUR 40 to EUR 24.\nLikewise, it should also be pointed out that the regulation contains the necessary flexibility with respect to the peculiarities of this mode of transport, which is more prone to suffering delays due to poor weather conditions, thus explaining why certain provisions, such as those concerning financial compensation for delays or accommodation, will be excluded from the obligations in the event of rough seas.\nLastly, worthy of special mention is the fact that the agreed text obliges Member States to establish bodies which, in addition to ensuring compliance with this regulation, will be free from business interests and will have the power to set up a penalty system. Furthermore, such bodies will be able to process passenger complaints that have been dismissed in the first instance by a body that will also have to be set up by carriers.\nWe also managed to enable disabled persons' and passengers' associations to actively participate in this regulation. Moreover, we have managed to encourage port authorities to play an increased role in the decisions to be applied, in the sense that we have proposed that, whenever possible, the entire regulation also be applied to ports, and not only to terminals, as was the Council's intention.\nI believe that we have also managed to make personnel training and related refresher courses form part of this regulation, an important achievement given that it was one of the long-standing petitions of disabled persons' associations. We have also obtained the rapid replacement of mobility equipment with an appropriate alternative should it get damaged in the course of the journey.\nLastly, we have managed to reduce the regulation's application deadline by one year.\nI think, therefore, that these negotiations have been successful and would like to thank all those who have helped us to bring good news to European travellers for once.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Cancian and Ms Ayala Sender, and the shadow rapporteurs, for their hard work.\nI would like to reaffirm the importance of this legislation for each and every citizen travelling in Europe, which includes every one of us here. I definitely share the view that the logic of the treatment of passengers in every mode of transport must be similar.\nCentral elements are: minimum rules on information for all passengers before and during their journey; assistance and compensation in the event of interruptions of journeys; measures in the event of delay; specific assistance for persons with reduced mobility; and independent national bodies for the settlement of disputes.\nThe Commission considers that the compromise obtained during the negotiations on maritime and inland waterways passenger rights with the Council is a good one, and the overall objectives of our proposal are duly taken into account. Let me particularly stress that Parliament has succeeded remarkably in enlarging the scope of the proposal. I want to sincerely thank the European Parliament and the Council and, in particular, the Spanish Presidency and Ms Ayala Sender, for their strenuous efforts on this file.\nConcerning bus and coach passengers' rights, since the adoption of the Council common position, informal discussions between Council and the European Parliament attempted to find a compromise agreement on the text. Talks were difficult. Major controversial issues are: the scope of applications; the provisions on liability and assistance to meet the immediate practical needs of passengers in the case of accident; and provisions to favour the mobility of persons with reduced mobility and disabled persons.\nThe Commission has been making great efforts to facilitate the compromise deal. Unfortunately, it was not possible to find an agreement, and the Commission regrets that. A strong vote by the plenary in favour of a high level of protection for bus and coach passengers would be a good sign. Personally, I want to stay optimistic, and think that compromise in conciliation is still possible.\nThe Commission will strive to reach a balanced agreement in future negotiations between the EP and Council under the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies, allowing for the general objectives of the Commission's proposal to be duly taken into account.\nWerner Kuhn\nMr President, Mr Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, this report represents a logical conclusion. Now that Parliament has worked with the Council and the Commission to improve the rights of passengers travelling by air and rail, we should ensure that passengers travelling by sea and on inland waterways also have better rights. However, it is, of course, important that we do not compare cruise liners with traditional fishing trawlers.\nTherefore, Mrs Ayala Sender and Mr Cancian, I am very pleased that we have been able to come to a compromise, so that derogations can be granted which enable claims for compensation to be made in the case of passenger ships carrying 12 people or more, but not when the crew consists of fewer than three people.\nTourism is a major economic sector and we must always ensure that its interests are taken into consideration. Both ferries that cover a distance of more than 500 metres - the provisions will no longer apply to ferries covering shorter distances - and sight-seeing tours and excursions play an important role in the tourist industry, together, especially, with historic vessels. Additional investment should not be needed in these types of boats. Instead, the crew must be able to provide assistance to disabled people.\nI would like to thank everyone involved for enabling us to come to a good compromise.\nBrian Simpson\non behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, what we have before us today are the final two pieces of the passenger rights jigsaw covering maritime and bus and coach dossiers.\nI thank our rapporteurs for their work and welcome the apparent agreement reached with Council in regards to maritime transport.\nHowever, the failure as yet to agree a formula on bus and coach travel is disappointing, but we will carry on trying in the intermediate period to have an agreement. It is on this area that I wish to concentrate today.\nClearly, it would be nonsensical and unfair to have passenger rights in other modes of transport but not buses and coaches. Therefore, an agreement or deal which does not include buses and coaches is a pretty worthless and incomplete deal.\nWe cannot accept the exclusion of the vast majority of bus and coach services from the scope of this regulation. We cannot accept the weakening of the rights of people with reduced mobility also in this regulation. And we cannot accept that this mode of transport is any different to any other.\nOur rapporteur has done a good job in trying to find a compromise in this area. The Council have done nothing to facilitate any agreement and, as usual, have spent most of that time dragging their feet. It is interesting that, when passenger rights are on the agenda, the Council gets very negative and it is left to Parliament to carry the banner for passengers.\nParliament has a good record in defending passenger rights, despite being faced by abuse by a certain airline chief and numerous moans and groans from transport operators. At the end of the day, Parliament will not tolerate abuse of passengers by operators; it will not tolerate discrimination; it will not tolerate certain sectors being left out.\nWe need to support our rapporteurs so that we can go into battle with Council through conciliation with a very strong hand.\nGesine Meissner\nMr President, as a previous speaker rightly said, it is important that passengers' rights are protected in Europe, regardless of what mode of transport they are using. It is simply a logical conclusion for us to move from air and rail transport to passengers' rights on ships, buses and coaches.\nYet another speaker has already mentioned the fact that we have unfortunately not succeeded in dealing with both subjects as a package, as we had originally planned. Although we were able to reach a compromise on the rights of passengers on ships and complete the trialogue, this was sadly not the case with bus and coach transport.\nI would like to look specifically at the rights of bus and coach passengers, because I am also the shadow rapporteur in this area. I very much regret that we have not managed to achieve a compromise, because in the trialogue meeting, we were able to bring the position of the Council, on the one hand, and the positions of the European Parliament and the Commission, on the other, much closer together. We were concerned - and this is also very important - about protecting passengers' rights; above all, we wanted to ensure that people with restricted mobility and with disabilities can always make use of transport, including buses and coaches.\nA range of measures are needed to make this possible and this is what we have been calling for. I believe that this is particularly important because in future, there will be more people with disabilities and restricted mobility, simply as a result of the ageing population. This is a very important point.\nOf course, we must also take into account the fact that consumers' rights involve having an offering available. In particular, those small and medium-sized companies which provide coach trips are not able to do everything. For example, they cannot provide unlimited compensation. There is also the question of how they will cope with advance payments. We managed to bring our positions closer together in this area and this is why I regret the fact that we have been unable to reach an overall compromise.\nAs the rapporteur said, it is important that we consider both passengers' rights and the options open to transport providers. I would very much like to see some sort of agreement reached during the forthcoming mediation process, because I agree absolutely with Mr Simpson when he says that the exclusion of buses and coaches is unacceptable, given that other means of transport are covered by the regulation.\nEva Lichtenberger\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, what is this all about? Among other things, it is about establishing rights for people with restricted mobility who wish to travel by boat or by bus and about using this initiative to improve their travel opportunities at last. We have an obligation to do this. We have made a great fanfare about finally strengthening the Convention on the Rights of Disabled People within Europe and we should now be under an obligation to implement it.\nOn the subject of the two dossiers, I would like to say with regard to the dossier on bus and coach passengers that I am really sad and very disappointed by the Council's attitude. It is important to make one thing clear. The fact that what has been proposed here will protect the interests of small and medium-sized companies is just one small aspect of the whole thing. What concerns me is the unwillingness to tackle difficult issues. Therefore, in my opinion, what we urgently need is not transition periods of 15 to 20 years but a clear signal to people that they have the right to use the transport system.\nThe second dossier, which will be adopted with a large majority, concerns the rights of passengers on ships and boats. This contains a large loophole, which I would like to highlight once again. The regulation covers ships, but not ports. This means that a person in a wheelchair will have, as it were, to beam himself on board ship from his car or from the car belonging to the people who have brought him to the port. Once he is on the ship, he will have rights again, but the port itself is not governed by the regulation. I think that this is a problem that we should not be prepared to tolerate. Let us make sure that we do the job properly for people with restricted mobility.\nPhilip Bradbourn\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I am limiting my remarks to the report dealing with bus and coach passengers.\nWe know that passenger rights is a very important subject and one in which this House has taken a great interest. The proposals before us contain a number of welcome initiatives for bus and coach passengers, especially for the disabled. But, as always with this type of report, we see a 'one size fits all' approach, in that what works for aviation and the rail sector is applied to a wholly different structure.\nSome examples of this problem include how to inform passengers of their rights, and also liability levels which, in Parliament's view, could mean companies having to pay the costs, for example, of funerals before any liability has been determined. Such proposals will certainly increase the cost to the consumer.\nThere is also the question, which has been referred to, of exempting purely local services, which I personally support.\nThe very nature of bus and coach travel is very different to other sectors. Businesses operating in the sector, as has been said, are mostly small and, indeed, in some cases, one-man businesses. To impose prescriptive and costly obligations on these businesses will do nothing but force prices up or restrict the number of routes on which people can travel as it becomes uneconomic to maintain these services.\nParliament's position here is not proportionate, and in taking this position, we are likely to send this proposal into long conciliation, delaying the process not only of giving bus and coach passengers the rights they deserve, but also businesses the safeguards they need.\nThomas Ulmer\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, given the small amount of time available, I will restrict myself to discussing the Cancian report. No one disputes the fact that people travelling on buses and coaches must have passenger rights and, therefore, consumer rights.\nHowever, I would like to emphasise once again the problems that will result for small and medium-sized operators at the moment, in particular, in Germany. It is not possible to separate local and regional public transport facilities in Germany, especially in rural areas, as they often jointly provide services covering a radius of around 50 km.\nMy second point is that small and medium-sized operators will not be able to make advance compensation payments regardless of fault. Until now, the principle of legal liability has proved its worth and has resulted in stable ticket prices.\nThirdly, I do not believe that operators should pay for delays that are not their fault, just as liability should only apply in circumstances for which operators are responsible.\nSa\u00efd El Khadraoui\n(NL) Mr President, Mr Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Cancian and Mrs Ayala Sander, for their fine work and, at the same time, lament the fact that the Council appears to have failed to show enough flexibility in response to Mr's Cancian's report to enable them to secure a good deal from it. As many members have already pointed out, it is important for us that we lay down a number of ground rules, at a European level, covering passengers' rights across all transport modes. In recent years, we have done a lot of work as regards air travel and rail. I think that we ought to learn from these efforts and - and this is another debate - that we must evaluate them relatively quickly and work together to look into how we can close the small number of sporadic gaps that remain.\nNow, turning to passengers who travel by sea or inland waterway, as well as to bus and coach passengers: here, too, we need to apply some of the same methodology and retain the common theme. To begin with, our objective is protecting the most vulnerable passengers, for example, people with reduced mobility or those who have difficulty walking. We have to ensure that they have the same rights to travel around and go on holiday; in other words, to become completely mobile.\nSecondly, I think that it is essential that passengers be informed of changes to travel schedules, delays and their rights. We need to have high quality arrangements in place for that, across all modes of transport.\nThirdly, it is clear that we also need to have arrangements for when things go wrong. Here, too, we are trying to be consistent, by guaranteeing assistance and offering meals, refreshments, alternative travel options and overnight stays, if necessary.\nObviously, some issues will occasionally require debate, like that of the scope, for example. I think that we need to arrive at a good definition of regional transport when it comes to the Cancian report so that we can eliminate any loopholes and make sure that we forge a sound piece of legislation.\nIzaskun Bilbao Barandica\n(ES) Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank Mrs Ayala for all the efforts she has made as rapporteur in reaching the agreement about which we are speaking today.\nThe Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has maintained a positive attitude from the beginning by tabling amendments that restored those of the first reading and, after the corresponding trialogues, we have finally reached what I consider to be a good agreement.\nMrs Ayala has already thoroughly analysed all the agreements. However, I would like to highlight the reference to the scope of application, which will include all ships that carry over 12 passengers, and the lowest ticket price of EUR 6 for which passengers can be reimbursed. I must emphasise the great efforts that have been made and the improvements that this regulation is going to bring passengers in general, above all, disabled persons or those with reduced mobility.\nI must also underline the reference throughout the wording to the accessible formats, in order to make transparent information available to all members of the public.\nI am delighted, though it involved quite considerable work and debate, that the reference to health has been removed when it comes to refusing to sell tickets to disabled persons, or those with reduced mobility, with safety now becoming the only reason for such refusal.\nIt should also be pointed out that the time to provide a transport solution, or to compensate passengers, has now been reduced by a third with respect to the initial proposals: dropping from the initial 120 minutes to the 90 minutes that we have agreed in the texts. We also agree with the EUR 80 compensation. In short, this regulation will represent a greater guarantee for users.\nDebora Serracchiani\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal on the rights of passengers travelling by bus and coach aims to aid and protect passengers, in particular, persons with disabilities or reduced mobility. It is the first regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers and should form a guarantee for such passengers, as in the rail and air transport sectors. The position at second reading aims to establish a series of rights for passengers deciding to travel by bus or coach.\nI agree with the argument of the rapporteur, Mr Cancian, whom I thank for the excellent work accomplished and I believe that the scope of application of the regulation must be amended, excluding regional services when they are integrated with urban and suburban services. It would be fair and proper to guarantee the rights of passengers in case of accidents, cancellations or delayed departures, as was decided at Parliament's first reading.\nEqually important is the question of information on passengers' rights. Indeed, it would be useful to supply passengers with information on connections with other modes of transport, thereby also ensuring dialogue between bus and rail passenger transport services.\nRegarding persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, it is necessary to guarantee maximum protection and I would propose a 24-hour advance notice period for requesting assistance as opposed to 48 hours. I would also propose greater guarantees for compensation for and replacement of mobility equipment for people with disabilities in case of loss or damage. Furthermore, bearing in mind the needs of passengers with reduced mobility, all architectural barriers ought to be removed and existing infrastructure improved to render them accessible.\nThis regulation aims to improve the competitiveness of the bus and coach sector and facilitate connections between modes of transport but, above all, it aims to improve the travel conditions of passengers.\nDirk Sterckx\n(NL) Mr President, my fellow Member, Brian Simpson, has already said that this House has always attached importance to passengers' rights and that it has stood up for them, very often in the face of opposition from the Council. On the other hand, passengers' rights are very difficult to regulate. In recent months, we have found that, in the case of air travel, regulation has not been such an easy thing to achieve.\nIn my opinion, we have a good agreement for maritime passengers. However, we still face the problem of bus and coach passengers. There are many small businesses operating in this sector and there is the issue of public transport, which accounts for a very large proportion of passengers. It is important that we create a clear European framework and ensure that that framework is acceptable to small businesses. Parliament is very well aware of that.\nI would like to share with the rapporteur my findings for the rail sector, for the period during which I myself was rapporteur. We laid down basic rights for all rail passengers and I think that we should do the same for bus and coach passengers, as well. The Council is not in favour of this, but it should be possible. That debate has to take place. We obtained basic rights by being reasonable during the negotiations, and have possibly even secured a transitional period. I am not opposed to that. It is important that, when it comes to public transport, the European Parliament sends out a message that there is a bottom line, a level below which you cannot fall, not even if you are a public transport company, because there are passengers there, too, and they, too, are entitled to rights. Just because a public transport company might have alternative operations does not mean they do not have to ensure basic rights.\nThat, I think, is the stance that we need to take in the mediation. The Council will not be keen to hear that, but we, as Parliament, must stand up for this, because that is an important element if we want to encourage public transport. This is very important in the context of what we are doing for the environment and ease of mobility.\nMathieu Grosch\n(DE) Mr President, if you would allow me to, I would like to overrun a little, because two of my colleagues from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) have not taken the floor. However, this depends on you.\nMoving on to the subject itself, the discussions between Parliament and the Council on passengers' rights have never been easy. This case has once again demonstrated that we can make progress in one area, but in another area, relating to buses and coaches, the situation is relatively difficult. We understand that this subject has also possibly become more complicated because the concept of regional transport is interpreted differently in different countries, for example. I live in a border area where four countries meet and these ideas actually differ so much from one country to another that it is not always easy to implement passenger rights on the same basis.\nHowever, everyone should have the same objective, which is for passengers in all areas of transport who buy a ticket and want to travel to be able to rely on protection of their rights wherever they plan a journey. In Parliament, we have always focused in detail on the needs of people with disabilities as regards other sectors and we have recently acquired experience in this area to which the Council, too, should pay closer attention. This is not just about restricted mobility, but also about other forms of disability, which we should have taken into consideration in the past and must do so now. There are really no additional costs involved. Some problems can be solved simply by providing information in different forms and taking other similar measures.\nCorien Wortmann-Kool\n(NL) Mr President, thank you for your flexibility. My turn came round a bit quicker than I had expected.\nI would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the rapporteur, Mrs Ayala Sender, on the result achieved with regard to the report on passengers' rights when travelling by sea and inland waterway. I was the shadow rapporteur for our group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and, as you know, we had a substantial debate on this topic. For us, the EPP Group, passengers' rights are enormously important. After all, it is important for people to be able to count on good quality transport and also for the disabled to be able to receive good quality help and assistance.\nAt the same time, it is important that we examine the characteristics of this sector. There are many small companies with one or two vessels, historic vessels which cannot be converted, but which nonetheless have crews which are very helpful and offer people assistance. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce the necessary flexibility into this and that we have embedded first-rate passengers' rights within European legislation, rights which these small enterprises will be able to enforce in practice, because our sector is actually very good in that respect in many European countries. The fact that we have achieved that is therefore of vital importance and I hope that we will soon be able to achieve the same result for bus and coach passengers, too.\nSantiago Fisas Ayxela\n(ES) Mr President, the Sagrada Familia, the work of the brilliant, Catalonian architect, Antoni Gaud\u00ed, is a genuine icon of Barcelona throughout the world. It was declared to be a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) in 2005.\nWork is currently being done on the high-speed train that will cross the city by means of a tunnel that lies a mere four metres from the foundations of the Sagrada Familia.\nThere are 38 technical reports opposing these works. The International Council on Monuments and Sites, a specialist Unesco body, has expressed its concern about the route. Moreover, the lower house of the Spanish Parliament adopted a motion on 22 June to ask for a precautionary suspension of the works and the setting up of a committee of experts that could propose another solution within a time limit of two months.\nI would like to ask what measures the Commission is going to take to preserve a building as emblematic as is Barcelona's Sagrada Familia against the risk represented by the passing of the high-speed train?\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) The two regulations concerning the rights of passengers travelling by bus and coach and of those travelling by sea and inland waterway supplement the legal framework which defines and protects passengers' rights.\nSuch a regulation is already in force in the air transport sector, but even with this situation, many passengers are unaware of their rights and fail to complain in cases where their rights are infringed. This is the very reason why it is absolutely essential for this kind of regulation to be available for every mode of transport.\nThe regulations which we are debating today establish liability in the case of a passenger's death or injury, the rights of persons with reduced mobility, compensation and assistance in the event of cancellations or delays. They also contain clear provisions for making complaints and seeking possible redress.\nWe welcome the agreement which has been reached for maritime transport. However, we feel that it is absolutely essential for the rights of persons with disabilities who travel by bus and coach to be defined and respected so that all citizens in society are included.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, it is very important to discuss the rights of passengers. We might also discuss the obligations of passengers, because whenever we talk about rights, we should remember that obligations and rights go hand in hand. I think that not only passengers, but also the Member States of the European Union, have certain obligations concerning the rights of passengers. In some regions, for example, in northern Finland, Lapland, northern Sweden, Swedish Lapland and some other sparsely populated areas, it is very important to ensure that there are comprehensive bus connections or public transport connections, as movement is a fundamental right. I am thinking in particular about the ageing population. For many, their services are dozens of kilometres away.\nIt is therefore very important that when we talk about the rights of passengers, we also concern ourselves with the rights of those people whose basic services are a long distance away, and not always simply look at things from the angle of competition and the market. For we can also compensate nationally and thereby make regional and local bus and coach transport profitable.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu\n(RO) The negotiations for these two reports have been highlighted by attempts made by the Council to limit their scope and objectives, along with pressure exerted by carriers facing the effects of economic recession.\nBoth rapporteurs have successfully defended Parliament's firm position. Modern, good quality passenger transport is a necessity. Passengers must be guaranteed the best transport conditions and, failing this, they must receive suitable compensation.\nCarriers must make the necessary efforts to provide a harmonised European transport system, both between Member States and modes of transport. The volcanic ash crisis demonstrated that the situation in this sector is still far from what passengers need.\nCarriers must be aware that they need to provide quality while also guaranteeing the schedule they have announced. Passengers have to be informed about the rights they enjoy so that they can take action on a well-informed basis whenever these rights are infringed.\nNikolaos Salavrakos\n(EL) Mr President, I endorse the view that regulations should include the defence of the rights of passengers on all means of transport: rail, land, maritime and air.\nBuses and coaches should therefore, in my opinion, be included in the regulation and particular measures should be taken in terms of compensation, so that it is rational in relation to companies and in relation to the survival of carriers.\nHowever, I would put greater emphasis on awareness of passengers' rights and I would ask the European Parliament to start a public awareness campaign on the public's rights in connection with all forms of transport.\nAs my country - Greece - has been the focus of press reports on a number of episodes involving ports and transport strikes, I should like to take this opportunity to say that everything has been restored and to ask everyone to note that Greece is accessible to all interested parties.\nMichael Cramer\n(DE) Mr President, I would like to point out once again that everyone is in favour of giving passengers with restricted mobility their rights as well. However, when it is a question of who receives preferential treatment and of a possible reduction in operators' profits, then the answer is a definite no. In this case, it is made quite clear that the focus is not on disabled people. This situation must change.\nMrs Wortmann-Kool says that the problem lies with the small operators, but this is not true. The large companies have lobbied on this issue and were opposed to the solution. They are using the small operators as a pretext to protect their interests. We could come to a compromise for the small operators, but from an overall perspective, we must tackle the large organisations. They are not prepared to show any consideration for passengers with restricted mobility. This is unacceptable. These passengers must have the same rights as everyone else. We should be grateful that we do not have restricted mobility ourselves and, therefore, we should show our solidarity with those people who do.\nPhilippe Juvin\n(FR) Mr President, it is clear that these are not perfect texts. It is clear that one MEP or another would have liked to include this or that amendment. However, ladies and gentlemen, this text represents an excellent step forward for disabled people. How often have we heard of deplorable cases where disabled people were denied access to public transport? Well, this text will put an end to those incidents. It will put an end to discrimination against the disabled and the sick. Access will no longer be restricted.\nLet us be aware of what this text represents, namely, real progress, not to mention the excellent provision which stipulates that on-board staff should be trained to deal with disabled persons. This also represents a significant move forward for disabled people. Thus, we should stop talking about integrating disabled people into society. We should actually implement this integration process. That is what the text is doing, and I think that we should welcome that fact.\nThis text will allow the European institutions to really improve the lives of disabled people. We should congratulate the rapporteurs. That is what I would now like to do, on behalf of all disabled people. Let us not hide our satisfaction.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I must express my gratitude for the involvement of the European Parliament and for the extensive work undertaken. We are moving in the same direction.\nAs regards the maritime rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways, the conclusions are positive. It is essential to accomplish the objective of establishing a basic set of rights for passengers on all modes of transport. This has been underlined here many times and we cannot leave out bus and coach passengers.\nI must just underline one thing, because one element which can be tackled from different angles is economic reasons: economic arguments and passenger rights. We see it in aviation as well. We are all in favour of competitiveness; we are all in favour of economic success; we are all in favour of low costs and efficiency but, at the same time, all service providers in transport must also offer high quality services. For me, high quality services mean, above all, taking care of punctuality and timetable information. We must move in this direction and no one - big companies, small companies - can have any derogation from these rules. You must provide punctuality and you must serve your clients with high responsibility in order to provide high quality. Then we can also move ahead with all the other issues.\nThank you for this discussion. In the conciliation process for the Bus and Coach Passengers Directive, we will try to find compromises which work towards finding such a solution. I hope we will have good cooperation with the rapporteurs during the process for the next directives.\nAntonio Cancian\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened to all the speeches and must only emphasise that we began from a first reading of the Albertini report with a courageous text and have achieved a result in the Committee on Transport and Tourism on a report that is much compromised, respecting in part the will of the Council, with an almost unanimous vote.\nThe Commissioner has, on several occasions, promised a single unifying text. In this context, I hope that the new Belgian Presidency will want to include this text on its agenda, thereby allowing the completion of the framework of regulations for passengers on all modes of transport, with a view to considering the laying down of common and horizontal measures for all modes of transport. This is something which we absolutely need.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\nMr President, I would like to thank my fellow Members and the Commissioner and Vice-President, Mr Kallas, for his kindness and encouraging words.\nI would like to clear up some things Mrs Lichtenberger said about the ports. I do not think she has read the text closely. It is true that we have not managed to include all ports, because some ports simply consist of a jetty, but there are obligations for ports given that, for example, all new or renovated ones are obliged to provide complete accessibility and equipment, something that we have rightly obliged the Council to remove from the provision in which it was excluded. Mrs Lichtenberger, if you read Annex II, you will see that reference is indeed made there to the obligations for assistance in ports and port terminals. Moreover, we have included the port authorities, in spite of the fact that the Council was reluctant as regards certain aspects, precisely for them to become increasingly aware of the needs of persons with reduced mobility.\nTherefore, ports do have obligations. Ports are included, so it is not only boats and ships, but also port terminals and ports that have obligations.\nAs far as flexibility and exceptions are concerned, and at this juncture, I would like to thank Mr Kuhn and Mrs Wortmann-Kool for their speeches, I think we really have made an effort to be flexible and to help small enterprises, particularly at this time of crisis. I can understand Mr Cramer's anger, because the truth is that the stakeholders we are dealing with are mainly large companies, but this is because European associations, true to their nature as such, include both small enterprises and big companies. The fact that the stakeholders we are dealing with are sometimes, or quite often, those that represent the big companies does not mean that small companies are not members of European associations as well. I think that we have made an effort to understand all parties.\nFinally, I would like to give special thanks to Mrs Bilbao for the support and solidarity shown as regards improving the rights of disabled persons. I especially want to thank her for highlighting the accessible format issue, and for the fact that, at last, the Council has renounced the health issue - which I do think was a risk with respect to which work will have to be done in the future, but this was certainly not the right time - and also for everything concerned with the reduction of deadlines and with improvements.\nLastly, I would, of course, like to thank all my fellow shadow rapporteurs and, above all, I would like to congratulate European passengers, because we in the sector - the carriers, the operators, the terminals the ports and the authorities - and the Member States now have 24 months of preparation before us. Then it will have to be applied.\nI have a specific request, Mr Kallas, when the time comes for its application. I have seen that you are going to launch a magnificent information and awareness campaign relating to air passenger rights. I would ask you, and would like you to commit to conducting an equally marvellous campaign along these lines for the maritime sector in two years' time when the regulation for sea sector passengers comes into force. I think that the European public deserves as much.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 6 July 2010).\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nRobert Du\u0161ek  \nThe draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport should increase passenger rights in this form of transport, establish quality standards comparable with those of railway and air transport and unify the current legislative conditions for transport from all Member States. At first reading, Parliament quite rightly requested unlimited liability for carriers in the event of passenger death or injury caused by the carrier, and also the right to an advance payment in the event of financial problems caused by a transport accident. The draft also banned any form of discrimination based on physical disability or reduced mobility. We requested compensation for passengers amounting to 50% plus of the price of a ticket and assistance in the event of cancellations or delayed connections in the form of food, drink, free accommodation and transfers to locations from which it would be possible to continue a journey by other means. The only exemptions from this regulation should be suburban and urban transport. However, the Council has completely changed the scope and level of passenger rights in this form of transport, and is even requesting an exemption for regional scheduled transport and up to 15 years for national scheduled and international transport. We will not actually guarantee any passenger rights by adopting the Council's position, and we will confirm only minimal legislative liability for carriers. I cannot agree with this position at all and I would like to ask you to support the position of the European Parliament from first reading.\nElisabetta Gardini  \nPeople with disabilities must be able to travel, enjoying the rights of freedom of movement, freedom of choice and non-discrimination just like all other citizens. Access to means of transport on an equal standing with other users is essential for independence and dignity in daily life. We must battle to ensure that the rights of 'accessibility' and 'personal mobility' sanctioned by Articles 9 and 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are translated into real action to finally give form to a new and effective European strategy on disabilities for the coming decade. I strongly support this report, which aims to guarantee the effective protection of bus passengers with reduced mobility. Ladies and gentlemen, this sector urgently requires regulation at the European level. It is absolutely unacceptable that some citizens are discriminated against in our cities and States due to their disabilities. Therefore, the European Parliament must take the lead and remedy once and for all the lack of consistency that, even today, we find in Member States' legislation on the subject.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - This proposal is good news for travellers with disabilities or limited mobility, who deserve to be treated fairly by transport operators. As things stand, we know that from 2012, any disabled boat passenger will have improved rights, including a guarantee of the right to board and free assistance in the port. I am very hopeful that we will be able to get bus and coach passengers included in a balanced agreement that will be good for passengers and operators. This is a very welcome step towards addressing practical impediments faced by disabled passengers. It would be astonishing if the Member States tried to block our call for bus and coach passengers with disabilities to be covered by this legislation. I remain confident that we can agree on one overarching piece of legislation to cover all boat, bus and coach passengers to come into force in 2012.\nAntonio Masip Hidalgo  \nIt is extremely important to avoid discrimination against those of us who suffer, as I do, from reduced mobility.\nAt Brussels airport, we are asked, sometimes some of us are even ordered, to get onto and get off an interior transport coach twice, when obstacles such as doors should simply be avoided and passengers not hassled by being made to get on and get off.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Space and security (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Karl von Wogau, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on space and security (INI\/2008\/2030).\nKarl von Wogau\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, operations under the Security and Defence Policy are becoming more dangerous. That has been shown by the fact that for the first time a soldier has been killed during an operation under European command. Gilles Polin was killed on the border between Chad and Darfur.\nWe must, therefore, consider whether some of those risks can be avoided. They arise as a result of the wrong kind of command structures, but also when the necessary equipment is not available for specific operations.\nWhen we consider this matter, we start with Javier Solana's broad approach to security strategy, which covers the armed forces and also the European Union's critical infrastructure, its external borders and humanitarian operations as well. Here we keep finding weaknesses in the area of space, satellite-based reconnaissance, satellite-based telecommunications and satellite-based navigation. If we cooperate more closely in this area, we will be able to spend our money more usefully and achieve greater efficiency.\nI will start with reconnaissance. We have the Helios reconnaissance satellites, the German SAR Lupe ones and the Italian Cosmo-Skymed. It is vital to ensure that the imagery received from these reconnaissance satellites is actually available to our satellite centre in Torrej\u00f3n.\nThen there is the MUSIS project, planned for the future. In the report I urge that this project eventually be brought within an appropriate European framework. Then we have satellite navigation, the Galileo project. The report states quite clearly that the Galileo project should also be available in future for military operations, because our military forces that plan and conduct such operations need Galileo to give them directions.\nThat brings me to telecommunications, which must also be satellite-based. Closer cooperation can be of great benefit here. I also regard software-defined radio as a joint project that offers great opportunities; it sets a common standard for protected telecommunications that could lead to interoperability between armed forces on the one hand and the police on the other, and also with the forces that have to stand by for disaster aid.\nWe also need space surveillance to monitor our space infrastructure and protect our satellites. Here we should develop a common European system. We need an early warning system for ballistic missiles and for communications and electronic intelligence.\nA word on financing. We note that we are already spending a sizeable amount of the European budget on security, firstly on security research, secondly on GMES, the satellite observation system, which also has security connotations, and now on Galileo. We are in fact spending EUR 750 m of the budget on security aspects. Perhaps we should consider whether European budget funds could not also be made available for the other planned projects I mentioned.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, space policy will play a very important role over the next six months, as it is one of the French Presidency's priorities. The Commission finds that most welcome. All of us here know, of course, that space is a fascinating topic. We see it today as we follow the scientific adventures of the Phoenix Mars probe, as we did a few months ago with the successful installation of the European Columbus Laboratory module in the International Space Station.\nI must add that over and above its major achievements, space technology is offering a growing number of instruments we need in order to achieve our policy aims. That applies to environmental policy, transport policy, agricultural policy, but also to major external policy areas such as development policy, humanitarian aid and international aid for disasters and, of course - and this brings me to the subject Mr von Wogau has successfully kept on the agenda for many years, for which the Commission is most grateful to him - space policy and European security.\nThe Commission described the importance of space applications for the European Security and Defence Policy in its communication on European space policy last year. I agree with the rapporteur that the two are closely linked. The Commission therefore welcomes this report on space and security with its proposals and details about specific initiatives and measures.\nI would like to discuss a few points in more detail. The report stresses that the European Union is allocating more than EUR 5 billion to financing space projects under the current financial perspective. The lion's share of that goes to applications of the GMES system - Global Monitoring for Environment and Security - which will soon be given its own and, in my view, very attractive brand name, like Galileo. That will happen in September.\nThe potential applications of GMES are also most important to the European Security and Defence Policy. I want to leave no room for doubt here, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past: GMES has a multi-use potential, we do not deny that, and this multi-use potential should and must also be used sensibly, to avoid duplication and unnecessary costs. That is the only way we can ensure that our space industry is competitive and that we develop its technology.\nMy next point is most important to the Commission, in the context also of our experiences with Galileo. If we want to make GMES services available for the long term, we need a permanent operational financial basis. We do not have that at present. We are still at the development stage and are funding GMES from research and development resources. We will be entering the operational stage very soon, however, and then we will have to be prepared to draw the necessary conclusions from what we have jointly decided so far, not just specifically in relation to space policy but also on the basis of the European budget. It would make little sense to spend billions on developing a technology and then not want to finance it once we are in a position to apply it.\nIf we want a long-term, operational financing basis - and I am speaking without any reservations here - then we must incorporate space projects that are relevant to security and defence.\nThat brings me to a second point. We agree that there is a close link between space and security and defence policy. We should, therefore, make optimum use of the synergies between space and civilian and military security, both in the field of technology and in the operational field. I am, therefore, very glad that the report encourages strong inter-pillar cooperation, i.e. between the Commission, the Council, the European Defence Agency and the European Union Satellite Centre.\nI would also stress that we must look at the whole spectrum of the question of space and its links to European security and defence policy, while respecting the provisions of the Treaties - the Commission would never touch them and has said quite clearly that we cannot finance any European defence measures or measures of a military nature out of the EU budget. The Commission very much welcomes the fact that the report also addresses aspects of foreign and security policy in the stricter sense of the term, such as the development of a code of conduct for space activities or the potential of satellites to monitor international arms control agreements.\nA central concern of our policy is the use of space for purely peaceful purposes. The European Union - and here I can refer to various European Parliament resolutions - supports every initiative to prevent the weaponisation of space. That is also why the Commission welcomes the European Space Agency's intention to develop an instrument to that end, called space situational awareness, that can not only verify the observance of the relevant agreements but also monitor the security of our satellites.\nWe will be discussing how to coordinate that with the Community's activities in a few days' time at a meeting between the ministers responsible for space affairs, the French Presidency and the Commission to be held in Kourou, our European spaceport in French Guiana.\nThe report on space and security clarifies the security challenges that will face Europe in the coming years. We should see this as an opportunity to make Europe more capable of action and more competitive. An innovative European space policy and a common European security and defence policy can bring us some way towards achieving that.\nRomana Jordan Cizelj\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (SL) The European space policy is exceptionally important for two reasons: firstly, because it contributes to greater security, and secondly, because it contributes to the pursuance of development targets prescribed by the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs. It was primarily this aspect that we in the Committee on Industry focused our attention on.\nWe are delighted that, in its chapter on research and technological development, the Lisbon Treaty provides a legal basis for the European space policy. We will carefully examine the proposals for a European space programme which the Commission is to draw up, and we will then adopt a position on them. We must also define relations with the European Space Agency accordingly.\nI am also delighted that, on this very day, the relevant regulation has been signed guaranteeing a practical start-up of the EGNOS and Galileo programmes. Our experience with these two programmes will enable us to agree on how to manage other programmes. We must now prepare and establish in practice an environment in which it will be easier for us to make effective use of new systems and as wide a variety of applications as possible, without limiting ourselves too narrowly in advance.\nLadies and gentlemen, space is a natural shared asset and not just the property of one nation or community. That is why, when we are developing future European legislation, we must also take into account the international framework. Here I mean the existing United Nations treaties as well as the principles of space legislation.\nFinally, I should also like to thank the rapporteur for his cooperation and for taking account of the Industry Committee's views, and I am convinced that by working in this manner we can still achieve much more.\nAnna Ibrisagic\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (SV) Mr President, thank you Mr von Wogau for a good, clear report. Let me begin with something that at first sight does not seem to have much to do with space, namely the Balkan war. We eventually realised that Europe made quite a lot of mistakes during the various conflicts in the Balkans during the 1990s. Europe did not make those mistakes because of a bad common foreign and security policy, but because of the total absence of a common foreign and security policy. There are still people who oppose both a common foreign and security policy and the areas the report deals with.\nI share Mr von Wogau's view that satellite surveillance systems should be financed from the European budget, not just because such systems can be used for security purposes, but also because they can be used for other purposes in which we have a common interest, for example the environment.\nI would also emphasise that, in these important, but also sensitive, issues to which the space dimension of European security responds, it is good to have a system which is not dependent on the USA, which builds upon increased cooperation between the Member States and which makes better use of resources. A system such as the one described in this report is also a guarantee that in the future we may better manage any conflicts, which we do not want in Europe but nevertheless may find ourselves having to deal with.\nAna Maria Gomes\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Mr President, I congratulate our fellow member, Karl von Wogau, on this report and on the tireless way in which he has supported the deepening of the European project through the construction of a European defence policy. The report strikes an appropriate balance between what should be the main objectives of a European policy in the field of space and security. First, the capital importance of using all diplomatic and political channels to prevent the weaponisation of space, as emphasised by Commissioner Verheugen, so that space can continue to be used as a public asset for all humanity. Second, to equip Europe with the policies, financial resources and equipment needed to ensure its strategic autonomy on the international stage.\nWith regard to the first objective, it is important to emphasise that we are not talking here about the use of space for military ends. We know that, from the beginning of space exploration, satellites have been used to support the armed forces of various countries in the area of communications. Some of our fellow Members persist in confusing this type of operation, which is compatible with international law, with recent attempts by some, especially the United States, to put arms into space and transform it into a fourth battlefield, in addition to land, sea and air. It is such warlike strategies and other unacceptable initiatives, such as China's anti-satellite test in January 2007, that must be combated.\nThe report responds to these threats by seeking a pro-active diplomatic role for the European Union. It is Europe's task to lead a global strategy that seeks to equip the international community with an effective legal architecture that guarantees the total exclusion of arms from space, through the revision and strengthening of the Outer Space Treaty.\nWith regard to the second objective, the report warns against neglecting the crucial importance of space for Europe's strategic autonomy. As the Galileo project showed, an overwhelming majority of MEPs believe that sharing financial and technological resources and equipment among Europeans is the only way for Europe to avoid dependence on the United States, Russia and China for vital strategic activities, such as navigation.\nThe report also underlines the importance, frequently ignored or feared, of Galileo and other European national programmes for a serious common foreign and security policy. Without the peaceful and effective use of space, our economies, transport systems and meteorology and our whole way of life would be impossible. Europe must think strategically about this important area, in the same way as Washington, Beijing and Moscow do. Think and act. It is with this in mind that I very much regret that the Council Presidency is not here for this debate.\nTobias Pfl\u00fcger\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, paragraph 41 of the report reads: 'urges that under no circumstances should European space policy contribute to the militarisation and weaponisation of space'. So far so good. Yet the entire report contradicts that statement. It actually lists military measures. Paragraph 5, for instance, states that there is a need for telecommunications, information management, observation and navigation in the military area. The report even underlines the necessity of the Galileo satellite project, which is quite clearly a civilian project, for autonomous ESDP operations.\nI am grateful to Mr Verheugen for clarifying the budgetary aspects again. The European Union's current Treaty provides quite clearly that the EU budget cannot be used for military purposes. That is why the GUE\/NGL Group has tabled amendments to rectify the legal situation, to the effect that space may be used only for explicitly civilian purposes and that Galileo is an explicitly civilian project.\nLooking at the other amendments tabled, it is interesting to see how contradictory some of them are. My favourite was the amendment by the Greens, which begins by stressing that Galileo must remain a space project for civilian purposes and continues by nonetheless acknowledging its importance for autonomous ESDP operations. That is clearly a contradiction in terms. We should make it quite clear that the issue here is the militarisation of space by the European Union.\nIt is easy to keep pointing the finger at others who are (also) pursuing the militarisation of space. Such military use is precisely what we do not want to see! That is why the content of this report, taken as a whole, as it is worded, is wrong, because it calls for precisely that militarisation. We reject that. We want space to be used for civilian purposes and want Galileo to remain a purely civilian project. We have now shifted the burden onto the taxpayer - EUR 3.4 billion - with this latest call for tender. We keep saying we want a system that is independent of the USA, but now Boeing is clearly interested in this tender, so that does not seem quite true any more either.\nWe want the purely civilian use of space, no militarisation!\nGerard Batten\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Mr President, this report opens by saying 'the various political and security challenges which the European Union is increasingly facing make an autonomous European Space Policy a strategic necessity'.\nIf you accept this opening proposition at face value then of course the report's recommendations follow as a logical consequence: a common European space policy, the implementation of the European security and defence policy, the use of the Galileo satellite system for military purposes, and, of course, a budget to pay for it all.\nBut if we do not accept the proposition, the logic falls apart. There are indeed political and security challenges facing the continent of Europe, but why should the European Union have an autonomous space and security and defence policy?\nAs far as the overwhelming majority of its citizens are concerned, the European Union is not, and should not be, a political state. And only states legitimately have security policies and military capabilities. As the report says, the Lisbon Treaty includes a legal basis for the European space policy and the possibility for permanent structured cooperation on security and defence.\nBut of course, legally, the Lisbon Treaty is dead. It was killed by the Irish 'no' vote in the recent referendum, so the implementation of a space and security and defence policy should also be dead.\nSpace and security and defence policy would of course require a common communication system, and the report underlines the necessity for Galileo to be used for an autonomous European security and defence policy. But until recently we were told that Galileo was for civilian purposes only. Finally it has to be admitted that its real use is for EU military purposes.\nThe report also wants it both ways. It wants an EU space programme linked to the security and defence policy but at the same time says that the space policy should not contribute to the militarisation and weaponisation of space. Of course space will be militarised and weaponised. That is inevitable. It will be done by the USA, probably by Russia and in due course certainly by China.\nThe security interests of the West should be represented in space not by an illegitimate European Union but with our ally the USA, in partnership with the only legitimate security organisation that has the democratic backing of the people of Europe, NATO.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\n(LT) My congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr von Wogau, who has prepared a very important and topical report. In my opinion, the report could be summarised as follows: more peace in space, better cooperation between the EU Member States and other countries, and more funding for common space projects.\nI approve of the proposed amendments, which once again highlight Galileo's importance as a strictly civilian project and reject any possibility of using space for military purposes.\nMore and more countries are becoming involved in space projects, with space having started to play an increasingly large role in our lives. Military and civilian satellite systems intended for Earth observation as well as telecommunications, navigation, positioning and timing have become our eyes and ears. Geopolitical classics stated long ago, that 'whoever dominates space dominates the world.' The European Union does not aim to achieve superiority.\nThe multipolar world in which the rights of all nations are secured is much more attractive. Having combined their power in space, the 27 EU Member States would increase their potential to carry out successful independent civil and preventive operations pursuing common foreign and security policy. It could give the EU an important advantage in observing arms expansion and monitoring the implementation of international agreements.\nThe EU countries have created several space projects for the purpose of increasing their security. To avoid wasteful duplication, it would be better to make full use of the potential offered by these systems and reduce the cost of Earth surveillance. The telecommunications satellite sector should undergo more effective standardisation. We need more intensive interaction between space projects developed by the EU. The EU should allocate more substantial funds and have a common budget to prevent individual countries from wasting their efforts and resources.\nMeanwhile, the forthcoming negotiations on the EU-Russia strategic partnership provide us with a good opportunity to organise even more productive cooperation in space, undoubtedly seeking to expand strategic cooperation in common space programmes with the United States and NATO in every possible way.\nPhilippe Morillon\n(FR) Mr President, I asked to speak when I heard Mrs Ibrisagic describe the crisis which occurred in the Balkans, in which, as you probably remember, I was involved.\nAt the time, our former fellow Member Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Deniau said, 'Europe died at Sarajevo', and I replied, 'Europe did not die at Sarajevo because Europe does not exist'.\nEurope still does not exist, and I congratulate our fellow Member Mr von Wogau for battling, as he has done since becoming Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, to ensure that Europe fulfils the expectations expressed not only outside Europe, in every corner of the world, but also within Europe, where, as you know, 70% of our fellow citizens are calling on Europe to take its place on the international stage and prove worthy of its heritage.\nMarie Anne Isler B\u00e9guin\n(FR) Mr President, since there are not very many of us here, I too will take advantage of the opportunity to add, in the same spirit as Mr Morillon, that people actually expect a great deal from Europe and even today - as Mr von Wogau knows - Georgia, a country which is covered by our neighbourhood policy, is almost on the brink of war. Every day there are confrontations between Georgia and the separatist region of Abkhazia. I would say that the situation is becoming worse with every hour that passes.\nMoreover, this afternoon we have received an urgent appeal from the Georgian authorities, urging the European Union to become involved in resolving this conflict, and this just goes to show how much we need Europe. When we introduce a neighbourhood policy, then we must also take it upon ourselves to put it into practice.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as was only to be expected, this debate has focussed very clearly on the really crucial issues. We should talk about them openly because we are dealing here with reality and not wishful thinking.\nThe reality is quite simple. The traditional patterns of conflict are no longer what they once were. The traditional distinction between internal and external security is becoming increasingly blurred. For instance, not everybody in this Chamber will agree with the American view that the fight against terrorism is a war. Yet most Americans share that view.\nThe technology used to maintain internal security, especially to combat international crime and terrorism, is tending more and more to come from the same research centres and the same enterprises and also to be used for the same purpose, although with different fields of application.\nWe must clearly recognise that we need to draw the boundaries elsewhere, namely in the place where the political decisions on the use of instruments are taken. At this point let me state quite clearly: the Treaty applies here.\nGeneral Morillon - if I may use Mr Morillon's title here, given that he referred to his important role in the Balkans - has drawn our attention to that again. There have been European operations to prevent conflict, resolve conflicts and avoid conflicts for a long time. I do not need to call any senior officers as witnesses, since everybody here knows that those who are responsible for the safety of European soldiers sent on these missions rely heavily on having an exact and precise picture of the situation. Under today's conditions it is no longer possible to obtain that kind of picture without the use of space technology, because otherwise the other side would have it. We would be putting our own forces in extreme danger and making them less effective if we said that for reasons of principle we Europeans could not allow such a thing.\nI want to draw attention to these problems again to show that I am very much aware of them. They relate both to our space policy and to the area of security research.\nI can only urge Parliament to see its role as also ensuring that in this difficult situation in which we find ourselves, where things are not just black and white but there is also a large grey area, we still proceed in a manner that does not compromise our values and our principles.\nKarl von Wogau\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, I would like to take up what Mr Verheugen said and also answer Mr Pfl\u00fcger and Mr Batten on the question of what the citizens of the European Union want.\nEurobarometer surveys show that 70% to 80% of EU citizens believe we need a common security and defence policy. That became particularly clear with the terrible events in the Balkans. The 27 European countries spend EUR 170 billion a year on defence, yet these countries were unable to put an end to the bloodshed in the Balkans because we simply do not yet have a common European organisation for such operations. There were German, French, British, Italian, Luxembourgish and other forces, yet at the time it was only the Americans, not the Europeans, who had the capability to put an end to the bloodshed. Mr Morillon saw that with his own eyes and experienced it very much in person.\nIt is also quite wrong to refer to weapons in space here. What threat is there? If, for instance, we station Galileo or observation satellites in space to find out what is happening, it is done for the security of our citizens. The real danger is that weapons are stationed in space and used to destroy our communications satellites, because then our entire social system could be disrupted by relatively minor means. Just imagine what would happen if the telecommunications satellites for TV, for radio, for everything that makes up our society today, were destroyed.\nThat is why I believe we are on the right track, including with Galileo. We will probably find at the vote tomorrow that there has been a change of mind in the European Parliament. The first step was that we managed to get Galileo financed out of the European budget. The Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Foreign Affairs urged this very strongly and managed to obtain it. The second step is that Galileo is of course a civilian project, somewhat different in type from the American system, but that it is also necessary and that it is available for operations by EU forces in, for instance, Congo, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Chad.\nI believe, therefore, that tomorrow will see a change in the majority view in the European Parliament.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, 10 July 2008.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. - (DE) Kiev is by no means as far along the 'road to Brussels' as some may believe. An unambiguous retreat from Moscow which Lukashenko has for some time given the appearance of preparing would have consequences, not least regarding oil and gas supplies. Any instability in this area would also have consequences for the European Union.\nAlthough the latest round of enlargement has taken us to the limit of our capabilities, it has not yet been resolved whether we will respect Russian influence in the post-Soviet territories, or whether we will continue to blindly ape the US striving to expand in Eastern Europe. Despite the resulting zigzag course and political tension in Ukraine, it is in our interests to deepen neighbourly relations with Ukraine. In the confidence-building measure of easing visa restrictions, we should nevertheless ensure that the old scandal is completely cleared up, and there will be no further abuse of the system.\nCarlos Coelho \nUnder the terms of the 2005 Treaty of Accession for Bulgaria and Romania, a simplified system was created allowing their accession to conventions and protocols concluded under Article 34 TEU or Article 293 TEC without the need to negotiate or conclude specific accession protocols to these conventions, thereby reducing the huge bureaucracy which would result from the need for ratification by the twenty-seven Member States.\nThus, the annex sets out a list of seven conventions and protocols relating to justice and internal affairs where the present convention can be found.\nI welcome this kind of initiative aimed at reducing Community bureaucracy and the exaggerated amount of time taken up over such simple matters as this.\nI, therefore, support this Council Decision determining the date on which the Convention of the 26 of July 1995 on the use of computer systems in the field of customs, and respective protocols, should enter into force in Bulgaria and Romania.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna \nI am voting in favour of Mrs Grabowski's report on the Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Europol Convention of 26 July 1995.\nAccording to the act on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, these states are able to join conventions made by the Member States on the basis of Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union according to a simplified procedure. For this reason there is no need for negotiations and special accession protocols, which would also involve the need for them to be ratified by all members of the Community. All that is required is that the Council, after consulting with the European Parliament, adopt a decision setting the date on which the Europol Convention becomes effective, along with the necessary protocols.\nThe Council should also take into account the new deadlines for the effectiveness of the three protocols, dated 30 November 2000, 28 November 2002 and 27 November 2003.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mr Stubb, on the special report of the European Court of Auditors concerning translation expenditure incurred by the Commission, Parliament and the Council. I am pleased to have been able to table an amendment deploring the fact that more and more documents and communications - not least compromise amendments when they are voted on in committee - and, for example, annexes to reports, are being submitted in just one language. This trend goes against the need to maintain a democratic functioning model of our Union involving various peoples from different cultures and language backgrounds. Our model can be of use to other regions in the world, not least the Mediterranean area, and we must fully respect the use of languages. I regret that I was unable to prevent the report from encouraging the parliamentary committees and delegations, as far as possible, to submit texts solely in the languages of their full and substitute members and from demanding that other language versions be provided on request. The latter restriction will result in Members being deprived of the opportunity to follow the work done in committees other than their own.\nPedro Guerreiro \nRespect for the official languages of each Member State of the European Union is laid down in the Treaties. However, the idea that some translations are dispensable is being encouraged on grounds of the financial question, and by appealing to the need to define priorities and restrictions such as the size of documents. We do not accept these guidelines, as they counteract respect for multilingualism.\nWe, therefore, reassert our firm rejection of any effort to limit the use of any official (and working) European Union language on the grounds of high costs, an example of which, as we pointed out at the appropriate time, are the current criteria that determine the languages used during the EU-ACP parliamentary assemblies, which make the use of Portuguese unfeasible in a discriminatory manner.\nWe also reject a reduction in numbers of interpreters and translators on the pretext of fallacious budgetary arguments, and any precariousness or degrading of their working conditions in Parliament, Commission or Council, namely by promoting the outsourcing of these services which are essential to the adequate functioning of these institutions and to guarantee the citizens of the different Member States of the European Union access to pertinent information in their own language.\nBairbre de Br\u00fan and Mary Lou McDonald \nin writing. We abstained on today's report from Mr Stubb as we are concerned that the term, 'controlled full multilingualism', could be used to restrict the amount of written material available to Irish speakers in comparison to speakers of other official and working languages. At present a range of services which could be made available in Irish are not made available because the European Parliament administration shows no wish to do so. Such unnecessary limitations placed upon the Irish language as a working language should be removed.\nSome of the suggestions in Mr Stubb's report with regard to respect for multilingualism, quality control, user satisfaction, translation memory systems and a common database for terminology are positive.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. - (DE) The Court of Auditors' criticism of the 25% rise in the cost of translation, which cannot be explained solely by the increase in the number of official languages from 11 to 21, should be examined in detail. For this reason it is worth considering whether it would not be advantageous in future to break down the costs of translation by target languages in order to better evaluate need, demand and translation output. We also need a strategy for the ongoing pre-accession negotiations, because if Macedonia alone has six official languages, we will soon have our own Tower of Babel.\nWhen all the information is made available, the potential for any rational savings will become clear. However, this audit should not be misused so that even more important EU documents are classed as 'working documents' or 'annexes' to close the door on the obligation for complete translation. In particular, the use of German, due to its importance as the most widely spoken mother tongue and the second most important foreign language in the EU, should be promoted.\nMarianne Thyssen \nin writing. - (NL) Madam President, I voted in favour of the Stubb report on the grounds that I agree with its gist.\nOur actions should remain based on complete multilingualism, out of respect for the principles of equality of all citizens, and for the benefit of the best possible communication and democracy. At the same time, however, we should exercise caution where costs are concerned because, if not, we run the risk of losing the social support for the multilingualism of our institution.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my fellow Member, Mr Mulder, on minimising administrative costs imposed by European legislation. The European Commission's objective of better regulation must be encouraged and monitored. Pointless administrative costs are the scourge of our societies based on the rule of law, which, at times, do not realise that the inflation of law results in its depreciation, for Europeans do not apply pointless and costly rules. It is not illusory to envisage a 25% reduction in administrative costs by 2013, provided that we conduct a thorough analysis of what is at stake and do not lose sight of the fact that false economies can be far more costly.\nEveryone knows that mediocrity is far more costly, in the long term, than quality. If we must constantly fight against all pointless laws and their associated administrative costs, we must ensure that we regulate economic activities carefully and with proper judgment, in the best interests of consumers and manufacturers.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. - (DE) If we continue to conjure up new EU agencies just to assuage national sensibilities, and their tasks overlap with existing ones, we really should not be surprised at increasingly vociferous criticism of burgeoning red tape, unchecked organisational nonsense and creating unnecessary jobs. Citizen-friendliness needs more than e-government and similar publicity stunts, and we have to avoid and cut down on duplication.\nWe should also make use of the present savings potentials. These include: reducing the seats of Parliament to one single location, assessing expenses on the basis of the actual costs incurred, a top-class anti-fraud system and the real recovery of grants that have been improperly paid out, along with the millions to be saved by not foisting enlargements on reluctant citizens. In no way should the EU follow the example of some Member States, where increasing numbers of migrants are taken up in the administration. This will cause irreparable damage to the creation and development of a European identity.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my fellow Member, Mrs Wallis, on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (ROME II). This extremely complex matter is a step in the direction of harmonising the Member States' conflict of law rules applicable to non-contractual obligations, that is to say, the consequences of road traffic accidents, unfair competition, environmental damage, defamation and, more generally, violation of personal rights, etc.\nOverall, the European Parliament has not been sufficiently heard by the Member States, and the countless studies and reports that are to weigh up the consequences of this agreement will be crucial when we return to this important matter. For example, regarding road traffic accidents, how can we be content with applying the law of the country of the accident, and not that of the country of residence of the victim, and are we sure that recitals of this regulation on their own will make it compulsory for the courts to assess losses? How are we going to manage defamation in the context of a globalised and dematerialised press? The examples go on. A considerable amount of work awaits us on these issues.\nBruno Gollnisch \nin writing. - (FR) I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the balanced text that she is proposing to us. The object of this text is the setting up of a coherent legal framework for relations between international civil laws and other Community instruments.\nThis regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations ('Rome II'), seeks to harmonise national rules of conflict of laws. These rules determine the law applicable to non-contractual obligations such as, for example, road traffic accidents, product liability, unfair competition or environmental damage.\nWe are in favour of the principle of adopting standard rules in relation to conflict of laws, although they still need to be, let us remember this, sufficiently clear and precise. This was not the case with the controversial provisions on defamation by the media. Freedom of speech and of the press must be protected and be able to be fully exercised. In the absence here of rules for the protection of editorial independence, it was reasonable to exclude the provisions relating to violation of personal rights by the media from the scope of 'Rome II'.\nWe shall, therefore, vote in favour of this report.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate \nin writing. - (FR) I am very pleased about the adoption of the compromise negotiated with the Council concerning the second programme of Community action in the field of health 2007-2013.\nThe European Union can no longer do without a common programme for health with common public investment. It is unfortunate that the budget has been revised downwards. A large number of investments are needed before we can have preventive and technical resources. Prevention is better than cure and good information on lifestyle or a healthier diet in order to reduce mortality due to serious illnesses is an essential prerequisite. It is necessary also to make generally available technical solutions for emergency situations. Widespread availability of defibrillators is one of many examples.\nHealth, however, does not come down to a simple matter of accountancy. It is also and above all a benefit for everyone. Making patients more responsible is a central factor. Setting up clear and applicable provisions everywhere in the European Union is undoubtedly the most essential way forward for the future.\nGeorgios Toussas \nThe action programme proposed as the common position of the Council of the EU does not seek to protect and upgrade public health, but to manage its problems, extend the commercialisation and privatisation of health services and help private groups of companies penetrate what is a profitable sector for capital.\nThe responsibility and obligation of the state to protect and improve public health is being transferred to local authorities, to NGOs, to 'civil society', while personal responsibility is being promoted as the basic determining factor for public health.\nCapitalist restructurings in the public health sector come under the general anti-working class policy of the \u0395U, the deteriorating terms of insurance and the increased retirement age of the workers. We are radically opposed to the anti-labour proposals included in the Community action plan in the public health sector.\nThe Greek Communist Party is fighting for solely public health and welfare services which meet the contemporary needs of working families.\nIvo Belet\n(NL) Madam President, I am right here in the centre. Allow me to make a brief observation with regard to reducing the use of mercury, of which everyone is in favour. It is a good thing because, in many sectors, the use of mercury has been superseded and, indeed, has to be replaced by other materials, but a total ban on traditional objects, including the traditional mercury barometer, is taking matters too far in our view.\nI recently paid a visit to the Dingens company in the Belgian town of Leopoldsburg, where, for decades, they have proved that mercury barometers can be produced in a sustainable and ecologically responsible manner. Moreover, these traditional barometers have an unlimited lifespan, unlike their digital successors, which work on batteries and therefore use energy. Also, since the producers of traditional barometers have become skilled in maintaining these devices in a sustainable manner, mercury from barometers no longer ends up in the waste cycle.\nI would therefore call on the Commission - and this is my final comment - and all those involved to send out a signal at this stage to the sector involved and for the benefit of the assessment, which has taken two years, to give due account to this justified specific situation of the mercury barometer products so that they, hopefully, continue to qualify for exemption schemes.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Thank you, Madam President. I voted in favour of Amendments 1 and 2, because I take the view that the production of traditional barometers must remain an option. I resent any kind of European interference which leads not only to traditional customs and production methods, but also employment, falling by the wayside.\nMoreover, it is very much the question whether the ban on mercury barometers would be an effective measure. Other forms of mercury use are far more extensive and far more problematic than those in the production of barometers. Also, as mercury barometers do not require any batteries, they have an unlimited life span.\nThis House has once again managed to miss out on an opportunity to give due account to a specific reality, namely that small and medium-sized enterprises occupy a critical position in our economy and in Europe. The last thing these SMEs need is even more European busybodying and interference.\nJim Allister \nin writing. I voted in favour of the amendments to exempt barometers from this overly prescriptive legislation and, upon defeat of the amendments, I voted against the report.\nThe total ban on mercury instruments destroys a long-standing craft industry in the UK and is the product of obsessive meddling by Brussels in matters far beyond what is necessary or sensible.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the wise decision taken in relation to the Council common position, which takes up most of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament. The main difference between the positions of Parliament and of the Council concerns mercury barometers and the derogations to be implemented, in view of the fact that the ban that would subsequently be introduced would only apply to new mercury barometers, as barometers that are already in circulation can always be resold, repaired and maintained.\nGiven the very hazardous properties of mercury and the much larger amount of mercury contained in traditional barometers in comparison, for example, with fever thermometers, the solution proposed by the Council to grant a limited derogation is a balanced compromise: the aim, in fact, is to grant a temporary derogation in order to allow the manufacturers of traditional barometers to adapt to the new arrangements.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the adoption of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76\/769\/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury.\nI am in favour of restricting the marketing to the general public of measuring devices containing mercury, which have been banned in France since 1998.\nThe Council common position accepted by Parliament establishes a balance allowing both a reduction in the release of mercury in the environment while allowing a transition period for certain articles such as traditional barometers. A transition period of two years after the date of entry into force of the directive will allow the industries concerned to develop their technology to produce mercury-free devices.\nJames Nicholson \nin writing. I am appalled that we are still producing legislation which puts jobs at risk for no real environmental benefit. UK barometer-making, like that in other Member States, is a traditional industry dating back several centuries. It is clearly necessary that the use of mercury is properly controlled and we have made substantial progress in recent years on related matters such as storage and export. However, it should be possible to safeguard traditional barometer-making by ensuring that proper safety warnings etc. are used. There is no need to destroy a long-established craft simply because it is easier to have 'one size fits all' legislation. Social Europe means nothing if it means putting people in traditional crafts out of work.\nMarianne Thyssen \nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, mercury is a dangerous product that should be handled with the necessary caution. Nobody in this House is in any doubt of this. Unfortunately, this House has pursued this position today with regard to the vote on the Sornosa Mart\u00ednez report to absurd levels, something which I deeply regret.\nBy holding firm to a total ban on the production of traditional barometers, the Commission, backed up today by a majority of this House, has sounded the death knell for a sector that stands for 360 years of European tradition. The fact that all barometer manufacturers in the European Union only account for a few tenths of percentages of the annual mercury consumption, mercury which, by the way, is recycled 100%, makes the matter only worse. Today, we were clearly not guided by common sense in our decision.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic \nin writing. (SV) The votes on Mrs Westlund's reports are not just about which food additives may be used. They are mainly about who is to decide on individual issues concerning food additives.\nIn contrast to the rapporteur, we Swedish Conservatives do not believe that the European Parliament should evaluate, and take decisions on approving, individual food additives, for example on the basis of details such as the risks posed by individual food additives to people with allergies. That would involve a politicisation of important issues that should be decided on a scientific basis and at the level of the relevant authority. We therefore reject the proposal concerning increased powers of codecision for Parliament.\nAs a consequence of this, we have voted against unduly detailed regulations in today's vote.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Commissioner, I supported the more flexible authorisation of food additives. The Commission should look specifically at the impact of these additives on the environment and on health. I should like, if I may, to draw your attention to the high number of people with allergies, whose lives depend on keeping to a gluten-free diet. In addition to specially made goods, they buy normal foods that do not normally contain gluten. Additives must be properly labelled so that consumers are not misled. Manufacturers and supervisors often ignore the fact that the labelling of every product must explicitly show whether it contains gluten. Statistically Europeans suffering from food allergies are unfortunately not provided with the necessary information when they make their purchases, so either their choice of food is restricted or, much worse, they put their health at risk. I therefore call on the Commission to oversee a proper investigation into gluten in additives and to promote the comprehensive labelling of all foods so that those Europeans on a gluten-free diet are also able to understand it.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my Swedish fellow Member, Mrs Westlund, on food additives. While it is normal to simplify the European Commission's task by agreeing that decisions on authorisation of food additives should come under the comitology procedure, the Commission must, for its part, take account of the comments that Parliament has been making non-stop for years now in the new regulation on food additives, and in the new regulation establishing a common food authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings.\nThese comments chiefly concern the environment, public health and allergy sufferers. We should be pleased that the current legislation stipulates that the authorisation of additives must not mislead consumers. However, colourings sometimes give the impression that a foodstuff contains fruit, when that is not the case. Consumer protection must therefore be strengthened on this point, without this affecting manufacturers.\nThomas Wise \nin writing. Although I agree with the principles contained within the amendments on the labelling of GMOs, I abstained because I believe these matters should be addressed by national governments and should not become an EU competence.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my esteemed Irish colleague, Mrs Doyle, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on food enzymes and amending a number of existing texts. In order to remove the barriers to trade and to prevent not only legal uncertainty, but also differing health and consumer protection standards among the Member States, it is vital that we harmonise, at Community level, the rules on the use of enzymes in the food processing sector, which has developed considerably over the last few years (baked goods, cheese, beer, fruit juice, starch, etc.).\nMajor scientific and technological developments, which make it possible to have new enzymes made from genetically modified micro-organisms, must lead us to accept this prospect of harmonised legislation on the use of food enzymes within the European Union. This is in the best interests of consumers and manufacturers, provided that we do not have too costly a form of legislation.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my Slovenian fellow Member, Mrs Dr\u010dar Murko, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending a number of existing texts.\nAt present, all natural tastes and odours can be copied synthetically from 2 600 molecules with flavouring properties, with the possibility being there to create new tastes that do not exist in nature. Technological developments in the flavourings sector and the rapidly changing tastes of our fellow citizens must encourage us to monitor food safety and consumer protection and to give the industry concerned the opportunity to pursue technological development, with the aim of all this being to strengthen the internal market.\nMany questions have been raised, and I welcome the compromises reached by the rapporteur, which ensure that the proposal for a regulation represents an effective initiative aimed at modernising and simplifying the legislation on flavourings.\nGlyn Ford \nin writing. I will be voting for this report. I welcome in particular the commitment to labelling GMOs. I do not share entirely the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues as to the safety of GMOs. My judgement is different. As a scientist I believe GMOs have a role to play. Nevertheless, I do accept that others have the right to make their own choices. Therefore, labelling enables those whose judgement differs from mine to avoid products they chose to reject.\nGerard Batten \nin writing. Although we agree with the principles contained within these amendments on the labelling of GMOs, UKIP has abstained because these matters should be addressed by national governments and should not become an EU competence.\nNigel Farage \nin writing. Amendment 38 - providing that GMO-derived content of food be indicated by labelling - attracts abstention (rather than support) despite its inherent desirability, owing to its dangerously and irreformably undemocratic source (EU institutions). In other words, I consider centralist EU rule, without democratic accountability, to be more of a threat to civilisation than are unlabelled, GMO-derived food additives. Therefore, I abstain rather than voting for this amendment.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the package relating to the rationalisation of procedures for the authorisation, use and consolidation of directives relating to additives and flavourings, as well as the harmonisation of legislation relating to enzymes.\nA certain number of additional guarantees have been introduced to ensure the transparency of decisions and the protection of consumers and I am very pleased about that. The aim of future legislation will be to ensure consumer protection and food safety while preserving innovation and competitiveness in the food processing industry.\nThe food industry uses many natural and artificial flavourings: no fewer than 2 600 are listed. More and more enzymes enter also into the manufacture of food stuffs and the texts adopted seek to improve the safety of the use of these substances.\nThe competitiveness of the food processing industry in the market should be preserved. Natural flavourings are wholly made up of natural flavouring agents. The ratio of 90\/10 proposed by the Commission made it possible to produce a natural flavour with tastes differing according to the products, targets or the culture of Member States. The 10% came from natural sources other than the substance concerned.\nI regret therefore the adoption of the arbitrary rule called 95\/5 which could penalise the food processing industry but without giving the consumer better information.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski \nin writing. I voted against the report on excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The ECON Committee voted for a 4,5% increase in minimum rates. As I am against any tax harmonisation or increase, no matter how small, I have had to vote against Astrid Lulling's report.\nMarianne Thyssen \nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, emotions run high each time we discuss beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages in this House. This was also true of the brewery agreements. Today is no different. Fifteen years ago, the Council agreed on minimum rates for excise on alcoholic beverages. The intention was clear: bring the vastly different rates in the Member States into line with each other.\nSo many years later, we have to conclude that the decisions taken at the time have overshot the mark. Accordingly, for public health reasons, some Member States, including the Scandinavian countries, apply rates that are much higher than the minimum rates. Which is not a bad thing at all. Every Member State is entitled to adopt excise policy that is commensurate with its national traditions and policy preferences.\nLet us, however, also admit that the inflation correction of existing rates, proposed by the Commission, will not make any difference. As the current excise straddle between the Member States and the existing competitive distortions will persist without any sign of let-up, I supported rapporteur Lulling in her no-vote.\nHubert Pirker\n- (DE) Madam President, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert's target for the proposed directive should be supported because it is quite simply a matter of protecting important infrastructure which affects several countries against terrorist attacks. That is why we need to identify and define the infrastructure, as well as security plans.\nThe Commission's proposal goes too far, though. It undermines the principle of solidarity by confusing anti-terrorist activities with economic instruments. The Commission should also ask itself whether the centralised compilation of critical infrastructure will not serve the terrorists and thereby increase the risk.\nThis House has made constructive amendment proposals, which, thank goodness, we have approved with a large majority. I therefore propose that the Commission revise these. I have voted in favour of the report.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my Dutch fellow Member, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, on the proposal for a Council directive on critical infrastructure. Firstly, I applaud the vision of the European Council of June 2004, which is behind this proposal for a directive. It is, in fact, imperative that the European Union support the Member States in protecting critical infrastructure from the risks, including terrorist risks, that we face. Although the responsibility for this type of infrastructure lies with the Member States and the owners\/operators who are generally linked to them, it is logical to communitise certain aspects of prevention, identification, designation of critical infrastructure, as well as the evaluation of the need to protect this infrastructure better. Internet development and the liberalisation of certain markets (electricity, gas, telecommunications, rail freight, etc.) must lead us to be more vigilant regarding our critical infrastructure, which is becoming more and more interconnected throughout Europe and of which the interruption, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or destruction could have serious repercussions for health, security and the economic and social well-being of Europeans and for the proper functioning of the Member States' governments.\nPedro Guerreiro \nThe establishment of a common framework for action to protect European critical infrastructures means that we are once again faced with the central question of transferring competencies that lie at the heart of the States' sovereignty to the sphere of the EU.\nThe definition of the protection of these infrastructures at Community level, in the name of the so-called 'fight against terrorism', will mean that the Member States will be faced with the responsibility of implementing binding measures, as, indeed, is mentioned in the justification of this proposal.\nDespite the rapporteur's having mitigated the scope of the initial proposal, by underlining, for example, that 'the responsibility for the protection of critical infrastructures lies solely and exclusively with the Member States' and considering 'that a Community approach is only justifiable if at least three Member States, or two Member States besides the one in which the critical infrastructure is situated, are affected', the fundamental objectives are not called into question.\nIt should also be emphasised that, as recent events have shown, measures which compromise the rights, freedoms and guarantees of the citizens have been implemented on the pretext of the said 'fight against terrorism'. Let us hope that the concept of 'protection of European critical infrastructures' does not come to be used as an argument in favour of curtailing legitimate industrial action by workers defending their rights.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried \nin writing. - (DE) I am voting for the report on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection.\nDamage to, or the outage of, an infrastructure facility in one Member State may have negative consequences for other Member States and on the European economy as a whole. For this reason, protecting critical infrastructure is essential for the internal security of the EU.\nI also agree with the report's proposal for setting up a list of priority sectors containing critical European infrastructure be made subject to common criteria. However, the Member States should not be obliged to disclose their critical infrastructure in great detail, as this would go against the interests of national security.\nHorizontal legal provisions at EU level, which would take into account the complex processes and the interfaces of critical infrastructures with a trans-national dimension is a justified concern. It should, however, be recognised at the same time that the EU should support, not duplicate, the work done by the Member States. For this reason I also approve of the proposal for a bottom-up approach, as national authorities know best what is going on in their own countries.\nGeorgios Toussas \nThe report fully accepts the philosophy of the proposal for a directive, which designates as European Critical Infrastructure any important public or private infrastructure which affects several Member States of the EU and obliges them to submit a list of this infrastructure to the European Commission, which then prepares the single list for the entire EU, so that it can supervise and control their security from 'terrorist action'.\nUnder the proposal for a directive:\nThe private sector - in other words monopoly companies - acquire jurisdiction in issues of national security which were previously the responsibility of the government alone.\nIt paves the way for movements by workers and the masses which affect any infrastructure of 'European importance', even private installations, to be designated 'terrorist action' (for example strikes in critical sectors, such as energy, telecommunications and so forth, the symbolic occupation of factories, companies and so forth, picketing, demonstrations and so forth).\nIt decisively undermines national security and the sovereignty of the Member States, in that it obliges them to hand over a list of all their infrastructure which is crucial to security and their security plans to the EU.\nOnce again the pretext of the 'terrorist threat' is the convenient vehicle of the EU for completing its reactionary institutional framework, which is turning against the working class movements and protecting the power of European capital, undermining the national sovereignty of the Member States even further.\nGeoffrey Van Orden \nin writing. There is no European critical infrastructure, it is national. Its protection is the responsibility of national governments, particularly given the threats facing the democracies from terrorism.\nI am, of course, in favour of measures that would genuinely enhance security. However, the directive is a further step in the EU's attempts to extend its reach into the security and defence sphere. This is its most objectionable element. The Commission seems to view security as a means to ensure that the, 'stability of the Internal Market is maintained', which misses the point. The proposed system of reporting risk and threat assessments to the Commission merely creates additional bureaucratic burdens and structures. The requirement for Member States to notify the Commission of specific critical infrastructures is counter-productive, as it would produce a list of targets that would be of great interest to the wrong people.\nMarkus Pieper\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Vidal-Ouadras' report, not because I oppose opening up the electricity and gas markets - quite the contrary, but I cannot agree with one of the core requirements, which is ownership unbundling - or rather, I cannot do so at present - for three reasons: firstly, because we have to give national regulatory authorities more time to build up effective regulation for competition; secondly, it has by no means been satisfactorily demonstrated to me that ownership unbundling will promote investment in supply networks, and thirdly, because the unbundling proposal does not apply where networks and generation facilities are still under state ownership.\nThis is the point where we should impose those strict liberalisation conditions that have so far been denied to competition, instead of undermining those that are on the right market economy track through unbundling provisions.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Spanish colleague, Mr Vidal-Quadras, on prospects for the internal gas and electricity market. The report has made it possible for us to review this matter after a long process of energy market liberalisation and, above all, for the European Council of March 2006 to adopt an 'energy package' aimed at safeguarding security of supply, competitiveness and environmental sustainability in relation to EU energy policy. I regret that the amendment tabled by my colleagues, Mr Reul, Mrs Laperrouze, Mrs Trautmann and others, for which I voted, has not been adopted by Parliament, since it provided for a balanced alternative to the mere ownership unbundling of energy networks, while safeguarding the independence of that unbundling. These are subjects on which the political debate is far from over. The same is true of the role of the regulators, the lifting of the barriers to interconnections, the development of new massive generation from renewable energy sources, the substantial investment in infrastructure to meet growing needs and so on.\nBernadette Bourzai \nin writing. - (FR) I voted against the Vidal-Quadras report on the prospects for the internal gas and electricity market which prepares for the presentation next September by the Commission of a third 'liberalisation' package.\nFirst of all I am opposed to the liberal dogmatic principle of ownership unbundling (ownership and management of the network), because it brings no guarantee in relation to investments, supply, safety or access for third parties and renewable energy to the network. It does not ensure availability of energy at the best price for citizens and it does not fulfil public service obligations either. Why then disrupt the present organisation, which works well and ensures the effective independence of system operators, thanks, in particular to strong intervention by the regulator and putting in place strict rules to guarantee equality of treatment and a quality service to all users of the networks, even those who live in regions with a natural handicap and very remote regions.\nFurthermore, I think that the problem of the independence of the transmission system operators does not relate to the issue of the system of ownership, but to that of regulation. Why, therefore, ask for the elimination of the public character of energy operators?\nFran\u00e7oise Castex \nin writing. - (FR) I regret the adoption of ownership unbundling defended by the fierce defenders of the dismantling of large companies.\nIn my opinion, the liberal right has struck another blow to the principle of public service mission, which is so dear to European citizens.\nI think that ownership unbundling brings no guarantee in relation to investments, safety or third party access (including renewable energy sources, which could be penalised because of their high costs). Nor does it ensure availability of energy at the best price for citizens.\nI believe it would have been preferable to retain a system like the French one, which integrates into its working the legislative rules from previous European directives.\nIlda Figueiredo \nThis is another one of the steps towards the liberalisation of the internal gas and electricity market in the wake of the Lisbon Strategy. The keywords in this report are 'liberalisation' and 'market'. The basic idea from which they set out is always the same. The premise, already refuted by innumerable examples, that the market alone will resolve the problem of energy supply and consumption, is defended with growing fervour in an effort to conjure away what is increasingly difficult to ignore: that the 'market' has only been a success for some, who have accumulated fabulous profits, but not for the consumers, who find themselves confronted with ever-higher energy bills.\nIts strategic nature means that the energy sector is vital for a country's independence and sovereignty. To subject it to private national and transnational interests is an affront to the sovereignty of the peoples and the rights of the workers and populations.\nWe, therefore, once again, reject the liberalisation of gas and electricity, advocating that they should remain in the public sector as the sole guarantee of access to a continuous service offering quality and accessible prices.\nRobert Goebbels \nin writing. - (FR) I voted against liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors because I do not consider that transmission ownership unbundling is the most effective way of stimulating investment in these infrastructures. As the report recognises, 'this model might not address all of the issues at stake, such as interconnections and congestion points'. The fact is that the electricity market and the gas market require significant investment. It is not by eliminating the big operators in the market that the European Union will be able to guarantee its security of supply. A strange fact remains that the European countries that have liberalised the most also have the highest prices for consumers.\nBairbre de Br\u00fan and Mary Lou McDonald \nin writing. Sinn F\u00e9in rejected the Vidal-Quadras report on the internal gas and electricity market because of its emphasis on privatisation and \"unbundling\". Member States should retain the right to fully own and operate their energy systems if they see fit to do so.\nAs an all-Ireland party we look forward to the development of an all-Ireland energy market which is fully integrated and managed in an accountable way. Interconnections between north and south are important infrastructural elements in the creation of an all-Ireland economy.\nDominique Vlasto \nin writing. - (FR) The Union for the Presidential Majority (UMP) delegation wishes to point out and highlight the fact that ownership unbundling is not the best answer to current market dysfunctions.\nIn a context of strong competition, which sees the emergence of powerful non-European operators, we feel it is dangerous to dismantle the European energy companies in the name of a dogmatic approach to competition policy, far removed from the industrial strategies that ought to strengthen the European Union in global competition.\nEuropean energy supply is a strategic long-term issue that requires its security to be guaranteed beyond the duration of a single contract. This security of energy supply depends upon investments that are already clearly inadequate. They will, however, have to increase significantly in order to meet our future needs whether for gas or electricity.\nOwnership unbundling means that our traditional energy operators will not be able to realise these investments in the energy networks. Handing over this opportunity to new entrants, who will not necessarily have the financial resources needed, or to non-European companies, who do not necessarily share our assessment of our future needs is very dangerous and very worrying.\nIn these circumstances, the UMP delegation expects the European Commission to develop an alternative approach to ownership unbundling.\nPedro Guerreiro \nAnimal proteins are not a natural part - and I emphasise the word 'natural' - of the diet of, for example, an adult bovine.\nCurrently, many appear to have forgotten - or make out that they have forgotten - the consequences of the 'mad cow' crisis - BSE - on human and animal health, and the socio-economic consequences underlying the intensive production model which caused it.\nThe current report supports the lifting of the ban on the use of fish oil and flour in ruminant fodder. The intention is to further increase the profits of the agro-industry and large-scale farmers.\nWe should reject this intention. Not only because this measure is linked to the development of intensive production and the verticalisation of agricultural production, and because it would encourage fishing on an industrial scale to obtain fish flour and oil for fodder, namely for ruminants - when, at a time of scarcity, maritime fishing resources should be put to better use as foodstuff for human consumption - but, above all, because there are still risks for human and animal health.\nThus, we consider imperative the application of the principle of precaution. We therefore regret the rejection of our proposal to reject the lifting of the current ban.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":7,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (debate) \nPresident\n(EL) On the agenda for discussion, we have the report given by Csaba \u00d6ry on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, concerning the application of social security schemes to wage-earners, non-earners and members of their families moving within the Community - C6-0104\/2007 -.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, honourable members of the European Parliament, the document submitted to you today is the latest Regulation amending Regulation 1408\/71. This is the well-known Regulation on the coordination of social security schemes. For more than 30 years, this Regulation has formed the basis for coordinating the national social security schemes. In recent years, an effort has been initiated to update and simplify this Regulation and the Regulation implementing it. Parliament has already approved the new Regulation 883\/2004, and the remaining instruments which are required for its implementation are already under negotiation. These are the implementing Regulation and the text of the Annexes. Pending the entry into force of these new legislative instruments, it is necessary to update the validity of Regulation 1408\/71. This new technical update is therefore submitted to you. It applies only to the text of the Annexes to the Regulation, and aims to take account of the changes made to the national legislations.\nIt is important that this text should be approved without delay, so that Regulation 1408\/71 can be updated, ensuring legal certainty and observance of citizens' rights.\nI would particularly like to thank the rapporteur Mr \u0150ry for the cooperation between our two institutions. As he clearly stated in his report, a vote on this act on first reading will make it possible to adopt it without delay. In this spirit, the amendments have been drawn up, including the technical changes made by the Council. On the other hand, he has not included, at this stage, the discussions which can more fruitfully be held in the context of examining the implementing Regulation, for which the rapporteur is Mrs Lambert, or the text of the Annexes, especially Annex 11, for which the rapporteur is Mrs Bozkurt.\nThere are some who would like to seize the opportunity given by this report, to address wider issues - for example, trans-border health services. Despite the obvious concern about these issues, I do not think it is advisable to examine them within the scope of the present technical update. A limited but pragmatic approach to the technical update is a better safeguard for citizens' rights. I would particularly like to thank Mr \u0150ry for this.\nThe Commission is in favour of amendments 1 to 6, 9 and 11, which bring the original text into line with the Council's general orientation, and in favour of amendments 7 and 8, which regulate a particular difficulty which arose recently in a Member State, the Netherlands, after the health insurance reform came into effect. On the other hand, the Commission is not in favour of amendment 10. The imprecise drafting of this amendment does not allow proper management of the specific situations which it aims to regulate. The amendment calls into question the rules of priority in the field of family benefits. Such an amendment would have legal and economic consequences far beyond the Member State concerned.\nThank you for your attention, and once again I congratulate the rapporteur on his contribution and his excellent cooperation.\nCsaba \u0150ry\nrapporteur. - (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, allow me to say a few words about the legislation before us and its significance, before I move on to the smaller matters surrounding the proposed amendments.\nAs the Commissioner said, it is true that this is very old legislation. It was born in 1971 and has traditionally played a prominent role ever since, as a secondary regulatory instrument for the fundamental right of freedom of employment within the Union. It cannot be denied that the right of free movement of labour recorded in the Treaty would be worth very little in itself if citizens looking for work in other Member States could not have access to the social security systems, or if the portability of rights could not be ensured.\nIn connection with movement within the Union, workers who take significant risks must not suffer any disadvantage with regard to social security and fundamental social rights. Only then can free movement of labour play an important role in equalising the Union's labour markets, which the Union's economy needs.\nOn the other hand, we should also see and note that Regulation 1408, which we are now discussing, can only fulfil its function if we continuously harmonise it with national legislation. However, questions on social policy, employment and movement of labour basically belong to and affect national competences. This is why it has been, and is, necessary to constantly amend and supplement the legislation from one year to the next.\nThis is crucial legislation, since it looks as though we are just agreeing on different wording, but in fact this affects people, people's destinies and people's everyday problems. Therefore, as legislators, it is still our duty, even if we know that this text will only be in force for a very short time because, as the Commissioner has already mentioned the new Regulation and the new Directive already exist. They have already been born.\nUntil we produce the implementing regulation, the interests of legal security require that we continuously update and adjust the wording to changes in the national legislation. A good example of this is the first proposed amendment, where in Hungarian law the concept of 'close dependant' was amended in the Civil Code, and now an opportunity has opened up for us to adjust the European wording to this.\nHowever, this also related to the proposed amendments affecting the Netherlands, where likewise it very clearly concerns people's destinies, and where there is doubt regarding entitlement to various social benefits for the families of soldiers serving abroad. This is clearly unacceptable and must be added.\nWe did, however, find a solution to this problem during the Commission's work, by accepting the verbal proposal by the Council and incorporating it into the text. There is therefore no problem here, as I feel that the tenth proposed amendment mentioned has also borne a reassuring solution, since the Dutch government has undertaken to notify the relevant citizens in a clarifying circular, so there is now no need for this proposed amendment to be adopted by the Parliament.\nThere was, however, a need for cooperation, so I would like to thank the participants, my fellow Members who submitted amendments, the Council and the Commission. Thank you very much for the floor, Mr President.\nRia Oomen-Ruijten\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Mr President, as Mr \u0150ry has just said, mobility in the employment market is of the utmost importance. In fact, the coordination regulation we are discussing today brings the adjustments to the laws of the Member States into line every year.\nThe Member States should actually have to test every law or every amendment to social security or tax law to check whether it is also Europe-proof. Then there would not be too many problems. With a clear result, it would not be necessary to make adjustments later on.\nTogether with Mr \u0150ry, I have tabled a number of amendments and I think really that Members should each look at their own Member States when the time comes for the annual adjustment to see whether everything proposed in the administrative consultation has in fact been brought into line with the real situation in Europe.\nWe have tabled two or three amendments. The first two, Amendments 7 and 8, relate to health insurance for members of the families of military personnel resident in Belgium or Germany. Dutch military personnel are not covered by the Health Care Insurance Act and so members of their families could not be insured either and therefore had to join a scheme that became more and more expensive. The Dutch Government has written to the House asking the European Parliament to adopt the amendments, because that is the quickest solution.\nThe third amendment - Amendment 10 - concerns the Dutch law on child care. A family that lived in the Netherlands and worked on the other side of the border was not entitled to a child care allowance. That has also now been resolved by a change in the law.\nThat means that, through our perseverance, we have achieved quite a number of things for many people. I am also grateful to my colleagues for not allowing themselves to be deterred by all the second reading arguments, but backing us up so that we have been able to achieve a great deal.\nJoel Hasse Ferreira\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr \u0150ry, on his balanced report. Secondly, I would like to stress how important it is for the European Union's various social security schemes to be coordinated and improved, and adapted where necessary. It is quite clear that a number of what we consider to be essential amendments have been tabled to allow an informed debate as part of a process facilitating the approval of Mr \u0150ry's report at first reading.\nSocial security questions in Europe clearly involve much more than the problems this report seeks to resolve and the associated regulatory practices. The issue here, however, is to take account of the changes that have taken place in social security legislation in states such as Ireland, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands and Austria in order to ensure effective modernisation and adaptation.\nLadies and gentlemen, as we know, discussions are in progress in parallel on the introduction of the new regulatory system, particularly the negotiation of the respective implementing regulations. We welcome the rapporteur's position in this case too, and we understand and share the view that only a limited number of absolutely essential amendments should be supported, as we said in committee. These amendments seek to guarantee the necessary legal certainty so that the new regulation can best be brought into force. I have meanwhile learned that Mr \u0150ry has withdrawn the amendment concerned for the reasons explained.\nIn conclusion, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is most important is to help to ensure, in the field of social security too, proper implementation of the principle of worker mobility in the European Union, which was reaffirmed at the Lisbon summit and throughout 2006, the European Year of Mobility. Without such mobility of labour and without proper coordination of the social security system, European workers will have limited opportunities to move in labour markets. That is what we do not want, and we therefore support this report.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien\u0117\nThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees citizens' freedom of movement and residence. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work. However, we know that in practice there are still many obstacles preventing citizens from making full use of these rights in the Community. Since 1971, the regulation we are discussing here has been considered the basis for guaranteeing social security for citizens moving from one Member State to another. The regulation, as was mentioned, has been applied for more than 30 years and its provisions are amended quite frequently with respect to national legislation. However, this regulation lays down the general principle that all national governments, social security institutions and even courts have to comply when applying national legislation. Thus it is ensured that people who make use of their right to move to other countries within the Community will not suffer when different national legislation is applied.\nSocial security systems differ greatly from country to country and although the regulation is frequently amended it does not aim to unify systems but to generalise them. Therefore, it is gratifying that in this way it is possible to protect the most vulnerable citizens of the Community, such as women, pensioners and the disabled as well as their family members. I believe that this document helps to unify not only the EU Member States but also the citizens. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I earnestly urge you to vote for it.\nWies\u0142aw Stefan Kuc\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, freedom of movement, work and residence throughout the European Union are some of the most important benefits gained by our citizens. For this reason their social insurance situation constitutes one of the most important issues, especially now, when there has been a movement of peoples such as has not been seen before in Europe, a migration much supported by all EU institutions.\nI understand that, taking into consideration the implementation of the amended Regulation on social security schemes (at present the 1971 Regulation is still in force), we are trying only to change that which it is necessary to change and to adapt it to the changes that have been introduced in certain countries.\nHowever I believe that we have not taken advantage of the opportunity that has presented itself and we have not amended the Regulation in accordance with the direction proposed in the new one. Even though four years have already passed since the draft of the new Regulation was approved, it has still not come into force, and the old one is now over 37 years old. It may be better to carry out thorough improvements to that which is already in existence than to wait for the new one, as time is passing and people are becoming impatient.\nJean Lambert\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this. I know that this often seems like a very technical piece of work, but these rapid annual updates are important because they offer transparency for citizens about their entitlements. It also means that certain individuals can be covered more quickly.\nI would also like to stress - as others have done - that this is a coordination, not a harmonisation. Often that means that certain things which seem very reasonable are not necessarily acceptable within the coordination's very limited scope. I think we also need to be clear that this coordination is not intended to undermine national systems and open them up to market forces - as I think we are beginning to see, particularly in the health sphere at the moment.\nAs others have mentioned, the implementing regulation for the update is in progress, but we already know that certain issues are not going to be covered. I think we need to find a solution for these outside the scope of this coordination, and I would urge the Commission to look at this: for example, when tax revenue is increasingly being used to underpin social security systems and people working abroad find that they are paying tax to contribute to a social security system to which they no longer have access.\nI would also urge - as Parliament did some time ago - that national practice come into line with the spirit of the regulation so that we do not find, as is happening in France at the moment, that certain individuals are now no longer able to access systems to which they have been paying because of changes in national regulations.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Commissioner, there is no doubt that it is necessary to approve the technical changes that are proposed in the annexes to this regulation. By doing so we will harmonise the regulation with the new terminology in some countries. However, I would again like to point out that European legislation has already for several years contradicted the rulings of the European Court of Justice on more precise specifications of rules regarding the claims of patients to reimbursement for the cost of healthcare provided abroad. The contradiction is most marked with regard to hospital care and extends to all judgments: I would stress that it relates to all of them not just those cases where the Council has already achieved consensus. It is true that patients have their rights upheld if they turn to the European Court of Justice, but this legal status is not acceptable.\nI would like to remind you again of the wasted opportunity to amend by an appropriate method the claims of insured persons when preparing the new, simplified Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004. An opportunity to amend the principles set out by the European Court of Justice in the Services Directive, which came up two years later, was also wasted. Now another year has begun and we are making only technical, not conceptual changes. The new implementing regulation may solve this issue, but it does not look that it will solve all matters, because the Council did not agree on all issues. In addition, the situation may be complicated because DG SANCO is now presenting a proposal for a new directive on patient mobility. That is why the Council can expect controversial negotiations. One topic that causes controversy is the dispute over subsidies. We can also expect further delays as regards the establishment in law of the citizens' right to have hospital care reimbursed. There are differences of opinion over the level of reimbursement and conditions of authorisation by an insurance company in one's country of origin.\nIn my view, this situation is very undesirable from the point of view of legal certainty, accessibility and citizens' understanding of the law. Some countries are solving the problem by not informing their citizens about the claims granted by the judgments of the European Court of Justice. I am convinced that it is necessary to solve this problem as quickly as possible by amend Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004. We should not rely on the controversial new directive on mobility from DG SANCO to secure, without further delay, compliance with the judgments.\nEmine Bozkurt\n(NL) Mr President, I thank Mr \u0150ry for his excellent work. In the short time I have to speak, I should like to underline one point. Not everything that is wrong with the coordination of social security systems can be blamed on the legislation. Many of the problems that occur are caused by the implementation of the rules, something for which the Member States themselves are responsible.\nA number of those practical problems have come to light during the work on the \u0150ry report. That is precisely the case when it comes to coordination; not only must the legislation be correct, its practical application must also be consistent with it. I therefore welcome the fact that from time to time the Council Presidents consult with Parliament, for instance on Annexes XI and VI to Regulation No 883, on which I myself am rapporteur.\nIt is certainly of the utmost importance that the work by the Council on this regulation and the annexes should be completed within this Parliament mandate. I wish future Council Presidents every success with that.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to support Mr \u0150ry's report. It is very good that the EU is coordinating social security schemes, as, in the enlarged European Union, millions of persons work beyond the borders of their own countries. The most numerous of these are my own countrymen, Poles, of whom over 2 million now work in various Member States.\nFrom one side the fact that workers can move about freely is encouraging, but, from another, we are saddened by the ever-increasing number of instances of foreign workers being treated badly. In some countries instances of criminal treatment of Polish workers have come to light, forcing them into slave labour. Polish workers are becoming victims of racially motivated attacks. This has happened in the United Kingdom, and, most recently, in Germany - the Polish media have described cases of brutal attacks on Poles in the German town of L\u00f6knitz in Mecklenburg.\nThese are serious events and we would expect all Member States to take more steps to protect foreign workers from exploitation and persecution\nGyula Hegyi\n(HU) With the collapse of Europe's borders and changes in lifestyle, there are several million European citizens who were born in one country, have worked in one or more other countries and would like to spend their retirement in yet another country. They pay their social security contributions in another place than where they will reap the benefits later.\nEquality of competition conditions also requires that social security services are harmonised. In the long term, it is therefore inevitable that a standardised European social security system will be created, including a pension system, health insurance and welfare benefits.\nA working group of the Hungarian Socialist Party has recommended that this vision be incorporated into the long-term programme of the Party of European Socialists. Harmonisation will naturally take time and legal disputes, but I am sure that, in the Europe of the future, the future belongs to standardised social security.\nPetya Stavreva\n(BG) Mr. President, distinguished colleagues. For a united Europe, harmonisation of social legislation and coordination among the EU Member States in respect of social security schemes is key, since freedom of movement is one of our core values.\nAnyone wishing to work in an EU country needs to be well aware of their rights and responsibilities; similarly, Member States need to protect the social rights of their citizens and ensure most favourable working and living conditions. The social security status of citizens working in EU countries has a direct impact on Community welfare and on its economic performance.\nIn Bulgaria, as one of the new Member States, the issue of social security is particularly topical. I believe that harmonisation of social security at the European level will ensure clearer and more simplified rules for European citizens. I support Mr. \u0150ry's report and urge you to support it by your vote.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - (EL) Mr President, the point about this document is that it will be approved quickly, with a view to strengthening legal certainty for citizens.\nWe know that the regulations on modernisation and simplification are under approval, and therefore the present proposal would lose much of its point if we were to delay it.\nOn the need to incorporate the recent decisions of the Court of the European Communities into our legislation, I would like to say that this is a technical matter and must be discussed within the framework of discussion of the Regulation to be enforced.\nThe Commission has to a large extent already taken account of the Court's recent case-law in its proposal for trans-border healthcare, which is to be discussed soon in the Collegium of Commissioners.\nA favourable vote by the European Parliament on this document will enable the Commission to concentrate its efforts in future on updating and simplifying the texts. We still have a lot of work ahead of us before the new texts begin to be enforced. This effort will in the long term facilitate exercise of the rights of citizens moving within the European Union, and so this fundamental aim of European unification will take on a more concrete form.\nAllow me once more to express my thanks to the rapporteur for the excellent work he has done.\nCsaba \u0150ry\nrapporteur. - (HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. To close, it is perhaps worth summarising a question hiding in the background to this debate - several people have mentioned it, including Mrs Lambert and Mrs Bozkurt.\nAs a matter of fact, while I was preparing this report, we never discussed any questions of content, because we always agreed on it. What we did discuss was where it is the competency of European legislators and where it is the competency of national legislators. I would like to assure you that in this case we managed to strike this very fragile balance.\nWe therefore spoke to the Commission and the Council about all the proposed amendments. Sometimes a debate emerged eventually, and sometimes frequently, but we found the solution. Let this be a lucky or a good example that we can even work together from time to time if we need to. The fact that we do need to is evidence for us, but I also feel we should not doubt that the citizens of Europe also need us to.\nFor my part, I have not tried in the report to recommend far-reaching changes to the text, simply because we are waiting for reports by Mrs Bozkurt and Mrs Lambert on Regulation 2003. I therefore feel that the legislation remains in force for now - we have perhaps improved on it a little - but we will continue the debate when we produce the implementing regulation, and I feel that this is right and proper.\nI would like to thank the Council, the Commission and my fellow Members again for their cooperation.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi\nin writing. - (RO) The Regulation that we are amending (No 1408\/71) plays a very important part in achieving one of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union, that is, freedom of movement. Free movement of labour in the European Union must not be restricted either directly, by restricting the professional categories open to the nationals of other Member States, or indirectly, by undermining the social benefits to which non-national employees are entitled.\nFor this reason, the regulation proposed by the Commission with additional amendments made by Parliament will clearly specify when citizens may enjoy the special benefits granted by their State, under what circumstances these benefits may be exported, and whether other social schemes apply, so as to ensure fair treatment for non-nationals. Moreover, if we are to extend the categories of employment contracts used in Europe, we need a common understanding of what sole trading or self-employment entails.\nNot least, I believe that this report helps to safeguard the social rights of citizens working in another Member State. Removing obstacles to the recognition of social rights will lead to more mobility within the Union and increased employment.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"6. Impact of extensive urbanisation in Spain on individual rights of European citizens, on the environment and on the application of EU law (\n- Before the vote\nMichael Cashman\nMr President, I wish to inform the House that, on a matter of principle, I wish to withdraw my name from the Socialist Group's alternative motion for a resolution on the Auken report. Furthermore, after five years of working on this issue, I wish to inform Members that I will be voting against both alternative motions for resolution and voting in favour of the Auken report.\n(Applause)\nMargrete Auken\nrapporteur. - (DA) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, citizens of the EU, this report is the result of extensive work in the Committee on Petitions, involving Members from all political groups. I would like to thank both the Chairman and the shadow rapporteurs for their sterling work. As draftsman of the committee's opinion, I have personally been wholeheartedly committed to this matter. It has, of course, had a huge effect on the lives of tens of thousands of EU citizens living in Spain and has affected both the Spanish countryside and the Spanish economy. The report has now been approved by the committee after being adopted by a two-thirds majority. It is a comprehensive text, which differentiates between the many different aspects of Spanish urbanisation.\nThere is the problem of the fundamental rights of European citizens, which include the right to lawfully acquired property. The European Parliament has already committed itself to respecting these rights, and all Member States are bound by them. There is the problem of the disastrous impact of the extensive urbanisation on the environment, particularly in coastal areas and on the Spanish islands, but also in other areas such as around Madrid. There is the problem of the resurrection of the Spanish 1988 Coastal Law, which is now suddenly able to deny many people the right to live in their own homes - and in certain cases has even resulted in the demolition of these homes. Then there is the problem of the consequences of thousands of allegedly unlawful houses built with the approval of the municipalities but subsequently declared unlawful, whereby the innocent purchaser becomes the victim of corrupt urbanisation practices. Finally, there is the problem of the lack of legal certainty and appropriate compensation for the victims of the property scandals.\nI have no doubt about where the responsibility for these extensive infringements lies and I regret that these violations by municipal and regional authorities have undermined attempts by many others to create sustainable development, where a healthy economy goes hand in hand with respect for the environment and for cultural heritage. The report deserves a proper debate in which all opinions can be heard. It is unacceptable that our new rules prevent this. These rules must be changed as soon as possible, particularly when it comes to reports that deal with complaints from European citizens. I ask you to reject the two alternative resolutions. Although they are based on my report, they are not impartial. They do not reflect the detailed and factual assessments that the committee has voted on.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":7}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nClemente Mastella\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Framework Agreement that we have just adopted considerably improves the role of the European Parliament - a role that has grown thanks to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nPresident Barroso, we have given you our confidence, and we expect you for your part to have respect for our greater prerogatives.\nIn particular, we consider it fundamental to collaborate more closely, with the aim of establishing a regular dialogue between the two institutions. We take as a cue the undertakings that you have given in this Chamber, your willingness to institutionalise a regular dialogue on key fundamental questions and on important legislative proposals, and the undertaking you have made to report on the practical follow-up to each legislative initiative request within three months of its adoption.\nMr President, our institutions will be called upon to implement the so-called 'democratic method' by establishing a special partnership with a view to defining, implementing and, above all, safeguarding the true interest of Europe. This is a greater responsibility for the Commission, but also for us, the direct representatives of the citizens of this Europe of ours.\nMr President, all these goals require a greater commitment by all: by the Commission, by Parliament, by national parliaments and by governments. This is the Europe that citizens demand of us and this is the Europe that we must be able to guarantee them over the next five years.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the Commission and I am also in favour of the Framework Agreement, which represents an historic step forward. Despite this, I have voted against the resolution, because we received it yesterday as a finished text and were not able to debate it seriously and because the devil is in the detail. For that reason, I would like to make it clear that I have concerns about the wording in many places, for example, with regard to the rights of individual MEPs to ask questions or the risk of collusion between the Commission and Parliament in respect of the agenda if the Commission attends the Conference of Presidents.\nI therefore ask that further corrections be made in the final negotiation of the text. It has rightly been said that Parliament has more power. We need a close partnership with the Commission, but we do not need collusion. We need more democracy, not less, because with this additional power comes the need for more democracy within Parliament.\nDaniel Hannan\n(FR) Mr President, no one in this Chamber can really believe that, of the 500 million Europeans, these 27 candidates are the best qualified to become European commissioners. The Commission exercises exorbitant powers. As well as being the European executive, it initiates legislation. Who, though, are we going to appoint to exercise these powers? A series of compromise candidates nominated by the national governments as thanks for services rendered or, quite simply, to keep rivals at bay.\nLet us take, for example, my own country's candidate, Baroness Ashton. We are told that the French Government opposes her because she does not speak French. Yet, Mr President, that is the least of her failings! Baroness Ashton has never put herself in a position where she has to face universal suffrage. How can the European Union teach Iran or Cuba about democracy when that woman, who manages its external service, is herself a non-elected official? Baroness Ashton and her federalist friends treat us as anti-Europeans. If, however, she and her friends from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had won the fight, our continent would have remained divided and hundreds of millions of Europeans would still be subjected to Marxist tyranny. No true European ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nViktor Uspaskich\n(LT) Certainly, I, too, would like to welcome and congratulate the new Commission, the new Members, but I would like to draw attention to some facts that were not debated in either the political groups or the parliamentary sessions, the plenary sessions; the appointment of the Members themselves. In my political group, I said that at least those candidates who enjoy the support of two thirds of their national parliament should be appointed to the European Commission. That is one point.\nThe other thing which was not debated and which I believe is very important is that the new Commission should pay particular attention to protecting the European Union's business people from imports from those countries that do not share the values we promote. Values such as the environment, social guarantees and, at the end of the day, democratic institutions. This is precisely where more money needs to be spent, because such imports increase the prices of our services and goods and make it difficult for our business people to compete ...\nDaniel Hannan\n(FR) Mr President, Baroness Ashton and her federalist friends treat us as anti-Europeans. If, however, she and her friends from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had won the fight, our continent would have remained divided and hundreds of millions of Europeans would still be subjected to Marxist tyranny. No true European and no true democrat can, in all conscience, support these candidates. By voting for them, solely on account of their support for European integration, this House is judging itself.\nIva Zanicchi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to have cast my vote in favour of this new College of Commissioners. I am pleased because I have seen men and women who are highly expert, and have clear and defined programmes. With your permission, I should first of all like to wish success in his job to Mr Tajani, because he is a man of great worth who will be able to make a great contribution to European industry.\nFinally, as Vice-Chair of the Committee on Development, I must emphasise the excellent impression made by Commissioner-designate Georgieva. She is truly a determined and capable woman who will be an excellent point of reference for the Committee on Development. I wish them all success in their jobs.\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, in view of the enormous challenges facing Europe, it is important and a very welcome fact that we have an effective Commission. In addition, cooperation between Parliament and the Commission, on an equal footing and based on trust, is vital if we want to succeed. The agreement adopted today will form an important basis for this.\nParliament now has full powers of codecision and therefore has equal standing with the Commission and the Council in all areas. In light of this, we will cooperate intensively with the Commission - on the basis of trust, but not without discernment. The SWIFT agreement in particular demonstrates that no more issues may be decided without Parliament. I very much expect us in this House to be able to debate the SWIFT agreement once more.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Barroso Commission because I am sure that it will be able to meet the challenges that the economic and financial crisis compels us to face with courage and determination.\nI hope, moreover, that some of the topics that are particularly close to my heart will be tackled with the necessary attention. I refer particularly to regional policy, which acquires a fundamental importance when we talk of the growth and development of our territories and which must absolutely not suffer cuts following the reform of the European Union budget.\nI also hope that support will be provided to tackle the housing crisis faced by our fellow citizens, which often reaches alarming levels, particularly in the great conurbations. I therefore hope that specific financial instruments for social housing and other housing policies will again be among the priorities of the new Commission, to which I offer my sincerest wishes for its work.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, several months ago, it was with complete conviction that I voted for Mr Barroso to be head of the European Commission. Quite honestly, there was no alternative. Mr Verhofstadt, the liberal alternative, and Mr Juncker, the federalist alternative, were not acceptable. Today, as someone who endorsed Mr Barroso, I must say, with sadness, that the Commission he has presented has very many shortcomings in its personnel. I cannot support, and neither can my colleagues support, a Commission which includes a Commissioner who, quite frankly, is still learning her profession. If she were a student of international relations, and expressed herself at an oral examination as she did at the hearings, she would probably be thrown out of the room. She would not pass any examination at all in Poland. I cannot endorse a Commission in which the Danish Commissioner wants to close coal mines, including mines in my country. This is another reason why I abstained from voting. It is my conviction that this Commission has very many question marks over it, and we are going to be watching the Commission carefully.\nJoe Higgins\nMr President, I voted against the appointment of the new EU Commission because it will simply continue with the same right-wing, neoliberal economic policy that has already resulted in disastrous crisis in the capitalist economies of many EU States. This - allegedly new - EU Commission will turn out to be the same stale old wine with the same old neoliberal Barroso label.\nThese policies of liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation - implemented, let us be clear, at the behest of European big business - are having disastrous consequences for the lives of working-class people, with mass unemployment and savage attacks on living standards. In its attitude to the crisis in Greece and in Ireland, the leadership of the EU Commission is agreed that it is the working class who will pay the price, while the bankers and speculators are baled out. European workers and the poor in Europe must mobilise their power against these disastrous policies and for a genuinely democratic and socialist Europe, and that means opposing the policies of this new EU Commission.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Due to the very limited time allotted I can, of course, only pick a few of the very many reasons why we did not throw our support behind this European Commission. One of these reasons, for example, is the fact that the present European Commission is continuing as normal on the path towards the accession of non-European, Islamist Turkey to the European Union, even though this is categorically opposed by a large majority of Europeans, who themselves have never had the opportunity to express their opinion on the matter.\nAnother reason is the fact that this European Commission continues to argue in favour of the renewed immigration of millions and, in the long term, even tens of millions of new non-European immigrants to a continent which, in any case, already has tens of millions of unemployed people. A further reason is the fact that it has already been revealed in the hearings that not a single one of the new European commissioners is prepared to do anything about the democratic deficit.\nThese are reasons enough not to vote for this new European Commission.\nFrancesco Enrico Speroni\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have not received definite or satisfactory answers from the new Commission concerning the fight against illegal immigration within the European Union. That alone would be sufficient to withhold approval from its work and from its programme.\nThere is also another fact. The Commission and, above all, its President, has shown itself to be very reluctant to accept Parliament's legislative initiatives. This is somewhat of a breach of democracy, at least that is how it comes across. We Members of Parliament are the only directly elected representatives of the people, and failure to comply with our right of initiative, or at least attempts to flout it - even if, under the new Treaty of Lisbon, this is now sanctioned by Article 255 of the treaties - does not allow for a vote of confidence in Mr Barroso or in his Commissioners.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, when you look at the gallery of candidates that were there before us today, I think most people across the House, regardless of their politics, would have said that some were good, some might have been very, very good, some were bad and some were just pretty poor. Unfortunately, some of them have also not answered all the questions about their past. But, as Members of the European Parliament, we are unable to vote on the individual Commissioners, so we had a choice whether to vote for all of them en bloc or to reject them. That is very sad and to be regretted and, for that reason, I abstained.\nWe heard Mr Barroso talk about a Europe that responds to a crisis. If we really want to respond to a crisis, let us make sure we are not piling on more and more inappropriate regulation. Let us make sure that we have proper impact assessments on any directive or regulations. Take as a case in point the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers, which will reduce the amount of money available to entrepreneurs in Europe, which will drive creators of wealth out of the European Union, and which will reduce investment in developing countries. If only we were able to reduce the amount of regulation going through this place!\nNirj Deva\nMr President, I was elected by the people of the south-east of England to reform the EU. Block voting for all the 27 commissioners with one vote is business as usual: not reform, not transparency, not accountability, not responsible confirmation. Mr Barroso has my personal confidence; so do some of the other commissioners with whom I have had dealings in the past. But that does not mean a vote of confidence in the whole College of Commissioners. Each commissioner is unique in political history. No other person in a so-called democracy has the power to initiate, legislate and execute the same legislation and not be elected individually by anybody. This is wholly unacceptable, Mr President, and therefore I regretfully had to abstain.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) I voted against the new Commission because there is not a single indication that the new Commission will start to work on reducing the gap between the average European and the European institutions, in particular, the European Commission.\nI listened to the then Commissioner-designate for Enlargement during his hearing in the Foreign Affairs Committee, in which he appeared to demonstrate, for example, a very high degree of readiness to sweep all complaints against the accession of non-European Turkey under the carpet, as has happened for five years now.\nThe new Commission also wants more economic immigration, even more patronising behaviour and even more meddling, all of which is certainly a particularly disgraceful state of affairs under the Treaty of Lisbon, which offers a far from reassuring perspective.\nGerard Batten\nMr President, I voted against the Commission because I do not want to be governed by a European Commission of any composition, but there are particular reasons for voting against this one. A number of its Members were members of the Communist Party, or were associated with it. For example, they include Mr Barroso, Mr \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d, Mr F\u00fcle, Mr Piebalgs and Mr Poto\u010dnik, to name just a few. Baroness Ashton was treasurer of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which was little better than a Communist-front organisation, and a proportion of its funding came from the Soviet bloc.\nShe is not fit to be responsible for foreign security and defence policy. The noble Baroness worked to undermine the defence policy of her own country when we faced the gravest threat - a nuclear threat - from our enemies. The Commission is the new de facto government of the European Union. Europe is sleep-walking towards disaster. We are now governed by communists, collaborators and quislings.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, I was pleased to vote in favour of the Commission today because I think, in the circumstances and under the rules of the House, it was the right thing to do. We need a Commission, and we have one now.\nHowever, the point has been made - and well made - by a number of colleagues that it would be a better system if each of the Commissioners were elected on their own merits rather than en bloc. After all, if you were putting out a football team to represent you, you would not select them en bloc. You would select each player on his merits so that you get the best possible result. I think we should work towards that situation and to reform the rules to ensure that the next time we are electing a Commission, each of them would be elected on merit. That would force the countries to put forward the best possible candidates and ensure that candidates would perform to the maximum. I think we would have a better team by doing that. But, in the meantime, I look forward to working as closely as possible with the Commission over the next five years.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Mr President, I am pleased that there has been a high level of consensus in Parliament today. Many have called for a strong Europe. Consensus makes us strong, and I am therefore pleased to see such a positive outcome of the vote on the new Commission. At the end of the day, only an effective Europe can also be a social Europe. The Commission has made a clear commitment in this regard, because ultimately we can only distribute what has already been produced. It is therefore important for us to concern ourselves with training and education and to focus on infrastructure and research in Europe.\nIt is relatively simple to make the rich poor, but it is a rather more intelligent, challenging and far-reaching task to make the poor rich. That should remain the goal of Europe.\nWritten explanations of vote\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nin writing. - Interinstitutional relations between the Parliament and the Commission are moving in a different direction with the Lisbon Treaty. We parliamentarians are sending a clear message to the Commission that the European Parliament never again will be a mere observer but an equal player in the shaping of European policy. Policy actions at the Community level lack coherence and leave Europe totally disabled when unexpected situations come up. And when they do come up, we are unable to respond to them in an effective and coordinated manner. The President of the Commission has committed himself to engage in an open, transparent and constructive relationship with the European Parliament in order to set clear and feasible policy aims together and to ensure high quality legislation. It is now time for Mr Barroso to remember his promises and to ensure that the requests of the European Parliament are clearly reflected in the Framework Agreement.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt \nI support this Framework Agreement, since cooperation between the European Parliament and the European Commission is particularly important in strengthening the stability of the European Union and the effectiveness of its work. According to this agreement, once a legislative initiative request has been submitted to the European Parliament, the European Commission must answer within a month, and prepare a suitable piece of European Union legislation within a year. If the European Union refuses to prepare the act requested, it will have to justify its decision in detail. Until now, only the European Commission was able to initiate European Union legislation, but in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is stipulated that a majority of the European Parliament has the right to create European Union legislation. Parliament and the Commission will cooperate closely at an early stage on any legislative initiative requests emanating from citizens' initiatives. When signing international treaties, European Parliament experts will also be included in the discussions. In the agreement, Parliament will be granted the right to participate as an observer in certain European Union international talks, as well as the right to obtain more information about international treaties.\nAndrew Henry William Brons  \nin writing. - Whilst we agree with those parts of the proposal that provide for the equal treatment of Parliament with the Council with regard to access to meetings and to information; for regular dialogue between the President of the Commission and the President of the Parliament; cooperation on citizens' initiatives; impact assessments on legislation; and the use of 'soft law' (rather than punitive law?); we disagree with: a reaffirmation and strengthening of compulsory time limits for the implementation of directives; and the use of congratulatory language about the European Union and its officers.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI welcome the motion for a resolution, which was approved today, on a new political Framework Agreement which will govern the institutional relations between the European Commission and the European Parliament and which will strengthen the powers of Parliament conferred by the Lisbon Treaty.\nThe guarantee that the Commission will apply the basic principle of equal treatment for Parliament and the Council is one of the aspects relevant to a new institutional balance that are addressed in this agreement.\nI also emphasise the importance of regular dialogue between the Commission and Parliament, through access to meetings of the Conference of Presidents and the Conference of Committee Chairs, and meetings of the College of Commissioners, respectively.\nFurthermore, the introduction of a new 'Question Hour' with the members of the Commission in plenary sessions will contribute towards better accountability of the executive.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on a revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission for the next parliamentary term as it is an important agreement, not only for its symbolic value - given that it gives a clear signal of the commitment of both European institutions, Parliament and the Commission, to work together in pursuit of the European project - but also because of its content, since it identifies the obligations of the parties so that they can better confront the challenges of the future and resolve the problems of the citizenry.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe European Parliament has often been confronted with faits accomplis by the Commission or the Council, having been relegated to the role of merely ratifying a decision already taken. This situation, about which this Chamber has complained, has created an imbalance in the relations between the three principal European institutions. It is essential that Parliament, which is more and more by rights a partner of the Council in the decision-making process, should today merit the same attention from the Commission as it affords to the Council.\nRather than merely smoothing out rough edges, I sincerely hope that the revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission will accelerate procedures, lead to closer cooperation and promote the exchange of information in a swift and efficient manner, allowing the voice of the elected representatives of the Member States to be heard and taken into account in good time. In view of the way in which it was prepared, I believe that this will be possible.\nFor these reasons, the initiative of the President of the European Commission in seeking to establish a special partnership between Parliament and the institution over which he presides is fully justified. I hope it will not only flourish but also bear fruit.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nIn view of the implications of the Lisbon Treaty regarding the operation of the European Union institutions and the reinforcement of shared responsibility in the decision-making process, it has become absolutely necessary to establish a set of procedures which ensure and guarantee the healthy and efficient exchange of information and points of view regarding the strategies for consolidating and developing European integration. The possibility of systematically having working meetings before each of the institutions produces legislative and regulatory material will surely promote joint working, the reconciliation of ideas, projects and perspectives and the improvement of draft decisions. In this way, we shall avoid administrative and bureaucratic procedures, particularly in respect of the return and correction of resolutions, thereby avoiding the risk of the multiplication of proposals and counterproposals.\nThis is an agreement which reinforces cooperation between the European institutions and which guarantees that the Commission will apply the basic principle of equality of treatment for Parliament and the Council. For these reasons, it is vital that there should be swift implementation of this Framework Agreement, and it is important to recognise the need for constant evaluation in order to improve the efficiency and efficacy of this institutional relationship.\nRobert Goebbels  \nI abstained on the Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission. Parliament, as colegislator, should refrain from trying to acquire ever greater powers at the Commission's expense. The whole treaty, and nothing but the treaty: that is how Parliament curtails the Commission's right of initiative. As President Buzek said: 'We have just taken one step further towards the right of Members to initiate legislation'. When the day comes for Members to make legislative proposals, each lobby will find a Member to serve its own interests. I want to keep the tried and tested Community method - with the Commission as guardian and judge of common European interests - from which the exclusive right of legislative initiative stems. Increasing the number of meetings between the Commission and Parliament's bodies is not the way to arrive at more effective European policy.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the new Framework Agreement between the Parliament and Commission. With the Lisbon Treaty now in force, this House has acquired increased powers and our working relationship with the Commission must adapt accordingly. I particularly welcome the section in the new Agreement requiring the Commission President to fully respond to the Parliament in the event of this House withdrawing its confidence in a Commissioner. Whilst I voted today in favour of the new Commission, I object to the all-or-nothing system whereby Parliament must approve or reject the Commission as a whole. Any procedure which enhances our capability to hold individual Commissioners to account is to be welcomed.\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger  \nThe approval of the European Parliament for the new Commission does not constitute a carte blanche, but a vote of confidence. However, now we can finally begin our work together with a fully competent Commission. The role of the European Parliament was consolidated and strengthened with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, with the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission that was adopted today, the establishment of the European Parliament as an equal partner with the Commission has been duly confirmed, and this is something that I expressly welcome. With this, we have created a good foundation for future cooperation and we will also insist emphatically on this dialogue as an equal partner. It will probably also be very much in the interests of the Commission to involve the European Parliament in legislative initiatives at an early stage in order to ensure an efficient process that is in the interests and for the benefit of the people in Europe and of an active democracy.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nThe Members of the European Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and, as such, represent the European public. It is therefore incredible that the Conference of Presidents should be content to beg for access to the same information as the Commission and the Council receive, or to attend some of their meetings, when they are actually invited to Parliament's meetings! How can it be that Parliament is not asserting its representative role so as to demand that its initiatives be endorsed as a matter of course by the Commission? Why is Parliament accepting the fact that the Commission can refuse it permission to withdraw its vote of confidence in a commissioner if it so requests? How is it acceptable that Parliament cannot give a binding opinion when the Commission changes its way of working?\nHow is it possible that Parliament is not making stronger demands for the chairs of delegations only to be granted observer status when they represent it in international conferences? For the Treaty of Lisbon to give the European Parliament the role of a rump Parliament is one thing, but for its Members to state their agreement with this nonsense is something entirely different. I shall vote against this decision out of respect for the dignity of the mandate that I received from the people of France.\nNuno Melo  \nWith the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, it has become necessary to negotiate a new Framework Agreement to govern the relations between the European Parliament and the Commission. The motion for a resolution, approved today by an overwhelming majority, reflects the new and extremely important role which the European Parliament is to assume. The spirit of the Lisbon Treaty is clearly present within this document, with the expansion of Parliament's responsibilities, the equal treatment for Parliament and the Council and Parliament's new prerogatives with respect to various matters. From this point of view, the approved motion expresses a deepening, in the right direction, of the constitutional process of the EU.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nThe motion for a resolution on a revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission for the next parliamentary term contains some reasonable starting points. This includes the call for a guarantee by the Commission that it will, in future, apply the principle of equal treatment for Parliament and the Council, and also the setting of specific deadlines that the Commission must meet in connection with the submission of legislative initiatives.\nHowever, the call for the President of the Commission to ask individual Members of the Commission to resign at the request of Parliament is unacceptable and senseless. This would only make sense if, in the election of the Commission, it was possible to vote for the individual candidates, which it currently is not. For this reason, I have voted against the motion for a resolution.\nBirgit Schnieber-Jastram  \nI find the lack of a reference in the Framework Agreement to the European Parliament's control mechanisms and the lack of clarity in respect of the principles of power separation in parts of the agreement regrettable. I have therefore decided to abstain from the vote.\nNuno Teixeira  \nThe Lisbon Treaty embodies a new institutional balance, which attributes to the European Parliament a significantly improved status with respect to the other institutions. The Framework Agreement aims to govern the daily relations between Parliament and the Commission in a partnership which is now reinforced and adapted to the new aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, taking as its point of departure the promises made by the recently elected President of the Commission, Jos\u00e9 Manuel Dur\u00e3o Barroso, as well as his proposal for a 'Special Partnership between the European Parliament and the Commission'. The request for an undertaking by the Commission to respond in a short time period to all requests for legislative initiatives is to be welcomed as it reflects the increasing importance of the European Parliament as a colegislator, most specifically in areas such as Regional Policy. I also consider it to be extremely positive that the agreement includes a guarantee that the Commission will apply the basic principle of equality of treatment for Parliament and the Council, as well as a greater degree of interinstitutional cooperation in the preparation and execution of the Legislative Programme and Annual Work Programme. For these reasons, and above all because it reinforces the role of the European Parliament and reinvigorates the European Union, I voted in favour of the motion.\nR\u00f3\u017ca, Gr\u00e4fin von Thun Und Hohenstein  \nThe new Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission contains several important elements. Firstly, the principle of equal treatment for Parliament and the Council, which strengthens the democratic warrant of the European Union. Secondly, it gives Parliament additional powers to monitor legislative initiatives from the Commission, thanks to which Parliament will have a greater influence on laws which are made.\nA clause has been included in the agreement about the compulsory publication of correlation tables, which I called for in my report on internal market scoreboards, and binding time limits for implementation of directives, which should not exceed two years. Thanks to this, there is a chance that the plan to establish a common market will be completed faster. The agreement also strengthens the Community approach and improves the working of both institutions. It also obliges them to function in a way which will ensure that the European Union will be a true community.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nI voted for the European Parliament resolution on a revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission for the next parliamentary term as I consider that this agreement is essential to cooperation between the European Parliament and the future European Commission. European institutions must ensure that the 'Community method' is used efficiently, for the benefit of Europe's citizens. In accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which establishes a new institutional balance, the European Parliament can ask the Commission to submit legislative proposals, and the latter must submit the relevant legislative proposal within one year of the request being made by Parliament. The extension of Parliament's powers, interinstitutional cooperation and the promotion of simpler EU legislation ensure that the EU legislative process operates better and that citizens are involved more actively and directly in drafting European legislation. The Commission must regulate the procedures and conditions stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon whereby EU citizens can invite the Commission to present a legislative proposal on issues which they regard as necessary.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nThe February 2010 plenary session is today witnessing the very start of the institutional cooperation that will continue for the next five years. Although Parliament began its internal work after the European elections and quickly decided on the distribution of the positions of responsibility and on its internal rules, it has taken us time to implement the arrangements for interinstitutional cooperation between the Council and the Commission in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon. The parallel process of appointing the future commissioners has certainly facilitated the introduction of a right of legislative initiative, which the European Parliament will enjoy from now on. Henceforth, the Commission has to report on the practical follow-up to any legislative initiative requests following the adoption of a legislative initiative report pursuant to Article 225 of the TFEU. If the European Parliament requests it by a simple majority, the Commission must present a legislative proposal within one year or include that proposal in the following year's work programme. I call on every person of goodwill to observe closely the work done by Parliament, because it is clear that the MEPs will use this provision in particular in the field of universal social ethics.\nAndrew Henry William Brons  \nin writing. - Some might be surprised that we should support a motion by the GUE\/NGL Group. Whilst we find ourselves agreeing with some of the group's criticism of the European Union, our view of what should replace the EU would be quite different. Furthermore, our ideologies are completely different. We are Nationalists, valuing the sovereignty of the nation state. They are internationalists. We believe in a system that is based on private enterprise, with some regulation, and with some ownership of public utilities, whilst they would, presumably, believe in much more state ownership. We agree with: the rejection of neoliberal economic policies; the need for greater social justice (though we might differ on definitions); and criticism of the evasion, incoherence and inadequate answers of some Commissioners. However, we are pleased to vote with anybody, if we agree with what they propose.\nCarlo Casini  \nWith my emphatic vote in favour, I want to add greater force to the words spoken by President Barroso; words that gave notice of the construction over the next five years of a more united and stronger Europe.\nHe began his speech by recalling the fundamental values of European unity, the most important of which is human dignity. I agree wholeheartedly, but the problem is that the word 'dignity' has become ambiguous, because it is used not only to guarantee life and human equality, but also to discriminate against and do harm to the most vulnerable members of society and even to justify death. I hope, therefore, that in the next five years, the Commission will work in such a way that the word 'dignity' will be restored to its unambiguous and true meaning.\nIt is of symbolic importance that on 15 December last year, during the height of efforts to form the new Commission, 500 000 European citizens from 17 countries requested, in a collective petition, that our institutions interpret and implement the Charter of Fundamental Rights in every decision, on the basis of the equal dignity of every human being.\nDiogo Feio  \nI voted in favour of the Commission-designate as I am conscious of the pivotal role that it plays in the structure of Europe as a whole and of the increasing importance that it has acquired as a producer of legislative initiatives. As a Portuguese, I cannot fail to express my delight at the fact that the demanding post of President of the Commission has once more been entrusted to my countryman, Jos\u00e9 Manuel Dur\u00e3o Barroso, a man who previously performed that role with undeniable distinction.\nConscious of the difficulties which recent times have brought, but inspired by the hope for better days for the European Union and the European project, I wish him, and his team, all possible success.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nIn view of the principles of subsidiarity, representation and equal rights of the different Member States, I emphasise the importance of sharing responsibilities and competences among the members of the European Commission. In the context of the progressive deepening of cooperation between Member States and the increased importance of the European Union's capacity for global intervention, it would be incomprehensible to split up the various strategic and political decisions and choices within the European institutions.\nAll the new Commissioners were questioned and given an audience in the European Parliament, where they could express their expectations and projects in their respective areas of competency, always stressing the importance of sharing responsibilities by means of interaction between the different portfolios and competences which make up the European Commission. Rather than demonstrating any incapacity or hinting at presidentialism, this approach reinforces the spirit of codecision, promoted by a cooperative leadership which itself promotes an effective and useful dialogue for the consolidation of the European Union. Given the above, I voted against the motion.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe resolution tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left concerns important aspects of our appraisal of the College of Commissioners presented to this Parliament, and also summarises some of the fundamental reasons for our vote against this Commission: the presentation of a programme by the President of the Commission - to which the Commissioners will naturally feel linked and which they defended without any reservations in the hearings which took place in Parliament - which represents the continuation of the failed neoliberal policy of the previous Commission; and the fact that this team has been chosen to carry out this programme, following a strategy which will not result in the necessary changes in political orientation, in the sense of providing greater social justice, job creation and eradication of poverty, but instead contains dangerous elements that will exacerbate these serious problems. In sum, the Europe for which we fight - one of justice and social progress, economic and social cohesion, cooperation between sovereign states with equal rights, and one that promotes peace - stands little chance of being reached with the guidelines that this Commission proposes to follow.\nNuno Melo  \nAfter several weeks of hearings with the new Commissioners, this would not be an appropriate time to call into question the quality of a College of Commissioners which has, over many hours in various committees, already provided very useful clarifications about the policies to be adopted. Therefore, now is the time to provide the EU with a legitimate Commission which is capable of responding to the difficult events of recent times.\nNuno Teixeira  \nParliament and the Commission will confront key issues for the European Union, namely the reversal of the crisis by means of the recovery of the economy and employment, the balancing of the public finances of the Member States and the negotiation of the financial framework for the post-2013 period, regarding which I would emphasise the importance of the cohesion policy.\nI had the opportunity to question the Commissioner-designate for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn, with regard to his interest in the creation of a specific programme of permanent financial support for the outermost regions.\nI also presented him with a proposal for a more flexible system of eligibility for receipt of structural funds for 'transition' regions, i.e. those which find themselves caught between the objectives of 'convergence' and of 'competitiveness and employment'.\nAs well as displaying competence and rigour, the Commissioner-designate showed he was prepared to examine these possibilities, which gives me confidence in his future willingness and sensitivity towards outermost regions such as Madeira.\nI gave my vote of confidence to this team of Commissioners, which will be led by Jos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso, as in general, they have shown good technical preparation, seriousness and ambition to be able to respond to the challenges of the EU without forgetting the values which underpin its creation, namely solidarity and territorial cohesion.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nToday, we approved the composition of the new European Commission, although we must recognise that doubts over candidate Commissioners were not dispelled entirely. Both the framework of the Commission's activities and the programmes of the individual Commissioners above all lack the social aspect. The impression is given that the main criteria the formulation of objectives and tasks is based on is the strengthening of Europe's role in the world, while our citizens' rights and hopes and social protection have been pushed into the background. The S&D Group has decided to support the Commission, because at a time when Europe is plagued by an endless economic and financial crisis and ever increasing unemployment and its citizens are disillusioned with Europe, the European Parliament and Europe in general must not become the place where there is division into camps of position and opposition. Now, the most important thing is to concentrate on these most important matters on the political agenda, to end the state of uncertainty and instability in Europe as soon as possible and to solve the most acute problems, like the financial crisis and unemployment, more quickly and effectively.\nBastiaan Belder  \nThe Barroso II Commission is a mixed bunch. In recent weeks, we have come across some strong, but also some very weak, candidates. That does not make it any easier to assess this Commission as a whole. This double-edged feeling is reinforced by the fact that many Commissioners-designate blatantly played up to the European Parliament during the hearings. Yet what they really stand for is even now still unclear sometimes.\nThe Dutch Reformed Political Party in the European Parliament has decided to refrain from voting. This is to give voice to the double-edged feeling that we have been left with by this Commission. However, there are other things going on. One Commissioner, who is also the first Vice-President, gives us fundamental concerns. Baroness Ashton has the dubious honour of being the first EU official to combine a career in the Commission with a position in the Council of Ministers. We cannot support this unjustified institutionally risky venture. What's more, Baroness Ashton has not, at any time, given us the impression of being able to cope with the pressures of this post. She is one of the weakest links in this Commission and has never given the impression of being truly at home with foreign affairs. We thus look ahead to the period 2010-2014 with some trepidation.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nWe have a new Commission which has assumed its mandate at a difficult time, but which is made up of a group of professionals on whose shoulders lie the responsibilities of all 27 Member States. We have the Treaty of Lisbon which changes the configuration of power and requires adaptability from the Commission. Consequently, we have a European Union in a new, delicate situation, but which requires performance, stability and drive when it comes to proposing and implementing coherent policies.\nWe are facing a new financial outlook, which means a sensible response is required from the Commission through reform and new adjustments in every sector, starting with the economy.\nAll Member States are feeling the full magnitude of the financial crisis. The alarm bell sounded by Greece provides strong resonance, from states with well-tuned economies to those which are struggling at every stage to cut their budget deficit. A stable, well-coordinated economic policy across all 27 countries offers the chance of avoiding a major imbalance at EU level and of having a beneficial effect in the second stage. The EU's actions are intended to provide solutions to the crisis-related problems and be creative in order to restore stability in Member States. In other words, they are meant to eliminate the deficit, prevent disparities, while also consolidating the economy.\nSophie Briard Auconie  \nLike my fellow Members from the three main political groups in the European Parliament, I have just approved the appointment of the College of European Commissioners presented by Mr Barroso. It is, in fact, a fine team bringing together individuals with varied and complementary backgrounds. Until 2014, Christian-Democrats, liberals and socialists will leave their political and geographical differences aside and work together within a College to serve the European general interest. For three weeks, the MEPs did a remarkable job of monitoring the quality of the candidates through the parliamentary hearing procedure. At the end of this period, it was our duty to give our full support to this new team. We now expect this 'Barroso II' Commission to surprise us with its unfailing determination to advance the European Union. Its main task will be to demonstrate each day the added value of the European project to all our fellow European citizens.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nIn the critical period through which Europe is passing, in financial, economic and social terms, it is crucial to have a strong Commission with an ambitious, bold programme in key areas such as energy security and climate change, scientific research and innovation.\nThe new structure of the Commission, with one portfolio exclusively for Climate Change and another that combines Innovation and Research, gives clear evidence of an ambitious project and a credible strategy for Europe through to 2020.\nThis new Commission, under the leadership of President Barroso and with a new structure for those areas, meets the necessary criteria to be the engine of economic recovery, based on efficient use of resources and on innovation, having greater social justice as its objective.\nI welcome the new College of Commissioners and President Barroso and congratulate them on the result of this election. It represents broader parliamentary support compared to the preceding Commission, and gives a clear signal of encouragement for the new institutional cooperation between Parliament and the Commission, so that they can speak more and more with a single voice in an EU which is a leader at world level.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nI voted against this Commission, as did all the French Members of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. The majority of the commissioners represent the liberal stance of the European Union that we reject. There are others, nominated by their Member State, who do not have any ambitions for Europe, or any personal vision. One thing is for sure: the future commissioners did not commit themselves on any one of the points that we consider essential. What strategy will get us out of the crisis? How should we respond to the social and climate emergency? How should we revive the European project? Having failed to receive sufficient answers to these questions, we have voted against, because we cannot give a blank cheque to the European Commission. I do not believe that, if it fails to meet these objectives, this Commission can offer a new future to European citizens or secure a place for Europe in the world. On that basis, it cannot have our support. Of course, I am now going to have to work for five years on the proposals of this Commission. My vote today is an expression of my mistrust and of the political vigilance that I will demonstrate throughout this term of office.\nNessa Childers  \nin writing. - Along with my political group, the Socialists and Democrats, I was very pleased with the final make-up of the incoming Commission. In particular, the Environment and Energy Commissioners will be pivotal to the development of Europe in the coming years, and I am satisfied that President Barroso has chosen the correct representatives.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nI voted against the proposed Commissioners (College), because they will apply the same, neoliberal policies which drove the European Union into this multi-faceted crisis and huge inequalities. They will promote the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU 2020 strategy, which will strengthen the sovereignty of the markets, increase unemployment and insecure jobs, unravel the social security system and restrict democratic and social rights. Obscure procedures and the democratic deficit in the European Union are causing mistrust among the citizens and exacerbating the crisis of confidence in the European institutions, as recently expressed in the extremely poor turnout at the European elections. Continuing with this policy will scupper the expectations of European citizens. The European Left will oppose this policy through the European Parliament and by fighting side by side with the workers and social movements to realise the hopes of the young generation for a democratic, social, feminist, ecological and peace-loving Europe.\nCarlos Coelho  \nI compliment Dr Barroso not only on the excellent work that he did during his first period of office, but also on his deserved re-appointment for a new term at the head of the European Commission. I hope that Parliament and the Commission will be able to work in close cooperation and with full respect for the competences and prerogatives which each possesses, with the aim of establishing a Special Partnership between both institutions, such as that proposed by President Barroso in his political guidelines. I am confident that the President-elect of the Commission will honour the promises he has made to this Parliament, which should result in a revised Framework Agreement. Only in this way shall we be able to complete the integration of a Europe which has as its primary objective the defence of our citizens' rights.\nThe hearings of the Commissioners-designate are always important moments which reveal the depth of European democracy. Parliament exercised its competences and the process had dignity, incisiveness and transparency. I believe that the second Barroso Commission will be even stronger and better prepared in policy terms than the previous one. I hope that it will be cohesive and that all its members will be equal to their great responsibilities, at a time when everyone is longing for economic recovery and job creation.\nM\u00e1rio David  \nThe new Barroso Commission has been approved by the European Parliament by a large majority. Of course, I also voted in favour of it. And I did so not only in a conscious manner, but also in a committed and confident one. I did so because the new College of Commissioners, on the basis of their experience, has a much greater political capacity and offers guarantees that it will firmly and with determination confront the great challenges facing the European Union: the serious financial crisis which we are experiencing and its terrible social and economic effects, particularly unemployment; security and the fight against terrorism; the strengthening of Europe's role in the world, which means a Europe with an active common foreign and security policy; the fight against climate change; and the competitiveness of our economies in defence of our social model. The realistic and ambitious programme which Jos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso has presented and which our Parliament has endorsed can now, finally, be implemented, to the benefit of 500 million European citizens. I wish the very best of luck to the President of the European Commission and his team.\nMarielle De Sarnez  \nIn September, the Members from the MoDem party did not vote in favour of Mr Barroso's appointment as President of the Commission, his track record not being such as to recommend his re-election. Nor did they vote today for the College of Commissioners, as the lack of ambition shown by a number of its members during their hearings offered little hope of the strong Commission that the EU needs. Moreover, recent developments have sadly highlighted the inability of that team to get to grips with events. Doubts were first instilled in December, during the Copenhagen Summit, where Europe proved itself incapable of speaking with one voice. They were confirmed in January, when Baroness Ashton failed to visit Haiti to show European solidarity or to attend the Montreal donor conference, where her presence was required in order to coordinate EU aid and the aid of the Member States. Finally, there can be no more doubts now, in February, when Greece is being attacked by speculators without the Commission being able to present a credible rescue plan. For these reasons, the elected representatives of the MoDem party have not put their trust in the Barroso II Commission.\nMartin Ehrenhauser  \nAs a committed pro-European, I cannot give my approval to the new European Commission. It is based on non-transparent decisions in the national parties and government offices. The proposed EU commissioners are not independent political heavyweights, as rightly desired by younger citizens in particular. No criteria relating to specialised knowledge were applied in the selection process. The fact that there were four weeks between the nomination of the Austrian Commissioner, Johannes Hahn, and the allocation of his portfolio is in itself evidence of this. Despite the EU's reform treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, which is now in force, the European Parliament still cannot elect individual commissioners or express a lack of confidence in them. Political personalities like the French and Spanish European Commissioners will founder here. This European Commission does not stand for more democracy and an awakening; it is a continuation along the path that led us into the current crisis.\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nLast autumn, we voted against Mr Barroso, since he does not share our view of the importance of good working conditions, equality and the transition to a sustainable society. The vote today concerns the College of 26 Commissioners.\nBefore Mr Barroso was re-elected as President of the Commission, we made clear demands for a revision of the Posting of Workers Directive. Mr Barroso was forced to concede and acknowledged for the first time that there were problems with the rulings by the European Court of Justice in the Laval case, among others. He also promised to come back with a regulation for resolving the problems as soon as possible. This was a very significant change of position by the President of the Commission, but it was not sufficient for us to support his candidature.\nToday, we will take a position on the overall group of commissioners and we hope that certain commissioners - who have been given key positions in order to deal with the jobs crisis, the regulation of the financial markets and the defence of fundamental trade union rights - will be able to make a difference. It is particularly positive that Mr Barnier and Mr Andor have clearly stated that there are problems with the European Court of Justice's interpretation of the Posting of Workers Directive. They were also clear that they are willing to start work on implementing the necessary changes to European legislation.\nDiogo Feio  \nI welcome the fact that the Lisbon Treaty retains the possibility of each state keeping its own commissioner, an approach which is relevant if we want all shades of opinion in Europe to identify with the processes and projects which are produced by the Commission.\nI regret some of the difficulties that occurred during the parliamentary hearings, which led to the withdrawal of one of the candidates, and I sincerely hope that such events become rarer.\nIn my judgment, the adopted method of subjecting the candidates for commissioner to parliamentary scrutiny is beneficial for the integration of Europe, as it allows for greater transparency in the debate and in the evaluation of the individuals' suitability for their intended posts, and I appeal for the hearings to take place in a demanding but cordial atmosphere, as the European Parliament and its Members should refrain from trying to turn the hearings into a spectacle of gratuitous insults and confrontation.\nI hope the Commission will choose better legislation, will always bear in mind the need to properly respect the principle of subsidiarity and will, as a matter of priority, adopt a central policy role in tackling the economic crisis.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nIn a crucial phase for the recovery of the economy, the experience and versatility of this Commission led by Jos\u00e9 Manuel Dur\u00e3o Barroso, as well as the manifest commitment, competence and recognition of the great European causes by the Commissioners who were heard in this Parliament, will be decisive in sustaining a united and socially equitable Europe, capable of assuming a leading role in the fight against climate change and reinforcing the competitiveness of our firms by backing scientific research and innovation.\nI stress the renewed expectations of a team that accepts the great diversity of cultures and identities in Europe as enhancing the best values of each Member State. Regarding the new institutional relations created by the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon and in view of the challenges placed in the path of the development of contemporary societies, I believe that, with this Commission, the European Union has strengthened its capacity for intervention in the current economic, social and political framework, not only internally. but also at a global level.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nOur vote against the European Commission is a natural result of our disagreement with respect to its programme, the majority of the positions upheld in the hearings that have taken place, and the objectives and content of the Treaty of Lisbon itself which the Commission promises to defend, but with which we disagree.\nWhilst it is true that the European Commission is one of the most important institutional organs of the European Union, it is also true that the College of Commissioners is composed of commissioners nominated by the Member States of the European Union. Since the majority of their governments are right-wing conservative or social-democrat with similar policies, it is not surprising that the European Commission is leaning in the same direction to deepen neoliberal, militaristic and federalist policies. In practical terms, therefore, we did not hear any responses to the serious economic and social problems which workers and citizens are facing.\nWe fight for another Europe, of justice and social progress, where economic and social cohesion are a reality and cooperation among states which are sovereign and have equal rights, as well as peace, are central objectives.\nRobert Goebbels  \nI voted in favour of the new 'Barroso II' Commission. Since the European elections of June 2009, the European Union has been in a political vacuum, a vacuum made worse by the delayed entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. There is therefore an urgent need for the new Commission, as the only European institution with the power to initiate legislation, to become active. With the exception of Mrs Jeleva, who had to withdraw her candidature, the 26 commissioners who have been appointed have all individually received the support of the MEPs. It would have made no sense to reject the College. Consequently, the vote to appoint the Commission was a mere formality, an 'administrative yes'. By voting in favour of the Barroso II Commission, I do not intend to give it my unconditional political support. I shall judge the Commission on its political initiatives.\nSylvie Goulard  \nIn spite of the presence, within the College, of several high-calibre individuals, I voted against the appointment of the Commission for two reasons. When it comes to economic and monetary issues (the Lisbon Strategy, supervision of the euro area), the failings of the previous Commission are well known. As regards the external representation of the EU, Baroness Ashton does not have the required skills and has not seemed intent on committing herself, as we have seen with the Haiti tragedy. She was part of the Blair government which invaded Iraq in violation of international law and which negotiated an opt-out on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.\nMathieu Grosch  \nI have voted in favour of this Commission, because overall it has shown - particularly with the (new) appointments - that it can carry out the work successfully. The outcome of the negotiations between the Commission and Parliament is also satisfactory. I think it is particularly important that the Commission does not receive a carte blanche for the next five years, but is to be subject to a form of ongoing assessment.\nThere remains a particular challenge to bring coherence to the policies in the different areas, for example, the environment and social and economic affairs, and to formulate our communication with the outside world in such a way as to make European policy more transparent and comprehensible for all citizens.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted against Mr Barroso's Commission because it fails to meet my requirements in terms of promoting the social reforms that we must have if we are to emerge from the crisis in which we find ourselves. It is clear that this Commission will by no means represent a proactive force for a strong political Europe and that it is poles apart from the Europe that I am so anxious to see. With ill-defined portfolios and weakened powers, this Commission will lack the means to act and will certainly be more inclined to preserve national interests than the European interest.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the new College of Commissioners. From the viewpoint of Scotland, the nation which I represent, there are significant issues and challenges for the new Commissioners to address. With reform of the CFP and the CAP on the horizon, Scotland's key interests in these policies must be recognised and I call upon the Commissioners concerned to ensure that Scotland's coastal and rural communities are allowed to flourish socially and economically. Scotland being a major potential source of energy production, especially in renewable sources, the Commission should prioritise projects and initiatives which will assist in developing Scotland's massive potential as a supplier of clean green energy.\nAs a member of a pro-EU Party, I hope that this Commission can recover some of the faith in the EU which has been lost by many Scots, for example, as a direct result of Scotland's experiences of the failed Common Fisheries Policy.\nC\u0103t\u0103lin Sorin Ivan  \nThe Barroso Commission Mark II will be the first to operate under the Treaty of Lisbon, with the European Parliament enjoying extended powers, making it a more visible and active partner than ever. Based on the outcome of the vote, we have appointed a College of Commissioners whose overall performance did not really go without a hitch, as in the case of the commissioner nominated by Bulgaria and her subsequent replacement, which highlight this point. The fact that we have successfully achieved this task of changing the College's composition is actually a success for the European Parliament in general and for our political group in particular. However, I believe that a vote for this College is the most appropriate option at a time when any delay in making this decision could have put the EU in an uncomfortable situation where accusations of inefficiency would have been justified. What is important is for the new Commission to get down to work as quickly as possible and catch the European Parliament up, which has already been elected for seven months, at least in terms of the work which has been done. We can only hope for good cooperation where the objectives and action plans take on a more concrete form than that presented during the hearings.\nDanuta Jaz\u0142owiecka\n(PL) I abstained from voting on the composition of the European Commission, because alongside the good candidates, there were many weak and very weak ones. It is unacceptable to me to consent to people being put forward for the positions of head of European diplomacy, Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs who are not qualified to hold these positions. We should remember that we are still in a crisis, and we are still looking for a way out of the crisis. Europe cannot, therefore, afford to have Commissioners who are only now going to learn their portfolios. I am astonished by the attitude of the President of the European Commission, who, after serving a five-year term of office and having such large experience in leading the Commission, has proposed such weak candidates. Quite honestly, I should have voted against the proposed make-up of the Commission, but alongside the weak candidates there were also several very good ones - including the Polish candidate, Janusz Lewandowski. In spite of my abstention, I wish the entire Commission nothing but success, because this is so important for all Europeans.\nTunne Kelam  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the College of Commissioners, expressing my trust in the President of the Commission most of all. I do not consider the composition of the Commission to be ideal. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs continuously poses a problem for me, as she does not have the necessary experience in foreign affairs and she lacks a clear vision on how to lead the EU's foreign and security policy. Nevertheless, I find it crucial that the Commission start working in its full mandate and I consider the wide support of the European Parliament in this very important as, in my opinion, the Commission and the European Parliament are the closest allies in shaping the EU's common policies.\nAlan Kelly  \nin writing. - We all wish this new Commission well. Their priorities are many but there is no doubt of the one area that we all agree on is for the need to create jobs. This should be the major pillar on which this new Commission is judged. Let's be frank about it; many of the Member States have or are facing economic collapse. Reversing this situation and developing a smart, social market economy where the EU is a global leader across all fields of economic life will be the measure of this Commission. It is my hope particularly that the Irish Commissioner, Ms Geogheghan Quinn, takes a leading role in the new commission with her innovation and research portfolio. She will play a critical role in Europe's recovery and I wish her well with this.\nMorten L\u00f8kkegaard  \nMr President, many fine words have been spoken regarding Mr Barroso's new team of commissioners - and rightly so.\nI speak now because it is necessary to draw attention to a major mistake that has been made in connection with the new Commission: one may look in vain for the position of Commissioner for Communication. It has quite simply been DISCONTINUED - and that at a time when - more than ever - we need a proper, coordinated, well thought-out communication policy within the EU.\nA couple of weeks ago, I sent Mr Barroso a letter on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe expressing our concern and asking WHY we no longer have a Commissioner for Communication.\nNo reply has ever been received - which is perhaps a kind of answer in itself, if not a satisfactory one.\nIt thus seems that no one is sure why the EU does not have a commissioner for what is an incredibly important - in fact, quite crucial - area if the many great speeches about getting closer to the EU's citizens and creating a common European public space are to be anything more than just fine words.\nI am still waiting for an answer from Mr Barroso - preferably an answer with a proper plan for communication in the forthcoming five years.\nIsabella L\u00f6vin  \nin writing. - I share the critics on the procedure of the nomination of the Commission, as explained in the resolution of the Green Group, particularly the lack of transparency, Member States choosing their candidates rather according to domestic political considerations than for their suitability, and the lack of possibility to disapprove to a separate candidate. However, I could not vote against the whole Commission since the Commissioners-designate for absolutely crucial and key issues such as climate, environment, development, humanitarian aid, agriculture and fisheries were all regarded as very competent and committed. Therefore, I abstained on the vote on the new Commission.\nThomas Mann  \nI have just approved the election of the European Commission, although this was not an easy decision. The reason for this is that, during the hearing, it emerged that some of the candidates proposed by the Member States did not have adequate specialised knowledge, nor were they in a position to develop concrete ideas about their portfolios or, indeed, any vision for the future at all. The Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on their future cooperation also leaves many questions unanswered. It is currently merely a European Parliament wish list, with no obligation. In specific negotiations, it will now need to be specified in detail the extent to which our rights as representatives of the people were able to be significantly strengthened through the Treaty of Lisbon. However, the interinstitutional agreement does contain some important steps in the right direction. The impact of all measures taken by the Commission is to be assessed regularly by an independent party. Parliament will be informed at an early stage of staffing changes in the Commission. The Chair of Parliament's delegation will be granted observer status at international conferences. The European Parliament will be entitled to be involved in preparing and implementing the Annual Work Programme of the EU. Finally, the European Commission will undertake to submit a report on its legislative initiatives within three months. I have therefore voted 'yes' today to the new Barroso Commission.\nBogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz  \nA vote in favour of the European Commission is, on my part, an expression of the credit of trust and hope that I place in Mr Barroso's newly-elected cabinet. I think that, despite much controversy and the probability that some of the Commissioners lack experience, we should enable the European Commission to get to grips with issues which arise. It is only by active involvement and getting down to some real work that the Commissioners will be able to demonstrate their real value. I hope the new cabinet, with the close cooperation of the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, and with effective control, will show that my vote was right.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome the appointment of the new Commission, and look forward to seeing the Commission delivering on the promises made. I am particularly pleased at the confirmation of Cathy Ashton as High Representative, and am sure that her quiet diplomacy will be of benefit to Europe as a whole.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nThe Barroso II Commission, as the election of its President showed, is a continuation of the previous Commissions, the neoliberal policies of which led the EU into a situation of long-term economic, social and environmental crisis that is henceforth its own. Neither the programme presented by Mr Barroso nor the nominations of the commissioners point to any change in the Commission's policy objectives.\nLying somewhere between the continuation of the worst possible situation and its decline, the Barroso II Commission embodies a Europe that has been reduced to social destruction and to the Atlanticism beloved of the neoliberal elites, a Europe that refuses to break with the neoliberal dogma of focusing exclusively on profits, which is destroying the people and the planet. My job as an MEP is to build the Europe of equal wealth distribution and of environmental planning that the peoples need. I shall therefore vote against a Commission that is the antithesis of this.\nNuno Melo  \nAfter several weeks of hearings with the new Commissioners, this would not be an appropriate time to call into question the quality of a College of Commissioners which has, over many hours in various committees, already provided very useful clarifications about the policies to be adopted.\nTherefore, now is the time to provide the EU with a legitimate Commission which is capable of responding to the difficult events of recent times. This replicates here the tenor of the explanation of vote submitted with respect to the motions for resolutions, and. The undersigned particularly welcomes the fact that the European Union is now better equipped to confront the problems of the present and challenges of the future.\nElisabeth Morin-Chartier  \nAs a staunch European, and following the adoption of the Framework Agreement between the European Commission and the European Parliament for the next five years, I gave my support to the appointment of the new European Commission, as did the majority of my colleagues from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). The outcome of the vote is clear: 488 of my fellow Members joined me in endorsing the appointment of the College of the European Commission. I would point out that this is the first time in European history that we have appointed the European Commission in our capacity as a true colegislator. In a Europe shaken by the crisis, and with the new institutional set-up, we need ambition and a major unifying project in order to establish a stronger Europe for European citizens. Therefore, I call strongly for the European Commission to begin taking action without delay.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nI voted in favour of the Barroso Commission Mark II for two reasons. The first reason is that it has put forward a credible and realistic programme which I regard as being appropriate for the current needs. I hope that the new College will proceed with implementing this programme as soon as possible. The second reason is that Mr Barroso's team is made up of many reliable professionals who, I firmly believe, will make a significant contribution to the success of the reforms which we need in the coming years.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nThe Polish delegation of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament voted in favour of extending a vote of confidence to the new European Commission. We are, however, conscious of the weak sides of the newly-appointed Commission and of the reservations expressed over the competence of some Commissioners. We have had to wait a long time for the new European Commission. It should, however, be admitted that the new Commission did receive the overwhelming majority of the votes. This is a strong mandate for the future. However, on the other hand, hardly anyone voted for the new Commission without some reservations. One problem certainly is the fact that, with 27 Commissioners, their portfolios often overlap, which is not a very clear situation.\nMany fellow Members point, too, to the problem of the excessive control of particular Commissioners by Mr Barroso. We welcome the fact that the new Commission will carry out an assessment of the social and economic effects of the financial crisis. I note with great disappointment, however, the fact that in Mr Barroso's speech, there was no specific information about reform of the common agricultural policy or cohesion policy. These areas will certainly be among the most important areas of work in the coming term of the European Commission.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis  \nThe citizens and institutions of all EU Member States should be keen for the best and the strongest candidates to become Commissioners. The responsibility is great, both for those countries putting candidates forward and for Members of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, some states are not guided by this attitude. The impression is given that sometimes, the governments of EU Member States send weak or 'undesirable' politicians to Brussels to free up a position in their capitals. This is a dangerous tendency. However, the European Parliament is attempting to show a 'red card' to weak candidates, who have received both a posting from their governments, and the approval of Commission President Barroso, or those whose financial interests lack transparency. Five years ago, two candidates failed, this year one. However, as yet, MEPs do not have the right to vote for individual Commissioners, we vote for the College of Commissioners. As the majority of Commissioner candidates made a good impression, I voted in favour of the new European Commission.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nEurope has urgent need of an authoritative leader, which this Commission embodies completely.\nThe new Commission will have the difficult task of encouraging sustainable growth through the full implementation of the European economic model; that is, the model of the social market economy.\nThe strengthening of the internal market must provide the key to maintaining healthy competition, with the aim of encouraging job creation and growth. I am particularly proud of the fact that in the new European executive, Italy is providing, in the person of Mr Tajani, continuity of merit and competence by being awarded one of the key portfolios, namely that of industry, which is of strategic importance in managing the crisis and in the reorganisation of European production.\nDuring the course of this next mandate, the Commission must set itself precise priorities, and be capable of giving a European face to immigration policy and energy policy, thus providing the Union with a consistent approach that is currently proving difficult to attain. It will also have to be able to provide the European Union with a foreign and defence policy worthy of that name.\nTeresa Riera Madurell  \nThe Committee on Industry, Research and Energy is responsible for research, energy and developing the information society. These are three priorities in terms of emerging from the crisis and regenerating our production system, which my Group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, wants to be more competitive and innovative, but also more socially and environmentally sustainable. Research and innovation are major driving forces for change. Mr Barroso committed to 3% investment in research and development. However, we were concerned to see how this area gradually became less of a priority in terms of political timetables and budgets. The Commission has made a clearer commitment in this regard. Economic recovery will largely come as a result of changing our energy model. The future of the economy is the future of the green economy. The Commission has also reaffirmed this goal. With regard to the information society, we agree on the many challenges that we face in order to guarantee access to information and communication technologies for everyone everywhere. The Commissioners that attended our Committee made significant, specific commitments, and we have given them a vote of confidence, but we guarantee that we will ensure that those commitments are fulfilled.\nBart Staes  \nI voted 'no' to the question of whether we consider Barroso II suitable as a motor, initiator and inspirer of the European project. Barroso is not the powerful leader we need. He allowed five extremely crucial years to pass by. Years in which the EU could have pursued a less neoliberal and a more social policy. Years in which Europe could have promoted SMEs. Years in which he could have helped support the quality of European, independent media and could have helped democratise European decision making in order to give millions of citizens more confidence again in the European cooperation project. None of this happened.\nBy blindly focusing on liberalisation, high stock market prices and macro-economic growth, the social and sustainable face of the EU became foggy. The world is being ravaged by three crises: a financial-economic one, a social one and an environmental one. A lack of a collective response is feeding public cynicism and political nihilism. Barroso's weak and vague policy plan gives little hope for change. He accepted that Member States sometimes push entirely incapable candidates to the fore and he split the portfolios of some commissioners up, resulting in uncertainty about who is now actually responsible for crucial policy areas. Barroso lacks vision and political boldness, and this does Europe no favours. That explains my 'No' vote.\nNuno Teixeira  \nParliament and the Commission will confront key issues for the European Union, namely the reversal of the crisis by means of the recovery of the economy and employment, the balancing of the public finances of the Member States and the negotiation of the financial framework for the post-2013 period, regarding which I would emphasise the importance of the cohesion policy. I had the opportunity to question the Commissioner-designate for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn, with regard to his interest in the creation of a specific programme of permanent financial support for the outermost regions. I also presented him with a proposal for a more flexible system of eligibility for receipt of structural funds for 'transition' regions, i.e. those which find themselves caught between the objectives of 'convergence' and 'competitiveness and employment'. As well as displaying competence and rigour, the Commissioner-designate showed he was prepared to examine these possibilities, which gives me confidence in his future willingness and sensitivity towards outermost regions such as Madeira. I gave my vote of confidence to this team of Commissioners, which will be led by Jos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso, as in general, they have shown good technical preparation, seriousness and ambition to be able to respond to the challenges of the EU without forgetting the values which underpin its creation, namely solidarity and territorial cohesion.\nR\u00f3\u017ca Gr\u00e4fin Von Thun Und Hohenstein  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of appointment of the Commission, although in the case of several commissioners I would gladly have expressed a separate opinion. As we all know, the European Parliament votes only on the composition of the entire Commission. Despite the fact that I cannot say I am delighted with the choice of Baroness Ashton, the College of Commissioners is dominated by extremely competent and experienced people. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), to which I belong, decided to endorse the Commission, to enable the European Union to work efficiently. If I had voted against appointment of the Commission it would have been a demonstration and could have been seen as a lack of loyalty towards my group, but it would not have affected Parliament's decision. Mr Barroso's new Commission includes experienced and wise politicians such as Mr Barnier and Mrs Reding, with whom I am going to work closely. Mr Lewandowski, who is responsible for the budget, will certainly be an excellent commissioner, too. We can be truly proud. The European Parliament was also able to influence Bulgaria, which replaced Mrs Jeleva, who was not very well qualified in the field of humanitarian aid and development, with Mrs Georgieva. I consider this to be a great success and a constructive contribution of the European Parliament to the creation of the new Commission. Making sound suggestions and having an indirect influence on Mr Barroso and Member States is, I think, the most effective way we can work, today. Voting against the Commission would have prolonged the expensive negotiations, and the final effect would not necessarily have been better than the one which we have achieved.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe members of the European Commission have the vote of confidence of the political representatives of capital, but not of the workers. The members of the European Commission were appointed by the neoliberal and social-democrat governments of the Member States of the EU and the vote of the European Parliament, the sole political criterion for their election being their ability to serve the interests of capital without hindrance. The members of the European Commission took pains to confirm this during the hearings in the European Parliament's committees by unhesitatingly supporting: the imperialist nature of the EU, the strength of its anti-grassroots policy and its military interventions at international level, in order to promote the profitability of capital; their dedication to the completion of the single market and the four Maastricht freedoms, competitiveness and capitalist restructurings, in order to put suitable conditions in place for the concentration of capital; the stepping-up of anti-grassroots measures in an all-out attack on the workers' labour, wage, social and insurance rights, in order to increase the profits of the monopolies; an increase in and the strengthening of reactionary prosecuting tools, in order to repress workers' and grassroots demonstrations. The MEPs of the Greek Communist Party voted against the European Commission, which will maintain and intensify the policy of exploitation of the workers, poor farmers and the self-employed.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - We want a pragmatic European Commission that will push through reform, including deregulation and reductions in EU expenditure, focusing on managerial issues rather than political integration. While some of the nominated Commissioners are competent, others are not. The post of High Representative is a product of the Lisbon Treaty. I do not approve of that treaty or its creations. It has no democratic legitimacy. Baroness Ashton was chosen through a back-room deal among Europe's socialist parties, an afterthought by the British Prime Minister. Besides having no experience of the required tasks, she has a highly dubious past as National Treasurer of CND. This subversive organisation sought to disarm Britain unilaterally at the height of the Cold War, and spread alarm and despondency. There are many nominees with Communist backgrounds. Some nominees, such as L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Andor, demonstrated little understanding of their portfolios and seemed inclined to impose more and more unhelpful regulation. It is quite wrong that Parliament cannot vote on individual Commissioners but must vote on the College as a whole. While I could approve some individuals, others I would vote against. In the interests of the solidarity of our group, I abstained.\nAngelika Werthmann  \nMr Barroso, the pragmatic reason for voting 'yes' to the Commission-designate is simply that the work that needs to be done can now finally be started. This will save valuable taxpayers' money. Mr Barroso, you have shown skill in electing the Commission. Some of the Commissioners-designate are excellent. There are also some who definitely have the potential to develop. They should be given the opportunity, as they wish, to familiarise themselves with Europe's challenges. However, there are some Commissioners-designate who leave something to be desired, do not seem to possess the specialised knowledge and seem to lack the necessary ambition to occupy the top positions in Europe.\nFor these reasons, I have rejected the proposal for the Commission-designate made up in this way. I would like to see commissioners appointed in a much more transparent way - and I would like better qualified female commissioners to be found.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a resolution and, hence, of the new European Commission. The European Parliament is not giving a blank cheque to Mr Barroso and the College of Commissioners. However, I met with President Barroso on a very regular basis throughout his first term of office when I oversaw, during the same period, the work of Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. I was therefore able to observe his sensitive approach to managing the work of the European Commission and the respect he shows for his fellow human beings and for the common good. I am also very pleased for the Slovak candidate, who was exposed to unfair attacks born of ignorance and carried out for nothing other than petty political reasons. When slander and minorities are used, by means of a smear campaign, to question the integrity of a political figure for petty political reasons, it marks the beginning of the end of the institutional political culture. I genuinely wish all the members of the European Commission well in their efforts to do an excellent job.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Community action in the field of marine environmental policy - Thematic strategy on the marine environment (debate) \nPresident\nThe next items on the agenda are\nthe joint debate on the report by Marie-No\u00eblle Lienemann on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on community action in the field of marine environmental policy - Thematic strategy on the marine environment (Marine Strategy Directive) - C6 - 0346\/2005 -\nthe report by Aldis Ku\u0161\u0137is on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the thematic strategy for protection and preservation of the marine environment\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nMember of the Commission. (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to launch this joint debate on the thematic strategy for protecting and preserving the marine environment and on the proposed Marine Strategy Directive.\nI should like to thank both rapporteurs - Mrs Lienemann for the proposed Marine Strategy Directive and Mr Kuskis for the thematic strategy. I also wish to thank the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their efforts. Furthermore I should like to thank the Committee on Fisheries and in particular Mr Gklavakis for his highly constructive approach to this important issue.\nSeas and oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and contain 90% of the biosphere. Europe's marine waters extend across 3 million square kilometres, the same area as mainland Europe; in other words, 50% of Europe's territory is covered by sea. Marine ecosystems play a key role in climate and weather patterns.\nThe status of Europe's marine environment is rapidly deteriorating, however. In some areas, we may have gone past the point of no return. Nutrient supply has a major influence on the Baltic Sea's marine environment. Fish populations are in a poor state throughout Europe. The Northeast Atlantic has one of the highest shipping levels in the world, with all of the risks and consequences that that implies. The Mediterranean is under serious threat from uncontrolled development of its coastline.\nIf we are to reverse these trends, however, the existing measures and efforts - be they at international, national or EU level - are clearly inadequate. Most measures drawn up at EU level were not geared towards protecting the marine environment as such and they therefore have a limited impact. It has been demonstrated that measures adopted at international level are very difficult to implement or promote because they are not binding.\nA healthy marine environment is crucially important both for life as a whole, and for the quality of our lives. It is also an essential prerequisite for fulfilling the economic potential of the oceans and seas. A dynamic marine economy can flourish only where there is a healthy marine environment. The Marine Strategy will therefore make a significant contribution to the growth and employment goals enshrined in the Lisbon Strategy.\nFor the reasons outlined above, it is clear that the protection of the marine environment cannot and must not simply be a by-product of other policies. At EU level what is needed is an integrated strategy that takes into account all of the pressures and influences on the marine environment.\nThis is precisely what the thematic strategy on the marine environment seeks to achieve. It consists of the proposed Marine Strategy Directive and a report detailing the current state of affairs. On a broader level, it covers the EU's environmental record on the marine environment and explains why the EU needs to take action.\nMarine strategy must be viewed within the broader context of a new marine policy for the EU. According to the Commission's Green Paper drawn up in June, the objective of the new policy is a dynamic European marine economy, operating in harmony with the marine environment. The marine strategy is, within the area of the environment, one of the pillars of the future marine policy. It will be based on the specific activities needed to protect marine ecosystems, which provide the sustainable wealth, productivity and employment opportunities and, from a broader perspective, people's livelihood from the oceans and seas.\nThe purpose of this Marine Strategy Directive is to achieve 'good environmental status' in the EU marine environment by 2021, in other words to restore the environmental health of our seas over the next 15 years. This date will coincide with the first review of River Basin Management Plans under the EU Water Framework Directive, allowing for synergies on the further implementation of both directives. The joint implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Directive thus brings together the protection of both marine and freshwater environments.\nThe directive establishes European Marine Regions on the basis of geographical and environmental criteria, and defines sub-regions as management units for implementation.\nAt an EU level no management-related measures will be adopted. In the first phase, the Member States will be tasked with developing a marine strategy for the seas in each of their regions, and proposing practical solutions to address the specific needs of those seas. Marine strategy should firstly include taking stock of the marine environment and the threats and pressures it faces, setting further environmental goals and indicators, and establishing monitoring programmes. In the second phase, the Member States will be required to draw up and implement measures aimed at achieving good environmental status.\nCooperation is of vital importance between Member States and with the third countries with which Member States share saltwater bodies. In order to achieve this objective, Member States will need to work within the framework of the regional marine conventions. Regional conventions are invaluable partners when it comes to strategy implementation, as is evidenced by their long track record of scientific and technical competence, and the fact that they are able to work effectively at a regional level.\nTo conclude, I should like to stress the importance and sensitivity of marine ecosystems. A high level of protection for the marine environment is a vital prerequisite for deriving the maximum economic benefit from the oceans and seas. The marine environment is clearly the foundation of our marine economy.\nThe marine environment is under threat. Consequently the EU must act effectively proactive. I hope that the proposed strategy will contribute towards achieving that aim.\nMarie-No\u00eblle Lienemann \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all, as rapporteur, to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs from the various groups and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for supporting a joint piece of work aimed at enhancing the Commission proposal.\nAs you said, Commissioner, the seas and oceans of our planet are in a worrying state: a crisis point has been reached. Moreover, a recent study published in the Science review sounded the alarm bell by highlighting the risks of fishery resources disappearing from our seas and oceans.\nThe quality of the marine ecosystem plays a fundamental role in the planet's global environment and, in particular, plays a very important role in regulating the climate. Our seas also play a decisive role in people's lives in every part of the globe. As you pointed out, they play a major economic role when it comes to fishing, transport, tourism, sources of raw materials or even activities carried out along the coastlines that border them. Yet, our seas and oceans are subjected to growing pressure and worrying pollution.\nLet us first address this figure: 80% of maritime pollution comes from the land, and, as you said, Commissioner, there is clearly a direct link between the framework directive on water and the directive that you have presented and that our Parliament wishes to enhance.\nHowever, if pollution comes from the earth via water, then it also comes via the atmosphere. Recent studies show a significant interaction between atmospheric movements, air pollution and the sea and oceans, such that urbanisation and human activities taking place far away from the coasts may have a direct impact on the quality of water. Pollution is also caused by activities linked to the exploitation of the oceans and seas, such as transport and aquaculture. A few years ago, waste produced by fishing and oil industry activity reached altogether excessive and dangerous levels in certain sectors.\nWe are also at a time when we can see new threats looming, which the directive must anticipate. In particular, we are seeing a large increase in the number of projects aimed at desalinating seawater. We have to be certain that these activities are not going to affect the quality of water in the future. Major international debates are taking place on the storage of carbon dioxide. Thus, we can see that the threats are, indeed, real.\nThe aim of the directive has been to implement a structure enabling us finally to have access to a strategy that goes beyond international agreements, the results of which have mostly not lived up to our hopes thus far.\nOur directive is based on a fundamental point: restoring the good ecological status of seas. Parliament would like, Commissioner, the requirement for results to be far more present and far stronger than the text in its current state provides for.\nSecondly, our Parliament would like the good ecological status of seas and oceans to be defined with a great deal more precision so that this is not some sort of pious hope and so that we come closer to doing what can be done to restore the life and balance of the ecosystem.\nThirdly, our Parliament would like the deadlines to be shorter and, at any rate, we would like there to be a good balance between the deadlines, the level of the demands regarding good ecological status and the requirement for results.\nFinally, we advocate the creation of marine protected areas, because the experiences of the Americans and the New Zealanders have shown that these protected areas - indeed, in some cases, these genuine marine reserves - were such as to enable fish stocks to be built up again.\nFinally, we would like territorial cohesion to be enhanced by an effective piece of work carried out at marine and submarine regional level, without, however, the Member States being exempted from their responsibilities in view of the objectives set by the management plans and the plans for measures aimed at restoring good ecological status.\nWe are anxious to include the Black Sea in the document. We would like to sound the alarm bell concerning the Arctic: we need to think about the future of this part of the world. It is directly linked to us and its development has a considerable impact on the future of the planet, which may be endangered as a result. We would like the outermost regions of the Union, which do not yet feature in the document, gradually to become at least the subject of an appropriate strategy.\nI shall conclude by mentioning the democratic issues. We see everyday, whether we are talking about fishing or transport, that sea users, ecologists and scientists feel the need to exchange their points of view so that the decisions that are taken are taken on the basis of a shared diagnosis and of a rational analysis of the problems. In any case, that is the spirit of the amendments that we have tabled.\nAldis Ku\u0161\u0137is \nrapporteur. - (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your cooperation so far and the valuable proposals that you have submitted, so that together we may improve the Commission's proposal on the thematic strategy for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. I very much hope that this report will foster real changes that will preserve and improve the marine ecological environment. I am happy that the report also touches on as sensitive an issue as the problems of the Baltic sea environment. In the Baltic sea, which is also known as Europe's internal lake, it is particularly important to preserve the balance of the ecosystem, by not allowing it to be further threatened, and by taking special account of the specific low water exchange indicator. I would like to emphasise, on this point, that the European Parliament ought also to scrupulously assess and join in monitoring the design and construction of a gas pipeline which is hazardous for the Baltic sea environment. In my view, it is important for the people of Europe, and particularly those whose countries border the sea, to be able to personally see positive changes - the fact that water quality and cleanness is increasing, that a renewal of biological diversity is taking place in the seas and, finally, that there is considered, balanced and sustainable administration and development of the marine region following the adoption of this legislation and similar pieces of legislation. I would like to stress that this report is the product of collaboration with non-governmental organisations and representatives of this field in industry, with whom wide-ranging debates took place even before the expiry of the deadline for submitting proposals, and that many of their ideas were included in the report. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to urge the European Commission and also ourselves to talk less but to work more and achieve concrete results, so that we may all live without fear beside our seas.\nFrom this point I shall switch to English and, speaking also for my colleague Mrs Korhola, who cannot be here today for this debate, share some comments and messages.\nThe thematic strategy is decided on under the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. That is very necessary. As the Commissioner has rightly said, for some time we have needed a strong, integrated EU policy on marine protection. The EU marine strategy directive will be an important new instrument in integrating the existing approaches. Great things have already been achieved with the various policies - legislation, programmes, action plans and various international conventions - but still the state of the marine environment has been deteriorating at an alarming pace. We need more overall joint action.\nThere are big challenges, such as the role of third countries, which might raise some questions. But if third countries turn out to be the biggest polluters and if they think of this as only a European Union matter, how do we ensure that actions and efforts put in place by the Member States produce good results when, for one reason or another, third countries do not cooperate? We have tried to address the issues in committee, but we shall only find out later how this actually works.\nThe rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann, has done some excellent work, influenced strongly by the NGOs, and she has been very environmentally ambitious. She has made some radical changes and integrated ideas into the report that were widely requested by the stakeholders. In general, the rapporteur has made the directive stronger and more concrete, more ambitious and effective. She has added the much needed guidelines and criteria and has tightened up the time limits.\nBuilding on the rapporteur's approach, we have a solid chance to make this a real environmental pillar for marine policy as planned. Here are a few key elements of the draft report. The time limits and schedules for achieving good environmental status have been tightened up, from 2021 to 2017. General definitions of measures which Member States are to take in order to achieve good environmental status are added and a detailed list of GES criteria is provided.\nThere is no clear definition of European marine waters. The Black Sea has been added as one marine region in the directive. Preparation timetables are tighter, as are programmes of measures. Marine-protected areas are added, something that was not mentioned before. More emphasis is given to cooperation by Member States in the same marine region in monitoring programmes, etc. More emphasis is laid on third countries in broadening responsibilities and deciding who should be involved.\nAll in all, this report is making a strong point, from the European Parliament side, that we need effective measures to tackle this important issue.\nIoannis Gklavakis \nMr President, the main objective of the proposed directive is to achieve a good marine environmental status.\nThis strategy is more urgent today than at any other time, because the marine ecosystem has deteriorated significantly. However, in order for this strategy to be effective, we must pay attention to two or three things.\nFirst, we have a saying in my country, that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. The money budgeted for this action is very, very little. Provision has been made, for administrative expenses alone, for approximately EUR 90 million per annum for the first two years and for EUR 70 million per annum thereafter. I think this sum is inadequate. Saving our seas is such a serious issue that it merits our spending more money.\nSecondly, we need coordinated actions. First of all, we must make fishermen our partners in this endeavour. We must come to an agreement with them; they must be persuaded that, first of all, they need to protect the environment, but that is not all; all of us involved in transport, tourism, industry, health, nutrition, agriculture and, above all, fisheries, must sit at the same table, so that we can agree and proceed.\nThe third thing I wanted to say was touched on by Commissioners Borg and Dimas and that is that we must agree on certain common indicators so that we can measure the environmental status at the moment, so that - and this is very important - when we speak of a good marine environmental status, we are referring to the same thing. In other words, we must agree on common measurements.\nTo close, I wish to say and to emphasise that the directive on the marine strategy must give fisheries its proper place and must be at the heart of the endeavour.\nVille It\u00e4l\u00e4\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FI) Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work, and at the same time I want to thank the Commission, which has embarked on this important project. The Commissioner with responsibility for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Mr Borg, himself in fact organised a conference on maritime transport safety in July in my home town of Turku, at which these important matters were discussed. This is just the sort of proper work which we in the EU should be doing together.\nI would in particular like to raise the matter of the Baltic Sea, as the Baltic is an important EU sea, though at present it is a blot on the landscape. The Baltic Sea is seriously ill. Let me give you an example of this. Last summer, blue-green algae took over the entire sea, aided by the warm weather. It is hard to explain to your little children, who want to go and swim, that they cannot go in the sea because not only is it dirty, it is actually toxic. There are toxic algae in the sea, and that can cause various diseases in children if they go and swim in the sea in warm weather.\nNow the Commission and all of us are being urged to take swift and determined action and provide the resources needed to rescue the Baltic Sea. That will of course mean that much action will have to be taken. One excellent project now under way is the financing of the St Petersburg sewage plant. This is one of the most important examples. We also need dialogue with Russia, for example, in the area of safety regulations for shipping. We will not succeed if we do not work closely with Russia.\nSaving the Baltic Sea is no longer just an environmental issue. It is above all a political one.\nRiitta Myller\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (FI) Mr President, it is no exaggeration to say that Europe's marine regions are in a crisis and there is an urgent need to take action to protect the seas. Over the next 50 years, for example, fish stocks are threatened with collapse. The Commission proposal for a directive in the field of Marine Environmental Policy and a Marine Strategy is a way to seek a pan-European integrated approach to saving marine ecosystems. Although all our seas are in a poor state, it is only reasonable to examine the question of their protection from a regional perspective. Marine regions vary in terms of their characteristics, and at least some of the problems are essentially local. What they all have in common, however, is that they should all be capable of achieving good ecological status within a specific period of time. Hopefully that will be before the year 2021.\nThe Socialist Group in the European Parliament supports the rapporteur's endeavour to define what we mean by good environmental status in the marine environment. To achieve good status, as defined, we need to establish sufficiently stringent conservation objectives to prevent deterioration and for measures for the recovery of the seas and restoring them to a sustainable level. These measures may be quite tough, but I hope that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will support them in the vote. It is important that the measures are properly binding and not merely recommendations.\nThe protection of the seas is about cooperation, not just among the Member States of the EU, but also with third countries with links to marine regions. For example, effective protection of the Baltic Sea region cannot succeed without Russia's commitment to cooperation. For years now, there has been cooperation in the context of HELCOM, or the Helsinki Commission. HELCOM is presently overseeing a Baltic Sea Action Plan. Conservation action under the strategy should start within the framework of the HELCOM Action Plan so that practical measures can be taken as swiftly as possible in the Baltic Sea region. I would like to thank both the rapporteurs for having adopted this view within the context both of the strategy and of the directive.\nChris Davies\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, having a marine strategy that does not concentrate on fish is like filling a goldfish bowl with clean water after the cat has already taken and eaten the goldfish!\nHaving said that, there is strong support in this House for the principles behind this strategy and for the legislation, and that is hardly surprising given the catastrophic picture the Commission has painted of the state of our seas. We need to introduce protective measures that are enforceable through the courts in order to ensure that Member States apply them.\nThe Commissioner used strong words, which we welcome, but the proposals originally submitted to Parliament highlighted some of the weaknesses and divisions within the Commission itself. One thing we are most pleased about is the fact that the whole idea of good environmental status has been reinserted into the proposals and given a clear definition, and we are united on there being powers to create marine protected zones. However, why were those ideas not in the Commission's original document? When it came out of DG Environment they were, but by the time it emerged from the College some of these crucial matters had been deleted. The time has come for the Commission to back up its fine words on sustainability with some united action from the Commissioners of each department.\nWe hear that there are divergent views in the Council - so be it. But the message to the Commission and the Council from this Parliament should be that there is strong cross-party support for a significant improvement and strengthening of the measures being proposed. The Commission was right to draft these proposals, but let us now ensure that the warm sentiments can be transformed into practical action.\nCarl Schlyter\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteurs for their exemplary work and their excellent reports. They improve the Commission's proposal by demanding that good environmental status be achieved by 2017 instead of 2021. Moreover, the targets are made binding, and the importance of marine reserves is emphasised.\nClimate change, waste, unsustainable fishing, noise, eutrophication and the extraction of raw materials threaten our seas. If the mass destruction and the natural disaster taking place in the depths of the oceans were instead to be taking place - visibly - on land, the debate on the protection of the marine environment would dominate everyday discourse. Species of fish, birds and mammals are threatened by extinction. The Marine Strategy can, in fact, be a small step in trying to get to grips with the problems, but only if it is as ambitious as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposes.\nThe Member States must assume their responsibility for setting up significantly more marine reserves. We have national parks in all the Member States, but marine reserves are conspicuous by their absence where they are most needed. There is overwhelming statistical evidence that marine reserves provide protection that increases both the fish population and biological diversity in the immediate surroundings of the reserves. When fish are protected and are thus able to increase in numbers, the older fish disperse and make for better catches. The Baltic Sea, in particular, is an extremely sensitive sea with brackish water. The countries around the Baltic Sea must always be entitled to introduce more stringent water protection requirements if they think it necessary to do so without, as a consequence, being constantly threatened by protracted legal proceedings because the internal market has to take precedence over protection of our seas.\nI wish to point out the importance of the committee's call for no support to be given to agricultural activity involving large-scale nutrient leakage into the seas. My Amendments 81 and 82 are designed to introduce responsible regulation of discharges from waste disposal sites. The original proposal is too weak on this point. I am opposed to Amendment 90 about removing the reference to radioactive substances, because doing so would be contrary to the original objective from 2002. Finally, the Maritime Strategy's call for utilisation of the seas must be adjusted and altered so that it falls within the framework of the Marine Strategy.\nAdamos \u0391damou\nMr President, Commissioner, I should like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on the excellent work she has done in the report and to stress that she has managed, with a great deal of success, to include in her report the views of all the members and of non-governmental organisations, and as a result she has improved the Commission's original paper significantly.\nThe marine environment, which is a basic and valuable source of life, is under daily threat. Maritime pollution, climate change, shipping and coastal developments continue to threaten the marine environment and to have an adverse impact on human health.\nThe directive in question, which is designed to plug the gaps in environmental policy, is an important step towards improving health and restoring the seas.\nIt is important for us to support amendments requiring the Member States to achieve a good environmental status, amendments which recognise the threats to the marine environment and which aim for the shortest possible timeframe for the implementation of the directive. I refer to Amendments 24, 27, 73 and 78, which I urge you to support.\nFurthermore, actions by the Member States must be based on the principle of prevention, on an approach based on the ecosystem while, at the same time, account must be taken of accurate evaluations carried out on the basis of current European legislation, as referred to in Amendments 23, 49, 45, 51 and 60.\nFinally, I call on you to support Amendments 81 and 82 banning any systematic or deliberate dumping of any liquid, gaseous or solid body in the water or on the sea bed, in keeping with the provisions laid down for carbon dioxide, except where the relevant approval is granted in accordance with international law and a prior environmental impact study is carried out in accordance with the directive.\nSebastiano  Musumeci\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the two reports under discussion could not have come at a better time, since they examine the notorious construction of the Baltic pipeline, a project that, in the absence of a serious environmental impact assessment, risks causing an ecological disaster in a sea already suffering, moreover, from a worrying level of pollution. Not only that: the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, where fish stocks are becoming ever more scarce, also suffer in some areas from a high level of pollution, caused, among other things, by oil extraction and, above all, by oil refining. I refer, in particular, to the industrial triangle of Syracuse in Sicily, which is the largest petrochemical complex in Europe.\nIn this industrial zone, not only is there an extremely high level of air pollution, causing the tragedy of birth defects and the indefensible death rate due to tumours - over 57% higher, in fact, than the Italian average - but there is also the problem of marine pollution. The consequences are obvious: the poor-quality fish stocks are down to critical levels; fishermen, often small operators, either cover more miles to find better fishing waters, or are forced to give up their traditional livelihoods. As if that were not enough, plans are underway to construct a regasifier in this industrial zone, a project I have condemned several times before this House.\nThe proposal for a Marine Strategy Directive and the appropriate amendments that, in our opinion, improve it, are therefore very welcome, Mr President. Above all, I hope that it will shorten the timescale for achieving the objectives of a healthy ecology and environment. We need to make up for the severe delays that Europe has accumulated in this sector, and, as we all know, political timing does not always coincide with the needs of the environment. From this evening, we can afford to be a little more optimistic.\nUrszula Krupa\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the marine environment has faced various threats for a long time now, which is why a far-reaching marine strategy is a necessity. The European Union has territorial waters greater than its entire territory, with 1 200 ports, and 90% of its exports are transported by sea. We consider it crucial to emphasise the interdependence of a common fisheries policy and the proposed marine environment strategy. It is logical and advisable to allow a hazardous vessel that has been penalised to sail to the nearest shelter, and then to the nearest available shipyard provided that it does not pose a health or environmental threat.\nAnother proposal worthy of attention is that of declaring the Arctic a nature reserve dedicated to peace and science.\nJohn Purvis\nI have the privilege of representing Scotland in this Parliament and that means I also represent a large share of the EU's indigenous resources of oil and gas. As I understand it, we are committed to maximising the potential of our indigenous energy resources. Surely this is only sensible for economic and logistical reasons and for security of supply. It is also the case that the extraction of hydrocarbons in the North Sea is already well regulated in all its environmental and ecological aspects. Yet certain amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety will effectively stop exploitation of these resources. That is just plain absurd. Indeed these amendments will even, I understand, cause suspension of a major offshore wind project in the Moray Firth. Much of the research funding for this came from the European Union.\nDo we want to look ridiculous? Do we want to hobble our few indigenous energy resources and become even more dependent on one or two dominant, and often domineering, external suppliers? The North Sea's ecology must be considered holistically in North Sea terms. The North Sea is not the Mediterranean.\nI appeal to the rapporteur and other sensible groups to support the PPE-DE amendments, which will make this proposal ambitious - yes - but also responsible and practical.\n\u00c5sa Westlund\n(SV) Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Lienemann and Mr Ku\u0161\u0137is who, I think, have done a very good job indeed on these directives.\nI myself live by the Baltic Sea and have therefore, unfortunately, been able to see at extremely close quarters the significance, not only for individual people but also for employment and growth, of the seas' ecosystems being out of balance. I also know that people expect us in this House to make a vigorous effort and do something about the problems they experience every day. I therefore hope that, tomorrow, Parliament will not listen to the previous speakers but will instead give broad support to the changes backed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.\nFirstly, it should support a considerably accelerated process, whereby the measures are implemented earlier, together with a timetable significantly more ambitious than the one proposed by the Commission, specifying precisely when the objective of good environmental status in our seas is to be achieved. Secondly, it should support more clearly defined objectives that, just as Mrs Lienemann said, are a guarantee of our in actual fact achieving something and are not, in the end, just so much empty talk. Thirdly, it should support making what is perhaps the sea in the worst situation, namely the Baltic, into a pilot area for this strategy - an area in which the measures are implemented particularly early and are preferably based on the Helsinki Convention. These measures are needed if the Baltic Sea is to be saved.\nHenrik Lax\n(SV) Mr President, two weeks ago, Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank employee, published, on behalf of the British Government, a shocking report on the consequences of climate change. The message was plain. We must no longer think of nature as being something without value as, if we do so, the consequences may be incalculable. The same also applies to the state of the sea.\nWe in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have prepared a number of amendments in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. They are all aimed at increasing the level of ambition, bringing stricter timetables about, strengthening cooperation with third countries such as Russia and plugging loopholes in the legislation. One serious loophole, for example, is in relation to the international waters that begin 12 nautical miles off the coast. In the vulnerable Baltic Sea, mainly cargo ships - but also passenger vessels - continue to dump latrine waste straight into the sea. That is something that they are able to do legally in international waters. Out in the Baltic, 1 800 vessels are dumping in more ways than one all the time. The mind boggles. We are pleased that the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs with whom we have worked are taking on board our amendment about plugging this loophole in the law. The amendment needs to be implemented quickly, without the decision getting caught up for years in the International Maritime Organisation's decision-making machinery.\nWe must have a high level of ambition. The EU must support Russia in its efforts to cleanse St Petersburg of all waste water. It will be expensive, but not to take action would be still more expensive. Drilling for oil and the laying of gas pipelines must not, out of economic considerations, take precedence over the environmental risks presented by such activities. The harmful effects of traffic too must be reduced.\nI believe that our populations wish to see the EU genuinely able to take action on these issues pertaining to the fate of humanity. Only in that way can we increase confidence in the EU. The objective must be to protect Europe's seas and restore them to their former state and to ensure that human activities are conducted in a sustainable way.\nIan Hudghton\nMr President, the European Union has 68 000 kilometres of coastline; Scotland has 11 000 kilometres. Almost 50% of the EU population live within 50 kilometres of the sea; in Scotland 70% live within 10 kilometres of the sea. Clearly it is in Scotland's long-term interests to protect the marine environment and to conserve its wealth of marine resources for the long term.\nScotland has oil and gas reserves for at least another 30 years. I will be supporting various amendments that will ensure that oil and gas extraction can continue to benefit the Scottish and EU economies.\nI cannot support committee Amendment 8 in the Lienemann report, as drafted, because it seeks to link the marine strategy to 'the principles of the common fisheries policy'. The CFP has been a miserable failure and the last thing I want to see is a new marine strategy linked to such a flawed set of principles.\nThe idea that Member States should determine what good environmental status is in waters under their jurisdiction, and work with their neighbours in logical marine regions, makes a lot of sense. Fisheries management should be brought into that common sense situation, and jurisdiction should be returned to the Member States so that, for example, countries around the North Sea can work together with those who have most to gain from conservation being encouraged, giving the incentive to make a marine strategy succeed.\nGeorgios Toussas\n(EL) Mr President, systems to protect the marine environment are covered in a fragmentary manner by various sectoral policies of the European Union, with the result, however, that there is a compilation of policies, legislative acts, programmes and action plans, without any overall integrated policy for protecting the marine environment.\nThe aim pursued in the two combined legislative arrangements on the thematic strategy on the protection and conservation of the environment and the marine strategy directive is to achieve a good environmental status of the marine environment in the European Union by 2021. However, if we take account, firstly, of the more general nature of the two arrangements and, secondly, of the pillars on which they are based, it is certain that in 2021, not only will there not be a good marine environmental status, but there will hardly have been any improvement to the present poor status, which is directly acknowledged in the explanatory statement to the proposal for a directive, which points out that overall there has been a fundamental deterioration in the marine environment over recent decades.\nThe substantiated scientific data of the United Nations Organisation concerning the causes of the deterioration and pollution of the marine environment are incontrovertible: they are shore industries and shipping and the non-existent or under-developed infrastructures for storing and processing residues.\nMore importantly, the pillars on which both the thematic strategy and the proposal for a directive are based are the common fisheries policy and the Green Paper on the European Union's shipping policy, all - of course - within the framework of the 6th Environment Action Programme for the period from 2002-2012, which we have acutely condemned.\nIn our opinion, these are in essence numerous, insubstantial interventions on the same wavelength as the Commission proposal, the most daring and ambitious aim of which is to bring the deadline forward from 2021 to 2017.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nCristina Guti\u00e9rrez-Cortines\n(ES) Mr President, I would like warmly to congratulate Mrs Lienemann, and I am not doing so in a superficial way or because protocol requires it. I think that this Directive has achieved something important. Thanks to her extensive experience, she has an extraordinary knowledge of philosophy and of European legislative formulas and has achieved a succinct, short Directive. Despite the number of amendments, it does not have too much in it and her own amendments are very generic ideas that are typical of a framework directive. I know for a fact that she worked with experts and was open to many suggestions; amendments were not even needed in order for some of them to be incorporated.\nI would like to say that it is an extraordinary and wonderful thing that finally Europe is discussing the sea. Its time has come. I would, however, also like to say that this Directive should be the start of a subsequent development of legislation, as precisely because it is a framework directive, there are still many aspects that need to be developed in the future, which is what I want to talk about.\nFor example, Amendment 27, which is practically the same as Amendment 86 tabled by my group, suggests several aspects that should be developed: among other things, activities at sea, many industrial activities, many of which are new, such as desalination, which I am not against, but it has not yet been studied, and the methodologies for studying the marine environmental impact, which are practically in their infancy, that is, they have not yet been done.\nI also think that the indicators should be developed more and that digital marine charts should be drawn up, which should also be used for cultural purposes.\nI think that one of the great treasures of world and European history are archaeological charts. This is something that needs to be developed in order to preserve our heritage and I think that it will be one of the most stimulating discoveries for all of us.\nEvangelia Tzampazi\n(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to congratulate my honourable friend Mrs Lienemann on her complete and detailed work.\nIt is now essential that the European Union acquire an integrated policy for the protection of the marine environment, because the fragmentary legislation which has applied to date has not managed to reverse the reduction in biodiversity and the loss of habitats. It is our duty, therefore, towards future generations to achieve a very high level of protection of the marine environment, so that our strategy on sustainable development can be combined with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, not forgetting that, in many countries in Europe and for a substantial section of the populace, the sea is a large pole of economic development.\nAt the same time, this directive offers the Member States an historic opportunity to collaborate in a field which, until recently, was a field of conflict and antagonism, such as sea fishing areas and fishing quotas.\nThe basic objective must be to clearly define the term good environmental status of marine ecosystems, so as to achieve a cohesive and effective marine policy at European Union level.\nI believe that adopting protected marine areas, as a tool for protecting ecosystems and combating the reduction in biodiversity, will also help considerably in achieving this objective. At the same time, we are calling for the deadlines for attaining the targets of the proposed directive to be brought forward to 2017.\nMarios Matsakis\nMr President, I wish to congratulate Mrs Lienemann and Mr Ku\u0161\u0137is on their excellent reports which, despite the view of some Scottish colleagues, have been wisely strengthened by the Committee on The Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.\nEuropean marine waters, as indeed international waters, have often become the dustbin for waste of varying quantities and levels of toxicity. This practice has been carried out for many years by individuals, companies and governments, who have shown little knowledge of or regard for the enormous diversity and importance of marine ecosystems. In many instances that has resulted in unprecedented environmental damage. In other cases, the survival of certain species is now balanced on a knife edge.\nIt is high time for the EU to intervene decisively in order to protect our marine environment. Therefore, we should all fully support these two welcome reports in the hope that the implementation of the necessary strategies and directives will be forthcoming unhindered, as well as extended to third countries, and that further, complementary measures will be introduced in the near future. After all, the protection of our marine environment is an essential element in safeguarding our own survival on this planet.\nDorette Corbey\n(NL) Mr President, first of all, my heartfelt compliments to Mrs Lienemann, who really has written an excellent report. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not easy for fish to survive in the seas and oceans surrounding the European Union; overfishing and pollution have taken their toll, and when the fish are gone, they are gone, so we must take drastic measures now in order to prevent the situation arising around 2040 of there being no fish left. Let this prediction by scientists serve as an important warning.\nWhilst the marine strategy is a sound initiative, the directive is not specific enough for my liking. First of all, fish reserves need to be set up. By setting up reserves at spawning locations, fish are given the opportunity of reproducing at their leisure. This has proved effective in New Zealand and Australia. If, alongside reserves, sustainable fishing methods are introduced, then we can safeguard the future of fish in the waters surrounding the European Union.\nIn addition, something needs to be done about exotic species and the problem of ballast water. The Japanese oyster has found a pleasant living climate in the North Sea without natural enemies, but this oyster is actually thriving too well. The purification of ballast water is a simple procedure that must be undertaken across the board. The marine directive requires Member States to think about how the marine environment can be improved and how we can cooperate better, which is in the interest of us all. I warmly support Mrs Lienemann's report, and I hope you will all do the same.\nOlle Schmidt\n(SV) Mr President, Commissioner, it feels good to be back again, and I have been able to begin work by reading two constructive reports.\nWe are all of us responsible for ensuring that our seas can survive the stresses to which the marine environment is exposed. An additionally large responsibility lies with this Assembly and the European Union to find the right forms of coordinated and vigorous cross-border cooperation. As many speakers have pointed out, time is extremely short.\nIn my own part of Europe, the Baltic is the most important sea and the one that has been, and still is, exposed to the greatest threats. That is why we view the planned gas pipeline from Russia to Germany with great concern. Tomorrow, more detailed plans are to be presented. A gas pipeline in the sensitive Baltic Sea constitutes a considerable threat to the environment. The gas pipeline may be damaged by ships or old unrecovered mines and be exposed to terrorist attack. The gas pipeline would constitute a threat to the environment and to fishing, both when it was being constructed and during the period that it was in operation. In my opinion, the risks are manifestly greater than the advantages. Certainly, Europe needs energy supplies, but this natural gas pipeline must not be laid on the bed of the Baltic Sea. If the pipeline is to be constructed, it must be so on land - for the sake of the marine environment and of the Baltic.\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nMember of the Commission. (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I have followed your debate with interest and I am pleased to note that in principle you have endorsed the holistic approach favoured by the Commission. On the other hand, it is clear that this issue is a complex one, requiring urgent action in many areas. It is also clear that a range of different opinions has emerged and that further analysis and clarification are required.\nI should like to refer to some of the main amendments in more detail.\nIn the timetable for implementation (Amendments 20, 24, 31, 32, 35 and 69), the Commission chose the year 2021 as the date by which the Member States have to achieve 'good environmental status' of their marine environments. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposed an earlier date.\nAlthough the Commission would like 'good environmental status' to be achieved quickly, the committee's date is not in my view a realistic one. The Commission's proposal addresses firstly the need to improve our understanding of the marine environment and the threats it faces, and secondly the need for action. In order that we may find the most appropriate, and cost-effective, measures to protect the marine environment, we must equip ourselves with the essential knowledge and skills. Under these conditions, to bring the deadlines forward would be counter-productive.\nThis is clear, especially in view of the parallels with the current Water Framework Directive, to which this directive is closely related. In the Water Framework Directive, successfully adopted in 2000 due to the fact that Mrs Lienemann was the rapporteur, 'good environmental status' is called for by 2015, that is to say, 15 years after the adoption of the directive. The Marine Directive should operate in the same way.\nIn view of the extent of the sea area addressed by the Marine Strategy Directive, and in view of the size of the task, no one should be in any doubt that our proposed timetable is highly ambitious. The date proposed by the Commission in the directive, 2021, will moreover coincide with the first review of the River Basin Management Plans under the EU Water Framework Directive, allowing synergies on the further implementation of both directives.\nApart from this, the Commission believes that it would not be practical to call on the Member States to 'achieve good environmental status by 2021' as the Committee on the Environment is proposing in the Directive. Nor would it be realistic. The measures that must be taken as part of the Marine Strategy will be up and running by 2018 according to the proposed timetable. Some measures will not deliver immediate results because it will take time for some of the ecosystems to react to the measures. Overall progress towards good environmental status must be shown, however, which is why the Commission has proposed the idea of 'achieving good environmental status'.\nThe Commission is prepared to support the insertion of an article stressing the importance of marine protected areas (Amendments 27, 39, 62 and 72). Such an article should ideally be based on Article 6 of the Water Framework Directive on protected areas.\nThe Commission is also prepared to back the idea that in order to meet the objectives of the Directive it may be necessary to create further protected areas or even closed nature reserves. It cannot accept, however, the proposal from the Committee on the Environment for the mandatory creation of marine protected areas as part of the implementation of the proposed Directive. Protected marine areas should be created only when they can contribute directly towards achieving a 'good environmental status'. They should not simply be created as an end in themselves, but should be viewed as a means rather than an end.\nThe Commission agrees with the committee's wish to integrate the fundamental definition of 'good environmental status' (Amendment 80) directly into the Directive.\nThe Commission nevertheless has definite problems with the list of definitions proposed by the Committee on the Environment. Many of these definitions are based on the factors influencing the marine environment and the threats to it, rather than the quality of the ecosystem. This is a dangerous approach because some potential risks and threats may be omitted or, on the other side of the coin, unduly emphasised. Even more importantly, if we monitor only the influencing factors, the EU will not be able to move away from the current fragmented approach on managing the marine environment towards a more integrated approach, which would cover all of the factors as well as their mutual impact on the marine environment.\nLastly, with regard to financial matters, (Amendments 19 and 74), there are a number of EU funding mechanisms from which the Member States can benefit, for example the Structural Funds, LIFE+ and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. Consequently, it is not necessary to create any special funding mechanisms.\nHonourable Members, the debate has touched on the complexity of this whole issue, including the fact that the marine environment receives pollution from the atmosphere, and that the quality of the marine environment depends to a large extent on tackling climate change. It has also been mentioned that some seas have not been included, as in the case of the Black Sea, and naturally the approach adopted by Romania and Bulgaria will fundamentally change the situation and open up fresh possibilities. As regards the Arctic Ocean, owing to its geographical situation it is not possible to change the Commission's position significantly and nor is it possible to create an independent strategy for what is an exceptionally sensitive and important environment here, albeit in no way connected directly to EU territory.\nMr President, honourable Members, I shall pass on the list of Commission opinions on the Amendments to Parliament's Services.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.\nWritten Statements (Rule 142)\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin\n(SV) It is very gratifying that attention is being devoted to issues concerning the marine environment because there is a great need to ensure that our seas do not suffer still more pollution or destruction. The amendments by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety are, for the most part, positive and will hopefully improve the condition of the marine environment, especially as a result of good environmental status being defined.\nThe Commission's proposal does, however, contain an article that gives rise to a certain amount of concern. Article 13, on special areas, opens up opportunities for, to some extent, disregarding the environmental objectives if the alterations in a particular area have taken place as a result of actions taken for reasons of great public interest. One can imagine this article being invoked very extensively. It is therefore extremely important that the Commission impose significant restrictions if and when this happens, because the future environment we are all to live in is also of great public interest.\nFrancesco Musotto\n(IT) Europe is surrounded by four seas and two oceans, containing different types of ecosystems and different biogeographical regions. The European coast extends over 100 000 km, and is where 16% of Europeans live, many of whom are strongly tied to the sea for their work, leisure, or sport, or because of the natural resources and energy it provides. In the case of enclosed or partly enclosed seas, such as the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Mediterranean, the risk of pollution is particularly high.\nThe proposal for a Marine Strategy Directive, which seems desirable and long-awaited, must enable the current political framework for the protection of the marine environment in Europe to be expanded and strengthened. Its effectiveness will determine the future health of European seas, and has the necessary potential to guarantee the environmental basis needed for the sustainable use of the resources and functions of the sea, both within and outside of Europe.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Political parties at European level and rules regarding their funding (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Giannakou on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2004\/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (A7-0062-2011).\nMarietta Giannakou\nMr President, Parliament is being called upon today to debate the report which I drafted on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding by the European Parliament. Despite the fact that there is a similar regulation, European political parties have not enjoyed a statute in keeping with the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union in the past, by which I mean a statute as defined in Article 10(4) of the Treaty of Lisbon, which talks of political parties at European level helping to form European political awareness and express the will of the citizens of the Union. Obviously, this does not mean that European parties will operate as international non-governmental organisations at the level of the Belgian State. That is why, having accepted the Secretary-General's report on party funding and his proposal to create a statute and the European Parliament's proposal in the previous 2003 report on the need for such a statute - except that the Treaty of Lisbon had not yet been adopted then - and, finally, the Bureau's decision of 10 January, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, following a serious hearing with all the political parties, chairmen and secretaries at European level and distinguished professors of economic and constitutional law and following a hearing of Transparency International and the EU Court of Auditors, approved this report, which calls on the European Commission to table a corresponding proposal, so that we can have a real European statute for political parties.\nOf course, this statute will have certain criteria, as defined in the report: national parties in at least seven countries or regions, where the regional authorities of those countries have legislative powers, must be members. At the same time, a distinction will be made between recognition of European parties and their funding. In order to obtain funding, they must have elected at least one MEP. Of course, individuals, simple citizens, as well as parties, will be able to join.\nThe proposals cover not only European political parties, but also their foundations. They call - and this is important - for a legal, political and fiscal status for European parties, within the framework and under the aegis, of course, of the European legal statute and European laws in general.\nThe Committee on Constitutional Affairs debated the issue at length and arrived at this proposal, with slight differentiations, of course, which are shown in the amendments. Basically, it arrived at the conclusion that this is a question of strengthening democracy, of achieving a stronger presence for citizens within the European institutions by creating such a statute and, of course, as regards the question of funding, it stipulates that 10% should come from own resources and that donors should be able to give EUR 25 000, rather than the current EUR 12 000. Thank you, Mr President. Naturally, I hope that plenary will vote in favour of this report.\nMaro\u0161 \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the report on European political parties and their foundations. I would also like to thank Mrs Giannakou for preparing this own-initiative report.\nWe in the Commission consider that report to be a very important one. We know that European political parties play an important role in European integration. In particular they contribute to ensuring that political issues are presented and discussed from the European perspective in time, before the elections to the European Parliament, thus avoiding situations where these elections are dominated by purely national issues, which, as we well know, is very often liable to be the case. I therefore welcome the forward-looking tone of the report and look forward to discussing its content tonight and in the future as well.\nArticle 12 of Regulation (EC) 2004\/2003 stipulates that the European Parliament shall publish by 15 February 2011 a report on the application of this regulation and the activities funded. The report shall indicate, where appropriate, possible amendments to be made to the funding system. We welcome, as I said, Mrs Giannakou's own-initiative report and the accompanying resolution as a positive step, but it must be underlined that information on the actual implementation of the current regulation and the activities funded could be more precise and improved.\nIn this context and in the light of the vote by Parliament tomorrow, the Commission could be called upon to act through a further revision of Regulation (EC) 2004\/2003 and the Financial Regulation, or through new legislation. Should Parliament come to the conclusion that the relevant existing legislation requires modifications, or that new legislation is required, the Commission will seriously examine these conclusions and, if it agrees, will take the necessary initiatives.\nThe Commission will also reflect on how Regulation (EC) 2004\/2003 could be further improved in the longer term in order to support the development of stronger and genuinely transnational political parties and foundations at European level, with a view to developing a truly political European public space.\nOn the specific issue of a legal statute for European political parties, I am aware that this is not the first time that Parliament has called for such a statute. This issue is addressed in some detail in a study that was commissioned by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and I believe that the study itself clearly demonstrates that a range of complicated constitutional, political and practical issues are at stake with regard to establishing such a statute. The matter therefore requires a very careful and detailed analysis indeed.\nThe same can be said about some of the other issues brought up in the report. For the proposals that would require amendments to the Financial Regulation, the Commission also sees the need for a wider reflection on legislative solutions and the timing of the possible changes.\nIn conclusion, Mrs Giannakou's report and the accompanying draft resolution raise issues that are at the heart of European integration and its democratic nature, and which therefore need our full attention. I look forward to the debate on those issues tonight and in the future as well.\nCarlo Casini\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mrs Giannakou, since she has carried out a great and intelligent piece of work.\nWhen we talk about political parties, we must take two problems into consideration. Firstly, parties are not much esteemed in any country. Secondly, when European elections take place, political parties are generally considered to pursue the interests of their national state and not the interests of Europe as a whole. At the level of public opinion, there is therefore a lack of positive esteem either for the parties or for their function in relation to the forging of Europe.\nWe must therefore act urgently. Not only in the Treaty of Lisbon, as has already been noted, but in many constitutions, in almost all European constitutions, the function of the parties is considered to be of national interest, and thus crucial in the creation of democracy and the pursuit of common interests. It is important to stress that I am speaking about constitutions, and not ordinary laws, and that thus I am referring to the fundamental structures of the States and the European Union as a whole.\nIt is thus pressing that we define a statute for parties that are truly European-facing, and not only an algebraic sum of individual national formations that have no permanent European structure on the ground. We need to see parties that think and act in a European context instead. The need I am describing is much more pressing if we really do want to see a uniform European electoral law which, hopefully, could even lead to a single European constituency to sit alongside the national constituencies. This will increase the individual European citizen's sense of belonging to Europe.\nI come now to the core of my argument. As has already been emphasised - and I thank the Commissioner in advance - my committee has worked very hard, holding hearings and many meetings, but we need a proposal, an initiative from the European Commission, which brings together European parties within the law of the Union with a new legal form under public law, with a legal personality that is also valid in all Member States and with a uniform structure that allows them to act as representatives of the European public interest. I thank Mrs Giannakou and the Commissioner for their pledges.\nEnrique Guerrero Salom\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Giannakou, thank you for drawing up this report, which I think will be very helpful in spurring the Commission to make progress in forming a better system for recognising and protecting European political parties.\nEuropean democracy is genuinely representative democracy. The edifice of representative democracy has remained steady ever since, in the mid-19th century, the expansion of suffrage made real the promise of the liberal revolutions to give the people representation, so that they could control their own destinies. The representative edifice has firm foundations, but from time to time it needs reforms and new ways to express itself with greater quality. An example of that would be the work that Parliament has done on adopting the Citizens' Initiative.\nIn short, democracy has never survived without free representation, and representation has never been free without plural competition. It is political parties that enable this plural representation. In democracy, the parties express pluralism and are fundamental instruments of political participation: they contribute to shaping public opinion; they offer alternatives, and general and sectoral government programmes; they coordinate and harmonise social interests; and they contribute to communication between the demands of the people and those who govern.\nAs a theorist of political parties has correctly pointed out, parties did not develop to communicate the needs of the rulers to the people, but rather to communicate the aspirations of the citizens to the rulers.\nWe now need this, which has worked at national level, to work at European level. It is therefore a case of providing a framework and opportunities for European political parties to carry out at European level the functions that they have been carrying out in the national arena. The most essential thing to achieving that is for parties to have legal status, and that is what this report is proposing: parties that have a territorial presence and that, at the same time, conduct themselves according to democratic rules; and a differentiation between recognition of the parties and financing, which requires popular support.\nFinally, we expect the Commission to set in motion the mechanism to perfect the currently imperfect situation of regulation of political parties.\nStanimir Ilchev\nMr President, Mrs Giannakou's report reflects the logical sequence of events over recent years which were aimed at raising citizens' interest in politics in the European Union.\nRegulating European parties means nowadays creating a civic space without borders. In this respect, the Giannakou report is an invitation to reform-minded politicians. The plans outlined in this report are important. They will help turn European parties into a real instrument for enhancing participatory governance in the Union.\nIt is no coincidence that almost 100 amendments were tabled for this report. As a result of the joint efforts made, seven compromise versions were produced, supported by all the parliamentary groups. I think that the interest in the report in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs was kindled by the notion of the European party system becoming even more flexible, attractive and logical, not to mention suitable for the processes in Europe, by establishing a general political, legal and fiscal status for European parties.\nThis is not about organising parties according to a single, standardised structure, but about following a more general model. The basic differences between parties and foundations also still apply, but there are new opportunities for greater synergy in their actions.\nThe report and the expected subsequent developments must change the familiar status quo whereby current parties are simply organisations of national parties and do not have any direct link with the electorate in Member States. Based on this aspiration, it is recommended to start examining the conditions for direct individual membership and the participation of natural persons in the party's internal operation and even in the party's management.\nA number of sensitive issues are raised in this report. For example, a proper distinction is made between the criteria for founding a political party and those for funding it. The report should be supported so that the Commission can start creating a new section in the Financial Regulation devoted solely to the funding of European parties and foundations.\nGerald H\u00e4fner\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, clear legal regulations for political parties in Europe are an important factor in shaping European society, developing European political debate and helping make the European elections truly European, with European campaigns and arguments rather than the national campaigns and arguments mainly encountered at present. For this reason I would like to thank Mrs Giannakou most sincerely for her report. We worked together very closely on this. We did not agree on all the points to begin with. However, we are happy to sign up to the final result.\nI would like to point out a couple of areas that were particularly important to us during the debate. One of them is the fact that we believe that parties who wish to participate in the democratic process must also be democratic in their structures. This applies in particular to the election of party organs, the selection of candidates and the drawing up of lists and has now been included in paragraph 5. I believe this represents enormous progress. The same goes for a series of other points which I do not intend to mention here.\nI would like to refer briefly to the most important point: the requirement that a party should already have one member in the European Parliament. This was originally required in order to receive recognition and funding. This condition now only applies to the funding issue. This was very important to us because recognition and funding must be very clearly separated. Recognition means that there must be free competition so that new parties with new issues and new faces can be formed in Europe. This should not be subject to excessive constraints. However, when it comes to the question of funding, this can, of course, be linked to a certain minimum level of electoral success. Accordingly, we can also agree to this, even if we would have liked to have worked this point out more clearly, which is why we intend to table an amendment.\nDaniel Hannan\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, democracy is not just a periodic right to put a cross on a ballot paper. Democracy depends also on a connection between government and governed - an affinity. To have a functioning democracy you need a 'demos', you need a unit with which we identify when we use the word 'we'. If you take the 'demos' out of democracy you are left only with the 'kratos', with the power of a system that must compel by force of law what it may not ask in the name of civic patriotism.\nYou cannot create the institutions of functioning representative government by bureaucratic fiat. We have tried it in the European Union. We have created all the attributes and trappings: the European Parliament, the political parties, the elections and so on, but you cannot make people feel European in the same sense that somebody might feel Norwegian, Japanese, French, Portuguese or whatever it is.\nA party should grow organically because its members recognise a community of identity and common interests. It is not something that we can do with public funding or at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. So, to be clear, the ECR opposes this legislation, we oppose the concept of having transnational parties. We form some of our constituent members into an alliance of parties but we oppose the single statute. We oppose the increases in the budget - which seems to me an extraordinary allocation of resources in the present economic climate - and I oppose my compatriot and my friend Andrew Duff's idea that these transnational parties should be allowed to spend effectively EU money in national referendum campaigns.\nYou will not create Europeans by spending public money. Not all the gold in all our national treasuries put together can serve to convince people of a false idea.\nHelmut Scholz\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, Mr \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d, ladies and gentlemen, I can only welcome the fact that the European Parliament is taking a serious-minded and practical approach to the issue of the democratisation of European decision-making processes. As Mrs Giannakou's report shows, this approach also involves the further development of European parties, which, although they have been an everyday political reality in Europe for many years, until now have not been equal partners and players in terms of their democratic influence on EU policy. We need political parties at EU level too that are firmly rooted in the societies they represent and that can play a strong role in the elections to the European Parliament and in establishing European openness, based on internal democratic structures and regulations.\nWith regard to this particular report, I must say that I would have liked the rapporteur to have shown a great deal more courage by using the Parliament's right of initiative to take a truly significant step in developing the political system and the party system in the European Union. This is a step that many citizens have been waiting for and that will encourage them to get involved. The interlocking European and national decision-making levels and the relations between the political parties could have been addressed more clearly as a common factor that is transparent and open to influence.\nThe European Parliament should now decisively call on the Commission and Council to take the initiative in this regard. I would expect constructive cooperation from the Commission and Council.\nJohn Stuart Agnew\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, this legislation will allow the EU to throw money at referendum campaigns to ensure that it purchases the right result first time, for a change!\nThe UK will in future be holding a referendum each time the EU proposes to remove power from its electorate. The EU is frightened out of its wits that we may give a series of wrong answers. So it intends to remove money from UK taxpayers to indoctrinate them into its version of the path of true righteousness.\nFronting the legislation is Andrew Duff, a liberal democrat MEP from my own region. Support in the UK for his party has collapsed recently - a party of course desperate for EU institutions to govern the UK. Never has the EU's gerrymandering been so clearly displayed alongside its contempt for UK voters. It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, because the legislation will allow us to fund the referendum campaign that many in my country have for a very long time been waiting for - the one that gives us the opportunity to remove ourselves entirely from its control.\nNicole Sinclaire\nMr President, would my colleague Mr Agnew agree with me that a political party that would accept funding under this legislation, as a single European party, and which in particular would have to observe the EU's programme and activities and the founding principles of European law, and the development of European law at all levels regionally, nationally and at European level, would be a party which has lost its principles? Would you agree with me, Mr Agnew?\nJohn Stuart Agnew\nMr President, I say to Ms Sinclaire that we will take what we can out of this because we use the devil's money to do God's work. That is what we do, and well you know it.\nNicole Sinclaire\nWill you accept the principle of European law though?\nJohn Stuart Agnew\nNo, of course we do not. That is why we are here.\nRafa\u0142 Trzaskowski\nMr President, let me first thank our rapporteur, Mrs Giannakou, and the Commission for their excellent cooperation and for an excellent report.\nAre we really in a process of creating a European demos, as my honourable colleague Mr Hannan just told us? I do not know, I am not venturing that far. I think what we want to do at this particular moment is to strengthen the nascent European public space and basically invigorate the debate on European issues. I mean, the idea in this House is to bring European citizens closer to what we are discussing here and what could be simpler then basically starting to discuss European issues with them.\nBy the way, I can only speak for myself, but I am no bureaucrat - I am a directly elected member of this House.\nThe debate is actually to increase the visibility of European political parties, to which we all belong regardless of whether we are sitting on the Left, in the Centre or on the Right of this House. To bring them out of the shade, because at the moment no one really knows what they do, what is their status, whether they produce any added value - and we in the EPP believe that they do. That is the possibility, to actually have some programme presentation and in the future hopefully to fight European elections on European issues and not get bogged down in national rhetoric all the time.\nThis report is positive on three counts. First of all, it brings a certain balance between operational authority within the parliamentary groups and a clear link with what we do in this House, linking funding to presence in this House - in the European Parliament. Secondly, it brings organisational convergence between European political parties and European foundations, which is quite laudable, and thirdly it tightens and clarifies the funding of European political parties, which I think should be the goal for us all.\nMonika Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1\n- (SK) Mr President, when we look at the history of European integration and at the current setup and functioning of the EU, it may be said that the EU can be seen not only as a grouping of states, but instead more as a political arena with the potential for creating a genuine European public. The EU not only has a single market, its own legislature, an elected body of representatives and its own judicial system. Political parties at the European level have also been in existence for a long time now. They are not just federations of national parties. They have their own agenda, a European agenda, and they are an integral part of European political life. The strengthening of political parties at the European level reinforces participatory administration in the EU, and thereby ultimately democracy as well.\nFor these reasons, I welcome the presented proposal to reform the statutes and funding of political parties at the Union level, and I would also like to thank you personally, Mr Vice-President, for your cooperation.\nIt is now very important for political parties to get a common and single legal statute. We must do away with the differences between the system for political parties and the rules applied to European institutions. This is possible on the basis of introducing a common political, legal and fiscal statute for political parties at the European level. It would also be appropriate to consider whether the right to establish such a party should be restricted to political parties operating at the national or regional level.\nThe issue of a funding system is also appropriate. The system for approving funding for political parties at the European level should be simplified. It should be possible to perform financial inspections, in order to maintain transparency. A transparent and secure environment for the operation and funding of European political parties is also a desirable and welcome step for the citizens of EU Member States. It may help them in their everyday lives. A statute of the European political parties is a significant step forwards towards greater interaction with citizens, more democracy and greater public interest in European issues.\nAndrew Duff\nMr President, national political parties are now failing to sustain European integration in a democratic and efficient manner. This is very serious. There is a gap to fill, and essential democratic sinew is needed to connect the citizen and the European powers that are exercised in Parliament and the Council. The time for European political parties has come, not as a substitute for national political parties but as a complement to them, to challenge and compete with each other for support for ideas and for candidates.\nThe development of European political parties is a critical link for the success of the transnational list proposal that this House is to be considering next month. I urge Parliament to support the Giannakou report with great courage and optimism for the future of post-national democracy.\nFran\u00e7ois Alfonsi\n(FR) Mr President, the creation of the European political parties was a major step forward towards a more democratic Europe capable of expressing the wishes of its citizens.\nMrs Giannakou's report is on the right lines in terms of making the activities of European political parties and their foundations simpler and more straightforward. It will ease the burden of the conditions required in return for obtaining public funding and will broaden the options for making use of this funding. We are particularly in favour of the possibility for the foundations to act outside EU territory also.\nHowever, alongside this general approach, which encourages and extends provisions supporting a stronger European democracy, one of the measures goes in the opposite direction and restricts the freedom of European political parties. Among the criteria for recognising a European political party's basis in a Member State, the regulation will now require the party to have elected representatives sitting in a regional assembly that has legislative powers.\nMy party is specific to Corsica. It is a member of the European Free Alliance (ALE), which has been a European political party since it began. We obtained 26% of the vote in Corsica and have a large body of members on the Corsica Regional Assembly. However, since France refuses to grant the Corsican Assembly legislative powers, even if our party were to gain a majority on the island it would not count towards the criteria for the ALE. This provision is to be deplored. We wanted to draw your attention to this point.\nJacek Olgierd Kurski\n(PL) Mr President, European political parties are a new phenomenon in European politics, but, together with the rise in integration and subsidies, they are starting to play an increasingly important role. Political parties and foundations have become participants in the political life of the EU, and as such they should be subject to appropriate regulations which prevent abuse. In certain cases, however, supranational structures aim to have too much influence over politics in the sovereign Member States. For example, I am concerned at the announced intervention of EU parties in domestic matters. As a Polish politician, I could not agree to a situation in which one or several of the European political parties were to organise a referendum campaign in my country, for example, using EU funds to achieve a specific result, for example in the referendum on my country's accession to the euro area. Similar fears may be harboured by politicians in other countries, for example the United Kingdom.\nI am also opposed to demands to increase spending on European political parties, using money from taxpayers' pockets. This is all the more true since the government in my country is halving subsidies for national political parties and preventing the opposition from reaching the public. Let us first support national parties, and then international ones. After all, the European Union is a Europe of nation states.\nDani\u00ebl van der Stoep\n(NL) Mr President, you just observed that I was too late with my blue card. I was not. Even while Mr Duff was speaking I had already clearly indicated that I wanted to speak. I am not sure exactly what the procedure is. Can I still use my blue card or will you carry on with the debate? I would still like to ask Mr Duff a question about what he had to say, as he did start talking about the transnational list. I was not aware that we were discussing that and I wanted to ask him a question about it.\nPresident\nMr van der Stoep, as far as I am concerned you may ask your question.\nDani\u00ebl van der Stoep\nMy problem with the transnational list with which Mr Duff commenced his report - a report that we are to debate soon - is not so much the fact that a transnational list is to be made. Obviously, I am already completely against that idea. My problem, rather, is that only parties can participate in this - but what we are talking about here is European political parties - which means parties that are active in at least seven Member States.\nMy party is a party that stands for the interests of the Netherlands. As a result, parties in other Member States that stand for the interests of their own countries are little concern of ours. They are most welcome to do so, but in doing this you are excluding a whole range of parties that are unable to compete for the 25 seats required. That causes me terrible worries. I do not know how exactly you envisage this or how exactly you plan to participate. Could you make things less difficult in this connection? In any case we feel seriously excluded.\nAndrew Duff\nMr President, the proposal that I am promoting is that a transnational list should be drawn from at least a third of the Member States. That is not very many. If Mr van der Stoep cannot attract colleagues with political affinity from six other states, I recommend that he examines the validity and credibility of his political opinions.\nS\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard\n(DA) Mr President, let me start by saying that I am a strong supporter of political parties at national level, European level and also at international level. However, a political party is not merely the party apparatus; it is much more than that. One of the truly major democratic challenges we face is the fact that political parties are reflecting the population as a whole to an ever decreasing extent. This is demonstrated, among other things, by the fact that political parties are losing members. Many countries have chosen to compensate for this by increasing government subsidies to the parties. However, higher government subsidies are no guarantee of a closer connection between the parties' leadership and apparatus on the one hand and the parties' membership on the other. On the contrary, the risk of an independent bureaucratic apparatus developing is greater the more financially independent from their members the parties' apparatus becomes. I therefore have to say that I am sceptical about the idea of European parties approved by the EU and supported by payments from it. This is not because I have anything against European parties. European parties should grow politically, organisationally and financially from the bottom up. If this is not possible it is probably because there is not enough support. There is no shortcut to democracy, not even when it comes to establishing European parties.\nNikolaos Salavrakos\n(EL) Mr President, firstly my congratulations to our rapporteur, Mrs Giannakou, on her balanced and accurate report. I consider that the development of political parties with European prospects which are more than national vehicles will be crucial in galvanising public opinion in the Union and interesting the citizens of Europe in participating in joint parties.\nWe are living in times when, as we are all aware, it is fashionable to denigrate politicians and the political parties to which they belong, as European citizens feel alienated from political, economic and civil developments. At this juncture, therefore, Mrs Giannakou's report will help to improve the appearance of political parties and support the unification of Europe and the reforms needed to create a Europe with equal citizens, with a common political, legal and fiscal status and with opportunities for growth.\nNicole Sinclaire\nMr President, earlier today I spoke in this Chamber about my constituency, the West Midlands, and the economic hardships it is going through. One of the last things that people there want is more money to be spent on politicians - they already have too many politicians, including MEPs, wasting their money as it is.\nWhat this is, is a step, and Europe is willing to throw this money at creating that further step on the road to a super state. It has its Parliament, its President and its Foreign Affairs Adviser, and now it wants the political parties to go with that. Because what it wants is a nation called the European Union. Even the most euro-sceptic members of this Parliament are willing to trade their principles to take their money. Well done! Is that what Europe wants? Does it want to buy its way to power?\nMariya Nedelcheva\n(FR) Mr President, in our democracies we have our parliaments, which are the voice of citizens, then we have the political parties and their foundations, which are the masterminds, think-tanks and leaders of the debate. Parliaments are the motors of democracy and political parties are the fuel.\nHere in our Parliament, we complain all the time about citizens' disinterest in the European Union. We lament the abstention rate in European elections and 'No' votes in referendums. If we want real European democracy, we must take a serious look at the place we want to give to European political parties in the European space we are trying to build.\nWe have already done a good deal with the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Citizens' Initiative. We must now give European political parties the resources they need to achieve their ambitions. Please note that I do not think these resources should be a vehicle for allowing the big parties to turn into immovable hegemonies. Small organisations should also be able to take part in the debate. This is important if we are to combat the parties' negative image among citizens and their image as the unpopular face of democracy.\nI believe it is essential to clearly establish the conditions on funding and transparent management of funding if we are to strengthen the European public space we are trying to create. The initiative must be inclusive, so that the larger parties are not favoured to the detriment of the smaller parties and vice versa.\nAnother point I would like to deal with relates to the continuity we will be creating between the European, national and regional levels. The European regulations we will be introducing must be capable of fitting in with the different national legal frameworks on the subject, to ensure that the different levels do indeed mesh with each other.\nFinally, we also need to look very closely at what paragraph 23 of the report says, because by extension we need to think about the links that European parties would be able to form with parties in the rest of the world. We must be able to share our democratic values with our partners in the rest of the world, because the globalised world in which we live today requires political decision-makers to come up with solutions to problems together.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\n(LT) Mr President, the importance of the role played by European political parties is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, which aims to create an effective European political space. It is the job of our politicians' to encourage citizens to take an interest in the European Union, to make it more understandable and accessible and to involve them in decision making. However, to that end it is necessary to regulate the activities of European political parties and foundations in a clear and uniform manner, and to ensure that the internal functioning of such parties is democratic. As enablers for democracy these political parties must have a uniform legal and fiscal status, which would ensure that European citizens have a better understanding of political parties and are better represented. It is particularly important for the formation of political parties' internal management bodies to be based on transparent principles, in order to ensure the democratic election of all party bodies and democratic decision-making processes.\nAlexandra Thein\n(DE) Mr President, very few of our citizens are aware of the existence of European parties and foundations. Until now these have simply been umbrella organisations for their national member parties, established according to national laws, mainly Belgian laws in this case.\nWhat is it that these European parties do? They discuss European issues, hold party conferences and play an indispensable role in reforming the European Parliament's electoral system. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, they are required to help establish European democracy - a political forum at European level.\nThe own-initiative report to be voted on tomorrow calls on the Commission to reform the legal basis for these European parties. In future, these parties will be based on a European legal statute and will have a European legal personality. As liberals, we have campaigned to ensure that a clear distinction is made between recognition as a European party and an entitlement to funding, as there was a certain greed in evidence. It is also important that European parties should follow democratic principles in their internal workings, something that cannot be taken for granted.\nGeoffrey Van Orden\nMr President, the tide of opinion is moving one way in many of our nations, but the European Union and this Parliament curiously seek to swim in a different direction. There is no demand from our citizens for transnational politicians. This Parliament now wants to spend even more public money, when our national governments are having to make reductions in public expenditure.\nI speak, Mr President, in my capacity as President of New Direction, the Foundation for European Reform. To my mind, it is unacceptable that the costs of political foundations should be increasing at a rate of over 30% year on year. In 2009, EUR 6.3 million was spent; by 2012 this will have doubled to EUR 12.3 million. Some might say that if you object to this, why does your Foundation accept funding? Well, the answer to that is quite simply that any funds we do not accept are distributed among the foundations of the other political groups; we would be funding the activities of our political opponents. We need to find a way of returning money to our national exchequers.\nNikolaos Chountis\n(EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the European Union is being tested by a democracy crisis and a credibility crisis, as well as an economic crisis. The policies being applied are angering and disappointing our citizens and the decision-making procedures discourage their participation, as the recent European elections demonstrated. That is why, subject to certain preconditions, European political parties, with their specific political attributes, may help the public to become more pro-active in seeking solutions for the benefit of the people, not the financially strong. Therefore the rules of political and legal recognition and the necessary funding must facilitate their action to freely develop their policies and their alternative proposals - because that is the essence of democracy - and they must not be influenced by outside political or economic restrictions. That is why I have reservations about certain points in the report, insofar as they might be used as restrictions on the free and independent organisation and action of political parties.\nThe operation, action and organisation of parties must be matters of their own choice and must not be contingent upon political sovereign correlations.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n- (SK) Mr President, the report on the application of a regulation on a statute for political parties at European level and their funding evaluates experience from the application of this law in the administration of political entities with a broad European scope.\nAs well as evaluating the current situation, Mrs Giannakou has decided to formulate a number of proposals for improving the current legal environment.\nPerhaps the most significant change would be the transformation of the form of the statute from the current equivalent of a Belgian non-governmental organisation to a common and single European legal statute for political parties.\nThe second significant change would be setting the percentage share of independent funding sources at 10% of the overall budget of political parties.\nIn view of the fact that European political parties and their foundations should receive more than EUR 30 million from the European Parliament in 2012, however, we must ensure maximum transparency in the management of this funding. Changes such as these can be supported, in the interests of further improving political work in the EU.\nDani\u00ebl van der Stoep\n(NL) Mr President, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is in this House to represent the Dutch people. We are here because we believe that the European Union, as it currently exists, does not serve the interests of the Netherlands. We are not opposed to the European Union, we just want it to restrict itself to economic cooperation. For us, Mr President, a European political union is therefore completely unthinkable. Power must rest with the Member States, as only they can determine what is best for their own citizens. European political parties would provide no added value at all for the well-being of citizens of the European Union or of the Netherlands.\nMr President, the provision in the Treaty of Lisbon which states - and I quote - that political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union is an absurd and out-of-touch statement. It does not interest the citizens, and quite rightly so. Between them, the European political parties received around EUR 67 million in European subsidies between 2004 and 2010. This is a completely senseless pouring of taxpayers' money down the drain. A political party must, by definition, be able to function without subsidies, and that includes European political parties. These are special interest groups that nobody knows, that nobody monitors and that we need like we need a whole in the head.\nGeorgios Toussas\n(EL) Mr President, the core issue raised by the report in connection with the funding of European parties and the policies to found them is the creation of a single statute for European parties in accordance with Euro-unifying legislation.\nThe European Union - with its legislation setting out a single structure and modus operandi for European parties and interfering in their internal operation, their charters and their political programme, on the pretext of allegedly relaxing the funding regime - is opening a Pandora's box of economic and, by extension, political sanctions against political parties in the form of an EU stranglehold on their operation and action, pressure on national political parties to integrate more fully into the anti-grassroots policy of the European Union and an attack on parties that question the anti-grassroots policy, the EU strategy and the authority of capital. This is not about parliamentary coordination; it is about European parties as ideological and political tools of the European Union to manipulate the working and grassroots movement.\nThat is why we shall vote against the report on regulations governing European parties, political foundations and their funding.\nElena B\u0103sescu\n(RO) Mr President, transparent funding of European political parties is an essential means of supporting democratic values. We need a European space where political parties will be active and citizens will be at the heart of the European Union's concerns. Adopting European legal status marks a step towards improving European parties' regulatory framework.\nIn the case of my own country, we have Act no 334 of 2006, revised in 2010, in force. However, the public debate is about whether it would not be more appropriate for funding for municipal and parliamentary candidates to be provided by the state budget. The ceiling being proposed for each candidate is approximately EUR 11 600. Adopting these cost regulations would eliminate electoral bribery and illegal funding. The parties would have primarily competent candidates rather than people capable of promoting their own campaign.\nDiane Dodds\nMr President, this debate tonight is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the 'more Europe' agenda. It is simply staggering for me to have listened and to see how greatly removed the debate is from the agenda of ordinary citizens. Mr Duff quite rightly acknowledges that there is a gap to fill between the European powers and the individual citizens. That is absolutely right, but that gap will not be filled by developing European parties and, as another contributor to the debate has said, giving those parties the resources to match their ambitions.\nI would challenge Mr Duff to go to his constituency at the weekend and try to sell those views to local community groups that have had their funding cut because of austerity measures imposed by his coalition government in the United Kingdom. The gap will be filled, however, by giving people their say on Lisbon, on increasing federalism, and on the litany of red tape that comes from these institutions.\nMaro\u0161 \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I start my concluding remarks by thanking once again Mrs Giannakou for her report because I think that this debate has very clearly proven that the concern and the issues she raised in her report are legitimate; they are at the heart of European integration and of its democratic nature.\nThe exchange of views clearly demonstrated as well how sensitive these issues are and, therefore, if this House approves this proposed legislative resolution tomorrow, the Commission will respect its commitment stemming from the framework agreement and will respond to this resolution within three months.\nHowever, as you may have felt from this debate, it is quite clear that this would be a very sensitive, elaborate, political and legal task because there are a lot of issues that are both legally and politically very sensitive. Our preliminary analyses on the statute of the European political parties is in this direction but, of course, we now need to study very carefully the legal basis, potential legal form and, as we see now, we would most probably need a separate legal act on this issue. That is because the revising of the regulation from 2003-2004 would simply not be sufficient because it targeted the funding issue and not the issue of the statute of the political groups. So this would be one angle, which we would have to look at very carefully.\nSeveral speakers raised the question of amending the Financial Regulation. Here, again, we would need to look very carefully at the requirements, scope and the timing and we certainly took very careful note of the calls in this report for more flexibility. As you know, we already took some steps in 2007 and we will examine these proposals very carefully. However, it is quite clear that it might be very difficult to agree on the changes and have them incorporated into the current revision of the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules.\nOf course, Parliament is a legislator and is free to raise this issue in the current ongoing interinstitutional process, if it so wishes. My thanks again, Mr President, and we are certainly looking forward to the ensuing debate on this issue once the resolution has been adopted and the Commission's response has been prepared.\nMarietta Giannakou\nMr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner in particular for what he said and for the undertakings he made and my fellow members who supported this report.\nFirstly, I think that it is important to repeat that, as far as the funding procedure is concerned, the parties will not seek more funding and that the amendment to the 2007 regulation has brought about greater transparency, as Transparency International itself has admitted. Secondly, it is only fair that the parties should seek a European statute and to bring their statute into line with the European institutions and with European legislation and this is, of course, intended to satisfy the citizens.\nFinally, creating a secure and transparent environment for the operation and funding of parties is a deeply democratic act. We need a European area of active political parties which will bring citizens into the heart of the Union and help them in their daily lives. This will mean greater participation, more democracy and, in the final analysis, more Europe.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on 6 April at 12:00.\nWritten Statements (Rule 149)\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi\nThe European Union has faced repeated criticism due to the lack of democracy. To achieve genuine democracy, we need to have a European political space in the true sense of the term, and political parties at European level are a key instrument for attaining this goal. The proposals for reforming the regulation on the rules governing European political parties and their funding, which feature in this report, mark a step towards streamlining how they operate. I think that they can fulfil their role much better if they enjoy a uniform political and legal status based on European law. The current system where these parties have a legal personality based on national legislation does not offer the conditions which are most conducive to ensuring effective communication between these parties and the electorate in the 27 Member States. Introducing a European statute would help political parties at European level to adapt to any reform of the electoral system for the European elections, which is currently under discussion. Furthermore, I welcome the move to facilitate the involvement of European political parties in campaigns for referendums relating to European issues at Member State level. In most cases, these referendums are dominated by purely domestic issues. The involvement of European parties could help redirect the debates towards the real issues of these referendums.\nAlgirdas Saudargas\nin writing. - (LT) Discussions about how to strengthen the role of European political parties by developing democracy in Europe and forming public opinion are very relevant. Although Parliament is acquiring increasing powers there has been no reduction in its democratic deficit due to citizens' ever declining participation in European Parliament elections. Political parties at European level are essential instruments of parliamentary democracy, raising European political awareness, promoting interest in EU affairs and expressing the will of the citizens of the European Union. I therefore agree entirely with the rapporteur that it is necessary to enhance the situation of political parties at European level and prepare a clear and uniform legal status and financing model for them. Such parties should not remain foreign bodies. Currently the role of European political parties in the public sphere is rather limited. They are merely umbrella organisations for national parties and not directly in touch with the electorate. The new legal status of such parties in the European Union would ensure organisational uniformity and provide the opportunity to carry out its role more effectively. I would like to stress that we must continue to strive for the creation of a safe and transparent environment for party funding. Party funding should not be based purely on grants, we must also promote funding from our own resources, which are a sign of party vitality.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1\nin writing. - (SK) I would not like to be a member of a political party established on the principles sketched out in the submitted report. These parties are supposed to become the representatives of the 'European public interest', but if you ask any two Members of this Parliament what that is, they will each answer differently. Who will determine this interest? Parliament? The Commission? Members are not nominated by EU institutions, however, but elected by the citizens of the Member States. It is my duty to represent actual citizens, not what the EU institutions consider to be the 'European public interest'. Nor do I agree that European parties should also operate at regional and national levels. They simply do not have a mandate for that. If they start doing that, they will get into conflict with the parties on whose ballots we were all elected, and with the voters represented by these parties. My loyalty belongs to my voters, not to a European political party. That is called a free mandate. I therefore completely disagree with the philosophy of super parties presented in this report. It is another attempt by the social euro-engineers, who are so obsessed with the utopian super-state that they ignore common sense. If they listened to common sense, they would realise that the stubborn assertion of such proposals demolishes the foundations on which European integration stands. As a staunch European, I must therefore vote against this report.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission (\n- Before the vote:\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso\nPresident of the Commission. - Mr President, a few months ago in my political guidelines and here in plenary, I proposed taking this special partnership between Parliament and the Commission to a new level. I proposed further enforcing and developing our relations in a positive way to reflect the new treaty and to reflect our shared sense of purpose to shape Europe together.\nIn the last few weeks, I had in-depth discussions with the team of negotiators led by Mr Lehne, whom you appointed, for the revision of the Framework Agreement. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of them for very intensive discussions, but also for their constructive approach.\nI am deeply satisfied that we have now found a common understanding on the principles that will govern our relationship in the coming years. They should reinforce our cooperation in full respect of the institutional balance set up by the treaties.\nAs President of the European Commission, I will subscribe to the principles laid down in the resolution you have just adopted. They will guide me in developing the position of the new College on the revision of the full Framework Agreement.\nWith the adoption of this resolution by such an impressive majority of this House, I am confident that we have an excellent base for reinforcing our relationship. For those issues that concern not only our two institutions but also the Council, I sincerely hope the Council will join us in this common effort to improve the work of all the institutions for the benefit of Europe.\nIf you approve the new College later today, I will ask Vice-President designate \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d to lead negotiations on the Commission side to revise the Framework Agreement. I wish to assure you that he is as committed as I am - as, I am sure, are all the new College - to effective and swift negotiations.\nPresident\nThank you very much, President Barroso, for your very positive approach to our negotiations. On behalf of us all, I would like to thank our negotiating group, chaired by Mr Lehne, and all colleagues who were so committed to the negotiations.\n(Applause)\nWe do not as yet have a legislative initiative based on the Treaty of Lisbon, but we have been promised an answer on our expectations from the Commission. Not only do we have Question Hour with the President of the European Commission, but also Question Time with the Commissioners, an invitation from the President of the European Commission to the President of the European Parliament and to the College of Commissioners, and our common cooperation with national parliaments, which is very important.\nWe are thinking about the subsidiarity rule; we need an impact assessment to improve it as far as possible, and we hope it will be much stronger from this point of view than was originally the case in our agreement, but there is still much hope for all of us that we can do everything that is necessary for our citizens in the future.\n(The sitting was suspended at 12.10 and resumed at 13.30)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Acts of terrorism in the United States\nPresident\nLadies and gentlemen, I open this extraordinary meeting with the emotion and the sadness that this horrific event, the scale of which would have seemed inconceivable, inspires in us all.\nThe purpose of this meeting is first of all to demonstrate our solidarity with the American people, who have just been struck by a barbaric act of terrorism, to show our compassion for the victims, for the final toll will certainly be appalling, and to demonstrate our support for all those who are working tirelessly to save what further lives they can. Yesterday, I expressed this solidarity to President Bush, on my own behalf and on behalf of the entire European Parliament and gave him my assurance that the people of Europe are standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the tragic ordeal the American nation is suffering. When terrorism strikes in a Member State of the European Union we all feel concerned, and these appalling attacks inspire in me the same feeling of disgust and indignation. Today, we share the pain of the American people. It is the United States, that great democracy which did so much to help Europe protect its freedom that has just been attacked, but a blow has also been dealt to the sacrosanct values of life and democracy.\nThe date of 11 September 2001 will remain forever engraved on the memory of humanity. This tragedy calls for a calm reaction on our part but also for the closest cooperation between all countries that reject terrorism so that the perpetrators of these abominable crimes and those who have supported them can be identified, pursued, arrested and tried and so that blind terrorism can, at last, be eradicated from the surface of the globe. It also requires the international community to commit itself to finding a peaceful solution to the conflicts that nourish and sustain fanaticism. Over and above statements, over and above the common response to terrorism that we hope and pray for, all players on the international stage must now shoulder their responsibilities. From now on resolute action must be the order of the day and I know that the European Union will have to take decisions of vital importance.\nI welcome the presence here today of Prime Minister Verhofstadt, Mr Michel, Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr Prodi, President of the Commission.\nThe European Union will have no credibility if it does not establish a common policy on combating terrorism. The European Commission and the European Parliament have stated this clearly, particularly during our last part-session. I hope that the Council will study these proposals without delay. Since the Tampere European Council, some tentative progress has, admittedly, been made with regard to the European area of freedom, security and justice, but this falls considerably short of what is needed. We must go further. Although the European Union has made its presence felt on the international stage, in the Middle East, at Durban and even in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, yesterday' s events are proof, if proof were needed, of the imperative need to establish a Europe of defence and a genuinely common foreign and security policy as quickly as possible. An extraordinary European Council meeting could provide a timely boost to all these elements for, as we know, history waits for no man.\nLadies and gentlemen, let us now observe a minute' s silence for all the victims.\n(The House rose and observed a minute' s silence)\n\nVerhofstadt\n- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, just over 24 hours ago the United States was hit by an attack of unprecedented scale and ferocity. At this very moment men, women and children of all ages, of all convictions and of all origins are struggling for their lives, while others are mourning the loss of loved ones and others still are suffering the anguish of waiting for reassuring news about the fate of those who are missing.\nMadam President, our thoughts are with our American friends who have been assailed by this despicable and barbaric violence. We would like to be able to express just how much we share their suffering. Today, we feel that we are all Americans. I say that, and let there be no mistake about this, because it is not just the United States and its population that has been targeted, but democracy itself. Democracy and its values of liberty, tolerance and humanity, which are the exact opposite of blind and suicidal terrorism. As human beings, as believers in democracy, and as Europeans, we cannot nor will we ever be able to accept this barbarity.\nMadam President, the Union that we want to build has its origins precisely in the rejection of the hate, fanaticism and murderous madness that nearly led to the downfall of our continent. And in the face of these tragedies a comprehensive range of concrete and firm gestures is called for. The various Member States have taken essential initiatives to come to the aid of the United States of America.\nMadam President, on behalf of the Union, and following consultation with the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, and the leaders of all the Member States, I have conveyed our deepest sympathy to President Bush. As a token of solidarity and sympathy, the Union has decided that on Friday, 14 September a day of mourning and solidarity with the American people will be observed.\nThe Heads of State and Government of the fifteen EU Member States will be issuing a joint political declaration in the morning. At 12 noon, a three minutes' silence will be observed, during which all activity will be suspended.\n(Loud applause) The candidate countries for accession to the European Union are also invited to join us in this act of solidarity. With this expression of solidarity, in addition to the political decisions which we will be taking in the coming weeks, the people of the European Union wish to express their deep sympathy with the grief, and particularly the pain, which is affecting the American people today.\n(Loud applause)\n\nProdi\nMadam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, an extraordinary meeting of the Commission took place this morning. We observed a minute' s silence and then discussed the various political aspects of this appalling tragedy which fall within the direct remit of the Commission.\nThis afternoon, I stressed before the European Parliament and the General Affairs Council that Europe must demonstrate full solidarity with the American people and adopt a common European position on all aspects of these tragic events.\nThe Commission is appalled by these criminal, barbaric deeds and has already sent its condolences to the victims and their families and expressed its sympathy for the American people. Our cooperation with the United States in the fight against terrorism is more essential than ever and must be pursued. Over the next few days, the Commission will examine the other proposals made in order to be able to take increasingly effective action to fight terrorism.\nWe are fortunate in that the economic and social structure of our countries is strong and resilient. Therefore, even in these sad circumstances, we can remain calm and confident, and we will not allow terrorism to divide us or to divide the world in its goals or in its endeavours to achieve them.\nWe must reflect at this time on the role of Europe. This criminal action is an attack on all our common values and on freedom itself. After this event, nothing will ever be the same. We therefore need to show great solidarity and friendship towards the American people and their government, and the European institutions and governments will work closely with our US and other friends at this tragic time and in the future.\nHowever, there is also a purely European dimension. The tragic events we have witnessed highlight once again the need for a united, strong, resolute, unified Europe which protects freedom and safeguards peace in Europe and throughout the world, a Europe that acts united alongside countries which share our goals, that acts united to protect and promote the values of freedom and solidarity, the values which are the basis of the democracy preserved by Parliament.\nI invite you, therefore, to reflect upon yesterday' s tragedy. Our citizens will only be able ensure peace and stability for themselves and for their children if they are united in their actions and if they feel that they can count on Europe. This is the path we must take to safeguard our people: we must follow it courageously, resolutely and responsibly.\n(Loud applause)\n\nLouis Michel\n- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, first of all, on behalf of the Council, to express our immense horror, outrage and revulsion at the tragic events which hit the United States yesterday morning. I wish here, on behalf of the European Union, on behalf not only of its leaders but also of all the citizens of Europe, to reiterate our most sincere sympathy for the victims and their families and for the American people and the government of the United States. This abominable act, which has caused such pain to the American people, is of course also an attack on the universal values which Europe has always shared with America. I would like, on behalf of the Council, to solemnly reaffirm here the unfailing solidarity of the peoples of Europe with the American people in defending these values. We want the United States to be aware that Europe is by its side in combating the evil of terrorism, no matter what form it may take. We cannot allow anonymous terror to undermine the values of the free and democratic world. We will stand together in attacking the major threat represented by large-scale terrorism. The battle against this scourge will be all the more effective to the extent that it is supported by preventive actions and a detailed political dialogue with the countries of those regions of the world where terrorism has its roots. Yesterday' s terrorist attack on the territory of the United States is an unprecedented act of provocation and of particularly loathsome cruelty. Acts of such barbarity, terror and cowardice cannot be tolerated. The scale of this tragedy demands an appropriate response. In conjunction with its allies, the European Union will examine all possible means of preventing such acts and of responding to them in an appropriate manner. The European Union will step up its activity in the international bodies responsible for the fight against terrorism with a view to ensuring that the perpetrators, accomplices and sponsors of acts of terrorism are rendered powerless. However, our determination should, under no circumstances, fail to go hand in hand with responsible prudence. At this moment we do not know the identity of the perpetrators, sponsors and possible accomplices of these terrible attacks. These are essential factors in being able to judge and react in a rational manner with a responsible and meaningful attitude. We must avoid any type of impromptu action.\nWhile awaiting a response to these questions, our governments have taken the necessary steps to protect their people. The Council has been informed of security measures adopted as a matter of urgency by the Member States. In order to maximise cooperation between us, the Council has asked the Justice, Home Affairs and Transport Councils to take whatever measures are necessary to maintain the highest level of security as quickly as possible, particularly in the area of air transport, together with all measures required to prevent other attacks. The Justice and Home Affairs Council on 27 September and the informal Transport Council on 14 September will evaluate those measures already taken and any that may be necessary to complement them. The Extraordinary Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers has condemned these acts of barbarity, which are an insult to our common values, in the strongest terms. We have declared 14 September 2001 a day of mourning in the 15 Member States. We have asked the presidency to maintain close contact with the United States so as to study with them how best to provide whatever help may be required. At the request of several Member States, the Secretary General of NATO has informed the Council of the discussions in progress within that organisation.\nI can now read to you the declaration by the European Union:\n\"The Council of the European Union, meeting in special session today, in the presence of the Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance, expressed its horror at yesterday' s terrorist attacks in the United States. The Council stressed its complete solidarity with the government of the United States and the American people at this terrible time and extended its deepest sympathy to all the victims and their families. We ask all Europeans to observe three minutes of silence on Friday, 14 September at 12 noon and we also declare 14 September 2001 a day of mourning. These horrendous acts are an attack not only on the United States but against humanity itself and the values and freedoms we all share. The life and work of our open and democratic societies will continue undeterred. The Union utterly condemns the perpetrators and sponsors of these acts of barbarism. The Union and its Member States will spare no efforts in helping identify, bring to justice and punish those responsible: there will be no safe haven for terrorists and their sponsors. The Union will work closely with the United States and all partners to combat international terrorism. All international organisations, particularly the United Nations, must be engaged and all relevant international instruments, including those concerned with the financing of terrorism, must be fully implemented. The Community and its Member States have offered the United States all possible assistance with search and rescue operations. Discussions are underway to establish what help would be most useful. Recalling the strong and enduring ties which exist between the European Union and the United States, the Council has asked the presidency to stay in close contact with the government of the United States in order to convey this message of solidarity.\"\nFollowing on from that, Madam President, these are the conclusions of the Council, so that you will be in receipt of all the relevant information:\n\"The Council expressed the profound solidarity of the European Union with the American people and approved a declaration condemning the terrorist attacks in the United States. The Council was informed of the security measures taken by the Member States. To ensure maximum cooperation between the latter, the Council asks its Justice and Home Affairs and Transport compositions to take all the necessary measures as soon as possible to maintain the highest level of security, particularly in the field of air transport, and any other measures needed to combat terrorism and prevent terrorist attacks. The Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 27 and 28 September, or earlier if necessary, together with the informal Transport Council meeting on 14 and 15 September, will evaluate the measures which will already have been taken and those which should supplement them. The Council reaffirms its determination to combat all forms of terrorism with all the resources at its disposal. The Council also took note of the declaration by the Commission and the President of the ECOFIN Council.\nThe Council has requested the presidency, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Commission submit, as soon as possible, a report on concrete measures that may be recommended to speed up the implementation and the strengthening of the operational instruments of both the Common Foreign and Security Policy and in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.\nThese measures will be aimed at increasing the capacity of the European Union to fight effectively, together with the United States and all our partners, international terrorism.\nAs for the Council, it intends to return to these measures regularly in order to ensure, in particular, that all the actions taken by the European Union are coordinated.\"\n(Loud applause)\n\nPoettering\n- (DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my group' s sincere thanks to you, Madam President, for having convened this sitting, which gives us all an opportunity to express our deepest sympathy for and solidarity with those families that have suffered losses, with the President of the United States of America, with our colleagues in the US Congress and with everyone in the United States of America.\nYesterday' s horrendous attack in Washington and New York was not just an attack on the United States, but an attack on the entire civilised world, an attack against every one of us, including those in this Chamber. It was an attack on our ideals of democracy, human rights and peace. We are filled with grief and horror in the face of this disaster, a disaster which must never be repeated, and the forces of civilisation throughout the world must now work shoulder to shoulder with the United States to bring those responsible for this attack to account, and we must work closely together to prevent future terrorist attacks. We must find a way to stop attacks of this kind being planned again, and this will also require a whole new dimension in European and international cooperation.\nWe must commit ourselves today to launching a fight against terrorism, so that the apocalyptic events in New York and Washington do not mean a global apocalypse tomorrow, and as a Parliament we can be proud of the fact that last week we adopted Mr Watson's anti-terrorism report by such a huge majority.\nFor a few hours yesterday I had the impression that the United States' ability to act had been compromised. The United States is a world power to which we owe a debt of gratitude for fighting against Nazism in the Second World War and thus guaranteeing a peaceful future for Europe and it is a world power which has firmly resisted totalitarian communism, which ultimately led to the collapse of the wall dividing Berlin, Germany and Europe. On behalf of my group I would like to say that it is in our interest for America to retain its ability to act and to be strong, and for America to remain a good partner and friend to the European Union, and we should work together towards this goal in future.\n(Loud applause)\nWe do not know who the perpetrators are. There are certain assumptions, but I would counsel against surmising that these assumptions are true. Above all, should these assumptions be confirmed, I would counsel us all against applying them to the Arab and Islamic world as a whole. I have never forgotten an outstanding speech given by Anwar al Sadat, the assassinated President of Egypt, on 10 February 1981. He said that Islam should never be judged by the misguided and irresponsible actions of people professing to be adherents of this great faith. Islam is a religion based on tolerance, not fanaticism, a religion based on love, not hate, and it is a coherent religion based on order, not chaos.\nWe should beware of making generalisations, and we should make it clear that we not only wish to live in partnership with our American friends, but that we also want to live in partnership and, if possible, friendship with those Arab and Islamic countries that are committed to peace.\n(Loud applause)\nWe should commit ourselves today to building an order in Europe and throughout the world in conjunction with all our neighbours - an order in which Europe is strong and united. That is why, Mr President-in-Office, it gives such an impressive signal that both you and the President of the Commission are here today, a signal that we Europeans are united and strong, and that we wish to coexist in friendship and partnership with all our neighbours, on the basis of human rights, democracy, freedom, social well-being and, above all, peace. That must be the message we send out today, the day after the dreadful events of 11 September 2001.\n(Loud applause)\n\nBar\u00f3n Crespo\nMadam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, our group shares the indignation and horror at the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.\nWe wish to express our solidarity with the families of the American victims of these horrendous attacks. We would also like to express our profound sadness to the families of the European victims and all those who have lost relatives, whatever their colour or continent of origin, because this diabolical attack was not only directed against the American people, but also against the Europeans and the other people who live together in the cosmopolitan world of New York, and we must remember that the World Trade Centre is just a few steps from the headquarters of the United Nations.\nThis is an attack on our common values, on democracy, on the very foundations of our civilisation. As the late lamented Francisco Tom\u00e1s y Valiente, President of the Spanish Constitutional Court, who was murdered by terrorists, wrote in an almost posthumous article: \"Every time a person is killed, something dies within us\" .\nExactly a week ago, this Parliament unanimously approved the resolution against terrorism. Then it was a European problem for certain States. Today we can see that the situation has changed qualitatively: terrorism has also been globalised as a result of a lethal combination of fanaticism, cowardice and high technology.\nOur film archives are full of horror and disaster movies, with monsters attacking New York and other cities. What happened yesterday reminds us that we do not need monsters: we humans are monsters when we lose our minds. And as in Goya' s painting, 'the illusion of reason produces monsters' .\nWe Europeans must play a very significant role in the fight against globalised terrorism, in the fight for common values, for a more peaceful and just world. We want to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, with our colleagues in the United States Congress, and also with the rest of our allies, in a joint action to resolve the most ferocious conflicts on the planet with perseverance and decisiveness.\nWe welcome the fact that the Americans, led by their President, despite this cowardly aggression, have so far acted with cool heads, containing their rage, as yesterday Kofi Annan rightly asked them to do. We would ask the leaders not to change that attitude, not to respond to terror with terror, that we may act jointly, above all in order to achieve something very important, because now is the time to strengthen our alliance with the United States and with all the people of the world who share our ideal of peace, justice and freedom.\n(Loud applause)\n\nCox\nMadam President, President-in-Office, President of the Commission, colleagues, this is an important place in which to celebrate this important moment. We in this Parliament are the tribune of the peoples of the European Union and we have gathered here today to declare solemnly our outrage, our sympathy, our solidarity and our common bond in humanity and democracy with the people of the United States of America, and with the people of New York City and Washington D.C.\nWe witnessed yesterday a profoundly shocking event. It is a new and low threshold in the tide of human affairs. We witnessed an act of war - without a declaration of war - by persons, movements or states, as yet, not fully determined, but who acted with a grim and focused determination. We must make sure that our response is common and not isolated, shared and not unilateral, aimed at our common enemy, which is terrorism, but not at wider forces such as Islam or the wider Arab world, should that be the source whence this monster may have sprung.\nThis modern apocalypse is America' s injury, but the wounds are universally shared among the community of democratic nations. To the people of the United States of America, to its President, its Congressional and civic leaders, and its communities throughout the country, especially the peoples of New York and Washington, to the grieving families of the missing and the dead and to those who have survived the ordeal, we express our sympathy in this hour of hardship and devastation.\nNew York is a very special place. It is a multi-cultural microcosm of the whole world. It is a special gateway between our old continent and the New World. It was through Ellis Island that in earlier generations, before the spirit of democracy took the deep root it has right across our continent, that our huddled masses, our oppressed and our starving went to find freedom, democracy and opportunity.\nIt is no accident that when the French Republic gave the people of the United States a gift to celebrate 100 years of that great republic, that they called that statue 'Liberty': no accident either that her extended arms should carry a torch of freedom. When someone touches that symbol, they touch us all deeply, because it is part of our common, human, democratic bond and inheritance.\nI remember, as a schoolboy, seeing on television at home a visit by John Fitzgerald Kennedy to places I had never been in our divided continent. I remember his visit to the great symbol of that gross division, Berlin, with its wall. I remember as a boy I could understand, although I did not know about politics or international affairs, that when that man said, \"I am a Berliner\" , he said something deep and meaningful in terms of solidarity at that time.\nToday, as the Prime Minister has remarked, we are all Americans, we are all New Yorkers, we are all Washingtonians. We share the sense of shock and horror. We share the bewildered outrage, we feel the vulnerability, for this is our common inheritance from yesterday's barbarous outrage. We share common democratic values and interests and we stand together willing to fight against terrorism and promote those interests and values.\nIt is important that we as Europeans say to the Congressional leadership today: 'You do not stand alone. You are not isolated. We can make common cause in this matter, and we must do so.' But, most of all, we stand today in our common bond of humanity as our American friends bravely search for their survivors and for their dead.\nLanguage often fails us on these occasions. My own colleagues have asked me to invite you, Madam President, in addition to this solemn moment, to open a book of condolence that we might also convey through that, at some appropriate time to the Congress, our interlocutor in US democracy, that in spite of the space which divides us across the Atlantic, we are resolutely united by the bonds of democracy and freedom and in the fight against terrorism.\nOur message to them today, in this fight for democracy and against terrorism, is that our only choice is to stand united; for united we stand but divided we shall fall.\n(Loud applause)\n\nHautala\nMadam President, President of the Commission and the Council, the world today seems much bleaker than it did before Tuesday' s shocking events. The horrific images of the brutal and cowardly acts of terrorism on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington will stay in our minds forever. No cause could ever justify such a terrifying act of cold-blooded barbarism.\nOn behalf of the Greens\/European Free Alliance Group, I want to express the deep sorrow we feel for the victims who died in this tragedy and wish to send my heartfelt condolences to the families and all those who have lost their loved ones. Our thoughts are also with the rescue forces, the firefighters and policemen who risked and lost their lives to save others.\nWhat the world witnessed yesterday - and there are no other words to express it - was a crime against humanity. As soon as the terrorists are identified, they should be brought to an international court for crimes against humanity and judged accordingly. This is the time to speed up the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.\nIn the aftermath of this tragedy, the United States of America should also recognise the need for such an institution. If, on the other hand, the United States responds with attacks on possible suspect countries, they will not only be killing more innocent people, just like those who died so tragically on Tuesday, but they will also be encouraging further counter-attacks: two wrongs never make a right.\nThe devastating consequences of a spiral of revenge are nowhere more visible today than in the Middle East. We should do everything possible to ensure that this attitude is not repeated on a global scale. I would like to express our deep concern about the situation in the Middle East and call for international efforts to bring the peace negotiations back on track to be intensified. In this regard, we welcome the clear commitment made along those lines by Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr Louis Michel, in today' s press and as representative of the Presidency-in-Office of the European Union.\nWe need to be tough on terrorism, but we also need to be tough on the causes of terrorism. We need a political response on a global scale to this unprecedented challenge in order to weed out the real roots of terrorism which stem from political, social and environmental conflicts: this concept underlies the report of Mr Watson, which this Parliament adopted last week.\nIf there is widespread fanaticism, which breeds and supports this sort of terrorism, we can assume that there is something wrong politically. The European Union is well placed to engage in forms of conflict prevention and conflict resolution which address the causes and not merely treat the symptoms. That is why we believe a European Union\/United States Summit should be held to deal with all aspects of the new terrorist threats, including the social and political causes.\nOn Tuesday, our sense of security was shown to be illusory. It became evident that high-tech measures, such as a missile defence system, would be powerless in the face of this new kind of low-tech terrorism. What has happened in New York and Washington cannot be allowed to ever happen again. All defenders of democracy must protect our precious civilisation and uphold the civilised rule of law.\n\nWurtz\nMadam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, none of us, in fact, have the words to express the feelings aroused by the terrorist attack of unprecedented barbarity with which the United States has just been hit. The American people is going to have to live through a deeply traumatic experience which is likely to become still more intense as the scale of the disaster they have just experienced becomes more apparent. In this unimaginable ordeal, they must be able to count upon our unqualified solidarity.\nI would add that, if these faceless monsters targeted the United States yesterday, they will be able, tomorrow, to bring terror and death to any region of the world, including, of course, the European continent. Madam President, my group therefore fully supports the declarations you have made and the steps you have taken on our behalf. These dismaying attacks constitute a challenge to the whole of the human community, a challenge we are now going to have to learn to take up. I say 'learn' because, if we all agree that the guilty parties must be found and punished, we are obliged to acknowledge that, where every other aspect of the matter is concerned, more questions than certainties arise out of the tragedy of 11 September 2001. In my view, nothing would be more inappropriate, indeed more dangerous, than to react to this radically new phenomenon with well-worn notions whose limitations have just been cruelly demonstrated. After an outrage of this kind, there may, in other words, be a great temptation to call fervently for violent retaliation which would, however, have immeasurable consequences.\nWhat is more, you are right, Mr Poettering. It would do no service to the cause of peace to allow criminal fanatics to be confused with entire peoples, a number of whose representatives have, sometimes with much dignity and in a deep spirit of responsibility, indeed just expressed both their radical condemnation of the terrorists and their solidarity with the American people.\nFinally, and in more general terms, no one must forget ever again that we are all part of the same world. Even the strongest nation of all is not invulnerable. The entire international community is sentenced to confronting together the great problems facing the planet - the oceans of frustration, the great divisions that are opening up and the negotiations that have broken down - and to cooperating as closely as possible in the search for long-term solutions. That is undoubtedly the decisive contribution that Europe can make to the world in order to join in taking up the challenge to civilisation facing us.\n(Loud applause)\n\nPasqua\nMadam President, Prime Minister, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the initial thoughts which we have to express at this time are feelings of compassion towards the victims and of solidarity with the American people. The terrorist attack of which they have been the victims is not only aimed at themselves. It is directed at the very heart of democracy itself. Democracies are fragile things, and we are well aware that they have difficulty confronting this type of action. In the light of history and of experience, however, I remain convinced of the American people' s ability to come through this ordeal and, at this time, I believe it is important for this House to express its solidarity with them.\nThat being the case, I should like to thank you, Madam President, for having organised this meeting which my group, in common with others, had requested. I am glad that it is taking place. I hope that it will be followed by a debate enabling us to examine the problems posed by international terrorism in greater depth. Having, on two occasions, had responsibility for leading the fight against terrorism in my own country, I should like to say that there is, to start with, one false notion that it is necessary to get away from: that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists. There are not; there are only terrorists, full stop.\n(Loud applause)\nIn so far as it involves a minority trying to use force and violent action to impose its point of view on the greatest number of people, terrorism is never anything other than a manifestation of the fascism and totalitarianism which we have fought in the past and which we must continue to combat resolutely. However, the fight against terrorism presupposes a state of permanent mobilisation, and it is probably because we have rather lost sight of this idea and this obvious fact that we are now confronted with the tragic situation we see in the United States. I think that the United States has made the mistake of believing it is probably immune from this type of action. We in Europe have, unfortunately, already experienced such acts: in Germany, Italy, France, Spain and many other countries. We know that terrorism is a blind force that can strike anywhere and at any time. We also know that political will is needed in order to combat terrorism. This will must be affirmed. Cooperation is also required. If each State wishes to reserve for itself the information it has managed to obtain and if there is no real cooperation at all between the services concerned, then we will be heading for further disasters. If, on the other hand, there is a new awareness on the part of our countries and at the level of international cooperation, if there is the will to pool all the information that may be to hand and if, also, a decision is made to create, in one form or another, a permanent body for cooperation, with the ability to analyse this information and propose the necessary measures, then we shall have the opportunity to oppose terrorism with some success.\nI should like, for my part too, to concur with what has been said in this House, firstly by our excellent fellow Member, Mr Poettering, and then by Mrs Hautala and Mr Wurtz. There would be nothing worse at the present time than to speak in such thoughtless terms as to create a sense of solidarity between terrorists and the Muslim world. That would be the worst of mistakes and the most stupid thing of all to do. That is why, of course, none of us can be satisfied with declarations that do not mean very much. I personally think, however, that I - indeed, our Community as a whole - would consider it to be of great value if Muslim religious leaders at the highest level were themselves to condemn these attacks and in that way demonstrate that terrorists proclaiming a perverted faith cannot possibly be identified with, or thought to share any common ground with, the Muslim religion, which deserves the respect of each one of us.\n(Loud applause)\n\nDupuis\nMadam President, I shall speak on behalf of the radical delegation.\nI would first of all like to thank the Belgian presidency for their initiative on Friday. I believe that it is all the more necessary since, while the majority of us feel great emotion and great compassion for our American friends, there are those who are saving their emotion and their compassion for the possible American reprisals. I therefore warmly thank you. I believe that we have a reason which has not been mentioned here today, another reason to feel compassion for our American friends, and that is that if it is they who have been attacked today, and not us, it is probably due to the lack of courage of our policy, to its ambiguities and its hypocrisies, which have not been demonstrated by our American friends.\nMr Poettering, you rightly talk about the need to confront the causes of terrorism, and I believe that it is crucial for the European Union to examine its policy over the last fifty years, which has been fundamentally racist in relation to the Arab world and the Islamic world, a policy which has done nothing but sustain the worst regimes in those countries, the worst regimes of Saddam Hussein, of Mr Gaddafi, of Mr Hafez El-Assad in the past and his son today, a policy which has hardly shown solidarity with past and present democrats, such as Mrs Ben Sedrin in Tunisia, Mrs Al-Sadaawi in Egypt, Mr Ibrahimi in Egypt, and so many others who fight for democracy in their countries, and I believe that it is a matter of urgency for our Union to make the establishment of democracy in those countries its political priority, since that is the only way to pursue and destroy the terrorist bases in those countries. Terrorism does not come from the Moon. It is born and grows up in those countries which encourage it, which often finance it, and which are responsible for the fact that yesterday we saw the greatest tragedy since the end of the second world war, the greatest ever terrorist tragedy. I would like to assure the Commission and the Council that I believe our Parliament must completely alter its position. It has literally been taken hostage over recent months by certain crypto-Stalinists who have pushed it into excessively Palestinian unilateral positions which certainly have some connection with the current tragedy of our American friends. We must finally have the courage to break the taboos. We have an historic duty in relation to Israel, but we also have a duty in the present. Israel is the only true democracy in that part of the world. We must break the taboo. Israel must be part of the European Union. That is the only way to guarantee security and democracy in that country. But it is also the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to guarantee secure borders for the Israelis, and therefore for the Palestinians. Furthermore, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is intolerable that the democracies of the world continue to be made fools of, and Mr Louis Michel, our President-in-Office, has borne the brunt of this in Durban. I thank Mr Michel for his determination and for the resolute fight he put up in Durban, but it is intolerable that the Syrian regime should do what it did in Durban. Our democracies must create and organise themselves into a worldwide organisation of democracies, so that the empty shell known as the UN may recover its original purpose, which is to resolve the great problems of the world.\n\nBonde\nMadam President, dear American friends, our sympathy is with the many families who are now missing their loved ones. Our tears are shed today for those who have lost a son or a daughter, a mother, a father, or both. Our prayers are with those who are still alive but remain in peril. Our thoughts are with President Bush and the people he leads. Our hope is that in the pain of these terrible atrocities, the reaction of the American people will be tempered with wisdom.\nEven as we weep, we know that this is not a time for hatred and revenge. This a moment of truth, a time for reflection for all of us. We only have one world and we are all responsible for it and its people. World peace is something of which we all dream, but we have learned through bitter experience that it was not enough simply to tear down the wall between East and West. We have learned that it is not only the superpowers who can acquire the methods and means of mass destruction. Small, faceless groups intent on destruction have it within their power to destroy our whole world.\nThe answer is not only improved intelligence and sophisticated security. The way to world peace is to work for it by respecting human rights and the right to national self-determination for all. We must fight torture, terrorism and every crime against humanity. We must take sustainable development seriously. We must help the poor, the oppressed and the powerless before they become desperate, suicidal terrorists. Just as terror can never be justified, neither can oppression. Oppression breeds people who are prepared to take all life before them in the passionate intensity of their hatred.\nWe must bridge the gap between the West and the rest of the world, instead of fighting each other. In this way we may remove the raison d'etre of terrorism. It is still too early to foresee all the lessons to be learned from Tuesday' s shocking event but it is not too early to know that Tuesday, 11 September 2001 marked a turning point in history. Our world will never be the same again. Our thoughts are with the victims of these horrendous attacks and those who grieve for them. Let the memory of these terrible events always call to mind our duty to take better care of this world.\n(Loud applause)\n\nBerthu\nMadam President, on this tragic day, we wish to express our solidarity and our friendship towards the American people, victims of the most horrendous terrorist crime. Nor do we forget that many nationals of European countries work in the towers of the World Trade Centre, and that many of them have certainly died. We have a profound feeling that it is not just the United States, but the whole of the Western world, of which we form an integral part, which has been targeted. It is not in fact just the United States, but the whole of Western civilisation that has just been the victim of an act of war, of a new war, which is murderous but elusive, because it does not correspond to any traditional criteria. Some people believed, after the fall of the Soviet Union, that the world was becoming less dangerous, and that was an easy excuse to relax the security effort. That was a grave error. In fact, we have entered a new era, in which there is a greater risk from rogue States led by people driven mad and blinded by hate and ideology. Worse still, more elusive than the rogue States are the stateless terrorist organisations whose murderous folly does not correspond to any logic. This new war is going to force us to review all our strategic ideas. Firstly, Europe is going to have to understand that security must take priority over abolishing controls at borders and elsewhere. I shall not dwell on this point, which you all understand. Secondly, we must strengthen our fight against terrorism and criminal organisations through European cooperation and worldwide cooperation on the exchange of information and on action, but also by first of all putting our own countries in order. It is terrifying to imagine what ideas may be implanted in other places by the attacks which have just been inflicted on the world' s most powerful country. Thirdly, we must re-establish the defence effort where it has been relaxed, as it has in my country over recent years. The threat is real and takes many forms. The rapid reaction force set up by the countries of Europe is a good idea, provided that its democratic control, its variable geometry and the freedom of engagement of the members are better respected than they are at the moment, as can already be said. But, above all, it is insufficient.\nWhile seeking to eradicate terrorism, as you have said, Madam President, we must simultaneously make our territories safer in order to better protect our people. In order to make our territories safer, all useful means must be implemented. One of these is the idea that President Bush launched some time ago, which is an anti-missile shield for the United States. The Europeans, for their part, took a rather negative view of this idea. Today, we must review this issue. Would it not also be in the interest of Europe to conduct studies into the possibility of having its own shield, alone or in cooperation with the United States? That remains to be seen. It would not protect against attacks such as yesterday' s, of course, but it would protect against other risks which we are obliged to anticipate. Neither, of course, do we currently have the necessary technological means, but the quest to acquire them would be a challenge worthy of consideration. That would undoubtedly be a European-scale project, Madam President, which would no doubt be a powerful demonstration to the public of the usefulness of respectful cooperation between national sovereign states, which is intended to protect them.\n\nPresident\nLadies and gentlemen, today we have wished to hold a formal sitting. We shall consider, together with the Group Chairmen, the possibility of organising a major fundamental debate at our part-session next week. I should also like to say that I naturally take a very positive view of the suggestion made to me to establish a book of condolence addressed to our colleagues in the American Congress. That book will be placed at the exit of the Chamber tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m.\nI should like to offer my most heartfelt thanks to Prime Minister Verhofstadt, to Minister Louis Michel, to Mr Romano Prodi, and to all of you, and declare this formal sitting closed.\n(The sitting was closed at 6.10 p.m.)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\n(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to explain my vote on the European Parliament resolution on stepping up the Union's disaster response capacity. Certainly the document's tone of solidarity and mutual help is a step in the right direction. The Barnier report challenges us to take practical steps and in this regard the Commission communication shows the way forward. Indeed we must ensure compatibility and strengthen cross-border cooperation between our countries' protection forces at different levels. Unfortunately, I was unable to support the resolution because our oral amendment was not adopted. In this amendment we oppose creating legally binding instruments that would affect national legislation, policies and programmes and so affect the element of solidarity. I simply believe that we will achieve better protection against the impact of disasters by supporting the protection forces in our Member States, through coordination and investment in their equipment, not by drawing up new legislation that will do nothing more for the whole process than create more bureaucracy.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) Since 1968 the Customs Union has played a crucial role in preserving and developing the single market. Forty years of the Customs Union has been a substantial achievement and it has provided benefits for EU business and citizens.\nI welcome the resolution by Mrs Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the 40th anniversary of the Customs Union and I voted in favour of it.\nDue to globalisation and technological progress, the Customs Union is having to cope with challenges such as counterfeit goods, increased imports of dangerous products and the need to set up electronic customs systems. Only mutual cooperation between the customs administrations and surveillance authorities at international level will be able to protect the EU market against imports of dangerous and counterfeit products, thereby strengthening consumer protection. I became convinced of this when visiting the national customs authorities and customs administrations in Prague, Antwerp and Washington, as well as Beijing and Shanghai.\nThis anniversary is a suitable occasion to thank customs officials for their demanding and often dangerous work, and for expressing our appreciation of the successes they achieve in their fight against dangerous products, counterfeit products and piracy.\nDaniel Hannan\nMadam President, the 40th anniversary seems an opportune moment to address a misapprehension that has existed, I think, in our country ever since your constituents and mine voted to join what they thought was the Common Market some 35 years ago - the misapprehension concerning the difference between a free-trade area and a customs union.\nWhat I think most British people understood by the Common Market was that there would be mutual product recognition, that if you could sell something in the UK, you should also be allowed to sell it in Germany, France and Spain and the other way round.\nBut of course what we have instead is standardisation. Something is required to contain certain ingredients, to be of a volume of not less than 'x' and not more than 'y', and even if that product was never intended for export, even if it never crosses frontiers, it can find itself criminalised and prohibited in its own country; and this is often because a rival somewhere in the EU - as often as not in Britain - which happens to meet all of a group of specifications anyway, uses the mechanisms of the European Union in order to pass on its costs to its rivals.\nI think it is a shame that we have lost the original concept of free circulation of goods and services in favour of harmonisation, which reduces consumer choice.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, how wonderful it is to see you in the chair.\nWhen I give speeches in my constituency of London - for those of you who may have heard of London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world - it is often pointed out to me by my constituents that they thought in 1973 that we were joining a customs union. Then I say, 'Do you not understand the nature of the beast? Do you not understand the nature of the European project? It is all about further political and economic integration'.\nIn fact in my first week in Parliament the leader of my group, Hans-Gert P\u00f6ttering, stood up and said, 'Nothing must be allowed to get in the way of European integration; nothing must be allowed to get in the way of the European project'. So clearly, there is a misapprehension of the nature of the project in my constituency.\nMy plea to you, those of you in this Chamber who support the project, is: please be honest about its intentions. If you seek to deny the truth about this project, then, once you ask the people, they will reject it, as they did in the referendum in Ireland.\nMarian Harkin\nMadam President, I too am delighted to see you in the chair.\nI voted for Amendment 6 because I believe that the authorisation of the chlorinated chicken imports would undermine European standards and I see that happening on two fronts. First of all, there is a lack of scientific data on the environmental and health impact of using the substances that are proposed. Secondly, given the regime under which poultry producers operate, it is unreasonable to have two different standards, both from the perspective of the producers and more importantly from that of the consumers.\nThe previous speaker mentioned the Lisbon referendum in Ireland. Certainly one of the issues on the ground that I came across when canvassing was that people do object to different standards. But what we are doing here in Parliament today is dealing with that, so I am delighted that Parliament has passed that resolution.\nMarian Harkin\nMadam President, I fully support the resolution passed by Parliament. Again, one of the things we often speak about in Parliament is how we respond to the needs of citizens. I think this is a clear case where a response is needed.\nThe fishing industry is in crisis, with fuel prices having increased by more than 300% in the last five years while prices for fish are similar to those paid 20 years ago. So the bottom line is that fishermen cannot survive, they are going out of business and I think some of our proposals in this resolution will help to improve the situation.\nI am pleased to see that the Slovenian presidency has said that they will take this on board, and I would call on the Council of Fisheries Ministers when it meets next week to pay particular attention to this resolution.\nPresident\nNow, Mr Kamall, I suppose you are going to tell us about fishermen in London?\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I do not think there are any left, thanks to the common fisheries policy!\nThank you very much for giving me this opportunity to explain the way I voted on this important debate. But what I would say to my colleagues in the House is, actually, let us look at what the real problem is. Whenever there is an international crisis, you seek to blame that for the problems in the fishing industry. Actually it is not the rise in fuel prices that is the real problem in the fishing industry. It is the common fisheries policy, a system of central planning that the Soviets would have been proud of. I find it amazing that colleagues in this House are so willing to espouse Soviet economics.\nLet us look at some of the more successful fish preservation systems around the world. If you look at the ones, for example, in Iceland and New Zealand, you will find that they are based on the rule of law and property rights and transferable property rights. If we really want to solve the problem in the fisheries industry, it is time to trust the rule of law; it is time to trust property rights; it is time to trust the free market.\nPeter Skinner\nMadam President, I do not want to speak on this item but the previous item. I was trying to attract your attention.\nI abstained on the poultry carcass issue, primarily because I believe there is evidence to refute the claims that we need to keep the ban in place. I particularly think there is scientific evidence in place to allow this ban to be lifted. But, in any case, none of this discussion has come to the fore.\nWhat we have instead is a very expensive process in Europe for cleaning chicken carcasses. That is the real problem because any carcasses that come into the European Union would seem to be cheaper; as a result they sell more quickly and obviously suit the consumers.\nThis is not about health claims, this is about protectionism. I think it is a very sad day for Europe that we have this particular debate in such a short and truncated way, rushed through as a resolution this week in Parliament.\nI abstained as a result of this and I believe our relationship with the US and with other countries is stained as a result.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) The EU-Russia Summit is rightly receiving a great deal of attention. Taking into account Russia's important geopolitical standing and its enduring historical and cultural ties with Europe, I support the establishment of a strong political partnership between the EU and the Russian Federation.\nThis partnership should include mutual assistance in security issues, namely the fight against terrorism and organised crime, and overcoming the obstacles to free trade and travel. However, we must not overlook the presence of several problematic aspects in the relationship between the Union and Russia. In this regard, it is important for the EU to speak with one voice.\nNo Member State that takes the common foreign and security policy seriously should build its bilateral relations with Russia in such way that would damage the just interests of the Member States. In areas concerning sensitive international issues, the EU and Russia should reach a consensus based on respect for international law and territorial integrity, for example in the case of Serbia and Kosovo.\nTo conclude, I would like to say that the EU should help Russia to develop and strengthen democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, the EU-Russia summit is approaching. This is a significant event, which is why the debate in our Parliament concerning the preparations was so important.\nRelations between the European Union and Russia are of enormous importance for stability, economic growth and security in Europe and the whole world. These relations took on a new dimension after the EU's enlargement with another 12 countries, principally from central and eastern Europe. These are countries that, in the past, were closely linked economically, politically and militarily with the former Soviet Union.\nThus far, bilateral trading relations with individual countries have been transferred to the level of the EU and Russia. However, Russia is constantly trying to make arrangements with individual countries, bypassing the EU. Exceptional circumstances are frequently cited for this bilateral cooperation.\nRussia is an enormous country with great political and military aspirations, with vast energy resources that define its position in Europe and the world. Having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Russia is an important partner that should be included in measures to combat climate change as well as those relating to environmental protection.\nTunne Kelam\nMadam President, in the case of paragraph 29, which ends, 'to offer a greater EU involvement in the conflict resolution process', I support the original version, which adds and continues, 'including the possibility of an EU peacekeeping mission on the ground and a replacement of the CIS and Russian troops'.\nI find that it is absolutely important just now to send a clear message on behalf of the EU that we are ready to make a concrete commitment in the form of a peacekeeping mission in Abkhazia.\nJim Allister\nMadam President, I voted for this report because, as in other sectors, I am concerned to see the EU decline in sheepmeat production against a rising tide of imports.\nThere are not just farm income issues here but pertinent environmental issues because, of all farmed animals, sheep probably contribute the most to the natural upkeep of less fertile areas and the maintenance of biodiversity.\nEnvironmental degradation of many upland and less-favoured areas will result from diminishing sheep farming. Thus the necessity to sustain this industry and contemplate environmentally-linked payments to support it.\nI also believe a proper country-of-origin labelling regime could greatly help promote growth in consumption of local lamb, particularly with rising imports.\nFinally, the Commission's rush to electronic tagging will impose further costs on a sector already diminishing because of uneconomic returns. At most, such tagging should be voluntary for each Member State and region.\nMarian Harkin\nMadam President, I agree with the final speaker about the electronic tagging. It certainly should be voluntary.\nI supported Amendment 4 because I want to ask the Commission and the Council to look at introducing some kind of Community financing for the system of electronic tagging. The goat, sheep and lamb sectors are in crisis and they certainly cannot afford to have further costs foisted upon them.\nIndeed, I would have preferred Amendment 1 - but of course that fell on the adoption of Amendment 4 - where it was recommended that the implementation of the electronic identification system be deferred until 2012 at the earliest. I agree with the former speaker, as I said, that the bureaucracy and cost involved far outweigh any of the benefits.\nJames Nicholson\nMadam President, as I said last night, this is a very good report. Unfortunately last night the Commissioner ruled out possibility of the Commission agreeing to the rapporteur's proposal to have a task force to look at the industry.\nNow I am not a great believer in task forces because the place is littered with them; every time we have a problem we set up a task force and you never hear tell of it again.\nBut I think if we had had better cooperation before we came to this Chamber, we could have put forward a firm proposal that would have helped the industry and worked for the industry.\nNow we have got nothing. We have got electronic tagging. We have not got what we asked, that it be put back to 2012. The industry cannot afford it. But I think we will return to this; we have not heard the last of it, because we have got to defend the sheep industry throughout the whole of the European Union.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The transport of dangerous goods has been discussed many times, and safety standards have gradually been clarified and simplified as a result. With Mr Liberadzki's report, therefore, existing legislation on the transport of dangerous goods will form a sound basis for the scope of the directive in particular, which has been extended to inland waterways. I congratulate the negotiators on reaching an agreement that will make it possible to conclude this dossier at second reading.\nThe extension of the directive to inland waterways will involve a two-year transitional adaptation period for Member States, which will be able to regulate or prohibit the transport of dangerous goods in their territory for reasons other than safety during transport.\nIt should therefore be stressed that this legislation illustrates our efforts to make the transport of dangerous goods in the Union increasingly more effective and safe by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and added costs, or rules that do not make its management more efficient.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in truth there is very little to discuss in Mr Liberadzki's excellent report on the inland transport of dangerous goods. I voted for the report in committee and I confirm my vote here.\nThe more intramural trade like that between the Member States of the Union increases, the more useful it is, in my opinion, for such flows to be comparable, especially in terms of safety, but also in terms of inspections and related administrative procedures. It would not, moreover, be logical to criticise or worse to reject such a technical text, the wide-ranging consultation on which has involved and has been qualitatively informed by so many experts from the Member States.\nBart Staes  \nin writing. - (NL) I fully support this report. Every year an enormous quantity of dangerous goods, such as chlorine and petrol, is transported by inland waterway in the European Union. No rules have so far been drawn up on that, although there is legislation on the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail.\nLegislation on the transport of dangerous goods by boat is badly needed, not just for safety reasons but also to regulate protection of the environment and public health at European level. Much of the transport of this kind is cross-border. Furthermore, European rules are also to the benefit of businesses, which at the moment have to comply with different national requirements in the various Member States. Inland waterways transport also emits less greenhouse gas. It is therefore very important to harmonise the requirements for the various forms of transport. It will then become more attractive to combine several modes, for instance with part of the journey being done by rail and the freight then continuing by boat. Not only is that efficient, it is above all sustainable. I therefore hope that transport firms will actually opt more often for a combination of different modes of transport.\nStanis\u0142aw Ja\u0142owiecki  \nin writing. - (PL) I abstained from voting on the report by Mr Helmut Markov on road infrastructure safety management. The reason is that this report runs flagrantly counter to the principle of subsidiarity: 'a larger entity should not exercise functions that can be carried out by a smaller one'. This principle should be maintained with all possible care. Unfortunately, even in this House, I have often witnessed this principle being breached. I hope that on this occasion we managed to safeguard the principle at least partially, but how much time was spent doing this! Our legislative work was not directed towards the creation of good law, but to amending a poor legislative proposal. I am not, however, under any illusion that this will be the last attack on the principle of subsidiarity. This is paradoxical really, as these attacks come from the same quarter as the loudest criticisms of Ireland, a country that, a few days ago, rejected the Lisbon Treaty. People are just not making the connection that the citizens of that country said 'no' precisely because it is well known that this principle is regularly breached by the European Union. In fact, it is just this example, that of Ireland, that should make us aware that we cannot just ignore subsidiarity, or sacrifice it to what are allegedly higher goals, such as road safety. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, this will come back to haunt us.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be voting for Mr Markov's report. In my view, this a very comprehensive proposal which includes a whole range of aspects geared towards ensuring that safety is taken into account through all the stages of life of road infrastructure: from planning to design and use.\nI agree with the respect of the subsidiarity principle in the proposal, leaving it to the discretion of Member States to decide how intensively 'road safety impact evaluations', road safety audits and safety inspections are to be applied.\nThe adoption of a legislative instrument geared to the safe development of the road network, through an approach which is not too inflexible, has to be seen as a positive result, whose effects will depend on the intensity with which it is applied. However, I feel that it is essential to lay down binding minimum standards, from which no derogations are possible, to be applied in all Member States.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - British Conservatives know how devastating the effects of a natural disaster can be. From the floods in the UK last year, we are aware of the human, economic and environmental damage that can be caused. We also understand the effects such natural disasters have upon other countries.\nNonetheless, we believe that individual Member States are best placed to respond rapidly and appropriately to disasters occurring within their own territory. We believe that the creation of a European Civil Protection Force would merely slow down the capacity for response by adding an extra bureaucratic burden. What those affected require is timely and necessary intervention, not more bureaucracy.\nFinally, we cannot agree with further EU legislation in the area of disaster prevention and response. We consider that adequate legislation already exists at both Member State and EU level, and that financial aid is already available through the Solidarity Fund which serves, as it should, to mitigate structural and long-term damage.\nIn supporting this resolution in the final vote, we wish to make clear that we have also voted in favour of the amendments which called for the deletion of references to the Civil Protection Force and further EU legislation in this area.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) I am voting firmly in favour of this motion for a resolution on stepping up the European Union's disaster response capacity.\nAs a member of this Parliament's Committee on Development, I have had the opportunity to visit some of the world's poorest and most disaster-prone areas, in some cases struck (as in the case of the tsunami) by catastrophic natural disasters. I should like to take this opportunity to stress the first-rate work of our Development Commissioner, Louis Michel, who has always swiftly and efficiently resolved to show solidarity and offer cooperation when these tragic events have occurred.\nAs the resolution points out, however, the procedures laid down in our legislative framework are still too convoluted: mechanisms need to be streamlined and substantial resources set aside for emergencies which will, unfortunately, continue to occur. Parliament is giving a clear signal in that direction today. Now we have to move from words to deeds.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Despite our vote in favour, we regret that some of our proposals have not been approved, particularly the one considering it essential to pay particular attention to the less favoured or 'convergence' regions in the event of natural disasters, in connection with regulating the Structural Funds, or those underscoring the importance of maintaining the eligibility of regional-scale disasters for the European Solidarity Fund and its adaptation to the specific nature of natural disasters such as drought and fires, in terms of time limits and eligible actions.\nWe believe it is positive, however, that others have been adopted in relation to the recognition of Mediterranean region natural disasters, namely drought and forest fires. Support mechanisms for the people affected and for reforestation that must also cover the prevention of further large-scale disasters are required, however, as is an EU-funded public agricultural insurance scheme to guarantee farmers a minimum income in the event of national disasters such as droughts, fires or floods.\nThe common agricultural policy must be radically modified to support small and medium-sized farmers and family farming, thereby stimulating agricultural production, biodiversity and use of the land.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) We believe that a framework for cooperation between Member States must be established for preventing, combating and minimising the consequences of disasters. Among other aspects, however, we disagree with the creation of a European civil protection force (particularly if it has a military dimension), since capacities and operational resources in this area must be subject to the jurisdiction of Member States, which have to guarantee the resources and strategies to provide a (rapid) response to needs and which know their territory better.\nWe consider the approval of our proposals advocating the following to be positive:\nCommunity-level recognition of the specific nature of Mediterranean region natural disasters such as drought and forest fires, and the resulting adaptation of Community instruments in terms of prevention, research, risk management, civil protection and solidarity in order to improve each Member State's response;\nThe need for greater Community funding of prevention measures.\nHowever, we regret the rejection of our proposals:\nHighlighting the importance of maintaining the eligibility of regional disasters for the European Solidarity Fund;\nAdvocating the adaptation of the European Solidarity Fund to the specific nature of natural disasters such as drought and fires, in terms of time limits and eligible actions.\nMargie Sudre  \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the Commission's initiative in finally producing a document on improving the coherence, effectiveness and visibility of the EU's reaction to natural or man-made disasters.\nYet I am sorry this is still not a really practical proposal that is likely to boost Europe's capacity in the area of civil protection, including prevention and rapid reaction, in the event of major crises occurring within or outside the Union.\nI thank MEPs for supporting my amendment on using the expertise relating to the geographical location of the outermost regions (OR) and the overseas countries and territories (OCT).\nThanks to those overseas communities, Europe is present off the African coast (Canaries, Madeira), in the Indian Ocean (Reunion), close to the American continent (Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Azores), not forgetting the Pacific OCT (French Polynesia, New Caledonia).\nEurope's overseas territories could become bases for pre-positioning vital products and logistics. That would make it easier to predict the available European human and material resources in the event of the need for urgent intervention outside the Union.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - Clearly there is great merit in improved coordination and readiness for mutual assistance of disaster response organisations in European countries. However, as always, the European Commission seizes on another opportunity to extend its own remit and responsibilities - here 'to develop a knowledge base, identify gaps', etc. The report, against the wishes of British Conservatives, also includes a call for legally-binding instruments. For these reasons I abstained in the vote.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Despite the report's positive appraisal of 40 years of the Customs Union, many production sectors, particularly in Portugal, do not share the same view. Quite the contrary in fact. They know that the full opening of borders, in the name of free competition, has created profoundly unjust situations and has exacerbated structural deficits due to uneven development between the various countries.\nAdded to this inequality in productive capacity and in the development of the production process are other measures, policies and instruments that have made the situation worse, most significantly the creation of the internal market, international trade liberalisation, the Stability Pact within economic and monetary union and the neoliberalism of the Lisbon Strategy.\nConsequently, although the report includes some positive proposals for reinforcing cooperation, its initial basis is unacceptable. Hence our vote against the report.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We take a positive view of this resolution, since we support the common commercial policy and customs legislation as a precondition for the functioning of the internal market. We would point out, however, that we are deeply critical of many of the trade agreements which the EU has actually concluded with third countries.\nKartika Tamara Liotard, Erik Meijer, S\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - Whereas we fully support cooperation between the Member States to prevent the import of dangerous toys, drugs and other illegal or dangerous products, and whereas we fully support cooperation with trading partners to this end, we cannot vote in favour of this resolution due to the severe impact of the Customs Union on developing countries' trade.\nThe EU uses the Customs Union as a tool to negotiate favourable trade deals with developing countries while at the same time imposing high tariffs on products that are seen as unwanted competition for EU products. This policy is hampering the potential for economic growth in developing countries.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) This report begins by supporting the range of liberalisation packages for the electricity and natural gas markets, pushing for their privatisation even though they are strategic sectors for development and social progress. As is well known, the application of these packages in Portugal has exacerbated supply problems and increased consumer prices, and has also increased unemployment and job insecurity in the sector.\nThe European Commission is now seeking to gloss over the problems its strategy has created by presenting the 'European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers'. Despite the limited number of rights it refers to, we do not disagree with this Charter. The question is whether it will be adhered to by the sector's controlling economic groups, which Community policies are increasingly subservient to. Hence our abstention in the final vote on this report.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) The report that has been adopted on a European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers significantly increases the rights of energy consumers. More information will be made available to consumers, which will make it easier to choose between suppliers and various supply options. The Charter is a very important step in the liberalisation of the energy market.\nI am convinced that clearer and more readable information given to consumers will make it possible for consumers to make the best choices. This is particularly important when energy prices are constantly rising and are becoming an area of ever-greater concern to consumers.\nAs a result of the solution that has been accepted, it will be easier to compare offers and real energy usage and this will encourage consumers to change suppliers if they are dissatisfied with the service offered. The result of this will be real competition between energy suppliers, greater concern for customer satisfaction and greater possibilities for consumers to have an impact on the decisions made by energy companies.\nI believe that the Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers will, slowly but surely, help to change the energy market, which is something that we have been looking forward to for a long time. Let us not forget that consumers are the most important part of the internal market and they expect us to make real changes.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for Ms. De Vits' report regarding the European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers. Given the ever higher prices for energy, it is necessary to ensure the supply of citizens with lower income and of people living in remote regions, where energy markets are smaller and non-competitive. Member States should take actions as soon as possible to define these groups of consumers clearly and promote and support actions, for instance social tariffs, to ensure the continuity of their access to electricity and natural gas.\nI voted for amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 submitted by the Group of European Specialists. They stated the need to introduce social tariffs, to quarterly inform consumers about their own energy consumption and requested the informing of the public about the provisions of the European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers. I regret these amendments were not adopted.\nThe protection of energy consumers should rely on joint actions of the Union and Member States in the future as well. The European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers is a way to support the citizens in order for them to obtain information about their rights in a more efficient and simple way.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - I am strongly in favour of consumers being able to obtain secure, safe, reliable and sustainable supplies of gas and electricity at reasonable prices. National Regulatory Authorities should play an important role in this. However, I oppose the efforts by the European Commission to move into this area, to extend its powers and remit through 'studies', a 'Charter' and 'harmonisation', and I do not recognise the concept of 'Citizen of the Union'. For these reasons I abstained in the vote.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We consider it positive that the European Parliament has criticised the European Commission proposal seeking to amend the rules on the marketing of poultrymeat, only to authorise the marketing of such meat that has undergone anti-microbial treatment for human consumption.\nIn practice this European Commission proposal merely seeks to fulfil the USA's request for the European Union to authorise the importation of its poultrymeat that has been treated with chemicals or anti-microbial substances.\nThe European Commission is therefore disregarding the precautionary principle and is disregarding the adoption and strengthening of the food safety and hygiene standards that already exist at EU level. These are much higher than those in the USA, which only uses a cheap end-of-line solution which it now wants the European Union to accept so that it can sell its produce throughout Europe.\nWe therefore hope that the Council will not accept the European Commission's proposal.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The chlorination of chicken has not proved harmful to health or harmful in any other way, and our policy decisions should always be evidence-based. In the interests of free trade, therefore, I have voted against this report, which I consider to be motivated by protectionism.\nIn view of the widespread disquiet among the public in the EU as regards chlorinated chicken, however, it is of the utmost importance that we get legal requirements for labelling so that every individual can choose to avoid this product, for example in shops or restaurants.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution as it highlights one of the most pressing issues facing the EU internally and externally.\nWe have decided in the EU to push for high food production standards - conscious of the needs for food safety and quality.\nWe do not permit the use of chlorine dipping of chicken carcases within the EU for produce consumed in the EU and therefore it makes no sense to allow imports of US chicken into the EU which is so treated.\nIn recent months we have a similar problem with imports of beef from Brazil - where traceability standards fall far short of those in the EU.\nWe may face a similar problem when we ban caged egg production in the EU but end up importing from outside the EU powdered egg products produced in caged systems.\nIf the EU insists on internal standards, it must be prepared to defend them and stop imports which fail to meet our internal standards.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - The Commission proposal to lift the ban on the importation of poultry treated with anti-microbial substances such as chlorine is extremely worrying. It must be recognised that these practices simply do not meet EU standards of food safety.\nThis proposal seems to be politically motivated and blatantly disregards the valid health and safety concerns of EU citizens. Assurances that this poultry will be labelled and clearly identifiable to the consumer are simply not adequate.\nThe use of anti-microbial substances in the treatment of poultry should not be promoted by the European Union in any way. This ban has been in place more than ten years and was originally implemented with good reason. Unfortunately, therefore, the Commission proposal to lift it represents a huge step backwards and is totally unacceptable.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis  \nThe Commission must re-examine its original decision, which is based exclusively on commercial criteria and results in a crime against public health and consumer protection. We cannot ignore existing European legislation by making concessions to the Americans and putting commercial interests before public health. We are awaiting the response of the competent Commissioner for Health, Mrs Vassiliou, and the response of the Greek Government.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Thank you Madam President. This resolution is an initial response to the very serious crisis which our Union's fisheries sector is experiencing as a result of the increasing price of oil. In recent days, I have personally visited various ports in my country and have seen a very difficult and complex situation to which we have to be able to provide swift and efficient answers.\nThe unprecedented increase in the price of oil risks bringing a whole sector to its knees. The Union has extraordinary funds for fisheries that can be used in particularly serious situations. I invite Commissioner Borg to take immediate action to ascertain whether such action by the Commission is advisable. Deeds and not words. Action and not promises. Among workers, I encountered a growing mistrust of the European institutions. Our task is to fill that gap and in particular to shoulder our responsibilities in the face of economic and social developments which may well precipitate a serious crisis.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As stressed in a press release, we do not support this resolution because:\nIt does not respond to the immediate problem of workers' wages, failing to clarify that fishermen (workers) pay for fuel, and that this is why the problem affects them directly (as it does the owners of the vast majority of small vessels);\nIt disregards the EU's inertia and refusal to take the necessary decisions;\nIt does not table any specific proposals in relation to fuel prices (petrol and diesel) and as regards fish price formation at the initial point of sale;\nIt does not deplore a policy that takes advantage of escalating fuel prices to reduce and concentrate the sector even further, generate more unemployment, ensure the decline of a production sector and worsen the food and trade balances;\nIt falls well below positions adopted previously by the EP and proposed by the PCP;\nIn accordance with the recent proposals announced by the European Commission, and irrespective of one or two aspects which, if applied, could have positive effects for the sector, at bottom this resolution further encourages the scrapping of vessels and offers fishermen the alternative of giving up their occupation.\nBecause fisheries have a future, we call for measures such as the proposals in the resolution we presented to be adopted as a matter of urgency.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - The fishing industry has faced many crises over the years, but none greater than at present, with rising fuel prices which are pushing the industry over the edge to the point where it can no longer survive.\n\nThe continuing spiralling price of oil could prove to be disastrous for many industries, but none is more vulnerable than the fishing industry, with jobs at sea and on shore at risk.\nWe must look into all the options which are available to us. One route that should be explored is reducing taxes in order to ensure that fuel costs come down.\nMay I ask the following question: if we do not have fishermen, where will the fish we require come from? Are we going to sit back and allow foreign imports to take over our markets and put our industry out of business?\nSaving our fishing fleets and the industry in general will prove to be a massive challenge. However, I am confident that with good will and all-round cooperation it is possible. I welcome yesterday's statement from the Commission announcing its intention to provide emergency assistance to fishing fleets. I sincerely hope that these measures will be formally adopted by the Council of Fisheries Ministers next week and then swiftly implemented.\nMargie Sudre  \nin writing. - (FR) The dramatic rise in the price of diesel oil, 300% since 2003 has made its full impact felt in the fisheries sector. With the continuously worsening crisis, many fishing undertakings are now in a very fragile financial state.\nFisheries are in fact a particularly important pillar in the economic and social development of the outermost regions. Moreover, they are hit all the harder by the rise in the price of fuel because of their remote geographical location. That is an unacceptable situation. The European Union has a duty to find a compromise.\nThe European Parliament has just sent out a strong signal to fishers. In calling for the official aid ceiling to be raised to EUR 100 000 per vessel and not per undertaking, in calling for the immediate application of emergency and social support measures and, lastly, in demanding the reorganisation of European Fund expenditure for fisheries, MEPs have made it clear to fishers that they have heard their distress call.\nThe Council of European fisheries ministers will be discussing these proposals on 23 and 24 June 2008. The European Union has no option but to restore the confidence of fishers in order to plug the huge hole that has recently appeared.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to point out once again that there is no western company that is as closely linked with the state as Gazprom is with the Kremlin. At present we are faced with a cold political calculation. The domination of Gazprom in the energy sector will lead to another increase in energy prices in Europe. Russia will be able to force through even greater political concessions for supplies of gas and oil. We are already seeing the effects of high prices in the ever more frequent protests in Europe. We also have, fresh in our memories, the repeated closure of gas supplies to our eastern neighbours.\nMr President, I supported this resolution because I believe that Europe must begin to speak with one voice in its relations with Russia, because only in this way can we guarantee that the EU will be effective.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) It is well-known that Russia is an important strategic partner for the European Union, and our geography makes us dependent on each other. Diplomacy must therefore be used to find the best solutions for this unavoidable proximity. The need to cooperate, however, must not force us into a real or disguised blindness towards the serious problems Russia raises.\nInternally it cannot be ignored that Russia is not a full democracy and that the rule of law does not ensure effective respect for human rights. Externally it is impossible to ignore the use of energy as a weapon in external relations, in particular by promoting EU disunity in this area, the equivocal role it has played in the Iranian issue, and its unwillingness to force China to commit itself to human rights, among others.\nEurope's voice in relation to Russia must be that of a serious partner which is willing to cooperate, but which is not willing to compromise on core issues of democracy, human rights and security.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) The complex relations between the European Union and Russia require well-managed and coherent diplomatic action.\nThe approaching EU-Russia summit arouses many emotions, as agreements are to be negotiated that are of great significance for both Russia and the European Union. Prior to this summit we must realise just how important it is for the future of the European Union that it should speak with one voice in the international arena. For this reason it is a shame that the people of Ireland put a question mark over the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in last week's referendum, as it is precisely this Treaty that contains the regulations that will make the European Union a credible partner in international relations.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted in favour of this report, which contains several important proposals for protecting sheep and goat products, particularly in less favoured areas and mountain regions. We would like it to have gone further, however, particularly in protecting indigenous breeds and traditional cheese production. It is nevertheless essential for the European Commission and the Council to take account of these approved proposals and the debate in plenary, where we also explained our positions on this very important issue.\nThe revision of the CAP currently in progress must correct the problems created by the 2003 reform, particularly as regards the uncoupling of direct payments. I must also stress the importance of ensuring an additional payment for producers to support indigenous breeds of sheep and goat in particular. This payment must be reinforced in mountain regions and other specific areas in order to maintain biodiversity in agriculture, preserve these animals in sensitive areas and use the land in a natural way - an important contribution to environmental protection and forest fire prevention in southern Europe.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report as it highlights the problems in the sheep sector, which is in terminal decline unless action is taken.\nThe Parliament has voted in favour of EU funding for electronic tagging of sheep and, while this is welcome, I would have preferred to see electronic tagging taken off the agenda until the future viability of sheep farming is secured.\nIn relation to the proposal for a task force, which was rejected by Parliament, there is now an onus on the Commission to upgrade its focus on the sheep sector and to report to the Parliament on progress or otherwise in implementing the proposals in this report.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Thank you, Madam President, I am voting for the report by Zita Gurmai and would like to congratulate her on her excellent work.\nIn particular, I support the 'eSafety' initiative (www.esafetysupport.org ) within which the European Commission, the public authorities, the industry and other stakeholders are all working together to try to speed up the development and introduction of 'Intelligent Integrated Vehicle Safety Systems'. These systems use information and communication technologies with a view to increasing road safety and reducing the number of accidents on our roads. 'eSafety' is the first step in the 'Intelligent Car' initiative launched in 2006 by the European Commission. I believe that this is a path we should swiftly follow in order to promote the future growth of transport which will, in the Commission's words, be 'smarter, safer and cleaner'.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) Our dependence on transport grows every day. All citizens have the right to safe and sustainable mobility. The current progress in information and communication technologies enables us to manufacture and buy vehicles that are smarter, safer and cleaner. Consumers must have access to information that will enable them to make informed choices in favour of intelligent cars and it is important for these cars to become affordable.\nSince the report by the rapporteur, Mrs Zita Gurmai, offers European citizens the opportunity to benefit from the potential road traffic safety in the near future, I voted in favour of it.\nRoad accidents are caused both by human error and by poor vehicle condition. By introducing intelligent technologies, 16% of accidents can be prevented. Modern systems can reduce the number of road accident fatalities by as much as one third. The Galileo programme also represents a significant contribution in this area.\nAs regards the full deployment of the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call system, the eCall system, the EU Member States have a large responsibility. The aim is to have a full-scale roll-out of eCall by 2010. Therefore, I would encourage the Member States that have not yet signed the eCall Memorandum of Understanding to do so now, in 2008.\nTaking into account that, according to the statistics, there are 41 600 deaths on European roads every year, we need to launch a new era in the road sector. By saving any number of human lives we will be doing a lot for European citizens.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - My colleague, Zita Gurmai, has produced an excellent report and needs to be congratulated on her detailed work and the commitment she has shown.\nThe first intelligent car report is a flagship project within the Commission's strategic policy framework for information society and the media, and our rapporteur is right to recognise that intelligent vehicle systems could reduce the annual death toll, currently around 42 000, on the roads of the EU. She is also right to point out that, at present, many people cannot afford the new systems, so the need to bring down costs has to be a priority.\nElectronic stability control technology, the use of portable or nomadic devices and work towards providing cleaner vehicles are all topics covered by the rapporteur.\nThis is an excellent report, and it has my full support.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) The Intelligent Car Initiative is a very valuable initiative. It is important to use modern technology as much as possible to make transport safer and more efficient. Estimates indicate that if all cars were fitted with electronic stability control (ESC) there could be as many as four thousand fewer fatalities in the EU each year. Another important safety feature, which has not yet been generally introduced, is the pan-European in-vehicle accident notification system known as eCall. Research indicates that its introduction throughout the European Union could reduce traffic fatalities by two and a half thousand each year. The final issue that should be considered is the large amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases emitted by cars, comprising 12% of total CO2 emissions in the EU. I think that cars with the lowest CO2 emissions should be marketed using social campaigns. We should also introduce more restrictive regulations to reduce emissions of harmful gases by cars.\nPresident\nThat concludes the explanations of vote.\n(The sitting was suspended at 12.45 and resumed at 15.00.)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":3,"2013-48":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"13. Progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU (\n- Before the vote:\nPhilip Bushill-Matthews\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, our group had intended to ask for three additional roll calls but, for whatever reason, they got lost in transit.\nI would like, through you, Mr President - I have checked with the secretariat that it was in order to ask today - to have these three instated. They are on: paragraph 2, Amendment 4D; paragraph 6 of the original text; and finally, after paragraph 36, our Amendment 12. I hope you will appreciate that this is a very sensitive dossier and we would like to be able to place on record not just what we are against, but also what we are in favour of.\n(The President established that there were no objections to this amendment)\n- Before the vote on Amendment 5:\nSophia in 't Veld\nMr President, we have been speaking about countries which have not adequately implemented or transposed the Anti-Discrimination Directive but there is one country which has not implemented it at all and therefore I would propose the following oral amendment: 'Calls on the Czech Government to effectively transpose the Employment Directive and for the Czech Parliament to overrule the veto of the Czech President'.\n(The oral amendment was not accepted)\n- Before the vote on Amendments 1, 16 and 17:\nRichard Howitt\nMr President, very briefly, I of course support your discretion in interpreting the Rules, but it seems very strange for the PPE-DE Group to want to introduce roll-call votes at the last moment after the deadline has expired because they say that they want to positively explain their case, when their amendments seek to delete - to delete - paragraphs from this report. I think that they are trying to cover up the cracks in their own group rather than actually say anything positive in combating discrimination.\nPresident\nMr Howitt, it is probably the case that the vote referred to was filed too late, but I did ask you, and in this respect you were too late in asking to speak. If you had asked straight away, perhaps we would have voted differently.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nPresident\nI would like to make the following proposal for the voting: we shall begin with the explanations of vote and then suspend the sitting at 1 p.m.. Any explanations of vote not dealt with can then be presented this afternoon at the end of the debate and after all the votes have been taken.\n(Loud applause)\n(Parliament approved the proposal)\nExplanations of vote\nRoger Helmer\nMr President, I have to say that on this particular measure, I voted against. While Mr Cashman is a very charming gentleman, I must say that whenever I see anything with his name on it, I do look on it with some degree of scepticism.\nThe issue here is that we have a European Fundamental Rights Agency as if there were no such protection for human rights in the Member States. I question whether there is any need for this institution at European level. Is it not just a case of extending bureaucracy and creating new quangos, as we call them in Britain? This is a burden on the taxpayer which, in the view of many others, will not actually contribute to human rights.\nFurthermore, in the absence of the constitution which we were promised, which you are now proposing to drive through without a referendum, there is no basis for it.\nDerek Roland Clark\nMr President, I voted against this report because the United Kingdom already respects human rights. It is a signatory to many international agreements; it does not need to be told how to behave by an EU that has overridden the results of the French and the Dutch referendums, which were perfectly constitutional.\nThey rejected the Constitution. It has been replaced by an equivalent Treaty that has now been approved even before it has been seen in full by those who signed it.\nThe EU clearly has no respect for democratic rights and cannot therefore be considered a safe or reliable custodian of human rights.\nThomas Wise\nMr President, thank you for this opportunity to explain my vote. This is the first time I have done such a thing. I voted against this proposal because, whilst the committee in question may be called the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, it does not offer liberties to civilians, it does not offer justice, and it interferes in home affairs. We in Britain were promised a referendum. We are not going to get one. What is the European Union going to do about that?\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to explain my vote on this important issue.\nYou may not be aware of this, but I represent the constituency of London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world.\nWhat one needs to understand is that London is actually a pretty diverse city. Let me explain: we already have 300 languages and 14 religions and, on the whole, we get along very well. So, the EU could actually learn a lot from London and how it has ensured human rights and that people's dignity is respected.\nWe do not need those issues to be resolved at EU level. What could London, the most diverse city in Europe - and perhaps even in the world - learn from this institution? What could it learn about human rights? What could it learn about fundamental rights? Absolutely nothing!\nLet me add the following. The forthcoming ratification of the European Constitution, despite its rejection in two referendums, is undemocratic, cowardly...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, on what legal basis are we constructing this agency? The Fundamental Rights Agency would have been given authority by the European Constitution. It would be given authority by the Lisbon Treaty. But the only legal base it has at the moment is a flimsy cat's cradle of communiqu\u00e9s, of press releases, of resolutions in Council.\nThe European Union does not have a problem with the systematic violation of human rights. It does have a problem with the systematic violation of democratic rights. The problem we have is that a human rights charter written down on paper is meaningless unless there are also mechanisms to hold leaders to account.\nIf you look at the constitutions of the former East Germany and of the Soviet Union, they were full of these wonderful promises of liberty. But, as the peoples of those unhappy countries found, it meant nothing without democracy.\nThat is why, if you want to impose this human rights charter, you should consult the people first in a referendum. Pactio Olisipio censenda est!\nJim Allister\nMr President, I too voted against this ludicrous proposal of an agency in respect of human rights in the EU.\nWe in the United Kingdom, like many other countries, are long-term signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such rights as require external supervision are found there, and any court which is required is found in this city under that aegis, not under any aegis required by the EU.\nSo this is totally unnecessary, an utter waste of public money. Its primary intent is to provide another layer of apparatus of statehood to the EU so that it can parade itself as some sort of a superstate within a Europe that gives rights to its citizens, rights they already have.\nIf it wants to give rights, then let it recognise the fundamental right to vote on matters such as this: to say 'yes' or 'no' to a constitution.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Mr Chairman, since criminal activity is increasing continuously and the threat of terrorism is growing, Europol needs to become more flexible.\nThe three Protocols from 2000 to 2003 that amend and supplement the Europol Convention have still not taken effect. Surely an organisation that is promoting law cannot be effective if changes to its basic legislative instrument come into force only several years after a decision has been made to accept them. The proposal for a Council decision deals with this situation, which is why I voted for it.\nOne important change in relation to the present situation is the plan to finance Europol from the Community budget and give the staff the status of EU official. This will increase the European Parliament's involvement in the management of Europol and simplify budget and personnel management. In addition, the European Parliament's position will be strengthened as democratic control of Europol improves. Moreover, the Community's financial expenditure will be comparable to the current expenditure of the Member States.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\n(CS) Mr Chairman, please allow me to explain why I did not take part in the vote on this report. Firstly, I think that Europol is functioning well on the basis of bilateral agreements and bilateral cooperation. Secondly, the Czech Republic has, together with other countries, joined the Schengen area. It is necessary first and foremost to get accustomed to this cooperation, analyse it and subsequently improve it. In addition, any further integration aimed at transforming Europol into a European police force will require ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Only then we can talk about possible changes to Europol's legal basis.\nRoger Helmer\nMr President, I was interested to note that you cut off the microphone of my colleague, Mr Kamall, on the instant of 60 seconds, whereas you are much more generous when people are saying things you find more palatable.\nOne of the errors we make in the European Union is to confuse 'cooperation' with 'supranationalism'. I am all in favour of police cooperation - any sensible person would be in this day and age. However, I am absolutely opposed to the creation of supranational authorities - such as EUROPOL is intended to be - which, as one of my colleagues said of the Fundamental Rights Agency, is one of the attributes of statehood that the European Union is claiming.\nThe trouble is that these organisations lack democratic legitimacy, and that is very dangerous. Both EUROPOL and the European Union will lack democratic legitimacy until you put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum.\nDerek Roland Clark\nMr President, I could not disagree more with this report. I voted against. Cooperation between police forces, yes; forced cooperation and obligation, no; especially when this police force will have within its ranks armed police that can be sent anywhere in the European Union.\nWe do not have armed police as a rule in the United Kingdom. We will not suffer armed police coming in at the behest of EUROPOL. We do not believe in it. We run our country in a different way!\nI am particularly disappointed to see that Amendments 56 and 57 were voted down, because, if passed, they would have removed immunity from that police force. In the United Kingdom, we are used to a police force which, if it causes damage to property or violates the individual or arrests without good reason, can be charged with offences afterwards. But then, I would not be surprised, because, after all, you are prepared to ram through a constitution without asking anybody either.\nThomas Wise\nMr President, for the second time I rise to declare my vote opposing this motion.\nIn Britain, there is a simple philosophy: no man is above the law; not even the Queen, the monarch of England, is above the law. It will take due process. We have in this legislation created a situation where there are people outside the law, incapable of being pursued legitimately.\nI have said in this House before: if the European Union is the answer, it must have been a bloody stupid question, and never was this so true as now.\nI give you Kennedy's comments: 'Those who make peaceful protest impossible, make violent protest inevitable'.\nNirj Deva\nMr President, it is vital to cooperate across transnational boundaries on international crime, terrorism, drugs and so on. EUROPOL is doing that job right now with other police forces.\nHowever, creating a European police office which increases central powers will not solve the problems that have arisen in local communities around Britain. My country, my party, has voted against this resolution today as loyal Conservatives.\nMy party has also requested that we have a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty. I have no place other than this House to protest at what Mr Brown is doing in reneging on a pledge he gave to hold such a referendum.\nI would therefore ask that we request Mr Brown to give the British people that referendum.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, I understand that this proposal for a Council decision, as outlined in the report, provides for the conversion of EUROPOL into an EU agency.\nWe must recognise that this will have two consequences. First of all, funding will have to be provided from the Community budget, and EUROPOL staff will acquire the status of Community officials. The report also contains provisions for coordination, which we all welcome, and organisation and implementation of investigations and operational activities carried out in conjunction with the Member States' relevant authorities or by joint investigation teams.\nThe Conservatives favour open cooperation between police forces across the EU and beyond in the fight against crime. But we really do not accept that the EU has any role in centralising such cooperation. Thus, EUROPOL is an agency which is not necessary since other organisations already exist to fulfil this function at a global level.\nIt is for this reason that I would like to add that the coming ratification of the European Constitution, despite its rejection in two referendums, is undemocratic, cowardly and illegitimate.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, I am glad to have this opportunity to make an explanation of vote. I put in for speaking time in the debate on this issue, but one of the consequences of my party's unhappy m\u00e9salliance with the European People's Party is that British Conservatives are systematically denied speaking time in important debates.\nWhat I wanted to say was that this report is based on a conceptual misunderstanding. People say that, because we have cross-border crimes, and because crime is international, we need cross-border policing.\nWe already have it. The police forces of the nation states have for decades been collaborating to great effect. We have Interpol, we have the Hague Convention, we have extradition treaties, we recognise the time spent in another country's prison as constituting part of a sentence, and so on.\nThe difference is that these things are based on democratic decisions between independent states, whereas what is being proposed with EUROPOL is the federalisation of what ought to be a sensitive national issue - namely the policing of criminal law.\nIf we want to do that, we should first ask people in a referendum, which is why we need a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.\nJim Allister\nMr President, some of the reasons propagated for this proposal on EUROPOL are quite bogus. It is suggested that we need to change the legal base; that we need to provide it with EU funding; that we need those it employs to be EU officials; that we need to expand its remit; and that we need an agency so that we can fight organised crime and terrorism. What utter nonsense! We have been fighting organised crime and terrorism quite effectively, through proper long-standing cooperation between police forces.\nThis is all about creating another aspect of the apparatus of EU statehood, so that it has an effective EU police force. That is what those officials will be, meddling in the internal affairs of Member States and - as has been pointed out - with immunity for their actions, beyond the reach even of judicial review in nation states. It is a preposterous proposal and utterly unnecessary.\nNirj Deva\nMr President, regarding the Polfer report, the Conservatives did vote with the rapporteur on the issue of the South Caucasus.\nBut it is again rather curious, is it not, that, while we are so anxious to protect the democratic freedoms and the rights of the people of the South Caucasus, and to ensure that they have a legitimacy and that they can express their self-determination, when it comes to the serious issue of the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union, Mr Brown of the Labour Party, who promised to give us a referendum, has now reneged on a referendum.\nMy party, the Conservative Party, is incensed that a promise has been reneged on and that is why I am standing here asking the Labour Government to give us a referendum on this important constitutional issue, just as we are concerned about what is happening in the South Caucasus.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, I understand that this report welcomes the inclusion of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia into the European neighbourhood policy and the endorsement of bilateral European Neighbourhood Policy action plans.\nI also understand that the rapporteur calls on the EU to develop a regional policy for the South Caucasus to be implemented jointly with the countries of the region. Of course, one of the watchwords that will appear in many of these reports is the word 'democracy'. I represent London - you may not be aware of this. I represent London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world, and we happen to have a very diverse community in London, including many people from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.\nOne of the things that they welcome about living in London is democracy and the right to have their say on vital issues. They ask me all the time, 'Why is it that you are preaching to us about democracy, yet you deny that very right to your citizens in Britain when it comes to a referendum on the Constitution?'. So the Constitution, despite its rejection in two referendums, is undemocratic, cowardly and illegitimate.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, may I thank you for the patience and good humour you are exhibiting in this session. May I also, as yesterday, extend my thanks to the services and the interpreters for humouring us.\nThe big issue in the South Caucasus region at the moment is the dispute over election results. The West more or less connived at the Saddam-like election victory of the current Georgian Government the first time around with its vote of well over 90%, and now, when it claims re-election, we are arguing about whether that vote was free and fair.\nWhat kind of example do we in the European Union hold up to these struggling democracies when we show such contempt for our own democratic process here in the European Union? It seems periodically necessary to remind this House that 55% of French voters and 62% of Dutch voters voted 'no' to the European Constitution, and yet we have the document coming back - this time without any referendums - as the Lisbon Treaty.\nI say it again: it is necessary to give the people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Pactio Olisipio censenda est!\nPresident\nMr Hannan, my good humour is matched only by yours. I always wonder how you manage to fit in a reference to a referendum. You succeed in doing so every time, no matter what topic we are discussing.\nRoger Helmer\nMr President, I voted in favour of this measure not because it was my considered wish to do so, but because, as a loyal Conservative, I was following the whip.\nLeft to myself I would probably have abstained or perhaps voted against. I have to say that issues concerning the Black Sea are not the top priority for my electors in the East Midlands of the United Kingdom, and I suspect not the second or third priority either. Therefore, you could in a sense say that this was not a matter of the very greatest importance.\nHowever, I do not believe that the European Union should have a common foreign and security policy. I believe that nation states should have their own foreign policies, and am perfectly happy for them to work together in cooperation when that is in their interests - be this with states in the European Union or with states outside it.\nIn any case, the common foreign and security policy can have no democratic legitimacy if there is to be no referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.\nDerek Roland Clark\nMr President, without doubt this new policy is aimed at facilitating, amongst other things, the supply of oil and gas through that region to Western Europe.\nThat would be Russian gas and Russian oil, and you are now allowing yourselves to be possibly taken hostage. We all know that Russia cut off the supply of gas to Ukraine two Christmases ago; once they get an even bigger share of Western Europe gas supplies, perhaps they might do it to all of us at some time.\nAt least here in France they have got the right idea, generating at least 70% of their electricity by nuclear power, and it is about time the EU formulated a policy to promote that right across the Union.\nBut instead, of course, you go dabbling in the south Caucasus, around the Black Sea, with regimes that are not terribly stable; with regimes that may not want us there. But of course, you would rather do that than promote a referendum on the new constitution amongst your own people.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, I am pleased to say that I am still here, even if you and others may not share my pleasure at being here. I would like to thank you all for your patience.\nI understand that this own-initiative report actually welcomes the Commission's communication 'Black Sea Synergy - a New Regional Cooperation Initiative', which aims to enhance cooperation with and within the Black Sea region by supplementing existing bilateral policies with a new regional approach. It considers that, in order to adopt such an approach, the communication has to be followed by further consistent steps on the part of the EU to encourage a genuine regional dimension tailored to this era.\nWhat region are we talking about? Let me just clarify - the Black Sea region comprises the EU Member States Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, as well as Turkey and ENP partners Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, as well as the Russian Federation. The great philosopher Brook Benton - followed and copied by the great philosopher Randy Crawford - once said, 'It's a rainy night in Georgia'. Indeed, when the people of Europe are denied their vote and the people of Britain are denied their vote in a referendum on the Constitution, it is a rainy night in the EU for democracy.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, I appreciate your courtesy. I am glad to be able to speak on this report because it seems to me that the European Union, in its treatment of Turkey, is making a generational, a possibly epical mistake.\nIt now seems very clear that we are never going to admit Turkey to full membership. It is clear from the majorities in this House; it is clear from the promises of referendums in Austria and France, where there are majorities of 70% and 80% respectively against membership.\nHad we said initially to Ankara that this was the case and we were going to work out some kind of alternative, we might have been able to go ahead in amity and partnership. Instead we are stringing the Turks along, imposing tens of thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire on them, making them grovel about Armenia, about Cyprus, about the treatment of their minorities and then, possibly 10 or even 15 years from now, after all of this, we will flick two fingers at them. In so doing, we risk creating the very thing we purport to fear: an Islamist state.\nTurkey is more of a democracy than the European Union. It changed its government peaceably. I wish we would have the courage to consult our own people. Pactio Olisipio censenda est!\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) The Black Sea region, an area of production and transit, has a strategic significance for the diversification and security of energy supplies to the European Union. I am convinced that regional cooperation should, in addition to Turkey and Russia, include the EU Member States as equal partners too. That is why I have voted in favour of the report.\nI am concerned about the continuing conflicts in this region, which are a threat to the stability and development of the area. I would therefore call on the European Union to play a more active role in the efforts to resolve the conflicts in this strategic area, in particular to get involved in the peace operations and to cooperate more closely with the Russian and Ukrainian Governments. There are obvious problems as regards the uneven development of the private sector in many countries around the Black Sea. It is necessary to improve the investment environment in the region, for local and international companies, through measures to improve the fight against corruption and fraud and promote market economy reforms.\nPresident\nIn accordance with the decision of this House, the explanations of vote will continue after this afternoon's votes.\nExplanations of vote\nAlessandro Battilocchio \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express my full support for this report, the fruit of a lengthy and excellent job by our colleague Michael Cashman.\nThe European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia was transformed into an Agency tasked with safeguarding and promoting human rights, the Agency being officially established on 1 March 2007. Ever since then, we must acknowledge, it has been wholly non-operational owing to the lack of a director and a multiannual framework.\nIn response to this sluggishness and bureaucratic inefficiency, the rapporteur proposes amending the multiannual framework in a minimum number of areas. He urges the Commission and Council to speed up the process of selecting candidates for the post of director so as to facilitate a rapid agreement among the EU institutions, thereby reactivating this vital tool to safeguard citizens' human rights.\nI would call upon my fellow Members to support this report, since it represents an initial step towards making the Agency operational.\nSupport for EU human rights policies and their development cannot and must not be subject to considerations and delays of a political and economic nature.\nCarlos Coelho \nin writing. - (PT) I obviously supported the creation in February 2007 of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as I believe that this Agency could significantly help to increase the coherence and cohesion of EU policy on fundamental rights.\nThe Agency was officially established on 1 March 2007 but is still waiting for the basic elements so that it can become fully operational, in other words the appointment of its director and the approval of a multiannual framework.\nThis initiative aims to adopt this multiannual framework, which must guide the Agency's work over the next five years by defining the thematic areas in which it must act.\nI therefore welcome the enormous effort made by the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, to facilitate the negotiations, and I hope, like him, that this encourages the Commission and the Council to conclude both the discussions on this multiannual framework and the process of selecting candidates for the position of director as soon as possible.\nThe people of Europe will not understand the reason for further delays preventing this Agency for Fundamental Rights from becoming fully operational.\nSylwester Chruszcz \nin writing. - (PL) I am opposed to the creation of a European Fundamental Rights Agency, and therefore I did not support the Multi-Annual Framework for 2007-2012.\nI believe that the proposed creation of this agency and its functions are not only a waste of money but also a dangerous political initiative, whose long-term effects will be damaging to the Member States of the Union, The basic tasks assigned to this agency amount to a clear intrusion into the sovereignty of Member States. The agency's existence cannot be justified. There are already institutions charged with safeguarding democracy and protecting human rights in every European country.\nIn my view, this agency's activities will inevitably extend beyond the thematic areas for which it was established. For example, in the course of today's vote on Amendment 6 to the recitals, the question of defining a human being and establishing the point at which it acquires human rights arose.\nI consider this type of action to be an outrageous attempt to covertly impose dangerous ideological notions in the framework of the European Union.\nGlyn Ford \nin writing. - I support this report, despite my opposition and disappointment that the former European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, set up following the recommendations of the Council of Ministers' Consultative Committee on Racism and Xenophobia, where I represented the European Parliament, has now been dissolved into a wider European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.\nThe Monitoring Centre in Vienna did extremely valuable work on promoting best practice in combating racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and preventing their rise, as well as reporting on the current state of play across the Union and in applicant countries. The danger is that this will be lost, or at least diluted, in this new Agency. I will watch developments with care.\nPatrick Gaubert \nin writing. - (FR) The PPE-DE Group's French delegation welcomes the adoption of the Cashman report on the adoption of a Multiannual Framework for the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2007-2012.\nAmong other points, the text defines the precise thematic areas of the Agency's activity to enable it to fulfil its mission and objectives successfully.\nThe majority of the French delegation, following the group line, rejected the amendments by the Liberals aimed at extending its missions to homophobia and homophobic violence, and to racism against the Roma. They did so not in order to express their opposition to this legitimate and justifiable goal, but because these missions are already covered by the proposal for a decision, which includes in the Agency's thematic areas the issues of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, in addition to discrimination based on gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation or against persons belonging to minorities.\nWe welcome the adoption of this report, which will allow the Agency to become fully operational, thus enabling it to accomplish its task and safeguard the rights of EU citizens.\nAmbroise Guellec \nin writing. - (FR) The PPE-DE Group's French delegation welcomes the adoption of the Cashman report on the adoption of a Multiannual Framework for the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2007-2012.\nAmong other points, the text defines the precise thematic areas of the Agency's activity to enable it to fulfil its mission and objectives successfully.\nThe French delegation, following the group line, rejected the amendments by the Liberals aimed at extending its missions to homophobia and homophobic violence, and to racism against the Roma. It did so not in order to express their opposition to this legitimate and justifiable goal, but because these missions are already covered by the proposal for a decision, which includes in the Agency's thematic areas the issues of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, in addition to discrimination based on gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation or against persons belonging to minorities.\nWe welcome the adoption of this report, which will allow the Agency to become fully operational, thus enabling it to accomplish its task and safeguard the rights of EU citizens.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) Leaving aside the aspects criticised, which we have already had the opportunity to highlight, once the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights becomes operational in due course, its actual purpose will be clarified.\nIn the debate on the definition of the objectives and priorities for its Multiannual Framework for 2007-2012, its thematic areas were clearly restricted to the following was clear: racism, xenophobia and related intolerance; discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation or of persons belonging to minorities; compensation of victims, prevention of crime and related aspects relevant to the security of citizens; protection of children, including the rights of the child; immigration and integration of migrants; asylum; visa and border control; participation in the Union's democratic functioning; human rights issues relating to the information society; and access to efficient and independent justice.\nThe European Parliament has added extreme poverty and social exclusion. However, social rights, including the rights of workers, have not been regarded as a priority, even at a time when fundamental social rights are being called into question by the policies promoted by the EU.\nElisabeth Morin \nin writing. - (FR) Like the French delegation in the PPE-DE Group, I welcome the adoption of the Cashman report on the adoption of a Multiannual Framework for the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2007-2012.\nAmong other points, the text defines the precise thematic areas of the Agency's activity to enable it to fulfil its mission and objectives successfully.\nLike the French delegation and the PPE-DE Group, I rejected the amendments by the Liberals aimed at extending its missions to homophobia and homophobic violence, and to racism against the Roma. In fact, these missions are already covered by the proposal for a decision, which includes in the Agency's thematic areas the issues of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, in addition to discrimination based on gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation or against persons belonging to minorities.\nI welcome the adoption of this report, which will allow the Agency to become fully operational, thus enabling it to accomplish its task and safeguard the rights of EU citizens.\nBairbre de Br\u00fan and Eva-Britt Svensson \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the amended proposal because it contains improvements in data protection.\nHowever, I do not agree with the increasing move of justice and home affairs issues from the Member States to the EU. For this reason, I voted against the legislative resolution.\nG\u00e9rard Deprez \nin writing. - (FR) I strongly support the report by our excellent colleague Mr D\u00edaz de Mera.\nThe transformation of Europol into a Community agency is a request I have always supported.\nIt means in fact that from now on Europol will be financed by the Community budget, and that the status of Community official will apply to Europol personnel. In both cases, the powers of our Parliament have been considerably enhanced.\nMoreover, the Council decision substantially broadens Europol's scope and capacity for action, which I also support.\nIn short, making Europol more operational and subjecting it to genuine democratic control is a decision I support unreservedly.\nBruno Gollnisch \nin writing. - The Council's wangling has been entirely successfully: transforming the European Police Office, Europol, from its status as an intergovernmental agency financed by the budgets of the Member States into a European Union agency financed by the EU budget, and applying the status of Community official, all on the grounds of technical, not political, requirements.\nSince Europol's missions have in fact been extended significantly to encompass areas other than organised crime, the Council feels that the new objectives will be better dealt with at EU level than at Member State level. Thus, in the name of the extremely questionable principle of subsidiarity, the Europeanist logic of systematic elimination of competences of the Member State and deepening of the supranational model is applied.\nThis is exactly the philosophy and the approach of the reforms in the Lisbon Treaty, which European and national leaders as a body wish to impose on the peoples and nations against their will.\nEurope is no longer listening to its peoples. Worse still, it is disregarding them and lying to them. Now that 26 European countries have already announced they will not ratify this Treaty by referendum, let us hope that the nations and peoples of Europe will be saved by a rejection of this ridiculous text by the Irish, the only people who are allowed to decide for themselves.\nGenowefa Grabowska \nin writing. - (PL) The Member States of the European Union created Europol as an institutional response through which to combat organised crime. We are today debating broadening Europol's competences and streamlining its operations, 12 years after it was established.\nThe rapporteur has made an accurate assessment of Europol's current legal and factual situation. He rightly criticises the overly complicated and lengthy procedure envisaged to change Europol's status and include it in the Union's organisational structure. The corrective measures proposed in the report are also worthy of consideration and support.\nEarlier attempts to change Europol's competences show how difficult it is for countries to reach agreement when they are bound by the principle of unanimity. I therefore believe that only when the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified and comes into force in all 27 Member States will we be able to introduce procedural changes and improve this situation, as the Treaty will also reform the decision-making process within the EU.\nIn addition, bestowing the status of an EU agency on Europol, with all the consequences that involves, including financial, will enable the European Union as a whole to combat organised crime more effectively.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) As neither the Treaty proposal nor this proposal to adopt by qualified majority decisions on regulations relating to the structure, operations, field of action and tasks of Europol have been ratified, the EU institutions are already tiring of trying to convert the European Police Office into a European agency.\nIn addition to our fundamental criticism of this process, we are concerned that we are facing:\nthe possibility that 'special categories of data concerning racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, party or trade union membership, sexual orientation or health' will not be excluded from processing;\nthe failure to adopt safeguards for the protection of personal data processed in the field of police and judicial cooperation at EU level and in relations with third countries, particularly with the US (e.g. air passenger data);\nthe failure to guarantee access by an individual to his data or even to be aware that his personal data is being processed by Europol;\nthe failure to clarify the control by national parliaments.\nThis would be a flagrant breach of citizens' rights, freedoms and guarantees.\nAntonio Masip Hidalgo \nin writing. - (ES) I voted for the text agreed by consensus with the contributions of the groups. It is an issue that affects essential cooperation against crime. I must point out, however, as did my colleagues Mr Fava and Mr Moreno, that the lofty goals of the resolution are at odds with the recalcitrant attitude of the rapporteur, Mr D\u00edaz de Mera, who was Director-General of the Spanish Police on 11 March 2004 and who refused to cooperate with the court that presided over the trial on Europe's largest ever terrorist bombing.\nMoreover, the rapporteur is one of the major propagators or collaborators of the disgraceful theory that it was not Islamist cells, but ETA terrorists, that were responsible for this massacre. Mr D\u00edaz de Mera and others who described themselves as 'peones negros' (black pawns) attempted to mislead international public opinion and, even though their standpoint was in the end not treated as a crime (it was subjected only to a sanction and serious admonishment from the Court), this Parliament should be acquainted with all the facts. Their personal attacks reveal their lack of arguments. Finally, I wish to express my regret that Mr D\u00edaz de Mera did not even have the dignity of his colleague Jaime Mayor, who at least removed his name from the terrorism text.\nLuca Romagnoli \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to vote in favour of the D\u00edaz de Mera Garc\u00eda Consuegra report on the establishment of the European Police Office (Europol). Changing circumstances within the European Union, new forms of criminal activity and new terrorist threats mean that the existing body is in need of reorganisation. I nevertheless feel that certain points should be clarified.\nThe transformation of Europol into an EU agency must not place an additional financial burden on Member States; above all, it must not consume any of the already insufficient state resources earmarked for national police forces. On the contrary, the investigative authorities and those responsible for law and order must be better looked after and reinforced. Indeed, Europol's activities must consist of supporting and coordinating the fundamental, irreplaceable work of the various Member States' police forces. I am therefore pleased that the proposal contains provisions for the coordination, organisation and conduct of investigations and operational activities in conjunction with the Member States' competent authorities or by joint investigative teams.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) This own-initiative report reveals the true ambitions of the 'European Neighbourhood Policy', specifically for the South Caucasus.\nThese are to set out the geostrategic agenda in its political, economic and military aspects, in other words the EU's plan for intervention in this neuralgic area, with increased pressure being put on China and Russia.\nThis will result in more interference in, and manipulation of, the conflicts arising from the dismantling of the USSR, with the aim of ensuring that the EU's major powers and financial\/economic groups gain control over this region, with the inter-capitalist rivalries also being clearly evident.\nYou only have to look at the 'recommendations', such as the incentive to conclude free trade agreements and the pursuit of further liberalisation or the clear appeal for interference through 'support' for the action of 'civil society', ensuring that 'the [Community!] funds are distributed ... without ... state interference'.\nThe approach to the energy issue is particularly significant as it highlights the importance of energy brokers who can bypass Russia and the control over energy infrastructures and sources.\nFinally, we note the incoherence between 'its unconditional support for the territorial integrity and inviolability of the internationally recognised borders of Georgia' and the appeal to the principles of the United Nations Charter, when this is not being done for Serbia.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) This is another own-initiative report which assumes the same logic as the report on the Southern Caucasus and the 'European Neighbourhood Policy': in other words, interference and pressure to guarantee access to (and control over) markets (particularly energy markets) and further liberalisation.\nThe report argues for the promotion of 'market economy reforms', encouraging 'harmonisation and further liberalisation measures' and supporting 'the creation of a free trade area in accordance with WTO principles'. This is a process in which the EU allegedly has 'a leading role to play' in 'encouraging the region to take the necessary steps'.\nAt the same time the report 'stresses the crucial importance of establishing and developing good neighbourly relations among the countries of the Black Sea region and with their neighbours, based on mutual respect, territorial integrity, non-interference in each others' internal affairs and the prohibition of the use of force or threats to use force, as fundamental principles for fostering regional cooperation' and yet it argues for the promotion of 'European values', 'irrespective of the degree of willingness shown by partner governments'. This is a clear contradiction\/incoherence between what is recommended (for others) and what is done. The EU is demanding that others respect what it itself does not respect. What cynicism.\nKarin Scheele \nin writing. - (DE) Until a short while ago Kenya was a holiday paradise for many people. Visitors were well shielded from the massive corruption and terrible poverty in which a large majority of the population have to live. Since the events of late December and the fraudulent presidential elections, Kenya and its political problems have suddenly been on everyone's lips.\nWhile the parliamentary elections were generally regarded as successful by the official observers, doubts were raised as to the accuracy of the results of the presidential election. In tabling today's motion for a resolution on Kenya, we are once again condemning the widespread irregularities and the conduct of the incumbent President Kibaki, who in rejecting the offer made by President John Kufuor to help resolve the crisis has seriously undermined the mediation efforts. We call on Kenya's political leaders to do everything in their power to prevent further violence in the country and to ensure respect for human rights. During the debate on this subject we again discussed and examined the question of the effectiveness of direct budgetary aid. This topic, like that of Kenya, is one that will continue to occupy us in the months ahead.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) This explanation of vote is intended to point out that, by recognising the mediation efforts begun by neighbouring countries, by the Southern African Development Community and by the African Union, we believe that the Kenyan people will be able to find and define their own path. It is up to the Kenyan people themselves to find the solutions to overcome the current situation in their country.\nAs a result, we regard as negative any attempt by the EU to interfere, as indicated and proposed in the resolution, particularly bearing in mind the objectives proclaimed by the EU in its 'Strategy for Africa' and the framework of inter-imperialist cooperation\/rivalry concerning this continent that is also clearly evident and that is so deeply felt in this region.\nFinally, I must highlight the omission from the resolution of a reference to the severe and deteriorating socio-economic situation in this country - which is at the root of the expression of popular discontent manifested in the elections - and the deep responsibility for this situation of the neo-liberal policies promoted, in particular, by the international financial institutions, major capitalist powers and their transnational companies.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1 \nin writing. - (CS) I fully support our resolution on the situation in Kenya, which is based on an up-to-date investigation by the EU observer mission in Kenya at the start of the year.\nWe must ensure that the authorities in Kenya investigate, without delay, the circumstances surrounding the elections and prevent further violence. We must insist on the return of live broadcasting and on the adherence to basic human rights and the rights laid down by the African Charter. However, this resolution detract from the responsibility of the European Commission to resolve the issue of the transfer of \u20ac 400 million to the Congolese Government. I think that we shall be returning to this issue soon.\nEdite Estrela \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of paragraph 20 of the report on the role of women in industry because it is essential that the Commission carries out a study into the negative consequences of long working hours on private, family and social life, such as children spending a lot of time alone, left to their own devices, which often leads to failure at school and crime. The Member States must improve monitoring of undertakings that force their employees to remain at work beyond the statutory working hours and they must impose harsh penalties on these undertakings.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) The European Parliament today adopted my report on the role of women in industry. This is very positive, although I do regret certain minor amendments.\nHowever, the report recognises the important role of women in industry and it calls on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary measures, including effective monitoring, to combat stereotyping and discrimination, particularly wage discrimination. This situation is even more serious when you consider that women's wages are around 30% lower than men's wages in industry, whereas the average for other sectors is 15%, despite the Equal Pay Directive having been around for more than 30 years.\nIt stresses the importance of collective bargaining in the fight to abolish discrimination against women, in particular with regard to access to employment, wages, working conditions, careers and professional training.\nIt stresses the importance of Community programmes that encourage the creation of trademarks, the protection of products' designation of origin and the external promotion of Community products from industrial sectors where women predominate.\nFinally, it is very important to ensure recognition of the right of female and male workers to take part in restructuring processes affecting industrial undertakings, by guaranteeing their structures, in particular the European Works Councils, full access to information and the possibility of decisive intervention, including the right of veto.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. - (SV) This report deals with a number of aspects which, in themselves, are important but in respect of which the Member States retain the power to act and the responsibility to develop and improve their legislation. The gender ratio on company boards, the development of equality plans in large companies and the proportion of female members of company boards are not questions which are best and most effectively regulated at EU level. We have thus voted against the report in question.\nGenowefa Grabowska \nin writing. - (PL) Clearly, European industry is undergoing far-reaching change. It is therefore hard not to recognise its strategic importance for the development of all Member States of the European Union and their citizens, regardless of gender.\nThe role of women employed in European industry and the opportunities available to them depend not only on a country's level of economic development, but also on traditions regarding acceptance of equal opportunities and respect for human rights regulations. There is large-scale participation of women in industry and they make a substantial contribution in almost all sectors. Nonetheless, one has to agree with the rapporteur that the role of women in industries involving cutting-edge technologies, such as the aeronautical industry or the chemical industry, is very inadequate.\nIt is entirely appropriate, therefore, that the report highlights this aspect and focuses quite rightly on gender issues. The report also emphasises that women's involvement in industry cannot be limited to work in sectors that do not require qualifications, where women are the first to suffer when restructuring takes place.\nThe rapporteur calls for support, especially for SMEs, to enable the relatively high level of female employment to be retained, particularly in the case of women who find themselves in an unfortunate professional situation. This suggestion is worthy of support, as is the entire report, if only for this reason.\nMarian Harkin \nin writing. - I support paragraph 33 because such proactive measures need to be taken - at least on an interim basis to ensure participation of women in the decision-making process at all levels. In addition to this I strongly support paragraph 20 as there is a real need for a full investigation into the impact that long working hours have on health, both physical and mental, as well as on family life. If we are to promote a work life balance and family friendly policies then we need such a study.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski \nin writing - (PL) Human rights are the foundation of democracy. These rights include the very important principle of equality between women and men, allowing of course for the circumstances arising out of the biological differences between them. One aspect of this issue concerns the employment and role of women in industry. It is simply impossible to apply an arithmetical division into equal halves.\nAbove all, what we are concerned with is equality of opportunity, which is conditional on access to education and professional training in technical and economic subjects. Another very important issue is providing assistance to mothers bringing up children and ensuring they are not discriminated against in the workplace. It is essential to introduce flexible provisions regarding pensions for women bringing up children. The period of so-called parental leave must be credited in full and added to the period considered as time in employment under pension rules.\nIn many of our countries women are still being paid significantly less than men for work of equal quality and quantity. There can be no justification for creating obstacles impeding women from undertaking managerial and supervisory roles on company boards of directors or boards of trustees. Action is needed to do away with stereotypes in this regard. The report tabled represents a step in that direction, which is why I voted in favour of it.\nAstrid Lulling \nin writing. - (FR) In many recitals and paragraphs of this extremely long resolution, we are stating the obvious. We are calling for measures that were, fortunately, taken some time ago. It is true that certain directives on equal treatment and opportunities between women and men have been poorly applied, but if discrimination still remains in the areas covered by this set of measures, who is at fault? All these directives contain appeal mechanisms. Women who have experienced discrimination need only go to court, where they will win their case, as demonstrated in many cases in my country, thankfully.\nUnfortunately, this report contains a number of incongruous claims that bear no relation to the role of women in industry.\nAsking for a 40% quota of female representation on company boards is interference contrary to the principle of subsidiarity in issues reserved for Member States.\nIt is not for us to call for the 'monitoring' of company delocalisation. It is utopian to demand 'more choice in the workplace'. If my company is based in the city of Luxembourg and has no other branches, I cannot put in a request to work in Schifflange where I live.\nI voted for this report in accordance with these observations.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1 \nin writing. - (CS) I agree with many of the ideas in the report on women in industry. However, I am not happy that specific attention was not given to the regional unemployment among women who lost their jobs in European textile factories at the time when this was happening. I also think that no amount of quotas for the employment of women will solve the situation.\nMy second comment concerns the balanced division of time between work and family. This affects women as well as men. I do not think that the solution lies in resolutions. It lies in the implementation of the European concept of flexicurity. Holland is one example where an excellent legislative framework has been developed for part-time work. The result has been reduced unemployment, as well as giving men and women more time for family life. An effective use of shorter working hours also shows that it does not have to lead to a reduction in income.\nOlle Schmidt \nin writing. - (SV) As a liberal and a member of the Liberal Party of Sweden, Folkpartiet, I always find reports from Parliament on equality somewhat tricky. The Swedish Liberal Party has over the years taken the view that the best way to proceed in these matters is on a voluntary basis but we also realise that this is not always enough. Sweden's positive engagement in this field has made us known as one of the world's most equal countries. So do we not want to disseminate our successes across the EU?\nOf course we do! The question is merely by what methods. In the report in question I felt obliged to vote against a number of paragraphs whose spirit I support but whose scope and approach seem dubious. I think that both equality plans and measurable targets may be important tools for enterprises. On the other hand, I do not believe it is something that the EU should concern itself with as a primary issue. The same applies to the establishment of an EU-sponsored 'methodology for analysing exactly what jobs entail' that will 'guarantee' equal pay. The Global Adjustment Fund, about which I had severe misgivings from the beginning, also should not take special account of gender - that would be to perpetrate a double injustice.\nOne cannot expect every report to be written as though one had drafted it oneself, but there is much to find fault with here. Yet the subject is so important that, in the end, I voted in favour of it as a whole.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Figueiredo on the role of women in industry. I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on a very good and thorough report.\nThe issue of equal rights for men and women is a very important one and we must continue to give it as much attention as possible, since the European Union is based on the principle of non-discrimination. We should give priority to tackling all indications of failure to comply with this principle. This is particularly necessary because the nature of industry is changing as we strive to create a knowledge-based society. The sectors in which women were traditionally employed are linked to the processing industry, whereas the newest sectors of industry are based on the development of the latest technologies, such as information and communication technologies. We should make every effort to ensure that the principle of equal opportunity is complied with in these new sectors.\nCristiana Muscardini \nin writing. - (IT) The resolution on which we are about to vote cannot fail to receive the support and vote of the UEN Group. We hope that there will soon be better regulation of the Internet aimed at protecting children and taking more effective measures against providers that host child pornography websites. Immediate action must be taken by all EU Member States to close down illegal sites, by means of better coordination among the police forces responsible.\nIn addition, we hope that it will be possible to tackle the sensitive issue of information exchanged by terrorist organisations thanks to the Internet, and that this matter might be the subject of future forums. There can be no freedom without rules and, most importantly, the Internet cannot and must not be an area of freedom for those who commit criminal acts and preach hatred and intolerance. An emergency must be tackled by means of decisive, urgent measures and not improvised ones. The fight against terrorism and hatred between peoples must be a rule and a goal of the European Union and all free, democratic countries.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"A new Energy Strategy for Europe 2011 - 2020 (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on 'Towards a new Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020'.\nLena Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska\nMr President, Commissioner, recently, we have talked a lot about the institutional changes which have resulted from the Treaty of Lisbon. These include the External Action Service and the procedures for work on the budget, but the Treaty of Lisbon also has reference to Union policies. Today, we are debating the first post-Lisbon energy strategy, which the Commission has prepared for the years 2011-2020.\nIt should be emphasised that both the Commission's strategy and Parliament's report reflect the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon - what it says about energy solidarity and its concern for energy security and supply. The Commission's strategy and Parliament's report also lay emphasis on strengthening energy policy and making it more European in character. We can achieve this by undertaking certain measures.\nFirstly, we must speedily implement current European energy legislation in the Member States. Therefore, we fully support the Commission in adopting tough measures against governments and businesses which neglect to take action in this area. Secondly, for our common objectives to be achieved, the common energy market has to work well. This also concerns the need to build a renewable energy market in Europe. In order to achieve our objectives, it is essential, therefore, to extend and modernise the European and cross-border energy infrastructure. This is often opposed by monopolies and the governments which protect them. However, without a Europe-wide network, key objectives of the European Union will not be achieved.\nThere are two main obstacles to be overcome, here: administration and finance. On questions of administration, we need above all to establish clear priorities and rules for the selection of key projects. Without these criteria and without clear rules, project selection will cause much conflict and discord, and will give rise to suspicion instead of hope. At national level, however, regulatory measures are essential, particularly in the context of cross-border projects.\nLet us move, now, to the most important problem - the financing of infrastructure. We know what tensions currently accompany the approval of next year's budget, but even greater tensions are going to affect the Financial Framework after 2013. However, the expenditures which we plan must reflect the policy objectives of the European Union, by which I mean the energy security of the citizens. We are also going to have to find new ways to attract investment from businesses and banks. We talk about this in the report.\nEnergy policy is, today, increasingly related to the foreign policy of the European Union. Our relations with external energy partners should be shaped by the principles of Europe's internal market. Foreign businesses entering the European market must operate in a transparent way and in accordance with the law, and must be managed under transparent agreements. This concerns both pipelines which will arise in the future as well as those which are currently under construction.\nCommissioner, I value the help you have given Poland in our negotiations with Russia on the Yamal gas pipeline. I would like, however, to see similar action in the case of other pipelines, including Nord Stream. I would like to stress that transparency must apply to all current and future projects, and not only to some of them.\nIn summary, Mr President, the Union needs a long-term vision for energy policy. We need a European energy community. If the Commission wants to accelerate action on the part of businesses and Member States, then it, too, must be credible and really bring this very good strategy, and also an infrastructure package, into force. In the future, the European Parliament is going to want to monitor implementation of the strategy, because it is meant to have a real influence on the situation, and not just be an expression of our wishful thinking.\nFinally, something which is very important is the attitude of the Member States to the objectives contained in the European Commission's strategy and in my report. Will they be ready to curb national interests in favour of the common, European good? Will they oppose the activity of large interest groups and take into account the security and good of consumers? We, as Members of the European Parliament, insist on this. I congratulate you, Commissioner, on the energy strategy for the next 10 years.\nG\u00fcnther Oettinger\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying that I am impressed by the number and quality of your ideas, critical comments and constructive contributions in respect of what was presented by the Commission as a draft Energy Strategy for 2011 to 2020. I would like to thank Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska for her presentation, for bringing together the contributions from her fellow Members in an intelligent way and for the establishment of priorities, which is something that I personally feel is important. We will be pleased to include your report in our work in the coming weeks, as the next few weeks are going to be very busy as far as energy policy is concerned. The Energy Council on 3 December, followed by the unique opportunity for the Heads of State or Government to address the issue of energy on 4 February, will provide impetus for our common goals and for the Europeanisation of energy policy. As far as I am concerned, Parliament is a crucial partner in this.\nThe position we are starting from could be described as extremely difficult. We have a single market that is not yet complete. For 12 years it has been the law for electricity and gas, but it has not yet become reality. We have more sub-markets and regional borders, and we must do everything we can to ensure that in the next five years the single market can also be implemented for industry and consumers with the goal of greater competition and transparency.\nSecondly, we have a patent lack of infrastructure. If you look at the foundations that exist in the single market for other products, goods and services - roads, railways, airways, airports, the digital world, waterways - you can see that we are still a long way from what we need in terms of infrastructure for the transport of energy, in particular gas and electricity, in order to meet our European energy policy objectives, namely to enhance the security of supply, solidarity, competition and consumer interests. We need to make up some ground in the next two decades in terms of what has been developed in the last two centuries in the case of road and rail and in the last ten years in the case of the digital world. This has to do with acceptance by the people and transparency. We need transparency in order to achieve greater acceptance for the development of infrastructure for electricity and gas, and we need the appropriate financial resources, which have to be provided primarily by consumers via energy prices, but which, where there are European interests involved, are also a public responsibility of the European budget.\nThirdly, we have a largely untapped potential in the area of energy efficiency. Anyone who, like us, is dependent on imports and at the same time wants to make progress in terms of sustainability, climate protection and environmental protection must oppose energy wastage and lead the way with targeted energy initiatives, energy saving and increased energy efficiency in the public, industrial and private sectors. Energy efficiency will therefore be the next item on the agenda for both of us. I await with great interest Parliament's own-initiative report, which is close to completion and on the basis of which our strategy for energy efficiency will be presented to the general public, yourselves and the Council next spring.\nAnother part of our strategy is the issue of affordable energy. The Belgian Presidency rightly points out that electricity in particular may also cause a division in society as a result of the fact that energy is becoming more expensive and therefore no longer accessible to everyone. This means that we must extend the security of supply in our strategy to include the area of affordable energy for industry and jobs and for private households. Research is another important aspect. Europe cannot take care of everything, but energy research can be a point of focus for the European budget over the next few years and for a partnership between the public authorities and the industry carrying out the research.\nThen there is the matter of external relations, the external dimension: Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska has already drawn our attention to this. We need a common, coordinated European strategy in our external energy policy where the major interests of Europe are concerned. We are still the largest market for energy in terms of consumption, ahead of China and the United States. If we focus our purchasing power and our infrastructure strategies, we will have authority. If the old principle of 'divide and rule' comes into play, others will find it easier to oppose us. We do not want that to happen. With that in mind, I would like to thank you for your diverse and intelligent contributions and your report. It will guide me in my continuing work on our strategy, which we will subsequently put to the European Council.\n(Applause)\nPilar del Castillo Vera\nMr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, who has done an excellent job. Her report is, of course, as ambitious as it is extensive, and I must say that it is the result of the tough and successful negotiations that resulted in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy adopting it practically unanimously.\nContinuing with this subject, I would like to point out something of which we are all aware, but which there is no harm in saying: the energy situation in Europe is not exactly an optimum one. Not only are we increasingly dependent on energy imports obtained from outside Europe, but we are also having to deal with the huge investments needed in our energy infrastructures at a time when Europe is still suffering the consequences of the crisis. This is all in the context of not yet having managed to apply our own energy legislation.\nNow in this parliamentary term we have an instrument that was not available in the previous one. The Treaty of Lisbon not only provides a series of clear objectives such as the internal energy market, security of supply, energy efficiency and promoting energy networks, but it also gives the European Union a legal framework and a sound legal basis - Article 194 - for acting in the field of energy policy.\nIn this new context in which we are having this debate, I ask all my fellow Members to support this report, which proposes a series of measures aimed at guaranteeing energy supply and full implementation of the existing legislation and programmes. It also stresses the need to invest in research, promotes the development of pan-European energy grids and gives the creation of the internal energy market the priority it deserves.\nThank you very much, and I ask you all to support this report tomorrow.\nMarita Ulvskog\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (SV) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska, for her excellent and open cooperation. To me as a Social Democrat, it was important to work to achieve an energy policy and energy supply strategy that has a clear consumer perspective and which also provides transparency on the energy trading market and ensures that the climate crisis has consequences for our decisions on the conversion to renewable, sustainable and safe energy sources and energy systems. In this regard, we have also achieved a certain amount of success, which I am pleased about. The wording concerning consumers' rights has been improved and made clearer and, just as the Commissioner says, so has that concerning the right to purchase energy at sensible prices so that households can afford it. Something must be done to tackle energy poverty. The wording concerning the issue of the climate has also been made clearer, even if there still remains a great deal to do in this regard.\nI also think it is important that the Member States' responsibility for the energy mix, for example, is clearly indicated in the strategy. The biggest disappointment is that the report does not contain any binding targets for energy saving and increasing efficiency - that is a shame. The Member States will probably not achieve the 20% target, which is a very big failure by our standards, because saving energy is one of the best ways of reducing our dependence on imports, strengthening our competitiveness and creating jobs. We will come back to this issue in Parliament in a different context and then we hope to receive strong support from the whole of this Chamber as well as from the Commission.\nJens Rohde\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all, let me thank and congratulate Ms Kolarska-Bobinska for an excellent report and then let me start with a little story from the real world. Ten years ago, China did not produce one single windmill; today, China houses one of the world's top ten wind-energy companies. In two years, they expect to have two companies in the top five. Ten years ago, there was nothing. Today, China represents 50% of global windmill production. China is moving and they move fast.\nIn this light, I am sorry to say, the Commission's new energy strategy is discouraging in its lack of ambition for a greener future. We need an ambitious energy strategy for Europe, not only in a COP-16 resolution that nobody reads anyway. We need to implement ambitious, concrete policy targets in Europe. 'When the time is right we can get ambitious' seems to be the strategy of the Council and Commission. Well, the time is right and we cannot sit back and relax and wait for some grand international binding agreement before we act.\nFor an energy strategy to deliver on climate, on growth, on jobs, we need a much more ambitious and market-based approach so that we can use the market mechanism to our advantage. It is up to ourselves to create a drive in the market, to show the pioneers where we want to go so that they can take us there. That is why ALDE is calling for the EU to move to a 30% CO2 reduction target. The carbon market, the main mechanism for our CO2 reductions and green investments, does not work. It is flooded with quotas and the price is too low, so there are no incentives to invest in green technologies. We believe that the EU needs to make this move for the sake of our economic growth, climate and energy security. Come on Europe, come on Commission; let's walk the talk.\n(Applause)\nClaude Turmes\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would firstly like to give my thanks, and those of my group, for the work achieved by Lena Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska, as well as by all the shadows. It was probably not easy to get us all together - like herding sheep - but you did.\nMy first message is, 'implement, implement, implement'. We do not need a new energy policy. We have to implement the climate package, the third internal market package and the security of gas supply. Then we have to add targeted policies to that. You mentioned energy efficiency. That is crucial and we await Mr Bendtsen's report, which will go into more detail on that.\nThe second concerns the internal market. Commissioner, I think you have done an excellent job on the infrastructure package, but I hope there will be no relaxation, in a certain sense, on competition policy. We have a good record over the last five years in going against market domination and this must be a key focus of our European energy policy.\nRegarding renewables, our report is much more outspoken and your EU strategy and the Energy 2020 strategy are very vague. Jens Rohde is right. Renewables will make up 70% of all power investments in Europe over the next ten years. Renewable technology is our biggest export market in all energy technologies. I do not think that it sends the right message to dilute renewables in the EU 2020 strategy. We would need a specific chapter for what will be the biggest investments of the next ten years.\nIn our report we are also much more cautious about reopening the discussion about national fit-in systems and other systems. Governments want national support schemes and we should not confuse this debate by reopening that one.\nGas will be important, as will oil in the future. I have two concrete questions for you. One is to ask how you see the gas market in the power sector for the next decade. Secondly, at your press conference you were very clear about peak oil and also the risk of reaching USD 200 a barrel, so how does this link in with the transport policy at Commission level?\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\nMr President, I would, of course, like to add my voice to the thanks being expressed to the rapporteur for her very good cooperation in the preparation of this very difficult report. The report emphasises all the most important challenges facing European energy policy. I think that, above all, the Union has to deal with the anti-market clauses in agreements with third countries. This is one of the biggest obstacles.\nIn particular, Russia imposes restrictions in access to gas pipelines, and also bans re-exporting, restricting the property rights of European businesses in relation to gas which has already been purchased. This is what happened in the case of the Polish contract with which the Commissioner is familiar. The purpose of Russian policy is to maintain a monopoly on the gas market for as long as possible. The Gazprom monopoly in Central Europe is being maintained at the cost of the common market, at the cost of competition and, finally, at the cost of consumers' rights. In such cases, the Union must react very decisively, and must not exclude the diplomatic factor and the role of the High Representative for Foreign Policy. Otherwise, our reaction will simply be unbalanced.\nUnion diplomacy in general should devote more attention to issues related to raw materials. This is a subject which is growing in significance and is a major challenge for our services, taking into account competences in the area of EU trade policy. In our energy policy, we should most certainly give full support to modern technologies, liquefied gas installations, geothermal energy and shale gas. Until we have ensured security and diversity of gas supply, we cannot allow ourselves to abandon coal too suddenly. Otherwise, we will only increase our dependence on gas, particularly in Central Europe, where coal still plays an extremely important role.\nThere is one final matter: I think a certain institutional problem should be noted. All the matters about which Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska has spoken in her report received very inadequate attention in the European Commission communication, which evidently was drafted without taking account of Parliament's position. This is a very bad coincidence - this process has gone very badly. I do not think we should act like this.\nNiki Tzavela\nMr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska on her excellent and very hard work. As we have heard a lot of ambitious targets here - and my honourable friend Mr Turmes referred repeatedly to application - I think we should all congratulate the Commission on the recent communication which it issued in November on energy strategy issues. This is the first realistic strategy we have seen. The Commission refers specifically and clearly to the difficulties; it defines them and suggests what the difficulties are and where there is a margin for us to implement the targets we have set.\nCommissioner, as you have put a realistic strategic energy policy before us, and I truly welcome that, I should like to propose a practical and realistic solution to the south stream. We have two small pipelines: the ITGI and the TAP. They are ready, they are up to speed. You can move forward. Nabucco is big and it is therefore complicated and there may be delays. Move forward, therefore, with the two small pipelines.\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) Mr President, I wish to voice my support for the report which has been compiled, especially for the last part of it, which calls on citizens' interests to take precedence over political arguments.\nThe reason is that there is a very simple example of this. Two major projects are currently being developed: South Stream and Nabucco. There are some radical factions in Bulgaria saying that these projects are mutually incompatible. It is almost a case of having either South Stream or Nabucco. I believe that the competition between both these projects is the only possible way of ensuring secure, cheap energy for Europe's citizens.\nAnother extremely important issue, which must not be overlooked in any way, is nuclear energy and its development in relation to the politicisation of this issue. The reason for raising this is because the decision to shut down the reactors at the Kozloduy power plant in Bulgaria was political. Instead of generating billions of euros from them, some of which could even be included in the EU budget, Member States now have to pay compensation due to the political decision made to shut down these reactors.\nApart from this, we have been noticing recently a mood of hysteria surrounding the issue of nuclear power plants. I would like to urge you for us to counter those activist organisations adopting impartial measures in order to oppose this issue; most of all because they do not offer any alternative. Nuclear energy is actually the option which can also ensure secure, cheap energy.\nHerbert Reul\n(DE) Mr President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska for her very constructive and intensive work. Since I am expressing my thanks, I also support the report, in contrast to some of my fellow Members who are praising the report but will attempt, by means of some key amendments, to make radical changes to some of the passages tomorrow. I would therefore like to address the demand that has been made many times for us to be more ambitious. I am not sure whether what has been stated in this regard is ambitious or whether it is excessive.\nI am very grateful to Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska for presenting a realistic policy, because that is what is called for in times of economic and financial crisis. We do not need to unfold new dreams, but to table something that will make it possible for us in one, two, three or four years' time to demonstrate that we have achieved it.\nI am very grateful to her for mentioning the importance of the energy mix and the responsibility of the Member States, which will then decide themselves what they want. We will not insist that there is only one perspective and that is renewable energies. The perspective includes renewable energies, coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy and also nuclear fusion. I would be very pleased if everything that Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska has written and that has received the support of a large majority is actually retained.\nShe addressed the issue of financial responsibility, the need to develop and to establish infrastructure and not to simply demand this and say that the money must come from somewhere. She also pointed to the responsibility of enterprises.\nThis brings us to the single market. In this regard, we do not need to call for a new package and new legislation. Rather, we need to demand implementation and a review and to be realistic so that the standards we have established are also put into practice. Last but not least, we must not simply slap new things on top and then in the end be surprised when energy prices are so high that citizens can no longer pay them. Is it ambitious or is it irresponsible to simply pile on new things, increase costs and then complain about energy poverty among citizens?\nSometimes the debate focuses solely on industry, but it will hit citizens with full effect in the next few months and years. In some debates, I would like us to consider at the start what the end result will be.\nTeresa Riera Madurell\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, congratulations to Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska and also to the shadow rapporteur from my group, Mrs Ulvskog and the other rapporteurs on their excellent work.\nGiven its strategic nature, this is an extensive report, which tackles the different aspects of EU energy policy in detail by constructing the strategy on the basis of the considerable quantity of legislation that we have adopted in recent years. In the short time that I have I would like to highlight two very important aspects of this report: interconnections and taxation.\nAt this point we now very urgently need to resolutely apply the legislative and financial mechanisms that we have at our disposal in order to strengthen the weak links in the trans-European energy networks within the correct time frame, which is very important.\nWith regard to taxation, I believe that in order to be developed to market levels, efficiency, saving energy and renewable energy not only need specific taxation measures, but also tax incentives in the form of the appropriate deductions or exemptions.\nLena Ek\nMr President, we have enormous problems with the energy market and the grid in Europe, not to mention that energy production is mainly based on fossil sources. If someone says implementation, implementation, implementation, I would say focus, focus, focus, and I would mention some examples.\nWe still lack 50% of financing for the SET-Plan. We have budget negotiations that go in a totally different direction from this energy strategy. We had to fight - excuse me, I do not want to be taken out of the Chamber - like hell for the EERP, energy efficiency and alternative fuels, and in research we have the same problem.\nThe same week as we are discussing what is, I admit, in part a good strategy, Commissioner, we are voting on a coal subsidy report that says that Spain subsidises coal in an uncompetitive coal market to the tune of EUR 50 000 per job, whilst the average is EUR 17 000 per job. How can we be competitive and modern if we take decisions like this? It undermines the whole strategy.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) Mr President, experience from previous years, when the breakdown in gas supplies from Ukraine and widespread electricity blackouts in a number of EU countries proved that our energy system lacks the reserves necessary to deal with crisis situations, has shown us that any solution will require extensive investment. Therefore, when deciding on the necessary changes, we will have to proceed in a coordinated and careful manner in order to make the most efficient use of the resources invested.\nThe submitted report responds to this state of affairs in a very comprehensive way, taking account of practically all the issues that will have to be addressed in order to resolve our energy problems. This includes everything from legislative bases and distribution of powers through to trading rules, network modernisation and financing.\nAs well as ensuring energy security and support for research and development, the need for greater energy efficiency and the use of renewables has not been forgotten. With its comprehensive and balanced approach, this report is, in my opinion, a good starting point for further work on improving the European energy system.\nBendt Bendtsen\n(DA) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for a splendid piece of work and a well-balanced report. There is no doubt that there is a rapidly increasing need for a new energy strategy for Europe, and European enterprises are in no doubt about that either. We are becoming more and more dependent on gas from Russia and oil from the Middle East. The energy strategy has become both part of Europe's foreign and security policy and a question of security of supply. Our decisions in Europe are crucial for our competitiveness. There is a need for huge investment in the future to enable us to attain a complete and cohesive internal market, and there is also a need for massive investments in energy efficiency. A penny saved is a penny gained. Energy efficiency is also the cheapest way of reducing CO2 emissions.\nI would like to thank Commissioner \u00d6ettinger for his comments today regarding energy efficiency. As far as energy efficiency is concerned - irrespective of whether or not the targets are binding - I am happy with the Commission's communication, which lists a large number of areas where we can do more. I am also open to giving the Commission more power to reject the national action plans if they are not adequate for achieving our 20% objective by 2020.\nMoreover, the United States and China are investing heavily in areas that will increase energy efficiency. Everyone is fully aware that the price of energy will increase in future, and Europe is currently suffering from a lack of competitiveness in a global world. By means of sound investments in energy efficiency, infrastructure, smart networks and so on, we therefore need to give our enterprises the opportunity to achieve greater competitiveness. An additional benefit will be new jobs and innovative enterprises in a Europe that is currently losing thousands of jobs.\nIvari Padar\n(ET) Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur and colleagues on this successful report. The creation of a pan-European energy market is in the interests of all Europeans. In opening up energy markets, however, we have ignored the issues of market transparency and comprehensiveness.\nI am worried about the fact that, while hundreds of billions of euros' worth of electricity, gas and CO2 emissions quotas are changing hands on the markets, there is a clear supervisory and legislative gap. I therefore welcome the European Commission's initiative to fill the gap. I hope that the Commission's communication, shortly to be adopted, will be centred on consumer protection and define a clear pan-European regulatory framework which establishes unequivocal rules and definitions in order to avoid insider dealing, market manipulation and to increase market liquidity.\nI believe that ACER, the European Union's energy market regulator set up by the third internal market package, must eventually carry out supervision of electricity, gas and emissions trading, and I suggest that supervision of these three markets should be brought under the aegis of a single regulator in the Member States.\nFiona Hall\nMr President, I am glad the Commission's 2020 Energy Strategy refers to the ongoing review concerning the impact of indirect land use change. It is vital the Commission meets its obligation to come forward with a proposal on this by the end of this year, both to allay widespread public concern that some biofuels currently on the market may not be producing a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and also for the sake of industry which is developing innovative processes whose added value deserves to be recognised.\nOn that question of energy certainty, I would also ask the Commission to rethink its comments on the harmonisation of national support schemes for renewables. I am all for action at a European level when it adds value, but Member States have only recently brought out their National Renewable Energy Action Plans and are working to implement them; this would be harmonisation too far.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho\n(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on her excellent work on this report. The energy sector is the driving force behind economic growth. Europe has had a strategy for energy and combating climate change since 2008. Implementing this strategy is crucial, but the Treaty of Lisbon allows us to go further, opening the way to create a true energy community within Europe.\nWe need to deepen the internal energy market, build and forge links between networks, ensure solidarity on energy and put the consumer at the centre of our concerns. There is a need to increase public funding and the development of tools and programmes to encourage energy efficiency. Scientific research and technology play a key role in achieving these objectives.\nIn view of this, I welcome the launch of various European industrial initiatives under the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan and I call upon the Commission to put the rest of the measures in this plan into practice. The eighth framework programme should also make research and the development of innovative technologies its priority in the field of energy. It is therefore vital that there is adequate funding to support clean and sustainable technologies. This is the only way that we will be able to maintain the competitiveness of our industry, promote economic growth and create jobs.\nKathleen Van Brempt\n(NL) Mr President, the word we have heard most so far here today is 'strategy'; and rightly so. We welcome the Commission's strategy, therefore. Nevertheless, we find it a little disappointing, Commissioner, as a good strategy entails carrying out a sound assessment - an assessment of the supply problems and, in particular, of the ecological problems and also the social problems - and it is on the basis of this strategy that we set priorities. I attach very great importance to the word 'priority', as that means putting things in rank order. Energy efficiency is top of this rank order. You have mentioned this, but why, if we consider energy efficiency so important, is it so hard to draw up objectives that we mean to enforce in our Member States? This is crucial. We know that it works, and it is a way to get where we need to go. Therefore, I should like to ask the Commissioner to actually take up this priority, and also to really present it in your preparations for the major summit in February.\nRomana Jordan Cizelj\n(SL) Mr President, Commissioner, today we are deciding the course of energy development up to the year 2020, but this period is much too short. It takes many years to get energy facilities up and running. The construction of grids and electric power plants takes its share of time too. The service life of such constructions is several decades. That is why investors need fairly stable political guidelines for a much longer period. If we want to meet our climate change and energy sustainability targets, we must develop a policy framework for much further in the future. We need a strategy document for energy development until at least 2050.\nNuclear energy is increasingly becoming one of the energy sources of the future and I would therefore highlight three tasks that I see facing us at European level in that regard. First of all, we need to take legislative action to ensure safe decommissioning of nuclear power plants and disposal of radioactive waste in accordance with the 'polluter pays' principle.\nSecondly, we must ensure, with effective and transparent procedures, that new electric power plants are constructed in accordance with the highest possible safety standards. We can do that by introducing minimum standards for the approval and confirmation of designs of new nuclear power plants. Moreover, we must consider licensing new types of nuclear power plants at European level. That would help us take advantage of combined knowledge and help countries which are only now introducing nuclear energy and those with, in effect, relatively small administrative bodies.\nThirdly, we need to make the decision-making process on nuclear issues more democratic. Nuclear energy is only one of many potential sources of energy and, therefore, decision-making procedures must be the same as those for coal, renewables, gas and oil. The European Parliament must be given codecision powers. We do not need to revisit the Euratom Treaty as this could be done through an inter-institutional agreement.\nAdam Gierek\n(PL) Mr President, energy makes up around 40% of the costs of production, while labour accounts for barely 15%, but obtaining the raw materials for the generation of energy itself requires energy. Therefore, the competitiveness of the economy is going to depend upon energy. The dogma concerning the effect on the global climate and promotion of what is being called a 'carbon-free' economy is nonsense. Getting bogged down in binding carbon targets is an example of proposals which are socially and economically irresponsible, just like the CCS technology which has been imposed on coal-fired power stations - but why not on other fuels? Why is the driving force of progress not effectiveness?\nI must issue a warning about social discontent in relation to the creation of energy poverty. In the new Member States, energy accounts for around 40% of family expenditure. I must also issue a warning about the loss of energy security due to legislation which has been imposed, and in particular the Climate and Energy Package. One more thing - why can the Member States not decide for themselves about how to reduce their own CO2 emissions, as they can decide about their energy mix?\nLambert van Nistelrooij\n(NL) Mr President, the new Treaty of Lisbon has made energy the shared responsibility of the EU and the Member States. The Second Energy Package, which actually forms the basis for this strategy, clearly merits additions, and the report provides a good analysis in this regard. Yet the Member States, and their private and public parties, must get on board. The operational programmes between and within Member States are becoming increasingly important. Sufficient percentage targets have been laid down, for both the climate and energy. There is no need for new supplementary binding targets. As has already been said, it is implementation that counts, carrying citizens - consumers - with us. It may also be so that the Commission must improve its assessment of these national programmes, and that our resources, possibly Eurobonds, must be made dependent on this. There is still a gap between words and deeds. The first of two focal points is energy efficiency: a great opportunity. This contributes to the competitiveness of our companies and also to employment - in the installation and construction sectors, for example. Take a look at your own country, too: tens of thousands of jobs have been created in Germany as a result. The second focal point is - yes, you said it - the infrastructure connecting countries and within countries, and smart grids. This is where the Eurobonds are necessary. I have a question for the Commissioner: will progress be made towards these Eurobonds in December? We are talking about new resources - we need money - and I should like you to tell us whether you will indeed be raising money by these means? Action: that is what is needed.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) Mr President, the European Union's energy strategy must focus on energy efficiency, reducing the consumption of primary energy and energy poverty, as well as on promoting energy from renewable sources and the Union's energy security. However, it is absolutely imperative for the Union's energy strategy also to be linked to industrial policy, transport policy, research and innovation policy, as well as the policy for combating climate change.\nWe call on the Commission and Member States to develop the financial and fiscal instruments required for energy efficiency, especially in the construction sector, and to make energy efficiency and the smart energy infrastructure a priority in the future Multiannual Financial Framework.\nThe Union must attach greater importance to the Eastern Partnership, especially to the Black Sea region, which is of particular geopolitical significance for energy security and diversification of the Union's energy supply routes.\nWe also call on the Commission and Member States to continue the European Southern Gas Corridor project, especially the Nabucco project, which could significantly increase energy supply security.\nAlajos M\u00e9sz\u00e1ros\n(HU) Mr President, both Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska and Commissioner Oettinger deserve praise for this work, which is indeed an important effort. As a result of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union's energy strategy will be built on four new pillars: the single energy market, security of supply, energy efficiency and the interconnection of European energy networks.\nWhen mapping out our new energy strategy, we must bear in mind a few challenges. While our fossil fuel supplies are gradually diminishing, we can increase available supplies by finding new raw material exploration sites and by research and development efforts. Europe's dependency on energy increases proportionally with the increase in its population. By 2030, Europe will be forced to secure 65% of its energy imports from non-EU sources. For natural gas supplies this figure may reach 80%. We must aim to further diversify transport routes and acquisition sources. The refurbishment of power stations currently in operation may also be of key significance.\nIt is not sufficient to devote significant sums to decommissioning outdated power stations - we must also pay attention to maintaining them. Member States must carry out an overarching review of their stance on nuclear energy. We must continue our efforts in the area of nuclear energy development, otherwise we will not be able to meet our climate change targets. I recommend that we exercise caution in this area, to ensure that our ambitious plans do not pose a threat to our industrial and commercial competitiveness. In this sense, we see a balanced report containing commitments that can be realistically met, which is why I strongly support it.\nMario Pirillo\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, guaranteeing sustainable, safe and accessible energy surely represents one of the major challenges for Europe over the coming years.\nThe European Union's policy objectives require a series of actions which cannot be ignored. The full realisation of the internal energy market is an objective that can only be achieved if the current legislation relating to the energy package is applied by all Member States.\nI believe that in order to fully meet the objectives of the strategy, we cannot flinch from investing in modern and intelligent infrastructure, particularly in the research and use of renewable energies. These very investments not only represent the most economically beneficial solution for reducing the EU's energy dependence, but will also contribute to combating climate change.\nHannes Swoboda\n(DE) Mr President, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs and to you, Mr Oettinger, because what you have presented in the last few days and weeks is crucial for the development of the European Union. However, like Mrs Van Brempt, Mr Turmes and others, I am of the opinion that we need to go a step further, because - if I may say so - a sensible, environmentally sound energy policy is almost like a launch vehicle for green growth and green jobs.\nWe discussed this again yesterday with the President of the Commission. Unfortunately, very little has been said about this today. Nevertheless, we must take these extra steps. Of course, a lot of what is involved in environment-oriented energy policy is still more expensive. However, if we consider the environmental benefit, and what it means for European industry to play a leading role, we see that it is also very important for jobs.\nMr Reul is right: we need many energy sources. Perhaps not all of them - in that respect our opinions differ on many points. However, we need to know the direction in which energy efficiency, energy saving and renewable energies are going. These are the engines of a future-oriented European economy.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) Mr President, the energy issue is a major priority which cannot afford to be deferred. It is important for the future 2011-2020 action plan to make a significant contribution to strengthening the European Union's common policy.\nWe require close cooperation, especially in the area of energy infrastructure, as well as appropriate EU funding. I think that, apart from obtaining public and EU funding, in order to develop an EU strategic infrastructure which will involve expanding and integrating all the local, regional and European energy markets, we must focus greater attention on the private sector and investments from there.\nI think that a good way to achieve this is to promote public-private partnerships by offering the necessary political and administrative support, a certain level of funding and some public guarantees. This will help us successfully obtain the funding which is so vital to the future of any energy policy.\nArturs Kri\u0161j\u0101nis Kari\u0146\u0161\n(LV) Mr President, Commissioner, today I should like to talk briefly about the welfare of our citizens and about islands. Usually, we have pleasant thoughts of islands, we like to go there - the sun, the warmth. The isolation of the southern islands even benefits the welfare of the islanders, since it attracts tourists, but when it comes to energy, isolation or island status is particularly harmful to the population. This is precisely what is not needed. Why? Isolation in the field of energy means some monopoly's normal predominance in this market, and for the people concerned that in turn means both uncertain supply and high prices. This report contains the solution. Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. Let us build interconnections in the European Union, to bring all of us together, so that our citizens can enjoy decent prices and security of supply. Thank you.\nFrancesco De Angelis\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express my appreciation for this resolution, which is an excellent piece of work in four respects.\nFirstly, it reasserts that energy efficiency and energy saving are economically advantageous priorities to reduce Europe's energy dependence and combat climate change. Secondly, it emphasises intelligent infrastructure. Thirdly, it urges us to fully implement current European legislation. Fourthly, it strives to bring about an energy policy with a robust and consistent international dimension.\nFinally, I should like to underline the importance of energy security and investment in research, development and innovation to protect the interests of consumers, businesses and citizens as well as possible.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\n(LT) Mr President, I really believe that all European Union Member States are now experiencing the greatest headache over their energy and first of all I would really like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the fact that practically all of us, the representatives of all of the Member States, had the opportunity to offer our own proposals, and thanks to some intelligent compromises, a very good document was born. I also feel that it is not so important to have ambitious plans as it is to have real plans, that is, real infrastructures, interconnectors, a real opportunity for people to choose the energy supplier they will buy energy from, and of course, a real market price. I believe that if we achieve this we will have accomplished a great deal. I feel that in future we also ought to have better control of Member States' desires and interests, because if we are creating a common energy market, those interests must be reconciled. Commissioner, I would also like to thank you for reacting very promptly to the signing of certain agreements and I am grateful that the principle of solidarity is deeply rooted at EU level.\nSonia Alfano\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have read the report carefully and I endorse it overall. However, I was left rather puzzled by various references to the future of coal in the European strategy, in particular in paragraph 52, in which the Commission is asked to draw up legal provisions to facilitate the building of coal-fired electric power plants.\nSeveral years ago in the United States, a political and citizens' movement was started which has de facto led to a sort of moratorium on the building of coal-fired power plants. As well as CO2 emissions, this decision is also based on the problem of dealing with the ash, which contains many toxic substances. Therefore, I absolutely do not support the defence of coal-fired power plants and I would note that so called 'clean coal is, in many cases, more of a slogan than a reality.\nI have also heard several fellow Members fiercely defend nuclear energy, in terms of both costs and safety. Unfortunately, whoever says this shows that they do not know what they are talking about. Alternatives exist, they are renewable, they are genuine, and the European Union must plot its path for the coming decade in that direction.\nOreste Rossi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report offers some very interesting points in that, starting from the basic concept that Europe must provide itself with common energy policies, it carefully analyses both methods and timescales.\nSpeaking personally at the European Energy Forum, organised by President Buzek, among representatives of the 27 EU Member States and the European Parliament, I expressed a favourable opinion on a common energy plan that would allow for equal conditions of access to energy for private individuals and businesses, hence eliminating today's sometimes notable cost differences.\nI am sorry that the now inevitable references to the European Union's responsibility in combating climate change have been inserted in such a good report. There are specific documents related to that subject and I find it redundant that we continue to add references to it in order to satisfy certain environmental extremists.\nAs far as we are concerned, a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol can only happen in a global context, involving all the main economies with a legally binding agreement.\nRadvilMork\u016bnait\u0117-Mikul\u0117nien\n(LT) Mr President, I would like to offer my congratulations to the rapporteur and give my thanks to the Commissioner who is considering energy strategy and policy with such goodwill. We have ambitious aims to reduce the climate change process. As far as protection of the environment is concerned, energy can be a partner, but it can also be an enemy. In the European Union we are dependent on fossil fuels, used for energy extraction. With the depletion of the EU's resources, we are increasingly dependent on third countries and so it is not just important to develop renewable energy, but to also invest in research into increasing energy efficiency. In the previous part-session we debated the allocation of additional money for energy under the European Economic Recovery Plan. Perhaps it would also be appropriate to be able to allocate money from other European Union financial mechanisms, earmarked for overall energy efficiency. Renewable energy is important for us not simply because of climate change, but also energy security. The bilateral agreements of some Member States, implementing projects such as 'Nord Stream', causes distrust not just over environmental issues, but also principles of solidarity, and therefore there must be transparency in this area.\nElena B\u0103sescu\n(RO) Mr President, in my opinion, enhancing the EU's renewable energy potential is one of the report's key elements. This is why I wish to recall that the Dobrogea region in south-eastern Romania will become the largest wind park in Europe in a few years' time. Construction of the 522 turbines will be completed in 2011. This will enable Dobrogea to supply 50% of national energy consumption.\nInfrastructure is another key element for an efficient energy market. The EU must choose among those projects which prove their efficiency and economic profitability. The AGRI interconnector, which is one of Romania's main contributions to the development of the energy infrastructure, incurs low costs and offers an alternative.\nDiversification of energy supply sources is a must in the oil sector as well. The P8 pipeline is a good example of this. Romania and Serbia have recently resumed the feasibility studies for building the first section of the pipeline between Constan\u0163a and Pancevo.\nIoan Enciu\n(RO) Mr President, diversification of sources, a new energy infrastructure and an increase in the proportion of renewable energy sources are important to the European Union's energy future. At the same time, however, we must not stop using old energy sources either, which can certainly be improved using innovative technologies, according to the possibilities and needs of each Member State.\nHowever, the most important factor in this for me and the citizens whom I represent is that we must retain an affordable price for all consumers, as well as preserve and even create new jobs in this area.\nWe must not end up in the situation where there will be surplus energy available on the European energy market, because this will not be purchased due to the high prices.\nKyriakos Mavronikolas\n(EL) Mr President, I would think that, following the Treaty of Lisbon, it goes without saying that the European Parliament will be able to contribute much more to energy policy.\nI agree with everything the rapporteur said and I would highlight the fact that, nowadays, energy policy has far more to do, directly and indirectly, with the foreign policy in general both of the Member States and of the Union itself. I would agree that there is a need today for the necessary works, infrastructure works, and that we also need regulations governing how agreements are executed.\nToday we are asking for clear contracts, transparency and specific reference to renewable energy sources. However, what we see before us, Commissioner, is the need for a common energy market. That would help the small island states of the Union in particular, so that, in one large market, we can address the major issue of energy with transparency.\nNick Griffin\nMr President, I should like to say to the Commissioner that the new energy strategy report ignores the elephant in the living room: peak oil. But at least the Commission has at last woken up to this gigantic and immediate threat. The moment one recognises peak oil, the majority of this largely well-meaning report becomes, sadly, incinerator fuel.\nThe huge energy gap opening up cannot possibly be filled by Mickey Mouse renewables or shale carbons. Coal, nuclear fusion - and in the long term nuclear fusion plus fission - are the only energy sources dense enough to save us as the oil age comes to an end.\nCommissioner, now that this has been recognised, can we look forward to a new, serious approach to energy? We must ditch all the nonsense about wind-power grids and global warming and concentrate on real scientific solutions to the peak oil crisis.\nG\u00fcnther Oettinger\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are entering into the debate here, and if I take the points on which your speeches focused, we have a broad energy mix in the European Union, in the Member States and also in Parliament. I have heard talk of everything from 100% renewable energies right up to nuclear fusion, nuclear power and coal. That means that the hot question will be: will we agree on a long-term strategy? Will we get consensus in Europe? If we do, what will the consensus be?\nWe are currently working on the strategy that comprises the three targets of 20% renewable energies, 20% CO2 reduction and 20% increase in efficiency. That is the strategy for the new decade. It is right that we need a long-term strategy. The Road Map that we will present to you as a rough draft next spring will provide this. With this Road Map we intend in the next year to consider the next 40 years with you and the Member States and to submit forecasts for energy requirements, the energy mix, environmental targets and the security of supply for four decades. Not an easy undertaking. Imagine for a moment that we were in 1970 before the oil crisis, before the fall of the Wall and with only a few Member States, and we had to use the expertise that we had in 1970 to shed light on 2010 and the current energy situation. Our estimates would have been completely wrong. Do we know what technical capabilities will emerge in the next 40 years? What new political interests the Member States will have? Nevertheless, I am in favour of the attempt to produce the Road Map 2050.\nThen the question of why we need binding CO2 reduction targets was raised, and why the Member States cannot do this. It is quite simply because that was what was decided. I accept the 20% CO2 and the 30% if we find other partners worldwide. This is a decision by Parliament, to which you belong, and the Council, and I implement it. If you want something different, let me know. I believe that if there were no binding targets, the Member States would simply not comply with them. If we abandon binding targets, the Member States would do less or nothing at all, particularly in difficult economic times.\nThe subject of energy efficiency was mentioned. In our strategy we are only creating the headings for this. Details of how this is will be implemented in practice and the instruments, measures and financial corridor will follow in the spring when we will have to present the energy efficiency strategy, which you are currently debating.\nThere have been questions about the internal market. Please trust me and Mr Almunia. We will ensure full compliance with the second and third internal market packages, we will deal with treaty infringement proceedings and do everything we can to ensure that in the next five years gas and electricity achieve an internal market with competition and transparency. In the last few weeks we have been advising the Member States - the Polish Government in the Jamal case, the Bulgarian Government in the South Stream case and with regard to gas supplies to Bulgaria. In fact, the Member States are not always willing or in a position themselves to ensure compliance with internal market rules in their bilateral agreements. Where our advice is sought we provide it, but the involvement of the Member States is also required. There are also large Member States in which the internal market does not work. One country is not far from here and perhaps it is even the country that we are in right now. Thus, I would ask the Members from France: are you prepared to work with me to create an internal market in France and in other countries? I need your support in this - not at a national level, but at a European level.\nIn connection with the Southern Corridor, the decision with regard to Nabucco, TAP or ITGI will, I believe, be taken in the first quarter of next year. However, a gas infrastructure requires us to discuss the question of how much gas will we need for heating and electricity conversion in the coming decades? It is currently 500 billion cubic metres per year. Will it be less or will it be more? This will also be addressed in the Road Map 2050.\nMr Rohde mentioned the example of China. In my view, China is always good to use as a comparison, but preferably not as an example to be followed. You are right that there has been a great deal of investment in wind energy in China. That is true, but you failed to mention the fact that China is currently buying up the world's coal and is investing much more in coal. In the last year, China invested more in renewable energies than Germany did, that is true. Nevertheless, the proportion of renewable energies produced in China is falling, because much more is being invested in nuclear power and coal. Moreover, China refers to nuclear power as a form of renewable energy. I do not agree with that. Consequently, a comparison with China is important, but I would seriously advise against holding China up as an example for us to follow in our European work.\nThank you once again. I also need you when it comes to the European budget. Calls have been made for more to be done and for more resources to be provided for research and infrastructure. I go along with that. I take every euro that you give me, but the budget is decided by the Council and Parliament. On the basis of our good experience with the SET plan, with energy research funding and with the economic recovery plan, I trust that we will produce a good proposal for infrastructure and that you will support it so that, in the next decade, sufficient European funding with added value for appropriate European measures in the areas of infrastructure and research will be provided. With this in mind, we certainly have sufficient opportunity for constructive cooperation.\nLena Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska\nMr President, as can be seen, the subjects of discussion and the opinions expressed in the European Parliament are very varied and different. Therefore, this report is the result of the compromise which we had been seeking. I think it is a very good report, because we have built a consensus.\nI would like to express my thanks to the shadow rapporteurs - Mrs Ulvskog, Mr Rohde, Mr Turmes, Mr Szyma\u0144ski and others - for the fact that we have built this consensus in such a nice way. I would also like to thank Mrs Castillo Vera for her cooperation, help and support, Mrs Toth of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) for her help, Mr Hillman and also the Commissioner and staff of the Commission, who answered my numerous questions and responded to my various ideas.\nIn Brussels, today, a battle is going on between supporters of the idea of intergovernmentalism and those who want to act on the idea of solidarity. Both the European Parliament and the Commission are faced by the necessity to guarantee that solidarity is, however, victorious over individual national interests at future meetings of the European Council. We have worked out a certain consensus. We have a strategy, and, as Mr Turmes has said, in view of this we must implement it, implement it and once again implement it, defending ourselves against various particular interests.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at 12 noon tomorrow, Thursday, 25 November.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nin writing. - (PT) I believe this new energy strategy to be imperative for putting in place a competitive, sustainable and secure strategy. At a time when Europe finds itself ever more dependent on energy imports, I believe it to be essential that it continues to play its dominant leadership role in energy matters, by focusing on innovation and technology. Making our energy strategy more sustainable will require a continued focus on renewable energy, through the introduction of increased competition within the sector so that we can effectively implement the internal market for energy. That will lead to a reduction in costs and an increase in competitiveness for the economy, and also create wealth and jobs, which are important for a healthy balance of trade. I come from an outermost region, which currently has a level of energy self-sufficiency of around 27%, and aims to achieve 75% by 2012. The Azores have set more ambitious specific targets than the EU, with results that are already recognised at a European level, particularly with regard to geothermal energy, through an ambitious energy policy of partnerships between the region and the best national and international research centres. The Union should look to these examples, and increase its support in the areas of research, innovation and project development.\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f\nIt is time for us to talk about a genuine European energy strategy. There are currently gaps in the implementation of EU energy legislation. The provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon provide the European Union with a sound legal framework for developing an efficient single internal market, which will guarantee supply security, sustainability, interconnection of networks and solidarity. In this context, new Member States, which are much more vulnerable to external disruptions to their energy supply, need the support of the European Union to tackle these challenges.\nFurthermore, I would like to urge you to keep the possibility of coal mines being subsidised by Member States, at least until 2018. In a capitalist world the term 'uncompetitive' is synonymous with social scourge. We must take into account the human factor and think about the adverse socio-economic repercussions of closing the coal mines which provide a major source of jobs, before labelling a mine as uncompetitive.\nIlda Figueiredo\nThis report seeks to contribute to a new energy action plan, within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. In principle, a new plan may prove to be an important initiative provided that the mistakes and shortcomings of previous plans are taken to heart. It is pointless to insist on the very approach and the proposals that have left us lagging behind where we should be.\nThe strategic shortcomings of European energy policy which should be taken into account include the following points.\nEnergy policy has been positioned as an appendix to an 'environmental' policy whose ultimate objective is to open up new areas to financial speculation by making greenhouse gas emissions permits profitable. However, the issue of energy merits a tailored approach based on the improvement of specific indicators such as energy intensity or energy deficit.\nIn the field of energy it is also presumed that by implementing the functioning of markets where private investors operate, everything will be solved as if by magic. Three successive packages of legislation have already been issued, public resources have been spent, and yet we still do not have competitive markets, investment in infrastructure or more accessible energy for consumers. This represents a failure in all aspects of the stated objectives.\nThe argument that biofuels would bring only environmental benefits and offer major agricultural and industrial development to European countries has collapsed.\nAndr\u00e1s Gy\u00fcrk\nI am pleased to see that there is an increasingly strong commitment in Europe to realise a single energy market. This is aptly demonstrated by the fact that both the report of Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska and the latest energy strategy and infrastructure priorities of the European Commission are urging structural changes. We are all finally beginning to see that remarkable success requires significant investments, concrete action plans and the removal of administrative burdens. This is the only option for all Member States to achieve the main objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon: the single market, security of supply, energy efficiency and the expansion of renewables.\nIt is, I believe, a vital step forward that the documents mentioned earlier treat energy development efforts in Central and Eastern Europe as an urgent priority. Last year's gas crisis also made it obvious to Western states that Member States in our region depend heavily on one gas source alone, and that the single market does not function here. Europe has realised that access to alternative gas sources, the creation of the North-South Gas Corridor and the elimination of isolated markets increase regional supply security while also making a significant step towards the achievement of a single market.\nAt the same time, the strengthening of electricity networks and the regional interconnection of oil pipelines also increase our region's flexibility. The level of commitment, however, cannot stop at creating a strategy alone. I am confident that structural changes supporting the efficient realisation of a single market will soon be implemented, and that we will achieve a speedy and transparent licensing process, create regional initiatives and provide access to new financing instruments.\nTunne Kelam\nin writing. - After several dramatic experiences with energy supplies, it has become clear that energy is a key factor of EU security. The need for a long-term strategic vision on energy is obvious. The new proposed energy strategy aims to serve this need. First and foremost, Europe needs a coherent and harmonised internal energy market, which has to integrate different energy networks, linking them with each other. This is an absolute priority for the EU's stability and security. Today there are still isolated regions of the EU that depend almost one hundred per cent on external energy supplies. In the case of imported gas, this is true of the three Baltic Member States. They depend on Russian gas exports, which Moscow is using as its foreign policy tool. The result is that the Baltic nations, being immediate neighbours of Russia, pay 30% more than Germany for the same Russian gas. The new Baltic Sea Strategy should aim at developing integrated grids around the Baltic Sea. I support allocating a higher proportion of the budget for the common energy policy. Developing modern and efficient energy infrastructures will need priority investments. Enhancing energy efficiency means investing more in research and development and in new energy technologies.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu\nThe energy strategy being proposed must promote in the long term a diversified combination of energy sources, including not only renewable energy sources but nuclear energy as well. However, it will not be possible for this strategy to be viable as long as the transmission network is not strengthened so that it can support market integration and the development of large-scale sustainable energy production.\nFurthermore, consolidation of interconnections and links with third countries is of paramount importance. Distribution networks need to be expanded and modernised as a matter of urgency to be able to integrate the increasingly frequent instances of distributed production. It goes without saying that market integration also requires a better use of existing operational networks, based on the cross-border harmonisation of the market structure and by developing common European models for managing interconnections. Last but not least, another crucially important factor is the setting up of an EU 'smart' network capable of managing, distributing and measuring in real time all the different production and consumption models in order to ensure the safe, efficient operation of the future electricity system.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu\nin writing. - (RO) I would like to welcome this report, especially the references to the development of the potential of the bioenergy sector. The potential of this sector in Europe is untapped. One relevant factor in this context is that some Member States are facing the situation where huge areas of agricultural land are left uncultivated every year. This abandoned land could also be used from a renewable energy perspective. The situation in Romania, which I am most familiar with, provides a clear example of this: approximately 3 million hectares of land remain unused, while the power lost across this area is roughly 187 terawatts per hour. I believe that this issue must be considered during the debates on the future of the common agricultural policy. The request made to the Commission to propose a policy framework and support further promotion of the deployment of sustainable second-generation biofuels in Europe is timely and I hope that it will be adopted by the EU.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak\nObtaining energy is one of the most important challenges facing today's world. A long time ago, the European Union backed a policy of obtaining energy using technologies which ensure low CO2 emissions. The rapporteur's recognition of this idea as a strategic objective is no surprise and has my full support. The second strategic objective - to guarantee energy security to all Member States - also has my complete support. The rapporteur links this objective to the establishment of a low emission economy. This matter is particularly important for Poland. It is no secret that Poland's energy security is based on coal. Therefore, in order to achieve this objective effectively, it is essential to have strong financial support from the EU. Poland - and many other Member States - recognises the need to build a low emission economy, but is not, however, able to achieve this objective without European aid. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction at the recognition by the rapporteur of the need to ensure energy for the citizens at affordable prices as one of the strategic objectives of the new energy strategy for Europe. In accepting the three main strategic objectives of the new energy strategy for Europe, I would like to express my emphatic support for the motion for a resolution on Towards a new Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020.\nIndrek Tarand\nI am very pleased that, once again, we have the opportunity today to actively debate issues relating to energy security in the European Parliament. Let there be no misunderstanding here - this subject is just as sensitive as the subject of gas. In recent years, the EU as a whole has increased its dependence on energy supplies from particular third countries. There is an inherent risk on the market, not only on account of the economic aspect, but also due to the lack of democratic rights and human rights and the involvement of companies that lack good business concepts. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that Mrs Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska's report, which is an excellent piece of work, is being debated and voted on a little too late. The European Commission already issued its Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020 on 10 November, so it is presumably too late to affect that. Better late than never, however. I will therefore add to today's opinions the fact that France has decided to sell a Mistral class warship to Russia. We assume that it sincerely regrets its decision.\nZbigniew Ziobro\nThe motion for a resolution which has been tabled still lacks explicit references to two important matters. The first of these is financial support from the European Union budget in the search for alternative sources of fuels such as shale gas. The use of shale gas has now enabled the US to guarantee its independence in terms of energy supply. Scientists and geologists report that, for the European Union too, a similar possibility of energy autonomy is becoming apparent. I think it is important to change Union policy on this matter so that it supports the exploration for and use of shale gas. It is also important to ensure financial support to institutions which are involved in the development of technology for extracting and transporting shale gas - including the use of CO2 in the process of fracturing shales. The second matter is the lack of explicit reference to making specific investments in fuel transmission projects. This is another document which has no connection with a strategy. The European Parliament must, at last, designate energy projects which are important for its security and the ways in which they will be funded. Despite the declarations which have been made, both in the Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea Synergy programmes, construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline, which is to connect deposits in Asia with users in Europe, continues to be postponed. The strategy also lacks reference to the possibility of using deposits in Africa and the Arctic. The last matter which has been omitted is the lack of a clear explanation of the term 'European Union energy security'. What, in fact, does it mean? Is it supposed to refer to the Union as a whole, or to a state of security of supply to the individual Member States which today make up the European Union?","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Voting time (continuation) \nNicole Sinclaire\nMr President, while I send my best wishes to Mr Fari\u00f1as and congratulate him on his prize, I would remind Parliament that one year ago we had representatives from Memorial here, who richly deserved the prize also. Since then, two of them have been arrested and yet Russia has been awarded a prestigious football tournament - the World Cup - in 2018, over and above five EU countries.\nWhy did the European Parliament not voice its concern? If this prize is to mean anything, you need to stand up against these human rights abuses.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Chris Davies, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.\nChris Davies  \nrapporteur. - Madam President, let me start with an accusatory question to the Commissioner. Some of us have pointed out repeatedly over the years that the car makers were failing to comply with the terms of the voluntary agreement to reduce emissions. So, why is it that, some five years after this first became evident, we still do not have legislation before us requiring the manufacturers to meet the agreed targets, because with each month of delay it becomes harder to achieve the ambitions which were originally possible?\nThis sets the framework for today's debate. Average emissions from new cars stand now at a little less than 160 g of CO2 per kilometre - a long way adrift from the target of 140 g by 2008. Therefore, it is not surprising that Members here want car makers to be punished for breaking their commitment. Yet the fact is that the manufacturers have broken no laws and, however much we may wish it were otherwise, the level of emissions is where it is.\nThe Commission has announced that it wants to stick to the medium-term target setting that voluntary agreement of 120 g by 2012, but says that 10 g of this will now be achieved by complementary measures. I call this a political fudge: it has reduced the clarity of the target and encouraged some manufacturers to think that they can use biofuels as a means of avoiding significant design changes.\nBut, given where we are, are the target and the timetable set by the Commission still appropriate, because, of late, the reduction in average emissions has been hardly more than 1 g a year? The Commission suggests that this should instantly be transformed into 5 g a year. Well, that can be achieved - and the technology exists to do it - but at what cost?\nEmission reductions must be made a priority for car makers, but they have to be achieved at the lowest possible expense. That means giving industry specific targets and sufficient time to make the changes. These improvements may increase the price of new cars but, then, reduced emissions mean improved fuel economy, so those who buy the cars will save money as they drive them. Get it right and we can take action which will be good for the environment, good for the consumer and good for the future of car making.\nThere is a debate in this Parliament about whether, in a pre-legislative report of this kind, environmentalists should be pressing to send a strong signal to the Commission to be tough, or whether we should try to be realistic in framing measures which might actually be those that end up close to the final form at the end of the day. That is why I am asking Parliament to break from the Commission position and recommend that the target for average emissions from new cars should be set not for 2012 but for 2015 and should be 125 g to be achieved by technical means alone.\nBy all means let us encourage the use of complementary measures to reduce emissions, but as an addition, not as a substitute, for these technical improvements. For those Members who say this is not sufficient, let me just say that next month we will be voting on the CARS 21 report and, in that, the recommendation is 135 g by 2015. We can end up voting for one thing this month and something else next month. If I can help bring together the different positions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, then I believe it will strengthen Parliament's position and influence.\nI believe that manufacturers should be set absolutely clear targets with no room for wriggling. This report insists that failure to comply should result in the application of tough financial penalties. I propose an internal trading mechanism to give manufacturers maximum flexibility and give incentives to the makers of low-emission vehicles. But, ultimately, it is the penalty regime that matters and that, I suspect, will test the Commission's resolve.\nEqually important is the need to set long-term targets to reduce emissions to below 100 g by 2020. Given sufficient time, and an absolute requirement, I have no doubt that manufactures can achieve reductions of nearly 40% over the next 13 years.\nFinally, let me just touch upon the way in which cars are promoted. The manufacturers always claim that they respond to consumer demand, but I do not believe this. I believe they shape consumer demand. Studies have shown that a very high proportion of advertising expenditure goes towards the promotion of cars on the basis of power and size and speed.\nThe car industry is supposed to be drawing up a voluntary code of advertising conduct but we have had our fingers burnt through voluntary codes and any such measure should be regarded with suspicion. It is time that advertisements give consumers more details of the fuel economy and emission performance of the vehicles on sale. This information should be upfront and not buried away in the small print. We need to encourage car makers to compete on the basis that their cars are safe and stylish and environmentally-friendly.\nLet me finish with these remarks. Europe's car makers produce fine vehicles. The technical expertise of the companies themselves is much to be admired, but for too long they have ignored the contribution their products are making to the threat posed by climate change. For the sake of the planet, for the good of an industry that needs to stay at the cutting edge of world-class technology, it is time now for law-makers to steer them firmly in a greener direction.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, road transport, along with the other sectors of the economy, must contribute to efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in a bid to achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets and our future commitments for 2020 and beyond.\nRoad transport is the second highest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. Passenger cars alone are responsible for 12% of the EU's total emissions. It is worth noting that while total emissions in the EU of the 27 Member States fell by nearly 8% in the period between 1990 and 2005, emissions from road transport increased over the same time period by 25%. Here I should remind you that from 1995 the Commission set the target of 120 grammes, and the car industry was aware of it. Let me also remind you that there was a voluntary agreement on achieving a reduction of CO2 emissions to 140 gr per km by 2008. The Commission realised that this target would not be met by the car industry and the industry itself admitted this. As a natural consequence, the European Commission carried out a re-examination last February of the Community strategy for the reduction of CO2 emissions by new cars, with mandatory legislation based on an integrated approach through which the European aim of reducing emissions by new cars to 120 gr. by 2012 would be met.\nDealing with the problem of CO2 emissions from cars is also expected to contribute to the hoped-for reinforced EU energy protection, by reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels. This, of course, will lead to a reduction in consumer expenditure on fuel.\nMadam President, I am pleased to note that your report approves of our initiative in putting forward a legislative framework to reduce CO2 emissions by cars, and I thank the rapporteur, Mr Davies, for his efforts, as well as Mrs Harms and Mr Bulfon from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection respectively, for their suggestions on the subject.\nThe report sets out ambitious targets for the reduction of CO2 and stresses that greater and more long-term progress will be needed. The challenge is now to transform this political support into practical action.\nThe draft report proposes various important areas of work are, two of which I should like to comment on.\nFirstly, your report points to the legitimate need of the car industry to have a time limit to be able to adjust smoothly to the new legislative arrangements. Of course, as I have said before, this reduction strategy dates back to 1995. Last month at the Frankfurt Motor Show, it was clear that the European car industry had made a significant response to the challenge of our new proposal. Within a short period of time car manufacturers have managed to put forward economically affordable technical solutions, which are significantly fuel-efficient. I am absolutely convinced that with our revised strategy and the imminent legislative framework we will offer car manufacturers equal terms of competition. Environmental performance will be the motivation, not competition based merely on car size or engine capacity. We can already see the first results. Now that petrol prices are reaching record highs, we must waste no opportunity in setting ambitious targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions in the European car industry. That will act as a strong incentive for innovation and renewal; it will also allow for major exports to emerging countries, where there is a great demand for fuel-efficient cars.\nSecondly, your report points to the need for certain important parameters to take into account in future legislation, such as those determined by social impact and affordable prices for consumers. Of course, fair treatment for all sides is very important. I want to stress that we firmly intend to propose legislation to assess the situation of all car manufacturers and avoid any unjustifiable distortion of competition. The overall target will be apportioned between car manufacturers in a sustainable and socially just manner. The integrated approach that we are proposing will help the sector to prepare for the challenges ahead and will avoid an unfair burden on specific enterprises or on the sector as a whole.\nThese preliminary comments conclude what I have to say. Thank you for your attention.\nRebecca Harms  \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, may I say to Mr Davies that we should recall clearly why we have to discuss stringent binding emission limits. The reason is that, following a voluntary agreement concluded between the Commission and the car industry more than ten years ago, the latter has knowingly and wilfully failed to meet its targets. The present situation, as we know, is not down to bad luck or an unforeseeable turn of events but to decisions taken by the senior management of manufacturing groups.\nFor that reason, Mr Davies, I am somewhat stunned at the clear message you have now sent through your amendments - which I saw for the first time today, although they may have existed for longer - that, in spite of what was decided in the Environment Committee, you no longer have any interest in exerting pressure on the innovative potential and innovative power of the car industry in Europe\nMy opinion is that we can only achieve Europe's climate targets through the strict limits that were originally proposed by the Commission. It is also my opinion - and you rightly addressed this point, Mr Dimas - that we shall not be able to obtain security of energy supply for our transport needs unless we ensure without delay that cars become more efficient, because we cannot stand by and watch as oil that is valuable and hard to come by continues to be squandered on our roads.\nThe third point, to which the Committee on Industry, whose opinion I drafted, attaches such great importance is the need to ensure at long last that the knowledge and ability of engineers and developers in the car industry are brought into play, and that these good engineers are not further stifled by misguided management policies. I am firmly convinced that nothing but efficient, climate-friendly and affordable but stylish cars would be on the market within a very short time and that those who are easing the pressure for innovation today by setting what are truly very soft time limits for achieving reduction targets, Mr Davies, will bear responsibility if the European car industry proves uncompetitive in the long run and if jobs are lost in car manufacturing in Europe.\nIt goes without saying that the global car market will change out of all recognition - assuming we accept the underlying premises of our climate policy and our UN climate policy - and that those who are now applying the brakes to the process of reducing emission limits will then bear responsibility for the car industry in Europe going to the dogs and for a situation in which we ourselves no longer take our own climate policy seriously.\nWolfgang Bulfon  \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (DE) Madam President, I acknowledge the car as a universal means of transport, and I acknowledge the contribution of the car industry to the prosperity of Europeans. I do not, however, believe in the car as a fetish. For that reason it is incomprehensible to me that manufacturers should design cars to travel at speeds in excess of 125 miles per hour.\nBuilding efficient, environment-friendly cars is a necessity, given all the evidence of climate change. In addition, Europe is duty-bound to set a good example to the booming emerging markets. It is ultimately the consumer's choice that will determine which cars are driven in the years to come. This is why I argued in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for transparent and more easily understandable information on the emission ratings of vehicles. I call on the Commission to take this report as the starting point for the presentation of an ambitious legislative proposal and to act quickly.\nMartin Callanan\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, can I first of all thank Mr Davies very much indeed for all the work that he has put into this report, and for his extremely constructive cooperation. I am happy, on behalf of my Group, to endorse the target of 125 g by 2015 that Mr Davies has outlined. It is a target which, I think, is extremely environmentally ambitious, but it is also achievable by what is a very successful European industry employing hundreds of thousands of people, and we must ensure that it remains a successful European industry. I am convinced that those European car manufacturers will continue to produce some of the most environmentally friendly cars in the world, and these new targets - which, we should never forget, are the tightest in the world - will help them to achieve even cleaner cars in the future.\nBut the missing link in this debate is, of course, that of consumer demand. We must make sure that consumers are demanding cleaner, more environmentally friendly cars, and, there, the Member States themselves have a very important role to play through their tax systems, which is, rightly, a matter for them. They can, however, considerably affect consumer demand by introducing the correct environmentally friendly taxation schemes.\nWe also, in my view, need contributions to CO2 reduction from all of the related sectors: from the oil companies, from the biofuel producers, from the tyre manufacturers etc., all of whom have a contribution to make and can help us to achieve our ambitious targets.\nI have also tabled some amendments to water down what I think are some very prescriptive requirements on advertisers, which Mr Davies has included in his report. I think they are grossly disproportionate to the problem, and I am sure that, given sufficient opportunity, the manufacturers and the advertisers can come up with a binding voluntary code which would be equally effective.\nI have also tabled - jointly with Mr Davies - an amendment to recognise the contribution of small-volume manufacturers who do not have a huge product range with which to average out the emissions requirements. I hope the Commission will take those into account when formulating the legislation.\nMarie-No\u00eblle Lienemann\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, Madam President, Commissioner, this is a matter of urgency, as we all know. Al Gore, who rang the alarm bell, has been awarded the Nobel Prize, and it is time for the European Union to stop talking and to act, because this is not a new issue. There was a voluntary agreement entered into by car manufacturers to achieve average emissions of 140g of CO2 per kilometre by 2008, and that agreement was not kept. I would remind you that the European Parliament itself fixed the target of 120g by 2005 or 2010 at the latest. There is no justification today for backing away from those targets. So what we need is an ambitious, unambiguous and binding directive and it needs to set targets in two stages.\nFirst, in the short term, we need a target of 120g of CO2 for new cars and a 10g reduction to be achieved through complementary measures. We need to move swiftly, however, and we therefore support the vote in the Committee on the Environment for the target to be achieved in 2012, with binding steps from 2009 onwards so that by 2012 the target will be met in full for all vehicles.\nAs the second stage, we believe it is essential to set targets of 95g for 2020 and 70g for 2025, with an intermediary deadline in 2016 to ensure that we are on track. We therefore support the ambitious roadmap prepared by the Committee on the Environment because we think it succeeds in setting clearly visible standards, while at the same time confronting us with the technology gap that we need to overcome in order to meet our Kyoto Protocol commitments. Yes, of course, it is going to be expensive and there will have to be negotiation about the price of new vehicles. The first thing to note is that not all cars and not all manufacturers achieved the same effectiveness under the voluntary agreement.\nYes, we do need to favour small cars over large cars and we need to come up with tax measures, new practices and even bans in some cases, particularly in built-up areas, to prevent large vehicles, including 4x4s, from polluting our towns and cities all day long and producing huge quantities of CO2. This question is particularly important because the bigger the vehicles that manufacturers produce, the bigger their profit margins. We therefore need to guide the market in such a way that manufacturers producing smaller, less polluting vehicles can be more profitable than those producing big high-polluting cars and, as well as setting standards, we expect the Commission to propose strategies for moving in that direction.\nThe last point I should like to stress is the importance of proper information for vehicle purchasers to help them pick their way through this minefield, and specifically we need to get rid of misleading advertising. That is why my group has tabled an amendment requiring a labelling system for all cars, based on an A-G format for energy efficiency, so that all consumers can make an active choice in favour of the environment.\nHolger Krahmer\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Madam President, when it comes to discussing CO2 emissions, we are very quick to talk about cars, simply because the way to a person's guilty conscience is through their car. That is why Mrs Harms, the Greens and many environmental organisations are particularly keen to talk about cars.\nWe are faced with a broken voluntary pledge - no doubt about that - and we therefore need regulation. We have no alternative. What you came here and told us, Mrs Harms, about the voluntary commitment being deliberately and strategically torpedoed by the car industry seems rather far-fetched to me. Let me just remind you that a market comprises not only suppliers of products but also those who demand them. We ourselves help to create demand too, and shortly, when we are driven home by the car service, we shall be using those very cars that do not meet the targets to which the car makers committed themselves.\nI should like to see an initiative from the Greens. If your intentions are honourable, please now make sure that the small cars which meet next year's voluntary target are ordered for Parliament. In future legislation, it is imperative for us to ensure that the desired reductions stand up to cost-benefit analysis. The Stern report which you and the Greens like to quote, Mrs Harms, calculates that, of 13 potential CO2-reduction measures, those targeting cars at the very top of the price range are actually the least effective. Anyone making political demands for stringent emission limits and more efficient cars must recognise that the development and production cycle in the car industry takes five to seven years. It is by failing to recognise that, Mrs Harms, that we put jobs at risk, not by recognising it.\nI am therefore pleased that our rapporteur has done just this by saying that it is unrealistic to set any deadline before 2015. Tomorrow Parliament will vote in favour of one of the options on the table, and it must be said that, whatever it is, whatever year is designated and whatever average value is set, it will still be more stringent and ambitious than any other regime in the world. We should not lose sight of that. There is an extremely fine line between carrot and stick for our car industry, and at the end of the day we must take great care to ensure that we really do export the best products and not perhaps our industry.\nClaude Turmes\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, I think this is the right moment to inform the outside world about what this Callanan-Davies deal is. So, what is it? It is delaying action from 2012 to 2015. We have calculated the CO2 impact: 125 g in 2015 is worse than 130 g in 2012. And the second part of the deal is exemptions for small-volume producers. That is 300 000 cars a year, so that is not 'small volumes'.\nI think that what we are voting on this week, Mr Davies' initiatives, are from a Green Liberal climate hero who has become a climate Judas. It is really incredible: instead of using the possible centre-left majority in this House for 120 g in 2012, siding with reactionary Tories to help the car industry in Europe to win time - that is really not the way forward.\nKartika Tamara Liotard\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, in the past few months my fellow Members and I have met a great many representatives of the motor industry. I do not think there has ever been so much lobbying over a report. The industry has used every possible argument to prevent measures limiting CO2 emissions or at any rate to delay them. It seems that they have won over many of my fellow Members, including the rapporteur, although fortunately the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was fully aware of its task.\nLet me be clear: the motor industry is entirely responsible for this Commission proposal. Attempts to agree on voluntary regulation were a miserable failure. It seems that only compulsory standards are effective. I find complaints that it all has to be done so quickly quite hypocritical, because the industry has known for years that these measures had to come. The environment has to be cared for now, with drastic measures. We have to do that, for ourselves and for future generations.\nI am therefore urging a vote against Amendment 42, tabled by Mr Callanan and Mr Davies. The amendment increases the maximum amount of CO2 and postpones the agreed date of 2012 to 2015. That gives commercial interests priority over the environment and we absolutely cannot allow that. What is Mr Davies trying to do to us?\nMalcolm Harbour\nMadam President, on behalf of my colleagues in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I would like to thank Mr Davies for the way he has approached this, particularly his willingness to listen, and for a number of innovative approaches that we see in his report. I also want to thank our rapporteur, Mr Bulfon, and to thank Mr Davies for adopting a number of our proposals in his report.\nWe have heard a lot of debate and discussion this evening about the car industry missing targets and about how we are going to move forward. But I would like to echo what the Commissioner said and use the word 'incentive'. This programme, and to meet the programme that Mr Davies has set out, is going to need billions and billions of euros of investment in new products and is going to tie up immense resources in engineering and product development.\n(Objections)\nI see my Green colleagues already shaking their heads; they seem to think that the technology is there, that overnight we can change a fundamental industry in that direction. This is entirely unrealistic - where is the investment going to come from? It is going to come from the profits of the car companies. We need to sustain those profits so that they can reinvest them. This demand here will be the biggest change and turnaround we have ever seen in a major industry. Let us just remember that. Let us not just sit here and make unrealistic demands. This is a practical approach.\nBut, colleagues, let me remind you - and I refuse to accept this sort of crowing - I am absolutely not a lobbyist for the car industry. I have argued for a long time that we need to set demanding targets. We are moving towards a legislative approach for the first time. But you should be listening as well. And let me just make this other point. Ideas about complementary measures and other things: what we are talking about here is a complete change in the way that people approach transport and motoring. These new vehicles will come on the market over a long period of time. But actually the complementary measures we are talking about - the consumer measures, the consumer information - those are the real incentives that we need to bring in. I am sorry to overrun, Madam President, but you will admit I was interrupted by some colleagues in an entirely unnecessary way.\nMatthias Groote\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, this report, which Chris Davies has drawn up on the initiative of the Environment Committee, should signal to the Commission that the European Parliament is serious about reducing CO2 emissions. When I see the amendments on the table, I start to wonder about that.\nThere are three points we should bear in mind. Firstly, from 1 January 2012, new cars in Europe must not emit more than 120g of CO2 per kilometre. We should not tamper with that date or the emission limit. In 1998 the car industry made a voluntary commitment to reduce CO2-emission levels in its new vehicles. In the light of news reports about the continuing advance of climate change, I see no reason at all for us to interfere with the deadline or the ceiling.\nSecondly, future legislation must spell out clearly that the CO2 emissions of all cars must be reduced. Large cars must make a greater contribution, but smaller cars must contribute too, so that we can achieve 120 grams by 2012.\nMy third point is that cars must remain affordable for people. I agree with the previous speaker on that. I come from a predominantly rural area, where people are dependent on cars to get them to their places of work. For this reason, future legislation must perform a balancing act to reconcile the needs of the environment with those of the economy.\nWhat good are strict emission limits if people can no longer afford new cars and drive about in their ageing vehicles? It takes more than eight and a half years to renew the entire fleet of passenger cars on Europe's roads, and this must be in the back of our minds when we adopt new legislation. Future legislation on CO2 emissions from passenger cars should be guided by the need to guarantee better protection of the climate as well as affordable driving.\nP\u00e9ter Olajos\n(HU) Thank you, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, I could begin like one of those old jokes: I have some good news and some bad news; which do you want to hear first?\nI will start with the good news: the European Union is leading the battle to combat climate change; the 27 EU countries are now doing more than anywhere else in the world to halt climate change. Now for the bad news: if the thousands of scientists around the world are right, then even this is much too little. What then are we to do?\nThe answer leaves no room for doubt: we need a paradigm shift. It is to be commended that Mr Davies' report highlights a number of important elements. However, anyone who thinks that we will have solved anything by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the ever-increasing number of vehicles we use to 120g or 95g is gravely mistaken.\nIn my opinion, we can and must vote in favour of this report, and at the same time we must compel vehicle manufacturers to produce smaller and more efficient engines. We must not stop there, however. The European Union must commit itself unequivocally to technological change in the transport sector too. Every means available must be used to promote research and development and innovation in this field, and we must stop providing any kind of support for conventional technologies.\nMember States must borrow the best solutions from each other as soon as possible to provide manufacturers and consumers with legal, economic and other incentives. Furthermore, while we are on the subject, I do not believe, for example, that biofuels are going provide the ultimate solution to our problems, especially not the current, first-generation biofuels. They do seem, however, to be a necessary step on the way towards alternative fuels, as are hydrogen and electric propulsion systems and many other systems that are not yet widely used or have yet to be devised. Let us help to foster these with the present vote and future legislation. Thank you very much.\nLinda McAvan\nMr President, I will not comment on this new cosying up between the British Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, as has been displayed by Mr Callanan and Mr Davies here tonight. Maybe it is the new leadership battle for the Lib-Dems that has been going on, since some of their new leaders even have lookalikes!\nWhat I want to talk about is the importance of sticking with ambitious targets. I do not think industry can have been very surprised that the Commission talked about 2012 as a date for the targets or about the level of the target, because, of course, we know these have been mooted for many years.\nBack in March, the EU leaders signed up to cut overall CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020. If we are going to get there, we need to bring forward legislation which helps us to get there. So, here we are at the very first hurdle towards that, and I do not think it is time now to fail in this European Parliament. People out there are watching. They want to know we are serious about tackling climate change.\nOf course we have to work with industry, and Mr Davies talks about punishing industry. Nobody wants to punish industry because the car industry, as Mr Harbour has just said, is a major European industry; it is a major employer and we have to work with them because only they can deliver these changes that we need to see.\nSo we need to work with them and we need to listen and I think what we need beyond everything else is a long-term project which everybody has signed up to so that everybody knows where we are going and everybody can try to get there.\nFinally, on labelling and advertising. We need a clear system, a green car labelling system, that every consumer can understand, just as they understand, when they buy white goods, how those white goods work. The white goods manufacturers of inefficient goods have actually seen their products fall off the market. We need to see the same for cars and I hope we can work together with industry to get a green labelling system that everybody understands.\nAndres Tarand\n(ET) So far our climate policy has focused principally on the energy sector. Aviation is the next sector which will be incorporated into the European Union's emissions trading system. Land transport, however, has a major influence on climate change and the Davies report is a thoroughly welcome initiative. The car industry needs clear, long-term targets for reducing the level of CO2 emissions in exhaust gases and I support Mr Davies' approach whereby long-term limits will be established for CO2 emissions, for example for 2020 or 2025.\nThe car industry has had plenty of time to reduce the level of CO2 emissions. We should not accept continued procrastination: the technological solutions already exist. Similarly, I hope that Parliament will support the amendment I tabled to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Security, under which the car industry would have to reduce CO2 in exhaust emissions to 120g\/km by 2012.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the report. When discussing the whole issue of the Community's strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, it should be remembered that, in Europe alone, two million people are employed in the automotive industry, and another 10 million jobs are linked to this sector. This industry represents 3.5% of European GDP. The export value is EUR 33.5 billion and, what is no less significant, each year motor taxes generate EUR 365 billion for Member States.\nThe Community's strategy to reduce CO2 emissions will be successful only if it is thought through properly and provides sufficient time for producers to develop appropriate technological solutions. I am in favour of introducing an appropriate transition period because the production cycle in the automotive industry is complex and needs a long time to adapt. It would seem therefore that the best date for the introduction of the regulations would be 2015, also because the Euro 6 Regulation will come into force in that year. I also think that there should be an integrated approach to CO2 emissions. Research studies have indicated that to achieve the objective of 120g\/km just through improvements in automotive technology will result in an increase of around EUR 3 600 in the average price of a car, which may result in many brands of cars becoming less accessible to the average EU citizen.\nFor this reason, basing CO2 emissions exclusively on engine technology is the most expensive solution. One could achieve the 120g level by introducing additional solutions, such as introducing biofuels to a greater degree than at present, as well as by introducing additional solutions in vehicles, such as signals to change gears or low resistance tyres.\nDorette Corbey\n(NL) Mr President, road transport is a major source of pollution. In 2005 transport, cars and lorries, accounted for 27% of total emissions of greenhouse gases. If we want to tackle climate change, we cannot ignore the motor sector. Unless action is taken, emissions will increase, not fall.\nUnfortunately the motor industry has failed to take the initiative. Years ago, motor manufacturers themselves made a commitment to reduce emissions. The industry has built better and safer cars in the past few years. A great deal of progress has been made, but unfortunately engine efficiency has been sadly neglected.\nThe target of 140g in 2008 will therefore not be achieved, certainly not on a voluntary basis. Legislation is unfortunately not enough to achieve efficiency. Legislation must be aimed at achieving an average emission of 120g in 2012, not in 2015. A long-term target of 80g per kilometre is needed because we have set an ambitious goal for 2020 and that must also be reflected in the motor industry.\nIvo Belet\n(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, private cars are responsible for 12% of all CO2 emissions. We all know that. It is clear that that sector has to make a major effort to achieve the agreed standards for 2020. It is also clear that we have to be ambitious and set the bar high.\nIt is clear, too, that car manufacturers will not be able to do that alone. An integrated approach is needed; they should not have to take sole responsibility. Flanking measures therefore have to be taken. Better air conditioning, better roads and a change in driver behaviour - in other words, all of us. The sector deserves support from the government because the motor industry employs a large number of people, directly or indirectly.\nFirst of all, I am therefore appealing to national governments to modify their motor taxes as a matter of urgency, so that consumers switch to environmentally friendly cars of their own accord. Secondly, I appeal to the Commissioner, the Commission and Europe to conduct an assessment of the 2009 multiannual budget in order to invest even more research funding in new research technologies for low CO2 cars. I know you recently announced an ambitious programme to invest EUR 500 million in hydrogen technology. Of course that is fantastic, but it is medium-term. Obviously solutions have to be found for the new engine technology in the short term as well.\nI am sure that, whether it is by 2012 or a little later, smart car manufacturers will reach the goal of 120g much more quickly than planned. Simply because - and I do not want to be na\u00efve - the market demands it. In that sense the context has changed completely in the past couple of years. It is therefore important that we approve the compromise proposals by Mr Callanan on marketing and advertising, because they are transparent. It is a question of giving consumers clear information.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation for the quality of this evening's debate. I would like to comment, time permitting, on three of the issues you have addressed.\nRegarding the ambitious level of the strategy, the Commission has proposed its strategy on the basis of a thorough impact assessment. We have analysed the various options of a level to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, taking into account measurability, monitorability and accountability.\nOn this basis we have proposed to deliver the 120 g of CO2 per kilometre objective through an integrated approach. One hundred and thirty grams will be delivered through passenger car technology and ten additional grams will be provided through complementary measures, including fuel efficiency targets for light commercial vehicles and an increased use of biofuels.\nThis approach towards achieving the 120 g target is, in our view, the most cost-effective combination of options, and we will thus propose legislation accordingly.\nSecondly, the legislative framework implementing the integrated approach will be the central pillar of our revised strategy, but it is not the only one. As underlined in your report, finding ways to encourage consumer demand for fuel-efficient cars will enable us significantly to reduce their environmental impact, along with the fuel bill of drivers in the European Union.\nIn the context of the review in the Car Labelling Directive, we will take into account the recommendations made by Parliament in the field of consumer information.\nThirdly, the Commission agrees that a longer-term strategy should be considered, in order to provide predictability to car makers. We will thus consider the potential for progress beyond 2012, and the 120 g objective, on the basis of an impact assessment. In this context, the Commission will take into account the recommendations made by Parliament concerning future emission targets.\nI believe I have addressed some of the main concerns that have been voiced, and I hope that Plenary will adopt a resolution which strongly supports the approach proposed by the Commission.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday, 24 October.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Food prices in Europe (short presentation) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Batzeli, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the Food prices in Europe.\nKaterina Batzeli\nrapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the four jointly competent committees of the European Commission with which we collaborated in depth in order to produce this report.\nCommissioner, I should like to start by asking a very simple question: when consumers go to supermarkets to buy milk or yoghurt, why do they buy it? For the milk and the yoghurt or for the bottle and the tub? I put this question to you because the perception and attitude have been skilfully conveyed to consumers that they are buying a foodstuff where the industry that processes it, markets it and transports it is now more important than the agricultural product, the raw material itself. About 15 years ago, agricultural produce accounted for approximately 50% of the final value of the product; today it does not exceed 20%.\nFarmers, both arable and livestock, are now 'anonymous' persons for consumers. Their bargaining power, on the question not only of the final price but also of the preservation of the qualitative and nutritional elements in the final product, lags behind the role which they should have.\nWe are not attempting to draw dividing lines, to classify the productive sectors in the supply chain, the farmers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers as 'the good', 'the bad' and 'the ugly', because I do not believe that we are living in a 'Wild West' society and economy; I believe that we are living in an economy based on the regulations of the internal market of the European Union, a market which provides opportunity for growth and competitiveness when it operates transparently, but which ousts or eliminates producers and economic activities when unfair and opaque functions penetrate it.\nThe question we therefore have to deal with here today and in the future has two aspects:\nfirstly that of a rapprochement between consumers and producers through a quality policy in the food sector and by strengthening and jointly formulating ways of giving consumers more direct accessibility to productive agricultural areas and agricultural producers;\nsecondly that of safeguarding - and I do not mean determining - the income of producers and consumers through a transparent pricing policy which will include mandatory arrangements for controlling and supervising intermediate productive sectors along the entire supply chain.\nObviously here we mainly mean the small and medium-sized enterprises at local and national level, as well as the large parent and subsidiary companies based in Europe and the workers, which must operate on the terms of a transparent internal market and not on the terms of economic offshoots such as cartels and oligopolies.\nToday, therefore, where (among other things):\nreal producer prices are falling dangerously;\nconsumer prices are nearly five to ten times farm gate prices and, despite the reduction in inflation, consumer prices remain very high;\nthe degree of concentration in the retail trade and in other processing companies has quadrupled over the last five years and the concentration will increase as a result of the economic crisis and the bankruptcy of small- and medium-sized and local enterprises, a state of affairs that will make negotiations between producers, companies and consumers ever more difficult;\nthe malfunctions in the supply chain and its practices are evidently putting terms of healthy competition at risk,\nit is absolutely vital for there to be a coordinated European plan and integrated interventions in the food sector, from the farm to the fork. It would not be an exaggeration if the Commission's next intervention after the regulation and supervision of the financial system were to be in the food sector which, moreover, is also directly linked to the speculative moves of the said sector.\nCitizens have the impression that it is the supply chains, the manufacturing industry and the retail trade which regulate the housewife's shopping basket and not the income policy of the state and of the European Union.\nI therefore believe that, in voting for the report by the Committee on Agriculture and waiting for the final proposals of the European Union on this matter, we shall address the perennial problems of the operation of the food market, which in turn must also operate impartially for the benefit of European citizens, European farmers and developing countries and create a sense of security in the laws of the market and the institutions.\nLouis Michel\nFirst of all, I would like to thank Mrs Batzeli and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, who drew up this report. We are discussing it at a time of major difficulties, at a crucial time for the European Union food supply chain.\nAs you all know, the recession has led to a sudden slowdown in activity in most economic sectors in the European Union. The agricultural sector has seen a real collapse in market prices, something which puts a serious question mark over farm incomes. The situation is particularly serious in sectors of high added value, such as meat and dairy products.\nIn this context, it is essential for the food supply chain to work effectively if we wish to mitigate the effects of the crisis on farm incomes and ensure that consumers enjoy food products at more modest prices. That is why the food supply chain and the issue of food prices remain at the forefront of the Commission's concerns.\nIn addition, analysis of the structural factors leads us to fear a further escalation of prices of agricultural raw materials in the medium and long term. By improving the operation of the food supply chain, it ought to be possible in future to avoid such high rises in food prices and to curb the instability of consumer prices. I share most of the concerns raised in the report in relation to the need to improve the overall operation of the food supply chain. In particular, there is a need for increased transparency all along the chain, in order to offer consumers better information and to improve the way added value is shared out along the chain.\nSince last year, the Commission has introduced a series of initiatives aimed at improving the operation of the food supply chain. As a result, the High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the Agro-Food Industry has just drawn up a set of strategic recommendations. In addition, a Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality was presented last year.\nIn the communication on food prices adopted in December, the Commission also proposed, in the form of a road map, several solutions for improving the operation of the food supply chain in Europe. It is absolutely essential to make progress in the implementation of this road map. In particular we must make progress in the introduction of a permanent European Observatory on the food supply chain and food prices. By supplying reliable information on prices from one end of the chain to the other, we will be able to help combat the lack of transparency, whilst improving our understanding of how the chain operates.\nWe must also make progress in analysing how added value is shared out along the chain. I attach particular importance to this issue. As is recognised in the communication on food prices, imbalances between the negotiating power of agricultural producers and the rest of the chain are having a serious effect on producer margins in the agricultural sector. It goes without saying that an effort to bring clarity and understanding to the question of how added value is shared out would be a first step towards restoring the balance of negotiating power all along the chain. In this regard, it should be stressed that the competitiveness of the European Union's food chain cannot be built to the detriment of some of its component parts. It is essential for food producers and retailers in the agro-food sector to be able to continue to rely on a sustainable, competitive agricultural production platform within the European Union.\nI am convinced that once it has been fully implemented, the road map proposed by the Commission will allow us to answer most of the questions and concerns raised in Mrs Batzeli's report.\nPresident\nThe presentation is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday, 26 March 2009.\nWritten Statements (Rule 142)\nRoselyne Lefran\u00e7ois  \nThe report on which we must reach a decision on Thursday attempts to respond in practical terms to the difficulties of millions of our citizens who are suffering increased food prices.\nIn a context of decreased purchasing power in Europe, it was important that Parliament reach a decision on a problem for which the solutions are, nevertheless, known. In fact, the difference in prices between the beginning and the end of the food supply chain can be as high as a one to five ratio and, even if the liberals still refuse to admit it, the problems of the market need tackling to ensure reasonable prices for consumers and decent revenues for farmers. I myself have proposed that the importance of market-regulation instruments - more necessary than ever in the face of the crisis that we are going through - be reaffirmed in the text.\nHowever, to ensure that 'accessible price' does not become another way of saying 'poor-quality product', I have also asked for the notion of incentives for organic sectors to be inserted into the report. It is desirable for consumers to be able to access quality products at reasonable prices, and this thanks to an ambitious policy of financial incentives aimed at this type of agricultural production.\nMaria Petre  \nFood prices have seen a very sharp rise recently. There are two reasons for this: firstly, the global agricultural and food product crisis and secondly, market concentration, which has increased from 21.7% in 1990 to over 70% at the moment.\nThe prices paid by consumers are on average five times higher than those paid to producers. Supermarket chains very often impose unfair conditions and make it difficult for farmers and small suppliers to access the market.\nI support the European Commission's idea of creating a European market monitoring system. I also support the idea of a European competition network.\nThe funds from the Rural Development Programme should provide larger allocations in favour of producers.\nThe idea of revamping the 'local products' concept and more effective support for traditional food markets are solutions which I strongly support.\nTheodor Dumitru Stolojan  \nI welcome the Batzeli report which highlights the large discrepancies between the prices of food products in supermarkets and the prices paid to producers. This is, unfortunately, the reality too in countries with a standard of living far below the European average, like Romania.\nIf we reject any proposal for price controls, we cannot then fail to notice that the supermarkets' negotiating power is excessive in relation to the producers. This is also an area where we can take more firm action as part of the policy for protecting competition and consumers.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Conclusions of the EU\/Russia Summit (31 May - 1 June) (continuation of debate) \nPresident\nWe shall resume the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the conclusions of the EU\/Russia Summit (31 May - 1 June).\nHelmut Scholz\nMadam President, Baroness Ashton, in the European Parliament, we frequently discuss the relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation. I have signed Parliament's joint motion for a resolution on behalf of my group, despite the limited nature of the statements relating to the results of the recent EU\/Russia Summit.\nHowever, I would like to make the following additional point. This was the first summit after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, for this reason, the Russians hoped that the European Union would take a more determined approach. For Russia, the EU is a natural strategic partner with which it has links as a result of our shared values. I would like to remind everyone at this point that in February 2010, the Russian Federation was the last of the 47 members of the Council of Europe to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights. This was a clear indication that Russia shares the common values of the Council of Europe. Russia was hoping, in particular, to make progress on the issue of lifting visa requirements. The negotiations have been ongoing for seven years and have still not produced any concrete results.\nI very much share the view that the proposed Partnership for Modernisation is a step in the direction of a strategic partnership agreement. However, in my opinion, it does not go far enough, because, according to the Centre for European Reform, European technologies are not supposed to be transferred to projects in which the Russian state is taking part, for example. The European Union is being too short-sighted in this respect and missing out on many opportunities for cooperation, particularly in the case of small and medium-sized businesses, and therefore also on opportunities for building trust.\nWhy are these meetings, which have been going on for years, so lacking in substance? In my view, we should bear in mind that the most important challenge faced by both sides continues to be overcoming the lack of mutual trust. There is too much rhetoric and very often a lack of serious projects which could make a genuine contribution to building trust in all areas of political, economic, social and cultural life.\nEnergy and the environment are key aspects of a constructive relationship between the EU and Russia which aims to solve existing problems. We talk all too often about energy policy being a strategic tool for cooperation and a positive example of the development of trust, but there are frequently misunderstandings and omissions in the area of energy in particular. We must take decisive measures to resolve this.\nFiorello Provera\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, Russia will be an extremely important strategic partner for the European Union, and it is therefore vital to reach a broad partnership and cooperation agreement.\nThis agreement is a priority for our foreign policy because it would create the appropriate forum for comprehensive collaboration with Moscow. I am thinking of bilateral trade, liberalisation of visas, control of illegal immigration, the fight against terrorism, organised crime and climate change, through to particularly urgent issues such as Iran's nuclear programme, pacification of the Caucasus and the Middle East peace process.\nWith regard to energy, the European Union should cast off certain prejudices and assume a more pragmatic and consistent approach. If we want to resolve the issue of security of energy supply, we should acknowledge the added value of the South Stream project which guarantees a secure route and abundant energy, necessary for economic recovery over the coming years.\nIn relations with an important partner such as Russia, Europe should operate on two distinct levels: on the one hand, discussing ideal and ideological values, and, on the other, taking the practical approach required for relations between states.\nJean-Marie Le Pen\n(FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I am pleased at the new dynamic that has been created by the launch of the partnership for modernisation, and I am pleased at its pragmatism. This new partnership, if nothing else, would at least have the benefit of emphasising the extent to which Russia is an inevitable geopolitical partner of the European Union. I am also pleased at the positive comments on cooperation with Russia concerning the management of the crisis.\nHowever, I have some comments to make. While the demands of the Union are always highlighted, the interests or positions of its partner seem to be systematically underestimated or dismissed, whether in the field of energy or in the way in which it analyses the Eastern Partnership and the Atlanticist aspirations of its closest neighbours.\nI would also comment that the firmness that most Member States show in their views, and the virulence with which human rights violations are condemned, seem to be reserved for Russia alone. The comments are more civilised, and the diplomacy more muted, when it comes to China, for example, and its systematic violations of the rule of law, if only in the context of the Laogai, of that vast factory, from the point of view of European minimum social requirements, while our French or European workers are unemployed.\nAllow me to remind you of the adage ad augusta per angusta - through trial to triumph - because this is how I view Russia's efforts today, free from the Marxist criminal poison which, over so many decades, bled and imprisoned that country. The current Russian Federation has managed to make an entire nation walk tall again despite the considerable difficulties and challenges to which it still needs to respond.\nTherefore, I would ask for a little modesty from ultra-Europeans, especially when the European superstate is not achieving any of its objectives, despite more and more costly methods and the progressive domination of the Member States of Western Europe and of Central and Eastern Europe.\nI have to remind you also that this Parliament had more indulgence for the communist Soviet Union than for Russia. Furthermore, it is often the same people who previously agitated for the unilateral disarmament of the West and for Mr Gorbachev's participation in the Community who today feel the most righteous indignation and the greatest prudishness towards the partnership between the European Union and Russia.\nOn this subject, I must inform you, if you do not know already, of new historical facts which will be appearing as a result of the ongoing translation of the secret Soviet archives which the courageous Pavel Stroilov has been able to obtain. These archives have already given and will, in the future, give some unpleasant surprises to those who propagate the only permitted opinion on the reality of the end of the Cold War: who Mr Gorbachev really was, and the abuses by the ultra-European powers of today who, at that time, enthusiastically wanted to make certain Soviet projects possible.\nAt the risk of repeating myself, Russia is an essential strategic partner for the European states, and we must strengthen relations for the benefit of all parties. This country is closer to us in terms of culture, civilisation, history, geography, mutual interests and shared risks than certain states that you are about to allow to join the European Union.\nRia Oomen-Ruijten\n(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Ashton, I should like to start by thanking the fellow Members who have cooperated with me to bring about a good, clear resolution. Our resolution contains many strong criticisms of the summit in Rostov-on-Don. Like some commentators, we attribute the paltry result to Russia's preference for dealing bilaterally with Member States as opposed to the European Union; the reason being that they believe we still do not speak with one voice. What was your perception of the cooperation at this summit? In your view, did you really manage to come up with a European voice there?\nI now have four specific questions. Was the partnership agreement even discussed at the summit? I believe it is of the utmost importance that we conclude a wide-ranging, legally binding agreement that goes beyond mere economic cooperation or new agreements on energy. Yet democracy and human rights must also form an integral part of the partnership agreement. Is this new partnership agreement even a priority for you, or for Russia?\nWhen it comes to the Partnership for Modernisation, I feel excluded as an MEP. There is nothing wrong with concluding cooperation agreements, but the new modernisation agenda is a shining example of vagueness. That was not the only initiative I should have liked to discuss with you beforehand, as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Energy Charter and the fight against corruption strike me as far more important when it comes to the modernisation of the Russian economy.\nThen there are the four common spaces: is the new modernisation agenda not the same as our previous agreement about the four common spaces?\nIn this resolution, we must focus heavily on human rights policy no matter what, and you have both done so. A number of amendments have also been tabled; in my opinion, it would be better to address them in the report on Russia.\nHannes Swoboda\n(DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I would like to thank you for your clear and open report which demonstrated how important it is to enter into a partnership with Russia. I would like to see a strategic partnership developing. However, I must also say that Russia is a partner which unfortunately does not always comply with all the treaties and agreements, for example, with regard to Georgia. As one of the people who was highly critical of Georgia's activities during the last war, I regret that Russia is not keeping to the agreements with Georgia, because this weakens Russia's position and its opportunities to play a peacemaking role in this region.\nRussia would normally also be involved in helping to resolve the very critical situation in Kyrgyzstan. Thank goodness it has made it clear that it only wants to become involved as part of the United Nations. This is an area where we must make our views clear to Russia. We want Russia to be our strategic partner, but it must follow the joint rules that have been drawn up in the United Nations and the agreements that have been made with the European Union.\nI am very pleased about the positive developments in the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. However, this does not and must not prevent the European Union from constantly improving its relationship with Ukraine. These two things are not mutually exclusive.\nAlexander Graf Lambsdorff\n(DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, my group agrees with what Mr Swoboda has just said. We would like to have a strategic partnership with Russia. However, we are also of the opinion that we do not have a partnership of this kind, simply because it is not yet possible to develop one on the basis of the values which we currently do not share with Russia. Nevertheless, I believe that there are some signs of hope. I think these signs represent a major opportunity during your term of office, Baroness Ashton, which was perhaps not available to your predecessor.\nWhat I see in Russia is a 'western policy' which is more constructive than past policies. The settlement of the border dispute with Norway in the Arctic, which concerns major deposits of raw materials, represents a remarkable step forward. The agreement with Ukraine about the base in Sevastopol and the supplies of gas is another surprising step which will hopefully also bring some stability to gas supplies to the European Union. Yet another highly significant move is the reconciliation with Poland over the tragedy at Smolensk. All of these things are genuinely remarkable. I must also not forget to mention something which was genuinely unexpected. Russian state television has shown the film 'Katyn' by Andrzej Wajda on two occasions during prime time. This is an indication of a new attitude in Russia which gives me hope for the future.\nIt is also due to this 'western policy' that Russia has come to recognise that its real problems lie in the south and the east. Kyrgyzstan and Iran have both been mentioned in this respect. Perhaps Russia's voting habits in the UN Security Council with regard to the sanctions against Iran are part of this 'western policy'. The agreement on a new START treaty is definitely a result of it. It is true that there is hope. We can hope for an improvement in relations and for continuing progress towards a strategic partnership.\nHeidi Hautala\n(FI) Madam President, I would sincerely like to thank the High Representative who travelled to Rostov-on-Don and the whole of the EU's Working Group on Human Rights. I am very pleased that you raised these issues, because, as you said, there are positive signs but also causes for concern. In my view, the European Parliament should clearly state these problems in its resolution tomorrow, as you said. There has been excellent cooperation between Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and that is how we must also continue when it comes to issues of human rights.\nIn this connection, I would also like to thank Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m for raising the matter of a very important human rights case in her discussions with her colleagues in Russia. She mentioned the case of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, which is a shocking example of how someone standing up for human rights can end up losing his life.\nNor must we close our eyes to the fact that when the EU-Russia Summit was in Rostov-on-Don, NGOs were prevented from assembling and demonstrating. They were only upholding Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, which should guarantee freedom of assembly.\nJacek Olgierd Kurski\n(PL) Moscow has realised that without modernisation and wide-ranging access to Western technology, it has no chance of approaching the European average in terms of development. The European Union should take advantage of this. However, this is not happening, as is testified by the rather poor result of the EU-Russia Summit in Rostov-on-Don. It will always be like this, until the Union risks taking a hard line in negotiations with Russia on values and principles. Therefore, we need to say clearly that the new agreement on partnership and cooperation between Russia and the Union needs to include a binding section on human rights, and to say clearly that there can be no modernisation of Russia without its democratisation.\nTherefore, in its resolution, Parliament should express regret at the lack of reaction of the European Union's representatives who took part in the summit with regard to the brutal action of the police in Moscow and Saint Petersburg on 31 May. It is not enough to applaud the Russian human rights organisation Memorial in this Parliament and award them the Sakharov Prize. There are some values which should also be defended by taking action.\n(Applause)\nBastiaan Belder\n(NL) Madam President, ever since the time of Tsar Peter the Great, Russia and Europe have interpreted and applied the concept of modernisation differently: a material approach versus a more comprehensive interpretation involving both material and immaterial aspects.\nThis became clear once more following the most recent EU-Russia Summit, held in Rostov-on-Don at the start of this month. After signing a Partnership for Modernisation, President Medvedev stated that he understood this mainly in a technocratic sense. This leaves the European institutions with the important task of continuing to call the Russian leadership to account regarding the essential immaterial aspect of real social modernisation: preserving basic fundamental rights in a free civil society.\nPresidential Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin has expressed the worrying criticism that the new mandates of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) point in the other direction, i.e. the wrong one. Rightly, he issues a warning about the boomerang effect on the country's own State institutions. His position deserves considerable support, as the model of Prime Minister Putin must not be imitated in the region or by Ukraine.\nKrzysztof Lisek\n(PL) It is very good that we are talking with Russia. We need to conduct a dialogue with Russia, and all sensible people will support this. The European Parliament, too, will support dialogue with Russia.\nRussia is changing, at least this is what we hope. We hope - as President Medvedev has said - that in Russia there will be a dictatorship of the law, and that businesspeople from the European Union who invest in Russia or trade with Russia will be able to count on a legal situation there which will help and not hinder them. Unfortunately, hitherto, there have been many examples of problems of a legal nature in Russia. In discussions with Russia, we must remember this and talk about it.\nWe are glad, of course, that Russia is working with the Member States of the European Union, the international community, NATO, the United States and the UN on combating terrorism and for world security, but it obviously worries us that not everything has been dealt with - not everything in Russia's relations with her neighbours. It troubles us that there are still politicians in Russia who think about rebuilding the Russian Empire. In particular, the case of Georgia requires our intervention and constant reminders.\nKnut Fleckenstein\n(DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Russia Summit has produced reasonable results, in particular, as far as specifying the details of the Partnership for Modernisation is concerned. I very much welcome the fact that dialogue between the civil societies has been seen as a priority in this partnership.\nAs the chair of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Russia, I led a working group meeting in Perm a few days ago specifically on the subject of developing the civil society. We have once again seen how much progress has been made in Russia in recent years, but also how much still remains to be done and how much we can contribute to the discussions on the basis of our experiences, both good and otherwise.\nExchange and movement are key concepts for me. There can be no Partnership for Modernisation without the movement of people. For this reason, I am rather disappointed that the EU has not really made much progress in the area of travel without visas. We must now set specific objectives which the EU and Russia can work together to achieve. This is not about meeting schedules and certainly not about following certain sequences of events. It is all about ensuring that we take a predictable approach to these issues, that the criteria are clearly defined and that everyone, including Russia, can be sure that when these conditions are fulfilled and when the specific problems are solved, visa liberalisation will be possible.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, the Union's relations with Russia have to be a two-way street. It is obvious that we are giving Russia essential know-how for technological development, while they have to guarantee us an improvement in the climate for EU business to invest there, as well as legal stability. I greatly regret that during the summit we are discussing, it was a one-way street. It was we who gave to them, but they did not do much for us. In this joint resolution, and let us say this frankly, reference to specific cases of human rights violations is missing. It would be better to mention names and specific cases, and there have been many of them. Finally - if Mrs Merkel and Mr Medvedev are coming to an understanding on establishing an EU-Russia Political and Security Committee, this should be said specifically - is the Union really going to speak there with one voice or is it going to be the voice of particular Member States?\nFrancisco Jos\u00e9 Mill\u00e1n Mon\n(ES) Madam President, the importance of relations with Russia for the European Union is obvious: it is a powerful neighbour, a strategic economic and energy partner, and a permanent member of the Security Council.\nRussia now seems to be more peaceful and settled, thanks to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the United States, overcoming its disagreement with the anti-missile shield and the agreements that it has reached with the new Ukrainian Government. Furthermore, the tension caused two years ago by its intervention in Georgia has decreased. In this new context, we all welcome Russia's support of the recent Security Council Resolution 1929 on Iran. This is therefore a good time to improve relations with Russia.\nConsequently, Baroness Ashton, I regret the fact that there has not been any progress in the negotiation of the new partnership agreement with Russia that first requires Russia to join the World Trade Organisation, something that has also still not been clarified.\nLadies and gentlemen, there needs to be an ambitious agreement that includes and regulates energy, investment and trade issues. Clear, legally binding rules are what is needed.\nAlso, I do, of course, agree with the European Union supporting and helping Russia in its desire to modernise, but the Partnership for Modernisation, which was the framework for the relationship established at the recent summit, should not be an alternative to the aforementioned agreement.\nI certainly welcome the fact that the Presidency is including the effective functioning of the judicial system and stepping up the fight against corruption in that partnership.\nI will conclude now: what I also want is a single, efficient and coherent EU policy, and I hope that the new instruments of the Treaty of Lisbon - you yourself, High Representative, and the permanent President of the European Council - will help us to achieve this aim of a single, coherent policy.\nKristian Vigenin\n(BG) I appreciate your efforts to call the Chamber to order, but it is not going to work. It is clear that the volume of noise is only going to rise. Madam Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative, I wish to thank you for appearing at this meeting before our Parliament. We followed the results with particular interest. According to our assessment, the summit was conducted in a constructive manner, with less tension, more realism and more mutual respect from both sides. I think that this new atmosphere will inevitably start to bear fruit in our relations.\nThe fact remains that even though we still have a discrepancy in our values, there is an ever-increasing number of common objectives shared by the European Union and Russia, which means that, in this respect, we have a broad field of cooperation. I cannot but agree with my fellow Members who say that the resolution which we are tabling and will adopt is weak. On the other hand, it is a balanced resolution, something which we have not had for a long time, and it reflects the outcome of this meeting.\nLastly, I believe that this in-depth dialogue with Russia is of great importance to the Eastern Partnership because it will offer us the opportunity to resolve together some of the long-standing problems in the countries participating in this partnership.\nInese Vaidere\n(LV) Ladies and gentlemen, undeniably, we must continue and develop our cooperation with Russia, but the new European Union partnership agreement must be much more precise and legally binding. Cooperation in the area of modernisation must be bilateral and proportional. As the coordinator of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, I should like to emphasise that in almost all of the 115 cases brought against the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights, Russia has been found guilty. Regardless of the fact that the guilty parties have occasionally been identified by name, they have not been brought to justice, and no compensation has been paid to the innocent. Quite the contrary. This year, for example, a USSR army officer, V. Kononov, who, in 1944, pitilessly murdered and burnt alive peaceful Latvian villagers, including a pregnant woman, and who was found guilty of war crimes by the European Court of Human Rights, was awarded a decoration by Russia. What is more, prominent Russian politicians even issued threats against the European Court of Human Rights in this connection. This illustrates the differing conception of human rights between us and Russia, and these questions must definitely be resolved in the new agreement. Thank you.\nIoan Mircea Pa\u015fcu\nMadam President, to my mind, in terms of results and consequences, the German-Russian Summit of 5 June 2010 could prove to be more substantive than the Rostov-on-Don EU-Russia Summit. Certainly, security matters, Transnistria included, should be discussed between the EU High Representative and the Russian Foreign Minister in a more coherent and permanent framework, provided that the two parties mean the same thing when they speak, one about the dispute resolution mechanism, and the other about the EU-Russia Security Forum for exchanging views on current international affairs and security matters.\nBut even as I admit and respect, being a professor of international politics myself, that grand strategies are reserved for the big powers, I cannot forget that the details, wherein resides the devil, have usually been left to the lesser powers to deal with.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Madam President, many things were not achieved at the EU-Russia Summit. The Partnership for Modernisation which was agreed upon exists only on paper and it is unclear whether it is based on a partnership agreement or a cooperation agreement. Not to mention the fact that no timeframes and no specific projects were identified. However, as we all know, it is essential for us to deepen our relationship with Russia, because Russia is Europe's most important partner, in particular, with regard to energy policy.\nI believe it would be counterproductive, however, to link visa liberalisation with Russia to visa liberalisation with the countries covered by the EU's Eastern Partnership. Momentous decisions of this kind cannot be made en bloc for several states at a time. This is where we went wrong in the 2004 expansion. It is important to ensure that all the conditions are met by every individual state.\nGiven that the Gaza conflict, Kosovo and the reduction in the number of crisis areas were discussed during the summit, the question arises as to why the politically unstable situation in Kyrgyzstan was not also covered. If state structures collapse in Kyrgyzstan, there is a risk that it will pull down the neighbouring regions along with it. This would bring problems in many areas, including the Nabucco project.\nCatherine Ashton\nVice-President of the Council\/High Representative. - Madam President, I hope that those who want to listen to the conclusion of this debate are able to do so.\nI am going to just concentrate on the few key points that I think a number of honourable Members have raised and, to begin with, the relationship between the partnership for modernisation and the political cooperation agreement. I would stress that they are not mutually exclusive. I want to see significant progress on the cooperation agreement. We have some issues, particularly concerning the sections on trade and economic matters, but there is no doubt in my mind that we do need to complete this agreement, alongside the launching - and it was only the beginning - of the Partnership for Modernisation approach.\nI accept that there are some really serious challenges within that, as I think Mr Severin said but, as Mr Lambsdorff also said, it is a real opportunity for us to try and build on this. Mr Kurski, it does include issues of human rights. It is certainly not just about the technical advantages that Russia would like to see. It is much broader in terms of judicial reform. If I can refer honourable Members to the statement from the summit, I think you will find the breadth of what we are discussing is well captured within that. Mr Belder, you may also find this of value when you look at that.\nIn terms of the ability to speak with one voice - as Mrs Oomen-Ruijten particularly mentioned - we are in a position where we are beginning to see the EU operating much more coherently and consistently in a range of areas. I think Russia enjoys and prefers to be able to speak with all 27. That will never deflect from the strong bilateral relationships that Russia has - nor should it - but there are many issues, not least trade and economic issues, when the EU as 27 is much more capable of having the influence that we would wish to see in Russia than individual Member States would be.\nMr Tannock, Mr Le Pen and Mr Swoboda referred to two things. Firstly, regarding the links on crisis management, I have been talking to Sergei Lavrov about how we collaborate more effectively on issues around the world. Mr M\u00f6lzer, Kyrgyzstan had not been an issue of the significance it has become in the last 48 hours; but certainly, we do keep in touch with Russia on those issues and are now in touch with a range of partners. I have spent most of this weekend on the phone, in contact with Kazakhstan and with others, to try to take that forward.\nSecondly, a number of Members, particularly Mr Swoboda and Mr Tannock, talked about Ukraine. Yesterday, I met the Ukrainian Prime Minister specifically to discuss ways in which we can further the relationship between the European Union and Ukraine. I am very conscious that Ukraine is an important state for us. It is very important in the context of what we are doing, for example, on visas and the regional dimensions - that Mr Brok mentioned at the beginning of our debate - that we are working absolutely coherently with our neighbours in the Eastern Partnership, ensuring that we move forward in a way that does not create an inappropriate imbalance for them.\nMr Fleckenstein, the civil society dialogue is reflected in the statement. It is of enormous significance, as too is, in my view, the move of Russia with the World Trade Organisation to now consider again the possibility of joining the WTO without the full customs union, whether that is just with Kazakhstan or on its own. I met recently with Deputy Prime Minister Shuvalov to see what more we can do to further that.\nGeorgia is a very significant issue. It is raised consistently. We raised it in our bilateral meetings at all levels. It is very important that we continue to work in Geneva to find a resolution on this and I pay tribute to Pierre Morel for the work on our behalf.\nFinally, energy is, of course, a deep, significant, underlying issue where we need to retain a strong partnership with Ukraine and a strong partnership with Russia.\nPresident\nI have received six motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on 17 June 2010.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nElena B\u0103sescu  \nThe partnership for modernisation agreement signed during the summit held in Rostov-on-Don lays the foundations for better cooperation between the European Union and Russia in the areas of the economy and investments. This may give some impetus to continuing economic reforms and establishing democracy in Russia. On the one hand, we support the position where the modernisation of Russia in the 21st century must be based on democratic institutions and values. On the other, we cannot agree with the draft European Security Treaty proposed by Russia. This would undermine the role of NATO and the OSCE. I think that it will only be possible to waive the visa scheme after Russia has met all the necessary conditions. At the same time, I wish to draw attention to the fact that if Russian citizens will be able to travel in the European Union without requiring visas before citizens in the states of the Eastern Partnership, this will send out a negative message to them. I wish to emphasise that the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine have made considerable progress in meeting the conditions for waiving the visa scheme. The European Union must continue to be involved in supporting the countries in the Eastern Partnership.\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi  \nI welcome the outcome of this EU-Russia Summit as I feel that things are heading in the right direction. Russia has adopted a more constructive attitude than in the past, while, on the EU side, Baroness Ashton and President Van Rompuy of the European Council have successfully represented the EU. However, I would like us to be somewhat more circumspect in our relations with Russia. Russia is unquestionably a strategic partner of major importance generally from an economic, energy and commercial perspective. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Russia does not regard the EU as a real partner and prefers to deal with more serious problems on a bilateral basis with the various Member States. We need to be consistent and show Russia that the EU can be coherent and that Russia needs to conduct discussions on an equal footing with the EU and not with Member States, which will avoid the possible risks of Russia adopting 'divide and rule' strategies. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that significant progress has been made, it is essential for the EU to insist on its values, especially the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Letting these values play second fiddle is tantamount to abandoning them and our identity.\nAndr\u00e1s Gy\u00fcrk  \nQuestions of energy security were less prominent on the agenda of the EU-Russia Summit that took place two weeks ago than had been the case in the past. This does not mean that there have been no developments worthy of mention in recent months. Not long ago, the question of the merger of the Russian Gazprom and the Ukrainian Naftogaz gas enterprises was raised once again. The Ukrainian president suggested that representatives of the European Union take part in future discussions concerning this merger. The European Commission, however - as we learned from the news - sees no reason to take part in these negotiations. Contrary to the European Commission, we believe that if we are invited, representatives of the EU should take part in the discussions on the merger, first and foremost because it is through Naftogaz networks that the gas representing one-fifth of our total energy consumption is imported by the Member States. Therefore, the merger of the two companies would fundamentally affect the operation of the European energy market, and thus price competition as well. We cannot regard the merger of Gazprom and Naftogaz as the purely internal affair of two companies, since we are well aware that national governments are also intensively involved in the negotiations preceding such transactions. Thus, if it is invited, the EU should also be at the table. If the EU is unable to have a say in decisions that affect its own role as an importer, then the common energy policy is nothing but useless, parroted empty rhetoric.\nSandra Kalniete  \nThe development of relations between the European Union and Russia is hampered by those serious problems associated with the fundamental principle of democracy and adherence to human rights in Russia, the independence of the courts and the mass media from the political executive, repressive measures taken against representatives of the opposition and the selective application of laws. At the same time, it seems that the emphasis in EU policy is shifting from strategic partnerships founded on common values towards a pragmatic policy based on interests. For this type of policy, the strong and united support of all the Member States and its consistent implementation is especially essential. I welcome the Partnership for Modernisation between the EU and Russia launched at Rostov-on-Don and the gradual progress in relations. However, I should like to place particular stress on the need for the partnership to include a powerful chapter on values, to include adherence to the rule of law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. We must not forget the constantly growing interdependence of Russia and the EU in the field of energy, nor the important problems caused in previous years by interruptions to energy supply. To overcome these problems, we need not only legislation in the European Union on the security of gas supply, but also cooperation between the EU and Russia based on the necessary, but yet to be concluded, EU-Russia agreement on the early warning mechanism for energy security. I should like to stress that cooperation between the EU and Russia in energy matters must be based on the Energy Charter, which must be incorporated into the new EU-Russia framework agreement, so that we can secure visible and mutually honourable preconditions for investment and equal access to the market.\nTunne Kelam  \nin writing. - The Rostov Summit seems to lack any significant result. The modernisation programme looks like a nicely packaged substitute for the absence of substantial long-term cooperation. None of the official results addresses directly Russia's notorious failure to apply the rule of law. True, President Van Rompuy raised the human rights issue; however, this was not reflected in the joint statement. The conclusion, sadly, is that 'soft values' upon which the EU is officially based still remain on the unofficial level when dealing with influential third parties. While the joint statement refers to building a civil society and developing people-to-people contacts, the question remains: how can civil society be connected, if many of its activists face imprisonment or harassment just for voicing their opinion? That is why the EU needs to strongly react to the citizens' demonstrations in 40 Russian cities on 31 May that called for implementation of the constitutional right for freedom of assembly. Right after the summit, Germany and Russia issued a statement on creating a joint EU-Russia security committee. Such improvised bilateral agreements are bound to undermine the EU's role and credibility in the eyes of third parties to conduct common foreign and security policies under the Lisbon Treaty.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Ma\u0161t\u00e1lka  \nThe 25th summit between the Russian Federation and the European Union provides an opportunity to ask whether the regular rhythm of such meetings does not lead to them being undervalued and poorly prepared. I do not want to undermine the importance of meetings between top EU and Russian representatives in terms of developing cooperation and eliminating the inherited habits of confrontation. What benefits did the last summit bring? It was the first such summit to take place following ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, I did not notice any new approaches from Brussels. There were a few vague promises about helping Russia to modernise and a declaration that the EU, in contrast to the US, had no need to 'restart' relations with Russia - it had only to proceed along a well-trodden path. The proposals from Moscow for the introduction of visa-free relations for Russian and EU citizens fell on deaf ears. Brussels said nothing, despite the fact that experience shows there is no risk of a hunger-driven migration from the East, and that the current system presents no obstacle to international crime. I note that an agreement was signed on visa-free relations between Russia and Turkey during the recent visit of the Russian president to Turkey. It is the same with the Russian application to join the WTO. The European Parliament should remind the people preparing these summits for the EU that the fulfilment of the Europe 2020 strategy requires better preparation. I would like to recommend that we consider arranging joint meetings between Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Russian State Duma, which would contribute to better mutual understanding and to the better preparation of summits.\nGy\u00f6rgy Sch\u00f6pflin  \nin writing. - Russia still sees the West as primarily responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the Yeltsin years. However, Russia faces a number of intractable problems, which ought to impel it towards the West, but Moscow's dislike of the EU persists. First, Russia's leaders have converted it into an energy-producing state, but, as energy resources are depleting, its economy is in serious trouble. The world financial crisis has led to a collapse of energy prices, resulting in a loss of revenue for Russia. Russia's population is collapsing demographically; it can barely mobilise enough soldiers to defend the country. In the mostly Muslim Northern Caucasus, Russia is experiencing an upsurge of violence. This violence is being met by repression, which means the conflict will continue. China has begun to challenge Russia in Central Asia, which Moscow has long regarded as its own sphere of interest. Finally, one area where Russia continues to perform well is in intelligence operations, as witness the rapid restoration of Russian power in Ukraine this year. This is a signal for the West. Russia will do what it can to enlarge its western security zone, regardless of the interests of the EU.\nIndrek Tarand  \nI am astonished at the conformism of the compromise resolution on the conclusions of the EU-Russia Summit, which talks so little about the subject of human rights. I fear that this way of dealing with the problems regarding Russia brings nothing of use to future EU-Russia relations. Furthermore, France has sold a Mistral class warship to Russia, and I am convinced that it will regret its action.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":7}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"3. Justice for the \"Comfort Women\"\nPresident\nThe next item is the five motions for a resolution on justice for comfort women.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nauthor. - (ES) Madam President, I have to say that, as the driving force behind this resolution, I am particularly satisfied that finally we have found the space and sufficient consensus to table it, because I sincerely believe that the subject deserved this, and much more.\nWe are talking about almost 200 000 women, euphemistically known as 'comfort women', who were forced to be sexual slaves during and before the Second World War by the Japanese Imperial Army. After 62 years, the survivors are still seeking justice.\nDuring their lives they have suffered from poor physical and mental health, isolation and shame, and often extreme poverty. So far the Japanese Government has not complied with international rules on reparation, which include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and satisfaction, including full disclosure, apology and guaranteeing that the action will not be repeated. This is particularly significant given that Japan is one of the main donors of aid in post-war times.\nThere was, therefore, an urgent need to react and to point out, as the survivors do, that truth must be linked to justice, and that an apology is empty if it is not accompanied by an acceptance of responsibility. I would like to stress that this is not only about the rights of an individual victim, but about collective rights, which bring with them the responsibility to remember, so that this type of violation does not happen again.\nThis means that we must ask the Japanese to conduct an exercise in historical honesty and not only acknowledge the facts but apologise on behalf of their predecessors, and to compensate the victims.\nFinally, I would like to express my great respect and recognition for the women who had and continue to have the courage to speak out and demand justice, and for the organisations like Amnesty International that are supporting them on this journey.\nEva-Britt Svensson  \nauthor. - (SV) Madam President, the Resolution calls for justice and redress for the hundreds of thousands of women, so-called 'comfort women', who were forced into providing sexual services before and during the Second World War. All these degraded women who were held in sexual slavery are still waiting for justice and redress. The Japanese authorities have indeed done a certain amount but, as the Resolution shows, a great deal remains for the Japanese Government and authorities to do in order to give those women justice and redress.\nThe majority of the women who were forced into this dreadful situation were very young at the time. That means that their whole lives have been destroyed by these terrible experiences. They have been forced to live out their lives in poor physical and psychological health, isolation, shame, and often extreme poverty. The fact that these women have not had full justice and redress also means that those who committed these crimes have effectively enjoyed immunity for their acts.\nAgain the victims, women, are punished while the perpetrators go free. This Resolution is also important for the reason that it highlights what always happens in war and conflict zones, that it is always women who are the main victims. It is therefore important that we draw attention to this matter. We must try to put a stop to this.\nMarcin Libicki  \nauthor. - (PL) Madam President, when we talk about crimes and when we think about crimes of the 20th century, we think above all of the crimes committed by the Germans and the Bolsheviks, or rather, to put it more broadly, the Communists. In Europe we are less aware of the fact that in the Far East Japan committed immense crimes from the 1930s until the end of the war. One of the greatest of these crimes was the sexual exploitation of women at this time.\nSome 100 000 women from conquered countries in the Far East were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Armed Forces of Japan. This sexual slavery, which was in itself totally criminal, had further consequences too. These consequences were enforced abortions, mutilations and murders on a large scale, and large-scale instances of suicide among these women. Obviously any of these women who are still alive today are very old.\nIt must be conceded that during the post-war period the Japanese Government did much to compensate for these dreadful offences against the women who experienced them. Today this resolution calls on the Japanese Government to make a final political, moral and financial settlement upon those women who are still alive and with the families of those who have died. This is most certainly their due.\nSophia in 't Veld  \nauthor. - (NL) Madam President, I should like to start by expressing my solidarity with these women - I believe on behalf of all of us. I am pleased that this is on the agenda, as it has taken a very long time. The European Parliament has been wavering for five months over whether human rights for women should actually be a priority or not.\nMr Dillen, who has now left, has just said that oppression of women is typical of the Koran - which is complete nonsense, as the matter of 'comfort women' shows that men do not need the Koran to repress and abuse women.\nI am actually also rather disappointed with the attitude in the European Parliament. As I have just said, this House wavered over this for a very long time, and I have heard even Members of this Parliament coming up with arguments such as 'Well, yes, but 90% of these women did it of their own free will' and 'Oh well, it is their culture, you have to understand that'. To be frank, I find this sickening. It is rape, and rape is without exception a crime in all ages and all cultures.\nI now gather that Japanese school textbooks have been adapted; but I then hear from the Japanese embassy that the tale has to be told very cautiously, as pupils do not yet know much about sexuality and could incur psychological damage. No-one talks about the psychological damage to the 'comfort women' themselves. To be frank, I find that quite shocking. Anyway, I am pleased that this is now on our agenda and that we are just about to adopt it.\nI think that it is important that apologies be sincere and unequivocal. It is not a matter of a formality. With the previous Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, once more casting doubt on the whole issue, it is not sufficient for the current government to then say 'Oh, but we shall continue with the previous policy'. Sincere and unequivocal is what is needed.\nAlso, when I hear the arguments that have been forthcoming from the Japanese embassy in recent days - incidentally complete with a recognition of everything that has already been done - I think that much progress remains to be made on sincerity. I hope, therefore, that this resolution expresses the solidarity of all of us with the victims.\nKarin Scheele  \nauthor. - (DE) Madam President, I am very grateful to the previous speaker for having drawn attention to the fact that no religion on this earth is immune to massive human rights violations against women, but this is more to do with dictatorship and authoritarian systems than with a specific religion.\nHundreds of thousands of women before and during the Second World War were forced into prostitution by the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces. Historians' estimates assume that around 200 000 of these 'comfort women' from Korea, China, Taiwan and the Philippines were handed over to Japanese soldiers as sex slaves. The 'comfort women' system is one of the largest cases of human trafficking in the 20th century and led to gang rapes on a massive scale and to forced abortions.\nAfter the end of the war, many women were murdered by the armed forces or prevented from returning home. Many of the survivors remained silent out of shame about their past and were stigmatised and relegated to the fringes of society. The issue of forced prostitution was not broached at the war crime trials and there was no talk of reparation.\nNot until the end of the 1980s did the fate of the comfort women come to light again. The reason for this was not an automatic change in awareness, but the rapidly growing women's movement in South Korea. Little by little, women who had been forced into prostitution spoke out publicly. In 1992 weekly demonstrations began in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul with the words: the Japanese Government should be ashamed, not us.\nIn 1997 the Japanese Government was asked for the first time to take legal and moral responsibility internationally for the most severe human rights violations committed against women. In her report the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women demanded financial compensation for the victims and court sentences for the perpetrators. The reaction of the Japanese Government at the time was an out and out rejection of these demands.\nIt has already been said several times today that the truth must be taken into account. We are therefore asking the Japanese Government publicly to reject any assertions that deny or question the subjugation and enslavement of the comfort women and we are likewise demanding that they accept moral and legal responsibility for the enslavement of 200 000 people. We are calling on the Japanese Government to implement mechanisms to provide reparations to all surviving victims and their families as quickly as possible.\nMany victims of the comfort women system have passed away or are at least 80 years old, which means speed is of the essence. We are also calling on our colleagues in the Japanese National Assembly, however, to make their contribution in parliament to help get these mechanisms accepted.\nAndrikien\u0117, Laima Liucija\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, there are pages in the world's history we would wish not to be repeated anywhere, ever.\nOne of these pages is the story of 'comfort women'. I refer to the officially commissioned acquisition of young women by the Government of Japan, from the 1930s and during the Second World War, for the sole purpose of sexual servitude to the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces. We do not know exactly the numbers of women who were enslaved but we know that the 'comfort women system' included gang rape, forced abortions, humiliation and sexual violence, resulting in mutilation, death or eventual suicide, and that it was one of the largest cases of human trafficking in the 20th century, involving not hundreds but thousands of women.\nToday, the remaining survivors are 80 and more years of age and one could argue that the problem is no longer an important issue. But I fully understand the wish of these women and their families to clear their names. Today we express our solidarity with the women who were victims of this system. We call on the Japanese Government to formally acknowledge and accept historical and legal responsibility and to implement effective administrative mechanisms to provide reparations to all surviving victims of the 'comfort women system' and to the families of deceased victims.\nTaking into account the excellent relationship between the European Union and Japan, based on the mutually shared values of the rule of law and respect for human rights, I hope that the Government and the Parliament of Japan will take all necessary measures to recognise the sufferings of sex slaves and to remove existing obstacles to obtaining reparations before Japanese courts and that current and future generations will be educated about these events. I am sure that official recognition of the existence of the 'comfort women system' and an apology on behalf of the Japanese Government also would do much to help heal the wounds of our painful common history.\nMarios Matsakis\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, people can be forgiven for their sins, but people's crimes cannot be forgotten. This applies as much to Japan as it did, for example, to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.\nThe Japanese committed immensely barbaric war atrocities in the 1930s and 1940s. To some extent, they paid dearly by having two of their cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, annihilated by the mighty nuclear holocaust brought upon them by the US.\nHowever, Japan inflicted many dreadful evils on the world in the past, and one of these - the sexual slavery of 'comfort women' - only came to prominence relatively recently. Some of these poor and now frail elderly ladies are still with us, as the remnants of a past that is inconvenient for Japan but torturous for them.\nThese women are asking for two very simple things from today's rich and powerful Japan: an official apology and very modest humanitarian aid. Certainly, the European Parliament, with this joint motion for a resolution, expects and demands that the Japanese Government must do both and fast. Otherwise, aside from the stigma of shame, the EU must consider taking particularly effective action against ex-imperial Japan.\nUrszula Krupa\nMadam President, the subject of today's debate is a violation of human rights that took place during the 1930s, during the Japanese occupation, when young women in the Imperial Armed Forces were sexually exploited and forced into prostitution, despite the fact that the Japanese Government had signed international conventions on combating traffic in women and children and supported the UN Resolution on Women, Peace and Security.\nThe sincere sympathy of the Japanese premier is currently being undermined by Japanese officials in connection with the closure of the Asian Women's Fund programme and mandate in March 2007, out of which only monetary compensation was paid to women.\nIn supporting the resolution and the demand for compensation, we would, however, point out that in modern times, too, the boundary between the normal and the pathological is being eroded, and this flies in the face of moral norms, so there is a need for radical moves to combat prostitution as a form of modern-day slavery. Prostitutes are not just victims of wars that took place 50 years ago; it could also be women of today who are being exploited, in the Belgian Congo, for example, as reported in the press, and indeed in many other countries, even rich ones.\nIn the name of respect for the human being we should also unmask the spread of a hedonistic and commercial culture that is pointing towards abuse in the area of sex, drawing even very young women and girls into the sphere of prostitution and other forms of demoralisation.\nRespect for the identity and dignity of women is not based solely on uncovering crimes or abuses in the sphere of sexual discrimination or other injustices; it is based primarily on the drafting of development programmes and on the real-life practice of principles embracing all areas of a woman's life. These principles must be rooted in a new realisation of the worth of a woman as wife, mother, carer or employee, as a human being and a person who is the equal of a man, despite being different.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1993 the Japanese Government spokesman at that time, Yohei Kono, extended Japan's 'sincere apologies and remorse to all those ... who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women'. In 1995 the Prime Minister at that time, Mr Murayama, also apologised publicly to the comfort women on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. That same year the Asian Women's Fund was set up to grant reparations and medical aid to survivors on behalf of the Japanese Government and people.\nThese attempts to obtain reparations for the comfort women and a renewed public apology from the former Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Koizumi, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in 2005 are positive steps by Japan. Japan has thereby recognised its responsibility for these unspeakable human rights violations. Only a few days ago, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs confirmed the declaration of the government spokesman, Mr Kono, which I quoted at the beginning, as Japan's official position.\nWe now have the moving testimony of survivors, and this moving testimony has again aroused interest in this terrible period, in Europe as well as in the United State, Canada and Australia.\nOur actions here are not simply about the past; they are about drawing the right conclusions from the events and doing everything in our power to combat today's forms of slavery, sexual exploitation and human trafficking.\nWith the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Commission is actively supporting NGOs throughout the world involved in preventing violence against women and children and combating human trafficking for the purpose of sexual slavery. On 23 November 2007 the Commission sent out a further signal on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, by having affirmed its emphatic commitment to combating gender-based violence.\nThe European Union is conducting a regular human rights dialogue with Japan, touching on all the EU's concerns - including women's rights. Japan is a like-minded global player cooperating constructively with us in multilateral forums in order to improve respect for and protection of human rights. Together with the European Union, Japan has therefore issued a resolution on human rights in North Korea and denounced the actions of the regime in Myanmar.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote on these three topics will take place at the end of today's sitting.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":8}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources.\nKartika Tamara Liotard \nrapporteur. - (NL) Mr President and all those present at this late hour, I think that these are times when it is quality that matters, not quantity. This is, I think, how you should look at it anyway.\nThe Commission has taken five years to produce a strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources. That is a long time, and so it is very regrettable that the proposal it has submitted is so lacking in ambition. To be fair, the Commission has clearly identified the problem, namely that if we carry on in this way, we will be irrevocably faced with exhaustion of our resources, and, along with it, a serious threat to our economy and our quality of life.\nThereupon, though, it also fails to come up with concrete measures. It calls, inter alia, for more research and more data. This is all well and good, but we cannot afford to wait for much longer. Like climate change, the problem of natural resources is acute now, and now is the time we need to take concrete action. When you read the proposal, there is a vague lack of urgency on the part of the Commission. It does not invite the citizens to think about this issue all that much, although they are the people eventually who will bear the brunt of it all.\nThe heart of the matter is simple. Our ecological footprint, in other words the environmental effect of our consumption, is much greater than what the earth can cope with. By way of illustration, if this children's shoe is the ecological footprint we would be allowed to have in order for our natural resources to be in balance, this large men's shoe represents the current consumption level. As you can see, it is really far too big. This is, therefore, a good illustration of what we are doing at the moment.\nI will be very honest, Commissioner. The gut reaction in our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was that the entire document should be sent back to you and the Commission asked to rework it. This, however, struck us as not very constructive and besides, we cannot afford to wait for another five years for action. This is why I decided to commit to producing a sound proposal and called on all my fellow Members to help me in this task. I can tell you, my fellow Members had a few amazing brainstorming sessions. Working together, we came up with a large number of ideas to improve the Commission's document, and that took us not more than three or four months. I would like to thank them, because we have really achieved a great deal. On account of all these sound amendments, the lay-out of the report may not be anything to write home about, but I hope that the message is clear. Parliament wants to see concrete measures rather than deferral.\nI should like to single out a few proposals, the first of which concerns agriculture. Agriculture does not feature in the thematic strategy, which is quite bizarre to my mind, if you consider that the agricultural sector is one of the largest users and consumers of natural resources. This sector is therefore being denied a great opportunity. I understand that the reason for this lies in the fact that DG Agriculture and DG Environment failed to see eye to eye on this. It is unacceptable, though, that mutual bickering between European officials would lead to the strategy lacking a wide support base.\nI would also propose linking European agricultural subsidies straight to sustainability. To give you an example: subsidies for corn should be suspended if large-scale irrigation is needed and thus if water is being wasted, but subsidies should instead be given to farms that commit to using alternative energy sources, such as wind energy. In addition to agriculture, there are also other sectors, including transport, fisheries and construction, that are not included in the strategy - wrongly so. We will need to do something about that too. In short, the strategy should cover all areas of policy.\nThe structure of the strategy is largely determined by the consumer and manufacturer. Other proposals include a lifecycle approach, a top-10 list of priorities of threatened natural resources, tax incentives, the provision of information, the involvement of NGOs and experts, making use of alternative recycling and re-use. Too many to mention, really.\nI suggest that the EU, in general, seeks to halve the use of resources by 2030. This is not science fiction, but a real necessity. Needless to say, European policy should not stop the Member States from performing even better. By setting the highest achieving Member State as an example to others, this trend can be promoted further.\nDuring his most recent visit to the Committee on the Environment, Commissioner Dimas spoke about the importance of natural resources, and I was delighted to hear him do that. I have sent him a letter, asking for his cooperation. I live in hope, therefore, that this Commissioner will stand for a more ambitious policy than what the Commission's current document suggests. If that is the case, a critical report from Parliament can only be something to which they can look forward.\nPresident\nMrs Liotard can be sure that this Parliament has listened to her to the best of its ability at this time.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like, first of all, to thank the European Parliament for the special attention paid to this strategy. I would like to thank Mrs Liotard and the shadow rapporteurs for the preparation of the report under discussion today. Indeed, it contains many constructive and useful data that make us think about possible future measures and build on them.\nThe use of natural resources is of vital importance both for the state of the environment and our economic growth. The course of events is a cause for concern, while the consequences have become noticeable with the constant loss of biodiversity, the greenhouse gas emissions, the downgrading of the quality of water, of air and ground, but also at a significant financial cost.\nIt is evident that the way in which we use our natural resources constitutes a threat towards our ecosystems on which our quality of life and prosperity depend. Therefore we are obliged to adapt our economic activities to our planet's endurance capabilities.\nThat is the aim of the strategy for natural resources, the result of vigorous often with disagreements but also extremely fruitful debate that has lasted for more than five years. This strategy offers an approach to environmental policy which focuses on natural resources on the one hand and a long-term framework for limiting the environmental consequences from the use of natural resources in a developing economy on the other. Moreover, it aims to improve efficiency when using natural resources.\nDespite being very ambitious, these objectives are feasible. Europe has already managed to stabilise the use of natural resources in certain sectors of the economy. However, we lag behind other countries as for example in the case of Japan, which uses its natural resources much more efficiently compared to Europe. The strategy promotes products, technologies and consumption patterns that are more efficient with regards to the use of natural resources and less pollutant.\nNew initiatives have already been undertaken for the implementation of the strategy. Allow me to mention three examples:\nFirst of all, the Commission is setting up a data centre, which will provide information for the policy planning, and this will lead to a better understanding of the use of resources and the consequences of various economic activities.\nSecondly, in order to measure our progress in the direction of environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources, the Commission will pursue the development of a new generation of indicators. Already many quantitative indicators have been established with regards to the use of natural resources, as for example in the energy and climate change sectors. The determination of strict quality targets for atmospheric air and water and waste recycling targets contributes towards achieving the targets of the strategy on natural resources. Through this strategy we will be able to work out the general quantitative goal of natural resources conservation in our economy.\nThirdly, we must adapt all our policies to take account of the use of natural resources based on the entire life-cycle. We must take into consideration the environmental consequences of natural resources from their creation to their depletion, that is, from their birth to their death, so that the consequences are not transferred from one stage of life cycle to another or to other countries. When, for example, we import processed metals to Europe we must not overlook the environmental consequences of mining in other countries. The natural resources we actually use in Europe increasingly come from developing countries. Biofuel is another characteristic example.\nTherefore we are talking about a global challenge and we have to assume responsibility. Together with the United Nations Environment Programme, we have set up an International Panel on the sustainable use of natural resources, which will start evaluating the consequences of the use of resources on our planet and will propose new measures. The work programme of this new International Panel already includes issues, such as environmental conditions for the production of biofuel and the implementation of measures on a worldwide scale in order to boost the recycling society. If this panel manages to reach the achievements of the International Panel on Climate Change, we will fulfil our goals to a great extent.\nHonourable Members, the foundations have already been laid. Following the detailed examination on your behalf, and with the proposals you made, the Commission is committed to ensuring the successful implementation of the strategy for natural resources. In the long term, this strategy will lead us to sustainable use of natural resources and could constitute a benchmark for other policies. This is only the first stage of a long process. We should cooperate, now, with specific actions, so that its implementation can play a part in the development of all policies in all sectors of the economy.\nAvril Doyle\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner says that these are 'ambitious goals'. I think not, Commissioner! The Commission's report came under a lot of fire when the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety first discussed it in October, as the document is seriously limited in its ambition after five years of gestation. At best, it could be described as a reasonable basic document with which to start the discussion, but it lacks any concrete objectives and, as I said, any ambition. This can probably be attributed to a turf war between the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Directorate-General for the Environment - guess who won? DG ENVI's strategy has been mainly restricted to knowledge-gathering and fails to address some key problematic sectors such as - unsurprisingly - agriculture, forestry, transport and many others.\nWhilst some new initiatives are mentioned, such as a data centre for natural resources, a high-level forum and an international panel, the proposed time horizon of 25 years is totally unacceptable. By contrast, the rapporteur Mrs Liotard has worked hard to add some substance to the proposal. She correctly makes the point that the Commission communication does not comply with the requirements laid down in the Sixth Environmental Action Plan for concrete targets and timetables. The report calls on the Commission to replace this non-strategy with ambitious proposals, including clear targets and binding timetables.\nI welcome the emphasis on an integrated policy approach and on the external impact of EU policy on sustainable resources. The only problem is that the rapporteur may have done too good a job. There is such a broad consensus for her report in the ENVI Committee that practically all amendments tabled were adopted, making the report somewhat long and repetitive in places. In my view, this takes away from the message. For this reason I have indicated on my group's voting list a negative vote on certain paragraphs that duplicate points mentioned elsewhere in the report.\nGyula Hegyi\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, we have inherited natural resources from nature or the Creator, but we are responsible for them with regard to future generations. We hear increasingly varying information on the threat to the balance of nature. Two-thirds of the ecosystems on which human beings depend are in decline. Europe's demand on natural resources has risen by almost 70% since the early 1960s. This dangerous trend must be stopped.\nWe want economic growth, because many people are still in need, but without increasing the use of natural resources and with less environmental impact. This decoupling of economic growth and the increasing use of natural resources is the main message of this report. The strategy proposed by the Commission is rather weak and has no deadlines or targets. That is why I tabled around 25 amendments on behalf of the PSE Group. I am happy that all but one of them has found favour with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.\nMy fellow parliamentarians and I have proposed concrete targets to improve our commitment to the future. I propose specific targets regarding food, housing and the transport sector. In a market economy, taxation is the proper tool for regulating the use of resources. That is why it is so important to set up a European eco-taxation system. This report should be followed by specific regulations and directives to stop the self-destructive over-use of natural resources.\nMojca Dr\u010dar Murko\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SL) Greater efficiency in using energy and raw material resources is the objective of the thematic strategy being discussed here. This strategy is probably the most important partial strategy of the Sixth Environmental Action Plan. Its main objective is to prevent the unnecessary squandering of renewable and non-renewable sources which is threatening the environmental balance.\nProduct lifecycles is a philosophy which occupies a special place amongst the measures designed to limit excessive consumption. It is possible to increase significantly the volume of products that are channelled back into the economy at the end of their lifecycle and to reuse them. In this regard, the strategy is closely related to the process of revising EU legislation on waste management.\nThe ambitious goals that we want to see in this thematic strategy are not unrealistic. In fact, the priorities of the political debate on the economical use of natural resources have already enhanced the willingness of citizens to participate in the beneficial reuse of waste. Our cities, for instance, are potential mines of raw materials. Just as we extract ore from mines, we can use advanced waste collection and separation methods to extract iron, zinc, copper and plastic, and in the process we will use three times less energy than we would by producing them from fresh raw materials. Urban mining offers a promising vision of the modern city as a lucrative cache of recycled materials. And it is not the only method that considerably improves efficiency in using natural resources.\nWies\u0142aw Stefan Kuc\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, almost half a century has passed since the first report was delivered in Rome. Since then, natural resources have diminished, but we made great technological advances and learned to make more efficient use of raw materials and energy, harnessing resources which we could not have dreamed of fifty years ago. Have we done everything our knowledge, technology and experience are capable of? Definitely not. This is what this report clearly shows.\nI am wholly in favour of the report, but I also see that the European Union is doing a great deal, much more than other countries, to protect the earth, air and water. It is doing a lot to recycle and re-use its raw materials. However, we need to intensify our activities for the better utilisation of manufacturing waste, which will not only reduce environmental pollution, but also make our use of natural resources more efficient.\nSatu Hassi\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to the rapporteur, Kartika Liotard, for her excellent work. These days mankind lives on an ecological credit card which goes over the limit of ecological funds. Mankind as a whole uses 25% more than the sustainable level of natural resources, which means that we are using up our children's capital. According to the European Environment Agency, the consumption of natural resources in Europe exceeded Europe's own biocapacity back in the 1960s. If the current trend continues, by 2050 we will be using double the level of sustainable natural resources. The need to cut climate emissions is only part of the more universal challenge of using natural resources more sparingly and more wisely.\nIf our use of natural resources is to be brought down to a sustainable level and at the same time we make it possible for developing countries to rise out of poverty, the rich countries, such as ourselves, should over a period of 50 years make the ratio between the prosperity achieved and consumption of natural resources ten times greater. This sounds like science fantasy but by degrees it only means an improvement of 5% a year. We have been able to do something similar in improving work productivity so why not in improving the productivity of natural resources? This century must be the century in which we improve the productivity of natural resources, the ratio between prosperity achieved and the use of natural resources.\nAs everyone has already said, the strategy put forward by the Commission is far too flimsy, mainly because it lacks any concrete targets and timetables, even though they are required under the Sixth Environment Action Programme. The knowledge base for producing them exists. We need clear targets and timetables by next year, including sector-wide action programmes.\nThe cheapest way of improving productivity in the use of natural resources is to end aid that is environmentally harmful. That should be done right away. Kartika Liotard's conclusion that we need more quality and less volume could also be a motto for us in our use of natural resources.\nIrena Belohorsk\u00e1\n(SK) I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for her excellent work and for the stance she has taken on this question. I can fully endorse all the points in her report on a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources. The fact that the Commission worked on this document for five years indicates the seriousness of the problem.\nThe Commission's document does not contain specific schedules, nor does it describe the methods to be adopted. We have to recognise that we have a worldwide water crisis, especially as regards drinking water, as well as global warming, and a threat to biodiversity, where Europe's ecological footprint is twice as big as its biological capacity, and every year people are dying of diseases caused by a polluted environment. This calls for a more proactive and radical approach.\nI agree with the proposal for a complete reform of the subsidy system. Subsidising activities which have a negative impact on the environment must be reduced or stopped, especially in agriculture. If the Commission claims that it does not have enough indicators to set specific timescales, the rapporteur mentions several in her report, for example, gross domestic product, domestic use of materials, etc.\nIf we wish to reduce our dependence on natural resources, I agree that by 2012, 12% of the energy in the EU must come from renewable sources, and by 2008, a specific policy and line of action must be implemented for the 20 most important materials that have the greatest impact.\nRiitta Myller\n(FI) Mr President, Commissioner Dimas's example was a good one, as when the production of bioenergy is increased, it must happen on a sustainable basis and, in particular, at a global level, although the problem, with this strategy, for example, is that agriculture and forestry are not included in it.\nThis is one of the last thematic strategies that form part of the Sixth Environment Action Programme. It has already been stated here that quantitative and qualitative objectives have been set under the Sixth Environment Action Programme for the European Union's environmental policy and that they have not been mentioned in the Commission's proposals. Furthermore, it has not been possible in this strategy on natural resources to meet the objective of ensuring that the use of natural resources and their impact do not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.\nThe Sixth Environment Action Programme was supposed to have been reviewed a year ago, and it is vital that we undertake a review of a programme as analytical as this one is, now that we have already come a long way in debating thematic strategies. I would therefore like to ask Commissioner Dimas when the Commission is going to review the Sixth Environment Action Programme.\nEvangelia Tzampazi\n(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to thank my colleague Mrs Liotard for her comprehensive and cohesive report. The climate changes and energy crisis faced by the European Union call for community action and the creation of a well-structured strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources which are at least in accordance with demands set by the sixth action plan for the environment.\nI would like to emphasise that we need a strategy which targets the efficient use of natural resources, improvements in both their management and in waste management with a view to adopting sustainable production methods and consumer standards, whilst on the one hand, disengaging the use of resources and waste production from the economic growth rate and, on the other, ensuring that their use will not put too much of a strain on the environment than it can withstand. I believe you have made a good point, Commissioner. The foundation has already been laid.\nPresident\nBefore giving the floor to Commissioner Dimas I wanted to let Mrs Liotard know that I have consulted the Rules of Procedure and it is not necessary for her to enclose the two shoes which she used in her example for the purpose of drafting the Minutes, and therefore she may keep them.\nStavros Dimas\nThese were actually shoeprints, not footprints!\nMr President, honourable Members, first of all, let me thank you for the constructive remarks made in the report and during the debate tonight. We all agree that today's use of natural resources is not sustainable. Indeed, the sustainable use of natural resources is a common challenge for all of us as policymakers, as companies and as citizens, both in Europe but also globally.\nParliament has an essential role in leading this project and mobilising the necessary public support. Today, more than one year after adoption of the communication, we have already made some progress. Member States have endorsed the strategy and it is becoming a global benchmark promoted, for example, by the OECD.\nWe are developing and moving forward with the implementation in an open, transparent and engaged way. Your report and today's discussion will now be taken into account in future actions.\nThe use of natural resources policy is intimately linked to the way we produce our products and consume them. The forthcoming action plan on sustainable consumption and production will focus on the eco-design of products, on making procurement greener and on measures that help consumers make better choices.\nActions will start from food, housing and transport, the sectors with the highest environmental impacts. Your other priorities will be tackled as well. We will promote best-practice approaches, innovative and eco-efficient solutions and the use of economic instruments. Just one month ago the Commission published a Green Paper on the use of market-based instruments in energy and environment policy, and I am committed to looking beyond GDP when we assess the economic, social and environmental progress of our societies.\nFinally, I fully understand those of you who want to see more action and sooner, and I thank Parliament for its proactive role in this.\nI also have a lot of sympathy for calls for more specific targets. As I highlighted earlier, a number of ambitious targets related to resource use are already in place, for example the strategy's over-arching goal to decouple negative environmental impacts from growth on a European and global scale. This is arguably a very ambitious target and is formally endorsed by the Commission and the Council.\nWe will assess the need to set an overall target for resource efficiency in the context of the review of the resource strategy planned for 2010. The resource strategy is a big step forward, tackling environmental impacts in a lifecycle approach.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday at 11.30 a.m.\nWritten statement (Rule 142)\nAndr\u00e1s Gy\u00fcrk\n, in writing. - (HU) In spite of increasing evidence pointing to the fact that natural energy sources have been used irrationally and excessively, and that daily life has become part of the worry about the sustainability of the natural environment, today humanity, and especially political leaders, lack a clear conception of how to address the problem.\nThe political concept of sustainable development is too general to lead to tangible results, and what is more, it tries to deal at the same time with protecting the natural environment and resolving the complex problem of justice among generations and nations. Methods for measuring the environment (for instance, life cycle analysis [LCA]), and indicators (for example, the ecological footprint) are burdened with methodological problems and are often contradictory.\nWithout calling into question the usefulness of designing a unified, complex and clear knowledge base on natural energy sources and a set of indicators measuring the use of energy sources, it is important to emphasise that even in their absence, many measures could be put into practice.\nIt is unfortunate that both the Commission's proposal and the accompanying report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety are silent on the important role that the market and market-oriented regulations could play in the effective use of natural energy sources. It would be a mistake to forget that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions - in spite of the inevitable over-allocation by the government during the first distribution period - worked satisfactorily. It would be a mistake not to recognise that numerous solutions that protect natural energy sources (for instance the broader distribution of renewable energy sources) is hampered precisely by the lack of a unified, unrestricted competitive market in Europe.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Appointments of ESA senior executives (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Council and Commission statements on the appointments of ESA senior executives.\nEnik\u0151 Gy\u0151ri\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and the honourable Members - my dear ex-colleagues - for giving me the opportunity to comment, on behalf of the Council, on the appointment process of the chairs and executive directors of the new European Supervisory Authorities - the ESAs - and on the principles that should guide the performance of their duties.\nThe ESA regulations, which we adopted less than three months ago, give no specific role to the Council in the appointments of the chair and executive director of each ESA, which are made by the respective board of supervisors.\nHence, in accordance with the ESA regulations, the chairperson of each ESA is appointed by the board of supervisors. Furthermore, the ESA regulations give a crucial role to the European Parliament, which has been granted the possibility of objecting to the appointment of those senior executives and of removing a chairperson from office following a decision of the board of supervisors.\nWhere, then, does the Council stand in this scenario? Well, the Council, as co-legislator, has agreed with Parliament to insert in these regulations provisions that aim to ensure that members of the board of supervisors - the management board - the chairperson and the executive director of each ESA are protected by, and bound to, strict independence so as to act solely in the interests of the Union.\nI will not quote in full the provisions of those regulations, and more particularly Articles 42, 46, 49 and 52, but their spirit is clear. This is that neither the voting members of the boards, nor the chairperson or executive director, shall seek or take instructions from EU institutions or bodies, Member State governments or any public or private body, and that these, in turn, shall not seek to influence the chair or the executive director in the performance of their tasks.\nThe ESA regulations are subject to the staff regulations adopted by the EU institutions. They also contain a number of key provisions that aim to ensure that the chair and executive director of each authority are selected in the most objective way, on the strict basis of the criteria set out in Articles 48 and 51 of the regulations.\nApart from the managerial experience specific to the executive director's profile, I note that both those articles list as criteria 'merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation'.\nAs far as financing is concerned, the Council placed high ambitions on the ESAs when it adopted the regulations, and I am sure that was also the case with Parliament. It now falls to both institutions, as budgetary authorities, to ensure that those ambitions are translated into the appropriate means each year, on the basis of the Commission's budgetary proposal.\nThe Presidency also attaches great importance to all Member States fulfilling their obligations towards the new authorities. For the Council, as co-legislator, it is essential that all the provisions of the regulations are implemented completely and faithfully. We expect the European Commission, as the Guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that this is indeed the case.\nAs the honourable Members will be aware, the Commission is also entrusted, in recital 55 of the regulations, with the responsibility of drawing up a shortlist of candidates to steer the process of selecting the first chairperson of each authority. Parliament and the Council agreed to this starting procedure when adopting the regulations.\nI hope that the chairpersons will now be able to start their work. It is of primary importance for the new agencies to be up and running as soon as possible. They are an essential part of the EU's response to the challenges posed by the financial crisis. We cannot afford to wait, and I am sure I can count on the full support of Parliament to ensure the smooth establishment and running of the new agencies.\nAs a result of the good cooperation between Parliament and the Council, the EU has a brand new supervisory authority structure. It is our common responsibility to ensure that ESAs get down to business as soon as possible.\nAs the representative of a Parliament-friendly Presidency, I am fully commited to working in maximum harmony with the European Parliament, and I also hope to be able to work with a Parliament that is a faithful partner.\nMichel Barnier\nMember of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has had a new supervisory system for the financial sector since 1 January.\nThis system, combined with the fundamental reform of the regulation of the markets and financial operators will enhance financial stability in the Union and, I believe, will expand opportunities and lay solid foundations for the financial industry, which is extremely important in our countries.\nI would like to begin by congratulating the European Parliament on the key role it has played in this process for several years. That we now have a more effective supervisory system for the financial sector and are drawing on the lessons of the crisis in this area, as in others, is largely due to the European Parliament.\nWe are now approaching the final stages of the creation of this new architecture of the three European Supervisory Authorities with the appointment of their chairpersons and executive directors in the next few days. Ladies and gentlemen, these appointment procedures were conducted with complete transparency and in full compliance with the regulations that created the authorities as well as other rules governing the appointment of the heads of the regulatory agencies of the Union.\nApproximately 275 applications were received for the six posts I have just spoken about. They were all considered carefully and objectively. The roles allocated to the different stakeholders, to the European Parliament, to the board of supervisors, and to the Commission itself were scrupulously adhered to. In the future, we will continue to ensure that the process is transparent and properly planned so as to enable the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) of the European Parliament to play its very important role to the best possible effect.\nThis Parliament has made, and continues to make, big demands of these authorities, and I think it is right to do so. It is making demands that I can understand. Like Parliament, the Commission takes the view that the chairpersons and executive directors of these authorities must be chosen on the basis of merit, experience, independence, their commitment to Europe and their knowledge of issues linked to the supervision and regulation of financial markets. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the spirit in which the selection procedures under way have thus far been conducted on the basis of the applications we have received.\nIn addition, since Parliament and the Council decided, in Article 68 of the regulations creating these authorities, that the chairpersons and executive directors would be subject to the rules applicable to the staff of the institutions of the Union, the Commission has ensured that that is what is happening and that, in this area as in others, the regulations are being complied with.\nLadies and gentlemen, you have expressed concerns with regard to the salaries and the maximum age of the senior managers of these authorities. In this respect, we have explored all avenues in order to obtain maximum flexibility and this issue may, if necessary, be re-examined when the functioning of the authorities is reviewed, which is scheduled for the end of 2013.\nI also endorse the intention of this Parliament to achieve the optimal gender balance at the head of these authorities. In the preselection procedure the Commission rigorously applied the principle of equal opportunities on the basis of the applications that were registered. I note in this regard that, in the latest process for the appointment of the executive directors, which is ongoing and has not yet been completed, two very able women are in contention for a post as executive director.\nI fully agree with Parliament that we need strong authorities, which are independent of political or other interference. The chairpersons, executive directors, and voting members of the different boards must be completely independent and act solely in the interest of the Union. Parliament and the Council have enshrined this principle in the regulations creating the authorities, in particular in Articles 42, 46, 49 and 52, which Minister Gy\u0151ri referred to just now.\nThe Commission, as the guardian of EU law, will totally and fully assume its responsibilities to ensure that these Articles are rigorously complied with. I would add that the Commission will be present in the governing bodies of the authorities and that, in this regard, it will, of course, be vigilant so as to ensure that any decision that is taken in the interest of the Union.\nAs regards the composition of the board of supervisors, the Commission has already highlighted the legal necessity and the political importance of ensuring that these boards are composed of the heads of the competent national authorities. I have personally written to the authorities to clarify this point, where it needed clarifying. Some national authorities have since modified their representation. Others still have to do so. You can rest assured that the Commission will keep this point under very close scrutiny and will be inflexible.\nThe composition of the boards of the authorities must fully respect your wishes and those of the legislator in general, and I will personally see to it that the heads of the national authorities are actually present at least, and I repeat, at least twice a year in accordance with Article 40 of the regulations that created these authorities.\nFinally, ladies and gentlemen, I endorse the intention of this Parliament to ensure that these authorities have the necessary financial and human resources to perform their duties in a credible fashion. The budgetary authority can count on the technical support of the Commission to ensure coherence between, on the one hand, the responsibilities assigned to these authorities and, on the other hand, naturally, the resources allocated to them to assume these responsibilities.\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is now essential that the procedures to appoint and confirm the chairpersons and executive directors of these authorities are completed successfully. These authorities need to get down to work. I can assure you that, every day, I have proof of the usefulness of these new authorities, since we currently consult them on an almost daily basis.\nThe tasks that these authorities have to assume in cooperation with the European Systemic Risk Board are of the utmost importance. We wanted them to be fully operational from 1 January. It is now the responsibility of each of us, in our own particular role, to allow them to perform their task swiftly and under good conditions. To achieve this, they need the full support of your institution.\nI wish to reaffirm here that, for its part, the Commission will ensure that the intention of the legislator is fully respected and that these authorities work exclusively and solely in the interest of the European Union.\nJean-Paul Gauz\u00e8s\non behalf of the PPE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Gy\u0151ri, Mr Barnier, this debate right now is not a legal debate; it is a true political debate. It is a debate on the future of financial regulation in Europe. It is the culmination of one aspect of the work conducted by Parliament, with the Council, under the guidance of the Commission. I am therefore going to be quite clear.\nFor us, it is not about indulging in some sort of revolution or showing our biceps just for fun. It is about ensuring that the spirit that presided over the agreements between the Council and Parliament is, in fact, respected. It is not a lesson in law. The texts do not matter. We know the texts. What matters is the way in which these texts will be put into effect. In this regard, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the clarity of his speech.\nWe have never sought to call the Commission into question, and the words spoken by the Commissioner are totally in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. We are talking here about a political act that consists in saying: 'These institutions have been established, so we must give them the concrete resources to function properly.'\nYet, I think that we do not simply have doubts but also suspicions about the way in which these provisions have in fact been implemented by a number of Member States, by those that wish to unravel European supervision and prevent financial regulation at European level. That is what we are speaking out against, because we believe that, if that had been the case, we would have been cheated in the negotiations on supervision. The negotiations were long; they were difficult. Everyone made compromises. The Belgian Presidency did some remarkable work and the Commissioner provided extraordinary impetus. Today, we could be faced with institutions without effective power: due to the low status of the staff appointed; due to the fact that the Member States did not choose the best, and perhaps because the salaries were not attractive.\nIn any event, today Parliament needs a concrete answer. Minister, I am bound to say that, despite the friendship that I feel for you, having sat on the same bench, in the same group and on the same committee as you, the letter, which I have seen and which, I admit, is only a first draft, is inadequate.\nI will give you the response of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). It is simple. You say, on behalf of the Council, that you fully endorse what the Commissioner has just said. I can tell you that, for us, this will be a satisfactory declaration. The statement made by the Commissioner is precise. It deals with problems of human and financial resources. Your letter needs to state: 'We agree with virtually everything the Commissioner said'. Mrs Gy\u0151ri, this is very important.\nWe agree with virtually everything the Commissioner said in plenary this evening.\nUdo Bullmann\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, why are we here? Mr Barnier said that we are here because the European Parliament has succeeded in establishing European supervisory authorities that are worthy of the name. That was not part of the Council's programme. It was not part of the Member States' programme. The Commission, too, had doubts about how long we would actually persevere with regard to the establishment of this new institution. The Council will understand - it will have to understand - and the Commission will, too - possibly even of its own accord - why we are concerned.\nNo, this European Parliament - and this is a statement that I find applies to all party groups, not just to us as Social Democrats - will not allow national games to be played that undermine the powers of these new supervisory authorities. That is why we are interested in the appointment of staff, of course. We have rights in this regard - we have to be consulted.\nThere are one or two things that in fact give us cause for concern. We receive lists of individuals and we receive lists, which when we look at we cannot actually tell whether a gender criterion has been applied. We are given proposals for candidates, which when we consider - and I say this with all due respect to the people concerned - we do not see anyone that we believe could not do a decent job. These are clearly good people who have already shown in their jobs that they can do their work well, but the people that have been presented to us are not people who, on the basis of any authority that they may have demonstrated in their past work, can actually say to the national supervisory authorities where they would stand in the event of a conflict. Where there is European supervision, national momentum comes to a standstill. That surprises and annoys us, and it must call us into action.\nNo, these procedures are unsatisfactory, and I ask myself why, for example, we cannot take the same approach as we are taking with regard to those responsible for OLAF, where you are of course interested in the opinion of this House. Why can we not do that? We still have another opportunity with regard to the executive directors. You can still demonstrate that you are interested in the opinion of the European Parliament. You still have another opportunity. I would urge you both - President-in-Office of the Council and former fellow Member Mrs Gy\u0151ri and Commissioner Barnier, to take this opportunity. You can take on board the objections of this House. You can tell us very clearly how you want to work with us in future. You can tell us very clearly what goals you will support in the 2013 reform and how you will equip the institutions. You will also be able to make it very clear whether you are interested in our opinion in respect of those members of staff that are still to be appointed. I therefore ask you in all earnestness in the interests of Europe to provide these rules quickly.\nSylvie Goulard\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Gy\u0151ri, Commissioner, thank you for being with us this evening. We are well aware that there was limited time available, so we thank you even more for having begun to answer us. I think it is important to put our motivation clearly into perspective, as my fellow Members have done.\nWhat motivates us is that we have fought collectively for months to ensure that there is a 'before the crisis' and an 'after the crisis', that, in this internal market, which has facilitated the expansion of financial services and banking activities, and we are entirely in favour of all the cross-border work done by the sector, common rules and supervision are brought into line. To be frank, during the negotiations - and with the support of the Commission moreover - it became very clear to us that we were being troublemakers. We saw all too clearly that there were some Member States that wanted to remain in control of the supervision and did not want anyone to poke their noses into their business.\nMrs Gy\u0151ri, you tell us that the Council has no say in the appointment of these officials, which is legally correct, but some Member States are lying in ambush. Moreover, the Commissioner pointed out that his departments had to tell some countries to send pre-eminent people. Therefore, this Parliament is doing its work, in trying to ensure independence, resources and the resolve to move forward.\nWe are, of course, aware of our responsibilities. We, more than anyone else, want these authorities to set to work, since we have contributed personally to their emergence. We have no desire to delay their work; I am thinking, for example, of the bank stress tests, which are so important. However, the simple fact is that, as has been pointed out, we will be demanding, we are going to sleep on the issue and take the necessary time to look in detail at what you have told us, each of you in turn, and we will take a decision with a clear conscience.\nI would like to thank Mr Barnier for having made some very clear statements and I would ask you, Mrs Gy\u0151ri, not to be naive. There is a lot at stake.\nSven Giegold\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this is a question of making the best possible use of the possibilities provided by the law to actually provide strong financial supervision in Europe, and we have our doubts about whether these possibilities are in fact being utilised to the best possible extent in the institutions. We are seeing shortcomings in the procedure. As Parliament, we have so far not been able to see the list of candidates in advance, but only the finished result. It would be very easy to send us this list now for the executive directors. We quite clearly have a lack of gender equality when it comes to filling the posts, and, due to certain events during the process, we have our doubts about whether the Member States will in fact fill the posts in this institution in the interests of Europe.\nThat and the other points in our letter entitle us to ask a fundamental question. However, over and above this there is, of course, also the question of the suitability of the individuals, and in this regard each person has to be assessed individually on the basis of their skills. We see two major problems with this. In the hearings, we found that one of the candidates disputed the fact that this was a European institution, but talked instead about a network of supervisory authorities, and even when asked about it he was not prepared to correct this.\nWe did not receive any clear responses when we asked them whether they were prepared to make all lobbyist contact with the financial industry transparent. We have sent a letter to all three candidates, and as far as we are concerned the outcome of the vote is dependent on whether we receive clear and comprehensive responses to this.\nKay Swinburne\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, the ECR welcomes the opportunity to discuss these issues in the Chamber this evening.\nI would like to make it clear that our group believes that all three candidates for chairing the ESA, as presented to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs yesterday, are fully qualified and competent to fulfil the important roles involved.\nAny comments I make this evening are purely about the process that has been followed to get to this point. I would ask, therefore, that future selection processes aim to recruit candidates from the broadest possible pool of talent in order to ensure independent thought and a new diversity in the senior management of such authorities. To that end, salary scales need to be appropriate to the expected seniority of those roles. Unnecessary age restrictions, or any other criteria outside technical skills and competence, should be avoided at all costs.\nWe can do a little better than we have done this time in terms of the process and the transparency that could be applied with respect to Parliament. I hope that note is taken of this in the future.\nMarta Andreasen\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, I believe there is no need for these agency supervisor posts because I believe there is no need for the agencies themselves. Is creating another level of supervision called ESMA going to represent an improvement compared with existing supervisory authorities? I believe that, by doing this, we are only going to cause confusion about who is responsible for what.\nWill the supervisory authority produce regulations suitable for the world's largest financial district? I doubt it. I think, instead, that the pet theories of the anti-market crowd will be adopted and forced upon the City of London. The problems caused by financial activity in recent years were due to rule books being either torn up or ignored by those whose job it was to enforce them.\nThere is no guarantee that these authorities will do anything better. Moreover, we have been presented with only one candidate for each post - a totally undemocratic exercise. Of course, it is the same that was used to appoint the President of the Commission, the rest of the Commissioners and the High Representative. I could go on with a long list. I encourage you all to vote against these or any other candidates.\nMichel Barnier\nCommission. - (FR) Madam President, I will be brief, as I have expressed myself as sincerely and as clearly as possible. I have carefully weighed each word of my statement, which will be confirmed in writing in a letter that I have co-signed with Vice-President \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d so that things are extremely clear.\nIn response to each of your speeches, which I thank you for, I would simply like to mention three issues.\nThe first issue concerns the independence and the authority of the chairpersons of the authorities. I am very pleased with, but not surprised by, the total commitment of Parliament, which is shared by the Commission, to defend this independence and this authority and to ensure that they are respected over time. It is crucial and it is what is important for the future, bearing in mind the multitude of tasks and the seriousness of the tasks that these authorities are going to face. Earlier, the issues of the rating agencies and the stress tests were raised. These are issues for which we are going to need the authorities and their credibility. This is the first point I wanted to make, on which Parliament and the Commission, of course, and, I hope and believe, the Council, can agree.\nThe second point is that of the selection procedure. Ladies and gentlemen, I remember the discussions at the trilogues, where this procedure was the subject of numerous debates and, finally, of agreement among the co-legislators. It is what it is and it doubtless has its shortcomings. I personally brought in the rendez-vous clause to improve it. I have no reason - and I say this to you in all conscience - to think that it has not enabled good candidates to be selected. I have no reason to question the motives of the candidates chosen. After I had received the shortlists and met each of the candidates in person, I personally took responsibility for establishing an order according to what I felt, in all conscience, were the most useful and the most credible criteria. However, in order to find these good candidates, we relied on the lists given to us and the 275 applications from the regulatory authorities of the Member States. We have a rendez-vous clause to improve these procedures, which undoubtedly can be improved. But I would like to say, in all conscience, that, as far as I am concerned, I have no reason to say or to think that we have not selected good candidates, who are capable of living up to their responsibilities.\nFinally, there is a third point, which a number of you have raised, which is that of the level of representation of the authorities. The Commission will always ensure that this representation is in full compliance with the regulations and at the highest level. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the European Parliament for supporting us in this absolutely crucial issue, which is also one of the keys to credibility.\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, that is what I wanted to say, before we all retire to sleep on it, as a previous speaker said. That is what I wanted to give you as an assurance, as a concern, which I would like to express personally on behalf of all the Commissioners, for vigilance to ensure that these authorities succeed. This will provide genuine European supervision, which will not replace national supervisory authorities but make them work together more effectively, which will have its own powers when facing challenges and risks, which are now clearly transnational.\nWe needed, and we now largely have, thanks to you, these three radar screens, these three authorities in addition to the European Systemic Risk Board. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now necessary for everyone to get swiftly to work because, frankly, I note that the markets are moving very quickly, much more quickly than us, in this, our time of democracy, and the authorities need to work very quickly.\nEnik\u0151 Gy\u0151ri\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, honourable Members, first let me answer the question which came up very often in this debate: will the Council agree to review the appointment procedure in the regulation?\nWell I know that the same recital states, for the subsequent designations of the chairpersons, that the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report.\nI also know that Article 81 of the regulation also makes provision for the review by the Commission to be sent to the European Parliament and the Council by 2 January 2014 and every three years thereafter. So this will give us an opportunity to improve the regulation in due time on the basis of practical experience, and in this spirit I look forward to a constructive dialogue between our institutions to pave the way for the future assessment.\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Madam President, the speeches delivered by the Commissioner and me were framed by our respective competences. We received the letter of the Chair of the Economic Committee, and both of us tried to answer questions fitting into our respective competences. I tried to convince you that there are guarantees of independence and, in the creation of the budget, the task of the Council and Parliament, as the two institutions having financial responsibility, is to ensure that these institutions are in operating condition. As such, it seems to me that there is clear task sharing and unambiguous commitment on the part of all institutions.\nThe letter sent today by the Chair of ECOFIN, Minister Gy\u00f6rgy Matolcsy, in reply to the letter sent by the Chair of ECON this morning, was written in this spirit, and I trust that, along with the Commission's opinion, you will find it to be a satisfactory response. The Council and the Presidency-in-Office fully support this. This was the question of Mr Gauz\u00e8s, which the Commission answered regarding the topics within its competence. I therefore hope that, after this, there will be no obstacles to Parliament supporting the candidates tomorrow, and the supervisory authorities will finally be able to commence their work.\nPresident\nThree motions for resolutions to wind up the debate have been tabled under Rule 120 of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 11:30.\nWritten Statement (Rule 149)\nAlfredo Pallone\nThis Parliament has made an important contribution to the creation of the new European Financial Supervisory Authorities. Hence it wants to emphasise its role this evening, also, and it calls on the Council and the Commission to pledge to ensure that the Authorities operate independently and have the personnel and the resources they need. This applies no matter who is appointed. The candidates for the posts of chairpersons of the ESAs have, in fact, proven to be competent and professional, and I am sure that they will be able to carry out the role in an impartial and more than satisfactory manner. I think it is crucial to support the candidates and to ensure that these Authorities are in a position to start work as soon as possible, since there are many problems to resolve and they require immediate action. It was this requirement which prompted us to create the Authorities and which we shall have to remember tomorrow during the vote.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":2,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"2. Azerbaijan (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Azerbaijan.\nMarie-Christine Vergiat\nMr President, this is another occasion when we find ourselves looking into the situation in Azerbaijan. The democratic situation in that country is dramatic enough. However, this is a country that is a not insignificant partner within the European Union's Eastern Partnership.\nOpposition parties and non-governmental organisations continue to denounce attacks on human rights and the political repression which is rife there, not to mention the corruption of the regime in power. The values of democracy and human rights form an integral part of the values of the European Union, in theory.\nShould we not draw lessons from what is happening in what are called the Arab countries and not demand of our Eastern partners what we did not demand of some governments, notably those of Tunisia, Libya or Egypt? Should we not, Mr Andor, see to it that democracy can finally rule in those countries, that we have minimum requirements in the matter?\nFor my part, I find that the resolution we have before us is, at best, a resolution with as low a profile as it is possible to have. For this reason, we have dissociated ourselves from it and we shall make do with abstaining on the vote.\nCharles Tannock\nauthor. - Mr President, Azerbaijan is, regrettably, a one-party, semi-authoritarian state where political opposition to the dynastic rule of the Aliyev family is barely tolerated.\nLast December's elections predictably delivered an overwhelming majority for Heydar Aliyev's New Azerbaijan Party. In response, the OSCE stated that the conduct of these elections overall was not sufficient to constitute meaningful progress in the democratic development of that country. The OSCE's report went on to say that freedom of expression was limited and that normal political discourse was almost impossible, partly because of tight constraints on the media.\nNow we are hearing new reports about the targeting of opposition parties and journalists. This is nothing new, but it is good from time to time in this House to remind ourselves of the true nature of the Aliyev regime. After all, this is a country which, like all EU countries, enjoys membership of the Council of Europe and is part of our eastern EU partnership.\nSupposedly, Azerbaijan is committed to democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The truth is quite different. Azerbaijan spends countless petro-dollars trying to convince outsiders of the benign nature of the regime but I, for one, am not fully taken in.\nCristian Dan Preda\nMr President, I will begin with some encouraging news. I am referring specifically to the release of the two bloggers, Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli, whom we have discussed in this Chamber. Otherwise, however, the situation is more than worrying in Azerbaijan. We are hearing about the harassment of journalists and the intimidation of human rights activists, who are facing criminal charges. In addition, there were 200 arrests made in the wake of the recent protests in Baku in March and April. All these incidents raise serious question marks with us, especially as we must not forget that Azerbaijan has signed up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.\nThe Azeri authorities have seemingly failed to understand that dialogue needs to be established between them and civil society, and not pressure being exerted by the authorities on society. Nevertheless, I hope that ultimately, we can establish cooperation within the Eastern Partnership and in the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly.\nMarietje Schaake\nauthor. - Mr President, while we welcome the release from prison of Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli, the good news about Azerbaijan ends about there. The European Parliament is very concerned about the massive crackdown on freedom of expression and assembly carried out in Azerbaijan following the peaceful protest against the government in March and April of this year. Young people, civil society activists, media professionals and opposition politicians are being harassed and intimidated. Some demonstrators have been sentenced in mass trials which took place late at night and while people did not have access to a lawyer. Most of these lawyers, in turn, were not informed of the locations where the trials were being held. The Human Rights House of Azerbaijan has been closed down by order of the Ministry of Justice.\nThis climate of fear and intimidation and the breaches of human rights must end. The Azerbaijani Government is losing its credibility by breaching conventions it has itself signed up to, such as the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights. We want President Aliyev to keep his word. Europe also loses credibility if we do not act upon these breaches. They should have real consequences for the relations between the EU and Azerbaijan.\nUlrike Lunacek\nMr President, a few days ago, we celebrated the grand opening of Euronest at the European Parliament in Brussels. Azerbaijan is a founding member of that assembly and as such, has committed itself to democracy, human rights, the rule of law and freedom of assembly and the media. This is also a fundamental element of the negotiations on an association agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan that have been taking place since July 2010.\nIn light of this, it is really quite staggering how the Azerbaijani Government has behaved towards peacefully demonstrating people over the last two months. Here we have young people - who organised themselves via social networks like Facebook - arrested and sentenced to up to two and a half years imprisonment because they peacefully demonstrated under the slogan 'drug abuse'. Others are threatened with a similar fate. At least 30 people, who likewise protested peacefully, have been sentenced to five to eight days of imprisonment without being able to contact their legal representatives in a cloak and dagger operation that excludes the public.\nLadies and gentlemen, Commissioner, that is unacceptable! In a joint resolution of the five largest groups in Parliament, we are calling for all these people to be released immediately and for the rule of law, freedom of expression and of the media to actually be ensured so that, as President Aliyev assured us years ago - in 2005 - 'No journalist is persecuted in Azerbaijan'. He must finally keep these promises.\nI really hope that, by the time of the inter-parliamentary assembly scheduled for June, we will succeed in having all these people released, including newspaper editor Eynulla Fatullayev, and that the government and the governing parties finally keep to their promises. Otherwise, there must be consequences.\nEduard Kukan\nMr President, the democracy and human rights situation in Azerbaijan is raising legitimate concerns. These include freedom of expression, media freedom, freedom of association and many other areas. We are monitoring incidents involving arrests and political pressure on democratic activists, journalists and the political opposition. Azerbaijan and other countries in the region need to get a clear signal that violations of human and civil rights cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. If they want to be partner countries of the EU, they must respect its values.\nThe debate on violations of human rights and democratic standards should therefore cover the entire region of the South Caucasus. In this context, I would also like to draw attention to the re-escalation of tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. This situation now represents a security risk for the entire region. It is therefore important for this reason as well to adopt the resolution now. The Union should take a more active and more responsible approach, not only in Azerbaijan, but also in the whole region. We should learn from the experience of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, and prevent a repeat of similar tragedies.\nKristian Vigenin\non behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, it is true that the situation in Azerbaijan is difficult, and we have reasons for concern. Here, I would specially mention the case of Mr Hajiyev. I think the authorities should understand that peaceful demonstrations are a natural part of political life in any democratic country and that the pluralism of opinions and political beliefs is a fundamental part of a democratic society.\nOn the other hand, I must say that it is rather unfortunate that we have put the urgent issues of Azerbaijan and Belarus one after the other - one week after Azerbaijan became - and was welcomed as - a founder of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly together with us, the European Parliament. We need engagement both with the authorities and with civil society, and we have to do more, in addition to adopting urgent measures and resolutions.\nThe Eastern Partnership and the Euronest Assembly are a good platform for such an engagement, and I feel that there is a new wind coming from Azerbaijan, a renewed wish for political dialogue. The PCC, which is going in June to Azerbaijan, should use this opportunity to raise the human rights issue but also to establish a more consistent dialogue with the country.\nGraham Watson\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I venture to suggest that were Azerbaijan known as Azeria, as with Georgia and Armenia, European citizens' concern for democratic standards there would be higher.\nHowever, my group cannot share Mr Vigenin's view. The media in Azerbaijan is not free. Its elections are not fair. Its people are subject to arbitrary and sometimes violent treatment by officials. Peaceful demonstrations in recent weeks have met with repression more common to an Arab than to a European country, from an 18-year-old regime which has slowly stifled hope of progress. This country's continued participation in the European Neighbourhood Policy must be made conditional on democratic reforms rather than on its willingness to supply oil for the Nabucco pipeline.\nHeidi Hautala\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law are an integral part of the new association agreement which is currently being negotiated between Azerbaijan and the European Union.\nWithout respect for these principles, it is impossible to see how Azerbaijan can have a common future with its European partners. Let me also join those colleagues who point out that we need to be very clear and objective when we talk to our partners in the Eastern Partnership countries. We should not believe that we can get away with simply bashing Belarus, because there are severe problems in Azerbaijan and in several other Eastern Partnership countries, and I hope that the forthcoming study commissioned by the Subcommittee on Human Rights will give some guidance on how we should talk to these countries about their human rights situation.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\nMr President, Azerbaijan is one of the special partners of the EU and a founding member of the Euronest grouping, and therefore benefits considerably from privileged relations with the EU.\nAs a country with such an exceptional status, however, it has promised, in the signing of mutual agreements as a partner of the EU, to uphold the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which are fundamental preconditions for such cooperation. The unjustified arrests of journalists, representatives of youth organisations and civil activists, the banning of peaceful protests and the use of physical force against protestors are therefore unacceptable.\nI expect that the High Representative and Vice President of the Commission, Baroness Ashton, as well as the Commission itself, will convey and represent to the Azerbaijani Government our disquiet over the suppression of democracy in the country, and demand immediate corrective action. By adopting the drafted resolution, we will give both the Commission and the High Representative the necessary mandate for this.\nSari Essayah\n(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, it is somehow grotesque that our Euronest partners, Azerbaijan and Belarus, are both being discussed in succession here as urgent human rights cases. Surely the partnership ought to require a respect for European values.\nAccording to the human rights organisation, Amnesty International, the Azerbaijani authorities are trying to stifle critical voices with a view to preventing wider protests, the like of which have been seen in the Arab world in recent months. In the past few weeks, the Azerbaijani police have broken up several demonstrations in the country and have also arrested representatives of the opposition on trumpedup charges, frequently, the possession of drugs.\nThe Savalan case and the cases of demonstrators arrested recently show how basic rights in Azerbaijan remain weak and how far the authorities are prepared to silence dissidents.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, the situation in Azerbaijan is very disappointing. Here is a country that has not really moved forward in terms of political rights since the break-up of the Soviet Union. There are just too many examples of lack of freedom - freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are fundamental to any properly functioning democracy - as well as evidence of the torture of prisoners, court cases where illegally acquired evidence is always admitted, and so on.\nBecause we have a close relationship with this country, we certainly have to engage in dialogue, but my position is closer to Mr Watson's thinking: that we need to take a tough hand as well, because if you go 'softly, softly' on a continuous basis, you will get nowhere. So I would hope, yes, for dialogue and, yes, for engagement, but we have to up the ante in terms of making demands for freedom: freedom of expression, freedom of speech and, above all, freedom of the press.\nMitro Repo\n(FI) Mr President, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are universal fundamental rights and the cornerstones of a democratic society. It is sad that harassment, intimidation and arrests are used as a means of suppressing the diversity of civil society.\nAzerbaijan is party to the European Convention on Human Rights and a member of the Council of Europe, and it has a responsibility to safeguard its citizens' human rights and respect them. Bloggers, journalists and civil society activists are denied freedom of speech in Azerbaijan and peaceful protests are prevented. Young people are prevented from using new communications technology and social media, and are even punished if they do use them.\nThis is ironical, because the state would definitely benefit from an active and diverse civil society. Azerbaijan should be supported in its democratic and human rights development within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership.\nVytautas Landsbergis\nMr President, the resolution on Azerbaijan expresses our concern about eventual North African echoes in this, a European partnership country.\nThe leadership there should avoid, in its approaches to the opposition and peaceful protestors, any similarity with the regimes in North Africa, Russia or Belarus. That suggestion and warning can be read in the document before us, certain points of which could express that criticism with more clarity.\nThe wording on the worsening human rights situation and the increased number of incidents should be preceded by the word 'recently', as this is not about general developments over the years going from bad to worse. On the contrary, until the spring events, Azerbaijan was making relatively good progress and was not listed by Human Rights Watch among such poorly-viewed states as China, Iraq, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan. As it was not mentioned, Azerbaijan looked better, but now we need a little more balance.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103\n(RO) Mr President, not only as an active partner of the European Union within the European Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership, but also as a founding member of Euronest, Azerbaijan must fulfil the commitments it has made to the European Union. This includes having respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as for the basic freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international treaties to which Azerbaijan is party. A country aspiring to become a globally recognised democracy cannot operate without allowing its citizens to demonstrate peacefully, especially young people. It is not normal either to ban them from taking their exams just because they hold different political opinions to those of the country's current leaders.\nWe European partners would like to see in Azerbaijan an ongoing dialogue with civil society, a press which enjoys freedom of expression and can report without any political pressure so as to provide the public with correct information, as well as free, uncensored access to the Internet to facilitate communication between Azerbaijan and Europe.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\n(LT) Mr President, there are two faces to modern Azerbaijan. On the one hand, Azerbaijan demonstrates impressive economic growth, which highlights the huge amount of oil, progress in negotiations with the European Union on an association agreement and participation in the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly. On the other hand, there are arrests, press restrictions, in other words, a situation that is dangerously reminiscent of the one in Belarus, which my fellow Members spoke about. I believe that the authorities in Baku must resolve to listen to public opinion, because sitting on the fence is not an option, and the European Union, with all its instruments, should help it choose the right direction.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 Andor\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, developments in Azerbaijan regarding democracy and human rights continue to be a matter of serious concern to all of us. Over the last few years, we have noted a worrying trend of increasing restrictions in this domain. Parliamentary elections held on 7 November 2010 were not sufficient to constitute meaningful progress in the democratic development of that country.\nThere are other areas where we believe that Azerbaijan needs to improve its record of meeting fully its Council of Europe and OSCE commitments. First of all, media freedom: overall, there is a lack of media pluralism. There are also reports of harassment of, and violence against, journalists, as well as questionable judicial proceedings against media representatives. Individual cases in this field remain a concern.\nFreedom of assembly is another area where I am deeply worried. The recent months have witnessed several severe actions taken by the authorities vis-\u00e0-vis organised protests, as well as attempts to organise protests inspired by the Arab Spring revolutions. The detention of activists and other repressive measures against protesters are deeply deplorable.\nThe European Union has a responsibility to convey clear messages on the importance of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law. Such messages were passed on by President Barroso himself during his visit to Baku in January, and will be high on our agenda for future visits.\nHuman rights and democracy are cornerstones in our cooperation with Azerbaijan under the existing partnership and cooperation agreement. Last year, we established a new Subcommittee on Justice, Freedom, Security and Human Rights and Democracy. Democracy and human rights are also a central theme in our negotiations on a new association agreement.\nI welcome the willingness of Azerbaijan to discuss these methods. I also welcome the role the European Parliament plays in advocating democratic values to the partners in Azerbaijan, including through its work in the EU-Azerbaijan Cooperation Committee.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place shortly.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nMonica Luisa Macovei\nAnyone in Azerbaijan criticising the government is silenced. The European Parliament resolution and reports from human rights organisations highlight serious human rights violations. One such violation which I have drawn the Council's attention to in a written question concerns the journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, who is still being held in detention, even though a decision was issued by the European Court of Human Rights for him to be released. I pointed this out then and I now urge the removal from the Criminal Code of the provisions concerning defamation, slander and insult (Art. 147-148). A recent report about Azerbaijan from Transparency International indicates that the government is not taking measures to combat corruption and that the independence of the judiciary is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the authorities responded to the recent protests which took place on 11 March and 2 April with arrests and harassment. Democracy is based on people's freely expressed desire. I call on the Council and Commission to urge the authorities in Azerbaijan to respect human rights, especially those relating to the freedom of expression and peaceful demonstration, as well as to take concrete measures to combat corruption and reform the justice system. The European Union must support all those who risk their lives and freedom in this country for the values which we share.\nFiorello Provera\nAzerbaijan actively participates in the European Neighbourhood Policy, is one of the EU's six Eastern partners, and is among the founders of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly. The core values of these three initiatives are respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These initiatives are intended to foster a continuous political dialogue that can deepen ties between member countries and enable Europe to accompany them along the path to reform. We believe that the instrument of the emergency resolution may be inadequate or even counterproductive to the achievement of the desired goal, namely, Azerbaijan steadily progressing towards its objectives of full and modern democracy. The institutions set up under the agreements reached at interparliamentary and intergovernmental level are intended to achieve these ends; these are the right place to demand explanations for possible infringements of rights and effectively encourage good behaviour and democratic reforms.\nTadeusz Zwiefka\nOnce again, we are calling attention to the question of free speech and freedom of the press and to the general policy of treating journalists in Azerbaijan. Reports from a variety of sources indicate that the situation of journalists and every kind of political activist in Azerbaijan is becoming increasingly difficult. As far back as 2005, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, pledged that all the rights of journalists would be respected and that they would be able to count on help in the event of any kind of danger. The facts reveal, however, that those words are just an empty promise.\nAs someone who, for many years, worked as a journalist and has a thorough knowledge of the job, this matter is of particular importance to me. In Azerbaijan, journalists are constantly hindered from fulfilling their basic role - the reliable and credible provision of information. It is unacceptable that journalists are carrying out their work under the threat of arrests and body searches. The Azerbaijani authorities have to realise that the activity of free and independent media is a clear signal to the international community that a country is a credible partner on the world stage.\nThe message given by the European Parliament should be clear - the benefits of economic cooperation with the European Union must not obscure expectations regarding the need to move towards European standards of respect for fundamental human rights, in particular, free speech and freedom of the press, which are a pillar of democracy and without which it is impossible for a modern democratic society to exist.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Welcome\nPresident\nI should like to welcome a delegation from the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, led by Mr Carlos Alberto Ler\u00e9ia, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and National Defence, who have taken their seats in the gallery.\n(Applause)\n(Banners were displayed in the gallery)\nElmar Brok\nMr President, is it possible to find out whether Members of this House were responsible for the incident upstairs there?\nPresident\nI think that if anyone has any information which might help the European Parliament to establish who was responsible for their entry, that is a very useful suggestion. Perhaps you would like to communicate with the President's Office.\nI am going to continue.\nThey are attending the first European Parliament-Brazil interparliamentary meeting, which is a faithful reflection of the regular structured dialogue between Members of the European Parliament and the Brazilian National Congress, as foreseen in the joint action plan of the EU-Brazil strategic partnership. It will also provide a parliamentary forum for debating the state of play and prospects for the negotiations of the EU-Mercosur association agreement, with a view to guaranteeing the balanced and far-reaching nature of such an agreement.\nYou are very welcome.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Relations between EU and Switzerland (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Commission statement on relations between the European Union and Switzerland.\nJoaqu\u00edn Almunia\nMember of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, I am going to read the Commission statement on relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and although you and I speak the same language, I shall do so in English.\nMr President, the Commission is pleased that this item has been put on the agenda because it is now more than two years since we last discussed Switzerland. It was in 2004, on the occasion of the conclusion of the 10 new bilateral agreements. Let me start, therefore, with a general remark.\nThe bilateral and multilateral relations that link the EU and Switzerland are very good. Switzerland is a highly valued partner for the EU in many areas. Our bilateral relations are based on a solid foundation of around 20 important and over 100 smaller sector-specific agreements. These agreements range from free trade in goods and the free movement of persons to Swiss participation in our research and Schengen cooperation. Any existing differences should not have an inordinate impact on our relations.\nIn February, the Commission adopted a state aid decision on Swiss cantonal tax favours for certain types of companies, in particular holding companies. This decision has received much media attention in Switzerland and has been dramatised, by some, into a major conflict.\nLegally, the Commission has no doubts that the cantonal tax schemes qualify as subsidies, because these tax regimes offer unfair tax advantages to companies established in Switzerland for profits generated in the European Union. Income generated in Switzerland is taxed higher than profits made in the EU. This unequal treatment is at the heart of the state aid problem. The rules in question are liable to distort competition and may affect trade between Switzerland and the EU. All criteria of Article 23 of the agreement of 1972, the provision which declares such state aid incompatible with the proper functioning of the agreement, are therefore fulfilled.\nPolitically, too, it seems hard to accept that a neighbouring country that enjoys privileged access to our internal market and takes part in a large number of our programmes and other activities should grant such tax favours. The benefiting companies are often set up with the sole aim of avoiding the taxation of profits in our Member States. I would like to point out that tax schemes of this kind or similar are not allowed inside the EU, pursuant to the state aid rules set out in the EC Treaty. In the past, the Commission has adopted decisions against them. We are not against tax competition, which also takes place among the Member States, but it must be fair.\nThe Commission wants to find a mutually acceptable solution. Therefore, we also asked the Council in February for a mandate to start negotiations with Switzerland on this topic. Member States support the Commission in this respect, and such a mandate is currently being prepared in the Council. I am also counting very much on Parliament's support in this matter. We proceed from the belief that we will find a solution for this problem, just as we have always found solutions for problems in our relations with Switzerland in the past.\nOn a different matter of importance, I would like to express the Commission's expectation that Switzerland will, hopefully, soon be ready to negotiate the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons. If Switzerland were to exclude the citizens of two Member States from this very important agreement, it would be unacceptable for legal, institutional and political reasons.\nBulgaria and Romania should also receive a financial contribution from Switzerland for the reduction of economic and social disparities, on the same terms as the other 10 new Member States.\nIn view of the Swiss position on EU accession and the European Economic Area, there is currently no alternative to further strengthening of bilateral relations. With that in mind, the Commission is prepared to look into the Swiss proposal for the negotiation of a general framework agreement, provided that it brings an added value to our relations, for instance with regard to the updating of existing agreements in line with the evolving Community acquis.\nAndreas Schwab\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the statements made today by Commissioner Almunia. I believe that these statements also largely meet with the consent of my group. The relationship between the European Union and Switzerland has been a special one since time immemorial. Commissioner Almunia touched on the various agreements.\nIn this respect, our partnership with Switzerland is characterised by particularly close cooperation but which has not, as yet, ended up with Switzerland becoming a member of the European Union. Nevertheless, Switzerland is an extremely important trading partner as well as being a friend and neighbour. I find this particularly congenial since my electoral district directly borders Switzerland. I would therefore like to appeal to all sides not to jeopardise these good neighbourly relations by means of stubbornness or excessive demands placed on one side or the other.\nThe tax dispute has already been touched on. The topic of Switzerland would certainly also be cause for a comprehensive discussion here in Parliament. Today, however, as has been described by Commissioner Almunia, we are obviously concerned with the subject of fiscal practices. On this theme, I would like to say that, unlike our colleagues from Great Britain, for instance, and representations to the contrary coming out of Switzerland, we are of the opinion that this issue does not involve intervention in a country's right to levy taxes, but is more an issue of whether enterprises which belong to the European single market, and which may enjoy the advantages afforded by this single market, are receiving unjustified subsidies. We are talking about the principle of equal treatment and the abolition of hidden subsidies. In this respect, the approach adopted by the Commission, that the Swiss have to apply some finishing touches here, is the correct one, even if it may have been more prudent to begin with negotiations instead of a procedure. The statement that it is a matter for the canton is neither applicable nor effective in my opinion because what we are talking about are hidden subsidies which must be abolished.\nFor its part, the EU must clarify the fact that while it naturally respects Switzerland's sovereignty on tax matters, the EU's basic principles, which Swiss enterprises also benefit from, must apply to all enterprises within the internal market.\nFinally, I would like to point out that we must find a solution to this problem in the interests of European enterprises, as well as its citizens, to which both parties have contributed. That is why I am calling on both the Commission and our Swiss neighbours.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\nMr President, Commissioner, I welcome your statement, because you have taken note of what we have been saying for some time now, namely that the practice that is being developed in certain Swiss cantons - without mentioning the main ones of Zug, Vaud and Schwyz - constitutes a violation of the 1972 agreement on forms of State aid that contradict the rules of fair competition and that affect the nature of trade between the European Union and Switzerland. The fact is that Switzerland, as a friend of the European Union, benefits from the same conditions of access to the EU internal market as any Member State. You cannot have your cake and eat it, meaning, in this case, that you cannot have both the internal market and exceptions for certain Swiss cantons.\nIt is not a question here of referring to this or that media figure among natural persons, but indeed of referring to substantial sums that are at stake due to the practices being developed by certain legal persons. Therefore, once a problem has been identified between friends, it should be dealt with. This is what you are proposing to do. You will have my group's full support in this matter, and I am delighted that other groups in this House share this approach.\nAs far as Switzerland is concerned, we are told that Swiss internal affairs are being interfered with. However, in an international trade environment, freedom is not unilateral. Account must be taken of others' circumstances, and the freedom of one party stops where that of the other begins. I believe that, when it comes to our excellent relations with Switzerland - and President Barroso reiterated this when he was in Bern the other day - this is how we must act.\nAt times, Switzerland has been able to divide and rule among Europeans, and everyone will recall the circumstances in which, after the Feira conclusions had come out and we wanted to adopt the Directive on the taxation of savings within the Union, some people used Switzerland to divide us. I am delighted that the conditions for negotiating the mandate granted to the Commission will clearly enable the Member States to speak with one voice, while showing respect for Swiss sovereignty. That is a very good sign, in my view.\nTo conclude, I should like simply to make an obvious point: when one considers the logic of the Swiss taxation system, the idea that a taxation system should take account of external costs is absolutely integral to the Swiss thinking on taxation. To put it plainly, certain Swiss practices confirm the fact that, from the moment that production does not take place on Swiss soil, the cost of infrastructure or of employing qualified workers does not have to be incorporated in the taxation system. We must - at the very least in terms of trade with the European Union - highlight the following situation: as the taxation system developed in certain Swiss cantons currently stands in relation to that of the EU Member States, we are losing revenue, since these production activities are being developed on our territory and the tax on the capital gains generated in this way is being channelled into Switzerland to avoid the need to provide any funding for these external costs. I wish you luck in the negotiations.\nDiana Wallis\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner for his statement.\nHere in Parliament we have long wanted to discuss the whole of our relationship with Switzerland and to celebrate Swiss success in three successive referendums on EU issues - referendums that would scarcely have passed in many of our Member States. Although Switzerland is not a Member State, Swiss people are informed Europeans.\nWe wanted to discuss the interesting government report on European policy last autumn to recognise that, yes, the Swiss wish at present to pursue their own national interests outside membership, but also perhaps to counter some misconceptions about what might be on offer here. In my view it amounts, as the Commissioner has said, to building on the bilaterals and perhaps a framework agreement that simplifies the administrative load on both sides. However, what some of us would call 'membership-light' is not on offer, and that is where the current difficulties over cantonal tax might stem from.\nEither you are a member of the European Union or you are not. Switzerland is not, and both sides do well to recall that. Switzerland does not enjoy the benefits of membership, nor is that country subject to all of the obligations. That is the difficulty of such an atypical, variable geometry: it will forever throw up problems and sources of irritation. However, those problems should be solved with goodwill.\nLet us take the tax issue head on. If what the Commission really wants from Switzerland - which I suspect to be the case - is to extend the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation, then let us talk about that. Even between Member States it is a voluntary code. I have no doubt that there are offshore taxation arrangements in a Member State I know only too well that would not bear close scrutiny, yet I do not see such activity from the Commission in that direction.\nWe need a discussion as benefits the relationship between the EU and our nearest geographic neighbour in the heart of Europe, a country providing our second largest export market and an inspiration to us and many in terms of its democratic structures and internationalism. Instead, we tell the Swiss that their cantonal tax systems are 'predatory'. That is a strong and unpleasant word. If they are indeed predatory, I would expect to see a line of obvious cases of actual harm to Community trade: practical examples that could be cited and demonstrated as having this predatory effect. I have seen none mentioned. Indeed, the Commission relies instead on an argument that it does not have to demonstrate but merely show that the structures could have this effect. However, there are no actual examples and I wonder whether that is because, under examination, they would not stand up against the strained argument that is put forward - an argument against a non-member state, based on an old free trade agreement, designed primarily to deal with the trade in goods.\nLet us look at it in another way. Perhaps my voters in Yorkshire might wonder why I spend so much time on Switzerland. However, if my northerly region of England had enjoyed over the years the level of fiscal autonomy vis-\u00e0-vis London that Swiss cantons have in their country, maybe we would not have been such a drain on EU Structural Funds.\nSwitzerland contributes financially to our enlargement process with popular consent. This is a deep and complicated relationship, one that over the years I have found exasperating and frustrating, but never, ever dull! We are often told to be nice to the Swiss before a referendum. We are asked continuously what we will do if they vote 'no'. The answer is that the choice is always that of the Swiss people, but if they wish to work with us, we have to work with them in a respectful and proper way. The best I would like to see is that one day there are Swiss ministers in the Council, a Swiss Commissioner and Swiss colleagues here with us to debate these issues, not us doing so at second remove.\nMario Borghezio\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on relations between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation provides us with an interesting and timely opportunity to reflect briefly on what we can learn from the ancient democracy of the small, yet historically important federal republic of Switzerland.\nIf the Swiss federal tax system were well known to the taxpayers of the EU Member States, it would be a model to be imitated - as indeed it is - especially with a view to protecting economic freedom.\nI would remind the Member States' taxpayers that Swiss legislation is based on important principles, such as the principle of legal equality, the principle of economic freedom and, above all, the principle of the guarantee to property.\nThe principle of legal equality imposes the duty to tax according to economic capacity. Thanks to constitutional provisions, the principle of economic freedom forbids the collection of certain taxes on trade that would be prohibitive in the context of trade policy. Lastly, the important principle of the guarantee to property, enshrined in Article 26 of the Federal Constitution, forbids the imposition of tax when it takes the form of expropriation; thus the guarantee to property constitutes a limit to taxation.\nThat is what needs to be learnt by those Member States which, like Italy, still oppress taxpayers with their tax legislation and tax burden, which in Italy exceeds 40%. From this great historical experience, we need to learn the principles of economic freedom contained in the Swiss Constitution. Those of us from Padania have the good fortune to be the next-door neighbours of those free people of Switzerland.\nLastly, let us also think about the principle of freedom of belief, on the basis of which people are not obliged to contribute taxes to pay for the costs of religion if they do not belong to that religion, and also the fundamental right to express one's wishes directly through the referendum on taxes. It is time to do away with the Member States' fiscal dictatorship over taxpayers! Let the people have their say on taxes!\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\non behalf of the ITS Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when Swiss citizens rejected entry to the European Economic Area back in 1992, no one would have been able to imagine today's emerging developments. On the one hand, both the EU and Switzerland are benefiting from cooperation and bilateral agreements, for instance, in connection with security and asylum. On the other, we have relentless negotiations, demands and even blackmailing, for example, in connection with the extended freedom of movement of persons and the taxation of savings income, or currently in connection with company taxation as regards which, it is the intention to use derogations relating to rail transit, which are so important as far as Switzerland is concerned, as a means of exerting pressure.\nWhen Switzerland tightened its Asylum Act many years ago, the European Union did not hold back with its criticism. This was designed to clamp down on the 75% of applications for asylum which were incorrectly submitted every year, which is actually what happened. This about-turn by Switzerland, which has traditionally been so welcoming to visitors, forced those persons within our Union who dream of multiculturalism to reconsider, and the Union actually had to make an example of this Swiss Asylum Act.\nNow is the time for us to seek solutions together to common problems which we face in the tax sector, as well as with regard to migration and integration. Above all, we should use Switzerland as an example in terms of direct democracy, for only if EU citizens are once again under the impression that their intentions are being taken seriously, that they can have their say in matters, might we then be able to extricate ourselves from the crisis currently facing the EU.\nThe disputes surrounding the EU Constitution and additional EU enlargement offer adequate opportunity to use Switzerland as an example.\nJames Nicholson\nMr President, the European Union has many bilateral agreements with Switzerland. These have seen the prospering of both the Swiss and Member States of the European Union. The bilateral agreements should be recognised by all representatives of a joint and shared desire for prosperity. There are further indicators that show the things we share and the direction we are heading: amongst other things, Switzerland is the second-largest trading partner of the European Union after the United States. 900 000 EU citizens live and work in Switzerland, while many more travel between these borders on a regular basis. However, the present disagreement between the Commission and the Swiss Government is disconcerting and should be addressed swiftly.\nI realise that the issue of double taxation which the EU and Switzerland are facing is no small one, but I would not like to see threats made in the preliminary rounds of negotiations, or in later rounds for that matter. The issue of double taxation does not offer an easy way to investment, jobs and revenue for the Swiss cantons that allow the double standards. The Council and Commission and Parliament should do its utmost to protect the interests of the Member States.\nI wish you well in your negotiations and look forward to a positive outcome.\nAloyzas Sakalas\n(LT) First of all, I would like to thank Commissioner Almunia for the information he has presented about relations between the European Union and Switzerland.\nHowever, I would like to hear what Mr Almunia has to say about the ultimate political goal of these relations. In other words, is the development of closer relations between the European Union and Switzerland undertaken with an eye to membership of Switzerland in the European Union at a future date; if so, when can we expect this, and what must Switzerland and the European Union do before then? If the development of closer relations is not aimed at Switzerland's membership, but is aimed instead at a privileged partnership for Switzerland with the European Union, then what should be the principles of such a partnership?\nI do not think that bilateral agreements definitively solve the problem of Switzerland's political future; therefore, I would like to hear from Mr Almunia something similar to a road map, from which one would be able to see the direction of the Commission's work in developing the European Union's relations with Switzerland. From the material presented it is hard for me to say whether the Commission has such a road map, or whether temporary agreements are a substitute for it.\nMy proposal would be as follows: it is necessary to produce a road map of the development of relations between the European Union and Switzerland, the ultimate goal of which would be either Switzerland's membership in the EU, or its privileged partnership in terms of the yet-to-be approved Constitutional agreement. In order to choose either solution, it is essential to know the Swiss people's own opinion about the prospects for their country.\nUntil we solve this political problem, we will continue to make various agreements, and both parties to the negotiations will try to demand more favourable conditions for themselves at the expense of the other party.\nAs I study the existing and planned agreements, I have serious doubts as to whether we might just be making greater demands on Switzerland, which is still not a member of the European Union, than on the European Union Member States themselves. In my opinion, the opposite should be the case.\nI hope that Commissioner Almunia might disperse my stated doubts by responding to the issues I have raised.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski\n(PL) Mr President, Switzerland is viewed as a historic example of European integration by many people. We need only to think of Jean Jacques Rousseau or Johannes von M\u00fcller. However, it seems to remain an island, a Sonderfall, beyond the united Europe which surrounds it on all sides.\nLet us remember that, in a referendum held in 1992, 50.3% of Swiss citizens themselves voted against their country joining the European Economic Area. I do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of the Confederation in any way. In highlighting the good cooperation between Switzerland and the European Union in almost all areas, I hope that the right solution can also quickly be found in terms of taxation. This is extremely important in order to achieve transparency in terms of our cooperation.\nOn behalf of the new Member States, including my own country, I would specifically like to welcome the outcome of the referendum held on 26 November 2006, which accepted the establishment of a Swiss Financial Instrument to the tune of one billion francs. For their part, these countries have flung open their doors to Swiss capital investments. In Poland, for example, imports from Switzerland rose by 20% during this period, while exports increased by only 5% less. I am sure that Swiss funds will be used sensibly for innovative purposes, including scientific research, providing support for small and medium-sized companies, as well as protecting the environment and fostering regional development.\nFinally, I would like to add that Switzerland has a particularly positive image in the European Union. According to my data, around 72% of Europeans would be happy to welcome the Swiss Confederation into our common European home. Perhaps it would be wise to make the most of this positive attitude.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, why are the Swiss doing so much better than us? Why is the Helvetic Confederation richer, more content, more orderly and better administered than the European Union? Allow me to suggest a reason. Switzerland is founded on what one might call the 'Jeffersonian principle': the notion that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect. The European Union, by contrast, is founded on the converse principle. The very first line of the very first article of the Treaty of Rome commits us to an ever-closer union. Whereas power in Switzerland is dispersed, power in the EU is concentrated, and from that one structural flaw come most of our present discontents: the unintended consequences of our directives and regulations, the inflexibility of our policies, the sense that the government has become remote from the governed, the determination of our national electorates to vote 'no' to Brussels at every opportunity.\nWhy then do we keep bullying and hectoring the Swiss over their refusal to join us? Why do we attack their success in keeping their cantonal taxes down? Why do we encourage that minority of Swiss legislators who see EU membership precisely as a way of sidestepping their voters and escaping their system of direct democracy? Is it that we envy our neighbours their success or is it that we fear that our own citizens will be encouraged by their example to demand independence for their own states?\nLet me propose an alternative approach. Instead of seeking to drag Switzerland into our Union, why do our Member States not instead apply to become cantons of their confederation? They are, after all, getting something right, these Switzers!\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, there are many referenda in Switzerland and this is one of the reasons why I would not want to be a canton in even such a pleasant country. Switzerland is a wealthy country, which does not have to be a member of the Union and, at the moment, does not wish to join the Union. At the same time, it is a good, strategic partner for the European Union. When one has such a partner, Commissioner, one negotiates and discusses, rather than initiating proceedings. I agree here with my colleague from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. As a Polish MEP, the case of Switzerland reminds me of the unfortunate and, until now, unsuccessful attempts of certain German and French politicians, such as Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, to unify taxation in the European Union, which would de facto lead to an increase in tax in my country. There will be no consent to this move. I am therefore not surprised that the Swiss now complain about Brussels interfering in the internal affairs of their country. This whole matter shows that the Union should take a look at itself. It should reform its own economy in such a way as to make it truly competitive, without resorting to proceedings, penalties and demands addressed to third countries or its own members.\nJoaqu\u00edn Almunia\nMr President, allow me just a few words.\nFirstly, I wish to insist that the Commission considers relations between the EU and Switzerland to be very good. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner had the opportunity to meet the President of the Helvetic Confederation on 3 April. They discussed these very good relations, which do not exclude some legal problems, which can be likened to those which exist among the EU Member States.\nEvery time the Commission considers that the Treaties or Community legal provisions are not fully respected, as guardian of the Treaties, it is obliged to react. This has been the case with the issue under discussion: the tax decisions adopted in some cantons of the Helvetic Confederation. It is not about tax competition. It is about the enforcement of the rules that were adopted in our Agreement with Switzerland of 1972. It is not about tax competition but state aid. The Commission very often opens this kind of procedure on the grounds of failure to enforce state aid rules in the Member States, and it is a very important issue.\nI do not know whether you are aware that over 20 000 letter-box companies have been established in Switzerland with the sole purpose of avoiding taxation in the European Union Member States. We have been discussing this issue with the Swiss authorities since 2005. We have not found a solution other than to open this procedure. We are asking the Council for a mandate to negotiate with the Swiss authorities to reach a solution to this conflict. I hope that, in the coming weeks, the Council will give us this mandate with the backing of a very large majority of the Member States. I hope that during the negotiations, these issues, which constitute sizeable problems for thousands of European companies, will be resolved.\nPresident\nThat concludes this item.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"3. Situation in Belarus (\nBefore the vote on paragraph 2:\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\nMr President, we suggest one important and short addition to paragraph 2: 'is particularly concerned about the health of Mikalay Statkevich, who has been on hunger strike for the last 31 days'.\nJacek Protasiewicz\nMr President, this is a very similar amendment to the one by Justas Paleckis. Since the resolution is not only a political statement by Parliament, but also offers moral support for those who are jailed, we would like to propose the inclusion in our resolution of the names of four former presidential candidates who are still in the custody of the KGB.\nThey are Vladimir Nekliayev, Andrei Sannikov, Nikolai Statkevich and Alexei Mikhalevich, as well as two leaders of the democratic opposition parties, Pavel Severinets, co-chairman of the Belarusian Christian Democrats, and Anatoly Lebedko, the leader of the United Civic Party. We would ask for your support, colleagues, for those six names to be included in paragraph 3.\nVytautas Landsbergis\nMr President, it would be appropriate to keep in mind, or maybe to include in the text, in paragraph 9, the following idea: 'at the same time, the Commission should finance the reprinting and distribution of poetry books by Uladzimir Niakliayeu, which were recently confiscated and thrown into fires by the Belarusian authorities'. If possible, please do not oppose this.\nKristiina Ojuland\nMr President, we would like to move an oral amendment and to add the words 'no later than' after the words 'Eastern Partnership activities' in paragraph 13. We need this amendment because we need fast decisions concerning the relationship with Belarus and especially concerning the decision on the Eastern Partnership and continued Belarusian participation. We would like to ask for your support.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nDavid Sumberg\nMadam President, I am very pleased indeed to be able to make a contribution to this debate very briefly because it is important in the times in which we live, when the Third World is suffering greatly from lack of food, to realise that we in the European Union, although facing an economic crisis, are nevertheless extremely wealthy compared with the Third World. Therefore I am very pleased by the fact that we in Parliament are recognising that we have a moral and political duty to those who are in dire danger. We only have to see the pictures sometimes on our television sets to realise that the matter is extremely urgent.\nSo I congratulate Mr Mitchell on this report. It is a welcome development that is worthy of our support and I am very pleased that I was able to give it mine.\nNirj Deva\nMadam President, like Mr Sumberg, I would like to say why we voted for this report. It was quite a difficult decision because we are paying for the transfer with taxpayers' money.\nBut what we are doing is actually feeding a hundred million people, who would otherwise have died by the end of next year. The World Food Programme is feeding 20 to 25 million people who are at risk from malnutrition and death by the end of 2009 if we do not do this. One billion people are now living on one meal every two days. If we spend this money wisely, we will give them one meal every day.\nTwenty-five million people is half the population of my country, the United Kingdom. I do not wish to stand in this Parliament next year and say that I stood aside and watched half the population of my country dying of starvation because we did not do this. I am very pleased indeed that we have voted to put this emergency facility in place.\nDavid Sumberg\nMadam President, the Garc\u00eda-Margallo report is a report which I can approve because we are all engaged in trying to prevent tax evasion, which is important, and particularly tax evasion in relation to VAT. The black economy, which exists in all our countries, is something which is disadvantageous to the taxpayer and something which we should all be concerned about, because it means that the taxpayer loses out.\nBut I would like to add a rider to that by saying that it is absolutely essential that individual nation states should have the right to determine their own rate of VAT. That is not a matter for the European Union. In Britain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently reduced the VAT rate in an endeavour to combat the recession. I do not think it is a very effective measure and I do not think it will make any difference, but his right to do so for an individual country is important. That is the rider I wish to make in relation to this report.\nDavid Sumberg\nMadam President, I am glad to be able to comment on this. I am concerned about the European Union's involvement in this matter simply because this is a matter for international agreement and one-sided action by the European Union would make really no difference.\nFurthermore, I think the reference in the report to the European security arrangements is unfortunate. The basis of European security is NATO. It always has been and it always will be and that is so because NATO includes our friend and ally, the United States of America. Certain parts of this Parliament are very anti-American. I am not. I remember the debt that this continent owes to the United States for our freedom and our membership of NATO. Our alliance with the United States through NATO is the basis of our defence and security and will be in the years to come.\nMarusya Ivanova Lyubcheva\n(BG) I want to express my own motives for my support for the report, 'Women in the Balkans' prepared by my colleague Mrs Gurmai and to congratulate her for it. This report reflects the real position of women in the Balkans region without differentiating countries, depending on their different status. Here gender policies have been imposed consistently, and gradually stereotypes are being overcome. The report describes the change in the situation through change in legislation, the granting of more rights to women, the growth in governance and the participation of women in politics and management. An important aspect of the report is the assessment on the role of women from the Balkans in the development of democratic processes for maintaining stability in the region and for overcoming all military conflicts.\nAlbert De\u00df\n(DE) Madam President, Mr Kindermann has submitted a constructive resolution for the cormorant problem, for which I have gladly voted. I am pleased that this resolution has received 558 votes. The cormorant was put under protection a long time ago, when there were only a few breeding colonies left in Europe. In the meantime, it has become so prevalent that whole ponds and rivers are being eaten bare. It therefore needs to be included in Annex II of the Birds Directive. The damage it causes is jeopardising the existence of many fish farmers and fishermen. The minimum level required for preservation of the species in the Member States must be examined. Anything over and above this must be regulated. If the Commission does not act, stocks of fish species will be endangered.\nI therefore ask the Commission to take this resolution seriously and to act as quickly as possible.\n\nJean-Pierre Audy\n- (FR) Madam President, with reference to Rule 202a of our Rules of Procedure, during a plenary session we voted in favour of the European anthem being played at formal sittings. I would like to know, Madam President, why the anthem was not played when we welcomed His Holiness the Dalai Lama.\nPresident\nI shall enquire and provide you with an answer, Mr Audy.\n\nWritten explanations of vote\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I congratulate my colleague on this Agreement with the Republic of Korea on co-operation on anti-competitive activities. As Members will be aware, we are currently negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with Korea. It is supported by both government and opposition in Seoul and this House, in endorsing an earlier report by Mr Martin, signalled its agreement in principle. Both sides seem keen to finalise an Agreement before next June's European elections. Today's Agreement can only help that process, even accepting that there are some tricky issues remaining, such as automobiles and rules of origin regarding the Kaesong Industrial Complex.\nGenowefa Grabowska  \nin writing. - (PL) World economies are becoming increasingly interlinked, international trade is growing very rapidly, and direct foreign investment is becoming more frequent. I therefore fully support David Martin's report recommending acceptance of the Cooperation agreement between the EU and South Korea in the matter of anti-competitive activity. The agreement accords with the EU's previous actions in this matter and complements agreements signed as early as at the start of the nineties with the United States (1991), with Canada (1999) and with Japan (2003). The agreement with Korea will contribute to the effective implementation of competition regulations by promoting cooperation between competition protection agencies and reducing the likelihood of conflicts.\nIts provisions include the obligation to provide information about implementation measures carried out by competition protection agencies which could affect the other party's material interests. It is good that the agreement introduces provisions concerning mutual assistance, coordination of implementation actions, exchange of information and guarantee of confidentiality. Korea is the EU's fourth largest non-European trading partner, while the EU is Korea's largest foreign investor. Bearing in mind the growing importance of the partnership between the two countries, the addition of Korea to the other three partners with which the EU has agreements in the range of anti-competitive activity seems fully justified.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The Republic of Korea is the fourth largest non-European trade partner of the EU and the EU is the main foreign investor in the Republic of Korea.\nThis agreement seeks to ensure 'mutual recognition of competition law between the European Community and South Korea' as 'the most efficient way to tackle anticompetitive behaviour', seeking to minimise 'the use of trade defence instruments between the two parties', like those already adopted with the United States (1991), Canada (1999) and Japan (2003).\nHowever, the European Parliament is putting its focus on the consideration that the present agreement should be written 'in the context of the overall framework of existing agreements between the European Community and the Republic of Korea and those currently under negotiation, in particular the negotiations concerning a potential free trade agreement', namely, and as the rapporteur underlines, taking into account 'the problems that have been encountered by other bilateral and interregional trade negotiations'.\nIn other words, the European Parliament is advocating 'increased market access', with catastrophic consequences for industry and jobs in, for example, the naval construction and repair sector in Portugal and its almost total destruction.\nThat is why we are voting against.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I hope my report and the Commission proposal will provide significant benefits to both Korea and the EU. Korea is the fourth largest non-European trading partner, so it is important that we have anti-competitive safeguards.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) The fourth largest economy in Asia is being battered by the international financial crisis. Memories of the Asian currency crisis of 1997 are reawakening. While on the one hand the South Korean Government is more confident today because rapid action was taken, now there is also a crisis in Europe and USA, which makes the situation that bit more serious. Nevertheless the OECD is of the opinion that Korea will recover in the foreseeable future, the weakening Won will encourage exports and the reflationary measures will boost domestic demand.\nEconomic relations between the EU and Korea ought therefore to remain intact, as a result of which it makes perfect sense to set certain ground rules despite the difficult nature of the current situation. All too often only the interests of the investors are protected in economic agreements, therefore the EU must take care that employment regulations and social and environmental standards are also given sufficient consideration. This is not stated clearly enough in the report forming the basis for the vote, for which reason I have withheld my vote.\nRovana Plumb  \nI voted for this report because the Agreement will contribute to the effective application of competition legislation by promoting cooperation between competent authorities and by reducing the likelihood of conflicts breaking out.\nKorea is the EU's fourth largest non-European trading partner and the EU is Korea's largest foreign investor.\nGiven the growing importance of this partnership it seems appropriate that Korea should be added to the three other partners with which the EU has agreements concerning cooperation on anti-competitive action.\nThe agreement provides for notification of action taken by a competition authority to enforce the legislation which could affect important interests of the other party, mutual assistance, including the possibility for one side to ask the other to undertake enforcement action, and coordination of enforcement activities as well as exchange of information. There are also measures concerning confidentiality.\nIn a wider perspective, we need to underline the importance of multilateral trade and competition rules for achieving free and open cross-border markets\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Martin's report on the conclusion of the agreement between Korea and the European Community concerning cooperation on anti-competitive activities. I endorse the reasoning underlying the report and believe that this competition agreement is a more vital instrument than ever in today's climate, where trade, in particular with Asian countries, is increasing in quantity and importance. In view of the differences between the European economic system and that of Europe's trading partners, including Korea, and, in particular, the differences between production costs and between domestic consumer protection regulations in these countries, an agreement between the competition authorities represents a step towards safeguarding our businesses and goods from the dangers they encounter in today's global environment.\nMarian Zlotea  \nI voted for this report because I believe that it is vitally important for us to establish trade links which comply with competition principles not only with Korea, but also with the other countries outside the EU. We need to promote cooperation between competent authorities, thereby avoiding the likelihood of conflicts breaking out.\nAs I have maintained, which was also reiterated in the opinion received from the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and voted on this week, we need to offer Europe's citizens a much more varied range of business opportunities and ensure that all bilateral agreements with third countries respect consumers' rights and the principles of competition.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis\nin writing. - (LT) The multi-year herring stock management plan in the west of Scotland is welcomed.\nI believe that the monitoring of licensed fishing vessels authorised to fish in the area in question should be conducted using electronic logbooks, and that flag Member States transfer catch reports to the Fisheries Monitoring Centre on a daily basis. Vessels licensed to fish in one area should not be allowed to fish in any other area than in the west of Scotland during the same fishing trip.\nIt is important that data are developed to serve as a basis for the scientific assessment of herring stock in the west of Scotland. Therefore, in addition to the existing acoustic surveys which are carried out to determine the adult herring surplus indices, I support the pilot (MIP) network investigation in 2008 and 2009, allowing us to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of this method, and to provide a second, independent herring surplus index in the area west of Scotland; I welcome this initiative. I also agree with the Commission on the fact that the management plan should be revised every four years, taking into account the recommendation of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). However, if any changes are proposed after this review, they need to be discussed with the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council and the European Parliament.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - MEP Stevenson's report on the management of the herring stock on the West coast of Scotland presents a multi-annual plan. This is based on existing North Sea herring agreements currently agreed with Norway, to preserve a sustainable fisheries industry by placing upper and lower limits depending on the total stock size.\nSTECF and ICES have advised that a sustainable fishery can be maintained by managing annual mortality (measure of catches) at 0.25 when the stock size is above 75,000 tonnes and at 0.20 when the stock size falls below 75,000 tonnes, but remains above 50,000 tonnes. According to the Commission's proposal, should the size of the spawning stock fall below 50, 000 tonnes, a complete restriction on herring catches becomes effective, enabling the repopulation and regeneration and maintenance of the stock, ensuring the livelihood and future of the fishing industry which depends on a maintained fish stock.\nIreland is directly involved in this proposal, with Irish territorial waters in the North West area of Donegal falling into the zone in question. In order to preserve the fisheries industry, it is imperative that implementation of this report should begin as soon as possible to minimise disruption for fisheries.\nDumitru Oprea  \nThis report requires particular attention against the backdrop of a global crisis which is demanding responsible and moderate levels of consumption.\nAs a result of the reform to the Common Fisheries Policy in 2002, multi-annual plans were implemented gradually, along with the recovery plans for fisheries resources of interest to the Community.\nAs a matter of fact, the precedent was created by the multi-annual management agreement signed with Norway in 1997 concerning North Sea herring stock, which has produced satisfactory results.\nIf the measures being proposed were applied, they would result in better planning of fisheries and fishing activities. Consequently, there would be several elements for guaranteeing the Fisheries Fund, TACs and special fishing permits.\nOne particularly important aspect is the ecosystem-based approach of this activity, which therefore guarantees that exploitation will be carried out in a responsible manner with regard to all species, many of which are on the verge of disappearing completely. Moreover, this needs to be transformed into an activity which is carried out in sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) On the basis of Mrs Grabowska's report, I have voted in favour of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations within the framework of renewed consultation. I support the rapporteur, who has done everything in her power to make the final text available before the end of the year so that European citizens may benefit from it as soon as possible, and I share her view that the Commission should continue to work on enforcement procedures.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Mrs Grabowska's report proposes simplification of the child support system, across the entire European Union, which is why I support it. In Poland, many women are bringing up children on their own, while often the fathers are living and working in other EU countries, frequently avoiding the payment of child support. Enforcing payment in such circumstances is virtually impossible.\nCloser cooperation between EU Member States in this matter will help creditors in the effective recovery of the money due to them.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis\nin writing. - (LT) If this regulation is adopted, it will be easier for citizens to live. Primarily, it aims to simplify the procedure of identifying maintenance obligations. In addition, the Regulation provides that when Member States pass a decision on maintenance obligations, such a decision will be binding in all Member States. According to the Regulation, an operational system of cooperation between the central authorities of Member States shall also be established to help creditors recover debts.\nG\u00e9rard Deprez  \nI should like to express my satisfaction that Mrs Grabowska's report is being put to the vote today, first and foremost because we have been waiting for the revised version of the regulation in question for a long time, and secondly, because this vote should enable the text to be adopted while the French Presidency - a Presidency that has spared no effort to bring the text to a successful conclusion - is still in office.\nAs you will be aware, currently within the European Union, when there is a divorce and children are involved, it is often difficult and tedious to ensure that maintenance allowances are actually paid if one spouse has gone to another country.\nThe proposed text, which I endorse, should make European citizens' lives much easier when it comes to maintenance obligations, and should help creditors recover their debts. By abolishing the exequatur, it makes any decision on maintenance obligations for the absent spouse that is delivered by a court in one Member State immediately applicable in all the others. It will also enable the citizens concerned to carry out, from their place of habitual residence, the formalities needed to obtain attachment on wages or on a bank account, to activate the cooperation mechanisms, and to have access to information making it possible to locate debtors and to evaluate their assets.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - I welcome my colleague's report on Maintenance obligations which aims to assist the recovery of maintenance payments within the European Union. This Regulation seeks to enable a creditor to obtain an enforcement order for payment - which is capable of circulation without obstacles in the European Union area of justice - more easily, quickly and free of charge in most instances. This will consequently enable regular payments of the amount due and make maintenance obligations from one member state applicable in another. Doing so will simplify the lives of EU citizens and provide additional support through increased Member States cooperation.\nDumitru Oprea  \nI feel that this report is vitally important at a time when the need to harmonise legislation in European Union Member States is being felt in several areas, including with regard to maintenance obligations.\nThe revised version of the regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations clearly stipulates the criteria and situations where this type of duty is enforced by law.\nMaintenance obligations are personal and continuous, not to mention unilateral.\nThis regulation makes life easier for citizens of European Union Member States in terms of the procedure required for establishing maintenance obligations. More specifically, as soon as the decision is announced in one Member State, this will have the same binding effect in all Member States. This is a vital aspect if we remember that many citizens reside in a different Member State to the one in which they were born or the decision on maintenance obligations was made.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nThis regulation will make life easier for citizens. Simplification was one of the results we wanted to achieve, especially with regard to the procedure required for establishing maintenance obligations.\nConsequently, the regulation stipulates that as soon as the decision on maintenance obligations is announced in Member States, this will have the same binding effect in all Member States.\nIn addition, the regulation provides for organising an operational system supporting cooperation between central authorities in Member States, which will help creditors recover the sums of money they are owed.\nThe end result we have before us is a compromise which we are happy to support. This means that EU citizens could benefit from this as soon as possible.\nAs regards the implementation procedures, the European Commission needs to continue working on these.\nWe cannot help but be pleased with the news that it is intending to do so and hope that this will enable citizens to reap the benefits as soon as possible.\nEffective implementation, however, is the fundamental aspect which would ensure that there is a common, harmonised system of recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations in the European Union.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nThe report on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of court decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations analyses and assesses the amended version of the relevant Council regulation.\nThe main objective of the Regulation is simplifying the principles concerning the determination of maintenance obligations (key to efficient recovery of claims) and organising an efficient system of cooperation between EU Member States in matters relating to such obligations.\nI fully support the report. It represents a compromise between the European Commission's proposals and the expectations of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.\nPrompt adoption of the Regulation - before the end of 2008 - will enable individuals to quickly benefit from it, which is a priority in this particular case.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis\nin writing. - (LT) Metrological rules of Member States are applied to many categories of measuring instruments and products. This Directive contains a set of general provisions for EC model approval, initial verification procedures and metrological control methods. While implementing directives applicable to the various categories of measurement instruments and products, the technical design, performance and accuracy requirements, and control procedure are set. Approval of the EC model of measurement means at the EU level that Member States are allowed to carry out initial screening, or, where it is not mandatory, instruments can be released to the market and used. This new version of the Directive includes amendments related to the regulatory procedure and verification; therefore the codified version of Directive 71\/316\/EEC should be replaced with the new version.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) On the basis of Mr Mitchell's report, I have voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries.\nI support this initiative providing the European Union with a new development policy instrument to tackle the key problems linked to the rise in food prices that has sparked riots, unrest and instability in several countries, threatening the results of many years of investment in politics, development and peace keeping. Hundreds of millions of people have seen their poverty exacerbated and the recent progress made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals has been undermined. Faced with the EUR 18 billion needed, the Union plans to fund 10%, that is to say EUR 1.8 billion and, given the funding already available, it is a question of an additional package of EUR 1 billion. I do not agree with the Commission's plans to draw the finance from funds reserved for agriculture.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nI naturally voted in favour of the report. As also pointed out in the report, the Commission made a bold decision with its proposal to allocate EUR 1 billion to the food crisis, and I believe that both the Commission and the Council should receive our full collaboration in order to adopt this important legislation. Combating the food crisis calls for tangible efforts at various levels and all the Community institutions need to work together to attain appreciable results.\nNigel Farage, Trevor Colman and Jeffrey Titford  \nin writing. - We of course sympathise with the plight of poor countries. However, we feel that the EU policies, such as the common fisheries policy, common agricultural policy and protectionism in trade, are at the root of many of these problems in the first place. We believe nation states are best placed to help developing nations on an intergovernmental basis, not top-down supranational agencies whose policies are to blame in the first place.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - MEP Mitchell presented a plan which articulates a collective Community response to the rising and volatile costs of food in developing countries by providing guidelines for rapid responses and safety net procedures for forthcoming harvests. The facility also seeks to provide structural long term support, which is graduated and differentiated according to the needs and requirements of each situation. It provides for 1 billion Euros to be allocated until 2010, according to strictly regulated criteria. Food security provides a basis for Development of all kinds, and combating hunger worldwide is a complex but essential question for which we urgently need to find a solution for. I am delighted to support MEP Mitchell's report.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nIn his explanatory statement, the rapporteur, with emotion in his words, urges the European Union to give the rest of the world the spare resources from its budget! This is a peculiar and dangerous perspective on the management of public money, one that is accompanied by threats and apportionment of blame.\nThere was no need to go to these lengths to persuade us to help the countries most in need.\nI would, however, like to make the following three points:\nThe explosion in global food prices certainly affects the populations of the developing world in particular, but it also affects millions of EU citizens. What is the Commission doing for them?\nIs it really necessary to entrust management of this emergency aid to the Commission, when the latter is largely responsible for this situation? It is behind the agricultural Malthusianism in Europe, which contributes to the rise in prices. Its trade policies promote export cultures in the poorest countries. In the same circumstances, and with priority given, as it is, to the market and free trade, the proposed measures to support local agriculture appear doomed to failure.\nLastly, what is being done to combat the absurd and immoral speculation that reigns over the food commodities markets?\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) High food prices mainly impact those who are worst placed in the world. Together with the crises on the financial and energy markets, there is now a risk of substantial deterioration in the circumstances of large groups of the population.\nWe realise that the situation that has arisen calls for action. However, we do not share the rapporteur's ambition to set up a further EU mechanism for distributing financial assistance. Development aid, its extent, orientation and content are a good example of something that the June List believes must be determined primarily at national level and secondarily via cooperation through UN bodies. The June List questions the role of the EU, since it ought to be possible to find solutions to the current food shortage through international forums instead. For the reasons given above, we have chosen to vote against the report in its entirety.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) We believe that amendments have been made that improve the initial proposal of the European Commission, namely: the need to favour production and local products and small-scale farmers in particular, to the detriment of production for export; the necessary involvement of producers' organisations in defining programmes and for these to give priority to small-scale agricultural holdings; that aid not be granted to the production of raw materials for luxury goods or biofuels (we regret that on this point genetically modified organisms (GMO) were not excluded).\nHowever, it is essential to emphasise that this initiative should be seen within the context of the policies of the EU, which may reduce it to a bargaining chip or condition for imposing its economic interests. We are referring to pressure on the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP States) to conclude an agreement within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the EU's Economic Partnership Agreements; the EU is seeking to use the impact of the economic crisis to impose these.\nIt is also worth noting that this initiative does not conceal the reduction in so-called development assistance by the EU, nor the swollen sums of the relaunched arms race and the militarisation of international relations, in which the EU is playing a central role.\nIt is clear that the EU is giving with one hand only to, later on or straightaway, go begging with both ... hypocrisy.\nGyula Hegyi  \nin writing. - (HU) I agree with the rapporteur that the financial crisis is no reason for us to reduce our assistance to the starving people in the developing world. I would note, of course, that within the European Union as well there are people who find themselves in a difficult situation because of soaring food prices. And this is true not only in the new Member States but in the old ones as well.\nOne of the causes of the rise in food prices is undoubtedly the rapid increase in production of biofuels. If fuel can be sold at a higher price, then it either squeezes cheaper foodstuffs out of production, or drives the price of the latter up as well. Therefore the EU must not import biofuel from countries or larger regions where doing so threatens the affordable food supply of the local population.\nBiofuel plays an important role in renewable energy, but if we use it unthinkingly, this can give rise to serious tragedies. The European Union must therefore base its use of biofuel essentially on production within the EU. Because such fuels drive up local food prices and endanger rainforests, importing them from the developing world is not to be recommended.\nJeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Jules Maaten, Toine Manders and Jan Mulder  \nin writing. - (NL) The Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy delegation has abstained from the final vote on the Mitchell report on a rapid-response facility for measures against the sharp increase in food prices in the developing world, because it has serious doubts as to whether the proposed measures will have the desired outcome. Improving agricultural production in the developing world requires a more structural approach than a sum of 1 billion that has to be spent within three years. In addition, the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy delegation is of the opinion that too much emphasis is still being placed on channelling funds to UN organisations and the World Bank. The Member States could also do this directly. Instead, the European Union and related organisations, including the European Investment Bank (EIB), should take the lead in this.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted for the adoption of Gay Mitchell's report. The European Union must be able to react quickly to food crises. The world crisis has shown just how fragile the economic situation of rich countries can be. We should remember that poor and developing countries are exposed to much greater problems. One of them is the rapid increase in the number of people at risk of hunger.\nIn dramatic famine disaster situations, we should not waste valuable time on implementing the appropriate financial procedures. I feel certain that the new instrument will enable us to perform what is one of our fundamental duties - the effective saving of human life.\nMikel Irujo Amezaga  \nAs the President of the World Bank pointed out, the problems of malnutrition could be deemed the forgotten Millennium Development Goal. The EU should take a number of areas into greater consideration. These include financing World Food Programme needs, work involving various organisations to assess countries' needs, aid for small farmers (in the short term, and also an analysis of food price volatility in the long term); long-term challenges in the area of production and productivity, neglected research plans, and the need to find risk management solutions (such as drought-related financial derivatives).\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this report because in the current global financial crisis it is more important than ever to meet our commitments with developing countries. The additional EUR 1 billion will make sure that developing countries are not left behind.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I intend to vote in favour of Mr Mitchell's report on establishing a facility for rapid response to the alarming soaring food prices in developing countries. In particular, I agree with the rapporteur's opinion when he says that the soaring food prices cannot and must not just be the stuff of newspaper headlines. The fact that the much talked about globalisation of the markets has led to more people living beneath the poverty line throughout the world is worrying. It is more worrying still, however, to have many fine words spoken but few tangible, effective measures put in place at international level. I therefore welcome the fact that the rapporteur stresses the need for a rapid response and that reference is made to a system where emergency social safety-net measures are accompanied by a desire for funding which can provide greater and improved access to agricultural inputs and services, taking into account the need to act at local level in a differentiated manner.\nGlenis Willmott  \nin writing. - This is a time of deep financial and food crisis. Rising food prices have had extreme negative effects in developing countries. Poverty has increased and achievement of some millennium development goals is threatened. High prices have resulted in riots and instability. Therefore I voted to support this proposal to take EUR 1 billion of unspent support for EU farmers and use it to assist struggling farmers in developing countries to buy essential items such as seeds and fertilisers. I am pleased that we in the European Parliament have been able to reach a consensus with national governments on the details of how this will work.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats believe that these reports are a step along the way towards combating improper tax evasion more effectively. With regard to the new Swedish VAT rules that entered into force on 1 January 2008, these reports will unfortunately involve a certain amount of additional administration for certain businesses, but we believe that the changes are justified and proportionate to the aim and have therefore decided to vote in favour.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nOn the basis of the report by my esteemed Spanish colleague, Mr Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil, I voted in favour of the proposal for a Council directive amending the 2006 Directive on the common system of value added tax to combat tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions.\nCurrently the system for exchanging data on intra-Community goods supplies, which was implemented within the context of the VAT transitional arrangements adopted at the time of the changeover to the internal market, is no longer an adequate means of effectively tackling tax fraud connected with intra-Community transactions. It should be noted that the measure forms part of a range of measures, some of which are explicitly designed to increase the legal certainty of businesses and to reduce their administrative burdens, as well as to significantly improve the exchange of information and the cooperation between tax authorities. I endorsed the amendments in which it is laid down that, two years after the entry into force of the directive, the Commission will have to draft a report assessing the effects of the directive, with special emphasis on the administrative costs that the new obligations entail for the taxpayers concerned and on the degree of effectiveness of these obligations in the context of the fight against tax fraud.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) In general we agree with the proposals of the rapporteur which aim to improve the document of the European Commission on the fight against tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions.\nIt is true that VAT evasion affects not only the financing of Member States' budgets but also the overall balance of the European Union's own resources in so far as reductions in VAT own resources have to be compensated for by an increase in the gross national income of own resources.\nAlso, it does not seem negative to me that there should be an evaluation report on the impact of the present directive, in particular on the administrative costs of the new formal obligations for individuals affected, and of the effectiveness of those formal obligations in combating tax evasion.\nHowever, we have serious reservations about relative justice in the rules of the existing system and their application. That is why we abstained from the vote on this report.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nWe voted against the two reports by Mr Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil on combating tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions, or, to put it plainly, VAT fraud in trade between Member States.\nNaturally we condemn this fraud and endorse intergovernmental cooperation between the relevant national agencies. What the rapporteur proposes, however, goes far beyond this, with the creation of a single 'EU tax record' available to national administrations, for the purposes of gathering data about persons who are alleged to have been involved, in one way or another, in fraud, and of preventing them from creating or managing a company anywhere in Europe. On whose behalf? In accordance with a judicial, administrative or purely arbitrary decision? Taken at what level? On the basis of which powers enshrined - or not, as the case may be - in the Treaties?\nThe supremacy of decisions at European level, the self-conferral of quasi-penal powers, the European Commission's overblown executive role and more red tape for companies at a time when we are crowing about the Small Business Act for Europe -we find all of this unacceptable.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Every tax system is accompanied by tax evasion. The question is only how best this can be checked. With all measures, it must at any rate be ensured that small and medium-sized enterprises are not swamped by bureaucratic expense. In the first instance, tax evasion must be dealt with in a big way.\nAny kind of improved cooperation is undoubtedly of benefit, as long as it does not degenerate to the effect that the EU usurps the decision-making powers of the Member States for itself. An agreed procedure between the EU Member States in which there is no fundamental change to the existing systems must be at the forefront. For this reason, I have voted against this report.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil on combating tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions, with particular reference to the common system of VAT. I agree with the need to combat tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions and believe that, in the context of the single European market, administrative cooperation between the Member States should be strengthened in this regard. For transactions not concluded within national boundaries, it is necessary for measures that fall mainly within national competence to be accompanied by measures of joint accountability at European level, exchanges of good practices and formal tax obligations.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) On the basis of the report by my esteemed Spanish colleague, Mr Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil, I voted in favour of the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1798\/2003 to combat tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions.\nThe Commission must centralise the information relating to actions taken by Member States to combat tax evasion, show which of these were most successful and recommend what measures it deems most appropriate for correcting fraudulent behaviour. The Commission will put together a set of indicators identifying the areas in which the risk of failure to meet tax obligations is greatest. National tax administrations must be motivated by the need to remedy fraud and help honest tax payers to fulfil their obligations. On the basis of the data collected when assessing the application of the regulation, the Commission must draw up a set of indicators to determine to what extent each Member State will collaborate with the Commission and with the other Member States, by providing them with the available information and the help required to correct fraud. The Member States and the Commission must periodically assess the application of the regulation.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) In this case as well we generally agree with the proposals of the rapporteur that aim to improve the document of the European Commission. That is the case with the proposal that insists on the need for the European Commission to fully inform the European Parliament of the measures envisaged, in accordance with the Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999\/468\/EC.\nI also agree that the Member States and the Commission should periodically evaluate the application of this Regulation. However, the proposal that the Commission should draw up a set of indicators with a view to ascertaining to what extent each Member State will cooperate with the Commission and the other Member States does not seem sufficiently clear to me, even though it is apparent that there are criticisms of the Court of Auditors relating to the lack of effective administrative cooperation in combating tax evasion in the area of VAT. The possible exchange of good practices and preparation of analyses cannot justify a greater levy in areas that call into question the principle of subsidiarity.\nThat is why we abstained from this vote.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) Having voted in favour of the joint resolution tabled by four political groups, including the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, on the step towards improving the environment for SMEs in Europe - Small Business Act, I should like to pay tribute to the tremendous work accomplished by my French fellow Member, Mrs Fontaine, and by the French Presidency, with Minister Lagarde. There is an urgent need for the Member States to confirm their intention formally to accept the SBA during the European Council of December 2008, to be held in Brussels. This is to ensure that the SBA has the high profile it requires at the same time as its provisions are made legally binding, thereby creating a really positive impact on the environment for SMEs. The latter form the basis of a very substantial part of the economic fabric and unquestionably have a social role to play as human-sized enterprises. However, they are fragile and merit special attention. As part of the interest it must show in its wealth creation system, it is vital that the European Union give its support to SMEs.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of the report. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the vital heart of Europe's economy, both in terms of growth and innovation, and in terms of employment. A policy supporting them, therefore, means guaranteeing the stability of the whole system, which is all the more important at this time of global crisis, which can only be tackled by remembering the real economy. We should therefore support every effort but must not forget that we still have a long way to go and we must honour our commitment.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) We voted in favour of the resolution on improving the environment for SMEs within the framework of the Small Business Act, because we are aware, as we have been saying for years, of the key economic role played by SMEs as the main generators of wealth and jobs.\nThe problem is that, today, this is all still in the realm of the theoretical. It is the same institution, the Commission, which calls on the Member States to 'think about small businesses first', but which then introduces more opaque, incomprehensible legislation and administrative and regulatory restrictions. It is the Commission which, despite the obligation incumbent upon it, botches the impact studies that have to accompany its legislative proposals. It was the Commission which implemented a policy on access to public procurement contracts, with the result that local SMEs are being systematically ousted in favour of large European-wide businesses, in the name of sacrosanct competition. It was the Commission which, obsessed with fiscal harmonisation, imposed the current restrictions on VAT rates.\nYes, the time has come to finally give priority to all these small businesses, and to their directors and employees, and to do so, first and foremost, in European regulations.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Improvement of the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe and support for the European Charter for Small Enterprises is of tremendous importance for the efficient development of the European Union's economy and entrepreneurship, and I have therefore decided to support the resolution.\nAny administrative simplification in starting a business, simplification of regulations and elimination of unnecessary laws cannot but speed up the procedure of creating small and medium-sized enterprises, which offer employment to millions of people.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We know how the banking sector and other financial companies are being supported, under the pretext of avoiding a crisis in the financial sector and its possible repercussions. However, the crisis of capitalism is far more widespread and already includes serious repercussions, specifically in the economic sphere in which micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises predominate.\nThat is why, although it is clear that only by breaking with current policies of economic liberalisation is it possible to find lasting alternative solutions, we support any individual measures that could ease the severity of the situation of thousands of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises.\nHowever, we insist that the creation of an atmosphere favourable to micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises necessitates, first and foremost, increased purchasing power for populations, increased salaries for workers and improved pensions and retirement funds.\nTherefore, with our vote on this resolution we should just like to underline our desire that it should not be another mirage from the propaganda that is customary at these times. This support must actually reach the micro-enterprises and SMEs and not get swallowed up by bureaucracy.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nin writing. - (PL) I wish to express my support for the adoption of the Charter for Small Enterprises, intended to improve the situation of such enterprises in the EU. It is well known that SMEs play an important role in the European economy, providing approximately 100 million jobs, and representing a major source of income for Member States and the regions. Many of these companies are actively involved in conduct innovation.\nIn this context, it is important to recognise that there is no justification for the many barriers still encountered by small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. We must also remember that such enterprises are very sensitive to intensified competition and to all financial and administrative problems. Simple and clear legal provisions are essential to their proper operation.\nHence the unavoidable need for intervention by the European Parliament which, having the appropriate legislative instruments at its disposal, can respond to the perceived needs and contribute to the removal of the remaining barriers. What is extremely important, especially at a time of continuing economic collapse, is to provide access to sources of finance.\nI welcome the European Investment Bank's proposal for a new package, which allocates EUR 30 billion in loans to SMEs. Nonetheless, we need to consider increasing this amount, since the failure of a large number of small enterprises would have dramatic consequences for many individuals.\nI feel certain that in the circumstances the Council will approve the Charter for Small Enterprises and will require Member States to implement its provisions.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) For many years now the EU has advocated - at least on paper - the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, you can say what you like on paper, but actions speak louder than words. SMEs continue to face bureaucratic hurdles, large enterprises continue to access subsidies with ease, while medium-sized enterprises are reduced practically to the status of supplicants. Regulatory frenzy frequently stifles small enterprises, while groups of enterprises can afford experts to take advantage of any loophole.\nTherefore, following the example of the US, EU laws must be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis for small and medium-sized enterprises and the dismantling of bureaucracy must be promoted in order to remove expensive multiple charges where there is an obligation to inform and notify. The proposal under consideration appears to be a further step in the right direction at any rate, which is why I also voted in favour of it.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - If ever there was a time that support was needed for small businesses and SMEs, it is now. The current economic climate is acutely affecting them, whether it is difficulties with maintaining cash flow or the impact of reduced consumer spending.\nWe must ensure that, in the context of the current economic crisis, SMEs are still able to access adequate financing, especially at this time when banks are not lending to small businesses. More generally, unnecessary administrative and bureaucratic burdens should be removed. SMEs are the backbone of small economies in Europe, such as Northern Ireland. We should be encouraging innovative entrepreneurs rather than placing obstacles in their way such as excessive red tape.\nThe Small Business Act is a step forward, but it must be swiftly adopted by the Council and fully implemented by Member States so that it has a really positive impact.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nDuring the current difficult economic climate, small and medium-sized enterprises could be, in many cases, the first to be affected, with the most severe consequences.\nBearing in mind that in some Member States, such as Romania, SMEs account for more than 60% of GDP, support measures need to be taken, will be welcomed and, most of all, are urgent.\nAnother measure which is welcomed is the new package from the European Investment Bank amounting to EUR 30 billion, earmarked for loans to SMEs. I sincerely hope that these loans will also be easily accessible to small businesses in new Member States, such as Romania or Bulgaria.\nSe\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain  \nin writing. - (GA) We certainly have to address and direct our attention to the major challenge involved in stabilising and reforming the financial system. However, as representatives of the ordinary people of our countries, it is also our urgent duty to focus on what is known as the 'real economy'.\nThe people of Europe are suffering at present as we are in the middle of an economic crisis. It would be easy to adhere completely to conservative policies at this time, policies that would be aimed only at stabilising the financial system. However, instead of doing that we must focus on rebuilding the economy from the bottom up.\nIn the west of Ireland, around 70% of the work force are employed by small businesses. These small businesses are the economic pulse of the west of Ireland. Not only do we have to protect these businesses, we must also encourage entrepreneurship, growth and development in this sector. To this end, I sincerely welcome the initiatives being launched by Irish and European institutions lately to support the small business sector. I ask the private and financial sectors and the policy-makers to continue and add to these initiatives.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The European Small Business Act comes within the anti-grassroots, anti-labour Lisbon Strategy and efforts by the EU to complete the single internal market to the detriment of workers and their rights.\nUsing the bait of reduced VAT rates for services provided locally and services which employ a large number of workers, the EU is trying to wring the consent of small and medium-sized enterprises to the choices of big business, which is promoting these plans in order to serve its own interests, not those of small businesses or the self-employed.\nThe President of the Commission, Jos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso, set out the real scales of the businesses to which the act relates, which he defined as those which benefit fully from the single market and expand on to international markets in order to develop into global competitive undertakings, and Commissioner G\u00fcnter Verheugen highlighted the reactionary ideological tenor of the act by emphasising that what is important in it is the social recognition of businessmen and the attraction of starting a business career, in order to change the negative perception of the role of businessmen and the assumption of entrepreneurial risk.\nHowever, the substance of the proposal lies in the new dispensation for private European companies, which will allow a 'private European undertaking' to trade in all the Member States of the EU and circumvent the current obstacles of any social control.\nNicolae Vlad Popa  \nI voted in favour of this resolution on the steps towards improving the environment for SMEs in Europe as they are fundamentally important to the European Union's economy, including Romania's.\nSmall and medium-sized enterprises provide more than 100 million jobs and are a key factor in economic growth.\nParticularly during this period of economic crisis, we need to use every means available to us to support this sector, which may provide the platform for economic recovery.\nI support the implementation of the new European Investment Bank package which will provide EUR 30 billion, earmarked for loans to SMEs. I am also asking for this fund to be developed and increased in the future.\nI think that it is vitally important that Member States too devise and implement measures to support SMEs nationally, to supplement the measures taken at European level.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on improving the environment for SMEs in Europe - Small Business Act. I am firmly convinced that SMEs, accounting for more than 90% of businesses in Europe, make a decisive contribution to the economic growth of the European Union. This is why we need a European law on small businesses: the Small Business Act, which can only be effective if there is a practical commitment at national and European level to implement it. Furthermore, I agree that we should call on the Council to confirm its intention to officially adopt this law at the forthcoming European Council, in order to ensure a fair, adequate level of visibility for such an important initiative.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) In today's vote, I supported the adoption of a resolution intended to improve the situation of Europe's small and medium-sized enterprises.\nThe Charter for Small Enterprises will contribute to the development of the Polish economy, as well as the European economy as a whole.\nCurrently, over 100 million European jobs are provided by small and medium-sized enterprises. They are the drivers of their economies. It is my view that especially today, at a time of economic crisis, the resolution emphasises the need to support the regulations introduced in the Charter.\nRestoring the EU's financial situation will require more than assistance to large financial institutions. We need above all to take specific action to support small and medium-sized enterprises; action which will enable them to deal with imperfect markets and will make it easier for them to do business.\nObviously, the Charter for Small Enterprises will not solve their problems. But it will formulate the principles ensuring equal treatment of SMEs, and bring in the initial framework of a policy aimed at enterprises.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted in favour of the joint resolution tabled by six political groups on the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. I agree with the principles according to which it is necessary to prevent irresponsible arms transfers by the strict application of the Code's criteria to both companies and national armed forces, and to prevent illegal arms trafficking by calling on all Member States that have not yet done so to transpose into their national legislation the 2003 EU common position on the control of arms brokering. We must encourage the conducting of investigations into violations of arms embargoes and improve the quality of the data submitted by the Member States in the context of the Annual Report on the Code of Conduct. That said, let us not be na\u00efve - in this complex and dangerous world in which we live, these subjects are sensitive, and that is why I rose up to oppose the oral amendment tabled by Mr Pfl\u00fcger. In my eyes it is too quick to make a link between the Code of Conduct, the implementation of the future Directive on intra-Community transfers of defence-related goods, and the control of arms exports.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I strongly support this resolution. The adoption of a common position on the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports to third countries is vital for the orderly implementation of the future Directive on intra-Community transfers of defence-related goods and for an official control of arms exports.\nIt is true that we need a solid legal base for this Code of Conduct that will allow us to look again at the current arms embargo against China. There are still difficulties with Beijing, but they should not be bracketed on this issue between Burma and Zimbabwe.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Within the framework of the current arms race and militarisation of international relations, in which the US, NATO and EU are playing a central role, any initiative that - even if in a limited and insufficient way - contributes to restricting arms exports will be a step in the right direction.\nHowever, what characterises the EU is its option of giving new impetus to the 'Europe of Defence' (a euphemism for intervention and aggression), reaffirming its 'goal of strengthening the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO' and adapting it to current needs, in a spirit of complementing and strengthening each other.\nYou only have to look at the draft conclusions of the European Council of 11 and 12 December regarding the strengthening of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) - which prepares the position of the great powers of the EU for the NATO Summit of April next year - which offers the prospect of a qualitative leap in the so-called 'European Security Strategy' (of 2003) and the establishment of new goals for 'strengthening and optimising European capabilities' over the next 10 years, 'to enable the EU, in the coming years, to conduct simultaneously, outside its territory, a series of civilian missions and military operations of varying scope, corresponding to the most likely scenarios'.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) At a time when EU workers pay extravagant amounts to fund defence programmes and to develop military research, at a time when the EU arms industry is growing and the 'legal' sales of all types of weapons that are produced return huge profits to the companies, at a time when the EU as a whole is continually being militarised, at a time when the people are suffering under the new order in which the EU is actively participating with the USA and NATO, we can only consider ironic the discussion and the request tabled for the approval of a common EU position and the adoption of measures for the implementation of the so called EU Code of Conduct on arms exports.\nThe increase in imperialistic aggression and competition, which will be fed even more by the capitalistic financial crisis, has led to an increase in military spending which has even surpassed that of the cold war era. From this point of view, the effort to enforce regulations regarding arms export is an attempt to mock and deceive the people.\nThe response of the workers of the EU should be to fight against EU militarisation, the European Union army and the defence programmes, to stand united and fight a warmongering EU.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my Belgian fellow Member, Mr Staes, on the European Court of Auditors' special report No 8\/2007 concerning administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax (VAT). While we should welcome this Court of Auditors' special report, its conclusions are worrying in many respects, particularly in the light of the observations that Regulation (EC) No 1798\/2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax is not an effective administrative cooperation tool, given that several Member States are standing in the way of its implementation and that the Commission's role is limited. It is vital, however, that the Commission starts infringement proceedings against Member States that delay the transfer of information. The Commission's proposals to amend the VAT Directive and the Regulation on administrative cooperation in the field of VAT are a good thing. I support the creation of a task force made up of the competent Commission services, the Directorate-General for Taxation and the Customs Union, and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome this report, which paves the way for collective action from Europe as regards obtaining accurate figures relating to VAT fraud, and what it costs Britain each year.\nRobert Atkins  \nin writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues are fully supportive of improving the position of women in all aspects of society. We believe that women should have equal opportunities in many of the areas identified in the report. We also believe in women playing a full role in politics. We understand there are specific issues to be resolved in the context of the Balkans and urge the national authorities to take steps to improve opportunities for women.\nHowever, we are concerned at the call for quotas, which we believe is not the way forward for women or men. Also, we do not support the establishment of the European Institute for Gender Equality.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of the report. Achieving gender equality is an essential condition for all of the countries that are candidates for accession to the Union. The Balkans' turbulent history makes taking action, as well as monitoring the situation, more difficult. Although the democratisation process is making progress, much still remains to be done. In the Eastern Balkans, many women still suffer from discrimination and live in physically unsafe and economically and socially insecure conditions. The regulatory framework should therefore be further improved.\nIn this respect, ratification of UN Convention 1979 on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) can no longer be delayed. By eliminating all forms of violence and inequality, our goal must be to guarantee women their right, not only to be equal to men, but also to express, with no restriction whatsoever, all the complexity and richness of womanhood, in every aspect of their life.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) I have supported Mrs Gurmai's report describing the situation of women in the Balkans, because it raises vital issues which, regrettably, do not concern that region alone, and are not isolated cases.\nThe most urgent issue is to stop the wave of crimes against women. Domestic violence, sexual exploitation and above all trafficking in women and children are common occurrences today.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld, Christofer Fjellner and Gunnar H\u00f6kmark  \nin writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote in favour of the report, as it deals with several very important issues relating to the situation of women in the Balkans. However, we would like to make it clear that we are opposed to demands to introduce quotas. How political parties and national parliaments choose to organise themselves is not something that should be decided by the EU, but by the parties and parliaments themselves.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Gurmai report on the situation of women in the Balkans, because it calls attention to the fact that, in spite of economic growth, the women of this part of Europe continue to face countless forms of discrimination.\nI think that the various recommendations of this report, if put into practice, are a model for changing the current situation, promoting greater social protection and stimulating greater participation by the women of these countries. This is the case with those measures aimed at combating the scourge of domestic violence and unequal pay; positive discrimination measures, such as the quota system, and infrastructure for caring for children and the elderly, with a view towards helping to eliminate restrictions on access to the labour market for these women, and so on.\nI should also like to underline the importance that the report gives to investment in education as a means of drastically reducing stereotyping and helping to prepare future generations for a more fair and equitable society.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - I warmly welcome Ms. Gurmai's report which does much to document the progress of women's rights in the Western Balkans. The ideal of gender equality is one to which we, as Parliamentarians, must be fully committed and do all in our power to support. The establishment of equal relations between men and women is essential to securing full human rights and I trust that this will advance further in the context of meeting the acquis.\nI note with concern the disproportionate dangers to which women are exposed with regard to domestic violence, trafficking and forced prostitution. I fully support issues related to combating trafficking in human beings and discrimination against Roma women, and would look most favourably on the aggressive tackling by each of the countries of the Western Balkans.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Although there are aspects of the general political view of the region to which we do not fully subscribe, we are in agreement with the importance given to the role of women and the need to guarantee equal rights and equal possibilities of participating in the labour market. These are indispensable for women's economic independence, for national economic growth and for the fight against poverty, to which women are more vulnerable than men.\nAs is established in the report, women were disproportionately affected by cuts in social services and public spending such as health care, child and family care because, as it points out, these non-wage benefits and services which were previously provided enabled women to participate in paid employment and consequently to reconcile work and family life.\nHowever, special measures are necessary now, aimed at preventing the feminisation of 'lower paid' sectors, including rural areas, the existence of the 'gender pay gap' and the need to create good quality, accessible and reasonably priced infrastructure for caring for children and the elderly. The importance of physically and psychologically rehabilitating women victims of the war stands out.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome this report, which reveals current problems relating to the situation of women in the Balkans, such as the lack of up-to-date statistics about gender equality. The report highlights the fact that these countries are often source countries for human trafficking, poverty and the domestic pay gap.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik  \nin writing. - The situation of women in the Balkan states needs to be addressed as accession talks continue to progress. As my party, the EPP-ED, was founded on the ideals of equality and justice for all people, I believe that it is the role of the European Parliament to act as a defender of the basic fundamental rights that we believe should be guaranteed to all human beings, especially in the various candidate countries. It is obvious that true democracy can only exist when all citizens of a nation are given equal rights and equal opportunities. The political, economic, and social context of the situation of women in the Balkan states is lagging. As a doctor, I see this as especially important in the realm of women's health, as gender discrimination creates a severe lack of progress in medical areas like cervical cancer, breast cancer, and psychological rehabilitation for sexual violence. I urge the European Parliament to act responsibly, in order to assure the women of the Balkan states that their voices will be heard.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We share the rapporteur's concern regarding the vulnerability of women in the Balkans. There is clearly a great need to take action to deal with a number of problem areas. We are in favour of several of the wordings that aim to improve equality in the region, access to child care and care for the elderly, the importance of combating stereotypes and discrimination as well as the necessity of those countries that are working towards EU membership fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria.\nAt the same time, we are critical of how the European Parliament tirelessly seeks to gain influence and political power at the expense of the national parliaments. Clear wordings in the present report also recommend far-reaching interference in the internal affairs of the Balkan States, a development to which the June List is highly opposed.\nWe are in favour of a number of the intentions both in the Committee's report and in the proposed alternative resolution. After careful consideration, the June List has therefore chosen to vote for the alternative proposed resolution.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) The EU is endeavouring to improve the situation in the Balkans because establishing a permanent peace in this part of Europe is a matter of great importance to it. After the break-up of Yugoslavia, fratricidal wars, ethnic conflicts, political and economic transformation and the creation of new states caused the Balkan countries to suffer from many traumas. Over the past two decades, they have undergone dramatic changes with the clear objective of becoming members of the EU. Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have become candidate countries. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Kosovo under UNSCR 1244 are potential candidate countries. The prospect of accession to the EU is a huge motivation for creating policies and plays an important role in the implementation of objectives. For this reason, ensuring women's rights is a key requirement that these countries also need to meet.\nWomen who have been war victims are active participants in stabilisation and conflict resolution. Women must have equal access to the labour market and quality job opportunities. It is important that they are given a chance to engage in the political process. The same approach should be applied in the media and on the Internet.\nI voted for Zita Gurmai's report, which examines gender issues and the situation of women living in the Balkans. I believe that the Commission will provide, among other things, on the basis of the recommendations in this report, pre-accession financial assistance to strengthen women's rights in the Balkans, in particular through NGOs and women's organisations.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) I have voted for this proposal, despite having reservations over the establishment of quotas. Even though some MEPs firmly believe that this is the best way to ensure the participation of women in political and public life, in my view it constitutes positive discrimination and an undervaluing of women to a certain extent. The participation of women in the democratisation of the Balkan region is essential. Resolving the situation in the Balkans requires a comprehensive vision, involving the contribution of both men and women. Women must have equal access to the labour market, including access to senior positions, and they must be adequately rewarded for their work, at a comparable level to men. If there are legislative obstacles to an equivalent status for men and women they must be removed. We must also seek to amend the negative image of women that has arisen through cultural differences and racial and ethnic discrimination.\nIn view of the prolonged period of military conflict in the region there is a need to devote special attention to the psychological and physical rehabilitation of women, who have often been the victims of sexual exploitation and violence. Respect for the human rights of both men and women should be the main criterion for any future acceptance of Balkan candidate states into the structures of the EU.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Balkan women have suffered a great deal in recent years. They have experienced war and lost those nearest and dearest to them. Many women have been physically and emotionally scarred. When the war was over, new dangers emerged. I refer to people trafficking, prostitution and pornography, all of which have to be combated.\nThe difficult situation prevailing in the Balkan states has meant that women, despite acccounting for more than half of the population, are still bearing the enormous costs of the crisis. With the exception of Slovenia, women are paid far less than men in those countries. Women have suffered too as a result of budget cuts, mainly in relation to reduced funding for the health and family support services. The European Community should support those countries. It should provide those women with the opportunity to live in dignity, pursuant to the local traditions, religion and culture.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis\nin writing. - (LT) Due to the Council Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79\/409\/EEC) of 1979 and related protection measures for breeding sites, there has been a disproportionate increase in the cormorant population, which has now spread far beyond the normal breeding sites into areas where these birds were not previously found.\nThis surplus in many regions of the European Union has had a direct impact on local fish populations and fisheries, so cormorants have become a European-scale problem. Cormorants consume 400-600 grams of fish daily, and they catch more than 300 000 tonnes of fish in European waters in one year. In many Member States, this equals several times the quantity of food-grade fish supplied by the professional inland and fisheries sector. Taken together, the aquaculture fish production of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be less than 300 000 tonnes.\nGiven the great mobility of cormorants, as migratory birds, it appears that European-wide coordinated action or a management plan is the only way to achieve the objective, and this should in no way be seen as opposing the Directive of 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - The report presented by MEP Kinderman has an EU wide cormorant Management Plan as its main subject. The cormorant feeds exclusively on fish and because of it large population (estimated at 1.8 million in Europe) its impact on local fish stocks, both wild and in aquaculture developments, is considerable. The cormorant is covered by the Birds Directive and there has been much discussion in recent years on how to resolve the conflict of considerable impact on fisheries. Some member states have adopted individual plans, but I am of the opinion, like the rapporteur, that the only effective solution is an EU wide cormorant Management Plan, for example, research into immuno contraception?\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) The adoption of a European Cormorant Management Plan appears to be the most viable solution for reducing the damaging effect that these animals have on fishery resources in some regions of the EU. Cormorants, with a daily consumption of 400-600 g of fish, take more than 300 000 t of fish from European waters every year, representing a total of fish greater than the combined aquaculture production of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Although primary responsibility in this field rests with Member States and their regional or local authorities, it has already been demonstrated that purely local and\/or national measures are not capable of reducing for any length of time the negative impact of cormorants on European fish stocks and fishing. A common, legally binding approach which is accepted and applied throughout Europe is therefore seen as the ideal solution for guaranteeing the central aims of this directive, particularly the 'good conservation status' of the species of bird in question, as well as a diverse group of species of fish. The defence of the legitimate interest of fishermen and fish farmers in the economic use of fish stocks is another factor, no less important, which could be safeguarded by an approach of this sort ...\n(Explanation cut short under Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)\nMikel Irujo Amezaga  \nThere is very reliable data showing that between 1970 and 1995 the European population of great cormorants overwintering on inland waters grew from less than 10 000 birds to roughly 400 000. Some people are now saying that there are over a million cormorants overwintering on European inland waters, although other researchers consider this a rather inflated figure. In a reply to a written question, Commissioner Dimas announced the preparation of an Action Plan for the related Mediterranean shag, although in my view not enough detail is given about methods for scaring the birds, including carbide cannons. These are among the various measures being taken in this field.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this report, which suggests a coordinated action plan for the whole of Europe to abide by the directive on the conservation of wild birds whilst preserving fish specias as well as the interests of fishermen.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nThe population of cormorants in Europe has grown twenty-fold over the past 25 years and is now estimated to comprise almost 1.8 million birds. The impact of cormorants on fish populations has been confirmed in several cases by ichthyological studies, as well as by catch statistics within the EU.\nI voted for Heinz Kindermann's report. I made my decision based on a petition by the members and supporters of the Slovak Fishing Union addressed to the EP. In view of the evidence of sustained damage suffered by aquaculture undertakings as a result of the rapidly growing number of cormorants on the territory of the EU, the petition requests a revision of Council Directive 79\/409\/EEC.\nThe possibility of granting exceptions for shooting cormorants provided by the current legislation does not provide an adequate instrument for dealing with this issue effectively, since these are very difficult to obtain in practice. Equally, experience shows that non-lethal methods for disturbing cormorants on rivers are inefficient.\nThe EP calls on the Commission to submit a cormorant population management plan in several stages to be coordinated at the European level, with the aim of reducing the increasing damage to fish populations, fisheries and aquaculture caused by cormorants.\nI believe that the EP will help find a solution which, in the interest of preserving fish populations and with a view to the socio-economic importance of fishing, will satisfy fishermen all over Europe, including 120 000 active fishermen in Slovakia.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal to establish a European Cormorant Management Plan to minimise the increasing impact of cormorants on fish stocks, fishing and aquaculture. Indeed, it is of capital importance to reduce the population of these birds, which take more than 300 000 tonnes of fish from European waters each year (equal to the consumption of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary and the Czech Republic combined). The current situation derives from Directive 79\/409\/EEC, which has led to a disproportionate growth in the cormorant population. This law has therefore had a direct impact on local fish populations and fishing, with cormorants therefore becoming a problem for Europe. This is why I agree with the rapporteur on the proposal for a coordinated action plan or management plan at European level, also bearing in mind the very considerable mobility of the cormorant as a migratory bird, provided that it by no means runs counter to the aims of the Wild Birds Directive of 1979.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - I raised some initial reservations about the Kindermann report, in particular whether or not an EU-wide plan was necessary given that cormorants do not present problems EU-wide, and the reference to listing the cormorant as a huntable species in Annex II of the Birds Directive. The reference to listing cormorants as a huntable species was removed in committee and the final report pushes for the development of guidelines, better data and monitoring, and more debate.\nOn this basis, I support Mr Kindermann's report.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"6. Organic production and labelling of organic products (vote) \n- Report: Aubert\n- Before the vote:\nMarie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Aubert \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on organic production and labelling of organic products is finally going to be put to the vote today, firstly after referral back to committee, and then after an urgent request to the Council, which, I might add, was unanimously rejected by our Parliament last month. Unfortunately, the new discussions held over the last two months with the Council have not enabled us to progress further on important points. In particular, neither the Commission nor the Council agreed to the dual legal basis that we were demanding. The Council did not go back on its decision to permit, by special derogation, additives and veterinary treatments made from GMOs. Furthermore, certain chemical substances could also be permitted by derogation.\nWith no codecision, we are forced to acknowledge this state of affairs. We do, however, deplore the uncommunicative and offhand attitude of the Council over the last few weeks, in spite of the good will of some Member States. I just as deeply regret the fact that the majority of the groups refused yesterday to postpone the vote until June, given that the Council itself had postponed its meeting on organic farming. I regret that the majority of the groups did not wish to exhaust the means that we have to apply pressure. That being said, the Council did nevertheless take up a number of our amendments in its compromise, and regular consultation of all the actors concerned is part of the overall agreement.\nI therefore call on you now to adopt this report. You can count on my determination, and on that of my fellow Members from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, closely to monitor this matter over the next few months.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nMr Graefe zu Baringdorf, you have asked to take the floor. I would ask you in what capacity and on the basis of which Rule of Procedure do you wish to do so?\nFriedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf\n(DE) Mr President, perhaps I might be permitted, as rapporteur of the appended report on organic agriculture, to say something about external relations. The report we are voting on today is a good one, making it perfectly clear that the ...\n(Uproar)\nPresident\nI am truly sorry, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, but you have heard the reaction of our fellow Members. I think that everyone has understood that you believe the report to be a good report, but I cannot give the floor to all the rapporteurs and former rapporteurs, as you will clearly understand.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, land and sea frontiers have shifted with enlargement, increasing customs officers' work from simple custom duties checks to combating counterfeiting, money laundering, drugs, and evasion of antidumping duties or health measures aimed at consumer protection. For this reason I have welcomed and expressed support for the Commission's proposal, which will allow a greater degree of coordination of Member States' bodies, including close cooperation with Europol, Frontex, Interpol and the World Customs Organisation. We would also ask that the third country authorities that will obtain commercial and personal data from the Member States be required to guarantee data protection standards equivalent to those in the EU. I thank the Members for having supported our Group's proposals today in full. I also want to thank the rapporteurs for their meticulous work.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, I voted for the Musotto report because it is not afraid to speak frankly about many aspects of fraud and measures to combat fraud. And I get that d\u00e9ja vu feeling when the report mentions the millions of funds wrongly paid and non-eligible expenditure claimed. Think, for example, of the hundreds of millions of euros in European funds which have already disappeared into the bottomless pit of the corrupt socialist-dominated Walloon state. A state in which numerous officials have been involved in scandals, in some cases for misappropriation of funds. When the report talks about the fragility of Commission scrutiny, I automatically remember the words of my Walloon colleague Mr Deprez who talked at the beginning of the month about bad projects which are the fault not only of Wallonia but also of the Commission because it approves these projects.\nHubert Pirker\n(DE) Mr President, the report that was originally presented was a good one, because it provided for clearly defined measures to support the fight against terrorism, such as necessary steps to improve prevention, closer police cooperation, more exchanges of data and assistance for the victims of terrorism.\nToday's votes, however, have completely changed the report. Key elements of the report have been voted out. Jihadist terrorists, for example, are suddenly no longer considered dangerous. Other positions - unacceptable positions - have been voted into the report, with the result that I have had to vote against it, as the majority of the House has done. It is a pity about the original draft, because it would have been good to have a better set of political and technical instruments with which to combat terrorism and improve security.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, needless to say I voted against the Deprez report because I fundamentally disagree with the notion that jihadist terrorism is actually just a consequence of discrimination and the social isolation allegedly suffered by Muslims in Europe. To be honest, I know quite a few of my own people, quite a few people of non-immigrant stock, who really do suffer social isolation in Muslim neighbourhoods in our big cities but who do not turn to the crime of terrorism, absolutely not. So I am not going to say mea culpa on that one. It may perhaps be politically correct to lay the blame on perfidious Europe, but it is not 'correct' in the true sense of the word, anything but. When in God's name is Parliament going to understand that Islamist terror has nothing to do with discrimination or social exclusion, but flows directly from the world vision of Islam itself?\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, I think we need to recognise, when we are talking about regions trading with each other, that it is not countries that trade with each other, but people and businesses that trade with each other. One of the errors of this particular report was that it failed to recognise the substantial trade barriers that stand in the way of entrepreneurs who wish to trade with the EU from third countries.\nThat is why I am pleased to announce a cross-party campaign, involving NGOs and civil society organisations, as well as grass-roots campaigners, called the Real Trade Campaign, which has five main aims: to abolish agricultural tariffs on imports; to abolish agricultural subsidies; to liberalise the rules of country of origin; to put more emphasis on aid for trade; and to encourage low income countries progressively to lower their trade barriers to each other in the hope that they will be part of the world community when it comes to trade and, eventually, trade more with us. This report was unbalanced in not recognising that those barriers exist from the EU perspective, which is why I voted against it.\nWritten explanations of vote\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) I must say first of all that our vote against is a protest against postponement of the entry into force of a directive on workers' health and safety, a directive that in this case was adopted in 2004 which lays down the exposure limit values of workers to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, and prevention, information and training measures. The European Commission is now proposing a new directive with the sole aim of postponing the transposition of that directive by four years.\nIt is truly odd for the European Commission to be tabling this proposal for a postponement. It claims in justification that the medical community has reported its concerns on the implementation of the Directive and that various studies have now been commissioned. It is a pity that similar concern regarding the effects of this Directive is not shown in relation to the effects of other legal instruments and policy guidelines which seek to liberalise public goods and services and to deregulate labour relations and workers' rights. Only when workers' rights and health are being protected does the European Commission ask for more studies to postpone implementation. It is unacceptable.\nDavid Martin \nin writing. - I welcome the report on exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents. The possible consequences which the transposition of the 2004 directive, outlining minimum safety standards for those using physical agents, could have on the development and use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in medicine make the recommendations of the report sound and logical. With the emergence of new studies calling into question the basis on which the directive's recommendations are based, we must allow time for this new information and the directive to be analysed. I therefore support the call to postpone the deadline of 30 April 2008 by four years, and have voted in favour of this report.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik \nin writing. - (SK) I would like to stress that the demand for improving the health and safety of workers in the workplace is based, first and foremost, on risk assessment. In cases where workers are employed in an environment where they are exposed to agents that pose a health risk, a risk assessment is one of the employer's fundamental duties.\nIf a risk assessment reveals that there may be a risk, it is necessary to implement measures that will either eliminate the risk or reduce it to the lowest possible level. In my opinion, it is important to implement these measures at source. Other steps that can be taken are, for example, offering a choice of different working methods, technical measures to reduce the emissions, changing the design of workplaces and workstations, limiting the duration and intensity of exposure, making adequate personal protection equipment available, etc.\nI agree that if a worker's medical examination shows that there is a specific health risk, it is the duty of the employer to provide health care for such workers. Preventive medical check-ups are part of the health care package: their goal is to identify at an early stage changes to one's health and to prevent damage to one's health as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Depending on the results, the risk assessment may be reviewed and additional measures may be implemented.\nIn conclusion, I would like to say that as a doctor I am pleased that Directive 2004\/40\/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down requirements concerning the establishment of action values and exposure limit values for individual electromagnetic fields, as well as requirements for the protection of the health and safety of workers exposed to electromagnetic fields in the course of their work.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries \nin writing. - (FR) Artificial electromagnetic waves have a significant impact on the health of Europe's citizens, and above all on the health of workers, who need to be protected from electromagnetic fields just as they are already protected by two EU directives fixing limit values for exposure to noise and vibration.\nThe electromagnetic fields emitted both by radios and electronic appliances and by various telephonic devices - portable transmitters and telephones, fixed-base and wi-fi mobiles - are by no means harmless!\nThat is the finding of the recent BioInitiative report, and its conclusions are indisputable: the risks include forms of cancer, Alzheimer's disease and nervous problems caused by chronic or excessive exposure to electromagnetic waves. It is a health risk that has recently been highlighted by the European Environment Agency.\nThis is why I voted in favour of the report by Committee Chairman Jan Andersson, which aims to protect workers' health while taking account of the medical community's concerns about the compatibility of Community law with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. MRI scanning is an essential medical procedure for certain patients, and in my view it should have been made the subject of a derogation, instead of postponing application of the entire directive for four years!\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) Although this is a codification procedure that does not alter existing legislation in any way, the underlying question raised is the need for a set of Community directives on a set of issues concerning tractors and other motor vehicles and their trailers, as can be seen from the codified version of several reports put to the vote in Parliament today.\nThis is an area in which I believe Community legislation is excessive. The existence of general legislation on motor vehicles covering general aspects would probably suffice, without the need to reproduce directives relating to each of these areas, as happens now, examples of which are: the suppression of radio interference produced by agricultural or forestry tractors (electromagnetic compatibility); driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors; rear registration plate lamps for motor vehicles and their trailers.\nThe vote in favour of codification does not alter this opinion in any way.\nGenowefa Grabowska \nin writing. - (PL) I fully support the report under discussion, which will play a major role in the simplification and ordered arrangement of Community law. This is especially important for the development of civil society, since transparency and accessibility of European legislation provides the individual citizen with new opportunities to take advantage of specific entitlements.\nThat goal cannot be achieved as long as a large number of repeatedly amended regulations remain dispersed and have to be consulted partly in the original legislative act and partly in subsequent amending acts - a task that requires laborious comparison of many different legal instruments in order to determine the rules in force. Frequently amended regulations need to be codified in order to render Community law clear and intelligible.\nI therefore fully support the codification of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210\/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of this codification report, which is an important part of the work on increasing the clarity and transparency of Community law. The report does not involve any change of substance but brings together a number of different directives into a coherent text. We are of course in favour of such a simplification. It should be emphasised, however, that our vote in favour does not mean that we are satisfied with the formulation of the current legislation. We want to see raised minimum taxes on tobacco in the future and a real simplification of the regulatory system. In addition, it is important to ensure that the tax levels for different types of tobacco have a competition-neutral effect.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) This regulation replaces Regulation (EEC) No 2913\/92, which established the Community Customs Code. The justifications submitted are the amendments that have been introduced in the interim.\nThe Community Customs Code (CCC) was established by Regulation (EEC) No 2913\/92. At that time it was already a long and technically complex document which regulated Community customs matters.\nEach specific aspect of the CCC was discussed by specialists in the relevant area, and CCC issues were addressed by the relevant Committee.\nIn a world in which trade is dominated by the large multinationals, this draft Code would have to reflect and serve the interests of those multinationals, reducing the travelling time of goods and simplifying customs procedures.\nWhether measures seeking to combat customs fraud were also adopted with that simplification is another matter.\nSimplification appears to have been favoured to the detriment of combating fraud. It is moreover no coincidence that Community documents and\/or their translations often refer to 'facilitation' rather than simplification. That is a revealing slip of the pen.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1 \nin writing. - (SK) Counterfeit operations and goods smuggling today use methods that to be detected require an integrated approach to solving the new tasks facing customs authorities; similarly, customs officials need to be professionally trained officials.\nThe EU is a customs union, which is why the Community Customs Code is one of its most important instruments. Modernising the Community Customs Code means a complete revision of the original document that entered into force in 1992, in accordance with the demands of the e-customs and e-commerce environment.\nWhat will the modernisation of the Community Customs Code bring? Most importantly it will modernise the control mechanisms and will result in electronic data exchange and inter-operable customs systems. It will simplify customs regulations and administrative procedures for both the customs authorities and economic operators. Centralised clearance is a new feature: it strengthens the cooperation between the Member States and the European Union. Simpler, faster and, most importantly, centralised clearance at a single location has great potential to reduce bureaucracy.\nAfter three years of intensive institutional work we can proudly credit the European Parliament with a significant success in customs modernisation. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the difficult work done by the customs officials, without which the protection of the Union's external borders would be unthinkable.\nI believe that today we prepared a practical present for the 40th anniversary of our customs union, which will be celebrated on 1 July 2008. I am glad I was able to contribute through my vote to the modernisation of the Community Customs Code.\nLuca Romagnoli \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to support the Dunn report. The purpose of the proposal is to bring the current Regulation (EC) No 515\/97 into line with the new powers of the Community in the field of customs cooperation, stepping up cooperation and exchanges of data between the Member States and between the latter and the Commission. That regulation provides the legal basis for requests for assistance exchanged by the competent authorities in order to combat irregularities and fraud.\nDespite the good results which have been obtained up to now, there are various reasons for amending the text, linked in particular to changes in the institutional context and balance. The aim is therefore to deepen coordination at Community level, in the light of the new instruments provided by European law, bearing in mind that at the time at which Regulation (EC) No 515\/97 was adopted, the Treaty did not yet contain an article on customs cooperation (Articles 135 and 280).\nAlessandro Battilocchio \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the report presented by Mr Pom\u00e9s Ruiz, as it represents a further measure to make the European institutions more accountable and transparent, and is designed to enable all citizens more closely to scrutinise and monitor the decision-making process surrounding the use of EU funds, thereby enhancing the basic principles of our democratic system.\nThe Parliamentary initiative expressly calls for publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds, whether this involves grants, contracts, agricultural or structural expenditure or other types of financing. The EC is also asked to assess the feasibility of an 'information system' for the wider public, able to provide full details of imports and of the individual beneficiaries of the complex financing work of the EU.\nAs it also sets out ethical standards for the holders of public offices and a blacklist of fraudsters, and makes provision for publishing the names of lobbyists and all the experts assisting the Commission, the Ruiz report should make it possible to create an efficient and transparent system for monitoring the management and effective use of EU funds.\nAdam Bielan \nin writing. - (PL) I support this initiative, aimed at achieving transparency with regard to EU budget expenditure. The sources of information on expenditure must be transparent and, above all, they must be arranged in a practical manner. I frequently hear comments from Polish entrepreneurs that access to the relevant sources of information is very dispersed, which makes it much more difficult for users to compare and evaluate, and to draw the right conclusions concerning their own projects.\nThe lack of transparency regarding EU budget expenditure leads to many injustices. In the new Member States, including Poland, where potential beneficiaries have relatively little experience in obtaining EU funding, clearly presented information can be extremely helpful.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) Apart from one or two aspects that give a little cause for concern, we believe that on the whole the report raises a number of very important and topical questions.\nFollowing the so-called European Transparency Initiative, launched by the Commission in November 2005, the report reaffirms the need to introduce a fully operational system of information for the public on, for example, the final beneficiaries of the various structural funds.\nThe report suggests that the different beneficiaries may receive EU funds from several programmes or sectors of EU activity, and therefore recognises that it may be instructive to be able to identify all the amounts paid to an individual beneficiary across all sectors - such information being invaluable, for example, in the case of company relocations, according to the workers.\nThe report also addresses other important aspects, such as the declaration of financial interests of public office-holders in the EU institutions, suggesting that standards should be adopted, and that the composition of the 'expert groups' (formal or informal) the Commission decides to set up to assist it in its initiatives, particularly legislative initiatives, should be disclosed.\nIan Hudghton \nin writing. - I voted in favour of my own group's amendments on the Pom\u00e9s Ruiz report, which were all adopted. It is important that the membership of Commission expert groups is fairly balanced and that the process for selecting such groups is fully open and transparent. It is to be hoped that the Commission takes heed of today's call from this institution.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nin writing. - (PL) Mr Pom\u00e9s Ruiz rightly argues that transparency depends on whether the information concerning beneficiaries is easily accessible and reliable, and lends itself to further research, comparison and assessment.\nI agree with the request that the Commission should explicitly indicate the addresses of the websites containing information on the beneficiaries of EU funding managed directly and centrally by it in all documents relating to the EU budget and\/or projects and programmes under its responsibility.\nDavid Martin \nin writing. - I welcome the report on transparency in financial matters. Any move to improve the quality and availability of information, especially on agricultural policy and Structural Funds (which has proved difficult for the public to obtain), is a positive step towards the EU assuming its democratic obligations.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. - (DE) This is a step in the right direction, designed to bring some light into the aid jungle and to facilitate access for ordinary people or at least give them some understanding of largely opaque processes. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that on this occasion highly paid lobbyists are not the only beneficiaries of such databases, but that they also enable SMEs and ordinary people, through easy-to-follow logical processes, to obtain the grants and other forms of support that interest them.\nAs far as a code of ethics for institutions is concerned, that is certainly to be welcomed. A body empowered to award public funding must be entirely above suspicion, if only for the sake of people's trust in public administrative authorities. There is, however, a need for caution, because scrutiny cannot extend to laying an institution and its members entirely bare and creating transparent people. Within the bounds of data protection, however, such an arrangement, namely the enshrinement of a kind of ethical code, is undoubtedly welcome.\nThe establishment of a 'blacklist' surely needs more discussion regarding the means of implementation, for this is another area in which data protection has a key role to play.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nin writing. - (PT) People who administer public funds are expected and required to exercise the utmost rationality in managing them, the utmost rigour in presenting the results of the activity carried out, and total transparency. Taxpayers - since they are ultimately the financiers of all public funds - have the right (which they must exercise) to know who spends the funds made available to EU interests and how they spend them. I therefore voted in favour of this report, which is supported by a European Commission Communication that puts forward a number of proposals, the majority of which we agree with. I need only add that I believe that the principles and rules applicable to Community funds, particularly those managed directly by the European institutions, must also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the other public funds, namely Community funds managed by the Member States.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna \nin writing. - (PL) I am voting in favour of Mr Pom\u00e9s Ruiz's report on transparency in financial matters.\nThe rapporteur deals with a number of very important issues concerning the management of EU finances, such as disclosure of information concerning the beneficiaries of EU funds, declaration of financial interests of public office-holders in the EU institutions, and governance within the institutions and their annual activity reports.\nWe must strive to achieve continuous streamlining of procedures for the management of EU finances and the control of expenditure, with particular regard to the role of the European Parliament as the institution that grants a discharge in respect of implementation of the budget. We must put our money on transparency and the accurate accounting of financial resources.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) The fight against fraud and misappropriation of public funds, in this case Community funds, must be a priority in each Member State. It is therefore essential for each state to be equipped with the human and material resources necessary to allow it to perform this function properly.\nIt should be emphasised that at the same time as Member State responsibility for protecting public interests is reaffirmed - as it is in the report - policies are promoted in parallel that devalue and withdraw from Member States functions which should be theirs, particularly by dismantling government services, the constant disqualification and laying-off of their workers and the use of private companies to perform some of those functions. In our opinion the report should also examine the consequences for public fund management of transferring public service functions to private enterprises.\nThe extent to which the excessive complexity and inadequacy of the rules and the delay in awarding funds contribute towards the irregularities identified must also be assessed.\nInstead, however, the report essentially focuses on punishment, namely by suggesting infringement proceedings and the suspension of interim payments to Member States.\nIan Hudghton \nin writing. - I supported the Musotto report on the fight against fraud. Misspending and mismanagement of Community money is something which regularly features in the press and media across the EU. It is essential that fraud is tackled effectively and in this regard the Member States have a huge roll to play alongside the various EU bodies.\nLuca Romagnoli \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall vote for the report by our esteemed colleague Francesco Musotto. Both reports highlight the fact that greater attention needs to be paid to certain countries which are lagging behind in terms of providing information in electronic format, and complying with management and monitoring systems. I agree with the rapporteur, who has stressed that it is important to pay particular attention to developing the activities to counter Community fraud which are being run by countries which evidently do not have monitoring systems which are effective enough and, in some cases, have a low level of compliance with European standards. In my view, careful monitoring of Community expenditure is fundamental. The fight against improper payments is even more important, bearing in mind that the money paid by European taxpayers must be used further to enhance standards of living.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted for the Deprez report on how the Union and the Member States should proceed in their action to rein back support for terrorism and the increase in recruitment of terrorists. The EU needs to consider these aspects in its action to combat terrorism and improve knowledge of the reasons for terrorist acts and radicalisation, which is currently limited. But this must be approached with strict respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in a manner which is appropriate to an open, democratic and just society. Constitutional rights, such as freedom of the press and freedom of expression and association, must not be restricted in any way.\nGlyn Ford \nin writing. - I will be supporting Mr Deprez's report on the factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists. Nevertheless, I want to make two points. First, I want to raise the 'Nelson Mandela' question. We must distinguish between those fighting oppression and vicious authoritarian regimes like the apartheid regime in South Africa, and the nihilism of the 9\/11 bombers. I would not have supported the Rivonia bombing, but neither would I, if Nelson Mandela had fled to Europe, have supported his extradition to a South Africa where he faced the death penalty.\nSecond, the West has to recognise that on occasion our actions or inaction in the Middle East, in Palestine and elsewhere contributes to rising hostility and terrorism towards ourselves. Sometimes we can be our own worst enemies.\nBruno Gollnisch \nin writing. - (FR) Two things alarmed me in the Deprez report on terrorism. The first was the absence of any mention of what is a primary cause of the terrorist threat in Europe, namely the unbridled influx of migrant groups who have no wish to integrate or assimilate but seek, on the contrary, to live by their own laws within their so-called host societies, and indeed to impose those laws upon them.\nThe second alarming thing was the apportionment of blame: according to you, Europe can never do enough in terms of renouncing its very essence, its national identities and its shared civilisation. It can never do enough to compromise its values in the name of tolerance and the so-called 'right to difference'. It can never discriminate enough against its own people and in favour of foreign nationalities, cultures or civilisations living on its territory. Ultimately, it is to blame for what happens to it. Yet those responsible for the terrorist attacks in London were British citizens, British-born, employed in jobs that many people would have been glad to have! They were not excluded; they were not victims. Yet they were called to arms!\nThe fact is that the multicultural, compartmentalised societies to which you so earnestly aspire are, by nature, societies prone to multiple conflict. And by denying realities, we merely fuel hatred and contempt.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) Although the report contains aspects we value and consider to be positive in the light of the deterioration in the global situation, among other things, it does not identify or denounce the real objectives and consequences of the 'fight against terrorism', particularly as a factor promoting and encouraging terrorism in itself.\nThe report refers, albeit conditionally, to the fundamental need for the diplomatic and peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world, though it does not indicate that the major factors that encourage terrorism include the spiral of violence fuelled by the militarisation of international relations, attacks on the independence of states and the sovereignty of nations, state terrorism, violation of fundamental freedoms, rights and guarantees, unbridled capitalist exploitation, the inhuman widening of inequality and injustice, and the existence of millions of human beings living in desperate situations - such as in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine.\nWe believe that a serious analysis of terrorism - in all its forms, including state terrorism - will require it to be set in its political context, thereby revealing its underlying causes and the policies giving rise to it, such as the 'fight against terrorism' being waged by the USA and its allies.\nHence our abstention.\nJean Lambert \nin writing. - I supported today's amendments stating that radicalisation should only be seen in terms of a clear link to violence and that civil liberties should be of paramount importance. The latter should not need repeating - we describe ourselves as a Union based on human rights and civil liberties. Indeed, the majority of the proposals in this report are already EU policy, which makes me wonder why we need yet another report.\nI voted against the final report, not because I support the PPE position or the narrow Spanish domestic debate which so frequently poisons our discussions on tackling terrorism in this House, but because we have decided to consider the inclusion of the justification of terrorism in our anti-terrorism package. This may seem a small thing but we already know academic freedom, political debate and anti-radicalisation work are being limited by fears engendered by such legislation. Young Muslims have told me that they are frightened to discuss issues such Palestine or Iraq in case their criticism and explanation of how they feel are interpreted as justification or glorification and they end up in court. Parliament could have voted this paragraph out but chose not to.\nCarl Lang \nin writing. - (FR) This report on eradicating terrorism takes its place in an endless series of texts glorifying human rights and the battle against discrimination. Yet the fact is that over-cautiousness about possible infringements of fundamental freedoms - particularly freedom of expression and freedom of religion - actually erodes the resources we need in order to fight terrorism.\nIt must be obvious by now that the European Parliament is more concerned with protecting rights of every hue, and with doing what is politically correct, than it is with the security of European Union citizens.\nSo it is that this report, about factors favouring support for terrorism, contains not a single reference to mosques although, as we know, they are nothing less than recruiting centres for future Islamic terrorists. Nor is there any reference to the imams of France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Denmark, who are effectively recruiting agents for Jihad-minded Islamic youth.\nLet us not shock anyone; let us not ruffle any religious sensibilities; let us be non-discriminatory: it hardly amounts to an effective recipe for tackling the ever-growing threat of Islamic terrorism! What it does amount to is actually quite the reverse.\nRoselyne Lefran\u00e7ois \nin writing. - (FR) This report reflects substantial amendment work by the members of the PSE, Verts\/ALE, GUE\/NGL and ALDE Groups in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. From a text that initially stigmatised Islam and Muslims in a quite disgraceful way, the progressive, centre-left majority managed to craft a balanced document highlighting the whole range of factors (economic, social and so on) that favour support for terrorism, asserting the need to respect fundamental rights, and emphasising the importance of combating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, especially in education, training and employment.\nThere are, however, two or three points in the report that I find dubious, notably the references to 'moderate Islam' and to 'monitoring of all the locations where propaganda is being disseminated that aims at persuading people to commit terrorist acts'.\nNonetheless, while I may be unable to give the report my wholehearted support, rejecting it would mean surrendering to the right and consigning months of effort to the waste bin.\nThat is why the best course, in my view, is to abstain and to explain the reasons for doing so.\nDavid Martin \nin writing. - This report sought to outline a set of European norms and principles in the fight against terrorism. The opposition from the right to the report means that aid to victims, making the support of terrorist activity a criminal offence in all Member States and encouraging the need for political dialogue, will not form part of a coherent European anti-terrorism strategy. I voted in favour of the report and regret that agreement on what one would feel are issues that normally benefit from wide consensus was not achieved.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer \nin writing. - (DE) Combating terrorism will be the challenge of this century. Resolute action against the machinery of propaganda is therefore the first small step in a bid to curb the spread of terrorism among the autonomous Islamic subcultures that exist throughout Europe.\nWe must face the fact that terrorism in Europe is purely Islamic in character, and that radicalised Muslims are completely immune to integration measures. Radicalisation is on the march in Europe, and the political classes often seem to be in denial to some extent when it comes to these issues.\nFor this reason a strategic approach to the fight against terrorism is necessary and, indeed, crucial to guarantee the survival of Europe, its peoples and its cultures. Efforts should begin with young people, but they must also show a degree of willingness to play their part.\nAbrogation of all human rights - which, as we know, is already practised in some cases in the United States - must not of course occur in Europe. Nevertheless, it will be essential to be tough on terrorism.\nAll unlawful content found in the new media must, of course, be treated like any other illegal statement, and its authors must be prosecuted and punished.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nin writing. - (PT) One of the greatest dangers in the debate on terrorism and its causes is to fall into one of two extremes: on the one hand, in seeking to understand everything, the perception that everything becomes acceptable and justifiable; on the other, the refusal to recognise different realities that makes everything confused and that groups everything according to the same concepts and standards. Both extremes are dangerous as an analysis because, since they are not accurate, they do not allow valid conclusions, leading the police, legislators and the public to make mistakes. They are in addition a threat to an understanding of the real situation, which is both inclusive and firm with terrorism. That is the challenge we are facing: to be able to understand reality exactly as it is, rather than as we fear it or would like it to be; and consequently to act on both its distant and its proximate causes, while never forgetting that terrorism cannot be accepted or justified in any circumstances. And that it is not the victims (whether actual or potential) who must understand and justify the crimes of the aggressors. For all these reasons, I voted against this report.\nMartine Roure \nin writing. - (FR) The best means of combating terrorism is prevention, not the blanket surveillance of European citizens. So the important thing is to attack terrorism's underlying causes.\nThe phenomenon of violent radicalisation will cease once we address inequalities and injustices at both national and world level.\nI abstained in the vote on this report because, in the process of combating terrorism, I do not think we can point the finger at one particular religion. Terrorism is not about religion, even though some people may look to what they term their faith in order to justify killing. The only way to combat violent radicalisation will be by strengthening the lay ethos in our societies and by engaging openly in intercultural dialogue with all the stakeholders, especially the representatives of civil society.\nOlle Schmidt \nin writing. - (SV) Terrorism is a cross-border phenomenon and must be combated vigorously by common action. However, the fight against terrorism must always be waged by legal and proportionate means. The CIA flights in Europe, the use of torture, mock executions and waterboarding, which the CIA now acknowledges did happen, and the establishment of special secret jails must be vigorously condemned. Here the EU should have acted much more firmly than it did.\nBut to me, one thing is self-evident: it is our values which must form the basis of our common legislation. We must also ensure that Community legislation does not jeopardise or set aside important principles - including that of freedom of expression.\nThe report speaks of introducing a new concept into the Framework Decision: 'justification of terrorism'. I think this would be unfortunate. Not because it is not a good idea to ensure that all Member States have good laws against incitement, but because it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a definition which would be applied uniformly and which would not lead to thorny problems of interpretation. On the one hand, there is the important task of devising ways to combat terrorism and save lives. On the other hand, there is the principle of freedom of expression and the concern to maintain a high level of legal security in Europe. It is a question of finding the right balance.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski \nin writing. - (PL) I am unable to support the Deprez report and its proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists.\nThe report advocates the wrong priorities in the struggle against terrorism. The proposal concentrates above all on social policy measures. That approach will not facilitate the struggle against terrorism, which also requires better border controls and coordination among prosecution agencies.\nGeoffrey Van Orden \nin writing. - The Left in the Parliament diluted a key, undeniable message in the original text of this report, which had stated that 'terrorism (in particular Jihadist terrorism) is today the most severe threat to the security of the citizens of the Union'. The report completely omits any reference to the largest factors favouring the recruitment of terrorists, namely uncontrolled immigration and, certainly in regard to the UK, the widespread lack of regard for the Christian religion and positive understanding of our own history and culture.\nNot surprisingly, newcomers then see little with which to identify. It makes no mention of the way in which terrorism can be seen to succeed and the legitimisation and reward of terrorists such as the former leaders of the Provisional IRA. I therefore voted against the report and contributed to its rejection by Parliament.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) This EP own-initiative report is a genuine repository of goals and initiatives for liberalising world trade - whether in goods, services or capital - led by the EU and the European Commission, a virtually omnipotent body in common commercial policy with the new draft Treaty, which makes this an exclusive EU competence.\nThe opening up of markets is the dogma. The end of all and any trade barriers, especially with the developed and emerging economies, is the course of action. The opening up of markets, carried out if possible in the image of the EU single market, is the objective.\nSince it considers the current WTO system to be insufficiently regulatory and binding, it advocates the 'European governance model' for trade, whether by concluding free trade agreements or by stressing conclusion of the current round of WTO negotiations - for which it calls for synergies to be created with the EU's major trading partners (such as the USA, Canada and Japan).\nAs an example, see how the report urges non-EU countries to lift foreign ownership restrictions on European companies... Economic domination is the aim.\nHence our vote against.\nDavid Martin \nin writing. - I welcome the Guardans Camb\u00f3 report on the EU's Strategy to deliver market access for European companies. The principles of improved mutual access, better support for SMEs and enhanced internal market access should help to bolster the Lisbon agenda. In particular I support the amendments on making a distinction between access to developed markets and emerging economies on one hand and LDCs and developing countries on the other.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nin writing. - (PT) Although the European internal market is huge, the world market, opened up due to globalisation, is even larger and more dynamic. Access by European companies to that market, especially to the high-growth-rate emerging economies, must therefore be both a public and a private priority. While it is true, however, that in the area of private initiative it is not up to us to make choices or, worse still, to impose priorities, in the area of public initiatives there is a long way to go. On the one hand, we must be aware of the need to open up our markets if we wish - and we do wish - to gain increasing access to international markets. On the other, it is essential to focus on the capacity of European companies to stand up to the growing economic efficiency and competitiveness of companies from those countries, which means that we must unhesitatingly focus on the competitiveness and innovation of our own companies, which can only occur in a free, open and transparent environment.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u \nin writing. - (RO) The Guardans Camb\u00f3 report refers to the European Union strategy to facilitate the market access for European companies. In the first part of last year, the European Commission presented a communication regarding a stronger partnership in order to obtain market access for the European exporters.\nThe measures proposed by the Commission refer to restructuring the Community computer system that provides market access information and services in approximately 100 countries, better transparency and an information campaign, especially for small and medium-sized companies, regarding the Community services available for European exporters.\nNevertheless, I regret that some of the amendments submitted by the Group of European Socialists, which concerned the field of public procurement and competition, were not voted on.\nI believe it is necessary to define a partnership between the Commission, the Member States and the European companies in order to facilitate the latter's access to third markets but, at the same time, we must ensure that the European principles and values are complied with in those markets: labour law, environmental protection, respect of intellectual property, and human rights.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-30":2,"2024-26":3,"2024-22":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Credit Rating Agencies - Reporting and documentation requirements in the case of merger and divisions - Insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) (recast) (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe report by Mr Gauz\u00e8s, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies - C6-0397\/2008 -,\nthe report by Mrs Weber, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 77\/91\/EEC, 78\/855\/EEC and 82\/891\/EEC and Directive 2005\/56\/EC as regards reporting and documentation requirements in the case of merger and divisions - C6-0330\/2008 -, and\nthe report by Mr Skinner, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (recast) - C6-0231\/2007 -.\nJean-Paul Gauz\u00e8s\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report on rating agencies with which I have been entrusted has been particularly interesting to draft, and I am delighted, above all, that we have been able to reach an agreement with the Council and with the Commission so that this report has a chance of being adopted at first reading.\nAnalysing the various causes of the financial crisis has shown that there was an urgent need to enact legislation on rating agencies. The proposal for a regulation submitted by the Commission has been examined very carefully by Parliament in order to ensure that European legislation is at once exemplary, effective and pragmatic.\nThe recent conclusions of the G20 have further strengthened this determination. The compromise reached by the Commission, the EU Presidency and Parliament adheres to the guidelines sought by Parliament on the essential points of this regulation: the scope, the ratings of third countries, and the prevention of conflicts of interest.\nAbove all, however, I am delighted that this text has been able to lay the foundations for European supervision in the spirit of the findings of the de Larosi\u00e8re group's report. Indeed, Parliament has kept to the idea that the CESR should be the single point of entry for the registration of agencies. We knew that, given the current state of the law, there was not much more that could be done, but by acting in this way we have laid the foundations for this future European supervision.\nOver the coming months the Commission will propose a legislative initiative that will enable the guidelines of the de Larosi\u00e8re report to be implemented, so as to create European supervision that is effective and coordinated.\nAs a stop-gap measure, and in anticipation of the Commission's legislative initiative, the regulation will be overseen under the coordination of the CESR by a college made up of representatives of the competent authorities of the Member States, the legal force of the decisions being guaranteed by the competent authority of the place in which the agency is registered.\nI should like today to point out how appreciative Parliament was, during the second stage of negotiations, of the very constructive and very cooperative attitude of the Czech Presidency. This has meant that, through intelligent discussion, we have been able to develop a number of rules that should make it possible to guarantee this necessary transparency and to remedy the problems and the shortcomings that have resulted from the absence of legislation on rating agencies.\nThis result is therefore most satisfactory, and for this reason a global amendment reproducing the text on which the Commission, Parliament and the Czech Presidency - that is to say the Member States - have come to an agreement will be presented tomorrow to Parliament.\nI believe that in this way the European Parliament, the Commission and the Presidency will have proved that, when faced with a crisis on an unprecedented scale, the European institutions were very resourceful. I hope that, in the same spirit, we will be able to adopt the other provisions of this financial package, and in particular the recast of the Directive on the capital requirements of banks, also referred to as Basel II.\nDuring this period in which Europeans are questioning Europe's effectiveness, it seems vital to me that we be able to prove that Europe is capable of tackling the crisis.\nRenate Weber\nrapporteur. - (RO) I believe that we are now at a time when we must do as much as we can to keep alive commercial companies in Europe and, in particular, find those incentives to make successful businesses capable of providing as many jobs as possible. Such an initiative is all the more important now during the period of crisis we are going through. I welcome the Commission's proposal for a directive to simplify the reporting procedures in the case of mergers and divisions because its objective is to cut European companies' administrative costs by 25% by 2012, the precise aim being to boost their competitiveness.\nThe report which we have drafted and which we will vote on tomorrow reflects the Commission's thinking and is guided in particular by the following few factors. Firstly, the reporting obligations in the case of mergers and divisions must be reduced so as to offer Member States and companies greater flexibility in deciding which reports they really need on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, provisions resulting at the moment in double reporting, thereby incurring unnecessary costs, must be removed. Thirdly, the rules on publishing and providing information must be adapted to the new realities involving the use of the Internet so that we make full use of these new means of communication, while also conveying a message about protecting the environment. We must not forget either that the measures stipulated by the directives currently in force on providing information to shareholders were thought up 30 years ago and have never been adapted for the current technological options available. I would like to sincerely thank the shadow rapporteurs for the close cooperation we have had with them and for their support throughout this process of drafting the report. I would also like to thank the representatives of the Council and Commission for making themselves available and approachable over these recent months.\nOn 7 April COREPER reached an agreement on the entire compromise package negotiated with Parliament with the aim of adopting a directive on mergers and divisions at first reading. We would like this to happen, which is precisely the reason why many amendments have been submitted for tomorrow's plenary session vote, by adopting the compromise which we reached during the informal trialogue. Issues which were of major concern to some Member States, such as publication in local newspapers or the provision of hard copies and the use of the Internet were resolved, and the representatives of the political groups have given their consent to these amendments. With regard to publishing information in local newspapers, this practice will still be possible in those Member States which will consider this to be necessary. Regarding hard copies, the rule is that they will no longer be necessary if shareholders have the opportunity to download and print the documents, but Member States can arrange for commercial companies to provide these documents at their office for consultation.\nAnother important compromise relates to the date of the directive's implementation, which will be 30 June 2011, as specified in the Commission's proposal. Member States will also have the opportunity to decide what the consequences will be in the event of temporary disruption to Internet access as a result of technical problems. A substantial amendment relates to simplified mergers and divisions, when general meetings will no longer be required to approve them. Based on applying these simplified procedures alone, it is estimated that savings of around EUR 154 million will be made every year, which makes it worth us adopting this directive at first reading.\nPeter Skinner\nrapporteur. - Madam President, you caught me slightly unawares as I had not seen the complete change of the timetable today, but I am very grateful for the chance to address the Chamber about a very important issue of the financial services industry, that is, the insurance and reinsurance industry, what we have done with the Solvency II report and how we have finally brought this now to Parliament in order to be able to establish what I think will be a very concrete basis for regulation across the European Union.\nIt is, of course, something which we are coming back to. There was Solvency I, and I am grateful to Mr Ettl when previously in Parliament we discussed this at some length and we managed to come up with some basis. But now we have to modernise, and the insurance industry is amongst many financial services industries which have to be at the forefront of change. It is clear, with the financial crisis and everything that has gone along with it, that the insurance industry is something which cannot be left alone.\nThere are several measures which come about from Solvency II which I think have helped to make this one of the leading reports, which will be a global leader at that. Amongst them is the issue of management of risk. I think it is not enough now that regulators simply tick boxes to establish whether or not the industry that they are meant to be guarding and protecting on behalf of the consumer is doing the right thing. It is essential that the day-to-day business of insurance and reinsurance companies is actually watched, managed and monitored by regulators over a period of time.\nIt is by this process and this process alone that we will be able to establish a proper and appropriate form of regulation. It is the reporting of companies: yes, they will be doing things to tell regulators what they are doing, but regulators will have to be involved. And across 27 Member States: not each individual Member State with their own separate rules now, considering what they can apply in terms of that regulation, but indeed they will be applying a standard formula of regulation across the European Union, which will lead, frankly, to the better consumer platform of protection that we expect.\nSimilarly, companies will manage to get economies of scale from this regulation, because now they will be reporting only in one way to each of the regulators. What they produce, what they have to say, what they do and how they report, will not just be to one regulator but it could be to a college of regulators, especially for groups, because, as insurance companies cross borders, it is now important that regulators team up and work together to ensure that the appropriate levels of reporting, the appropriate levels of figures and what information is supplied, are brought to bear to make sure that the markets are best protected.\nIt was during the discussion with the Council that Parliament saw some interesting and perhaps sometimes even deliberate ploys to move national industries one way or another, so I cannot pretend that this has not been a very difficult dossier to try to negotiate with the Council: it has. Parliament has pushed the Council a long way. It pushed it further than I think the Council established and really wanted to go under the last two presidencies, so I am very proud and pleased to have worked with the team that I have in order to be able to get the Council to move.\nUnfortunately we will not have the kind of group support that we initially envisaged that we should, but because we are able to insert a review clause in this directive, we will be able to come back to group support and, three years after the introduction of this particular directive, I am hoping - and I expect the Commissioner to tell me that he will anticipate doing this as well - to be able to bring back group support in one way or another, specifically to match the economic side of this particular approach.\nWe want a regulation that is risk-based and principle-based, but one that will also support the capacity of the industry and one that will promote the very best instincts of regulators across the European Union and abroad. I will just finish on this one note. We must also challenge regulators elsewhere in the world and recognise country-to-country regimes only. I hope the Commissioner will agree with me about that.\nCharlie McCreevy\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, today's debate takes place at a time when we are facing the greatest challenge to the European economy in modern times. Action is needed urgently: vigorous, targeted and comprehensive action in order to restore confidence, growth and jobs and to repair the financial system, to rebuild stability for the future, to promote trade and investment and to better protect our citizens - in short, to deliver an effective and stable financial system.\nBased on the Commission's communication of the beginning of March, the Spring European Council set out a strong EU action plan for the future - a strategy to address the regulatory gaps in the financial sector, to restore incentives and to reform supervision to match the single EU financial market. In a few weeks' time the Commission will present its views on the road towards building a state-of-the-art supervisory framework in Europe. These will be discussed by the heads of state or government in June. The Commission is ready to put concrete measures on the table in the autumn.\nClearly, global problems also require global solutions. The EU initiative to agree a coordinated global response to the financial crisis has been very successful. At the London meeting, G20 leaders made extensive commitments to address the weak points of the financial system in a coordinated manner, to jointly build a new financial architecture while defending an open, global economy.\nThe situation in the EU financial sector is serious. But a lot has already been done, and I am glad to note that the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council have reacted quickly and cooperated closely to respond to the crisis. We are about to successfully conclude the adoption of three key measures: firstly, the regulation on credit-rating agencies; secondly, the recast of Solvency II, as well as, thirdly, the revision of the Third and Sixth Company Law Directives on domestic mergers and divisions.\nFirstly, the agreement reached on a regulation on credit-rating agencies will help address one of the problems that contributed to this crisis and thus will offer some prospect of restoring market confidence. The proposal adopted by the Commission last November sets some clear objectives for improving integrity, transparency, responsibility and good governance of the credit-rating agencies. The thrust of the initial proposal is preserved in this regulation, which will in particular secure the analytical independence of credit-rating agencies, the integrity of the rating process and an adequate management of conflicts of interest that existed before in the rating process. Moreover, a comprehensive supervisory regime will be put in place. European regulators will supervise the conduct of credit-rating agencies and take enforcement action where necessary.\nOn the issue of supervision, I have been vocal about the need to strengthen supervisory cooperation. I have therefore no difficulty in agreeing on the need to push forward in this crucial domain. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency and coherence in all relevant financial sector regulation, the Commission agrees, on the basis of the recommendations of the de Larosi\u00e8re report, to examine the need to strengthen the provisions of this regulation with regard to supervisory architecture.\nOn the issue of the treatment of credit ratings issued in third countries, the outcome of the G20 summit has changed the global situation. All G20 members have agreed on regulating credit-rating agencies through the introduction of mandatory registration and oversight regime. That is why I agree with the solution agreed in the negotiations between the Council and Parliament on the treatment of ratings issued in third countries.\nI am pleased to note that the ambitious goals set by the Commission proposal have been kept. The Commission is very pleased with the outcome of the codecision process.\nLet me now turn to Solvency II. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Skinner, and Parliament for their work and their willingness to compromise in order to reach agreement in a single reading on this important subject. Such an outcome will be widely welcomed by the EU insurance industry, by supervisors and by stakeholders in general.\nHowever, I also have to admit that I am disappointed with certain aspects of the compromise. The deletion of the group support regime, which I consider one of the most innovative aspects of the Commission's proposal, means that we will not be able to modernise - as much as we wanted - the supervisory arrangements for insurers and reinsurers operating on a cross-border basis.\nI also remain concerned that some of the amendments regarding the treatment of equity risk could result in the introduction of an imprudent regime for investment in risk-based capital. This is particularly the case for the amendments which introduce the so-called duration approach as a Member State option. The Commission will pay close attention to ensure that the implementing measures brought forward in this regard are prudentially sound.\nNonetheless, the Commission will support the agreement between Parliament and the Council, if it is endorsed by your vote. The current Solvency regime is over 30 years old. Solvency II will introduce an economic risk-based regime that will deepen integration of the EU insurance market, enhance policyholder protection and increase the competitiveness of EU insurers.\nAs confirmed recently by CEIOPS in their report on lessons learned from the financial crisis, we need Solvency II more than ever as a first response to the present financial crisis. We need regulation that requires companies to properly manage their risks, that increases transparency and that ensures that supervisory authorities cooperate and coordinate their activities more effectively. Solvency II will bring about a regime for the insurance industry that can serve as a model for similar reforms internationally.\nThe introduction of a review clause specifically mentioning the group support regime will enable the Commission to come back to this issue. I expect that progress in a number of different areas, connected to the recommendations of the de Larosi\u00e8re report, will have created a more favourable environment for reforms related to cross-border cooperation between home and host supervisors.\nI now turn to the Weber report. Thanks to the efficient work of the rapporteur, Ms Weber, it has been possible to identify a compromise on simplified reporting and documentation requirements, in the case of mergers and divisions of public limited liability companies which will maintain a very significant part of the savings potential of the original Commission proposal, which amounts to EUR 172 million per year.\nMeasurements and studies carried out in the context of reduction of administrative burdens show that company law is one of the most burdensome areas of the EU acquis. For several reasons, administrative burdens hit SMEs harder than bigger companies. An expert report from 2007 estimates that small enterprises spend 10 times the amount that large enterprises have to spend in order to comply with information obligations imposed by legislation. Ten times, I repeat. At the same time, small businesses are the backbone of our European economy, and they are currently facing very difficult economic times.\nIn the current difficult and challenging economic situation we cannot afford such impediments. Instead we must strengthen our effort to ease the burden on our companies. In its resolution of 12 December 2007, the European Parliament welcomed the Commission's determination to reach the goal of a 25% reduction in administrative burdens on undertakings at EU and national level by 2012 and underlined that it would examine legislative proposals in this light. Today, only seven months after the proposal was put forward by the Commission, I am very pleased with this compromise, even though the Commission had gone even further in its original proposal. I look forward to Parliament endorsing this compromise, which will rapidly bring significant benefits to companies, especially to SMEs. And we should not stop there. Simplification and reducing red tape will remain at the heart of the Commission's agenda.\nGay Mitchell\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - Madam President, I do not want to aim this at anybody in particular. I think that Solvency II, regulation and CRAs are all very relevant and very important, but we need to build a fire station as well as douse the flames. I think we have got too much into the detail of saying: oh, we are going to build this fire station at some time in the future.\nI cannot believe that, if President Sarkozy were still President of the European Council, we would still be going at the snail's pace we are going at. The Czech Presidency is a great disappointment, and the President of the Czech Republic in particular is a great disappointment.\nI would say to you that if the Czech Presidency, or its successors, is not capable of doing the job, then it shows that we really do need Lisbon: we really do need somebody on a more permanent basis to give leadership to the European Union.\nPeople are looking for hope; they are looking for some information about recovery. Does anybody in this House really believe that, if Jacques Delors were President of the Commission, we would be going at this snail's pace? It is time for action and for leadership, and we are not getting that action or leadership, and that is an issue that needs to be raised here this morning.\nThe European Investment Bank could do much more. The European Union and its institutions, together with countries like China, could do much more. This is not 1937. We did not have the institutions or the capability of addressing things that we have now. We do have those institutions now, within and outside the European Union - a small number of institutions that can cooperate together. What we are missing is leadership. Bring back President Sarkozy, or somebody like Sarkozy, and let us get the Commission properly led, to give people hope and let us start talking about that recovery. I do not see this coming from the European Council and it is time it did.\nSharon Bowles\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Madam President, I welcome the agreement for Solvency II and, like others, I regret the relegation of group support to a future review and the eventual inability on the part of the Council to explore with us ways to make it workable, taking into account some well founded concerns. In both the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs I looked at what happens to the movement of capital at times of group stress, such as near-insolvency, and it is certainly not as straightforward as the Commission draft or insurance industry representatives portrayed.\nHowever, there are instruments available that could achieve the objective and we recommended Level 2 measures, but now we are left to look for the future for ways to maximise safe, economic use of capital in a group. I hope that Member States will rise to the challenge when it comes to looking for better solutions on winding-up.\nTurning now to some of the things in the package, changes to Article 27 specified that supervisory authorities must have relevant expertise and capacity. I made the original amendment in part with the report on Equitable Life in mind, but in the context of the financial crisis it has a wider resonance and I have achieved similar inclusions in the capital requirements and credit-rating proposals.\nIt must be absolutely clear that taking a risk-based approach is not a soft option. Proper understanding of models and underlying assumptions should be a more intensive way of supervising than tick-boxes. Stress tests must challenge beyond the comfort zone of assumptions, and correlation factors should remain under active review.\nGroup supervision is now made an inclusive process, not winner-takes-all for the group supervisor, although there has to be responsibility at a single end point ultimately. The role of CEIOPS is augmented, and it is worth stressing that it was the discussion around Solvency II that led the way towards mainstream thinking on enhanced roles for the Level 3 committees. Importantly, it is also clarified that there should not be conflicts between the mandate of a national supervisor and its role within CEIOPS.\nThese amendments were somewhat prescient when made quite some time ago, but have shown their worth as the financial crisis has developed. As the rapporteur has said, the Parliament team has done well and in the context of Solvency II; so has the Czech Presidency.\nKarsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteur has already pointed out both the aspects worthy of criticism and the positive aspects of the result achieved on Solvency II. I believe we can say that it represents significant progress towards rendering the European insurance industry workable in future, even in times of crisis. I also believe that, as has already been said, we have made clear where the aspects worthy of criticism lie, namely in group supervision. There is, of course, more work to be done in the combined area of group supervision and group support. In a crisis, however, when capital flows are not as would normally be expected, it is natural that there is a need to catch up in this field and also to show consideration for countries experiencing difficulties.\nWe have also discussed another issue that is crucial, since there are 500 million consumers in the European Union, who are also all insured persons, with 'equity risk'. Industry, the economy and the Member States also all have clear opinions on the subject. We have had to accept a compromise on this, which may also be reflected in the analysis at some stage under a review-clause system. The important thing is that we can say that the European Union has sent out a signal in this regard that Europe is on the move, that it is capable of action. I believe that the United States, China and the other countries working on these prudential issues and preparing better systems for the future in these particular circumstances have also recognised this signal. That is one of the important insights.\nI should also like to reiterate the following very clearly with regard to the past. Four presidencies have been involved, including the current one. The negotiations have varied widely, naturally also under the influence of pressure from the respective Member States, but we have achieved a result. That is one insight.\nThe second is that we have worked together with the European insurance industry, and that the impact studies on the individual fields were very important in this regard. Why was that? It was because of the need to involve the insurance industry in finding a path to this solution in view of the very complicated system and subject matter. If we consider that 1 400 undertakings took part in the last impact study - both large and small, as the aim is not market clearance but to involve all actors in the interests of consumers - then this has been a great success. Together with the Solvency II negotiating team, we have refused to be intimidated by any particular sources of pressure, and instead have steered a clear course in the interests of consumers, of the insurance industry and, above all, of course, of our parliamentary duties.\nGianni Pittella\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is clear to everyone that a cycle of development is over, a cycle that in recent years brought to light the imbalances and contradictions of a certain way of understanding globalisation: an ultraliberal globalisation that in too many cases has benefited from the weakness of the institutions and has looked on politics as a hindrance, an annoyance of which to rid itself.\nIt now falls precisely to politics to restore citizens' faith in light of the severe economic crisis we are experiencing. In order to do so politics must take the lead, indicating the future prospects and obstacles to be overcome. We must redress the contradiction between the rapid growth of the world market and the weakness of the institutions capable of counterbalancing and controlling the excessive power of the financial economy.\nThe rating agencies regulation represents an important step forward in this sense. I have worked on this dossier as the shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, in full cooperation with JeanPaul Gauz\u00e8s, the report's author, whom I sincerely congratulate.\nThe most significant points of the regulation are the product of Parliament's commitment during the difficult negotiations with the Council. I refer to solid achievements such as the requirement for agencies to register on European territory, forecasting and civil liability, the dual security system for the approval of notes from third countries and above all the possibility that this regulation may enter into force quickly and not after two years, as initially requested by national governments.\nThe regulation also has a strong symbolic value, however. We are in fact regulating a sector that like others - I am thinking for example of speculative funds - has benefited in recent years from a total legislative void. The outcome of this kind of self-regulation is clear for all to see, and it is terrible. Now is the time to take courage and build a new structure for the financial markets. We must be aware that in this sector, even more than in others, Commissioner, it is not enough for national governments to act alone!\nFor this reason, I feel a pang of regret despite the excellent result obtained, because an opportunity was missed; due to opposition from the Member States - for which the Council has a serious responsibility - the will was not there to make provision in the text for a single, European supervisory body for the ratings sector. An official request for this was made to Parliament, but a lack of political ambition and realism has so far prevented it from finding support. On this point, Parliament continues to demonstrate its ability to look well into the future, and I hope that the national governments will do the same.\nWolf Klinz\nMadam President, the failings of the credit rating agencies that preceded the crisis have made the regulation of these agencies inescapable. The objectives of the present Regulation on the registration of credit rating agencies are, once again, transparency, guaranteed high quality, greater competition, the overcoming of conflicts of interest and, as a result, better protection of investors. Reaching agreement was no easy task. The positions of the Commission, Parliament and the Council started off far apart but, on the whole, these objectives have now largely been achieved. One good thing is that there is to be only one rating category. Categories 1 and 2 for regulatory and other purposes will be a thing of the past. Conflicts of interest have been overcome: there will be no advisory services in addition to credit rating activities. Credit rating agencies from countries outside the European Union will have the opportunity to approach the European market and operate here by means of an equivalence regime involving certification - which is important for small agencies - or by means of the endorsement system - which can be used by large agencies.\nThe Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) will play a crucial role in the registration and supervision of credit rating agencies. For all this, I also note a number of shortcomings in the present dossier and Regulation. I fear that, in practice, the opportunities to enter the European market will be impeded by all the rules and requirements. These requirements are perhaps too restrictive, and they could end up cutting off the European market, and could thus lead to protectionism through the back door - which would be a bad thing. I hope that my fears will prove to be unfounded.\nOur rules for internal governance go a very long way - too far, in fact. They are almost overkill. There are no comparable rules in any other EU regulation. We would have done better to define clear principles and leave responsibility for implementing and developing these principles with the undertakings themselves.\nFinally, in my opinion, we have not made any progress on putting an end to oligopolies. We shall have to endure many years of very little competition.\nCristiana Muscardini\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic crisis is far from over, although membership of the euro zone has given Europe a certain stability. The International Monetary Fund puts the cost of the financial crisis at USD 4 000 billion, two-thirds of which can be attributed to the banks.\nThere are many goals to be reached: restoring confidence, supporting growth and protecting employment. This can only be achieved through an economic policy capable of setting the financial system to rights, but Europe does not yet have an economic policy! Despite the London G20 proposals to give a new boost to the credit system, there is still a severe lack of clear rules - as we have been saying for years - to govern the financial market, its operators, the products offered and the derivatives.\nThe markets should be subject to regulation and surveillance, most importantly for the financial sector, which, uncontrolled, has opened the way for an escalation of unprecedented indebtedness. What to do with this enormous debt that has built up by granting credit without guarantees? Should it be written off? Should it be included in a cleansing mechanism put in place by the banks? Should future transactions in OTC derivatives be banned and the banks asked to put an end to their derivative contracts once and for all?\nWe need definite responses, new lines of credit for small and medium-sized enterprises and for savers, to prevent uncontrolled relocations and to realign OMC rules to the real situation. If we do not talk about world trade rules we will resolve nothing: that is to say, in the face of this systemic crisis we must reform the system, restoring to politics that steering role that is too often lacking, refocusing attention on the real economy and abandoning the easy opiates of virtual finance!\nAlain Lipietz\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to state that I fully agree with what Mr Mitchell said in his speech. We are not on schedule; we are not up to speed. Nonetheless I would point out to him that it is important not to make the same mistake regarding the French President that the French sometimes make regarding Mr Brown. Speeches about action do not guarantee that the action will be effective.\nIn terms of the crisis itself, it is clear that, for us, the crisis did not start with finance. It is rooted in the social and environmental spheres. That being said, it combines with the financial cycle, that is to say that, when the cycle is going well, we take risks, but when it is no longer going well, we tell ourselves that it might be wise to regulate things slightly.\nWe are at the stage where regulation - and strong regulation at that - is required. Regulation at single market level is required, that is to say that we need far more centralised regulation at European level. This is what guides us in our choice of votes. We fully support the Gauz\u00e8s report and the progress it makes. For years now we have been calling for more centralised regulation and supervision at European level, and the first stage that has been achieved with the CESR is in our view entirely appropriate.\nHowever, despite Mr Skinner's efforts - and, on this point, our criticism is exactly the same as Mr Mitchell's - we regret that the governments have not understood. We do not agree with the compromise that is proposed and that rejects the system of group supervision. I believe that such a method will lead to further disasters.\nWe shall therefore vote against the Skinner report - not against the work of Mr Skinner himself, but against the compromise imposed by the governments.\nSahra Wagenknecht\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, like public security, justice or environmental protection, stability of the financial markets is a public asset and, as such, should be under public scrutiny. After all, we have already seen it happen: anyone who leaves the regulation of financial markets up to the big banks, insurance companies, hedge funds and credit rating agencies in the private sector runs the risk of seeing gigantic sums speculated away in search of maximum returns and, ultimately, the general public having to foot the bill for the losses.\nThe crisis has shown only too clearly that voluntary self-regulation has failed, yet the Commission has not wavered in its commitment to this. Instead of prohibiting risky finance products and imposing clear rules on the financial sector, it is to continue to allow private actors to decide for themselves what risks to run and how these are to be assessed. We believe this to be irresponsible.\nIt has now become clear that, in the interests of profit, the credit rating agencies have systematically underestimated the risks of structured finance products and thus really set in motion the trade in unrecoverable loans. The appropriate course of action, therefore, would be to put a complete stop to the outsourcing of risk management to private, profit-oriented actors and to create a European public rating agency to give an independent opinion on the quality of the various securities. The Commission has yet to even consider this solution.\nThe Gauz\u00e8s report rightly demands that the rating of sovereign debt must be considered a public good and must therefore be undertaken by public actors. Why should this principle be restricted to sovereign debt, however?\nIn the case of the planned Solvency II Directive, too, the Commission and the rapporteur back the failed concept of self-regulation. For example, insurance groups are to be allowed recourse to internal models of risk assessment when calculating capital and solvency requirements. Time will tell whether Member States' supervisory authorities have sufficient capacity to understand these models. Personally, I doubt it.\nMoreover, both the Minimum Capital Requirement and the Solvency Capital Requirement are much too low, and must be increased substantially. Since this could pose problems for some banks or insurance companies, we advocate that this capital increase take the form of government holdings entailing corresponding influence on company policy. Such part-nationalisation would be a courageous first step towards reorienting the financial sector towards the common good.\nIn the longer term, the whole financial sector should be moved to the public sector in any case, as only nationalisation can ensure that this sector fulfils its public duty instead of gambling itself away in search of ever higher returns on the global financial markets. It is high time conclusions were drawn from the disaster that has been caused.\nGodfrey Bloom\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, I have spent 40 years in financial services, so I think perhaps I know a little bit about what I am talking about here.\nLet me just say a little about the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA), which will guide us onto the target of how mistakes are made. The FSA in the United Kingdom has a rule book of half a million words. Nobody understands it - least of all the FSA. The FSA interprets its own rule book in secret; they keep the fines that they impose to beef up their own salaries and pensions; there is no court of appeal. I have written to Commissioner McCreevy on this subject and it drives a coach and horses through Articles 6 and 7 of his own Human Rights Act. There is no court of appeal. There is no legal recourse at all if they get it wrong. The general public has been given the impression that if a regulation has an FSA stamp on it it cannot go wrong. There is no concept of caveat emptor.\nNow it is going to be, it would appear, subsumed by some sort of EU overseer, consisting no doubt of ignorant bureaucrats, Scandinavian housewives, Bulgarian mafia and Romanian peg-makers. Frankly, I think you are going to get on really well with each other.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Madam President, the reports by Mr Gauz\u00e8s on rating agencies, by Mrs Weber on reporting and documentation requirements in the case of merger and divisions, and by Mr Skinner on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance, contain provisions that are undoubtedly useful, but they cannot be described as measures to combat the financial crisis. The crisis that we are experiencing is clearly on an altogether different scale, and it cannot be resolved by these technical and one-off measures alone.\nWhat action is needed to resolve the terrible crisis that we are experiencing? Firstly, there has to be a break with the dogmas on which you have based your work up to now, namely those that believe in the benevolence of the international division of labour, of the free movement of persons, and of goods and capital.\nThere has to be a break with the free movement of goods, which has pitted European workers against the workers of countries which, like Communist China, are a haven for the most cynical form of capitalism, where workers do not have the right to strike, freedom of association, adequate retirement pensions, or social protection, and where they earn ridiculously low wages. China is not the only state in this situation, however.\nThere has to be a break with the free movement of persons, which has led us, which has led you, to accept and even to recommend, as the only means of replacing future generations, a mass immigration policy, the disastrous consequences of which we can clearly observe today.\nLastly, there has to be a break with the free movement of capital, which was the trigger factor of the crisis, since it allowed the crisis in the US home mortgage market - which was an entirely circumstantial crisis that should have remained confined to the US market - gradually to contaminate all our economies and to ruin our savers, our workers and our employers.\nIt follows that small and medium-sized enterprises must be released from the shackles of tax meddling and red tape; simple rules are needed so that monetary values actually correspond to what exists in terms of industrial or service assets; and an investment policy must be launched, but it must be a viable one. Those are just a few essential measures that we would like to see taken by the Member States' governments ultimately in the context of these national policies that have shown their superior ability to react.\nJohn Purvis\nMadam President, I am pleased that Solvency II has at last reached the point of decision. Mr Skinner and his shadows have displayed exemplary resilience and patience in achieving this. I am sorry, also like others, that group support is excluded, but not surprised, frankly, in the current febrile circumstances. We need to work hard to achieve a group system that will work for and in a truly European single market for insurance, which is also effective with third countries - we cannot have any more AIG fiascos.\nI would also like to compliment rapporteur Gauz\u00e8s and the Council on reaching a reasonable conclusion to the regulation of credit rating agencies. Clearly, these agencies have made serious mistakes, and some form of increased regulation was inevitable. But who has not made mistakes, not least the regulators themselves, and can we be sure they are now above making any future errors?\nI was concerned that the rabidly hostile scapegoating of credit-rating agencies would result in excessively intrusive and counter-productive regulation, with an overwhelming Eurocentric, protectionist and extraterritorial dimension. The compromise, I am glad to see, has muted these tendencies to some extent, but not to the extent I would have liked to have seen.\nCredit ratings are an opinion - they are useful opinions, they are expert opinions, but they are only opinions, so it is up to investors to take full responsibility for their investment decisions. No doubt these lessons have now been learned and all too starkly and at a cost.\nI am glad the scope is restricted to ratings used for regulatory purposes. I am glad to see that we have moved away from equivalence and endorsement, when dealing with third-country ratings, to equivalence or endorsement. But could the Commissioner please confirm that this means that investors can still invest freely in stocks and bonds in third countries which are not rated in Europe or which do not have equivalent status?\nWe must be on the look-out for unintended consequences. With no prior impact assessment, these will almost certainly appear and, therefore, the review requirement in Article 34 is of vital importance.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\n(FR) Madam President, as far as Solvency II is concerned, that is a reform that was launched well before the crisis and that the latter has shed new light on. As legislators, we have hesitated: did this agreement need to be concluded at first reading?\nIn the end, the determination of the negotiators will have enabled us to reach a compromise which, I believe, has at least two virtues: firstly, it forces the insurance sector to assess its risks better, a process which, until now, still involved relatively old mechanisms that were without doubt unsuitable for the reality of what the insurance sector had become; and, secondly, it emphasises the need for supervision mechanisms to adapt to what insurance companies have become, in terms of both their multitude of consumer-focused products and offers, and their transnational set-up.\nAs legislators, we were very keen to take account of the reality of this market, that is to say of a market where, for example, in certain countries there are life insurance mechanisms that account for a substantial share of this sector and where, in the light of the crisis, we had to take account of the effect of pro-cyclicality when applied to the insurance sector.\nWe also had to ensure that the adoption of this legislation did not disrupt the architecture of the insurance market and, in particular, that it enabled mutual associations to occupy a place within this legislation. However, it is quite clear that this is just one stage, and I should like to mention six points, in relation to the sector, on which we shall have to resume our work immediately in future.\nThe first is obviously taking on board the conclusions of the de Larosi\u00e8re report and the need to ensure that equality and harmonious conditions exist among the various colleges of supervisors, and, to this end, the need to strengthen the European authority responsible for monitoring insurance companies.\nThe second point - many of my fellow Members have mentioned it - is to implement this infamous group support mechanism, and, on this point, I do not share the view of Mr Lipietz. Of course we would have preferred to have had group support, but what is unclear about the fact that it is difficult today for countries in which 80% or 100% of the insurance sector is in the hands of foreign companies, without any solid legal basis, to accept this mechanism? We need to make progress in this area.\nThe third stage for the future is harmonisation between what we are doing here and what is happening with pension funds. How can we conceive of having to improve solvency in insurance terms, but not of asking ourselves the same question where pension funds are concerned? This is an absolutely huge challenge.\nThe fourth task for the future concerns the installation, the creation, the establishment of a deposit guarantee mechanism, as we have today in banking, and which is still lacking in the insurance sector.\nThe fifth point concerns the marketing of insurance products and the guarantee that the way in which insurance intermediaries offer products to the insured makes it possible to accommodate their interests and protection requirements.\nFinally, the last point concerns the transposition, in this sector, of what we are going to put in place for the banking sector, namely retention mechanisms in relation to securitisation.\nOn that basis, I hope that, in future, we will be able to learn from the lessons of this crisis in order to guarantee European citizens an insurance sector that represents for them a real guarantee of ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nMarielle De Sarnez\n(FR) Madam President, our rapporteurs are not to blame, but I do believe that the Commission's proposals have come rather late in the day and are no match for what has taken place. To prevent any further crisis, we obviously need to be much more ambitious and more pro-active.\nWe have to be more ambitious and more pro-active in the area of regulation, firstly. We have to harmonise our legislation, and the most powerful signal would undoubtedly be to provide ourselves with a European regulator. That is ultimately the way to make a statement.\nIn terms of rating agencies, we need to create European agencies whose independence is guaranteed and to put a stop to this scandalous business of seeing agencies rate businesses that pay them.\nRegarding hedge funds, we need to regulate them and to devise a form of taxation that penalises all short-term financial transactions.\nLastly, as regards tax havens, some very simple measures must be taken. We have to ban any banks that perform transactions with tax havens or that refuse to cooperate from operating in Europe.\nThat is all for now. However, I do believe that we need to go further, and I should like here to suggest two courses of action. The first is that we must, in my view, give thought to enlarging the euro zone and to integrating new members. This political gesture would probably be as powerful as the reunification of Germany was in its day, and it would show the solidarity that exists within Europe and would increase the influence of our Union.\nFinally, the second is that we must progress towards economic, budgetary and monetary integration, and towards tax harmonisation, which is the only way to combat fiscal dumping in Europe.\nAll of this is necessary, but what our fellow citizens expect most of all - and I hope that the Commission is listening - is for us to take action in response to the crisis. Our fellow citizens are still waiting for a true European recovery plan and, for example, a substantial loan. They are still waiting for Europe to offer proper support to our SMEs, to genuinely plan investments for the future and, above all, to support all those in Europe who are affected by the crisis. I am thinking of the unemployed, of those working part time, and of the households that are experiencing huge difficulties at the moment.\nThis, in my view, is where the urgency lies and this is what Europe's leaders will be judged on in the future.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Madam President, the introduction of Solvency II and of the change to the system for conducting and supervision of insurance activities which had been in preparation for the last few years is a move of great importance, especially in a time of financial crisis. I have been involved with pension schemes for years, and I am aware of the significance of the financial supervision of pension funds in relation to the mobility of workers and the necessity of cross-border supervision.\nWhen we encourage people to be mobile, we must ensure that those who change their country of employment and their pension system can be sure that their social insurance contributions are deducted in the right way and are credited to the right accounts, and that the security of their future pension will rise as a result of Community solutions in the area of principles of investment and supervision of pension funds.\nI congratulate the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors and its consultative panel, in whose work it was my privilege to participate until September 2007, and I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Skinner.\nMary Lou McDonald\nMadam President, the Global Financial Stability Report of the IMF estimates that the financial crisis will cost USD 4 billion. This is an estimate that may rise. This crisis has been brought about, as we all know, by a kind of casino capitalism, crony capitalism, and a financial services sector that has been subject to no regulation - or to light-touch regulation, as it is sometimes politely referred to.\nThe fall-out of all of this for workers and families across Europe has been nothing short of catastrophic. I have been struck in the debate and in the reports that have been produced by the very polite way in which we are addressing this scandal. I am struck by the fact that the Liberal and Christian Democrat groups are concerned at over-prescription, or that protectionism may be introduced through the back door.\nThe fact is that the EU response to the financial crisis has been sluggish and minimalist. The fact is that we do require a protectionism, and those that must be protected are workers and the real economy. We have yet to have a debate on the issue of jobs - although that is what matters for citizens - and this institution remains wedded to a system that has failed. Let us acknowledge that and be radical and brave.\nNils Lundgren\n. - (SV) Madam President, a global financial crisis is shaking the world economy and proposals for how to prevent it happening again are now coming thick and fast. More regulation and more supervision are the 'in' things. Of course, the starting point must nevertheless be to ask ourselves what went wrong. Allow me to summarise the causes in 50 seconds.\nWe have an ownerless capitalism. The finance companies are run by officials who can design systems which give them gigantic bonuses and pensions when profits rise. Profits can be increased in the short term by the management raising the risk level in the companies by means of lower equity. When the risks become reality, the management have got their money and the losses are borne by others.\nThere is no incentive for those who could change these policies to do so. People depositing money in banks know that there are deposit guarantees. Everyone knows that most banks are too big to be allowed to go bankrupt. They will be saved by taxpayers. Rating agencies know that they will not get the work if they question the solvency of their clients. The policy that is pursued by central banks and finance ministries is based on the idea that bubbles must not be burst. They therefore grow unreasonably large.\nAre we discussing solutions to these problems? No, we are not!\nOthmar Karas\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic and financial crisis, the most severe since the Second World War, has a global impact. The uncertainty, impatience, helplessness and loss of confidence are palpable, as are the gaps in the regulation of financial markets. We are spurred on by the need to adopt joint European responses and take a global lead. The realisation of the need to create 'more Europe' makes things possible that were rejected and prevented only months ago by members of the Commission and the Council when they were called for by Parliament.\nOur model of the social market economy - as much market as possible, as much regulation as necessary - provides the framework not only for European but also for all global regulation. The actions of the European Union have been a success, but we are still far from finished and far from achieving our objective. Another stage is being completed, and further chapters must be tackled or completed without delay. It is only resolve and the courage to take bold regulatory action at European level that build confidence.\nWe are also deciding today - much too late - on regulatory action for credit rating agencies. We need registration, we need scrutiny, we need to deal with incompatibilities. We are adopting the Solvency II Directive - something we would have had to do even in the absence of a financial market crisis. The Banking Directive is due for adoption in May. We must eliminate the pro-cyclical effects from the existing regulatory system once and for all. Not only hedge funds but also private equity investments need to be regulated. All executive pay with a bonus component should also have a loss component.\nThere is less discussion of liability issues in Europe than in the United States, and the system of European supervision is not yet ready. We should organise this according to the European System of Central Banks and hasten to take as many decisions as possible by the summer. I call on you to do so.\nRobert Goebbels\n(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is about to adopt rules governing international finance. They will not be enough, since there is evidently no political will in either Europe or the United States to eliminate the excesses of pure speculation, such as, for example, naked short selling, the sale of goods that one does not even own.\nThe international financial crisis did not start on the islands. It started in the United States, and it spread through the City to the other large financial centres. All of these centres were supposed to have been properly regulated. Nevertheless the G20 found ideal culprits: tax havens, whether real or not.\nAs far back as in 2000, I recommended, in my report for Parliament on the reform of the international architecture, eliminating all the black holes in international finance, starting with hedge funds and the other purely speculative funds.\nThe G20 intends to regulate only speculative funds that pose a systemic risk. The systemic risk becomes apparent afterwards, when the crisis has erupted. In reality, the leading G20 powers have spared their own offshore centres, the Channel Islands, the Virgin Islands, Hong Kong and Macao, not to mention onshore centres such as Delaware.\nAs Jacques Attali said, in the future, London and New York will have the monopoly on speculation. The message is clear: international finance will be regulated for the benefit of the major countries only. All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.\nAndrea Losco\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is right to criticise and to point out delays, but it is also right and opportune to say that today we are taking a step forward, and that in the face of this dreadful crisis, which has rocked the world's economies, the European institutions are introducing specific legislative measures in key sectors such as rating agencies and insurance.\nI believe, at least from what I have followed closely, that the directive on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance is highly significant. The agreement reached in extremis with the Council has in essence given these sectors new, more efficient rules, which take account of the dynamics of the real market, outside set formulae.\nThe principles of economic assessment and capital requirements, corresponding to the risks actually taken by companies, as well as risk management incentives, harmonisation, report supervision, public information and transparency are all essential aspects to making the insurance sector more competitive and strengthening protection for the insured.\nThe final compromise enabled reasonable solutions to be found to the problems of the possible pro-cyclical effects of the new rules and of the rules on the handling of investments. We could have done more, of course, but I believe we have reached a point from which we can take further steps forward.\nAdamos Adamou\n(EL) Madam President, the current economic crisis has again turned the spotlight on our firm position on the need for regulation, not deregulation of mergers between and the establishment of multinationals and other companies, the need for changes to antitrust legislation and the need for intervention to prevent monopolies and cartels which, among other things, manipulate the market, set prices and make workers redundant and which are driven solely by the profit motive.\nCitizens can see the results of growth without any social face which, instead of creating permanent jobs, aims to further concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few. The liberalisation of the financial markets, which is the standard policy of the right and others, has caused a deep economic wound which directly affects the people.\nGiven that, up to a year ago, the political advocates of deregulation and adversaries of government regulation were boasting about the state of the economy, allow me to remind you that it was precisely these policies that resulted in waves of poverty and inequality, in negative growth in the economy and in profiteering by food companies, which made profits in the order of 40 billion each in 2008.\nHowever, the citizens will send a message to those who created the crisis and, with it, the inequalities.\nJohannes Blokland\n(NL) Now that the central banks of Europe and the United States have predicted the first signs of economic recovery, it is important not to waver in the implementation of guidelines to prevent a repeat scenario.\nThe role of the rating agencies in the credit crisis is considerable, as indeed, investors relied blindly on the advice of these agencies without consulting third parties. There are various reasons why the ratings were not adjusted adequately in a changing market - reasons that cannot all be prevented by introducing new rules. Introducing an establishment requirement within the European Union for carrying out rating activities is a good start but, given the global character of the market, it is no more than a start.\nThe European Commission must harmonise the guidelines with third countries as a matter of urgency, for which reason it would be preferable to adopt a central approach within the European Union in this area. It is clear that more is needed to regain trust in the financial markets. Let us therefore make a start with new financial morals.\nWerner Langen\n(DE) Madam President, today, we are seeing the first legislative proposals to emerge from the financial market package. Solvency II was long overdue: I wish to start by setting this aside. The negotiations on this were very good, the results are useful, and we shall be giving it our support.\nIn the case of credit rating agencies, a problem has arisen that one can really describe as a case of market and policy failure. For years, Parliament has been calling on the Commission to present proposals on various aspects of the causes of the financial market crisis, which have been a very long time in coming. What Mr Gauz\u00e8s has now negotiated is useful. It establishes independent criteria and new supervisory structures and does indeed have the potential to resolve this conflict of advisory and assessment interests and to increase transparency. It is a sound proposal.\nYet it is not enough. I remember the debate in this House with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was acting as though he had the solution ahead of the G20 Summit in London. The fact is that, over the last 10 years, there have been refusals even from within the European Union - particularly by the United Kingdom, but also by the European Commission - to regulate certain things in a manner that should have been obvious. These were not new phenomena; the bubble had indeed grown very large. The task now is to make progress with the accounting rules - as the Commissioner mentioned in connection with executive assessment and bonus schemes. It is unacceptable for there to be no regulation in this field. In addition, we must resolve the issue of capital - of securitisation, for example - by the end of May, and also find a speedy solution with regard to European supervisory structures and the de Larosi\u00e8re report in general.\nWe cannot wait for the United States on all the issues. Let us proceed as we did with the climate action and renewable energy package: let us Europeans take the lead and present the world with a useful template. Then we shall have made our contribution to overcoming the crisis.\nIeke van den Burg\n(NL) If you will allow me to make a preliminary comment, I would like to say that I have listened with astonishment to all kinds of speeches that have been delivered here by Members of this Parliament about leadership and tackling capitalism. These are all Members we never saw when we were doing the actual groundwork in order to steer the capital in the right direction.\nI was shadow rapporteur for the report by Mrs Weber, and she is someone who did do the groundwork in a dossier that is about modernising, simplifying and lightening the burden for businesses when it comes to European rules and regulations. The dossier formed part of a large package of superior legislation, and I should like to stress that this superior legislation is not simply a question of deregulation and lightening the burden, but also about responding more adequately, more flexibly and more dynamically to developments with clear powers, not least for the supervisors involved.\nIn this connection, I should like to say two things which, in fact, also relate to the other two dossiers that are up for discussion today. First of all, there is no point in trying to solve yesterday's problems. We should, instead, anticipate what will happen in the future and put a process in place which will enable us to react to dynamic developments and innovations adequately. This is exactly why we have introduced such a process in the Lamfalussy procedure, which we developed recently.\nSecondly, we should consider the level that is under scrutiny. The actors within the market transcend borders and have become international. As such, there is no point in fooling ourselves into thinking that these actors can be controlled by small national supervisors. These major actors who very much dominate the market really have to be tackled at the European and the global level. This means, in my view, that powers should be put in place at that level so that direct supervision is possible.\nAs it happens, the rating agencies allowed for this. It was Parliament's intention initially to grant the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) the power to take care of registration, but, sadly, it did not work because of the tug-of-war that will inevitably ensue between the big countries and large financial centres to attract those head offices and be able to play first fiddle there, in an attempt to get the large rating offices under their wings. This is regrettable, to my mind. I would have preferred to see this done at European level from the word go.\nThe same scenario unfolded in the case of Solvency II. Firm action was also lacking when powers were granted in a bid to make binding statements at European level in the event of supervisors failing to reach agreement. This also means that these guest supervisors refuse to transfer powers to supervisors who play first fiddle. Although this is regrettable, provision has been made, not least in recital 25, for us, as Parliament, to clearly indicate that, next year, we should try to improve and strengthen this aspect based on the Larosi\u00e8re proposals.\nOlle Schmidt\n(SV) Madam President, Commissioner, the financial and economic crisis has shown that we in Europe must be able to act together. We should be pleased that Europe had, and still has, the euro rather than 16 different currencies. This has alleviated the difficult times. It was only when the euro zone countries met in Paris last autumn that the crisis could be stabilised and the recovery could begin. Following this, the global efforts continued with the G20 summit, which was the start of something new - a world where the major nations of the world met on equal terms.\nWe must now ensure that we are better equipped next time the crisis strikes. The directives that are being discussed today are important and, in my opinion, balanced. We need greater openness and transparency on the market, greater opportunities to act across borders and improved supervision. We must also combat protectionism and, in my view, support free trade. We must also limit risk-taking and put a stop to excesses. The free market also needs its boundaries and rules. As a Liberal, I can also agree with this, of course. However, we must take care not to over-regulate, which is a risk in the current mood. Let us not forget that the market economy creates prosperity.\nBernard Wojciechowski\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, at the beginning of the month we were told that all remedial measures against the financial crisis have been taken. The budget of the International Monetary Fund will rise by as much as USD 500 billion, which means it will treble in size. The World Bank will be USD 100 billion richer, and USD 250 billion has been set aside for subsidising international trade. There is to be a supposedly more stringent supervision of the finance market and control of tax havens and bankers' salaries. President Obama said that the recent G20 summit will be a turning point in the pursuit of global economic recovery.\nOn the whole there is probably nothing to worry about, although perhaps there is one exception. Why did world leaders wait so long to bring in their elaborate emergency support plan, and why did they not condescend to bring about global economic recovery earlier? Did they not have that trillion? The fundamental question is, therefore, where did that trillion come from? From the sale of 400 tonnes of gold? It would appear that in official communiqu\u00e9s not a word is said on this subject. Perhaps the money was borrowed from a bank? Since there will now be a recovery - and here I direct my request to Mr Barroso and Mr Topol\u00e1nek - perhaps the leaders will hold another meeting and add another trillion, so that we will have a kind of 'turbo-recovery'.\nMargaritis Schinas\n(EL) Madam President, there can be no doubt that in Europe we are today suffering the consequences of an anarchic, eccentric American\/Anglo-Saxon model of organising the financial markets, which learned how to function without rules, without supervision and without democratic accountability and which, of course, polluted the global and European economy.\nWith the texts which we are debating today and will vote on tomorrow, we are building a protective shield here in Europe for the citizens. A protective shield which will safeguard them from this paradox in which we are currently living, where money flows are supranational and the rules of supervision and accountability, where there are any, are national.\nSo Europe is reacting, albeit slowly, but better late than never. This, of course, leaves two major questions which need to be answered. The first question is: why did we need to live through a crisis in order to react? Why did we need to wait for all this to happen in order to introduce rules? The answer will be given by the citizens, by rewarding those who are calling for legislation and punishing those who wanted to persuade us that self-regulation is the panacea for all the evils we are experiencing today.\nThe second question is, will these texts that we are debating today be the only ones or will there be overall supervision and an overall review of the legislative and regulatory framework? The answer to this second question will be given by us because, as co-legislators, we shall exert pressure so that we do not just stay with the Gauz\u00e8s report on credit rating agencies, which failed to see the iceberg coming towards the Titanic, which is why what happened did happen, but which quickly saw that certain Member States needed to be downgraded because they did not 'allegedly' have an adequate credit rating.\nWe need to examine and correct all this from the beginning: nothing will remain the same in the European Union after the current crisis.\nManuel Medina Ortega\n(ES) Madam President, I refer solely to the report by Mrs Weber on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 77\/91\/EEC, 78\/855\/EEC, 82\/891\/EEC and Directive 2005\/56\/EC as regards reporting and documentation requirements in the case of mergers and divisions.\nWe are in the process of simplifying administrative procedures. Our position is in favour of the proposals from the Commission introducing certain changes, but we have included some amendments which have been tabled by nearly all the political groups and which, naturally, I have supported, since they make it possible to simplify matters.\nWe are speaking, of course, of a very important change, which is the elimination of documentation, the introduction of web pages and references to web pages, the elimination of requirements for experts and other types of requirement that up until now have been obligatory, which could lead to a fairly significant reduction in costs and time, while still providing guarantees both to creditors and, for instance, to workers in the undertaking and other persons with access to it.\nI believe that the proposals made to us by the Commission are fairly positive and that the proposals to amend the text that we are tabling adopt the same approach, guaranteeing independence, above all in the case of the use of web pages, and the need for references, in other web pages that are used, to any information in these web pages, so that this use is not complicated and there is sufficient additional information.\nIn short, Madam President, I believe that Parliament will be able to adopt this proposal for a directive by a considerable majority and that the resulting text will be better than the text originally submitted to us by the Commission.\nMargarita Starkevi\u010di\u016bt\n(LT) We can see from current events the influence large financial groups, and the mistakes they make, have on the real economy, especially the economies of small countries. Therefore, the documents presented should create a legal framework to manage two main processes: firstly, to harmonise the free pro-cyclical movement of capital within a financial group with the necessity to ensure the liquidity of the real economy and macroeconomic stability during the economic recession; secondly, to help share responsibility between home and host supervisory institutions, to ensure that a financial group's activities are appropriate, and to clarify who will cover losses if mistakes are made.\nIt must be said that the document presented is only the first step in this direction, and I would like to stress that these problems will not be solved unless the impact of competition law on the activities of financial groups is assessed. We always forget this aspect and it should be a priority in the new term of Parliament.\nSirpa Pietik\u00e4inen\nMadam President, I think that this package, which is part of the measures to deal with the financial crisis, is quite good with regard to Solvency II and the credit rating agencies and will result in good compromises and outcomes.\nHowever, when we look to the future, I would like to raise three issues. Firstly, I would like to see the European Union being more ambitious and active at global level. Even though the G20 outcomes are steps in the right direction, they are still too modest and far from having a proper, global, convention-based regulation, both on funds and different financial instruments, and on regulation.\nSecondly, when it comes to the de Larosi\u00e8re report and our own actions, I think that the outcome of de Larosi\u00e8re was rather good, especially when it comes to supervising and analysing the systematic risk at European level. But I would like to point out two pitfalls here. Firstly, concerning micro-supervision: I do see that the proposed moral there, which would still be based very much on cooperation instead of a centralised European aspect, has very serious problems. Secondly, from what we have already heard about the Commission's preparation concerning venture capital and hedge funds, there is much to be hoped for and expected from there.\nSo, if we really want to be effective at this level globally, we will have to do our homework properly, and I would really like to see a better and more ambitious approach from the Commission in this field.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\n(ES) Madam President, the package of measures on credit rating agencies, insurance and company mergers and divisions is a first step in boosting the confidence and efficiency of the financial markets. It is in line with the principles endorsed by the European Union and the G20 of reinforcing transparency, responsibility and integrity within the financial markets and places the European Union in a position of international leadership. For this reason, I support the measures, even though we will have to go further.\nThe failings of the credit rating agencies are one of the causes of the financial crisis: self-regulation is not enough. The regulation plays a pioneering role in introducing registration, responsibility and monitoring of the agencies, in tackling conflicts of interests, improving working methods and the quality of various types of qualifications, including those from non-EU countries. A future revision of payment systems and the creation of a European public agency are still to be dealt with.\nThe directive on solvency codifies all the existing acquis on private insurance and incorporates technical advances on improved risk management that will give impetus to innovation, improve resource use and increase the protection of insured persons and financial stability within the sector. The new framework for the supervision of insurance groups takes a prudent line, open to further development. The creation of supervisory bodies is a step forward in the process of the integration and reinforcement of European financial supervision, which must continue to advance and could be a model that could become a world standard. Parliament will monitor and promote its development.\nFinally, the amendment of various directives in relation to reporting and documentation requirements in the case of mergers and divisions is a form of legislative simplification, and highlights the fact that the aim of reducing burdens on businesses by 25% can perfectly well be combined with strengthening the rights of the public and shareholders, provided that information and communication technologies are used.\nDaniel D\u0103ianu\nMadam President, I am glad that, in the end, common sense has prevailed in Parliament and the Commission concerning the causes of this financial crisis. People have realised that this crisis is not of a cyclical nature and that a thorough overhaul of the regulation and supervision of financial markets is badly needed. The de Larosi\u00e8re group report and the Turner report, too, have made this quite clear. These reports are in analytical tune with the Lamfalussy follow-up report of Parliament.\nThe documents which are being debated today are to be seen in the same logic of action. Unfortunately, our economies will still suffer for quite a while, not least because of the public budgets and, probably, future inflationary facts of the efforts which are being undertaken to clean up the huge mess. Let us hope that we will learn more this time than we have from previous episodes of crisis.\nKlaus-Heiner Lehne\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a really interesting, good debate - for the simple reason that, looking at the reports, we are combining two aspects that do not, at first, appear to be directly linked but which are related to ways of coping with the crisis and reviving the economy.\nI was shadow rapporteur in the Committee on Legal Affairs for the Weber report, on which I should first like to congratulate Mrs Weber most warmly. The Weber report is not about crisis management in the traditional sense but about simplifying company law and helping to cut red tape and eliminate burdens on companies. This, coming at this specific point in time, at the end of the parliamentary term, clearly proves and exemplifies the European Parliament's handling of this particular issue and its attempts to further develop company law in the interests of companies - which I very much welcome.\nAs this debate also presents the opportunity to say something about financial market legislation in general, it should be noted that the fact that we in Parliament are now achieving results and concluding our proceedings at first reading on the first financial market package also sends out a signal towards the end of this parliamentary term. I believe that this, too, is important.\nNevertheless, I should also like to point out that the second package - which, of course, is still being prepared by the Commission at the moment - will unfortunately be too late for this parliamentary term. There are reasons for this. As you will remember, we have indeed discussed the regulation of certain areas of financial markets in the past, namely in the committees of this House and on various occasions in plenary, but this always met with massive opposition. There was opposition from the Council. The socialist UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, refused to acknowledge certain realities for a long time.\nThere was also opposition from the Commission - which had been offering resistance on hedge funds and other sectors for a long time - and from within this House. When it came to launching legislative own-initiative reports, the Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs rejected this for a long time on account of an unnecessary dispute over competences. I am pleased that everyone has now seen the light. Commissioner McCreevy is regulating hedge funds, Mrs Ber\u00e8s is permitting own-initiative reports and Gordon Brown, too, has changed his mind. This is a positive development, one that my group and I very much welcome.\nJean-Pierre Audy\n(FR) Madam President, my speech will relate to the report on rating agencies, and my first words will be an expression of gratitude to my friend, Mr Gauz\u00e8s, who has acted competently, lucidly and pragmatically.\nHowever, at the risk of straying from the subject somewhat, Madam President, I should like to speak about the problem of the rating of states. In this crisis that we are experiencing, states have become major financial players in the face of the potential collapse of the financial sector.\nThey have taken guarantees, they have debts, they have equity stakes, and that is why I wonder whether the European Union ought not to propose, as part of the new global regulation of capitalism, the creation of a global public state rating agency, an independent body that would come under the International Monetary Fund and would enable citizens to have an idea, via these ratings, of the quality of the finance of states, which, I repeat, have become key financial players.\nKurt Joachim Lauk\n(DE) Madam President, three brief points are important in my eyes. Firstly, we have achieved a sound consensus on the need to subject all financial institutions, without exception, to regulation in future. The Commission is now able, little by little, to put forward proposals encompassing all actors - which is absolutely essential.\nSecondly, we should consider how to develop the European financial supervisory authorities thus necessitated and bring them under our control, and to significantly reduce our dependence - be it official or unofficial - on the regulatory institutions of the United States, since we know these to have been a spectacular failure.\nMy third point is that I am concerned about financial developments in the euro area as a whole, as the spreads and indebtedness between the various countries of the euro area and the credit rating activities of these countries are growing apart rather than together. We should take every possible measure in this regard, and should require the individual countries to enforce discipline.\nMy final point is that we need to ensure that the EU does not end up falling into debt. The EU Member States are deep enough in debt as it is. We do not need any more indebted institutions.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\n(FR) Madam President, I would just like to point out to Mr Lehne that it was the socialists in this Parliament who wanted legislation on speculative funds, and that it was their determination that above all led to our having this legislation on speculative funds and, also, in Mr Gauz\u00e8s's report, to the call for the Commission to work on the idea of a public credit rating agency.\nMoving on, I should like all the same to take advantage of this opportunity to tell the Commissioner that I am astonished at this situation where double standards exist in relation to the Commission's monopoly on legislative initiatives. When the Council asks the Commission to put a proposal on the table to harmonise the bank deposit guarantee, the proposal is there three weeks later. When the European Parliament submits a proposal for a legislative initiative by Mr Rasmussen, which was voted for by the vast majority of this plenary, you work it so that the proposal in question is put on the table just when the European Parliament will no longer be able to debate it.\nWe asked you for a legislative initiative in this area last September. What have you been doing since then, Commissioner?\nCharlie McCreevy\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of these three files by Parliament and the three rapporteurs in particular. This has resulted in a quick consensus, which will definitely improve the functioning of our financial markets. The EU regulation on credit-rating agencies will improve integrity, transparency, responsibility and good governance in the credit-rating activities.\nMr Purvis asked a couple of questions in this particular regard, concerning the freedom to invest in particular products. Now, investment is free to all products, whether from the European Union or not. Ratings are not mandatory, so EU firms are not obliged to invest in rated products. But let me stress that, for regulatory purposes - that is, calculation of capital requirements - the ratings that can be used are those either issued in the EU for both EU and third-country products, or endorsed or recognised as equivalent in the European Union.\nAlthough I am disappointed with certain aspects of the agreement on Solvency II, as I outlined earlier, the EU will have a framework for the insurance industry which could serve as a model for similar reforms internationally. Of course, this is not the end of the story. Much work remains to be done: implementing measures will need to be in place some time before October 2012 in order to give Member States and the industry some time to prepare for the introduction of Solvency II. I can assure you that the Commission will play its role in order to facilitate this process and put these long, overdue reforms into practice as soon as possible in the interests of all the parties involved.\nEven though I referred to this in my earlier introductory remarks, I would just like to stress again that group supervision remains in the proposed Solvency II, although group support is out - I think it is just important not to get two concepts mixed up entirely.\nFinally, with the simplified reporting and documentation requirements in the cases of mergers and divisions of public limited liability companies, the agenda on the administrative burden reduction is advancing, and this will contribute to the potential for growth and help Europe on the way to economic recovery.\nJean-Paul Gauz\u00e8s\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall limit myself to two or three brief remarks. The first is that there has been fairly broad agreement in this House concerning the report on rating agencies, and, of course, European legislation will evolve over time, but I believe that, for now, it may serve as a model for an international agreement.\nFinally, allow me to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Pittella and Mr Klinz, who have worked hard alongside me, the teams from the Commission, the Presidency and, of course, the secretariat of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the experts, without whom this work could not have been concluded so successfully.\nRenate Weber\nrapporteur. - Madam President, it was quite interesting listening to all the speeches this morning in Parliament at a time not only when we are living through the toughest financial and economic crisis, but also when the European elections are approaching. The reports which we have discussed today, and will vote on tomorrow, are not meant to solve the financial crisis, but we hope they will help us avoid making the same mistakes in future, or at least major mistakes, and hopefully they will support a relaunch of the European economy.\nWhen one hears that small enterprises today have to spend 10 times more than big companies in order to comply with EU legislation on reporting requirements, it is normal to wonder why this is so and how we have come to have rules which through their effects may actually kill these small enterprises and why it has taken us so long to change this. I am glad that Commissioner McCreevy mentioned that company law is probably the toughest in the EU acquis communautaire. Maybe it is time to change it, certainly not to make it softer, but perhaps to bring it more in line with the current realities we are living through.\nIf we want to be more efficient, it is better to put our energy into being constructive, and I think it is fair to say that what happened with the package we discussed today is proof of this. It is proof that we have acted responsibly and we have reached a compromise with the Council and the Commission in order to adopt this package at first reading. Can we do more? Certainly, but let us vote on this and work in the right direction.\nPeter Skinner\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I would like to start by saying what I should perhaps have said first of all, which is a thank you to all the services of the Commission, the Council, and particularly the Parliament, for the work that they put into this. I have to say that without their work and their help, we would not have achieved this.\nLike many around the room, we are quite astounded by the level of technical detail that goes into many of these reports, but let us say about Solvency II that it was forged outside a crisis to face a crisis. It has risk management in it and - as many people have heard round the room - this is a first for much of the financial services legislation. It also does - and I agree with the Commissioner - contain group supervision. Group support, unfortunately, is out, but we have heard all about that. Let us hope that we can get that back. Capital is defined as well. Many aspects of this report make it a world leader.\nMy second point is about the strategic impact of using such legislation. In many respects, just having a regulation that works over 27 Member States is not going to be helped if we do not have the twin, which is a strategic regulator at a European level which works over 27 Member States as well. We need to overcome the differences that exist between regulators and make sure that we speak with one voice. It is particularly important when we come to recognise regimes elsewhere in the world. Just this weekend I met with Paul Kanjorski, Chair of the Subcommittee on Finance in the US Congress, and others, who are now talking about accelerating the prospects for a single regulator at a federal level in the United States. It they do that before we do it in Europe, we could be severely embarrassed by not having the regulator we need at a European level.\nThis is a report which is at a global level and a global measure, a process about which we could all feel proud, but we also need to make sure that we continue to push for the changes on the issues thrown up by the de Larosi\u00e8re report and also on group support which will bring about economic efficiency. I hope that everybody can support those measures.\nPresident\nThe joint debate is closed.\nThe vote on the report (\u03916-0191\/2009) by Mr JeanPaul Gauz\u00e8s will take place on Thursday, 23 April 2009.\nThe vote on the report by Mrs Renate Weber and the report by Mr Peter Skinner will take place today.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nI do not wish to discuss here the importance of rating agencies. Everyone knows that they are crucial in providing a sound basis for investment decisions, whether in relation to the financial products or the issuers (meaning therefore that they provide much more than simple opinions). However, I do want to emphasise the importance of setting up a European agency.\nDuring a period of deep economic crisis like the one we are just going through at the moment, rating agencies should remain, regardless of the economic conditions, transparent and credible instruments, providing support as Europe steers through these troubled times. We cannot disguise the fact that the current crisis is also down to rating agencies as they have analysed in a totally confused manner conventional instruments along with other hybrid instruments, all against the backdrop of accusations of a lack of transparency and conflict of interests.\nWe need new organisations in this sector, which will generate competition in providing objective ratings. We must think about protection for the investors and their confidence in rating agencies. The EU must guarantee that rating agencies operate according to clear regulations. What better way then to fulfil these conditions than to set up a European rating agency which operates according to Community regulations.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI would like to say that I welcome and support the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending previous directives on reporting and documentation requirements in the case of mergers and divisions. I particularly welcome the concrete measures proposed for reducing the administrative burden which needlessly disrupts the economic activities going on in the European business sector.\nI support the objective of this initiative to help boost the competitiveness of companies within the EU by reducing the administrative burden imposed by European directives in the area of commercial company law, where this reduction can be achieved without having a major adverse impact on the other parties concerned.\nI strongly advocate the effective application of the action programme approved by the European Spring Council in March 2007, aimed at reducing the administrative burden by 25% by 2012.\nI believe that European firms and citizens greatly need a reduction in the red tape imposed by the Community acquis and certain national legislations.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nPresident\nThe next item is the explanations of vote.\nDaniel Hannan\nMadam President, it did not take very long for us to get back to business as usual. In the run-up to the Irish referendum there were no end of reports saying 'please don't publish this until after the Irish have voted'. As soon as the ballots were safely counted, we have gone back to our agenda of harmonising policy, particularly in the field of militarisation and justice and home affairs.\nThe last time we met in this Chamber as an Assembly, speaker after speaker spoke about respecting the Irish vote, 'but ...'. Now we understand what the 'but' meant. The 'but' meant that we should disregard the outcome and push ahead with this process of harmonising criminal justice, civil law, immigration, asylum and the rest of the home affairs field. No more are we even pretending to respect the verdict of the people. We are back in our own little world where we pretend that the voters do not exist and we continue with what we were doing anyway.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski\n(PL) Madam President, because of the heavier security precautions in place in Strasbourg today, which is a highly exceptional situation that has never arisen before during a plenary session, I was unable to be present for the first part of the voting. May I therefore register my excuse for being absent during the roll call voting. The car that was supposed to bring me to the European Parliament was over half an hour late, and I would request that this excuse be placed on record.\nPresident\nMr Rogalski, we covered this at the beginning: people who arrive during the proceedings will of course be excused.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I am sure many people are interested in what I am going to say.\nI really want to talk about the idea that we repeatedly go from one crisis to another crisis in the fisheries sector without really trying to tackle the fundamental problem. And the fundamental problem with the fisheries sector is actually the common fisheries policy, a policy based on Soviet-style central planning where quotas are allocated to various Member States.\nSurely the time has come to rip apart this piece of Communist central planning and to move to a situation where we have property rights-based solutions.\nLet us look at some of the most successful solutions to preserving fishing stocks: in New Zealand, for example, and in Iceland, where they are based on property rights and transferable property rights.\nIt is time to stop the EU thinking in terms of central planning and becoming an 'EUSSR'. Let us move to a free market-based economy.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) The fact that this Parliament has come down like a ton of bricks on a perfectly reasonable decision by the Italian Government in the last few days is symptomatic of the suffocating atmosphere of left-wing political correctness in this institution. I can assure you, however, that the thoughts of the vast majority of the population of European countries are absolutely the reverse of what the majority of MEPs are evidently voting for. The launch of a fingerprinting system by the Italian Government as an impetus to tackling the enormous problems resulting from mass Roma immigration into the country definitely has the support of the vast majority of the people.\nBesides, European interference in this dossier is unacceptable. I am surprised that the European Union does not throw open its own luxurious buildings to the Roma and its private schools to Roma children. The much-lauded 'human rights' evidently stop at the borders of the privileged domains of the eurocracy.\nDaniel Hannan\nMadam President, I am realising that the Civil Liberties Committee of this Parliament is almost the last place where one expects to find any defence of civil liberties. We saw the beginning of a rather worrying streak of intolerance in that committee when Mr Buttiglione was opposed as a Commission nominee. We then saw the most draconian legislation pushed through under the pretext of anti-terror rules.\nI cannot forget the Liberal Democrat leader Graham Watson's comment that Osama bin Laden had done more for the process of European integration than anyone since Jacques Delors! And now in the vote we have just had, we see this quite bizarre refusal even to consider the facts of the case.\nI do not know whether the Italian Government is right when it claims that there are inaccuracies in this report. My own instincts are liberal on this. I do not like the idea of databases, I do not like the idea of finger-printing. But surely basic courtesy and basic fairness ought to have prompted us to allow the Government to invite a group from this Parliament to assess the facts of the case, before voting. Pushing ahead with the vote before even listening to all the facts confirms that, just as the Employment Committee is the last place to defend employment, just as the Committee on Fisheries is the last place to defend fisheries...\n(The President cut off the speaker.)\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Madam President, on behalf of the Austrian People's Party delegation, I should like to say that, naturally, we are all agreed that we should take every measure to improve the difficult situation of the Roma, not only in Italy but also elsewhere, and to deal with it wisely. However, we believe that, in the current situation, in which we do not have all the facts to hand, we should not adopt a resolution, because to do so would be to anticipate the facts.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) I abstained from voting on the motion for a resolution on the situation in China after the earthquake and before the Olympic Games because the voting did not cover any amendments requiring the release of political prisoners, in particular the candidate for the Sakharov Prize. I should also like to take this opportunity to once again draw attention to the importance of freedom of expression which is the main prerequisite for the start of the democratisation process in China.\nPress freedom is very important since it is independent media that provide information on the human rights situation in China without censorship. It is therefore essential for independent television stations such as NTDTV to be able to broadcast. This satellite television station broadcasts 24 hours a day in Chinese and English via satellites over Asia, Europe, Australia and North America. The French company Eutelsat, which facilitates NTDTV satellite broadcasts, suddenly discontinued these television broadcasts over Asia on 16 June 2008, clearly under pressure from the Chinese Communist Party.\nIn order to be successful, we must supplement the words of the resolution with actions. We call upon the leadership of the European Parliament to insist upon the resumption of these television broadcasts over Asia.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Madam President, this House has a strong tradition of human rights, of which we can be proud. This applies not least to our policies on China and Tibet. That is why I find it all the more regrettable that our resolution today does not live up to these requirements in any way. In an historic moment, it did not have the strength to raise what should have been raised in the run-up to the Olympic Games in China.\nTherefore let me state categorically: our President, Mr P\u00f6ttering, has represented our human rights principles unequivocally over the last few months. German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel has done the same, clearly and impressively. I should therefore like to call upon this House to return to the clear statements of its policy on China and Tibet in past years and decades and regard this resolution as a moment of weakness before the summer recess.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) I would like to say a few words about the document, about China. I voted in favour of the document, but, much to my regret, many important amendments were rejected. Today we have stated that the situation in Tibet is normal, which is not true. We have refused to invite Tibet's spiritual leader to the General Affairs Council, and that is a very wrong decision; we were not even able to vote against those who practise Falun Gong. I therefore regret this and I do believe that these issues should be approached again as soon as possible.\nVytautas Landsbergis\nMadam President, I want to say only that I and many in my group have been confused by the voting list because, following its suggestions, we have voted for some absurd positions. To invite the Dalai Lama - no, against. The situation in Tibet is not normal - no, we have voted that it is normal. Many of us have been confused. Of course, I tried to correct the situation, but the information was falsified and our list was highly incorrect.\nGeorg Jarzembowski\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that Mr Landsbergis has actually read the resolution that we have adopted with a two-thirds majority. If he had, he would know that we mention the insupportable situation in Tibet four times and call on the Chinese Government to respect human rights and cultural rights in Tibet. Mr Landsbergis, do not tell untruths. The vast majority of us - that is, the majority of this Parliament - have spoken up for human rights and for the cultural autonomy of Tibet.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, I would like to state my reasons for voting against this report. I feel that this report is actually - and I say this with deep conviction - one of the most controversial documents adopted by Parliament in recent times. I am convinced that the lack of any clear plan for how the EU will open up to the East, especially in the context of Ukraine's possible future accession, is an entirely valid reason for voting against the report. I shall pass over the fact that the preliminary draft of this report was totally muddled.\nTo conclude, a remark to you, Madam President: you have allowed two people to rise who were not down to speak. Please keep to the procedure.\nPresident\nThe President can give the floor to whoever he or she chooses. I wanted to give the floor to Members who are effectively non-attached, but I am perfectly entitled to do so.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) One of the reasons why I voted against the Brok report, diluted as it is by amendments, is its recommendation for a 'communication policy' that will in actual fact boil down to even more EU propaganda.\nThis is symptomatic of what is going fundamentally wrong in the European Union. Instead of taking account of the views of the electorate, the EU is attempting to change these views via propaganda. However, the referendum in Ireland has further demonstrated that this kind of social engineering produces the opposite effect. Consequently, the EU would do better to stop this and show respect for the opinions and complaints of Europeans instead of doing exactly the opposite.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Madam President, I voted in favour of the Brok report, as I believe that it is an important step in the right direction. I also endorse the communication policy it calls for. However, communication also involves truth and clarity. It is time we finally stated clearly that Croatia can and should join the EU within the current decade. The countries of South-East Europe have definite prospects of joining the EU in the next decade, but truth and clarity also require an acknowledgment that pushing ahead with the accession of Turkey would undermine the EU. We should therefore be honest with our partner, Turkey, and say at last that we shall have to find other ways of cooperating. Although the Brok report does not actually put it this way, this is the logical conclusion from its contents, which are as they should be.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, I am one of the authors of this report. May I say that the situation in Zimbabwe is like 'The Neverending Story'. The European Parliament is making its voice heard once again on this subject, and I am very pleased that we have managed to override political divisions and speak out so strongly and decisively on the scandalous situation that is taking place there. This is why I voted in favour of this report, which, after all, I helped to draft.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I am very happy to speak on this motion because I actually voted in favour of it, like many colleagues in this House.\nHowever, my request to parliamentarians and politicians across Europe is: Let us ensure that this is not just warm words, just to appease our conscience. Let us look at actions, not words. I refer, of course, to the Lisbon Summit, where we invited Mugabe, despite the sanctions.\nI look, of course, to the Rome Summit on the food crisis and food security: we invited Robert Mugabe and his henchmen to shop in some of the most luxurious shops of Europe while his people were starving.\nThe time for warm words is over. It is all very well us feeling great about what we said, but we have got to put those words into action: we have got to impose these sanctions against the Mugabe regime. Let us stop being hypocritical, especially my Portuguese and my Italian friends.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMadam President, I voted in favour of this resolution and, like Mr Kamall, I have received an increasing number of letters over the last few years about the situation in Zimbabwe.\nThe people I represent across the East Midlands of the United Kingdom simply cannot understand how we can always state such strong opinions about Zimbabwe in this place, but allow Mr Mugabe into the continent to break bread with our leaders. There is something seriously wrong and seriously hypocritical about that; it devalues this institution and many others. So I hope that in the future we can sort this situation out, get rid of this awful man, and democracy can prosper in Zimbabwe.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I wish to begin by apologising to all my colleagues in this House for holding up the next speaker. I forget his name, but I also hope he will stand up when he speaks and show some respect for this House.\nWe were promised that Galileo would not be a white elephant, but that we were looking for a role for it. If you look at all the other satellite systems - the Chinese and Russian satellite systems and the American GPS - people are asking why we need Galileo. It is quite clear, if you look at this system - the white elephant in the sky - that we are looking for more and more uses for it.\nNow we are looking for a military dimension. Why do we need this military dimension? We clearly do not need it. It is based purely on envy of the Americans and 'me too' politics. Let us scrap this complete nonsense and let us save the taxpayers money, return it to the taxpayers and rely on much better technology.\nEwa Klamt\n(DE) Madam President, I am of the opinion that the way we are doing this is not consistent with the good reputation this House enjoys. It is unacceptable for the whole Chamber to be chatting when speakers rise to speak. I would exhort you, Madam President, to keep the Chamber quiet and to ensure that those who are not listening leave the room.\nPresident\nI completely agree with you, Mrs Klamt, but as you know, each time we ask the same thing, and each time we have the same problems.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) Based on the report by my British fellow Member Mrs Ludford, I voted in favour of the legislative resolution amending, at first reading of the codecision procedure, the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Common Consular Instructions on visas for diplomatic missions and consular posts in relation to the introduction of biometrics including provisions on the organisation of the reception and processing of visa applications. This proposal is aimed at creating the legal basis necessary for the Member States to identify the mandatory biometric identifiers - facial images and 10 fingerprints - of visa applicants and establishing a legal framework for the organisation of Member State consulates in order to implement the Visa Information System (VIS) together with the establishment of Common Application Centres. This would avoid all Member States having to supply their consulates with the equipment necessary to collect biometric data. I support most of the amendments, particularly those on the representation of one Member State by another, security measures regarding external service providers and information campaigns.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nThe objectives of this proposal for a regulation are the organisation of the reception and processing of visa applications in relation to the introduction of biometrics in the Visa Information System (VIS) at EU level, providing, firstly, for the obligation to provide biometric data to be stored in the VIS and the standards for doing so and, secondly, the provisions on the organisation of the reception of visa applications.\nThis proposal, which is part of the communitarisation of border management (Schengen Area), will put in place the collection of 'biometric identifiers' (photographs and fingerprints) of visa applicants, a measure which is questionable to say the least, and one where a range of questions remain unanswered, namely regarding: its effectiveness, protection of this personal data, the objectives and criteria for collecting data, the standards governing the content of VIS files, access rights (namely, in the framework of agreements between the EU and various countries on the exchange of information), and finally, safeguarding citizens' rights, freedoms and guarantees.\nWe disagree with the communitarisation of justice and home affairs and the creation of surveillance and control structures and instruments at EU level, promoting securitarian policies.\nHence our vote against.\nMarian Zlotea  \nin writing. - (RO) I hope the vote I have given today will facilitate the negotiations with the United States on visa waiver and that, soon, all the Member States citizens will be able to travel freely and receive the same treatment.\nIt is imperative that one of the subjects negotiated by the French presidency refer to the criteria for granting United States visa to all the European Community citizens.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - The agreement on fishing between the EU and Mauritania is definitely important for both parties.\nThrough this agreement, fishermen from the Mediterranean are able to exercise their trade elsewhere, as the Mediterranean is being over-fished. The recent tuna issue is just the beginning. I am aware that two fishing companies from Malta have used this agreement to fish in the Atlantic. This came to my knowledge when I was on an official EP delegation to Mauritania and the delegation was informed by the President that all endeavours to find a solution to that agreement had thus far failed.\nIt was at this point that I asked to speak to the President in private. I asked if he had ever discussed the issue with the Commissioner Dr. Joe Borg, who is the Maltese Commissioner. The President informed me that he had not talked to him but that I was free to do so myself if I wished. I took it upon myself to immediately contact Dr. Borg who, after assessing the file, gave me a synopsis of the issues at stake. I brought this to the attention of the President, also informing him of the desire of the Commissioner to restart the discussions.\nSylwester Chruszcz  \nin writing. - (PL) The European Union is once more usurping the right to be a separate state. I think that the conclusion of international agreements is the domain of a state, not of a regional, international organisation like the European Union, so I have voted against this report.\nDorette Corbey  \nThe Dutch Labour Party delegation has voted in favour of the agreement with Mauritania, not because it is a good agreement, but because it represents a small improvement in the existing situation (reduced catches).\nOn the whole, we oppose such agreements, as they deprive developing countries of their sources of food and income. In the case of Mauritania, it is even more distressing that development funds are being used to support the interest of fisheries. This is a disgrace!\nChristofer Fjellner  \nin writing. - (SV) We abstained in the vote today on the partnership agreement on fishing between the EU and Mauritania. We were faced with two undesirable alternatives, either a shorter agreement with higher fish quotas or a longer agreement with lower fish quotas. Unfortunately there was no option to vote for a termination of the agreement.\nWe moderates are against fishing agreements with African states. The report contained very minor improvements compared with the present agreement, but also retrograde elements such as an extension of the period of validity.\nFaced with a choice between these undesirable alternatives, we abstained in the vote.\nDuarte Freitas  \nI welcome the continuation of the fisheries agreement with Mauritania, although it is appropriate to point out that the negotiation process was not always conducted in the most open and transparent fashion.\nThe Member States were not sufficiently consulted during the negotiation period, resulting in a protocol under which fishing opportunities have fallen considerably while financial compensation is held at virtually the same level. Key technical aspects affecting the main fleets have not been resolved; on the contrary, new restrictions such as an additional biological recovery period have been imposed, without much scientific rigour.\nDespite this, Portugal has taken a reasonable stance as far as its fishing opportunities in these fishing grounds are concerned, namely 886 GT annually for Category 1 (Vessels fishing for crustaceans other than spiny lobster and crab), gaining a licence in Category 5 (Cephalopods) and retaining 300 GT for spiny lobster.\nBased on this information, I believe this is a positive agreement for my country and I vote in favour.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution of the European Parliament of 10 July 2008 on the proposal for a Council Regulation instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the European Union fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis. One of the main challenges facing the EU fisheries sector remains, in many cases, the structural imbalance between fleet capacity and the resources available. The overcapacity of the EU fleet was estimated a few years ago at around 40%. This overcapacity, combined with the depletion of fishing stocks by decades of overfishing, means that the sector is struggling to withstand external economic pressures such as the sudden rise in fuel prices. I wish that a Community instrument annualising the increase in oil prices had been envisaged so that the internal market had time to react to rising cost prices. I welcome the actions of the French Agriculture and Fisheries Minister, Michel Barnier, who worked hard to achieve this result. Thanks to him, immediate support measures were obtained.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) The fisheries sector has been one of the sectors that has suffered most from the current energy crisis.\nThe dizzying rise in fuel prices together with the reduction of the fishing effort introduced by the CFP and the stagnation of first sale fish prices have placed shipowners and fishermen in delicate positions.\nThis therefore justifies this proposal for an urgent Council Regulation seeking to ensure that the EU's fleet adapts to the current economic situation dictated by the energy crisis.\nAs a matter of fact, this proposal follows a Commission Communication in which the problems and constraints facing the fisheries sector appear to be diagnosed correctly, as well as the necessary measures to alleviate the current crisis.\nAlthough I consider the initiative behind the presentation of this Regulation positive, I believe that it is somewhat less than could have been expected after reading the aforementioned Communication.\nThe temporary cessation of fishing activities mentioned in Article 6, with the obligation of inclusion in fleet restructuring plans, the non-inclusion of engines in Article 7, all of Article 9, and Article 12(3), which merely defends the interests of trawl fisheries, seem less successful points in this proposal.\nNotwithstanding the above, and given the great difficulties the fisheries sector is experiencing at European level, this document deserves my vote in favour.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As we explained in a speech during yesterday's debate, the reasons for our vote against this proposal for a regulation are fundamental ones. If there could be any doubts as to their justness, it would have been enough to follow the European Commission's speeches to dispel them.\nThe problem for the European Commission is overcapacity and the target and solution is the 'restructuring of fleets'. What about the socio-economic crisis? What about the rising fuel prices (diesel and especially petrol)? What about the first sale fish price? For the Commission, it is quite simple: 'if there is further reduction of capacity by some Member States, this will benefit other Member States, because if there is a reduction of capacity with a consequent reduction of effort, there would be more resources and more market opportunities.'\nHence the suggestion of about EUR 1.6 billion (!) just for vessel decommissioning.\n'Simple' - if the disease does not kill the fisheries sector, the 'cure' will.\nThere is no funding to help the sector face increased production costs and to safeguard wages. However, EUR 1.6 billion is being proposed for permanent, partial or 'temporary' cessation of fishing activities.\nThe Portuguese Government is following this maxim and is, for the record, allocating about EUR 8.2 million for the decommissioning of 27 vessels in 2008.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - The negative impact of the current oil and fuel prices affects all EU citizens. This 'supposed rescue' package will do little to ensure a sustainable fishing industry. Although I support capacity reduction - currently some Community fisheries are at least 40% over capacity - I do not think this proposal will achieve the changes required to achieve a sustainable EU fishing sector. With 80% of EU stocks at worrying levels we need real capacity reduction, not renewed boat building at the taxpayers' expense.\nRoberta Alma Anastase  \nin writing. - (RO) The situation of the Roma population is brought into discussion again at an extremely important moment, when specific events prove that there are still considerable deficiencies at the level of national and European policies in this field and that the need to monitor and consolidate them is obvious.\nI think the result of the debate and resolution regarding the fingerprinting of Roma people in Italy should be based on two key conclusions. First of all, it is essential that the national measures regarding the Roma people be oriented toward social integration and the creation of a framework of rights and responsibilities for these citizens. Nevertheless, such rights and responsibilities should comply with the EU fundamental principles of non-discrimination, as well as respect for fundamental freedoms and human dignity. The rights of minors, regardless of their ethnical membership, should be ensured with priority. This approach has been used in Romania and should be expanded to the situation in the other Member States as well.\nSecondly, taking into consideration the cultural particularities of the Roma people, the solution for its integration should be found at European level by drafting a coherent and comprehensive strategy. In addition to guaranteeing the fundamental rights, this strategy should also promote access to education, especially to education for tolerance in the context of the 2008 Year of Intercultural Dialogue.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nI voted against the resolution of the European Parliament asking Italy to stop the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity, because this seems premature and I regret the fact that Parliament did not vote in favour of the motion for postponement until September 2008 tabled by my political group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Let us be clear on this: I am of course in favour of the ban on fingerprinting the Roma population, including minors, and using the fingerprints collected, since this would clearly constitute an act of direct discrimination based on race and ethnic origin, prohibited by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and would also represent an act of discrimination. Nevertheless, I was swayed by the arguments of the Vice-President of the European Commission, my friend Jacques Barrot, since he clearly said that the Commission was closely watching the situation with complete transparency to ensure that Community law was enforced. In all good conscience, I have decided that we should wait for the various responses expected from the Italian Government before taking political initiatives such as the resolution adopted, which could be open to misinterpretation by European citizens.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nI am voting in favour of this resolution although I hope that it is not exploited for party-political purposes. The Roma issue is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing issue but simply a serious and unsolved problem requiring urgent action, and that has been put off for too long. We are for a culture of integration and we therefore need to invest in practical efforts and commitments.\nThe measure under discussion in our Government, despite Minister Maroni's ambiguous reassurances, should be reduced to the bare essentials: the problem with this measure is not identification in itself, but the fact that it aims to use an ethnic criterion and a highly discriminatory practice (fingerprinting), especially in relation to minors. We are not alone in highlighting these abuses: there have been loud protests from large parts of the Catholic Church, and both lay and Catholic voluntary associations and organisations. The national President of Unicef has also firmly rejected the substance of this decree. I hope that this vote, which in practical terms condemns Italy, teaches the Government a lesson: that it must abandon the mistaken path that it has taken.\nPhilip Bradbourn  \nin writing. - British Conservative MEPs have voted against this resolution as the issue the text deals with is one which is wholly a matter for internal affairs of one Member State and thus has no bearing at an EU level.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - Just substitute 'Jew' for 'Roma' and we know where this proposal is coming from and where, unless it is vigorously opposed, it will go.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nWe view the increasing and unacceptable climate of racism and xenophobia in Europe with concern, in particular when this is spurred on by neoliberal policies that exacerbate rather than provide answers to the needs and problems that lead to increased insecurity and worse living conditions for workers and populations.\nThe measures that were recently adopted in Italy, where on 21 May a 'state of emergency in relation to the nomad settlements in the regions of Campania, Lazio and Lombardy' was declared for a one-year period, are an example of these dangerous and unacceptable measures that promote discrimination, segregation and the 'criminalisation' of citizens and populations, violating their rights, freedoms and guarantees - their most basic human rights.\nThis increases situations of poverty, exclusion and social disintegration and consequently gives rise to marginalisation and ghettoisation, illiteracy and incorporation into the informal economy, and encourages many citizens of Roma origin not to participate in society.\nOn the contrary, and as is pointed out, the best way to protect the rights of the Roma is to guarantee access to education, housing and healthcare, employment and social security in the framework of inclusion and integration policies.\nGunnar H\u00f6kmark  \nin writing. - (SV) Discrimination against the Roma is a serious problem which must be countered in every Member State in Europe. Every European citizen has the same rights irrespective of nationality, ethnic origin, religion or sex. It is the foundation of the successes and development of the European Union and is a principle which we have a common duty to uphold.\nThis raises demands for access to education and healthcare as well as the right to respect for integrity and personal dignity. The situation which characterises the treatment of the Roma in Italy today has to be seen within this perspective. The EU has a responsibility to ensure that the fundamental rights of people are upheld in every country.\nHowever, it also raises demands for people, regardless of origin, to be integrated into the society in which they live, with the requirements of equal treatment which that involves, formulated without discrimination, on equal terms for all citizens. This is important in the fight against people trafficking, prostitution and social exclusion. Neither adults nor children must be allowed to fall through the net of this responsibility.\nIt is against this background that we did not feel able to support any of the resolutions which Parliament has debated today.\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of this resolution and I welcome the fact that the European Parliament makes a stand against this discriminatory and illegal action from the point of view of the European human rights legislation.\nNevertheless, I call attention to the fact that a mere resolution will not solve the basic problem, since this legislative act is of a non-binding nature. For this reason, I think we should request the European Commission to take action against Italy in order to make it give up its discriminatory policy against the people of Roma origin.\nThe fingerprinting measure is not in compliance either with the European legislation or with any other instrument guaranteeing human rights in Europe. At the European Community level, there is Directive 380 of 28 April 2008, which provides for the obligation to fingerprint the citizens of third countries, as of the age of 6 years. Nevertheless, I emphasize the fact that it refers to third countries, which do not belong to the European Union area. Moreover, the Directive 2004\/38\/EC guarantees the free movement of any Member State citizens, consequently ethnicity could not represent the basis for a legislative measure under any circumstance.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Italy's actions fly in the face of every call from the European Parliament for a coherent EU policy on Roma integration. Roma are one of the main targets of racism and discrimination. The Italian Government is trying to condone and institutionalise such racism and discrimination. Italian authorities must refrain from fingerprinting Roma and I voted in favour of the resolution.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of postponement of the vote on this sensitive report, believing that it would be more appropriate to wait until all of the information requested by the Commission from the Italian Government was available to us.\nWhile the House voted to reject such a postponement, I abstained in the final vote, not wishing to support the resolution without all the facts being available to use and having some concerns about part of the text, while also wishing to acknowledge that any heavy-handed actions by the authorities targeting one specific group in society cannot be condoned.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - The treatment of Roma people in Italy should be a wake up call to the fact that minorities in Europe are being treated in an inhuman, discriminatory and degrading manner by a populist right-wing government. Finger printing of children is plainly wrong. This echoes a time past and should have no place in modern-day Europe. I call on all governments to condemn the Italian Government and to act quickly to protect Roma children in Italy.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nin writing. - (RO) I believe the Italian Government's decision to fingerprint citizens of Roma origin and, in particular, children, seriously infringes the fundamental rights of the European citizens.\nFingerprinting a child at an early age could mark him\/her for life. The fingerprinting of children less than 14 years of age is done based on a form used in criminal investigations, which infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens.\nI did not agree with postponing the vote on the resolution because the situation is urgent and the fingerprinting of children must stop. One cannot start from the presumption of guilt of some children and the treatment of children of Roma origin, used today in Italy, is unacceptable.\nWe request the Italian Government to stop the fingerprinting actions for minors of Roma origin in Italy.\nThe Union should give an example as regards the respect for the fundamental rights and, for this reason, the Commission should investigate the situation in Italy and request the Italian Government to stop the fingerprinting of children of Roma origin immediately.\nThis is why I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution to stop the fingerprinting of people of Roma origin and, especially, of the Roma children, in the larger framework of \"Creating a database with the fingerprints of people of Roma origin in Italy\".\nManfred Weber  \nAs coordinator of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I should like to give an explanation of vote on my own behalf and that of my group colleagues. All groups are united in the fight against racism and against every form of ethnic discrimination, and in promoting human rights. There is no question but that the PPE-DE Group shares the desire to see light shed on the events in Italy.\nIn the resolution, we refer mainly to press reports and to documents and testimonies from a range of organisations and individuals. Most Members were unable to form an idea of the situation using their own resources.\nThe Italian authorities have invited representatives of Parliament to travel to Italy to find out more, and have also offered to provide further information. The Commissioner responsible, Jacques Barrot, has promised to present an informative report by the end of July, and our group was keen to wait for this. Our aim was, and still is, to clarify the facts properly first of all. That is why we wanted to postpone voting on the resolution until the September part-session. Unfortunately, our motion was rejected, along with a series of amendments that had been tabled, which is why we voted as we did.\nThe PPE-DE Group continues to hold the view that a thorough investigation would have been more worthwhile than this resolution, which was adopted in haste. Our opponents were aiming only to hit the headlines and did the people concerned a disservice in the process.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - The decision on whether to attend the Olympic opening ceremony is one that I believe should be approached collectively. It is not one that is necessarily shared by all my Socialist colleagues. Nevertheless, on that basis I see no good reason to boycott the ceremony or the Games. Even the Dalai Lama supports that position.\nEqually the proposal to invite the Dalai Lama to the General Affairs Council is absurd to anyone who is not deliberately trying to undermine the EU-China relationship. As for discrimination against groups in China, such as trade unionists, there is rightly cause for concern, but criticism coming from those who want to stigmatise Italy's Roma community is a little rich. 'Remove the plank from your own eye before the mote from your neighbour's.'\nPatrick Gaubert  \nin writing. - (FR) I am delighted with the adoption of this joint resolution on the situation in China. It is important to continue putting pressure on China before the Olympic Games take place in less than a month.\nWe cannot close our eyes to the serious human rights violations that exist, in contradiction with the pledges made by China itself. The European Parliament has a responsibility to remind China of the public promises it made. It is also important to mention minority rights, the rule of law and the still frequent use of the death penalty.\nFinally, I wish that some of the more stringent amendments against China had been adopted; I am thinking particularly of petitions to release dissidents and human rights campaigners such as Hu Jia and his wife Zeng Jinyan, reference to the situation in Tibet, which is far from being resolved, and the disproportionate and non-transparent sentences given to demonstrators following the demonstrations this spring.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nin writing. - (PL) I abstained from the vote on the resolution on the situation in China after the earthquake and before the Olympic Games. I did so because Parliament rejected the amendments that raised questions concerning the observance of human rights in China. As a result the resolution has an overtone that differs from that intended by the initiators of this debate. Why did Parliament not pass this resolution before the recent EURO 2008 European Football Championships? The reason is that there are no problems with human rights observance in Austria and Switzerland. Pointing out the problems in this area to China is not an anti-Chinese action, just an expectation that the minimum standards engendered by our civilisation will be maintained.\nTunne Kelam  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of amendment 19 because I strongly believe that inviting the Dalai Lama to a General Affairs Council meeting to present his assessment of the situation in Tibet, and explain to the 27 Foreign Affairs Ministers the middle-way approach and his concept of genuine autonomy that should be implemented for all Tibetans within China, is to be highly recommended.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) In the resolution on the situation in China I voted for the amendment proposed by the Greens because the degree of incompatibility between the situation in China now, in the run-up to the Olympics, and the promises and public commitments they gave at the time to improve both human rights and the situation in Tibet is just as is stated in Amendment 15.\nI attach special importance to the demand set out in Amendment 16 that tangible results must be achieved by negotiation between the Dalai-Lama and Chinese representatives before the Olympics commence. The concern expressed in Amendments 11 and 12 about events in Lhasa also merit observation.\nThe call made in Amendment 20 for the Union and its Member States to take measures with regard to China is most well-founded. I would not rule out a full boycott of the Olympics. President P\u00f6ttering's decision was sensible and humane. We cannot allow China, once and for all, in the name of the Olympic ideal and our values, to continue to use conjuring tricks to build an Olympic stage.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - The way the Chinese dealt with the aftermath of the earthquake in Southwest China was an example of the progress the country has made in recent years. Nevertheless, there is still a need for further progress on human rights in the country. It is only through engaging both sides in constructive dialogue that tangible progress on this issue can be made. The Olympics was hailed as a prime opportunity to add weight to this dialogue and encourage improvements in human rights and freedoms. I would therefore stress that China must intensify its efforts to deliver on promises publicly made to the International Olympic Commission to improve human and democratic rights. I voted in favour of the resolution.\nMarian Zlotea  \nin writing. - (RO) As a member of the Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China, I hope that, by the vote given today, we shall convince the Chinese authorities to comply with their own public commitments regarding human rights, minority rights, democracy and the rule of law.\nI encourage the Chinese authorities to take urgent actions in order to improve the human rights situation by pardoning all imprisoned political prisoners and human rights militants, including those imprisoned in Tibet following the protests of March 2008.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats abstained in the vote on the Brok report. We want to clarify our position on the future enlargement of the EU in this explanation of vote.\nWe think that the Copenhagen criteria are the only requirements which can be imposed on candidate countries negotiating for EU membership. We are in favour of the continued enlargement of the EU and consider it to be one of the great issues for the future of the Union. We also consider that the negotiations with Turkey must continue and that the country must be assessed against the same objective criteria as other candidate countries.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, Mr Brok's report underscores the desire to improve our relationships with the East, and that is why I supported it. I think, though, that this report is not very expressive, and that it lacks the clear plan for the opening up of the European Union to the East that we were hoping for. We expected a better drafted document from the former Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.\nPetru Filip  \nin writing. - (RO) Mr. President, appreciating the complexity and punctual usefulness of the Commission's 2007 enlargement strategy paper, we consider that, in the new context determined by the Irish people's vote, at least the internal dimension of the enlargement strategy should become the subject of more applied debates again. The Union's capacity to accomplish the objectives of its policies and achieve a functional regional cooperation, especially in the countries of South-Eastern Europe, depends on the manner in which the intra-Community relations shall settle.\nI would like to emphasize the fact that any negotiation formula introducing differentiated treatments for another Member State, no matter the reasons invoked, will initiate a \"chain of weaknesses\" and I do not believe such an approach could bring benefits in the long term. The success of our future actions depends on the manner in which we will know to explain to the public opinion the direct impact and long-term advantages of enlargement. I could even say that we should look at the Irish vote from a constructive perspective: this vote is the proof of the fact that we have not always known to be open partners of the simple citizen, who is rather the subject of efficient political practices than the defender of ideas and visionary concepts.\nRobert Goebbels  \nI voted in favour of the Brok report on the strategy for future enlargements of the EU in order to reaffirm my belief that no further enlargement will be possible without a new treaty allowing the Union to work with 27 Member States or more, accompanied by an adequate financial framework.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I understand from Mr Brok's report on enlargement that any new accession can succeed only if, and I quote, 'there is clear and long-lasting public support'.\nThis sentence seems completely hypocritical, coming just days after the scornful reaction of the Eurocracy to the clear 'no' of the Irish to the Lisbon Treaty, which simply echoes the French and Dutch 'no' of 2005. It also follows the replacement, in the French Constitution, of the compulsory referendum on EU accession by a pseudo-referendum based on 'popular initiative', which in actual fact depends on the goodwill of the French Assembly and Senate.\nAdmittedly, Mr Brok, in the knowledge that the vast majority of Europeans are opposed to Turkey joining the EU, does not even mention public consultation by referendum. To win the support he describes, he simply proposes good old propaganda for a public considered ignorant or even simple-minded.\nIf Mr Brok and his European and national counterparts fear - or despise - the public so much, they should at least have the decency to stop seeking its approval. European democracy would certainly be all the stronger for it.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Mr Brok's report on the Commission's 2007 enlargement strategy paper. The EU must continue to be seen to uphold promises it has previously made on enlargement. Indeed, strict and fair conditionality must be applied to all candidates and potential candidates to whom we make these promises. I believe the report adequately deals with these issues and I voted in favour of Mr Brok's report.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The resolution is an outrageous distortion of the reality experienced by the peoples of the old and the new countries of the Union, presenting the deepening and enlargement of the Union as being to their advantage, when the exact opposite is true. The plans proposed for the new enlargement aim at greater exploitation and manipulation of the peoples of the accession countries, which are already in a dire situation, and a further escalation in the pillage of those countries by European capital. In particular, the process of enlargement to the Western Balkans is accompanied by a huge operation of subjugating and humiliating the peoples of those countries. A typical example is the insistence on full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the pseudo-court that was set up by the American and European imperialist bullies to try the victims of their wars and crimes in the area, and that was used to destroy the former President, Slobodan Milo\u0161evi\u0107. The peoples are also particularly at risk from the fact that the enlargement process continues to rely on a change of borders and the creation of protectorates for the imperialists, such as the protectorate of Kosovo, which will lead to a new cycle of imperialist antagonisms and clashes, with the peoples of the area as the victims.\nWe, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, are therefore voting against the resolution, reaffirming our position against the imperialist EU and its enlargement.\nCharles Tannock  \nin writing. - British Conservatives have always been and remain strong supporters of EU enlargement, as it provides a larger single market and a looser and more flexible Europe of nation states.\nHowever, this report includes elements we are unable to support. We do not believe in Europe as a 'political integration project'. In addition, we disagree with the main aspects of Paragraph 19, which calls for 'an area based on common policies' in fields such as justice, security, migration and visa-free movement and education, which British Conservatives cannot support. Also, we are unhappy with Paragraph 6, which states: 'developing an area of freedom, security and justice, of fully maintaining and building on its acquis communautaire and of upholding fundamental rights and freedoms, as laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union'.\nOur concerns about these and other parts of the report in no sense diminish our support for further enlargement of the EU, should applicant states meet the Copenhagen criteria.\nFor the reasons set out above, we have decided to abstain on this report.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nMr President, it is a good thing that Europe is making its voice heard in this part of Africa which is once again at risk of becoming a theatre for virulent conflict, after the farce of a presidential campaign we witnessed a few days ago.\nThe G8 has also taken a very clear stance, not through the introduction of sanctions, which would have damaged the civilian population in particular, but with 'financial measures' that relate especially to companies, banks and personalities of the regime in power since 1980. The situation that has come about is unacceptable, with elections taking place in inappropriate conditions and amid systematic violence. I also hope that our Community diplomacy will move to support the African Union's proposal asking for a government of national unity to overcome this difficult crisis.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, I supported today's resolution because I think that we must be tough on violence in Zimbabwe, increase sanctions and call for recognition of the Mugabe regime to be withdrawn. The campaign of violence aimed at the political opposition and financed by the state has ruled out the possibility of holding a free second round in the presidential elections.\nMarie-Arlette Carlotti  \nin writing. - (FR) Like people all over the world, Zimbabweans want peace, democracy and prosperity.\nUnder Robert Mugabe, they have none of this. A former liberator of the country, he is now its torturer. Today, Parliament is sending out a clear message: it no longer wants Mugabe and his regime. The people of Zimbabwe have decided this. The EU must bring all of its weight to bear in order to help Zimbabweans and Africans find a solution to the crisis.\nThe priority is to put an end to the violence. Only a dialogue open to all members of Zimbabwean society will allow a transitional regime to be established, with a clear mandate for the organisation of free and transparent elections monitored by the international community.\nHowever, Robert Mugabe will not come to the negotiating table unless forced to do so. This is why we must strengthen our arsenal of sanctions against the regime.\nFinally, we need to plan now for the reconstruction of a future Zimbabwe: I welcome the Commission's proposal to release EUR 250 million in emergency funding as soon as Zimbabwe has a legitimate and credible government.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the situation in Zimbabwe, condemning the Mugabe regime.\nThe government's campaign of violence against the opposition, the successive violations of human rights and disregard for democratic principles are unacceptable. The civilised world must condemn, without hesitation, what is going on in Zimbabwe. The political persecution, gratuitous violence, hunger, suffering and the deaths of many citizens are Mugabe's recent 'work', which need to go down in the annals of history. The people of Zimbabwe deserve a better lot. I believe that the action of the international community is crucial to resolving the current humanitarian crisis. The European Union must set the example.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the resolution on Zimbabwe. What Robert Mugabe is doing is unacceptable. I do not call him President because what recently went on in Zimbabwe cannot be called an election. I agree with one of the Namibian politicians who said that, besides the traditional diseases that Africa has to grapple with - like malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS - the most dangerous disease today, the one that needs to be tackled with the greatest urgency, is Mugabeism. Mugabe has become an enemy of his own people. It is very frustrating when time turns a man who fought for freedom and independence into a harmful despot. I hope Africans will open their eyes and understand that people like Mugabe are bad for Africa as a whole.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) Madam President, I voted for the resolution on the situation in Zimbabwe because on 27 July President Mugabe's reign of terror once again openly made a mockery of the views of the international community, justice and democracy. There can be no dispute that the presidential elections in Zimbabwe were illegitimate, and the violence, murders, arrests and harassment of the opposition within the country are a particularly savage aspect of the absence of justice.\nAs the resolution states, Zimbabwe very much needs a mediation process which includes various parties from the international community and Africa. The parties to the dialogue must achieve sustainable outcomes for Zimbabwe and this will be possible only if the whole international community and its extensive democratic powers take part. The people of Zimbabwe have a deep-seated longing for democracy.\nThe situation in Zimbabwe is a matter for the whole of the international community and the community of African states and it is absolutely imperative that we recognise Mugabe's tyranny. China and Libya do not unfortunately share the view of the international community on this matter.\nThe EU must support and encourage those African states which are seeking to boycott Zimbabwe in relations with Africa. By contrast, South Africa's political and economic support for Mugabe's rule and the expulsion of Zimbabwean refugees from South Africa are contrary to our shared values. I also wished to lend my support to the idea set out in the resolution that this dispute may and should have negative consequences for relations between the EU and South Africa.\nJean Lambert  \nin writing. - I voted for the resolution today and hope that Council will follow it up with strong concerted action. I also hope that the changing attitudes that we are seeing amongst African leaders will also mean that we do not have to suffer the humiliating sight of Mr. Mugabe attending international meetings on EU territory. Mugabe's current power has been gained through the blood and suffering of his people. Our Government's should not be compounding that by forcibly returning people to Zimbabwe. Not only can they find themselves in physical danger there but they can also add to the instability of the situation and pressure on diminishing resources. Giving these people a legal migration status and allowing them to work would be the one guaranteed positive measure our Governments can offer: it would also mean that, when return is possible, people are going back with active skills and potential financial resources which will help grass-roots development. Indeed, Governments should be adopting such a policy towards those who cannot return to other countries which are in conflict. The people of Zimbabwe need our support in every way possible.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - The situation in Zimbabwe is cause for concern. I join my colleagues in condemning the Zanu-PF party's behaviour throughout the elections and would also stress that the elections of 27 June cannot be regarded as legitimate. Fresh elections should be organised that respect democratic norms. The suggestion of reaching an agreement on a transitional administration in the country is worth investigating as a way of getting out of the current democratic impasse Zimbabwe currently finds itself in. I voted in favour of the resolution.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - I deplore the situation in Zimbabwe and call on all MEPs, the Commission, Council and all national governments to condemn Mugabe and seek a way through this crisis. I welcome the statement by the G8 where they refuse to accept the legitimacy of any government that does not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my German colleague Mr von Wogau on space and security. The time has come for a common approach to defend European interests in space. It is becoming increasingly obvious each day that we need space assets in order that the political and diplomatic activities of the European Union may be based on independent, reliable and complete information in support of its policies for conflict prevention, crisis management operations and global security (especially the monitoring of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of transportation), verification of respect for international treaties, monitoring of the transnational smuggling of light weapons and small arms, the protection of critical infrastructure and of the EU's borders, and civil protection in the event of natural and man-made disasters and crises. Galileo is, in this regard, a cornerstone of the EU's role in space. This approach should go hand in hand with European defence and with support for the European defence industry, particularly in the aerospace sector.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - The European Union must develop its own space capabilities. We are against the weaponisation of space but do recognise that, while the US refuses to cooperate closely with the Union for the joint use of satellite facilities during times of peace and war, we have no alternative but to try to deploy our own system in Europe.\nThe development of Europe's common foreign and security policy and Europe's security and defence capabilities requires a space dimension. Mr von Wogau - the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Security and Defence - has done Parliament and Europe a service with this report, which we should follow up subsequently.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nIt would be difficult to be any clearer.\nIn its own-initiative report on 'Space and security', the majority of the EP rejected our proposals that:\nemphasised that the use of space must serve exclusively non-military purposes, rejecting any direct or indirect military use;\nand underlined that Galileo is an exclusively non-military project;\nAt the same time, it approved, among other dangerous measures:\nthe necessity of Galileo for autonomous ESDP operations and for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP);\nthe development of a common concept for geospatial intelligence policy, creating conditions for involvement of the EUSC in the planning for each ESDP operation requiring space-based observation and space-based intelligence;\nthat the EU explore the possibility of a financial contribution to the EUSC from the EU budget in order to provide sufficient funds to meet the increasing needs of ESDP operations;\nthe possibility of funding future European satellite telecommunications systems supporting ESDP operation from the EU budget.\nIn other words, the militarisation of the Galileo project and the increasing use of the Community budget for military ends. Hence our vote against.\nAnna Hedh  \nin writing. - (SV) I voted against the report because I believe that space should only be used for peaceful purposes. The report went much too far.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I generally welcome Mr Von Wogau's report on space security. I support the rapporteur's stipulation that space should not become weaponised. The development of voluntary instruments which could enhance space security is a positive step in ensuring a responsible space policy. The Community budgets from which the ESDP is funded are currently intergovernmental; consequently I feel it would be inappropriate to prejudge such spending in the report. These views are reflected in my vote.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The use of space is essential to the effectiveness of the EU's imperialist interventions. This is the conclusion of the report adopted by the European Parliament on space and the security of the EU. The report underlines the necessity of using space for 'EU Member States' deployments under UN, NATO and other similar organisations. It calls for rapid development of the EGNOS and Galileo programmes, full development of the EU Satellite Centre, and the coordination, through the European Space Agency, of the satellite communication systems of the EU Member States, for the purposes of espionage and surveillance, in order to provide 'independent, reliable and complete information in support of its policies for conflict prevention policies, crisis management operations ...'\nThe EU budget is already allocating an astronomical EUR 5.25 billion for these purposes, for the period 2007-2013 alone. This fact, as well as the decision to speed up the Galileo programme, shows that the EU intends to integrate the use of space into the strategic resources and capabilities for promoting the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy - in other words, the mechanism for the EU's imperialist interventions around the world.\nIn the light of all this, the report's appeal for 'non-militarisation' of space - typical proof of the outrageous duplicity of imperialist political mouthpieces - is the utmost hypocrisy.\nGlenis Willmott  \nin writing. - The European Parliamentary Labour Party welcomes this Parliamentary report, and in particular we support the development of an EU Code of Conduct for activities in space, along with the development of voluntary instruments which could enhance space security.\nWe are, however, concerned not to prejudge decisions about the future EU budget; ESDP activities are funded from the community budgets, which are currently inter-governmental. For this reason we voted against two amendments which suggested this in relation to space-related ESDP activities.\nPresident\nThat concludes the explanations of vote.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nMichl Ebner\n(DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution and would especially like to thank Mr Brok for his efforts to achieve a broad consensus on it.\nI believe that, vital though it is to dialogue with Russia, we must ensure that we do not become totally or predominantly dependent on Russia in terms of energy policy, because that seriously diminishes our potential to hold discussions. It should not be forgotten that Georgia's military response relates back to a long history of provocation from the separatist forces, which has recently become very intense, and that Russia used this self-defence measure as grounds for the invasion. Nevertheless, we should make it our utmost priority to achieve a peaceful solution to this conflict and I wish all those involved speedy success, so that Crimea, Latvia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan do not also go the way of South Ossetia.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) European politicians are now breaking a long silence and are describing Russia's actions in Georgia as disproportionate. No, this is a case of the rights of Russians in other countries being protected by means of military aggression. Some EU countries that blocked the prospects of Georgia and Ukraine for joining NATO have enabled Russia to pursue its aggressive policy of annexing territories. Most EU countries are dependent on energy imports from Russia; they are afraid of the gas tap being turned off. This allows Russia to start dictating its conditions to the whole of the EU in a truly disproportionate way. I voted in favour of the resolution, although I feel that the position of both the Commission and Parliament with regard to future relations with Russia has not been defined clearly enough.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) I believe that we should terminate the visa liberalisation agreement, withdraw the Russian 'peacemaking' units and replace them with international ones and, thirdly, break off discussions on partnership and cooperation with Russia. I also think that Europe should adopt a unified and clear stance on the situation in Georgia and not turn a blind eye to Russia's crude interference with the sovereignty and integrity of a neighbouring state.\nMoscow broke international agreements when, at the beginning of August, its troops crossed the border into Georgia, a border which it had itself recognised in the past. Russian troops not only entered the territory of South Ossetia, but advanced further into the country itself.\nI utterly condemn Russia's recognition of the declaration of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We must not forget that, while some celebrate independence, Georgia is mourning the innocent people who lost their lives and homes when the Russian troops invaded. I am convinced that Europe must bring pressure to bear and, as part of the international community, push for the territorial integrity of Georgia.\nThe Slovak Republic adhered to the principle of territorial integrity in the case of Kosovo and still does not recognise its separation from Serbia. In the same spirit, I do not recognise the independence of the Georgian regions and South Ossetia.\nToomas Savi\nMr President, as one of the authors of the motion for a resolution on the situation in Georgia, I voted in favour of Amendment 1, inviting the International Olympic Committee to seriously consider whether its decision to grant the 2014 Winter Olympic Games to Sochi is still valid in the light of recent events in the near vicinity of the future Olympic venues. It would be very irresponsible if the IOC endangered the lives of the Olympic athletes by holding the games in such an unpredictable region.\nI need not remind you that, on 5 September 1972, 11 Olympic athletes were massacred in Munich. I was there as a doctor for the Soviet Olympic team, and I remember the impact of those tragic events on the Olympic spirit. Such events should never reoccur.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, I have a lot of respect for Mr Schulz, but his statement today was unacceptable. Early this morning, President Medvedev described the democratically elected President of Georgia, President Saakashvili, as a 'political corpse'. Even from a democratic perspective, that would be outrageous, but when you consider that Mr Medvedev represents a regime that had the predecessor to his predecessor, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, murdered, had the President of Chechnya murdered and has now had an Ingushetian civil rights activist murdered, then it almost amounts to a physical threat.\nThis is not about whether or not we like Mr Saakashvili; it is a case of an obligation to support the elected representative of the Georgian people, who have become the victim of an imperialistic act and on whom an attempt at strangulation is being made. Therefore, I believe it is vital that, following our resolution, which I welcome, we go a step further and station European peacekeeping troops in Georgia. We do not need a mandate from the United Nations or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as Georgia is a sovereign nation and has asked us for a European presence. We must also ensure that this country can survive and continue in peace, because having Russian troops as peacekeepers, as the UN and the OSCE have organised, is giving the arsonist the role of fire chief.\nBogdan P\u0119k\n(PL) Mr President, this resolution on Georgia is important, and I voted in favour of it, although I feel that the European Union, which was faced with an important test as a result of events in Georgia, failed to pass that test. The main reason it failed, in my view, is because some very important German interests are involved here, particularly the interests of the German left wing and Chancellor Schr\u00f6der. Mr Schulz expressed them here today in no uncertain terms.\nThe European Union must understand that the Baltic pipeline may be the cause of what effectively amounts to the blackmail of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and also Belarus. This pipeline must be got rid of, and the European Union, despite its declarations, must finally take a stance on a unified energy policy that has no place for the Baltic pipeline under any circumstances, even though this goes against certain German interests. The Germans must come to terms with the fact that they are either forging a united European Union and their declarations are genuine, or they are acting hypocritically and putting their own interests ahead of those of the EU.\nMilan Hor\u00e1\u010dek\n(DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution, but with some heartache. The war between Russia and Georgia has highlighted differences in dealing with crises. Georgia has various unsolved problems, but Russia is behaving in the long-established tradition of semi-Asiatic dictators, with skulduggery, provocation and warlike brutality. This is a danger not only for Ukraine, but also for us.\nOur strengths are human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the freedom we have all fought hard together to achieve - freedom from dependency and bondage. These values urgently require that we defend them through a common foreign and security policy.\nCharles Tannock\nMr President, the British Conservative delegation supported the motion for a resolution on Georgia, which was a balanced one overall. However, we have objections to paragraph 19, which calls for a military ESDP mission in Georgia - although we would see nothing controversial in an EU civilian observer presence.\nSimilarly, paragraph 30, which claims that the Lisbon Treaty would help the EU's position with regard to managing this crisis, is, in our view, unfounded. We support a more robust common external energy security policy under the CFSP with regard to Russian oil and gas imports, but we do not see what difference the Lisbon Treaty would have made to managing this crisis. This is not about EU global weakness in foreign affairs, but about Russian bullying and revanchism in the South Caucasus.\nRichard Falbr\n(CS) I abstained, because the answer to the question 'is it true that the Georgians attacked a sleeping city with rocket launchers?' is 'yes'.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, we go along with the question Mr Lehne would like to ask the Commission. In fact, we think that the problems of contract law in Europe should respond to two key needs, which go hand in hand. The first is the need for clarity and simplicity, the second is for security. We are pleased that the rapporteur has taken account of the remarkable work done by the 'Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de legislation compar\u00e9e', and we hope this work will be done with reference to our common heritage, Roman law. The rules of contractual autonomy, the rules on validity, defects of consent and publicity have been fixed in our civilisation since ancient times. It is to those we need to refer; to this common legal heritage of our civilisation.\nWe also hope that, for transactions to be secure, the unification of rules on conflict of laws should precede the unification of the substantive rules. Contracts entered into between people in different places, and particularly the difficult issue of the tentative offer, or pollicitation, and acceptance, the procedures, timings and proof can all be unified without necessarily having to unify the substantive rules of our different legislations.\nMario Borghezio\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago on a small island near Sardinia, without violence and in the interests of environmental conservation, Sardinian separatists declared a new republic with the poetic, Polynesian-sounding name of the 'Republic of Maluventu'. I would like to point out that the President has already received the map inspired by the UN map and the sacrosanct principle of the self-determination of peoples. Europe has always stood side by side with anyone fighting for freedom by peaceful and democratic means. Long live the battle of the Sardinian people for self-determination!\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, I voted against the Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez report in spite of my conviction that men and women are of course equal and must of course receive equal pay for equal work. We still forget far too often that gender equality is one of the definite achievements of today's Europe, of the European world, of the Western world, and that this principle is by no means established in some other parts of the world. We should never forget this.\nThat is only one aspect of this report, however. The report is also brimming with a great many other points with which I fundamentally disagree. One example is its support for the endless electoral quotas for women, as though women were helpless creatures unable to obtain posts themselves based on their own abilities. Another is the constant support for abortion: I ask myself what this is doing in this report.\nIt was for all these reasons and many others that I voted against the Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez report.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, for some bizarre reason I broke the trend of a lifetime in this Parliament today by not voting against a report by the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality - I abstained.\nIn the past, I have constantly voted against these reports because they are normally full of complete rubbish. But, as a married father with two girls, I try to read every word of these reports and guess what they actually mean.\nI have some concerns about the committee this stuff comes from - I do not really think we need a Women's Committee in this place when we have a Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.\nThere are some phrases in this report - the 'feminisation of poverty', for example - which mean absolutely nothing but sound great to the PC brigade that resides out there.\nI do wonder what this committee would feel about, say, those who break the glass ceiling: for example, a mother of five, whose youngest child suffers from Down's syndrome, whose eldest daughter might be five months pregnant - as in the potential Vice-President of the United States, Sarah Palin? I think that committee would not like the fact that she has broken through the glass ceiling. But I abstained on this report.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Mr President, although I am a supporter of equal rights, I voted against the resolution on equality between women and men. This resolution incorporated some crypto-abortionist points and thus violates the principle of subsidiarity in this sphere. The fact that Amendment 2 - an amendment that removes these points - was rejected in the vote made it necessary to reject the entire resolution. It is a shame that the European Parliament can so frivolously violate the basic principles according to which the European Union functions.\nHynek Fajmon\n(CS) Mr President, I voted against the ban on cloning. A ban on cloning is an attack on the freedom of scientific research and on the freedom of enterprise. Restricting these freedoms will not do the European Union any good, but will lead to a further drain of scientists to the United States of America and other countries around the world where there are no such bans. A ban on trade in such products will then lead to further trade disputes within the World Trade Organization. We do not want such developments.\nThe health and other risks of cloning must be properly assessed in accordance with the applicable processes and procedures and the results must be communicated to the public. The European Food Safety Authority carried out a scientific consultation on this subject in the first half of this year and the results of the consultation do not provide any reasons to ban cloning.\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, I voted against the resolution on banning cloned animals in our food chain, due to the lack of scientific rigour underpinning our approach in Parliament. Whether it is a legislative vote, a resolution on a parliamentary question, or an own-initiative report, decisions taken by the European Parliament and plenary votes are seriously devalued if they do not stand up to peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny. The credibility and integrity of our work, therefore, is legitimately opened to question.\nIvo Strej\u010dek\nMr President, I voted against the Svensson report, and I am grateful for the opportunity to say why.\nMy reasons are as follows. First, no consumer knows everything, nor does any legislator. That is why advertising is a vital part of commerce and trade. Second, each advertisement (unfortunately or fortunately) must be obtrusive, attractive, striking and eye-catching. This is the result of the fact that there are always at least a few producers selling the same product, and each of them wants to sell just its own product. Third, Ms Svensson's attempt is attentive to these principles and tries to improve market forces with artificial legislating steps, which will harm and distort natural market forces stemming from the supply and demand relationship. That is why I voted against.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, if I had to summarise my reasons for voting against the Svensson report, I could say quite simply that, in my opinion, this report is complete nonsense. It is the umpteenth report in which this House - which is after all officially deemed to defend the freedom of European citizens - has called for restriction of freedom and for censorship. Indeed, several provisions of the Svensson report, such as paragraph 14 on censorship, are straight out of Fahrenheit 451, a book portraying a world in which books are banned and critical thought suppressed.\nI am very critical of this European Parliament in any case, but it does have to take care not to make itself a hopeless laughing stock and turn into a kind of clone of the Supreme Soviet.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Svensson. Her report is one of the most patronising, interventionist, politically correct texts of this whole parliamentary term. She really does seem to be convinced that advertising and marketing are a big conspiracy to contribute, right from the first years of a child's socialisation, towards the gender discrimination which reinforces the perpetuation of lifelong inequalities between women and men. I am not making this up: the majority of that sentence was taken verbatim from Recital M of the text.\nThe report of course advocates more legislation and the establishment of bodies specifically concerned with monitoring compliance with all these new rules. I would say 'jobs for the boys', if that phrase were not so terribly 'gender insensitive'. Paragraph 14 of the text takes the biscuit, advocating the elimination of what it calls 'messages conveying gender stereotypes' from textbooks, toys, video games, the Internet and advertising. Censorship, in other words. I do not know whether the term 'textbooks' is also aimed at literature but, if that is the case, we can start straight away by burning works by Shakespeare in the street.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, I reverted to type for this report, and voted against. I would like to detail some of the reasons why.\nI have a huge amount of respect for the rapporteur, Mrs Svensson, who has done a lot of work in this area and is one of the strongest female role models that this Parliament could put forward. However, certain points in the report - some of which were voted down - were almost beyond belief. There were the calls for the gender thought police in paragraph 9. There was the challenge to traditional gender roles in paragraph 13 and, in paragraph 14, something approaching a hatred of new images on the internet.\nMale and female forms have always been used in advertising. The male forms tend to look better than mine and the female forms tend to look better, say, than some Members of this House. That is advertising for you. Even the European Commission - if you look at its website, or any of the publicity it drapes upon its buildings - uses images of men and women who are slightly better-looking than the average.\nWritten explanations of vote\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote in favour of the report because its aim is global harmonisation of the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals. This can contribute to safer handling of chemicals, which improves the environment and health.\nHowever, we would have liked to see the labelling of chemicals in category five.\nThese chemicals are often found in the home and are a major cause of poisoning in children.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThe opening at international level of the debate on chemical substances and the part they play in our lives dates back to 1980, first within the International Labour Organization and then within the United Nations, which adopted the GHS (Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) in December 2002, with a revision in 2005.\nThese decisions have had an impact at Community level with the adoption of several documents.\nAt this point in time, what we are dealing with is merely the proposal for a regulation on classification and labelling of substances and mixtures whereby the European Union aims to implement the international criteria agreed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council for the classification and labelling of hazardous substances and mixtures, also known as the Globally Harmonised System (GHS).\nUsing this system, the aim is to focus on protecting human health and the environment without hindering the movement of substances and mixtures, setting out classification and information criteria, including requirements for labelling and safety data sheets. This relates to upholding safety in the transport of hazardous goods and health and safety prevention for consumers, workers and the environment. We therefore voted in favour of these reports.\nMarian Zlotea  \nin writing. -(RO) Chemicals are produced and marketed globally and their risk is the same all over the world. Substances considered dangerous in one country may have a different regime in another country. There should be no different description of the same product in various countries.\nIn addition to the need for information, the main goal of GHS (Globally Harmonised System) is consumer protection. The new legislation in the field of classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures shall offer increased protection to human health and the environment. I believe compromises have been reached, which contain good solutions for consumer health. The professional users of chemicals and worldwide consumers can benefit from global harmonisation.\nFollowing the enforcement of this report, the protection of people using these dangerous substances shall increase and enterprises shall be more efficient, reducing the number of accidents. The use of these dangerous substances shall be safer and shall provide users with correct, complete and accurate information, ensuring better consumer protection.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The Sartori reports deal with important matters of relevance to all our citizens. Chemicals are manufactured and traded on a global basis and their hazards remain the same wherever they are used; accordingly it is appropriate that the classification and labelling of hazardous substances be suitably harmonised. The package agreed today represents a sensible compromise reached between the political groups and the institutions and I was therefore able to support it.\nSylwester Chruszcz  \nThe report legalises the production of hydrogen powered vehicles. This is one of the rare documents that takes a deliberate approach to the problem of alternative fuel for vehicles. It is particularly praiseworthy in so far as this is an entirely innovative technology that is totally harmless to the environment, as the combustion gases are water. I have no doubt that the document is inspired by the manufacturer of the vehicle used by Hans-Gert P\u00f6ttering, but I deliberately voted in favour of it.\nHanne Dahl  \nThe June Movement is evaluating fuel cells that use hydrogen as an energy carrier based on renewable energy such as solar, wind and wave power as a system for transport because it is a clean fuel, i.e. there is no particle pollution and at the same time the fuel can be produced using renewable energy. However, overall, hydrogen powered vehicles have a very low energy efficiency of 20% from source to wheel. This is far outperformed by electric vehicles running on computer-controlled lithium batteries, which have an energy efficiency level of 80-90%. At the same time, millions of batteries could solve the storage problem for renewable energy. Therefore, we would like to work towards the Commission taking steps towards promoting this alternative.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - This report allows for the bridging of the internal market gap for hydrogen vehicles, having in mind the imperatives of consumer protection.\nIt is urgent to include hydrogen vehicles in the EU type approval framework, thus fostering the research and development of this environmentally friendly technology throughout the whole of the internal market.\nMoreover, technical specifications have been established to ensure the reliability and safety of hydrogen components and systems, as well as the clear identification of hydrogen powered vehicles through labelling, which would be important should an emergency arise.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour on the Weisgerber report. The potential of hydrogen as a clean form of power has long been recognised, and technologies in this area are constantly being improved. Nevertheless, hydrogen power can only be truly effective as a clean and green energy if the hydrogen comes from sustainable and, ideally, renewable sources, and this fact has been noted in the final report.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I am voting in favour of Mrs Weisgerber's report on type-approval of hydrogen powered vehicles.\nFostering environmentally friendly alternative fuels in the EU is an important step that absolutely must be supported in these times. Hydrogen powered vehicles lend themselves to this purpose but they must guarantee a high level of safety and environmental protection. To ensure that this is so, unified conditions for type-approval in the European Union are urgently needed. Without EU-wide regulations on the classification of hydrogen powered vehicles there is a risk that the one-off permits issued by the Member States will distort competition and that enterprises will find that investing in hydrogen vehicles no longer pays off.\nA unified type-approval system offers citizens the protection of an EU-wide directive and promotes an increase in the number of environmentally safe vehicles, which is very important.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Anja Weisgerber's report on type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles. The report is a positive step in helping to stimulate the industry to intensify research and development efforts. Encouraging the entrance of hydrogen-powered vehicles into the internal market will contribute considerably to achieving Europe's climate change targets. I voted in favour of the report's recommendations.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) There is no doubt that hydrogen power is a technology with future potential, but it has by no means reached maturity. Not only are acquisition costs still too high to be financed, but the manufacture and storage of hydrogen is expensive. Furthermore, even if the cars themselves do not produce any harmful emissions, it is still not clear how the hydrogen is to be produced in a way that uses as little energy as possible and does not generate CO2.\nIn conclusion, we also do not yet know whether battery- or fuel-cell-powered vehicles will become the norm, but it is important in any case that we support alternative technologies in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Accordingly, I voted in favour of the Weisgerber report.\nEluned Morgan  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report as this legislation will pave the way for full-scale production of these cars and provide European drivers with real alternatives in the near future. This new law will help boost the development of these vehicles while ensuring they are reliable and safe, and measures included in this report will ensure that the maximum environmental benefits from hydrogen-powered vehicles can be achieved.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nin writing. - (RO) Building car engines based on hydrogen represents a guarantee for the development of ecological means of transport in the future and the protection of public health. In order to obtain environmental benefits related to the use of vehicles based on hydrogen, the latter should be produced sustainably, improving noise and air quality in advance.\nThis regulation will make sure that hydrogen-based systems are as safe as the conventional propulsion technologies, contributing to the stimulation of industry for building such type of vehicles. It is necessary to create an adequate framework in order to accelerate the placing on the market of vehicles with innovating propulsion technologies, so that the transportation industry would contribute significantly to a cleaner and safer future.\nTaking into consideration the global problems caused by climate change and the lack of energy sources, the hydrogen vehicles should be promoted at international level, especially in the countries under development, as well as in the USA, in order to guarantee a better environmental protection against global warming.\nFor this reason, I voted in favour of this proposal for regulation, which represents a first step toward a cleaner Europe.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - Given the current and future problems affecting motor vehicle engines run on petroleum, it is clear that developments of alternatives are vital. The approval of specifics relating to this are a solid step forward. The relationship between aggregate consumption of oil through motor car use and that of increasing respiratory diseases, as well as concomitant rises in pollution, means that 'next-generation' vehicle design has to reflect this.\nClearly, the aspect of hydrogen generation through the use of electricity raises wider considerations, including how to locate the energy for the generation of the original electricity. However, this report helps to move the debate and the industry behind the car of the future and in the right direction.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nHydrogen is universally acknowledged as the environmentally 'cleanest' and most acceptable fuel, as its combustion in air or oxygen produces only water.\nDespite the significant problems associated with storing hydrogen and putting it into a fuel tank, the ceaseless work being carried out by research centres all over the world indicates that this is the fuel of the future. As a fuel, hydrogen will provide us with an environmentally safe renewable energy source.\nThe introduction of EU type-approval criteria for hydrogen powered vehicles is essential to the proper functioning of a single market and to ensuring a high level of safety and protection of the natural environment.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nI am voting in favour of this resolution in the hope that it will bring a swift and peaceful end to this tragic crisis. I think that two aspects need to be confirmed: on the one hand, the principle of the inviolability of the territorial integrity of the various states is unassailable, and on the other, the need should be underlined for absolute respect for the rights of the minorities concerned.\nEvidently, following the events in Kosovo, the voice of the international community is undoubtedly weaker and far less credible, but diplomatic efforts must be stepped up to bring about a credible and concrete solution. However, while the world's governments are busy, we need to act urgently to tackle the growing humanitarian crisis linked with the presence of an increasing number of refugees. The European Union must set up a task force to relieve the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people who are in need.\nI am in touch with the international liaison at UNICEF, who has confirmed the severity of the situation. I hope that the European Commission will play its part, as it has done in other situations.\nGiorgos Dimitrakopoulos  \nThe MEPs of the New Democracy (ND) party have decided to abstain from the final vote on the resolution on the situation in Georgia. This decision was taken because the final draft resolution, which was put to the vote, was worded in such a way that the sense of equilibrium present in the previous draft resolutions was removed.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I will be voting in favour of this joint resolution because it is important that the Union send a strong message to Russia's leadership. Nevertheless, it fails to adequately criticise and apportion blame to the Georgian leadership's role in triggering the crisis. As far as I am concerned, under the current leadership, Georgia is definitely not on track to join NATO in the foreseeable future.\nMy second point is that this crisis reinforces and strengthens the requirement for a European common foreign and security policy. The sooner this element of the Lisbon Treaty is implemented, the better.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The situation in Georgia and the position taken regarding it are foreign policy issues. The opinion of the June List is that neither the European Parliament nor any other EU institution should issue a statement on such matters because foreign policy is to be pursued at national level, not by the European Union.\nHardly surprisingly, the European Parliament is making the most of the opportunity to issue propaganda in favour of a stronger common foreign and security policy and, even worse, the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. Here today we can already see that different Member States have different opinions on the question of Georgia. Thus it is not desirable for the EU to speak with a single voice because that voice will have to speak counter to the opinions of many Member States. The numerous references to NATO are also very problematic as there are countries which are members of the EU but not members of NATO.\nThe situation in Georgia is very serious, especially in view of all the civilian victims of the conflict. However, the EU should not pursue a foreign policy and therefore we have voted no to this resolution.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nThe resolution approved by the majority in Parliament, which we voted against, is part and parcel of the anti-Russian campaign of those using this course of action to try to cover up their own deep responsibility for the worsening international situation and to provide a pretext for dangerous new steps in the escalating confrontation.\nAmong other aspects, the resolution hides the fact that at the root of the current international situation and the situation in the Caucasus is the new arms race and the militarisation of international relations championed by the USA and NATO (with its offensive strategic concept and its enlargement to Russia's borders), the stationing of new US bases and missiles in Europe and the growing militarisation of this continent, the aggression against and dismembering of Yugoslavia and the recognition of the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo outside international law, the attacks on and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, that is to say, imperialism (and inter-capitalist contradictions).\nSome of those who are now calling for international law, territorial integrity, sovereignty and the independence of States to be respected are the very same people who championed and supported the aggression against Yugoslavia or Iraq. What hypocrisy!\nThe road to peace and safeguarding the future of humanity lies in respecting the principles laid down in Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of the Portuguese Constitution.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I am satisfied that my own group's amendment was successful. We have asked that the Russian and Georgian authorities provide information as to the location of cluster bombs dropped during hostilities, so as to hasten de-mining activities.\nParliament has condemned the use of force and believes that conflicts in the Caucasus cannot be solved by violence; the speedy clear-up of mines will prevent future casualties of civilians.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien \nI voted in favour of Amendments 2 and 5, as in my opinion Russia is making a claim to restore the territorial boundaries of the former Soviet Union by employing various means. By its actions in Georgia, Russia has once again demonstrated its readiness to invade and occupy the territory of a sovereign state under the pretence of defending the rights of its citizens. To my mind, in its resolution the EU must clearly show the gratuitousness of Russia's expansionist plans, especially regarding the Baltic countries.\nIn voting against clause 2 of paragraph 27 I would like to say that the EU cannot and has no right to decide whether Georgia is still in the process of joining NATO. We are only able to state the fact that on 3 March 2008 NATO confirmed the possibility of Georgia joining this organisation; however, it is up to the sovereign state of Georgia to make the decision.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nLadies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the resolution on the situation in Georgia. I did so not because this is an ideal resolution; there is no doubt in my mind that our resolution could be better. I wavered on whether to support the draft resolution.\nMy doubts were stirred up by Mr Schulz just before the vote. He expressed his regret that the resolution failed to criticise the Georgian President. This remarkable statement convinced me that the resolution could have been a lot worse and could have been wrecked by the pro-Russian lobby in the European Parliament. In what he said, Mr Schulz underestimated Parliament's unity over the crisis in the Caucasus. It is now clear that it would have been better if the European Parliament had held an extraordinary session earlier on the subject of Georgia. It is a shame that we did not present our position during a Council sitting. It is a shame that we did not put forward our prescriptions and our views before the leaders of the Member States got together.\nCarl Lang and Fernand Le Rachinel  \nin writing. - Mr President, by taking an unequivocal position against Russia and engaging Europe in the resolution of the conflict, the European Council and a majority in Parliament are launching a process as dangerous as the one which plunged the continent into the First World War.\nThis process is the result of the ill-prepared enlargements to the East, which bring us closer to the conflict zones of the Balkans and the Caucasus. What then will the consequences of Turkey's membership be, which borders Iraq and Iran? Furthermore, by recognising the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo, our governments have opened a Pandora's box, challenging the territorial integrity not only of Georgia, but of most of the European countries, both East and West.\nIf, as the Socialists, Liberals, PPE and Verts would like, Georgia became a member of NATO and joined a European Union governed by the Treaty of Lisbon, our nations would enter into conflict with Russia.\nThe Europe of Brussels signifies war. More than ever, faced with a more powerful China and the Islamist threat, it is time to build another Europe, the Europe of sovereign states, united with Russia through the bonds of civilisation constituted by our Greek and Christian heritage.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome the swift action taken by the French presidency in working towards a solution to the conflict between Georgia and Russia. While criticism could be aimed at Tbilisi's military engagement in South Ossetia, the retaliatory action taken by Moscow is both disproportionate and a clear violation of Georgia's territorial integrity. I would call on the European Parliament to send a clear message to the Russian executive that its actions are unacceptable. I therefore voted in favour of the resolution.\nErik Meijer  \nThere is every reason to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Georgia and also to condemn military intervention in the region not in dispute and the use of cluster bombs by Russia. The aspects of this resolution I reject are its taking sides with Georgia and its attempt to punish and isolate Russia and surround it by NATO for recognising the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.\nA great many of today's European countries were created by in effect breaking away from another country, issuing a unilateral declaration of independence and ultimately gaining recognition from other countries. Most European countries came into being after 1830, particularly in waves after 1918 and 1991. Kosovo has been the most recent example. There is absolutely no reason to declare Kosovo's genesis exceptional, or to pretend this will be the last time a new country is created.\nIt is never the last time. As long as there are regions where the majority of inhabitants consider the ruling government useless or even threatening, perceiving it as foreign domination, new countries will continue to form. Let us acknowledge that the inhabitants of Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not wish to be subordinate to Georgia.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Russia is important to the EU not only as a supplier of energy but also as a counterbalance to America's drive for world domination. For these reasons, but also to avoid jeopardising its credibility, it is important for the EU to play a neutral role as a mediator between Georgia and Russia.\nThere are very large Russian populations in many states of the former Soviet Union, such as Ukraine. That makes it easy to understand why the Kremlin feels it has a particular responsibility to these Russian people groups. The EU could help to negotiate a solution that would be acceptable to all parties and, for example, speak up for generous ethnic minority rights for Russians in the post-Soviet era, which would fit in with the European Union's oft-quoted human rights goals. With this in mind, then, I favour the position worked out at the special summit and am against the 'vassals' attitude towards the United States in this report, which is why I voted against it.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe joint resolution upholds EU policy, which is exploiting the crisis in the Caucasus. This is an attempt to step up the EU's intervention and presence in this key region. Masquerading as a peacemaker, it is proposing a series of measures to facilitate its consolidation and intervention in the Caucasus. The resolution is provocative because it does not condemn the brutal attack by the Euro-NATO government of Georgia and the murder of thousands of civilians. On the contrary, it offers every possible support to Georgia's policy and its accession to NATO. The condemnation of the breakaway move by South Ossetia and Abkhazia is laughable hypocrisy, to say the least, in the light of the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the recent EU decision on Kosovo.\nAmid the web of conflict and rivalry between the EU, the United States and Russia, the European Parliament's resolution is almost identical to the US policy because it takes a one-sided stance against Russia in order to gain a better negotiating position for a share of Eurasia's markets and wealth-generating resources.\nThe aggravation of the conflict and rivalry by the imperialists and Russia's attempt to enhance its position in the imperialist pyramid create new dangers for the peoples of the Caucasus and the wider area. The people's answer can and must be to join in the anti-imperialist struggle.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis  \nI have voted, as did all the Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left as one, against the resolution on the situation in the Caucasus, because it views the crisis through the distorting lens of pro-Bush policy and expediency. The worst and most provocative aspect of the resolution is the fact that it avoids the slightest criticism of the opportunistic course of action taken by Georgian Prime Minister Saakashvili, who sparked off the crisis so as not to displease his American protectors. The position taken by the majority in the European Parliament directly opposes that held by the same political forces six months ago on the Kosovo issue.\nStability in the Caucasus region cannot be achieved through a policy of playing second fiddle to the United States, which turns a blind eye to the true state of affairs and itself pursues a policy of double standards.\nIoan Mircea Pa\u015fcu  \nin writing. - I have voted in favour of Amendment 2 because I consider it inadmissible that borders could be changed under the pretext of 'care' for the minorities in neighbouring countries. I also voted for mentioning that Georgia was promised NATO membership at the Bucharest Summit and that she is on right track for the following reasons:\na. It is true: Georgia was assured that she would become a NATO member and that is officially inscribed in the Final Communiqu\u00e9 of the Bucharest NATO summit,\nb. At least one important European leader has said - in the context of the recent war with Russia - that Georgia's vocation for NATO would be fulfilled,\nc. The EU is bound to guarantee Georgia's security, independence and territorial integrity by virtue of the Partnership Agreement concluded by the EU with Georgia within the European Neighbourhood Policy and since it cannot do it - because it is not structured for that - it means that the only institution which can do so is NATO, of which the majority of the EU countries are also members.\nB\u00e9atrice Patrie  \nin writing. - (FR) Though not perfect, the resolution adopted by the European Parliament deserves to be supported in that it confirms the unity demonstrated by Europe on the resolution of the situation in Georgia.\nThis complex crisis proves how urgent it is for the EU to develop a proper regional strategy towards the Caucasus and Russia. Consequently, the EU would be well advised to put forward the idea of holding an international conference like the Helsinki Conference, which gave birth to the OSCE in 1975.\nFor the time being, it is necessary to stop the justified report concerning the negotiations on strengthening the partnership between the EU and Russia from failing to mention the need to construct a balanced dialogue with the country encompassing all issues of common interest, including democratic values and the energy dimension.\nIn this regard, it is a pity that the European Parliament is not making a clearer call for a review of our energy strategy which, in addition to the announced diversification of our sources of supply, should also provide for the development of renewable energies and of energy saving.\nGilles Savary  \nI abstained from voting on the European Parliament resolution on the events in South Ossetia and Abkhazia since the Parliament took a one-sided, unbalanced position towards Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from a normalised, democratised Serbia.\nParliament did not consider it appropriate to take a similar resolution on Kosovo in the name of the same principles of respect for international law and integrity of national borders that it is invoking today to denounce recognition of the independence of Ossetia and Abkhazia by Moscow. We all know why: we did not want to criticise the countries of the West - which were quick to recognise the unilateral and illegal declaration of independence by Kosovo - for the things for which we are today quite rightly criticising Russia.\nAlthough the Georgian government's military initiatives, like those of Russia, should be firmly condemned and should make way for a diplomatic settlement and international mediation, the European Union cannot allow itself to apply double standards to the many 'frozen conflicts' of the aftermath of the Cold War.\nNothing would be worse for the security of our continent than for the European Union to confuse alliances and allegiance to the 'crime-inducing' politics of the Bush government in this part of the world, as it has in other parts.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - While the resolution expresses many views that I can support - in particular, the approach to the final status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the call for Russian troops to be withdrawn from Georgia proper - it also contains many unhelpful elements.\nThe EU could play a useful role in providing civil observers and monitors and in humanitarian assistance. However, it should not seek to exploit the Georgia crisis for its own ends by calling for a strengthening of EU defence and security policy, by putting monitors under an ESDP rubric, or by endorsing the rejected Treaty of Lisbon. Furthermore, it was disappointing that the phrase 'Georgia is still on track eventually to join the (NATO) Alliance' was removed in the vote. I therefore abstained on this resolution.\nGlenis Willmott  \nin writing. - The European Parliamentary Labour Party welcomes this resolution, which shows strong and clear unity between EU Member States in the Council and the European Parliament on this vital issue. We mourn the tragic loss of life in this conflict and condemn the violent actions of both sides. We support moves towards supporting a lasting peace, the provision of humanitarian aid to victims and reconstruction efforts.\nWe voted to abstain on the second part of Paragraph 27, as we are clear that this is a resolution aimed at resolving the situation in Georgia. To discuss the future membership of an external organisation such as NATO would only distract from this important focus.\nWe wholeheartedly support the resolution's call to ensure a lasting resolution to the conflict on the basis of the EU-brokered six-point agreement, and we call on Russia to act decisively to meet the agreed conditions of this ceasefire plan, thus allowing for the resumption of negotiations on the EU-Russia Partnership Agreement.\nVladim\u00edr \u017delezn\u00fd  \nin writing. - (CS) I abstained from voting on the European Parliament's resolution on the situation in Georgia, not because I would be casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Georgian stance but, on the contrary, because I would have been approving the improper and aggressive steps taken by Russia. As has often been the case recently, some Eurofederalist Members have once more misused the conflict in Georgia and the associated resolution to call for the early ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It was this improper behaviour that caused me to abstain.\nMarian Zlotea  \nin writing. - The Extraordinary European Council of September 1 demonstrated and affirmed the unity of the EU, which represents progress compared to 2003, when the situation in Iraq created questions regarding EU unity.\nEurope must continue to express its solidarity and determination concerning Russian compliance with international laws and standards. The resolution that we voted for today emphasises that the partnership between Europe and Russia must be based on mutual respect for the fundamental rules of European cooperation.\nRussia continues to violate certain conditions of the cease-fire agreements, behaviour that must be met with unified political and economic pressure to encourage Russia to completely withdraw all troops from Georgian territory and reduce their military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.\nIt is critical that immediate action is taken to ensure the continued delivery of assistance to displaced victims of this conflict. These troubling events perpetrated by Russia should be met with unified European resolve. In order to protect against future challenges of this nature, Europe must find alternative energy sources and strengthen the European Security and Defence Policy as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the resolution from the Legal Affairs committee. The Common Frame of Reference will be an important legal development, and we as yet do not know what form it will take. It is vital that this Parliament and stakeholders in all countries and legal systems are fully informed of all future developments.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - Despite the complex title this report concerns a complaint in 2001 of maladministration by the Commission in relation to the German Government's failure to properly implement the Working Time Directive. The case was referred to the European Parliament by way of a special report from the European Ombudsman.\nReferring a special report to the European Parliament is the last substantive step the Ombudsman may take in seeking a satisfactory response on behalf of a citizen. My report, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, endorses the Ombudsman's conclusion that the failure of the Commission to deal with the petitioner's complaint for almost eight years constitutes an instance of maladministration.\nThe report does not address the content of the Working Time Directive itself and therefore an amendment which sought to raise the content of the Directive was opposed as irrelevant to this report.\nKonstantinos Droutsas  \nThe report on the Commission's refusal to examine a German doctor's complaint regarding violation of labour legislation on working hours by the German State highlights the EU's class-ridden nature. The Commission reacts with lightning speed when the interests of capital are at stake; it forces Member States to comply with Community law, but when workers complain of violation of their rights, the Commission disregards their complaints.\nThe Commission's provocative position is a natural consequence of the EU's anti-popular policy, which promotes a return to mediaeval employment conditions for the working class in order to safeguard the profitability of the European monopolies. In this context, the Council of Employment Ministers last July adopted an amendment to the EU Working Time Directive. This anti-labour travesty divides the concept of working time into active and inactive time - the latter is not considered to be paid working time - and gives employers the right to employ their workers for up to 13 hours a day, 65 hours a week, while paying them nothing whatsoever in overtime.\nThe rights of the working class and employees are not secured by complaining to the Commission, but by rallying and intensifying the class struggle against capital and the EU to overturn this policy.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List considers that working hours should be regulated at national level. This report should therefore not be dealt with in the European Parliament, even if it formally addresses the Commission's treatment of a case of infringement.\nThe principle of subsidiarity, which is praised on every conceivable ceremonial occasion, is fundamental here. When the majority of the European Parliament gets into the details, it is exactly the opposite; nothing can in fact be left to the Member States. The Working Time Directive is in itself a clear infringement of the principle of subsidiarity. Countries have different business structures. Some have heavy processing industries, others have light industry, others again have a great deal of tourism and seasonal industries, and the public sector is structured in different ways. It is therefore entirely inappropriate to attempt to regulate the working hours of the whole of the EU, nor is there any reason to do so. Those who argue in favour of this say that we will otherwise have problems with social dumping in the EU. This is an extremely severe accusation against the countries which we have accepted as members of the EU, which all fulfil the Copenhagen criteria and which are all states governed by law with a free right to unionise.\nThis report is yet another attempt by the EU to interfere in the working hours issue which is the responsibility of the Member States. We have voted no, with reference to the principle of subsidiarity.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I was able to support the De Rossa report and hope that the Commission fully takes on board the Ombudsman's recommendations in relation to the rule of law and the principle of good administration.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues are fully supportive of the principle of equality of opportunity between women and men. We agree with some aspects of this report such as: the need to make greater progress on dealing with the pay gap between women and men; the promotion of entrepreneurship among women; the importance of policies at national level that seeks to promote an improving work-life balance. As our Shadow Minister for Women has said: \"A Conservative approach to gender equality will be based upon a belief in equality of opportunity and equitable legal, commercial, social and political treatment\".\nHowever, we are concerned by certain aspects of the report such as: the call for new legal bases in EU law and the request for a decision on the \"full communitarisation of policies\". Also, we cannot support the creation of a costly \"European Institute for Gender Equality\" as set out in the report; such matters must be for individual Member States to pursue.\nFor these reasons, we have decided to abstain on this report.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution based on the report by my Spanish fellow Member Mrs Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez on equality between men and women. More than ever we need to attend to the double dimension of the subject: on the one hand, ensuring equality in all policy areas (gender mainstreaming) and, on the other hand, introducing targeted measures to curb discrimination against women, including awareness-raising campaigns, the exchange of best practice, dialogue with citizens and public-private partnership initiatives. All subjects are important: unequal pay, participation in decision-making, particularly public decisions, the reconciliation of private and professional life, and violence against women. Gender equality is an important cause, for which much has already been done, but it must receive the full attention of the humanist political forces for progress and must be debated everywhere, including in intercultural dialogue.\nKoenraad Dillen, Carl Lang and Fernand Le Rachinel  \nin writing. - (FR) There are sometimes fortunate, perhaps even amusing, coincidences. Indeed, we are taking the opportunity given to us by this annual report on equality between men and women, coming at the same time as the French Presidency of the European Union, to highlight a marginal but entertaining point which is at worst a lack of tact and at best a perfect application of the principle of equality between women and men, which means not discriminating between them.\nA few days ago, on the occasion of the start of Mr Sarkozy's Presidency, which received such a lot of media attention, MEPs were given gifts. In the free document wallet, notably there was a tie.\nOf the 785 MEPs, nearly a third are women. Were they not entitled to a small personalised gift too, or are we supposed to conclude from this that women also have to wear ties?\nIt still seems to be the case that, when big debates are taking place on the role and position of women in political life, boorish behaviour very often still gets the better of courteousness.\nKonstantinos Droutsas  \nWe cannot vote in favour of the Report on Equality between women and men - 2008, because it is trying to persuade women that settling for flexible labour relations and the reduction and commercialisation of whatever social benefits remain for the working-class family is a necessary evil, so that women will adapt to the EU policy of reconciliation of family obligations and professional engagements.\nThe valid findings on the pay gap between men and women are not being addressed, let alone eliminated; instead, there are mere exhortations or the instituting of an International Equal Pay Day. The measures proposed to combat gender stereotypes and for equal representation in decision-making, elimination of every kind of gender-based violence, etc. are a move in the right direction but will remain wishful thinking as long as the root cause responsible for these conditions and maintaining them remains, namely the capitalist system, which generates and aggravates discrimination and inequality.\nTrue equality requires a struggle for a change in the balance of power. Such a policy favours the workers and abolition of the EU strategy. There should also be a fight against the profiteering of capital and the unaccountability of employers. No measure will be effective unless the popular movement in each country is strengthened and targets are set for substantial change, right up to the level where power is exercised.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the report by Mrs Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez on 'Equality between women and men - 2008' as I consider that reducing the disparities between women and men is fundamental to establishing a fairer society as well as being a determining factor for the European Union's economic growth, prosperity and competitiveness.\nI should like to reiterate the rapporteur's proposal, which seeks to strengthen European gender equality legislation. Despite the actions that have been carried out in this area, there has not been significant progress at European level, in particular with regard to the pay gap between women and men, the participation of women in decision making, combating violence against women, access to education and lifelong learning or even in reconciling professional, family and personal life.\nHowever, I regret that Amendment 1 has been approved, thereby removing the important reference to the need for the Commission and the Council to create a clear legal basis for combating all forms of violence against women.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis report underlines important aspects concerning the types of discrimination that persist in society, focusing especially on the area of work, pay, poverty, pensions and reforms. It also broaches the issues of violence against and trafficking of women, the issues of education and training, lack of social facilities and access to services for the care of children and dependants and promoting women's sexual and reproductive health.\nHowever, there are still some contradictions, as is the case with the actions proposed in the field of employment, where a proposal we put forward was rejected despite another having been approved that safeguards important aspects for women. I am referring to the following proposal that is now part of the EP's final resolution: '...calls upon the Member States to take effective action designed to enforce the rules on welfare and employment and to make jobs which respect the rights of employees available in the various activity sectors, thereby ensuring that workers (in particular women) earn decent wages and are entitled to health and safety at work, to social protection and to trade-union freedom, as a contribution to eliminating discrimination between men and women at work'.\nHence our vote in favour, although we regret that other positive proposals were rejected.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List strongly distances itself from all forms of discrimination. The EU is a union of values, and the Member States must treat all groups in society in a fair and equal manner.\nHowever, the report contains a proposal from which we strongly distance ourselves, namely that the European Parliament is to call on the Commission and Council to take a decision on the full communitarisation of policies on immigration and asylum. These issues must be taken care of by the respective Member State.\nIn general the report contains many views as to how equality is to be achieved. The measures proposed include labour market policy measures, information campaigns, dialogue with citizens, quotas, closing the pay gap, measures to combat the segregation of work in the education sector, and improvements to maternity facilities for self-employed women. The report also welcomes the establishment of the European Institute for Gender Equality and calls on the Community institutions and the Member States to introduce an International Equal Pay Day.\nEquality between men and women must be a goal for all Member States. The political measures used to achieve these goals must, however, be determined at national level. The international coordination which is desirable should take place at global level, preferably within the UN. We have therefore chosen to vote no to this report.\nMarian Harkin  \nin writing. - In general, I am very supportive of most of what is in this report. However, I have a problem with Paragraph 9. I believe that the text of Paragraph 9 should be qualified by stating the need to respect national legislative processes when considering the issue of abortion.\nIreland has a protocol to the Treaty of Maastricht on this issue and furthermore the area of abortion is not an EU competence. It is up to each Member State to make its own legislation in this area and Parliament must therefore respect the principle of subsidiarity. Unfortunately, the text is not clear on this matter.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The Garc\u00eda Perez report deals with many important issues relating to gender equality, social justice and fundamental rights. One issue which is of increasing concern across Europe is that of human trafficking, which involves victims from both within and outside the EU. Combating serious organised crime of this nature requires a cross-border and multi-agency approach, and it is clear that the EU has a key role to play in this area.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - While progress has been made on the issue of gender equality in Europe, we are far from full parity. The report highlights various areas that require the Commission's attention, such as job quality and the need for better instruments to tackle violence against women. I would also support the call for Member States to urgently ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. I voted in support of Iratxe Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez's report 'Equality between women and men - 2008'.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I welcome the report on Equality between women and men - 2008, and support much of its contents.\nHowever, I abstained in the final vote because amendment 2 was rejected. In my view, the wording of that amendment was better than the original paragraph.\nEluned Morgan  \nin writing. - I voted for this report which aims to tackle gender inequality. It is clear that women do not have the same opportunities as men to progress in their career. Working mothers will never be able to balance family and professional life without stronger parental rights for both men and women.\nThis is why I fully support the calls for increasing the duration of parental leave, and in particular increasing the incentives for fathers to take parental leave, and flexible working conditions. It is only with these kinds of rights that we will be able to tackle gender inequality. Women will never gain true equality until men take their fair share of responsibility for childcare and running the home, just as my fantastic husband does. He cooks, he shops, but he's not so good at making the bed!\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) As a Shadow-Rapporteur from the PSE group in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I voted for this report because I consider it very important as regards the proposals for ensuring equal treatment of women and men with regard to the labour market. In this context, I would like to emphasize the importance of item 42 in the report, which requests the Commission and the Member States to establish a set of feasible, comparable and available quality and quantity indicators, as well as gender statistics, to be used for monitoring the enforcement of Lisbon Strategy for economic growth and employment.\nTaking into account that one of the decisive factors for increasing employment is the reconciliation of professional and family life, I would like to also mention item 34, which requests the Commission to unify and disperse best practices regarding the balance between the professional and private life.\nLydia Schenardi  \nin writing. - (FR) The European Parliament must think that its Members are suffering from Alzheimer's disease! Every year, at about the same time, two different reports appear: one on human rights in the EU and the other on equality between men and women.\nThough the content of the first can vary slightly from one year to the next, quite clearly the same is not true of the second.\nTo believe this, all you need to do is read the previous ones: the Kauppi report in 2007 or the Estrela report in 2006 on equality between men and women. They list the same challenges to be met, report the existence of the same inequalities and make the same recommendations. Do we conclude that there has been no change? No, because progress has been made with employment and with the participation of women in decision-making at local, national and European level.\nIt is just that we Eurocrats, spurred on by the women's lobbies - and I am thinking particularly of the powerful European Women's Lobby - are not satisfied with the progress; they want and are advocating even greater equality, even greater similarity between women and men, to the point of absurdity.\nDo we have to go along with this forced equality obtained through compulsory, discriminatory and minority-focused quotas?\nI do not believe so. The battle of the sexes does not have to take place.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) Mrs Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez's report on equality between women and men - 2008 was essentially good. It included a great deal which is important, not least the opportunity for women (and men!) to combine work with family life and the importance of generous parental allowances.\nI would have been able to live with a certain amount of hot air and repetition. What was more difficult was paragraph 4, which seeks to create a clear legal basis at EU level for combating 'all forms of violence against women'. There is nothing wrong with this ambition and, had it concerned human trafficking, which crosses borders, there would not have been any problem. However, here the aim is 'the full communitarisation of policies' in an area which is primarily a national matter, and that is more worrying.\nThe reason why I finally abstained, however, was the second sentence of paragraph 6, which encourages the use of quotas. This is something which I would rather not see at national level, and absolutely not introduced as a diktat from Brussels.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues are fully supportive of the principle of equality of opportunity between women and men. We support the fundamental principle as outlined in paragraph 1 of the report: 'Emphasises the importance of giving women and men the same opportunities to develop as individuals regardless of gender'.\nHowever, we believe that this report is overly-prescriptive and heavy-handed in its approach and conclusions. We do not believe the EU should have greater powers in this area. Such matters are for individual Member States to decide upon.\nWe reject the approach as outlined in Recital I which states: 'whereas gender stereotyping in advertising thus echoes the unequal distribution of gender power'. Such statements do not advance a healthy debate on equality. Likewise, we cannot support the thinking behind, inter alia, recitals F and G. The calls for 'zero tolerance' mentioned in the report are too vague and could lead to bad legislation if followed through.\nFor these reasons, we have decided to vote against this report.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of Mrs Svensson's report on how marketing and advertising affect equality between women and men, as I agree with the need to develop a 'Code of Conduct' for advertising that is applicable in all Member States and that guarantees respect for the principle of equality between men and women and combats the use of gender stereotypes.\nI believe that advertising and marketing communications are dangerous vehicles of gender stereotyping and give rise to restrictions on freedom, both for women and men, in their various dimensions and roles throughout their lives, having a negative impact on their role in society.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis report by Swedish MEP, Mrs Svensson, of our Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left, has enabled us to take a broadly positive stance on how marketing and advertising affect equality between women and men.\nAs the rapporteur mentions, the very purpose of advertising is to influence each and every one of us - women and men alike. Indeed, the choices we make throughout our lives are influenced by a whole range of factors, including the social class to which we belong, our gender, the images and concepts of gender and gender roles that are ever present around us through education, the media and advertising.\nFor this reason, it is important to continue to combat the gender stereotypes that persist in our societies, despite various Community programmes to promote gender equality.\nAs mentioned in the report, the school system has a fundamental role to play in developing children's critical faculties with regard to images and the media in general, in order to prevent the disastrous effects of the recurrence of gender stereotypes in marketing and advertising.\nYet positive actions to promote best practice in advertising are also needed, examples of which are put forward in the EP resolution that has now been approved.\nPetru Filip  \nin writing. - (RO) I decided that abstention is the position that expresses in the best way the heterogeneous content of the report. More clearly, we are discussing a real problem which has been answered, in my opinion, under inadequate terms. It is not enough to state that \"gender stereotypes must be eliminated\".\nI do not believe that it is a question of \"providing rewards to mass-media and publicity experts for compliance with gender equality\", as certain articles in the report advise (art. 9, 27), but we should rather draft precise Community regulations and programmes that would make such rewards useless. Since the various forms of publicity marking the daily life are realities with deep and immediate social-cultural impact, this activity needs a unified and coherent legislative framework.\nFor this reason, a descriptive set of references to such a current and important matter (as the Britt-Svensson report) has not managed to plead with convincing arguments and determine a favourable vote and has not answered in a clear and applied manner to the solutions considered.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien \nin writing. - I believe that advertising is a powerful tool shaping identity, values, beliefs and attitudes and has an undeniable impact on public behaviour. On the other hand, uncontrollable advertising can have adverse affects on the self-esteem of women - in the case of sexual services advertisements in newspapers - and particularly teenagers and those susceptible to eating disorders.\nWe must ensure the protection of our children from damaging influences and, in this regard, the role of schools and education must not be underestimated. I also support the proposal that the Commission and the Member States should develop a 'Code of Conduct' for advertising based on the principle of equality between men and women.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) I voted against Mrs Svensson's report in line with the view of our group.\nThis I did because, although the report on how marketing and advertising affect equality between women and men contained a lot of good ideas that I wholeheartedly support, including teaching children to use their critical faculties when it comes to the media and teaching people to question sex stereotypes, I thought it went too far in general. The proposals to establish a Code of Conduct at EU level and a monitoring body to which people can complain about sex stereotyping in advertising and marketing represent just the sort of patronising policy that engenders hostility towards the EU.\nMarketing and advertising are an important part of communications, and if manufacturers' products are to compete on the market, advertising must obviously use means that catch people's attention. I think that establishing rules for marketing and advertising is something that should be done at national level, however, and criticism of the media and healthy questioning of sex stereotypes begins with education and upbringing.\nRoselyne Lefran\u00e7ois  \nin writing. - (FR) I am delighted by the adoption of this report, which highlights the role played by marketing and advertising in the emergence and perpetuation of gender stereotypes and proposes a number of avenues for combating these.\nThe development of awareness actions seems to me, for example, to be a worthwhile measure, particularly with regard to children, who constitute a particularly vulnerable group. Exposure from a very young age to gender stereotyping in the media makes a major contribution to the perpetuation of lifelong inequalities between women and men, hence the importance of developing children's critical faculties with regard to images and the media in general.\nI also agree with the notion that marketing and advertising have a major responsibility for the increase in the number of people suffering from eating disorders and should consequently be more careful about the choice of female role models.\nHowever, it is a pity that the proposal aimed at explicitly integrating the fight against gender stereotypes into existing or future codes of practice, giving those working in the sectors concerned responsibility for ensuring the commitments are adhered to, was not upheld by a majority.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) I am voting in favour of Mrs Svensson's report on advertising, which continues to be discriminatory.\nDespite the measures that have been taken against it, gender stereotyping remains a major issue in society. Advertisements, in particular, tend to perpetuate tired old stereotypes of men and women. Children and young people, especially, identify with characters in advertisements and absorb the clich\u00e9s they present. This should be prevented, so that the younger generation can deal more practically with the issue of gender equality. In my opinion, specific training programmes on gender equality would be a good place to start and, above all, something must be done about the ubiquitous stereotyping in textbooks.\nIn summary, it can be said that advertising confronts all citizens in their daily life and it must therefore present good role models. The report paves the way towards achieving the goal that has been set.\nAstrid Lulling  \nin writing. - (FR) In Parliament we have the bad habit of producing own-initiative reports on trivial matters, and on matters that should really be dealt with by subsidiarity. In other words, the EU should avoid meddling in matters that come under the sovereignty of the Member States and that are better settled at national level.\nIn the state it was voted for by a majority of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, the report is unacceptable.\nI should point out that of course we are concerned about the gender stereotypes conveyed by some advertising.\nOf course we are against the advertising of sexual services, which reinforce stereotypes of women as objects.\nOf course we want to protect children against adverts that incite violence and sexism, among other things.\nOf course we are aware of the importance of codes of ethics and codes of conduct, but it is not up to the Commission to impose these on the Member States.\nAdvertising should respect the values dear to us, but it must be able to exist and to play its role in a market economy without being accused of all evils, which is the tenor of this report.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The motion for a resolution contains many different ideas and wishes. However, we would like to emphasise that the European Parliament cannot solve any problems in this area, nor is legislation at EU level the right way to go.\nFinally, we think that it is through opinion-forming and debate in the Member States that we can succeed in eradicating advertising for sexual services from the daily newspapers. Threats of boycotts by consumers can force newspapers to refuse such ads and force hotels to become porn-free. However, this necessitates opinion being built up from below. Not through measures at EU level.\nAfter a certain amount of heart-searching, we have voted in favour of the report in its entirety. However, we would like to emphasise that we have done so because we consider that many of the values and demands it contains are essential, but our opinions differ regarding the means to achieve them.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Eva-Britt Svensson's report on how marketing and advertising affect equality between women and men. The global character of modern advertising demands a concerted European effort to encourage advertisers to move away from gender stereotyping. Self-regulatory practices in the UK are already quite rigorous, and I would hope that other Member States would be open to embracing similar measures. I therefore voted in support of the report.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted this report because it renders very well the moment of the intervention required to reduce the negative influence of marketing and publicity on equality between men and women, namely: the first years of a child's socialisation.\nThe formation of stereotypes and prejudices at an early age decisively contributes to gender discrimination, with a direct effect on accentuating inequalities between women and men throughout their entire life.\nThe information explosion can hardly be prevented among children. A study recently conducted at the beginning of this year, in Romania, shows that the biggest consumers of advertising are children of 6 years old.\nI welcome the idea of establishing a specific department for matters related to gender equality within the national mass-media monitoring bodies of Member States, but it is extremely necessary that they have a double role: regular and systematic monitoring of gender images in the mass-media, as well as the coercive monitoring of their information media. In the absence of coerciveness, our initiatives shall prove useless.\nTeresa Riera Madurell  \nI voted in favour of a good report on a crucial issue: advertising and marketing, which have a great deal of power in terms of having a decisive influence on sexist stereotypes.\nAll of the European institutions should establish mechanisms to ensure that these instruments are used in a positive way to promote the equal treatment of men and women and to convey an image of women that is in line with reality.\nIt is worth making special mention of the commitment made by all the public authorities to eradicate violence against women and on the role that advertising and marketing should play in this process.\nIt should be recognised that many professionals are working towards this, but this report highlights the fact that there is still a great deal to be done; we therefore need to establish mechanisms that ensure that these conditions are complied with and that the resources are available to provide an effective response to complaints.\nThe new European Institute for Gender Equality should have the resources to closely monitor images and language and to eradicate violent images and those that subtly allude to women as objects that can be controlled and owned, and that are therefore susceptible to attack.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) Mrs Svensson's report created quite a major headache before the vote. In its original format, the report was full of sweeping generalisations and - in my view - exaggerations. It veered wildly between media and advertising, codes of behaviour and proposed legislation, self-regulation and new agencies.\nThe report which remained after all the voting, however, was completely different. The worst exaggerations had gone, leaving a quite reasonably expressed problem, that advertising sometimes, but not always, involves caricatures and gender stereotypes. I do not think it is the slightest bit problematic to express concern over the impression children and young girls are given, especially from images of extremely thin women. The report was not entirely free of socialist undertones, but the problem is a real one, not an ideological one. Therefore in the end I voted in favour.\nThomas Ulmer  \nin writing. - (DE) I am voting against this own-initiative report, because it interferes too much with freedom of opinion and smacks of imperious censorship. All matters of legitimacy and ethics in relation to advertising are already regulated at national level. The EU has no place trying to control the diversity of freedom of opinion and freedom in advertising. Fortunately, this is only an own-initiative report.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) I voted for the adoption of this resolution.\nIt is the result of cooperation within the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and also the result of compromises to give the report wider support. The objective of this report was to use the law to govern all aspects of life, even though it has certain centralised features. On the other hand, however, I am sure that, if Members of the European Parliament are able to intervene to promote and support the common good, then we have a moral duty to do so. We are obliged to ask for a ban on sexist images, which degrade women's dignity. Asking for the young to be guided and directed in relation to the media is also a part of this strategy.\nThe report also refers to the protection of children, on whom advertising with violent and sexual undertones has a serious impact and creates unrealistic illusions. In all events, we need to be vigilant. No European directive can change the nature of men and women. Before we can demand the elimination of gender stereotypes, we need to have sociologists and psychologists undertake a thorough analysis as to how this will affect future generations.\nAnalyses by independent experts often go unpublished, since they contradict political views. The laws of nature cannot be changed by a parliamentary resolution. On the contrary, if Parliament wishes to gain respect, it should take more account of the laws of nature.\nThe report on how marketing and advertising affect equality between women and men is nowhere near being a good one, but opens up several problems, which Parliament would prefer to avoid.\nVladim\u00edr \u017delezn\u00fd  \nin writing. - (CS) I voted against the report and against the majority of the tabled amendments which are intended, in a planned and unified way, using six comprehensive priority areas, to achieve equality between women and men in advertising and deal with the way in which advertising supports and reinforces certain types of discriminatory stereotype, which have a negative effect on equality between women and men.\nI voted against because this report is a serious threat to and, what is more, a dangerous interference in an area in which pronounced individual and different cultures prevail in the various Member States. What is considered embarrassing or unacceptable in one country may be seen as funny or amusing in another. Indeed, an attempt to impose Europe-wide regulation of the presentation of the two genders in advertising would create some kind of homogenised sterile stereotype. This report makes comprehensive proposals for actions going far beyond the competence of the EU. Member States have self-regulating bodies like the Advertising Council, through which the national advertising industries gradually create and adjust acceptable models for advertising activities.\nAdvertising, in view of its specific national characteristics, is a suitable area for self-regulation, far more sensitively reflecting national cultural traditions, customs and models. These should never be replaced by unified and homogenised outside regulation which might fundamentally damage advertising as a quite legitimate and essential sector of national economies.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis resolution follows an important debate on the cloning of animals for food supply and its possible implications for genetic diversity within livestock populations, food safety, animal health and welfare and the environment. It is clear that there are still many doubts at this juncture and a dearth of studies with clear and precise conclusions on its implications, thereby posing a serious threat to the image of agricultural production in the countries of the European Union.\nThat is why the European Parliament, following a proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, decided to call on the European Commission to submit proposals prohibiting the cloning of animals for food supply purposes, the farming of cloned animals or their offspring, the placing on the market of meat or dairy products derived from cloned animals or their offspring and the importing of cloned animals or their offspring, and meat or dairy products derived from cloned animals or their offspring.\nThe proposal appears sound to us at this stage and takes the precautionary principle into account, and we therefore voted in favour.\nPetru Filip  \nin writing. - (RO) My vote \"in favour\" is based on the following doctrinaire and practical grounds. First of all, any type of cloning, either human or animal, infringes the Christian principle and doctrine upon which the doctrine of the European People's Party is based.\nFrom the ethical point of view, there are still controversial matters to be debated and entirely clarified. As regards the practical aspects, we cannot exactly quantify the effects of cloning yet.\nMoreover, there is also the issue of the incapacity to control access to and follow-up these products of animal origin once they enter the commercial system. For this reason, I believe that the best decision, at this moment, is to ban animal cloning for food supply.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - Given the scientific uncertainty and ethical questions involved, I fully support calls for the Commission to bring forward proposals seeking to prohibit the cloning of animals for food supplies.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - The cloning of animals for food supply, I feel, carries with it various risks both to human health and animal welfare. I am not convinced that embracing this type of technology for consumption purposes is beneficial to European citizens. I therefore voted in favour of calling for a ban on the cloning of animals for food supply.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I welcome the debate on animal cloning. I abstained in the final vote on the resolution on cloning of animals for food supply because I have some concerns about an outright ban as proposed in this resolution.\nTo date concerns have been raised about the animal welfare implications of cloning and they need to be addressed. Food safety issues do not appear to arise.\nHowever, what we need is more accurate and scientific information and advice before taking a decision to ban. That is why I await with interest the Commission's proposals in this area, taking into account the recommendations of EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and EGE (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technology).\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Only 12 years ago, a new technology, which is apparently associated with high death rates and considerable suffering, stunned the world with the cloning of Dolly the sheep. The commercial sector is already rubbing its hands, dreaming of 'healthy' cloned pork enriched with Omega 3 fatty acids. They claim that this cruelty to animals also benefits the pigs, which are supposedly healthier thanks to cloning. Of course, the breeders benefit too, because their financial losses are reduced.\nThe whole thing is disturbingly like the many and varied temptations to genetic technology, by which multitudes of farmers have been brought to ruin, because the seed was not re-useable and they could not afford any more. It is also reminiscent of the sudden, unnatural death of entire herds after the animals had eaten genetically modified feedstuffs.\nThe long-term consequences of radioactive radiation and genetic technology have not yet been ascertained in sufficient detail, and it is impossible to estimate the effects of cloning, let alone cross-breeds. What would happen if a cloned animal is fed genetic feedstuff? What effects would that have on humans? Frankenstein is lurking at the door! That is why I am voting 'no' this time.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - Cloning animals for food is a topical issue at the moment. Broadly speaking, I am not against cloning in terms of scientific research and animal breeding development. However, in terms of animal welfare and food safety, I am totally opposed to cloned animals entering the food chain.\nResearch and past experience have proven that cloned animals are more prone to disease and have a reduced life expectancy. Although I do not wish to stand in the way of science, it is clear that we are not yet fully aware of the all the consequences and implications of cloning, both in terms of animal welfare and human consumption.\nIt is for this reason that clear criteria and controls should be implemented to ensure that cloned animals are prevented from entering the food chain. While I realise that this is a sensitive topic, I believe that we should err on the side of caution. Product quality, animal welfare and environmental concerns should remain our priority in terms of food production.\nLuca Romagnoli\nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the resolution tabled by Mr Parish on the cloning of animals for food supply. I agree with the reasons for the proposal and the concerns it raises.\nIt is true that in the past, the more 'revolutionary' innovations have been regarded with suspicion and have generated benefits only in the medium and long term; it is also true that the aim of this resolution could fall into this category. Nevertheless, we need to take into serious consideration the dangers arising from animal cloning for food supply: food safety, the welfare of cloned animals and the genetic and zootechnical diversity of these animals. These aspects are clearly interrelated. I therefore applaud this initiative and remain confident that measures will be adopted to protect both human health, by maintaining the high quality of the food that we eat, as well as animal welfare.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) I voted for this resolution. Consumers in EU Member States must be protected against the negative effects on their health which may potentially be caused by products cloned for food purposes. It is the principle of foresight which must be applied appropriately. Parliament emphasises the many advantages of high-quality agriculture which I support.\nDespite this, I am surprised by a sad fact: Parliament voted against the cloning of animals, but supports human cloning for research purposes involving experiments on human embryonic stem cells. The Seventh Framework Programme for Research is already financing such projects for the cloning of human beings. We are destroying human life simply for research purposes.\nThese experiments are also financed from taxpayers' money, even in States where the legislation considers cloning to be a crime. It seems that European legislators are more concerned about the cloning of animals for food supply than protecting man against scientific research.\n(The sitting was suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"2024-10":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"An EU Strategy for Central Asia (debate) \nPresident\n(DE) The next item is the report by Cem \u00d6zdemir, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on an EU Strategy for Central Asia.\nCem \u00d6zdemir\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me take this opportunity to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their support and valuable suggestions for the report on Central Asia. I would also like to take this opportunity, however, specifically to thank the AFET secretariat and of course also Group colleagues, who should not be forgotten at this point and without whom this report could not have come into being. Let me mention just a few of them: Dag Sourander, Paolo Bergamaschi, Rosemary Opacic, Andrew Woodcock, Margaret Fran\u00e7ois and my colleague Rana Ayd\u0131n.\nWe in the European Parliament are discussing the report on Central Asia for the first time this evening. I think this is a special moment for Parliament because it reflects the importance we attach to the Central Asian region in our relations. Central Asia is becoming an increasingly important strategic partner for the European Union. After years of neglect the European Union has recognised the need for a coherent strategy towards the five Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the five republics became members of the OSCE, which means indeed that they have also undertaken to accept the values, standards and principles we share within the OSCE.\nUnder the German Presidency of the Council, on 20\/21 June 2007 the European Council adopted a common strategy for Central Asia. That strategy offers the five republics a share in Europe's experience and expertise in key areas, such as good governance, the rule of law, democratisation, human rights and education and training. The European Union's dependence on external energy sources and its need for a diversified energy policy in order to guarantee security of energy supplies is a common interest of both the EU and the Central Asian republics. In that respect we have common interests.\nBasically, however, when it comes to energy sources, we are speaking of two countries, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, for instance, have energy problems themselves, as we have learned again in recent times. When it comes to water, the Kyrgyz Republic is rich in energy, which is why we deliberately mentioned it. Here we are following the proposal from the Commission and embassies in situ to set up a Water and Energy Academy that can look at the question as a whole, from the point of view also of the environment and sustainability. It is also in the interest of the countries concerned to diversify their energy routes, because it cannot be in our interest to see a further increase in dependence on Russia.\nThe Partnership and Cooperation Agreements are important instruments of bilateral cooperation with those states. The agreements with Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan have already entered into force, while the agreement with Tajikistan has not yet been ratified by all Member States. To date we have not signed an agreement with Turkmenistan. The reasons are well known. They are to do with the regime of isolation that prevailed in Ashgabat until the end of 2006. We hope - and I assume I am speaking on behalf of everybody here - that we will see a new beginning in Turkmenistan and we very much hope it will pursue its democratic reforms. Yet we must also admit at this point that there is still a very long way to go. We welcome the first steps that have been taken in the direction of more openness. We hope, however, that this is just the beginning of what we would like to see.\nThis report sets out clear objectives and priorities for relations with those five republics. We must combine country-specific and regional approaches. We are concerned with democracy and the rule of law, without forgetting human rights. We want clear benchmarks that define indicators and objectives so that our partners know what they are dealing with. I also hope the Commission and the Council will continue to call very clearly for the release of political prisoners and for media independence. I hope too that the governments will feel encouraged by this report to take the necessary measures in relation to human rights and in particular will release all human rights activists unconditionally and without any delay.\nOne thing is clear to us: we will only achieve long-term stability in the region if it goes hand in hand with the development of civil society. Without active civil societies and the rule of law there can be no stability in the long term. Even if we want energy security for ourselves, we must not play off democracy against it.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr \u00d6zdemir, we too regard Central Asia as a region of growing importance and I entirely agree with you that it forms a bridge between Europe and Asia, has great strategic importance and is indeed a neighbour of neighbours, when you think of the Caucasus. In fact, as you said, the Central Asian countries are now members of the OSCE and as such also wish for close ties with Europe. It is important that we continue to support that. We want to satisfy that wish and we worked together really well with the German Presidency. We as the Commission submitted proposals that were then accepted by everybody. As a result we have a new and most important Central Asia strategy.\nI am glad that the European Parliament and Mr \u00d6zdemir have taken up precisely that question with this sound report. It is indeed most important to make progress with implementing this strategy in the future.\nOf course we must always remember that although the European Union has been active in those countries since their independence, we have now received a kind of new impetus and are devoting more attention to them. I therefore very much welcome the clear statement in the report that the European Parliament encourages Member States to ratify the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Tajikistan in particular. I hope the same will also happen in the case of Turkmenistan, where a broader contractual framework would also allow more intensive support for the framework conditions and reforms.\nAs you know, we have been providing bilateral technical aid for many years in the framework of the reform process, as also humanitarian aid. So we are not starting from scratch. There is, however, enormous potential for developing our relations further. That is why we set out quite clearly in the new strategy what objectives we want to achieve through this closer involvement: genuine support for reforms in the field of human rights, democracy, support for economic development, investment support, protection of the environment, environmental sustainability, development of energy and transport links, as also measures to tackle common challenges such as drugs trafficking.\nThis strategy is also flanked by the European Union's strategy of regional aid for Central Asia. That supports our political aims and also makes major contributions to achieving the millennium development goals, especially in the areas of poverty reduction and health.\nI believe it is most important to make progress in specific areas such as human rights, but also in education, in the rule of law, in important regional projects in West and Central Asia, in the water industry, in expanding the EIB's mandate. You rightly referred to the dialogue on energy policy and to the fact that an agreement should be concluded with Turkmenistan on cooperation in the field of energy. In that respect both Kazakhstan as also Turkmenistan are of course especially important to us.\nIn this connection, let me briefly point out that the EU House, the EU information centre, will open in the Turkmen capital of Ashgabat in spring, which will make our measures much more visible there. I hope I will be able to open it myself. Finally, preparations for setting up a delegation in Uzbekistan and for upgrading the delegations in Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic are also going according to plan.\nLet me conclude briefly with the latest news about the current energy and food crisis in Tajikistan. My colleague Louis Michel is in the process of looking into the ECHO proposal to allocate EUR 750 000 for a range of urgent aid measures, and I hope that proposal will be approved in the near future.\nI could certainly go on for much longer, but my speaking time is limited like everyone else's.\nJosep Borrell Fontelles\nDraftsman for the Development Committee. - (ES) Madam President, as the rapporteur has said, this region requires a consistent strategy from Europe. Consistency means complying with the European consensus on development and, in particular, the use of the financing instrument for development cooperation aimed principally at eradicating poverty and attaining the Millennium Goals.\nIt is, however, very unlikely that the region will be able to attain the goals and it is obvious that poverty continues to be one of the most pressing issues in the countries in the region, except those which have oil.\nHowever, this strategy makes no mention either of eradicating poverty or social inclusion among its essential priorities, and neither does it place special emphasis on public health issues or on issues of elimination of gender-discrimination.\nThe Development Committee asks for these goals to be emphasised in any strategy which aims to be consistent with regard to those countries and with regard to the European Union's other policy instruments.\nWe welcome the fact that education matters, particularly in relation to primary school education, are mentioned as one area of cooperation. They need to be, because education is the millennium objective which these countries are furthest from achieving.\nWe also welcome the reference to the ILO Conventions on the concept of decent work and stress that these standards must play an integral role in economic cooperation, investment and trade relations, in particular in combating child labour, which continues to be a most serious problem in those countries, especially Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.\nAlojz Peterle\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (SL) I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr \u00d6zdemir, on his fine work and I would like to thank him for his cooperation on this report, which expresses the clear political will of the European Union for greater strategic cooperation between the European Union and the countries of central Asia, whose democratic and economic progress is important for global stability.\nThe report welcomes in realistic and favourable terms the progress achieved by the countries of this region in many different areas. At the same time it is constructively critical of political shortcomings, especially in the areas of human rights, democracy, the rule of law, environmental protection and health.\nThe report was prepared with full awareness of the diversity of the countries of central Asia and with the conviction that it is of mutual interest to deepen the cooperation not only in the area of energy, but also in the broader area of politics and security and in other fields. The aspiration for new dynamic relationships is also reflected in the proposal to assess the progress in cooperation every two years, and in the suggestion that the European Commission should urgently provide for the establishment of delegations in all central Asian countries.\nThe countries of central Asia and all the Member States of the European Union are participants in OSCE and are committed to the same values and principles. Kazakhstan will take over the Presidency of OSCE in 2010, and it has thereby gained great confidence and will be the first of the countries of central Asia to take over such an important responsibility. I hope that this fact will also contribute to further democratic and all-round progress in Kazakhstan and all the other countries of the region, and to closer links with the European Union.\nLadies and gentlemen, I am pleased that, where central Asia is concerned, the European Commission, the Council and Parliament are speaking the same language. It is time to elevate the relationship and cooperation between the European Union and the countries of central Asia to a higher level on the basis of a clear and binding strategy.\nKatrin Saks\non behalf of the PSE. - (ET) Madam President, Commissioner, unfortunately the European Union discovered Central Asia for itself relatively late in the day and I am not entirely sure whether even today we understand the region's importance in economic and security policy terms. A glance around this chamber shows that it is not exactly the most popular of places. In any event, however, the Central Asia Strategy adopted last year during the German Presidency and this European Parliament report mark a good step forward. I congratulate the rapporteur and thank him for his pleasant and constructive cooperation.\nThe principal issues affecting Central Asia are reflected in this report, including security issues, combating terrorism, energy, combating poverty, transit of narcotic drugs, trafficking in human beings, environmental issues and the development of relations with the European Union, regional cooperation and the challenges of globalisation. The important aspects are on the one hand to take a regional approach yet on the other hand to assess each country on its merits, because although we are dealing with a single region here, the countries within it nonetheless differ from each other to a fairly marked degree.\nThe most important aspect of the report is the good balance it strikes between economic aspects and human rights. As the countries in question are rich in resources there is a danger that interests may come to dominate over values in our relations. This may be further complicated by the fact that there is no previous democratic experience in Central Asia, making the implementation of international standards there difficult a result.\nThe situation is made yet more complex by the traditional clan-based ties and the continuing Soviet legacy. It could therefore seem that we are using the same vocabulary, such as human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, but the content we ascribe to them is fairly different. As a result, cooperation is not easy but we must take advantage of the interest which Central Asian countries have in the European Union. We are not, however, their only life-line. In recent years Russia has been vigorously developing relations there anew, as have Asian countries.\nNonetheless, the European Union has a better opportunity than ever to develop its relations by using the ties and experiences which the Baltic countries, for example, which now belong to the European Union, along with other new members have previously had with the countries of Central Asia. To conclude, it is very important to increase our presence in the region, although going by what the Commissioner said and the fact that in Central Asia we are dealing with countries where the majority of the population is, by contrast with European Union, young, our projects should focus on them in particular.\nSamuli Pohjamo\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, first of all I wish to thank the rapporteur, Cem \u00d6zdemir, for producing a successful report. He has worked hard in this area and raised some fundamental issues on the EU and Central Asia strategy.\nIt is evident from the report that the EU views Central Asia from two standpoints. The Union wants to increase imports of natural gas and oil from the region and diversify transit routes. At the same time it wants to improve the human rights situation, promote democracy and equality, and reform systems of governance and the judiciary. Finding the right balance for these objectives will be a challenging task. The EU will need to step up the implementation of its Central Asia strategy, speed up the implementation of projects, and broaden its approach both at nation and local level.\nI want to emphasise how important it is for there to be dialogue and cooperation between the EU and Central Asia. At the same time the Union must also support relations between the countries of Central Asia and provide technical assistance for the fight against human and drug trafficking. EU aid for healthcare, social and educational reforms and cooperation in the field of science will increase the number of contacts in civil society and strengthen European values, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. This will also pave the way for cooperation in energy policy.\nI also want to mention the importance of EU support for basic and further education and training, which will bring with it better opportunities for study in the EU and for exchanges with students from universities in the EU. The EU also needs to support and encourage the countries of Central Asia to take more effective measures in the area of environmental protection and in their quest for sustainable water use and for their use of other natural resources.\nAdam Bielan\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, I too would like to thank Mr \u00d6zdemir for his excellent report.\nEnergy security, Commissioner, is undoubtedly one of the greatest challenges facing the European Union in the 21st century. It can be achieved only by diversifying our energy supply sources so as to free EU Member States from dependence on companies controlled by the Russian security services.\nThe main source for diversification could be the countries of Central Asia. This would appear to suit both sides: the EU Member States, which are looking for other energy supply sources, and the countries of Central Asia, which would like to sell their raw materials at higher prices.\nMeanwhile, extension of the Odessa-Brody pipeline to the Polish port of Gdansk has not taken place, and the Nabucco pipeline, the only pipeline that could carry natural gas to EU Member States independently of Russia, now looks much less likely to be built in view of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan's agreement with Russia last year on the construction of a gas pipeline along the shore of the Caspian Sea, as well as the recent agreement between Russia and Bulgaria and privatisation of the Serbian oil industry.\nThe result is that, owing to lack of solidarity within the European Union and ineffective EU diplomacy, our countries are letting Russia and China push them out of this important region of the world. I would therefore ask the Commissioner what concrete steps the European Commission intends to take in favour of projects like the Odessa-Brody-Gdansk and Nabucco pipelines.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Ma\u0161t\u00e1lka\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for devoting so much time and effort to the preparation of this report. However, regrettably I am obliged to follow this positive statement with the observation that the proposal in question is extremely rambling and poorly structured, with many elements repeated throughout. My main question is: to whom is it actually addressed?\nI am afraid that there will be a sense of unease within the targeted nations about this text. It will be a headache for these countries' diplomats, as they grapple with the task of navigating the criticisms contained in the report. I think that for future reference it would be appropriate to separate the resolution and explanatory report. I would like to quote the example of one of the countries in question, Kazakhstan. At the end of 2006 the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbajev, came to Brussels. I think that the Commissioner was present with us at the time. On that occasion words of appreciation and praise were spoken. On reading the report, however, the overall impression is that the acclamations were not serious or sincere. Is the rate of gas and oil supply the measure of our objectiveness? Do we not know that Kazakhstan has been actually carrying out a program entitled 'Pass to Europe', which reflects this Republic's sincere desire to move closer to the EU in the fields concerned? I feel that the report does not offer an honest answer to the Kazakhs' question as to whether Kazakhstan can be considered in geographical as well as in more general terms part of Europe. I also feel that the traditionally patronising tone of the report with which the EU addresses its illiterate poor relatives is inappropriate.\nThe text does not distinguish at all between the different countries in the region, be it in relation to human rights or issues of economic and social development. The obligation to include among them the countries of Central Asia and Mongolia appears comprehensible only as an effort to unite under one umbrella states regarded by the rapporteurs as places of similar geopolitical importance, presumably as potential platforms against Russia and China. Some of the wording in the motion for a resolution is questionable. What does recital R mean it states that a number of different countries, have had, historically or more recently, vested interests in the region? Does it express our support of the colonial ambitions of some European powers in the past or is it an expression of concern for the interests of some oil companies? In addition, the statement that Russia and China tried to increase their spheres of influence in Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation does not make sense to me.\nIn conclusion, I would like to say that the admirable intentions of improving the EU's relations with the countries of Central Asia and the efforts to support local democratic and socio-political development have been, in the drafting of the resolution, obscured by the highly problematic interests of certain ambitious groups. Considering the actual objectives and needs of the EU, the resulting text is, in my view, unacceptable.\nBastiaan Belder\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, Mr \u00d6zdemir rightly emphasises in his report that Central Asia is of major strategic significance to the Union. He also says that agreements with non-member countries must be conditional on a clear commitment to human rights in the partner country. Dialogue has to be clear and frank.\nTurkmenistan is one of the Central Asian countries the rapporteur mentions. Religious freedom in that country is a total fiction. Religion is entirely state-controlled. 'Ruhnama' - the state religion and personality cult surrounding former President Niyazov - remains the standard. Non-registered faith groups have a hard time of it as a result. They find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Intimidation by officialdom curbs their religious freedom and they encounter problems in moving about freely and owning property. The situation of the Russian Baptist pastors Kalataevsky and Potolov, about whom I put questions to the Commission last autumn, is just one example of this appalling everyday reality.\nSo I would again ask you to be good enough to consider the amendments I have put down, namely numbers 12 and 13. Turkmenistan is a country that matters as the European Union seeks to diversify its sources of energy supply; that much is beyond dispute. But it also merits attention on account of the position of the religious groups I referred to earlier and of other minorities. The same goes for our other partners in Central Asia. I am counting on your support.\nCharles Tannock\nMadam President, a partnership between the EU and Central Asia is long overdue, and I congratulate Mr \u00d6zdemir on his report. This vast and strategically vital region is being pulled three ways: by China, by Russia and by Europe. It is essential that we do all we can to ensure that central Asia's rational choice is partnership with the European Union.\nTurkmenistan's gradual emergence from isolation provides the EU with a crucial window of opportunity. Ensuring regular, reliable supplies of ample Turkmen hydrocarbon resources will diminish Europe's current overdependence on Russia. This will require a new trans-Caspian pipeline to link up with the Nabucco project.\nUzbekistan, which was rightfully ostracised following the Andijan massacre, has begun to engage in dialogue on human rights with the EU. This is a considerable step forward. Clearly there is much progress still to be made before Uzbekistan can be considered a properly democratic country. However, Uzbekistan is a vital ally in the war on international terrorism, especially with regard to Afghanistan.\nFor the EU, Kazakhstan should be considered the jewel in the crown of central Asia. The country's vast oil, gas and mineral resources, including uranium, are an obvious attraction. Although Kazakhstan is not a western liberal democracy in our tradition, it is making considerable progress as a multi-religious, secular, Muslim-majority country. Given the fact that only 17 years ago it was a republic of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan's presidency of the OSCE in 2010 will further consolidate the momentum towards greater political freedom and human rights in that country.\nAs rapporteur of the eastern dimension of the ENP, I once suggested that Kazakhstan might one day become a member of the ENP. I believe that something rather like this arrangement, one day, will come to pass.\nJan Marinus Wiersma\n(NL) Madam President, my compliments too to the rapporteur, Cem \u00d6zdemir. It is a pity that most of the population of Central Asia will probably have gone to sleep ages ago.\nThe European Union has long neglected Central Asia. The strategy now devised is a welcome step towards plugging that gap. As many speakers have said, the Union has considerable interests in the region. We are opting for a realistic strategy that takes a cohesive view of the various facets of our relationship with Central Asia and developments there. As our EU Special Representative, Pierre Morel, has said on countless occasions, there is no way an energy dialogue can develop unless we help with the construction of properly-functioning states. And properly-functioning states mean democratisation. There is no guarantee that the new strategy will succeed. That will depend very much on how it is implemented. We are looking above all to the European Commission to flesh out the strategy in practice. Of course the issue of human rights must not be lost sight of in all this.\nOn Uzbekistan, I stand by my view that we must remain tough in our dealings with that country until such time as the regime there clearly signals that it is genuinely ready to move towards democracy.\nKazakhstan, an important point. I share the general view that this country is pivotal in the region. I do not agree with Mr Tannock that it should be included in the ENP, but we ought to look at ways of improving our relationship with Kazakhstan. I have been there myself and was impressed by the country's energy - not just economically but also socially. I am glad that agreement has been reached on whether or not Kazakhstan can take on the chairmanship of the OSCE. I am glad too that that agreement, that decision, comes with a few conditions attached. We can keep an eye on Kazakhstan in the years ahead to see if it meets those conditions.\nOne final comment. There are all kinds of things we can do in Central Asia. But only if we also bear in mind the role of Russia and China in the region. So in our policy towards Russia and China we must also think about the form that our growing interest in that region should take. When I was there, in Kazakhstan, I learned that to them China and Russia are not their only major partners; they also want closer ties with the European Union. Our new strategy may prove a very good response to that.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien\nMadam President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr \u00d6zdemir for preparing this very comprehensive report.\nAs chairwoman of the Delegation for relations with the Central Asian countries, and in connection with this resolution, I would like to address a few issues which I consider important.\nFirstly, Central Asia has an obvious growing importance for the European Union and the world as a whole, no doubt owing to its rich energy resources. We have many shared interests in promoting security and tackling threats such as terrorism and drug-smuggling. I am glad that the European Union's strategy for a new partnership with Central Asia addresses those matters very firmly, as does as this resolution.\nThis region occupies a crucial geostrategic position, particularly as it shares a border with Afghanistan, China and Russia. Therefore, we must clearly define our objectives and priorities, bearing in mind this context.\nIn 2010, Kazakhstan will become the presiding country of the OSCE, which is responsible for ensuring democracy and fundamental human rights. I am pleased for my colleagues, but I worry about the people of Kazakhstan, where the current elected Parliament does not include a single opposition member.\nAll the countries of Central Asia still have a long way to go on the road to economic and political reform and the building of democratic societies. The example of the former Soviet republics, including my country, Lithuania, shows that 17 years of independence is not long enough to fully achieve real change. However, we must deliver our overriding message, which is that Europe will not seek material benefits at the expense of human values.\nWies\u0142aw Stefan Kuc\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, the achievement of independence almost 20 years ago by the Central Asia countries discussed in Mr \u00d6zdemir's report brought a complete culture change after years of enslavement.\nObviously, these countries used their newfound freedom in line with past practice and habits. Change is hard to achieve in such a short time. These nations endured through the centuries thanks to cultural difference based on long tradition. That is something we should and must respect. Change must come slowly, so as not to arouse hostility to our own culture and expectations.\nEconomic ties with the Russian Federation remained after independence, and are still strong. Russian culture, its science and its economy had an enormous influence on what are now independent states. Unless we build alternative ties with the European Union we are bound to fail, despite the expectations which these countries have of us.\nWe must start with the economy: let us replace Russian pipelines by ours, Russian technical plant by ours and the Russian language by English. That will bring about a systematic change in culture.\nGerard Batten\nMadam President, this report expresses concern that the new Kyrgyz Constitution, voted on in a referendum in October 2007 without wide-ranging debate, could alter the balance of power. The Kyrgyz Constitution was amended in a controversial referendum in 1996, and in 2003 there was another referendum which approved further constitutional change.\nThe report goes on to deprecate, in the Central Asian republics, the 'anxiety to maintain internal control', which 'is a given in regimes which show little interest in seeking popular consent on which to base their rule'.\nHang on a moment, who are we talking about here? Constitutional change that will 'alter the balance of power'. 'Anxiety to maintain internal control', with 'little interest in seeking popular consent' on which to base the rule of a political elite. This sounds like an extract from a UK Independence Party report on the European Constitution - sorry, I mean the Lisbon Treaty.\nI doubt that the five Central Asian republics are models of democracy and the rule of law, but at least when the politicians of Kyrgyzstan wanted to change the constitution, they had the decency to ask the people for their approval in a referendum.\nThat is something the European Union has had neither the decency nor the courage to do of the European people.\nRihards P\u012bks\n(LV) Thank you, Madam President, Commissioner. First of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteur and their assistants, since the report is very comprehensive and contains a great many references and documentary research, with a separate analysis for each country. However, I would like to draw your attention to a few matters that in my view have not been tackled adequately. Yes, I would also like to add that the Commissioner's description of the specific activities to be carried out in those countries in the near future was very welcome. It seems to me, however, that in the report and in the European Union's strategy in general there are not enough strategic decisions or actions relating to these countries, whereas it appears to me that Russia, China, South Korea and India all influence those regions very significantly. I would also like to draw your attention to something that I think my fellow Member Adam Bielan has already mentioned - on 10 October 2007 the leaders of several countries met in Vilnius to discuss energy supply pipelines from the Caspian Sea. A week before that, Mr Putin, who is not at all a frequent visitor to other countries, went with Mr Nazarbayev to Turkmenistan and, offering a slightly higher price for gas, signed a political agreement to the effect that all existing gas from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan would go via Russia's pipelines. Thus, in fact, we might say that he hurried ahead of the decision by our fellow Member. Likewise, I think, a certain similarity can be seen to the events at Andijan, where afterwards, a few months later, the President of Uzbekistan was forced to demand the closure of the US base. It seems to me that we also need to pay more attention to these aspects ... I would simply like to draw attention to the fact that we need to analyse much more attentively and take account of these strategic aspects too. Thank you.\nJ\u00f3zef Pinior\nMadam President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mr \u00d6zdemir on his excellent report on the EU strategy for Central Asia.\nCentral Asia is part of the road which has connected the great Euro-Asiatic civilisations since antiquity. In today's global context, the ancient Silk Road can be taken as a symbol of the high political, cultural and trade potential of that region. Central Asia is the region where the European Union, China, India and Iran meet. There is no doubt that the countries of this region - Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - will be one of the main areas of EU external activity in the coming years.\nBy the way, Central Asia is a region in which the EU and Turkey have a shared interest. Turkey's cultural, linguistic and strategic influence in the region is one of the arguments for Turkish membership of the EU.\nLet me make two points. Firstly, the EU should provide assistance in these countries in a perspective of human rights, democracy and education. There is a need for EU support for the development of civil society, liberal democratic change and the rule of law in these countries.\nSecondly, I would like to stress the importance of partnership in the field of energy policy. Special attention should be given to projects connecting oil and gas fields and the distribution system in Central Asia to pipelines connecting with the European Union, including future projects such as Nabucco. Further strengthening cooperation between Central Asia and the Black Sea region in the fields of energy and transportation is essential for the accomplishment of the EU's goals.\nOlle Schmidt\n(SV) Madam President, Commissioner, the EU strategy for Central Asia is a big step forward. Increasing our common visibility through a special representative and planning to set up delegations in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan will give us better opportunities to conduct an intensive dialogue with the individual countries and will change the way we can work in the region.\nCentral Asia will become more important, in particular, as has been mentioned, with regard to access to energy that is not controlled directly or indirectly by Russia. The region is composed of new states that need support in developing and strengthening their democracy, support in combating crime and in stopping the passage of drugs to both Russia and the EU through certain countries in the region. At the same time these countries are of course important partners in combating a global breeding ground for terrorism.\nThe EU has an opportunity to show its benefit in terms of foreign policy, by using all the tools of soft policy, both aid and trade. In addition, the EU can help to build democratic institutions and a working state based on the rule of law which respects human rights and genuine freedom of speech and of the press.\nThe Central Asian countries have a strong interest in creating an opportunity to diversify their oil and gas exports. We in the EU must put forward effective, properly financed alternatives to Russian and Chinese gas pipelines. The EU must accept its responsibility for our common energy security. Otherwise there is a risk that all our common efforts will founder.\nMore Russian-owned oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia is not the independence in the energy sector that we should aim for in the EU.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) Madam President, Kazakhstan is the Central Asian country I know best. It is a large country stretching between China, Siberia and Europe. Paradoxically, we count countries as Central Asian when part of their territory belongs geographically to Europe. Kazakhstan, with a population of 16 million and over 100 ethnic groups and religions, is distant from us in its traditions and history, and yet the politics of this country and the aspirations of its people show a strong desire for rapprochement with Europe.\nFrom the cultural point of view, moreover, Kazakhstan is more European than Asiatic. It is grappling with problems, but it is a stable country engaged in democratic reforms, and stability in this region is very important for the security of the whole world. We should support the process of stabilisation and rapprochement with Europe in Kazakhstan and the other countries of Central Asia. We should support everything that serves to bring the Central Asian countries closer to Europe, especially as they can play an important role in ensuring Europe's energy supply security.\nRoberta Alma Anastase\n(RO) Ladies and gentlemen, as Rapporteur for the Black Sea cooperation, I would like to emphasize the major importance of the inter-regional cooperation between Central Asia and the Black Sea region. I thank the Rapporteur for taking into consideration my suggestions on this theme and I hope that both the Commission and the Council will submit sustained efforts in order to put them into practice by implementing the new strategy for Central Asia.\nThe cooperation between the two regions and its consolidation represents an objective both for the European Union and for the countries of Central Asia and the Black Sea region. This appears most explicitly in the field of energy and transport, since Central Asia represents an important source of energy resources for the European Union. Consequently, I welcome the fact that the report is focused on two key ideas in this regard.\nFirst of all, it is necessary to develop the transport routes and energy infrastructure connecting the sources from Central Asia to the Black Sea region and, finally, the European Union as an important element for ensuring energy security and diversity in the European Union. Therefore, I insist on the crucial importance of the Nabucco project and I join the report in its call to pay increased attention to its successful development.\nSecondly, a strong policy in the energy field also involves the creation of a transparent and competitive energy market. It is important for the European Union to encourage actions in this direction, both by intensifying the dialogue with the countries of Central Asia and the Black Sea region, and by additional measures, such as stimulating the accession to the World Trade Organization.\nNevertheless, these objectives should integrate into a global strategy for Central Asia, focused on sustained stability and development. For these reasons, besides the energy policy, it is very important to promote reform in all the five republics, while human rights and good governance, education and lifelong training should represent its essential elements.\nVural \u00d6ger\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first I want to congratulate Mr \u00d6zdemir on his very successful report. The European Union joined the race for Central Asia with very hesitant steps and was late to take an interest in the region, following behind Russia, China and the USA. Until now, Central Asia has not perceived the European Union as a global player. An EU strategy for Central Asia is long overdue, especially as a means of reducing its energy dependence on Russia. The German Presidency initiated it. It is important that we now see a follow-up.\nSadly it keeps emerging that the EU still does not speak with one voice in its external energy policy. We in Europe should focus above all on diversification, on representing our common interests and on solidarity in the event of crises. Yet the bilateral energy agreements the EU Member States concludes with third countries keep putting in question the European Union's ability to take a common stand. But it is in the interest of the European Union and its citizens to pursue a common external energy policy.\nWe must not, however, regard energy supplies, which are extremely important to our citizens, as the only reason for EU relations with that region. We are not trying to profit unilaterally from a strategy for Central Asia. In that respect Europe must distinguish itself from other players in the region. It is far more a question of helping the Central Asian republics to develop the rule of law and democratic forms of society, together with a sound economy. If Europe does that, the citizens of the region should become far more aware of it. Yet Europe must also move with the necessary caution, because advice from the West could all too easily be mistaken for patronisation or intervention.\nThe world is growing closer together outside the EU too and we should seek a constructive partnership with the Central Asian countries, a partnership that does not give the impression that Europeans are concerned only with what is useful to them, a partnership founded on mutual advantage.\nP\u00e9ter Olajos\n(HU) Madam President, Madam Commissioner, 150 years ago, a countryman of mine by the name of \u00c1rmin V\u00e1mb\u00e9ry was the first European to bring news of the closed societies of Central Asia to the wider world, and information on the cultural, administrative and economic situation of this region prior to the Russian conquest. Even at that time this region, like the Silk Road, had for centuries formed an overland umbilical cord linking Europe and Asia.\nFollowing a long period of Russian and Soviet domination, the five countries of Central Asia can once again assume this role of umbilical cord linking Europe and Asia. In many instances, it is unfortunately already doing so; a large proportion of the illegal trade in people and drugs arrives in Europe via these countries, as does natural gas.\nThis is why Europe needed, and needs, a strategy to develop its relations with Central Asia. Europe cannot, however, expect cooperation to be only about preventing the dangers emanating from there, or about gaining access to energy and raw materials, or about how Europe can teach this region about democracy and human rights.\nWe must develop genuine cooperation with this region, and this is why I support European Union efforts to promote WTO membership for the countries of Central Asia and their integration into world trade. Europe must use all means at its disposal to foster the economic, social and political development and modernisation of this region. This, however, can only be done on the basis of mutual trust.\nThis is why it is important to prioritise environmental protection as part of this cooperation. Climate change, chronic problems relating to water use and rehabilitation of previously contaminated areas are all issues that warrant greater attention. In parallel with this, Europe must rigorously eschew any project that pollutes the environment or damages the livelihoods of the people living there.\nI have already drawn the Commission's attention to the criticism by Kyrgyz and Uzbek non-governmental organisations concerning gold mining operations using cyanide technology that are partly financed by the EBRD. Europe cannot on any account support the use of this sort of technology, either within Europe or outside of Europe. Thank you very much.\nElisabeth Jeggle\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too want to begin by thanking the rapporteur Mr \u00d6zdemir and all the shadow rapporteurs who worked on this report. With this strategy for Central Asia and this first broad debate in the European Parliament, we are actively taking the appropriate steps to promote dialogue and to meet all the challenges that still await us and which the Commissioner addressed. This strategy will involve small steps down a long road. I am glad that we will have closer cooperation and that this will not be a one-way street but an exchange of views based on mutual trust.\nToday's debate shows us that we have to do a balancing act when we talk about Central Asia. The various Central Asian republics present very different features. We have very different requirements to make. We want to import energy but on a secure basis, and we want to export democracy and human rights. We want to combine the two, which is not easy. Since 1999 I have been a member of the delegation for relations with the Central Asian countries; I know those countries. I have learned from the people there and I know they too have a face and that they do not want to lose it. We must, therefore, proceed very carefully and sometimes pragmatically.\nThat brings me to Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is currently taking big steps that we should strongly welcome. The death penalty was abolished on 1 January. I thank the rapporteur for his oral amendment. Moreover, the habeas corpus principle was introduced, i.e. the principle that the court ascertains whether detention is lawful. In May this year we will be holding the second human rights dialogue with the Commission. I am confident it will take place. That is another good step that continues what we have begun.\nMay I say here that I will support the amendments tabled by the UEN Group because I agree with them, because I regard them as a step towards dialogue and because we must seek dialogue and partnership.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, the European Union should engage more actively in events in Central Asia and in support for economic and social development in the region. At present our influence is slight: it is mainly Moscow, Beijing and Washington that are doing business there.\nTo play a more active role, we must develop a vision for economic and political cooperation and join in projects, investments and programmes designed to meet the needs of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. At the same time we should encourage all these countries to engage in more active intra-regional cooperation. We must bear in mind, however, that it will not be an easy task, because the region is an ethnic, linguistic, religious, political and social patchwork still under strong Russian influence.\nThe European Union's priority should be to intensify cooperation in areas such as energy, trade, education, infrastructure, security and regional integration. We should concentrate on supporting the process of democratisation, the development of education and the elimination of poverty. That will increase security and social and economic stability in this strategic region of the world and render our cooperation more effective.\nZbigniew Krzysztof Ku\u017amiuk\n(PL) Madam President, my first point is this: all five Central Asian countries are members of the OCSE, which means they have undertaken, vis-\u00e0-vis the international community, obligations regarding respect for basic freedoms, democracy and human rights, although they differ in the degree to which they are meeting those obligations.\nSecondly, against a background of regional shortcomings, Kazakhstan stands out favourably. In August 2007 it held parliamentary elections at which I acted as an observer. Despite certain reservations, those elections were recognised by the international community as democratic.\nThirdly, if the European Union wishes to find other sources of crude oil and natural gas than Russia, it must seek strategic cooperation with the Central Asian countries, especially Kazakhstan. And that means encouraging and supporting Kazakhstan's European aspirations.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, this was a very interesting debate. I always regret that it is held late at night and maybe so few Members stay, but thank you for staying. I think that many of you have mentioned what I personally also feel: there is a strategy that is absolutely necessary and this strategy aims to achieve stabilisation and security in this area. Indeed, we, the European Union, are very much in favour of going forward.\nI was Chairperson-in-Office of the OSCE in 2000 and I got to know these countries and, as others have said, they are very interesting countries. They are all very different. It is true that Kazakhstan is the star of these countries, but a lot still has to be done.\nThere is the issue of human rights that everybody has mentioned. There is the issue of poverty eradication and, particularly, education, but also the questions in the general field of human rights and, of course, the big question of energy. So I know how much we have to do and I am glad that finally the European Union has done much more than in the past, together, as I said, with the German Presidency. I shall now say a few words on those different issues.\nPoverty eradication is highly important and this is one of the major parts that we focus on in the country strategies. The policy paper that we have produced for the EU strategy for Central Asia is more a political document on political priorities, but in the country strategies we mention all the requirements under the Development Cooperation Instrument, which is particularly focused on education, on health, on rural development, on social protection and, particularly, on vulnerable families and children in difficulty.\nThere is also, in terms of public health and communicable diseases, a major factor: the global fund on AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, where, again, the Central Asian countries are eligible. So this is one side, and we will certainly go on with that.\nOn the other hand, there is the question of energy - both the Nabucco pipeline and the Odessa-Brody-Gda\u0144sk pipeline have been mentioned - and, in general, energy security. I completely agree with you that we want a diversification of our energy policy, even if we have not yet completely reached where we want to go. But the most important thing is that we have taken this clear decision.\nOn the Odessa-Brody-Gda\u0144sk pipeline, I would like to say that the Commission is making every effort to diversify EU energy supplies and routes and, of course, Central Asia is absolutely crucial here. The pipeline you mentioned is an important project in these efforts, and to feed this pipeline, we need to work first and foremost on the trans-Caspian pipeline, to get the Central Asian resources to the Black Sea. Just a few days ago, we had the first ever regional conference of the Black Sea Synergy, which was a very first step in working on these issues in a regional dimension.\nApart from that, we also face the issue of energy security regarding the Nabucco pipeline. It is still a priority for the Commission and we will go on supporting it. It is not dead, as some of you might think. So we have energy political priorities. By the way, we are starting to have a sort of memorandum of understanding on energy with Turkmenistan too. We already have one with Kazakhstan, and we will certainly try to go on building bridges between the different countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia.\nSomebody asked me about Mongolia. The five countries of the Central Asia region share the same recent past, following the break-up of the Soviet Union, and they are all, of course, very young nations. This means that we face similar challenges regarding the political and economic transformation of these societies, but, as you know, Mongolian history is quite different, and that is why we did not include Mongolia in the strategy. However, we do not preclude looking to the south of the Central Asian countries and we are looking towards the possibility of working further with Mongolia. Today, it is a rather democratised country, where we see a lot of positive measures and positive steps.\nKazakhstan will indeed hold the chairmanship of the OSCE in 2010. I would like to tell you that I have always promoted that, always on condition that Kazakhstan continues to take a lot of important steps that are still necessary. More has to be done on the freedom of the media, on electoral law and on the issue of registration of political parties, but it is indeed going in the right direction.\nFinally, Kazakhstan is a member of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Let us please keep the Central Asia strategy and the ENP somewhat separate, although elements of the Neighbourhood Policy can appear later on in a special agreement, particularly with Kazakhstan, because we know Kazakhstan can be the first country in the Central Asia region to start radiating a positive spirit. I hope that the others will follow.\nCem \u00d6zdemir\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, first I want to thank all the colleagues who took part in this debate and to give thanks also for the input of the committees asked for their opinion and, of course, for the Chair of the Delegation, Mrs Juknevi\u010dien\u0117. I am also grateful to those who tabled amendments. Mrs Jeggle has already referred to the amendment on the abolition of the death penalty in Uzbekistan, which we very much welcome. I find myself obliged to point out, however, that we note with concern that opposition politicians and journalists in countries that are neighbours of Uzbekistan are dying in mysterious circumstances. That should also be addressed in this connection.\nThe crucial question is this: how can we transmit our values without denying our own interests in the matter? This is precisely where the European Union has an opportunity, because we simply have more to offer than dependence or even exploitation of these countries. The simple and acute question is how we can combine long-term stability with democratic development. In that area, there is still great potential for developing a genuine partnership between the Central Asian republics on the one hand and the European Union on the other. We are looking at nothing less than a total package of economic and democratic development, together with cultural and scientific exchange, which, however, gives clear priority to protection of the environment and the development of civil society.\nLet me briefly address one point I am sure is known to all of you: the environmental disaster on the Aral Sea, which has since become known beyond the region and is one of the greatest environmental disasters in the world. The countries concerned will not be able to resolve this problem without our help. Here too we must demonstrate our solidarity and do our part to help.\nThere is good news too, when we remember that we have an important partner in Turkey, which is a close neighbour and, as a country that wishes to join the European Union, can contribute its expertise to the joint development of a strategy.\nThe success of the European Union can also be measured by the extent to which it manages to develop a coherent strategy for Central Asia. If it wants to be a global player, the European Union must also develop a strategy within which it formulates its common interests.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday, 20 February 2008.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nAlessandro Battilocchio \nin writing. - (IT) As part of the work of the Delegation for Relations with Central Asia, of which I am a member, I have had the opportunity to visit the countries of the area covered by the report.\nI have thus been able to see the substantial progress that these countries have made in many fields, from the environmental to the social, especially as a result of a strong impetus from the EU. That being said, it is to be hoped that the EU will continue the work it has undertaken in this part of the world, bearing in mind that these nations are key allies in the fight against international terrorism and drug trafficking, by continuing to step up its dialogue with these countries.\nThe Council and the Commission are also asked to step up efforts to provide citizens with greater protection in key fields of social life and therefore to strengthen the laws in force on women's rights and to improve their application, to continue the strenuous fight against the exploitation of children, to implement major reforms of education and, in view of the substantial increase in infectious diseases in the area, a reform of the health service which is considered to be a key priority for these countries.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on seven motions for a resolution on border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia\nBarbara Lochbihler\nMr President, the border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia at the beginning of this month placed the decades-long conflict over access to the temple of Preah Vihear back in the consciousness of the international public. Although the armed clashes have abated somewhat at present, we must push for a political solution to be found to this conflict. ASEAN, the United Nations and the EU have a duty to work more intensively on this now, and not to wait until the situation escalates again before reacting.\nIn the most recent clashes civilians and soldiers on both sides were injured and killed. The use of cluster bombs was particularly perfidious. These cluster munitions wreak havoc on civilians that continues long after their launch. Up to 30% of cluster munitions fail to explode and remain on the ground as unexploded bombs, where they later explode when disturbed perhaps by playing children. We call on Thailand and Cambodia to stop using these terrible weapons immediately. We also call on both governments to sign up to the international convention banning cluster munitions.\nFinally, I would urgently appeal to the governments of Thailand and Cambodia to make every effort to resolve this conflict without resorting to arms. The civilian population on both sides will only suffer further; suffer for something to which politicians can find a negotiated solution if they only have the political will to do so, rather than attempting to pander to cheap nationalism on both sides of the border.\nMarietje Schaake\nauthor. - Mr President, since the beginning of this month there have been fights between the armed forces along the Thai-Cambodian border, near the temple of Preah Vihear, which is listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage site. We have a responsibility to protect the lives of people first and foremost, but we also have a responsibility for cultural heritage.\nParticularly worrying is the reported use of cluster munitions. Those reports may well be true, as neither Thailand nor Cambodia has ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions.\nTo prevent further escalation, which would put the region at risk of destabilisation, both governments have to assume their responsibilities and also have to care for people displaced as a result of this conflict.\nWe welcome the efforts by the ASEAN chair to facilitate a dialogue between the two countries so that the dispute can be resolved in a peaceful manner.\nThailand and Cambodia have agreed to join an urgent meeting of South-East Asian nations to discuss the conflict. The Director-General of UNESCO will also send a special envoy to Bangkok and Phnom Penh to urge both sides to cooperate with a possible UNESCO mission.\nBernd Posselt\nauthor. - (DE) Mr President, Mrs Lochbihler is quite right: it is firstly about people, about the dead and wounded, and about this scandalous use of cluster munitions.\nSecondly, of course, it is about containing a border conflict, settling it by peaceful means and ensuring that it does not broaden into a war.\nThe third aspect - and we want to address this too - concerns the irreplaceable world cultural heritage of the temple complex in this border region. Karl von Habsburg, a former Member of this House and the son of Otto von Habsburg, is responsible for these matters at Unesco and will attend the March plenary here in Strasbourg to tell us more about it. It is my feeling that we actually need to make concentrated efforts to combine attempts to bring about peace and protect people with the protection of cultural heritage. Here in Europe we know only too well what terrible gaps wars can leave in the cultural landscape. We must therefore take action wherever there is a threat to the world's cultural heritage.\nMarc Tarabella\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning of February, there has been renewed fighting between the armed forces of Cambodia and Thailand at the border near the temple of Preah Vihear, the surrounding area of which is claimed by both countries. Regrettably, there have been fatal casualties on both sides, and more than 3 000 people living close to the conflict area have had to be evacuated.\nIn 1962, the United Nations International Court of Justice, acting in accordance with French historical maps, recognised Cambodia's rights over the temple of Preah Vihear and the land adjacent to it. However, Thailand has never accepted that decision. What is more, some parts of the border have not been demarcated, a situation which already caused several armed incidents in 2008 and 2009.\nIn 2008, UNESCO listed the temple as a World Heritage site, which also provoked anger among Thai nationalists. Although a memorandum of understanding on the demarcation of land boundary was signed in 2000, Thailand's PAD nationalists are calling for it to be revoked because they feel it is too favourable towards Cambodia. I should like in particular to highlight the action taken by Indonesia, the current chair of ASEAN, which has offered to play the role of mediator in this conflict.\nOn Monday 14 February, the UN also urged the two countries to observe a permanent ceasefire, while it made no plans to send UN peacekeepers to the area. I hope that these two countries will finally be able to settle this land issue peacefully and to stop taking thousands of people wishing to live in peace hostage in this way.\nCharles Tannock\nauthor. - Mr President, for us in the European Union, the idea of taking military action over border disputes is now thankfully unimaginable. However, this is sadly not the case on the border between Thailand and Cambodia, whose armies have clashed several times in the past couple of weeks over a disputed, tiny, part of their border near to an ancient temple.\nAid agencies report that some 30 000 people have been displaced by the fighting, so it is hardly surprising in such circumstances that innocent civilians have been killed, although both sides contest the actual numbers.\nCambodia's Prime Minister, Hun Sen, has referred to the clashes as a 'real war'. Such bellicose and incendiary rhetoric can only make matters worse. The short-term solution to this dispute lies in the hands of both governments and the UN Security Council, which should take the lead in imposing solutions to de-escalate the crisis. In the longer term it is to be hoped that further ASEAN regional integration will help to make such clashes a thing of the past, as has been the case here in the EU for decades.\nCristian Dan Preda\nMr President, new incidents, apparently minor, took place on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning on the border between Thailand and Cambodia. Extremely tense relations have developed between the two neighbouring nations and I believe that this is the reason why the debate we are having today is welcome. I would actually like to thank Mr Posselt for the initiative he came up with.\nI would also like to say that I too deplore the human losses resulting from the armed clashes since the start of the month. Especially in the current charged atmosphere, we must firmly ask both sides to act with the utmost restraint and comply with the request from the UN Security Council to establish a lasting truce. Whatever the source of disagreement between Thailand and Cambodia, resorting to force is not a solution. I therefore wish to appeal to both sides to find an urgent peaceful solution to the territorial dispute in the area around the temple of Preah Vihear.\nI must actually remind you that an unequivocal decision was made by the International Court of Justice in 1962 and that there are ample opportunities for resolving the dispute, including via mediation through ASEAN. All that is needed, in accordance with international law, is to conduct negotiations in good faith.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (PL) Mr President, the 11th-century temple of Preah Vihear has many times been the scene of clashes between the influences of Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as the Khmer Rouge army and the regime of Lon Nol. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the temple has been the subject of a dispute between Cambodia and Thailand, who each in turn claim the right to the building and the surrounding terrain as well as the right to establish the border between the two countries. We have been witnessing the latest developments in this dispute since the beginning of February this year.\nDespite the decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which ruled that the temple belongs to Cambodia, there are other questions which still have to be decided. Both governments should make every effort to find a compromise which will provide the foundation for a permanent agreement. A repeat of the conflict of a week and a half ago, when the armies of both countries shelled each other, is unacceptable both from the point of view of the people of the region, who are in danger of being killed, and from that of the temple, which, despite its inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage list, has sustained damage. UNESCO has already offered its help, as has the Association of South-East Asian Nations. Today, the European Parliament has joined the appeal. A ticket to gain entry to the temple of Preah Vihear costs five dollars. I would like to ask what the price is of the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand, which has lasted for over 100 years.\nKristiina Ojuland\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I find it appalling that, in the 21st century, there are some political forces that keep operating in a 19th century paradigm. Growing nationalism in many parts of the world is giving rise to conflicts based on ethnicity as well as on religion.\nThe Governments of Thailand and Cambodia must consider that the border clashes have an impact on peace and stability in the region as well as on relations between the two countries. Even if there are unresolved political issues between countries, it should not reflect on people-to-people contacts. Otherwise there is an imminent danger of growing nationalism as well as xenophobia.\nThe situation on the border between Thailand and Cambodia should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the ruling of the International Court of Justice of 1962. The beginning of this year has seen already far too much bloodshed around the world.\nRyszard Czarnecki\nMr President, it is a particular strength of the European Union that we are not egoistic, that we can see past the end of our own European nose and that we do look at what is happening outside Europe and in far-off exotic Asia. This conflict, as has been rightly emphasised, in fact has a history of over a century. However, it is good that the European Union and the European Parliament, which is in fact the heart of the Union, has something to say on this matter. It is good, because we should be present wherever there is debate about human rights, wherever there is debate about this most important matter, and this conflict most certainly shows that people have died and are fighting today, although not with such deadly results, about matters which perhaps could be decided in a more peaceful way. It is good that the European Parliament is intervening in this matter.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\nMr President, in the International Court of Justic ruling of 15 June 1962, it was decided that the Preah Vihear temple falls within the sovereignty of Cambodia. It is the obligation of the Thai Government to respect this fact and to refrain from attempting to change the internationally recognized boundaries through military force. At the same time, the Cambodian government is obliged to allow access to this temple to worshippers from Thailand.\nIn a situation where one of the parties to a dispute is inclined to go beyond the rules and to impose its interests by force, it is necessary to mobilise international institutions in order to convey a clear verbal message that the world wishes to live under stable political conditions and does not wish to see disputes settled through the use of military force.\nIt is therefore necessary to mobilise the relevant international institutions locally, in order to prevent the spread of unnecessary conflict and trauma to the civilian population. The offer of Indonesia, as the presiding country of ASEAN, to mediate in the border dispute is the best way to find a first step towards resolving this situation.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\n(PL) Mr President, UNESCO is trying to rescue the temple of Preah Vihear - a monument on the World Heritage list - and to finance its conservation. However, not only are Thailand and Cambodia failing to respect that effort, but they are also breaking the international Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which is binding on both countries. I think this thoughtlessness may mean the destruction of a building which has lasted since the 11th century.\nAbove all, however, I think this example should raise the question of responsibility. There must not be a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan in 2001, when a unique statue of Buddha was destroyed. This was the result, not only of the religious fanaticism of the Taliban, but also of the lack of sufficient commitment from western countries. The destruction of the world's cultural heritage must not go unpunished. This is such an important matter, that by analogy with the International Criminal Court in The Hague which tries war criminals, an institution should also be established which tries and brings to justice people who destroy priceless monuments.\nPino Arlacchi\nMr President, the resolution on border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia condemns the armed conflict and urges both countries to stop fighting, reduce tensions and accept the mediation of ASEAN and the United Nations.\nWe are dealing with a totally unjustified conflict. In 1976, as ASEAN members, Cambodia and Thailand signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, which commits them to rejecting the use of force in relations between member states and to the peaceful settlement of interstate disputes. The conflict is unreasonable, also, because the International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 that the Temple of Preah Vihear, close to where the fighting is occurring, belongs to Cambodia.\nThere are many reasons to believe that the armed clash is linked to nationalist fervour in Thailand, steered by elements in the government which are provoking the fighting to curry favour with hardline voters with a view to this year's elections.\nMonica Luisa Macovei\nMr President, border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia have left an estimated 1 000 dead and another 30 000 displaced. We deplore the loss of life and make the prevention of any further such losses a priority.\nI would also like to express my concern at the alleged use of cluster munitions and call on both countries to refrain from using such munitions. Killing people and endangering people's lives is never a solution. We therefore strongly support all the parties currently working to find a solution and to stop the violence. We stand for peace and we urge peace.\nElena B\u0103sescu\n(RO) Mr President, I too would like to join my fellow Members who are calling for the peaceful resolution of the tense situation on the border between Thailand and Cambodia. The clashes which broke out at the start of the month mark the resumption of an older conflict over the UNESCO temple located on the border between both countries. I should stress that a decision made by the International Court of Justice in 1962 confirmed that this monument belongs to Cambodia, and the authorities must respect this decision. While it is true that the area around the temple was not demarcated by the Court, I believe that Thailand and Cambodia can reach an understanding by means of negotiation and not through the use of weapons.\nThe clashes in the area are not only putting a UNESCO monument in danger, but the lives of the population as well. A border conflict is always a source of instability. This is why I encourage the initiative from both governments to resolve the issue bilaterally. I think that the project aimed at setting up a buffer zone to prevent the destruction from spreading is a step towards peace.\nCorina Cre\u0163u\n(RO) Mr President, I too would like to express my regret at the loss of human lives, especially in the case of innocent civilian victims. I am also alarmed that thousands of people have been obliged to abandon their homes due to the clashes on the border between Thailand and Cambodia. As summarised in the joint motion for a resolution, there is an international legal framework which both sides must comply with.\nI believe that the appeal made by the European Parliament must be followed by strong pressure from the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. However, what may be even more serious is the use of cluster munitions. I believe that we have a duty to demand Thailand and Cambodia to ratify the convention banning this type of weapon.\nAnneli J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki\nMr President, this situation is a further reminder for the European Union of the importance of mediation and conflict prevention. To use its soft power to the fullest extent, the EU needs to invest more in conflict prevention. It is high time that the Vice-President\/High Representative Catherine Ashton came up with an initiative to build up a credible mediation and conflict prevention capacity. This requires policy coherence, standing as a good reminder for the EU Member States.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\n(ES) Mr President, I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight two matters that have already been mentioned, but which I consider to be fundamental.\nThe first is the use of cluster bombs by both Thailand and Cambodia, and the need for both countries to ratify the international Convention on Cluster Munitions.\nThe second matter is also one that we frequently discuss in these debates on urgent issues. It relates to freedom of expression, fundamentally on the Internet.\nI believe that the weakness and fragility of the Thai political system reveals some serious situations. For example, the trial being held against Chiranuch Premchaiporn for comments on his website criticising the Royal Family. The person responsible for the comments has been freed, while the person responsible for the website has not yet been freed.\nI also believe it is necessary to point out the need for freedom of expression and, above all, for freedom of association in each of these countries.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, unfortunately this dispute is over a century old. It re-emerged in June 2008 and has escalated since the beginning of this month. Many people have different views as to why it should have escalated at this particular time. There are those who think that hawkish Thai generals are using it as an excuse to overthrow the government and to cancel the elections proposed for later this year.\nBe that as it may, this dispute - particularly looked at from a distance - should be solvable. It is not a major dispute, particularly if the United Nations uses its mandate and its influence to bring about three things: firstly, an agreement to end cluster munitions; secondly, a permanent ceasefire; and thirdly, if necessary, deployment troops to oversee that ceasefire. If these happen, then this dispute can be brought to an end.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I can confirm that the Commission is following the events along the Thai-Cambodian border closely.\nOn 7 February 2011, the Vice-President of the Commission\/High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, expressed her concern about the armed clashes. She called on both countries to exercise the utmost restraint, to take the necessary steps to reduce tension, and to resume dialogue with a view to resolving their differences peacefully.\nThe points raised by the Parliament's draft resolution were discussed on 14 February 2011 in the United Nations Security Council, in the presence of the Foreign Ministers of Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia, the latter in its capacity as current chair of ASEAN.\nWe agree with the conclusions of UN Under-Secretary Pascoe that the situation is indeed serious. The issue is not only about a world heritage site. It is also about - perceived or real - national and cultural identities and national pride. Most importantly, the issue is about human lives and about regional stability.\nThere are two questions: what can the region do to redress the situation, and how can the EU contribute to a peaceful settlement? It is obvious that this kind of conflict cannot be solved by armed force. ASEAN has a role to play, and we are pleased to see that ASEAN is assuming its responsibility.\nThe Indonesian Foreign Minister has rightly invoked the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. This agreement requires all parties to settle their differences by peaceful means. We welcome the decision by Indonesia to convene a special ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting on this subject on 22 February 2011 in Jakarta.\nThere is broad agreement in the United Nations on not letting this issue get out of hand. Members of the Security Council have called on both parties to refrain from provocation and from deploying military reinforcements along the border.\nIt is becoming clear that regional efforts offer the most promising avenue for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. For the EU, this implies giving full support to ASEAN.\nThe External Action Service is following the matter in detail and will be considering options for supporting ASEAN, if such support is appropriate and is requested from their side.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at the end of the final debate.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":3,"2013-20":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Progress report on the reform of the European schools (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the progress report on the reform of the European Schools, by Katerina Batzeli and Erna Hennicot-Schoepges - B6-0454\/2008).\nErna Hennicot-Schoepges\nauthor. - (FR) Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for having agreed to address this question, which was tabled some four months ago. Let me remind you of the responsibilities of the EP Committee on Culture and Education, which, according to Annex VI, Section XV(2) of the Rules of Procedure, include 'promotion of the system of European schools.'\nThose schools give priority to educating the children of Community officials. Those children, classed as category I, make up around 70% of the total, pay no enrolment fees and the Commission contributes about 60% of the funding. Category II children, who make up 5%, and category III, who make up 25%, pay school fees of between EUR 4 000 and 16 000.\nThe 14 existing schools teach nearly 21 000 pupils, from nursery school to baccalaureate level, out of a total of 100 million in the Union of 27, in 14 official languages with an identical curriculum in all the language sections. Compared to the situation of all the other school children in the European Union, these pupils are, therefore, highly privileged.\nIn 2006 the Commission promised to reform the system - a laudable undertaking - with a view to establishing a European education system applicable to all types of school that wished to award the European baccalaureate, based on a common curriculum and, where possible, tuition in the mother tongue.\nThe school in Parma, which is approved by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, will be the first school of its kind to award a European baccalaureate in June 2009. For its part, the Board of Governors of the European Schools undertook an in-depth assessment of the baccalaureate with a view to the ongoing reform.\nA study commissioned by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education, which will be available in October, shows that 94% of those who have passed the baccalaureate go on to higher education in the main European universities and that 62% of them study in a university outside their country of origin. There is, therefore, far greater mobility among these students than among others.\nThat means we have at our disposal a European educational system that has proved its worth. In its resolutions of 2002 and 2005, the European Parliament advocated a profound reform of the schools system with a view to better governance and greater openness.\nGiven the successive enlargements of the EU and the increasing number of EU agencies and places of work of its staff, surely it is urgently necessary to reform the model of the European schools system and to begin to transpose it into the general educational systems?\nIs it not time to offer European citizens a well-tried, multilingual and flexible model of schooling that responds to their concern for mobility and to draw on the experience gained from the European schools? Of course I know what the reply will be: that is not within our powers. At least we should work on this because surely the perception of the European schools as elitist and the categorisation of pupils within those schools are incompatible with the objectives of a single market, mobility and greater social cohesion?\nWhat progress has been made in the process of reform and greater openness to ensure that the European schools system can move towards a system of European schooling, while maintaining everything that has been achieved to date? What kind of Community funding systems could be envisaged to improve the running of the accredited schools? Parma may show us a way forward.\nLastly, I would like to ask the Commissioner what progress has been made in the field of education for children with special needs? I am well aware that this subject is of interest to a large number of fellow Members and I thank the Commissioner and the President for this opportunity to hold a public debate on it.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I thank the honourable Members for these questions and for this opportunity to discuss these issues in the European Parliament again.\nFor the Commission, the reform of the European School system is a priority issue, and this is one of the most complicated items we are dealing with. The Commission has always strongly promoted the wider opening of the European School system, and progress has been achieved. Political agreement on this issue was marked at the ministerial meeting of November 2006, under the Dutch presidency of governors of European schools.\nFollowing formal approval by the Board of Governors in April 2008 of the concrete modalities to achieve this goal, any accredited school in the Member States can now teach the European curriculum and deliver the European Baccalaureate. It is up to the relevant authorities of the Member States to take initiatives to concretise this opening of the European School System in their national schools.\nThe opening of the European School System is in line with the European Parliament's wish to ensure that this would be possible both in places where an EU decentralised agency is located (so-called 'type-II schools'), and in locations without a direct EU presence (so-called 'type-III schools').\nAfter almost 50 years of existence, the European Baccalaureate has indeed acquired a high intrinsic value. The Commission wants to maintain the high quality of this diploma.\nThe Board of Governors of the European Schools approved in April 2008 a revision of the European Baccalaureate Agreement. Accredited schools can now deliver the European Baccalaureate.\nIn 2007, Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education initiated a study to analyse the academic and professional careers of former pupils of the European Schools, as the honourable Member just mentioned. This study will show the specific benefits and possible difficulties experienced by former pupils of the European Schools.\nThe Secretary-General of the European Schools has also launched a study to make an external evaluation of the European Baccalaureate. I trust that the combined results of both studies will provide key elements to assess how to further improve the European School System in order to best adjust it to the changing needs of its pupils.\nFinally, I can inform you that the European School System has considerably increased its efforts to integrate children with special educational needs (SEN). In the school year 2004\/2005, the European Schools had 274 pupils with special educational needs. In the last school year, there were 411 such pupils enrolled in the European Schools. The SEN budget allocated for 2008 is EUR 3 123 000; in 2004, the SEN budget spent was a little over EUR 2 million.\nThe Commission would like to thank the Disability Intergroup of the European Parliament for taking the initiative to set aside a reserve of EUR 200 000 for a pilot project for a SEN resource centre. This initiative gives the European School system the opportunity to better fulfil the needs of SEN children.\nThe Board of Governors of the European Schools approved in July 2008 the proposal to use the European Parliament reserve of EUR 200 000 to make an evaluation of the existing SEN policy in the European Schools. This study will allow the European Schools to improve the quality of integration of SEN pupils.\nThe European Commission launched in July 2008 the financial procedure for the liberation of the European Parliament reserve of EUR 200 000. The transfer to the budgetary authorities is currently being initiated.\nProgress has been achieved, but it is crucial that the European Parliament supports the reform process initiated by the Commission in order to finalise this reform and put it fully into practice as soon as possible. Again, the crucial role must be played by Member States. I would like to underline that we have good contacts with the Member States.\nI hope that the Swedish presidency - which is not the presidency of the European Union but the presidency in the European Schools Board - will develop these initiatives. I would like to stress that the report drawn up by Mr B\u00f6sch, a Member of the European Parliament, has been very useful and he has been very instrumental in this issue.\nI myself will do everything to develop the system of European Schools, because we are experiencing great difficulties with a system that was designed in 1953, and we must therefore implement some serious changes to make this system flexible and work well.\nCornelis Visser\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Madam President, I have asked to speak because I am concerned. We are talking about the European Schools today, and I am grateful to Mrs Hennicot for that.\nI should like to draw the attention of Commissioner Kallas to a specific aspect of the European Schools, namely religious education. During the course of last year a number of worrying reports reached me. As you all know, the Board of Governors of the European Schools ruled last year that a minimum of seven pupils of the same language was needed in order for a subject to be taught in the mother tongue. For general subjects such as geography and maths this is not a problem, but it is very different when it comes to religious education.\nThis raising of the minimum number means that there are now European Schools where pupils are no longer able to receive religious education in their own language. I am most concerned by this, especially at primary level. I think that religion, talking and learning about the standards and values we all prize so greatly in Europe, is extremely important. In religion, feelings are very important and as we all know, children are best able to express feelings and emotions in their mother tongue.\nI find it unacceptable that, depending on their language and nationality, some pupils can and others cannot receive religious education in their own language. So I ask the Commissioner to give thought to this and to set clear guidelines. All pupils, whether their mother tongue is English, German or Dutch, must have the same opportunities and the same quality of instruction.\nConsideration should be given not only to the pupils but also to the position of teaching staff. The 'minimum of seven' rule means that every year the question arises of whether there are enough pupils, and teaching staff are not sure whether religious education will be provided in the following school year. This professional uncertainty has consequences when it comes to finding good teachers of religious education in all languages. I urge the Commission to emphasise the importance of religious education for European School parents and pupils and to hold out for the continuation of religious education in pupils' mother tongue at the European Schools.\nMaria Badia i Cutchet\non behalf of the PSE. - (ES) Commissioner, we have already noted here that the European Schools were, as official centres of instruction, established jointly by the governments of the Member States of the Union to provide multilingual and multicultural education primarily to the children of the staff of the institutions and that for many reasons they now need to be reformed, essentially in the light of new needs.\nThe Union's institutional development, enlargement, and the proliferation of agencies have led to changes in the profile of the pupils in the European Schools both as regards culture and language and in terms of numbers of pupils; applications to register have risen sharply.\nMoreover, increased flexibility in employment contracts has led to new family and employment circumstances which affect social and family profiles and families' needs.\nAs Parliament has already noted in two resolutions, reform is necessary to modernise the schools so that they provide the required quality of service for which they were established, are accessible and overcome specific problems of access or segregation.\nTo that end I welcome the Commissioner's announcement on the two studies now under way, we will see if they bear fruit.\nIn short, despite the increase in the number of Community languages and the increased complexities we face on many fronts, progress must be made in the process of reform, openness and improvement of these schools while ensuring that their qualifications are recognised in all Member States of the Union.\nHaving said that, I would like to put two specific questions to the Commissioner.\nThe first relates to a number of complaints I have received from the parents of some pupils who have studied at the European School: it would appear that when they leave after taking the European Baccalaureate to continue their studies, one point is deducted from the average mark awarded; in other words they are penalised. I would like to know whether you are aware of this practice and the reason for it.\nThe second question relates to the children of Parliamentary assistants. I have also received complaints from assistants who have to send their children as category three entries if they want them to attend these schools; in other words, they have to pay school fees. I have visited the page which sets out all the information on how the Euroschools work; I have it here and shall read it in French because that is the language I found it in. It says, under category one:\n(FR) 'The children of staff in the service of the Community institutions and of the organisations listed below employed directly and continuously for a minimum period of one year.'\n(ES) A list of twelve points follows; point 4 says:\n(FR) 'Persons with a directly binding contract of employment, governed by private law, with the European institutions'.\n(ES) This, then, is the situation for people or the group of people who we might well think of as falling within category one. I would like to ask you why the children of Parliamentary assistants have to register under category three and pay school fees.\nHannu Takkula\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Madam President, firstly I would like to say on behalf of my group that it is true that the present system is fairly complicated. It needs to be simplified, and we know that matters of education basically fall within the competence of the Member States, though in the case of the European Schools it also lies with the Union. Wherever there are EU agencies there must also be European Schools. That is a basic principle, and we should also remember that our various strategies allow us to tell the citizens of Europe that education is always an investment in the future. It is on that basis that we should act in the case of the European Schools.\nI would next like to raise a few points concerning education. The first concerns the extent to which it is free. I think that we in Europe should have a debate on making all education free, whatever school we are talking about. Every child and young person should have the chance of a good education and the opportunity to benefit from good teaching, and not having to pay is one guarantee of that. I think that if the Member States want this and if we really believe that education is an investment in the future, we can achieve this goal.\nIt is also important that teaching is done in the student's mother tongue, as that is the basis of identity. Children and young people at European schools come from different cultures and different nations. It is important that they are taught in their own language, but is also vital to remember that we need special teaching facilities and also that students need to be taught cultural awareness, as they are often rootless, coming as they do from one country to another, which is a new and alien environment. For that reason we should also make sure of their overall personal development and growth as human beings. This is also the basis for European human rights policy and the European notion of humanity.\nAs for the special facilities I mentioned, class sizes are one thing that could be invested in. Class sizes must not be too large and every child should be given the chance to receive tailor-made options.\nI will end by saying that the real educational standards amongst us Europeans will be measured in terms of how we treat those close to us who are worse off and how we look after children and young people, and the European schools are a shop window for the world. What are our actual standards of education and how do we look after our young people? Are we prepared to invest in them and their future? I hope that Europe can afford to do that and that it does actually invest in children and young people and in the European schools.\nEwa Tomaszewska\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, 50 years of experience in European Schools that are faced with the specific problem of different languages, cultural diversity and migration makes one consider whether this experience should be used to make this school model more widely available. It is not just the children of officials working in European institutions who need to be taught foreign languages at the highest level, as well as integration with their peers from other European countries. It is not just they, who, because their parents have taken up posts abroad, need a particular approach to schooling.\nWe are opposed to discrimination. Why then should children other than the children of these officials be excluded from those schools? I would also like to draw attention to the issue that is being considered by the Committee on Culture and Education, namely the need to reinstate the classics, Greek and Latin, in schools in Europe and also an emphasis on teaching Latin and Greek in the European Schools. I believe it is essential to give urgent consideration to the need to extend and reform European Schools as well as the principles according to which they operate.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 T\u0151k\u00e9s\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, as a member of the Committee on Culture, allow me to extend my warm welcome to the initiative of Erna Hennicot-Schoepges and Katerina Batzeli, members of the Committee on Culture, to address an oral question to the European Commission and have this debate on the progress of the reform of the European schools.\nSpeaking of multilingualism and its importance, let me use this opportunity to raise a serious concern we have in Romania, where the recent initiative of the Ministry of Regional Development to complete the translation of the EU's regional operational programme from Romanian into Hungarian met serious attacks from the Romanian Social Democratic Party run by several leaders of the former communist regime. Please note that this is happening in one of the 27 EU Member States in the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, at a time when Commissioner Leonard Orban issued a policy document entitled, 'Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment'. In the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, a debate on the reform of the European Schools could not be of greater importance, as we live in a multicultural and multilingual Europe, where different cultures and languages coexist. We need to encourage and enable such cultural interaction for successful European integration.\nTherefore, our European educational system needs to reflect this multicultural characteristic and allow a healthy and easy coexistence. European schools in particular were set up to meet these needs - to provide multicultural and multilingual education while also strengthening European identity. However, in an enlarged EU with greater citizen mobility and more agencies being created in different Member States, it has become a challenge to meet these needs. As the questions in today's debate underline, there is a great need to focus on reforms, as it has proved to be more and more complex to provide multilingual and flexible education of high quality.\nAllow me to stress the fact that only by allowing students to express and practice their own cultural identity and use their own mother tongue throughout their education and formation can we allow them to evolve as true European citizens. If students studying in European Schools are not able first to develop their national identity through the use of their mother tongue and culture, I believe that they will not have a strong basis to build their European identity.\nThank you for your attention and I wish you good luck in the reform process of the European Schools.\nKathy Sinnott\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, a number of years ago two problems were identified with the European Schools. One was that they were lagging far behind in inclusiveness and integrated policies for special education needs (SEN) children. The other was that when parents would make an application to the school for a child with special needs, they had a practice of saying that they were not really able to meet their needs and the parents should go and find something else. This really was not good enough.\nIn December 2007, Parliament set money aside in its budget to 'contribute to the financing of first-class education for SEN children and to promote the concept of inclusive education and that this sum is to be released upon presentation of a proposal for the launch of a pilot project for the SEN resource centre comprising qualified personnel with relevant experience and appropriate teaching materials'. In the time I have I will not go through the negotiations, the back and forth, that have gone on about this pilot project. What has come about is that the pilot project has become several half-posts in psychology and some other resources, but it is not what I would see as a pilot project: actual classes, integrated classes throughout the European Schools.\nI feel it is time for us to be very clear about the goal. The goal is inclusion and the goal is to integrate children in a way that is possible for them. There are now 411 SEN pupils in the European Schools in the SEN project. This is 2%, and yet disability in the general population is 17%. We are still not allowing enough children with special education needs into the schools, so we are still missing out on 15%. I cannot believe the figure for the population of people entitled to those schools is different from that in the general population.\nWe certainly need to have a project and assess the situation but we could do that for ever - we have been looking at the situation for ever! It is time to move beyond the pilot schemes. It is time to make a real approach to children as standard practice in all the schools. We are a long way from doing that.\nThis is the other meaning of diversity. It is not just about languages and cultures: it is about peoples' needs and their abilities and catering to the wide diversity of that as well.\nRoberto Fiore\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, while there is no doubt that the attempts to develop a European School have to be welcomed, we must not forget that the strategic objective is in some ways to make Europe into a guide from the scientific and social points of view, and into a model of cohabitation.\nIn that sense, we then have to build on Europe's cultural roots, for instance what Rome gave us in terms of law, what Greece gave us in terms of philosophy, and what Germany gave us in terms of music. However, it also has to be said that those languages considered to be dead, such as Latin and Greek, now need to be revived - and there is clear evidence of this - since they are languages that the most sophisticated American companies, such as General Motors or Yale University, consider fundamental for the modus operandi of entrepreneurs or, if you like, heads of family. It also has to be said that Christianity and the Christian values of our roots are fundamental elements in any genuine European School.\nMarie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou\n(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, my fellow Members have presented you with a series of requests for more progress in European schools, which serve as examples for other schools in the Member States.\nPlease answer my question about how much local legislation affects European schools. We have found that there are differences between the schools in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. We have identified these differences specifically in the approach to children with learning difficulties. They have received different treatment depending on whether they are in Brussels or in Luxembourg.\nWhile we are on the subject of pupils, why should they be separated into categories? Why do they have to make a careful choice of Baccalaureate courses before they have any lessons? Why do religious knowledge and classical languages have to be taught according to the number of pupils in the class? Why are children not taught the history of their country of origin? Why are children not taught in their national language?\nLet us turn now to staff: meritocratic selection in all the countries will provide a uniform standard among teachers' associations. Do you check the selection process in all countries? There is a turnover of administrative staff, but there are people who remain head teachers for more than 20 years. Why is there no selection of head teachers?\nFlexibility, as you have said yourselves, will bring better results. The authorities of the Member States must take care to ensure that they do not have schools exclusively for 'elite' immigrants, but ones that serve as models for other immigrant schools.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, I have come here not just as a Member of the European Parliament, but also as a person with practical experience of the European School, as I am the father of a child that attended the European School in Brussels for three years and who last year took the baccalaureate. From family experience, as well as from my occasional observations, for example, at parents' evenings at this, which is one of the four European Schools in Brussels, I feel that I know what we are talking about today. I wanted to say just one thing: the number of these schools is increasing. When my son went to this school three years ago, there were three schools in Brussels and now there is a fourth one. The permitted number of pupils in classes in European Schools is 32.\nIt is worth noting that in many European countries the permitted number of pupils in a class is considerably lower than in the European Schools. Our interest in this subject is clear: we have to take an interest in something that, as the European Union, we pay for. More than 50% of the budgets of these schools comes from European Union funds. The conclusion, Madam President, is this: it is sensible to open up these schools, but this should not be at the cost of teaching quality or an excessive number of children and young people in these schools.\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi\n(RO) European Schools are recognised in Europe as elite institutions that provide quality education to young people. In 1953, Jean Monnet said that the purpose of these schools was to bring together European children, irrespective of their nationality, and to instill in them the European spirit and sense of belonging, so that they may eventually create a united and prosperous Europe. The reform programme of these schools must take into account the following important issues. All of the 23 official languages of the European Union must exist within these schools, and children must be given the opportunity to speak their native language. Unfortunately, there are still some official EU languages which are not spoken in any of the European Schools.\nFurthermore, one of the objectives of European Schools is to foster unity within groups of children, to bring them together and to facilitate the development of a spirit of tolerance and communication among them. Therefore, I believe that dividing them into three categories is not a sound measure. Those falling into the last category, 'others', as it is called, get the opportunity to attend such a school only if there are places left after the children of European officials have been admitted. This categorisation is discriminatory and I suggest that it should be removed from the statute of European Schools.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, the concept of the 'European School' is become increasingly popular. This is a result of globalisation, which affects everything, including education. For this reason we have a guiding principle that we try to observe. This is where the problems begin. Finding an answer to the question 'what should the school be like' is very difficult. Should it be an elite school or universal, should it impose its own style and curriculum on all pupils, or should it be a school that moves in certain directions, but takes into account national and regional traditions; should it be a school where pupils are taught to appreciate and respect their own traditions, culture, history, religion and language, or should it teach openness to the cultures of other nations through multilingualism and appreciation of the whole world? There is one issue that, in principle, does not arouse any doubts. As there is a European Union, then diplomas issued by all the educational institutions of Member States should be recognised in the Schools.\nMihaela Popa\n(RO) I believe European Schools to be the schools of the future in the EU, as they take into account increased mobility and the globalisation process and consequently give every student the opportunity to study in his\/her mother tongue, thus promoting multilinguism.\nI have researched this schooling system myself. I visited the oldest European School in Brussels, which was established more than 50 years ago, and I met over 40 Romanian students who have the opportunity to study in their native language. It should be said that European Schools foster social inclusion, as students of different nationalities get to know and help one another.\nI would like to stress the effectiveness of the way in which the baccalaureate examination is organised, as it stimulates high performance and prepares students for their future lives as European citizens. I believe that the European School system should be extended to all the Member States, so as to become part of a common European policy in the field of education. Moreover, I move for the establishment and support of regional European Schools, which should take into account one basic principle of the European Union - regional policy in a mobile, knowledge-based Europe.\nDumitru Oprea\n(RO) European policies concerning the reform of traditional schools and their evolution towards the status of European Schools, with the involvement of local and national administrative structures, require, in my opinion, three major types of reform: systemic reform, including reform of the curriculum, based on quality and effectiveness; continual reform, involving evaluation of and capitalisation on previous results, adapting them to European Schools; and a third reform, based on the responsibility and ownership of all social actors.\nIn this last regard, I believe that European schools should be taken as the model for a world school, where an 'after-school learning' component should come into play. Young people should have a special programme from 14.30 to 17.00 during term time, as well as during the summer holiday.\nRoberta Alma Anastase\n(RO) In their 50 years of existence, European Schools have proven their quality as regards the education of future generations. However, I believe that in today's debate we should focus on the need to adapt European Schools to present-day requirements, taking into account the enlargement to the EU-27 as well as such phenomena as globalisation, migration, and increased professional and geographic mobility.\nThere are two major issues that I would like to stress. First of all, we need to open up European Schools to a greater extent, so as to integrate all citizens in need of such assistance. Secondly, I believe that the recognition of degrees in all European countries is a priority.\nZbigniew Zaleski\nMadam President, a human being takes about one third of his or her life to get ready for mature life through education. The second observation that I want to make is that the construction of the European Union - what we are doing right now - also requires an adequate education. There are many technical aspects, like equipment, diplomas and so on, but the Commission, as executor, needs to uphold the idea of education based on more languages, on common principles and on respect for national values. This is very crucial. Education obviously requires the investment of money, but if you do not support making this investment, then you will have to accept ignorance, which I think will be more costly for us.\nSo the European School is an admirable project, and I support it.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, the European Schools exist on the basis of the Convention signed in 1957. There have been many changes in Europe over the past 50 years: a series of enlargements, an increase in the number of institutions and agencies and much more flexible employment contracts. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the European Schools system also needs change and reform.\nThere are a number of important areas that need changing. The issue that interests me the most is pupil selection, that is, the division into categories: one, two or three. After all, on the one hand the EU is trying to increase the mobility of European citizens in the labour market and to eliminate barriers and, on the other, it is blocking access to the Schools to children of potential employees of various institutions and companies from the whole of the EU. A solution needs to be found to the problem of overcrowding in certain schools. Measures also need to be taken as regards children with special needs.\nFinally, I would like to ask for consideration to be given to the possibility of creating European Schools in the new Member States.\nTadeusz Zwiefka\n(PL) Madam President, the education philosophy in European Schools and the teaching programme that leads to a European Baccalaureate should serve as an example of multilingual and multicultural education for all Member States. The growing number of student exchanges in European educational institutions and the globalisation of the world's economy mean that the true value of the European Baccalaureate would justify making it more widespread. It should also be recognised by institutions of higher education in Member States and also in third countries. Unfortunately this cannot be accomplished without a substantial increase in funding.\nAt present European Schools are perceived as elite schools that often exclude children whose parents are not EU officials. The exclusion of the greater part of society from the possibility of benefiting from European Schools is contrary to the objective of increasing the mobility of European citizens in our labour market. Member States themselves often try to create a new education system that will prepare young people better for the challenges associated with globalisation and a flexible labour market, while the system of European Schools and the European Baccalaureate have already long been in existence and, what is most important, have had excellent results, so we should duplicate them as much as possible.\nChristopher Beazley\nMadam President, I rise not merely as a Member of this House but also as a former schoolmaster. I wonder whether I might ask Commissioner Kallas, at his next meeting with the Council of Ministers, to have a particular word with the British Minister of Education to see whether or not it is possible that he might learn some of the lessons of the successes of the European School model. Perhaps in particular he might consider reversing the disastrous decision of the British Government to make the teaching of languages voluntary, in other words dropping European languages from the British curriculum.\nSecondly, you might just remind him that Europe was divided for half a century, but that it has now been reunited for 20 years. Perhaps he might consider suggesting to his curriculum advisers that they remind the next generation of the history and the culture of Central and Eastern Europe, in which Britain traditionally was very much involved and did actually seek to support.\nMario Mauro\n(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the stress should not just be on the criticism, from various sides, of the inadequacies of the current model of governance. I believe that we all have a duty to understand, after this debate, what is at stake, i.e. the model that the European Schools can represent for the European area of education; and since we want to overcome the challenge of the European area of education and are keen in this respect for good practices to win out, it is absurd and contradictory that we are sticking to a level and a model of governance unable to meet the challenges which we face. In my view, today's debate offers the Commission more than enough of a spur to realise that we have to undertake a radical overhaul of our schools.\nErna Hennicot-Schoepges\nauthor. - (FR) Madam President, I would like to put two further questions to the Commissioner, who gave a figure but it is the current figure. Commissioner, are there also to be increases in appropriations for the next financial perspective; is there a system of funding in place that will ensure that these schools can continue to function? Apparently at this very moment they are short of 40 English teachers, given the financial problems experienced by Her Majesty's Government. May I ask you what solution can be envisaged in view of that situation? Secondly, the schools themselves would like more autonomy. Are you in favour of greater autonomy or would you prefer to keep to the present system, which is cumbersome and often ill-suited to local situations?\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, several very serious and important issues have been raised.\nFirst of all I would like to remind you that the European Schools system is a completely independent body. It is based not on the Treaty of 1958 but on the Statute of 1953, it has its own Board, its own Statute, and all rules are adopted by this Board. The Commission is only one voice on the Board.\nAs for the content of the education, this is fully the responsibility of the Board, and all this, including the different proportions between the language sections, and the curriculum, is totally in the hands of the Board of Governors of the European Schools. So the Commission has not very much to say.\nAs to financing, this is the second thing I would like to say in reply to one important question. The infrastructure is provided by the host countries. So the schools are built by Belgium, Germany, France etc. This gives us the full picture of the limits we have in developing the infrastructure.\nWhat about the content of education? The honourable Member mentioned in her introductory remarks that the quality of the education is high - and it is high. This is one of the main priorities of the European Commission, to give every possible support so that this quality will be high. This will really be a benchmark for European educational systems, that European Schools give pupils an education which is highly appreciated everywhere. So I do not have any information that pupils with a European School education have any specific difficulties in getting to university after school if they so wish.\nConcerning teachers, they count as part of the infrastructure, so teachers are also provided by Member States. English teachers, for example, are provided by the United Kingdom; in other words, the burden for bigger languages is correspondingly much higher. We, the Commission - or the European budget - pay the operational costs for this. This gives us a combination that results in a rather cumbersome system, and one objective is therefore to reform the system and to bring more clarity to responsibility and financing. You can also see the problems with Belgium, where, it has been said, one of the four schools is still a temporary school. The construction of the fourth school has been postponed and postponed, and we are in intensive discussions with the Belgian Government about this.\nOn the openness of European schools, in our view the key issue is the European Baccalaureate, and the certification of schools which want to award the European Baccalaureate. We promote this idea, which has basically been adopted by the Board of Governors, so the basic rules exist. Now the question is how to put this into practice in the Member States. Again, the leading role lies with the Member States. So this will to some extent settle the problem of different pupils.\nToday, as I said, I am meeting Parliament and I hear your observations that category III is something which must be excluded, but I also regularly meet our staff - it is the same size, comprising hundreds of people - and they of course have a clear demand, namely that education for their children must be guaranteed.\nSo there is a requirement - and this is emphasised very strongly in the Treaty, in the Staff Regulations, in the regulation - to provide places in the schools and then, of course, the question arises who will distribute these other places which are to remain free and definitely in Brussels? This is more and more difficult. This is for me a very complicated question. At the beginning of this Commission, we insisted on behalf of our staff that there must be more clarity, and so the Central Enrolment Authority has been established by the Board of Governors to settle these questions.\nSo this is the overall picture, and I must just repeat that the Commission's attitude is that we must bring clarity to the financial issues and clearly share the burden, have clear responsibilities, clear obligations, and then we can also find better solutions to the infrastructure questions, but we cannot have any kind of reduction in the quality of education.\nAbout some specific questions, one honourable Member raised the question about disabled students. You said that there are many more of them but I do not know that anybody has been rejected when parents have asked for special treatment: it has always been provided. So, if you have facts that there are some hidden pupils with disabilities, please provide these facts and we will deal with them.\nNow, about parliamentary assistants, you know that at present parliamentary assistants are not covered by the Staff Regulations, they are a kind of special staff members in Parliament, but you know also that negotiations are ongoing to settle this and to have more precise rules, and then we can also consider what to do about access to the European Schools for the children of parliamentary assistants.\nSo these are more or less the questions which were raised, and of course all these questions - religious education, languages - are clearly in the hands of the Board of Governors, and the Commission is just one voice on that Board. The Board of Governors is dealing with these issues very seriously. They have held long discussions about this, and I can assure you that the Secretariat-General of the European Schools is very attentive to all needs of the different languages and different religious aspects. So this is their responsibility.\nJust one thing more: if Parliament can draw Member States' attention, and especially if all Members of the European Parliament who have their own connections in their home countries can encourage the Member States' Ministers of Education, to promote this idea of the European Baccalaureate because this is their choice. We now have rules on how to go ahead with the European Baccalaureate. Now it is up to the national ministries to find interested schools. I know that there are a lot of interested schools, but the national authorities in many countries have not shown enough enthusiasm about this project, which can be a step forward and which can really then be a positive mark for the European Baccalaureate, so we can have European Schools not only in Brussels but everywhere - in new Member States and old Member States. This is a symbol of Europe. The Baccalaureate and European education is one element in our architecture.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nI would wish everybody a happy Day of European Languages tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) I agree with the various solutions proposed for the reform of the European Schools: my privileged role as the Committee on Development's rapporteur on the Erasmus Community action programme leads me strongly to support the need for a multilingual and flexible European Schools model in which mother-tongue teaching is maintained (and is taught by teachers who are native speakers) but which is, at the same time, the same for all without class distinctions.\nThe European Baccalaureate will be the first instrument, followed by the opportunities offered by Erasmus, to guarantee real mobility for students, in Europe and then throughout the world. Tutoring obviously has an important role to play in the social, cultural and linguistic integration of incoming students and the achievement of excellent linguistic skills needs to be encouraged, with support from intensive courses (as has been underscored from 2001 to today by the Day of European Languages held every 26 September).\nI consider that cooperation between the current European Schools and regional (primary and secondary) schools is a sine qua non for the development of a new European Schools system, but I cannot hide my concern for the future of Italian regional schools which - as a result of the new 'Gelmini' reform - could well disappear in some smaller, geographically disadvantaged, communities.\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi  \nin writing. - The processes undertaken by the European Union in the last few decades and the ever-evolving educational system have meant that a new perspective on the role and importance of the European Schools has to be taken into consideration. Given the latest enlargement of the EU to 27 Member States and with the increase in EU staff that implies, the significance of a well-reformed European School has become an issue of high priority.\nIn order to improve future expectations from the European Schools, we must approach the sensitive issues challenging the current system and identify the problems in order to design the foreseeable changes. Thus there is great demand for a newly drawn-up and comprehensive reform of the European Schools, so as to make them more competitive and transparent on a European level and to design their full-weight purpose in a more up-to-date way.\nThe implementation of the principle of non-discrimination while granting fundamental freedoms to the pupils must be at the core of the new system in order to make it fully operational and in their own benefit. Nevertheless, the financing of the European Schools must be also reevaluated by taking into account indiscriminating measures for the pupils with regard to their division into categories.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU-US air transport agreement - EU-Canada air transport agreement - EU-Vietnam air services agreement (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe recommendation by Mr Zasada, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the draft decision by Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on the conclusion of the Protocol to Amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (15381\/2010 - C7-0385\/2010 - 2010\/0112(NLE)),\nthe recommendation by Mrs Tic\u0103u, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the draft decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on the conclusion of the Agreement on Air Transport between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Canada, of the other part (15380\/2010 - C7-0386\/2010 - 2009\/0018(NLE)), and\nthe recommendation by Mr Riquet, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam on certain aspects of air services (14876\/2010 - C7-0366\/2010 - 2007\/0082(NLE)).\nArtur Zasada\nMadam President, the Protocol which will be put to the vote is a particularly important document. The aviation markets of the European Union and the United States, taken together, account for around 60% of world air traffic. Opening the market to airlines from the European Union and the United States on a non-discriminatory basis will offer passengers and freight operators improved services, provide substantial economic benefits and create jobs. My dream is for passengers to benefit from competition between airlines on the basis of market principles, for passengers flying in transit to the United States to pass through one security point, for passengers in the European Union and the United States to enjoy the same rights, and, of course, for them to be aware of these rights.\nWill this Protocol guarantee these things? No. Yet I am convinced that it is a step in the right direction, and that it will make it significantly easier in the future to achieve these goals. During the successive rounds of negotiations between the EU and the United States, it was touch and go several times whether the Protocol would be signed. Finally, however, we succeeded in adopting it. As a result, a number of risks were avoided, including the greatest risk of all, namely that the suspension clause would be triggered, which would have resulted in the suspension of the agreement and the annulment of the results of both stages of negotiations. This would have meant a return to the legal situation as it stood seven years ago, which would be unacceptable. Six of the EU Member States have no bilateral air transport agreements with the United States, and rejection of the document would have meant preventing these Member States from being able to operate flight connections between their airports and US territory.\nThe second stage of the agreement does not achieve the ultimate objective of a complete opening of the market without any restrictions on either side, but it does contain a number of incentives to encourage reform. In particular, when the US changes its legislation to allow EU investors majority ownership of US airlines, the EU will allow the same for US investors.\nI am particularly pleased by the fact that the significance of the agreement's social dimension is emphasised. In this context, the Commission should utilise the agreement to promote compliance with the appropriate international regulations on social rights, in particular with the employment standards set out in the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and the OECD, and with the Rome Convention. This will ensure better observance of existing employee rights by airlines. The agreement will also strengthen cooperation on environmental matters by requiring compatibility and interaction in the field of green technologies and fuel and air traffic management.\nIn my capacity as rapporteur, I endeavoured to place the issue in a broader context and present both the positive and the negative features of the Protocol, without succumbing to the temptation to concentrate exclusively on its weak or strong points. I did not start work with the a priori assumption that we must support or reject this Protocol. Following a great many meetings and discussions, I came to the conclusion that the EU will benefit much more from adopting this document than from rejecting it.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nrapporteur. - (RO) Madam President, the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of international agreements. Air transport agreements now fall within this category because they cover a field which the ordinary legislative procedure applies to.\nPrior to the current agreement, aviation was the subject of bilateral agreements with 19 of the EU Member States. I am referring by this to the agreements between the European Union and Canada. Many of these agreements contained numerous restrictions and did not offer full access to the respective markets.\nIn November 2002, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that certain provisions in these bilateral agreements were incompatible with Community law.\nThe negotiating mandate sets the objective of establishing an open aviation area between the European Union and Canada. This would create a single market for air transport between the European Union and Canada where investment could flow freely and where European and Canadian airlines would be able to provide air services without any restriction, including in the domestic markets of both parties.\nThe EU-Canada Air Transport Agreement was initialled on 30 November 2008, endorsed by the EU-Canada summit on 6 May 2009 and signed on 17-18 December 2009.\nWhat is the content of the agreement? The agreement includes a gradual phasing-in of traffic rights and investment opportunities, as well as far-reaching cooperation on a number of issues including safety, security, social matters, consumer interests, the environment, air traffic management, state aid and competition.\nAll European Union airlines will be able to operate direct flights to Canada from anywhere in Europe. The agreement removes all restrictions on routes, prices or the number of weekly flights between Canada and the European Union. Airlines are free to enter into commercial arrangements such as code-share agreements, which are important for airlines serving a large number of destinations, and to set their fares in line with competition law.\nThe agreement contains provisions for opening the market in phases. Phase one applies where the foreign ownership of airlines is limited to 25%, as was the case when the negotiations on the agreement were completed. Phase two starts as soon as Canada has taken the necessary steps to enable European investors to own up to 49% of Canadian carriers' voting equity. Phase three begins once both sides introduce the possibility for investors to set up and control new airlines in each others' markets. Phase four is the final step with full rights to operate between, within and beyond both markets, including between places in the territory of the other party. I am referring here to cabotage.\nI would like to mention a few points about this report. Although this agreement is more ambitious than that with the US regarding market access, it is less explicit when it comes to recognising the importance of the social dimension.\nIt is important that the Commission uses the agreement and, in particular, the possibility of reference to the Joint Committee, to promote compliance with relevant international legislation on social rights, especially the labour standards embodied in the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation.\nGiven the important role played by the Joint Committee, including in politically sensitive matters such as environmental and labour standards, it is important that the Commission ensures that Parliament is kept fully informed and consulted about the Committee's work and also about future amendments to the Treaty.\nDominique Riquet\nrapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, I shall be very brief, not because the Agreement with Vietnam is any less important, but because Mrs Tic\u0103u has reiterated, in the previous report on Canada, the legislative and regulatory framework within which these air agreements between the European Union and a third country will apply.\nThe context is therefore exactly the same as this one except that our agreement, which is simpler and less ambitious, seeks to regularise horizontally, in the area of air services, the 17 bilateral agreements that previously existed between Vietnam and the countries of Europe, and naturally to extend them to all EU countries. This agreement does not relate to the opening-up of the market because Vietnam's economy is a regulated State economy and there is obviously no question of opening up the market. The aim is therefore - as the previous rapporteur has already said - to bring into line with European legislation the existing bilateral agreements on air services that have been concluded up to now between the European Union and Vietnam.\nOne of the main characteristics of this Agreement is a designation clause relating to all EU air carriers. This will give all EU air carriers non-discriminatory access to routes between the European Union and Vietnam. This Agreement also includes safety provisions designed to standardise and equalise these kinds of provision, in addition to a clause against anticompetitive practices. We have come up against several difficulties, which explains why it has taken some time to reach this Agreement - several years in fact.\nAs for the inclusion of a fuel taxation clause, this was eventually rejected by Vietnam. This clause, which generally features in air agreements negotiated by the Commission, allows for the taxation of a third-country carrier when it operates a flight within the EU. It should be stated, of course, that Vietnam does not operate nor will operate for the time being any flights within the European Union.\nFurthermore, the Vietnamese Government has promised to enter into bilateral negotiations with Member States if this proves necessary or if, indeed, a Vietnamese national airline were to schedule a flight within the European Union.\nTo conclude, the ratification of the Agreement evidently offers more advantages than does the absence of such an Agreement even though it lacks a fuel taxation clause. It will, however, ensure that the principles of EU law are respected bilaterally and in the case of all EU Member States. We therefore obviously call on the European Parliament to ratify this Agreement.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament and the rapporteurs in particular for supporting the Commission on these important agreements. All three have been strongly supported by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.\nOn the US agreement, let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Zasada, for his very positive recommendation in relation to the outcome of the negotiations with the United States on a second stage air services agreement. You will remember that the aim of the second stage discussions was to facilitate the normalisation of the transatlantic market and extend the scope and depth of the excellent aviation relationship established through the implementation of the first stage agreement, in place since March 2008.\nI now want to mention the key elements of the second stage aviation agreement. The second stage agreement creates the prospects for additional investment and market access opportunities. It also further strengthens the framework of cooperation on the environment, social protection, competition and security.\nOn the environment, the agreement establishes a clear framework for tackling local and global challenges. The agreement seeks to reduce the security burden on passengers, airlines and airports across Europe. For the first time in such an aviation agreement, the need to balance market access opportunities with strong social protection has been recognised through a commitment to implementing the provisions of the agreement in a way which does not undermine labour rights.\nOn the commercial front, Europe has gained further rights, including immediate access to the 'Fly America' programme with the exception of defence.\nThe second stage agreement is not perfect. Like you, I would have liked to have seen an immediate and irrevocable change to the US laws governing ownership and control of its airlines. This has not been possible, but we were able to secure a commitment from the United States to work towards reforming these rules in the future. As part of the agreement, the EU and the United States have committed to the goal of removing the remaining market barriers in industry, including those that limit airlines' access to global capital.\nLet me now turn to the agreement with Canada. My thanks go to the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and in particular to Ms \u0162ic\u0103u. This ambitious agreement is designed to achieve complete opening of the markets for traffic rights and investment, at the same time reaching an unprecedented level of regulatory convergence and cooperation between the authorities.\nWith respect to market access, the agreement comprises the full range of traffic rights and investment opportunities: this means 100% ownership and control. It is done through a phased market opening in four phases. Among its multiple benefits for both sides, it is also worth noting the establishment of a level playing field for the industry, as well as common or compatible standards for safety, security and air traffic management. Last but not least, I am convinced that by removing existing regulatory restrictions this agreement will lead to a substantial increase in passengers and generate various consumer benefits and the creation of new jobs.\nOn Vietnam, let me also start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Riquet, for his support for this horizontal agreement. Currently, we have negotiated 45 such horizontal agreements with partner countries worldwide. On 4 October 2010, during a visit to the European Union, the Vietnamese Prime Minister signed the agreement, which represents an important step towards strengthening aviation relations between the EU and Vietnam.\nThe horizontal agreement will restore legal certainty to our aviation relations with Vietnam by bringing the bilateral air services agreements between 17 Member States and Vietnam into line with EU law. Most importantly, it will remove nationality restrictions in bilateral air services agreements between EU Member States and Vietnam. It will thereby allow any EU airline to benefit from the existing bilateral agreements between Vietnam and the Member State.\nThank you very much for your attention. I am looking forward to the debate.\nMathieu Grosch\non behalf of the PPE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mr Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank all the rapporteurs for their reports. We in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) welcome these agreements.\nIn this case, 27 agreements which could have been concluded in these areas are being replaced by just one. For us, technical harmonisation is also an important point. It increases levels of safety not just for the airlines themselves, but also for the passengers. The opening up of the market and the cooperation at a European level should be treated in the same way by both sides. It is important to highlight the fact that the agreement with Canada is a very good example of this, while the agreement with the USA leaves something to be desired.\nAnother area which leaves something to be desired is the lack of regular checks on the social and environmental aspects of these agreements, which should be a part of all future agreements, because the simplification of the economic aspects should also enable us to use these agreements to influence not only the European market but also the global market. Importantly, these agreements also bring benefits for passengers, because they can result in the controls being simplified without them being neglected.\nFinally, I would like to say that we welcome this agreement, because, as I have already said, 27 agreements are ultimately being replaced by one. This is a clear indication that we will hopefully soon be dealing with only seven or perhaps even three airspaces, instead of with the current 27, as part of measures to improve air safety and implement the single European sky. This will make negotiations on these agreements much simpler.\nSa\u00efd El Khadraoui\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the three rapporteurs for the work they have done and for the helpful cooperation on their part. When we launch, shortly, a more general debate in response to Mr Brian Simpson's report on aviation agreements, we will get an opportunity to address more thoroughly the general approach and strategy with regard to this sort of agreement.\nWe, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, emphatically support the replacement of old bilateral agreements between our Member States and third countries with comprehensive global agreements at European level. This is the best guarantee of a level playing field for all our airlines. It will also strengthen the integration of our own aviation sector as it will, of course, our negotiating position in relation to third countries.\nIt is important, in that regard, that we pay attention not only to the opening up of the market for additional flying rights and suchlike, but also to a strengthening of the regulatory framework in the environmental and social fields and the fields of safety and security. We absolutely have to bring these into line with each other, at a very high level. Another important point to mention here is that, now that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force, Parliament is not just supposed to give an opinion, but really has to approve these agreements as well. My message, therefore, to the Commission and the Council is that they should make full use of those powers and that Parliament, therefore, should retain its say in approving or modifying additions or other amendments at a later stage.\nWith regard to the agreements before us, our group believes that the agreement with Canada comes the closest to the model that we have in mind, that is extensive cooperation in the fields of security, social issues and consumer and environmental protection. Indeed, the rapporteur has rightly observed that the sections on social issues should have been worded a little more strongly, but that can be resolved in the Joint Committee which will now have to make a few things concrete. Besides that cooperation, there is also the gradual introduction of additional flying rights and the gradual extension of the opportunity to become a shareholder in each other's airlines.\nThe agreement with Vietnam also reminds us of the growing importance of the Asian market, and I think that, on this particular point, we have to point out that the Council has been dragging its heels for years over giving the Commission a mandate to negotiate with countries such as China and India. That mandate is essential, of course, if we are to make progress on this.\nBy way of conclusion, I would like to say a few things about the agreement with the United States, particularly regarding the second stage. This concerns an area which covers 60% of the world aviation market and is therefore extremely important. I personally was a rapporteur for this House when, a few years ago, the first stage was approved. With regard to the United States, we are not completely satisfied because some things still have to happen in terms of market access. We ask the Commission to give an undertaking that this will not be the end, that it will proceed on the course of opening up the market and that we, as Parliament, will be fully involved in the activities of the Joint Committee.\nGesine Meissner\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Madam President, firstly I too would like to thank the rapporteur. We have already discussed the fact that, following the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament now has the opportunity to vote in favour of air service agreements of this kind or to reject them. We cannot change the contents, but we can accept or oppose them. This does not always make things simple, but it is at least a new task, which we are taking very seriously.\nIt makes sense to replace a number of different bilateral agreements with one standardised EU agreement. It is clear that there are no boundaries in airspace, which is a good way of explaining this. The European Union is also a strong economic community and so it is sensible to discuss agreements made by the EU with different third countries, which is what we are doing now.\nWe have a number of very different agreements on the table today. I will start with Vietnam. This is the least complex agreement. It concerns different accesses and services and also safety regulations, but it is a relatively short agreement, which is why I am only mentioning it briefly.\nThe most comprehensive agreement is the one with Canada. In this agreement it was not just a case of ensuring free access to air services which can be used in different ways, but also of covering issues such as the environment, safety and also market access and ownership. In that respect we have long since passed the first stage of 25% and already reached the second stage of 49% ownership of each other's air services market. Now we are about to enter stages 3 and 4. In stage 3 it is possible to establish airlines in another country and another region. Stage 4 would allow a European airline to fly from A to B within Canada.\nWe have not come nearly as far as this with the USA, despite the fact that we have been negotiating with the USA for a long time. I would like to make one more point. Mr Kallas said that we were all very much in support of this issue, but in the case of the USA our reaction is more restrained, because the agreement does not represent a true partnership. The USA wants to take more from us than it is prepared to give. We need to continue negotiating on this. Apart from this issue, we will vote in favour, because it is clear that progress has been made.\nJacqueline Foster\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, we also welcome the successful conclusion of the second phase of the EU open skies agreement. Indeed, after several years it was rather overdue. Obviously this agreement is a significant breakthrough and it is to be welcomed. I acknowledge that negotiators have made huge progress in the areas of security, competition, market access and environmental cooperation. But, like the Commissioner, I am disappointed that this agreement did not achieve its ultimate objective of a complete opening of the market without restrictions on either side. The failure to resolve fully issues of foreign ownership and control (cabotage) must be addressed in future discussions if European carriers are to truly benefit. Of course agreements mean compromise, but that does not mean getting a deal at any price.\nThe aviation industry is massively important to Europe. It facilitates economic growth, trade, investment and tourism. Air agreements with third countries offer our airlines great opportunities in foreign markets, and I therefore urge the Commission to continue to strive to conclude air agreements which are fair, robust and lead to full liberalisation, which will benefit both European carriers and consumers. Finally, can we just add our support to the EU-Vietnam agreement.\nEva Lichtenberger\nMadam President, Mr Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years we have concluded a large number of air service agreements, which have always involved summarising the old national agreements under a European umbrella. Now things are starting to change with regard to the involvement of the European Union and I think this is very important.\nThe agreement with Vietnam largely follows the old model that we have always used. However, the agreement with Canada is more ambitious, which I welcome. The cooperation in the field of the environment and social issues is positive, but in my opinion it could be extended even further. The situation concerning the agreement with the USA is quite different. In this case, I believe that we have given in far too early. Market access is a question of fairness and in this agreement the regulations are not fair. Nevertheless, we have climbed down. To a large extent there has been a failure to cover certain aspects of social conditions. Much too little has been done in this area. We must ensure that social dumping does not take place here, because this is also a safety issue when it comes to airlines. We finally need to make this clear.\nMy second point is that there are major problems with regard to environmental issues. The USA is starting to exert significant pressure to have night flight restrictions, which are in place to protect local residents, relaxed or lifted. The pressure in this area is enormous and I am afraid that we will have to give in. We must make it quite clear that this would be a disaster for everyone who lives near an airport. On the safety question, the USA is gradually tightening the screw and unfortunately the implementation in the European Union is going unchallenged. This is a mistake and I want to be very clear on this.\nFinally, I would like to mention code-sharing, which is being presented as a major achievement. I would like to say just one thing. This will ultimately restrict passengers' choices. I will not be able to choose which airline I fly with and I may find myself confronted with a completely different airline when I reach the gate. The concept of competition in the airline industry is fictitious and it is becoming even more so when it comes to the position of passengers.\nJuozas Imbrasas\non behalf on the EFD Group. - (LT) Madam President, the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of an international agreement. Air agreements now fall within this category because they cover a field to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies. I believe that the implementation of these agreements would provide substantial economic benefits and create jobs. In addition, regulatory convergence could promote fair competition. While the second-stage Agreement represents a significant step forward, it is important for it not to be regarded as the end of the process of establishing a transatlantic aviation market.\nAs for Canada, it is good that all EU airlines will be able to operate direct flights to Canada from anywhere in Europe. The Agreement removes all restrictions on routes, prices, or the number of weekly flights between Canada and the EU. The ambitious nature of this Agreement is very much to be welcomed. It should serve as a target for other negotiations currently underway. I therefore believe that Parliament should consent to the EU-Canada Air Transport Agreement.\nThe same can be said for the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on air services. All of these air agreements are beneficial and necessary for the European Union, our airlines and our citizens.\nHella Ranner\n(DE) Madam President, first of all I would like to take this opportunity to thank all three rapporteurs very much for their hard work. These agreements are very important for air travel and, therefore, for the European Union. However, I would also like to take the opportunity to refer once again to the framework agreement of 20 November 2010. I hope that the European Parliament will be informed in an appropriate way and in good time by the Commission about negotiations on future agreements in the interests of good interinstitutional cooperation and an effective flow of information.\nWe know that the negotiations on these and on other agreements are of the highest quality, but it is important for us to be aware of the strengths and weak points of the agreements after they come into force, so that we can make a better contribution. This will make it easier to guarantee Parliament's support for the agreements.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\n(ES) Madam President, tomorrow it will be one year to the day since the second stage of the air transport agreement between the European Union and the United States was finally signed after eight rounds of difficult negotiation. As such, I believe we should feel satisfied - me in particular, of course - that this was accomplished under the Spanish Presidency and under the leadership of the Minister of Public Works and Transport, Jos\u00e9 Blanco, who achieved considerable progress in aviation matters, including the single sky and labour relations in the air traffic control sector, where a negotiated settlement was reached.\nI also welcome the fact that Parliament is using its new powers for the approval of such international agreements, specifically in relation to the transport industry.\nThe second stage of the EU-US air transport agreement eliminates the suspension clause, which entails the need to continue making progress and improving a number of issues in relation to the environment, competition and passengers' rights, with which we are not completely satisfied as yet.\nFor the first time, the agreement also addresses labour relations. I believe this is a matter of paramount importance, as it also enables the safeguarding of workers' rights for the first time, as well as the future applicability of International Labour Organisation and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development conventions.\nThe agreement also sets out clear guidelines - and I believe this is quite significant - to build mutual trust in the area of security. The possibility of a one-stop system must remain open.\nWe therefore believe this is a good agreement, which establishes a new non-discriminatory basis, entails improved service to the public and to companies, is economically and socially beneficial, and encourages fair competition. Nevertheless, it is once again not perfect, as the extent of European ambitions means we must seek to go beyond this second stage.\nWe therefore need to examine and exploit all the potential that is available to us, including the Joint Committee and its new powers, as well as the new possibilities opened up at the International Civil Aviation Organisation regarding the Single European Sky ATM Research and others. We therefore call on Vice-President Kallas to push for this agreement, to follow it closely and, of course, to report to Parliament.\nPhilippe Boulland\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Open Skies Agreement between Europe and the United States is an advance, but it is just one stage and it faces Europe with a dilemma. The Committee on Transport and the Commission have themselves pointed this out. Either we accept an agreement that disadvantages European businesses, or we suspend the agreement and risk losing the benefits we have gained since 2008.\nSo allow me to draw a parallel with the licences of professional and private pilots - a text which will be debated before the summer - because pilots, of whom I am one, face a dilemma. The European Aviation Safety Agency, which wants to harmonise licences throughout Europe, will do so to the detriment of the 80 to 90 000 general aviation pilots directly affected - some of whom hold only a US licence - and to the detriment - and this is the important point - of those companies and jobs connected to this activity.\nI wish to draw your attention to this project which has nothing to do with safety. There are 31 times fewer accidents amongst holders of US licences. The objectives of Basic Regulation (EC) No 216\/2008 provide for the recognition of and equivalent rating of licences for which it is judged unnecessary to wait for hypothetical agreements that have been pushed back to 2014.\nThus, I propose a very open sky agreement and even invite you to accompany me on those occasions when I come to Parliament flying my own plane, to show you that a US pilot licence is perfectly safe.\nPresident\nThank you for the invitation, Mr Boulland, I shall see what I can do.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103\n(RO) Madam President, I want to congratulate Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u on this ambitious agreement with Canada. The agreement marks an important phase in the process of opening the market. At the same time, it will help create new air routes and develop new opportunities for investors on both sides of the Atlantic, in terms of both the development of new investments and the introduction of new services for European and Canadian citizens.\nI think that the decision to allow airlines to operate without restriction anywhere in Europe and Canada is valuable and will be of benefit to consumers, airlines and the economies of both countries in general. The implementation of this agreement will lead to more services being operated by airlines and to new cargo transport opportunities. However, this development must also raise greater concern about consideration of the impact on climate change.\nThe agreement will also make the European and Canadian markets safer by strengthening cooperation with regard to compliance with certification procedures and inspections aimed at guaranteeing a maximum level of safety for passengers and goods.\nPhilip Bradbourn\nMadam President, as Chairman of the Delegation for Relations with Canada, it is with particular pleasure that I speak on this EU-Canada agreement. I think it is very worthwhile reiterating some of the significant features of the agreement. As mentioned before, in Phase 1, airlines have unlimited freedom to operate direct services between any point in the EU and Canada, without limitation on the number of providers or, indeed, services. We move to Phase 3; we will see investors able to set up new airlines in each other's countries and, in Phase 4, full cabotage rights and the potential for 100% ownership of carriers.\nThe agreement also sets out mutual standards for safety and security. And that is important because it means that the transfer of passengers, luggage and cargo should benefit from a more streamlined approach.\nIt is an important agreement for the EU and our aviation sector. It will allow increased competition, greater choice for the travelling public. Not only that, I believe that the comprehensive nature of this agreement can serve as a benchmark for future agreements with other countries. This resolution clearly demonstrates Canada's position as our most proactive international partner, and I wholeheartedly support it.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\n(PT) Madam President, these agreements are part of the liberalisation process that is currently underway in the air transport sector. They are clearly marked by ideology. Even in this strategic sector, the aim is to cripple state intervention and regulation, opening the doors to the monopolistic concentration that always results from free competition, which is considered sacrosanct.\nUnder the pretext of facilitating business opportunities within international air transport, this promotes the interests of multinationals within the sector at the expense of national companies and their respective strategic interests, including those that, as is the case in Portugal with TAP, are publicly owned.\nThis means that both the workers and the passengers lose out. Workers lose out because liberalisation facilitates dumping by multinationals, leading to work-related insecurity due to the forced deterioration of working conditions. Passengers also lose out because, among other things, aeronautical safety will tend to be left to the whim of cost\/benefit considerations by companies.\nThis is nothing new. The situation in other sectors such as rail transport, which has seen increased liberalisation, amply demonstrates the consequences of putting the tenets of the free market into practice.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank the honourable Members very much for their comments. Of course the most complicated issue is the agreement and negotiation process with the United States. I can assure you that this is far from being the end. It is one part of the process and we are definitely continuing to negotiate with the United States but I would like to underline that the United States is a very difficult partner. As many of you mentioned, 60% of world aviation is covered by the EU and the United States. What we decide in cooperation will also define the whole framework and whole environment for aviation in the world, so the cooperation is also extremely important for the whole world. It also must be made very clear that the Americans have the same parliamentary procedures: they have the US Congress, which is very difficult to deal with precisely because of protectionist feeling, but we are working together and developing our relations.\nI will be going to Washington in a few weeks' time, and we have committed ourselves to work in five directions: first safety, second security, third technological cooperation - we signed an important agreement in Budapest about interoperability of air traffic management systems which is extremely important for Europe so that we do not lose our competitive advantages -, fourth the environment and fifth commerce or business.\nOn business, as you know and as you mentioned, there are ridiculous restrictions on ownership rights. But it must also be very clear that we cannot force the United States to surrender; we must negotiate and this is sometimes not so obvious. We must negotiate and we have to take into account their concerns. It looks quite promising, but we definitely cannot win any commerce or especially technological confrontation: this should be avoided, it can be very dangerous.\nSo, as I say, in October we committed to moving in these five directions and definitely the next agreements will follow and we will try with the new US Congress to facilitate market openings which will be the most difficult part as several of you have already mentioned.\nI would also like to say that, yes, the Vietnam agreement is of course by magnitude much smaller than the other agreements but it is very important that we form an aviation area which behaves with the same rules and which follows the same rules and this is exactly the aim of these agreements, especially - which is a difficult element in negotiations with third countries - the recognition of EU carriers. You know that this has been a very sensitive issue, and with these agreements with third countries we create better possibilities for European airlines as well.\nThank you for your comments. I promise that we will keep you informed about all future developments. We have had several discussions in the TRAN Committee about the concepts of these negotiations and further development and, here again, one has to negotiate with difficult partners. This is the eternal truth of all negotiations but the picture has not been so bad. We have achieved a lot including with the United States, with the recognition of EU carriers and several other things. There I can assure you that I will again meet the leaders of the US transport policy; there is a certain willingness to cooperate and to find ways to solve our conflicting problems.\nArtur Zasada\nMadam President, I am very grateful for all the opinions voiced on the air transport agreement between the European Union and the United States. I accept that the agreement is not perfect; it is another step in the right direction, but we have certainly not reached the end of the road. We were not able to amend this document for procedural reasons. Rejection of the agreement would however have meant sacrificing the gains made during both stages of negotiations.\nIn my report, I have included a call for certain changes which should be the focus of the Joint Committee's work, or which should form the basis of a third stage of negotiations. In particular, I call for the further liberalisation of traffic rights, additional foreign investment opportunities, the adoption of a much more ambitious position on environmental protection and better coordination of political strategies on passenger rights in order to ensure passengers the highest possible level of protection.\nLadies and gentlemen, my work on this document is not yet complete. I intend to monitor the actions of the Joint Committee, which was appointed in order to ensure that the agreement's provisions would be implemented appropriately or even extended. I will strive to ensure that a permanent observer sits on the Joint Committee on behalf of the European Parliament. If the committee does not live up to the hopes invested in it, Parliament should call on the Commission to open a third stage of negotiations.\nFinally, I would of course like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs for their comments and assistance when drafting this report.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nrapporteur. - (RO) Madam President, the air transport agreement between the European Union and Canada can be described as the most ambitious air transport agreement between the European Union and a major world partner.\nIt will significantly improve the connections between the markets of both countries and the links between people, while also creating new opportunities for the airline sector through a gradual liberalisation of foreign ownership rules. In particular, the agreement is more ambitious and specific than the agreement between the European Union and United States on traffic rights, ownership and control, even following the provisional application of the amending protocol, which is therefore phase two.\nAccording to a study undertaken by the Commission, an open agreement with Canada would generate an additional half million passengers in its first year and, within a few years, 3.5 million new passengers might be expected to take advantage of the opportunities such an agreement could offer.\nThe agreement could generate consumer benefits of at least EUR 72 million through lower fares and would also create new jobs.\nMadam President, we welcome the ambitious nature of this agreement. It should provide an objective and model for other negotiations currently in progress.\nIn conclusion, I recommend Parliament to approve the EU-Canada Air Transport Agreement.\nDominique Riquet\nMadam President, I shall be extremely brief for, as Commissioner Kallas has pointed out, the Agreement with Vietnam is a simple one, approved by all. It has not caused any difficulties for our own report and has the great merit of opening up the Vietnamese market to all European stakeholders through reciprocity with a country which operates according to a different economic model.\nI think that this Agreement should also be regarded as an important step geographically, as it opens up the East and the countries of South East Asia to us. I do not think therefore that there is anything left to be said other I am delighted that we have been able to reach a satisfactory conclusion with this Agreement, which will open up travel between Vietnam and Europe a little more.\nPresident\nThe joint debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today at 11:30.\nWritten Statements (Rule 149)\nNuno Teixeira\nin writing. - (PT) In recent years the European Union has negotiated and concluded several agreements with other states in the field of air transport.\nAccording to the Court of Justice, the traditional designation clauses in the existing bilateral agreements infringe EU law, as they constitute discrimination against EU carriers established in a Member State but owned and controlled by nationals of other Member States. As such agreements violate the principle of freedom of establishment, as set out in Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU has initiated and is developing a practice for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements between the EU, of the one part, and third countries, of the other part, with regard to air transport. We can identify the main elements of these agreements as the concerns relating to security, passenger rights, the mutual recognition of certification and cooperation on regulation.\nIn this context, I would like to call attention to Parliament's limited role with regard to these dossiers. Following the Treaty of Lisbon's entry into force, its opinion is binding, but only in terms of the final text which has already been signed; it cannot make suggestions or changes to its content.\nJudith A. Merkies\nin writing. - (NL) The delegation of the Dutch Labour Party to the European Parliament certainly does not consider this second stage agreement to be perfect, but it takes the view that it will lead to progress in important areas. In addition, it will prevent the United States from activating the suspension clause in the absence of such an agreement. Suspension could lead to European passengers and airlines no longer being able to profit from the significant benefits which they have enjoyed since March 2008 thanks to this protocol. The benefits and positive aspects include, in particular, agreements on working standards for airline staff, sharing good practice with regard to noise abatement, strengthening cooperation in the field of environmental protection and so on. The delegation of the Dutch Labour Party to the European Parliament recognises the ongoing need to pursue a proper debate on safety requirements (such as the use of scanners) and the impact on privacy and health of passengers of such requirements. In addition, it would highlight the need for the privacy of European and US citizens to be put centre stage and respected when passengers' personal data is exchanged between the EU and the US. It is essential that Parliament is and remains involved in these negotiations and that European regulations are not eroded.\nKinga G\u00e1l\nin writing. - (HU) It is important to take the concerns of European citizens about respect for their data protection rights seriously. We consider it important that there be an agreement between the European Union and the United States on data protection in the field of cooperation in criminal and judicial matters. We welcome the fact that the Hungarian Presidency is actively engaged in the issue of data protection. We must specifically take note in this regard of the Council conclusions on data protection that were adopted at the February meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. We are looking forward to the Commission's proposals to ensure that both our liberties and the security of our data are protected and respected.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"14. Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (\nBefore the final vote:\nMichael Cashman\nrapporteur. - Madam President, under Rule 53, I would like to ask the Commission to respond and tell us whether it intends to adopt all of Parliament's amendments as adopted today.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I have the honour of giving the following declaration on behalf of the Commission.\nThe Commission takes note of the amendments voted by Parliament that it will study in detail. The Commission confirms its willingness to seek a compromise with Parliament and Council. The Commission will only consider its proposal after the two branches of the budgetary authority have adopted their positions. The Commission intends to continue to pursue a constructive dialogue, in the meantime, with both institutions.\nMichael Cashman\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I do not know where the Commissioner has been, but we adopted a position this morning.\nI would therefore like to request that the plenary vote to refer the report back to committee, which would give the committee the flexibility to enter into negotiations with both the Council and the Commission.\nI therefore ask for the House's support for a referral back to committee.\nMichael Cashman\nrapporteur. - Madam President, my thanks to the House for its patience on this, my final intervention. Can I now ask you, Madam President, to write a formal invitation to the Czech Presidency, as well as the incoming Swedish Presidency, to open a formal dialogue with the European Parliament as soon as possible?\nEqually, as announced in the voting list and for the sake of clarity and coherence of the text that we have now adopted, I kindly ask that you request the plenary services to proceed, without any substantive change, to do the following: to group the articles according to their content under specific thematic titles, to re-order recitals and definitions accordingly and to produce and publish Parliament's position as a consolidated text as soon as possible.\nFinally, may I pay due thanks to the enormous and supportive work which I have been given not only by the secretariats, but by the tabling services.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nI will pass on this request, then, Mr Cashman, and the results will be made known.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Competition horizontal cooperation rules (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Mrs Bowles, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the review of the competition horizontal cooperation rules - B7-0565\/2010).\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil\nMadam President, Commissioner, the two block exemption regulations, one of which refers to specialisation agreements and the other to research and development, will expire on 31 December of this year. The Commission has drawn up two legislative proposals: two proposals for regulations that are before this House to replace the regulations that are now coming to an end.\nA lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the initial regulations were adopted. There have been significant changes in legislation, especially the 2003 modernisation package, crucial legal judgments have been passed in this area and the Commission has learnt quite a lot from practice, which is also an important aspect.\nThe Commission opened two rounds of consultations with those concerned, which is good practice in the spirit of legislating well and having public support. The big question now is as follows: what use is it going to make of the responses from those concerned during the consultation? Is it going to take notice of them or are these opinions simply going to be thrown in the bin? In this context, what Parliament and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs want to know is essentially six things. What are the suggestions and specific ideas that the stakeholders have put forward that the Commission is going to take into account when it comes to designing and defining these regulations and taking them from 'the muses to the theatre'?\nSecondly, what does the Commission think about the horizontal agreements that are not covered by the exemption regulations on specialisation or research and development. What did the stakeholders say in this round of consultations? What would be the advantages from the point of view of industry, the real economy and protecting competition, of proposing new regulations to take into account horizontal agreements that are not covered by the two block exemption regulations that we are currently considering? Does the Commission intend to draw up new regulations to cover them? Yes or no? The question is relatively clear.\nThe third problem that was debated at length in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is the subject of what is known as 'patent ambush', which, as the Commissioner is aware, takes place when one of the stakeholder companies that is participating in establishing standards withholds information on the patents that it holds or the patents that it is planning to register in future. This causes serious damage and inconvenience to those companies that are unaware of that information and commit to acting according to the parameters established.\nThe question here is relatively specific as this is a case of distortion of competition and barriers in the internal market, which is the cardinal sin in our institution: does the Commission intend to tackle the problem of 'patent ambush' in the framework of the new draft regulations, or otherwise, does it consider that complementary sector-specific legislation would be necessary to avoid abuse of patent rights? Is the Commission committed to ensuring that there is an integrated, consistent legislative framework without internal contradictions between competition rules and sector-specific legislation in the area of intellectual property rights?\nThe fourth and fifth questions relate to economic governance or, if you prefer, governance of competition. We have learnt that we need to try to converge with other competition authorities and, in this respect, it is important to know to what extent the Commission, in drawing up these regulations, has made use of court decisions and the decisions of national and international authorities.\nThe last question refers to a subject that is a particularly sensitive one for my committee, and I am sure that Mr Schwab will have something to say about it. It refers to the marketing chain for food products. It seems obvious that there is inequality in conditions among producers, between farmers, on the one hand, and large chains, on the other. Does the Commission intend to do something to guarantee equal, fair treatment for the weaker party in this contract? These are the questions, Commissioner, that I would like to you to answer as fully, clearly and precisely as possible.\nMaro\u0161 \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I wish to thank the honourable Member very much for the question, as this is indeed a very important area of responsibility for the European Union.\nCompeting companies often work together, for instance, in research and development, production, purchasing, product standardisation and information exchange. As you know, this can be beneficial to consumers and lead to lower prices, more choice and better products. These horizontal agreements - we call them horizontal because the cooperating companies are active at the same level in the supply chain - can allow companies to respond to increasing competitive pressures and a changing market place driven by globalisation.\nBut there is also a risk that this kind of agreement can lead to serious competition problems, for example, where the parties agree to fix prices, share markets or limit output. The Commission has spent the past two years reviewing the competition guidelines for horizontal agreements, with in-depth assessment and wide consultation. The new rules, which should be adopted by the end of this year, will be much more detailed, user-friendly and clear, providing better guidance on what kinds of cooperation are allowed.\nAs always, the Commission has had to strike a careful balance between the needs of different stakeholders. The two main elements of the new competition rules are on standard-setting and information exchange. In the responses to the public consultation, around two-thirds of stakeholders commented on standardisation.\nA well-functioning system for standard-setting is vital for the European economy as a whole and, in particular, for the information and communication technology sector. The horizontal guidelines promote a standard-setting system that is transparent and that leads to predictable costs when licensing intellectual property rights. This requires attempting to find a balance between the sometimes contradictory interests of companies with different business models involved in the standard-setting process. At one end of the spectrum, you have the pure innovator and, at the other, the pure manufacturer, each with different priorities and needs.\nThe new rules will make sure both that there are sufficient incentives for further innovation and that the traditional benefits from standardisations are passed on to consumers. In order for standard-setting agreements to avoid having to be assessed under the competition rules and to fall within the so-called safe harbour - meaning where they are presumed to be in line with the competition rules - there are three general conditions that need to be met.\nThe first is that a standard-setting organisation needs to have a balanced IPR policy, requiring good-faith disclosure of the relevant IPRs, and a commitment to licensing these on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The second is that the process of standard-setting must be open and transparent so that participation is open to all relevant actors. The third is that the standard-setting process must also be transparent in a way that ensures that stakeholders are able to inform themselves of upcoming, ongoing and finalised work.\nYou also mentioned patent ambushes. Case experience, both in the EU and in the US, shows that patent ambush can be a real problem by preventing industry from making an informed choice on the potential costs of the technologies chosen in the standard. The Commission approach is to give standard-setting organisations incentives to have clear rules on disclosure of patents. Although this does not completely remove the risk, it does reduce it.\nBy contrast, for R&D agreements where there are a limited number of parties - often only two - the public consultation showed that stakeholders considered that there is, in practice, no real problem of patent ambush as the parties have an incentive to bring innovations to market and any potential problems can be solved upfront by contractual means between parties.\nTurning to information exchange, this can be pro-competitive when it enables companies to gather general market data that allow them to serve customers better. However, there are also situations where the exchange of market information can be misused, for instance, when companies use sensitive information to coordinate behaviour. In response to strong stakeholder demand, the guidelines contain a new chapter setting out general principles for competition assessment of information exchange.\nThe last question that was raised by Parliament related to the question of purchasing cooperatives. The Commission has consistently believed that joint purchasing groups amongst small retailers can be beneficial for competition, especially vis-\u00e0-vis large suppliers. The horizontal guidelines have, since 2000, provided for a positive assessment for this type of cooperation up to certain limits of market share. Following its review process, the Commission is proposing that for purchasing agreements, as long as the market share of participants is 20% or less, it will be presumed to be in line with the competition rules. But the Commission is also aware that international buying alliances among large retailers may have a negative impact on competition, with issues being examined in the context of the Commission's work on a better functioning food supply.\nArturs Kri\u0161j\u0101nis Kari\u0146\u0161\non behalf of the PPE Group. - (LV) Madam President, Commissioner, none of us likes to pay over the odds for things whose true value we are even unaware of. Similarly, we do not like to pay too much as a result of a dishonourable deal between businesses. Competition policy in the European Union has, hitherto, targeted dishonest businesses. The regulation of horizontal cooperation between businesses is one of the ways in which, to my mind, the Commission is successfully solving the problem of competition where businesses cooperate on matters such as research and development, full exploitation of the volume of production, the distribution of common goods and standardisation. The attention to the question of standardisation in the new rules on business cooperation is welcome. It will allow businesses and sectors to make a clear choice with regard to patents that they wish to make use of. Every standard consists of patents registered by inventors and businesses. In order to introduce a standard, it is necessary to know what precise technological solution is being offered and what consideration the patent holder wishes to receive for the use of his patent. That is why we should support a mechanism in which all interested parties in the course of choosing a standard are clearly aware of the advantages and disadvantages of one invention or another and of the price they will pay for using the patent. We like to make informed choices in our day-to-day lives, and so it is only natural that businesses investing significant funds in the development and manufacture of new technologies with high added value should also wish to make such a choice. To my mind, these new rules on horizontal cooperation between businesses will at least partly help businesses not to pay excessively for making use of patents. Thank you for your attention.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, competing is not the opposite of cooperating. There are cooperation agreements between companies competing at the same market level that are competitive and in line with the original source of European Union law.\nFor reasons of legal security, given the complexity of the subject and the balances that have to be achieved, businesses need to have tools to determine what horizontal agreements infringe the prohibitions laid down in the treaty and restrict competition.\nThis is a critical time, because the guidelines for horizontal agreements are a decade old and the block exemption regulations for specialisation agreements and innovation and development agreements expire at the end of this year. The Union must therefore update these instruments without delay, and cannot afford the luxury of a legislative loophole that generates doubts, uncertainties and paralysis in the activities of our businesses.\nThis would be an intolerable curb on our economy and hugely irresponsible in the context of a crisis that requires initiatives to help restart and boost business. Moreover, as the timescale for the review is extended to 31 December 2022, they must equip European industry with measures for dealing with the major changes that are going to take place on the international economic stage in the coming years.\nA few months ago, the European Union adopted the Europe 2020 strategy, under the Spanish Presidency, which is a firm commitment to an integrative society based on knowledge and innovation. The new legislative framework must promote the development of an intelligent, connected economy that is capable of connecting business networks and taking advantage of the synergies between businesses through agreements promoting standardisation, specialisation, research and development to benefit European consumers, but also agreements that contribute towards joint production, purchase, marketing and promoting cooperatives and business groups, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises.\nWe support the Commission in using this package of initiatives to increase efficiency, promote scientific and technical progress, provide benefits to end consumers and, in short, improve the overall competitiveness and sustainable development of our businesses.\nSylvie Goulard\nMadam President, many things have been said, in particular by my colleagues Mr Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil and Mr S\u00e1nchez Presedo, about the liveliness of the discussions that we have had in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and about the need to adopt reports quickly, as Mr S\u00e1nchez Presedo has just said, in order to clarify the scope of operations of our businesses. I will limit myself to two comments which are somewhat more general and political.\nFirstly, in all our countries, the crisis has made people withdraw and has given rise to nationalist and protectionist temptations, and we in Parliament are therefore particularly vigilant when it comes to respect for the internal market and its non-fragmentation. There is a challenge here - I can see some colleagues from the relevant committee are nodding. This is very important, and we know that Commissioner Barnier is working towards this, in support of Mr Monti's report. We in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe truly believe in emulation which stimulates innovation.\nHowever, we must also realise that European businesses are in a global competition, and that, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises and, above all, for research and development, it is particularly important to build bridges, and we need to ensure that competition does not turn into mutual destruction, to the advantage of businesses in other areas of the world which, in addition, do not always practise very fair competition with respect to their competitors. For us, it is therefore very important that we manage to find a means of avoiding abuses of the patent while allowing competition and, of course, while respecting property rights, as has been mentioned. As is often the case, this involves a very delicate balance.\nFinally, to conclude, I want to emphasise very strongly that I agree with what Mr Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil said about competition in the area of food products. We have a very strange situation in Europe where we look very thoroughly at competition in certain sectors and much less thoroughly in others. It is clear that the lack of proportion between the number of producers and the number of purchasers poses problems of competition. I am therefore delighted, Commissioner, that you have supported what Mr Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil said.\nAndreas Schwab\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, allow me to echo what my fellow Members have said and, above all, to welcome the fact that the European Commission is including the business community, the Member States and the European Parliament in the revision of the rules for horizontal cooperation agreements at an early stage; after all, the existing group exemption regulations are due to lapse at the end of the year. I believe that the draft from May 2010 contains some important changes, particularly in the areas of standards and the exchange of information, as already discussed. Both of these will bring greater legal certainty and clearer rules for businesses, something that is extremely important for compliance. We have already heard that compliance in the European internal market is a principle that must be followed by all businesses.\nCompetition and innovation are key elements for our economy, which is why it is important to adapt the 2009 rules to our present situation and to introduce effective mechanisms to promote compliance and the implementation of competition law for businesses and public bodies. It is for this reason that the parliamentary question was backed by such a large majority in the Committee, something I welcome very much. I would like to ask something about what you have just said. The fact is that the purchasing agreements of large, international chain stores can be categorised as horizontal cooperation agreements. In last year's communication on the functioning of the food supply chain in Europe, you were highly critical of the power of demand, but now you seem to view this very positively. You have just said that cooperation among small retailers is something you welcome, provided the purchasing agreements are in the order of up to a 20% share of the market. My question to you is: what is the reason for this change in how you view these horizontal purchasing agreements? What has motivated this change of heart?\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f\n(RO) Madam President, first of all, I, too, would like to welcome the European Commission's proposals on the review of the competition horizontal cooperation rules. Their aim is to clarify the terms for obtaining exemptions, readjusting restrictions and providing information about intellectual property rights.\nThe economic and financial crisis has highlighted the need for closer cooperation in these areas and for a common global economic regulatory framework.\nWe must also assess the possibility of exchanging information on a more frequent and global level about competition, as well as the possibility of establishing global governance in this area.\nStreamlining cooperation agreements between competitors promotes innovation and helps boost European companies' competitiveness.\nAs a result, I think that an analysis needs to be carried out on the possibilities of introducing, on occasion, block exemption regulations for other horizontal agreement types.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Madam President, I believe that we can organise competition by introducing uniform rules, which is why I am interested to know what options are available to us in the telecommunications sector, specifically in the area of frequency licensing, to enable us to regulate auctions or so-called beauty contests in telecommunications processes. After all, the new technologies available with the fourth generation networks will open up a whole new world of possibilities.\nWhen you travel to a different country in Europe, you will find that many of the prices that appear on your phone's display are the same. Do you have any plans to further stimulate competition in the roaming sector? How do you envisage roaming can be the subject of proper internal market competition and how can you ensure that prices do not jump a thousand-fold when geographical borders are crossed?\nMaro\u0161 \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very much obliged to the honourable Members for having this debate because it helps us prepare the ground for these very important changes in the legal framework in which our companies will operate in the future. I very much agree with all those who have been calling for fair competition because only fair competition can lead to fair practice and, of course, to real and not fixed prices. This is very important for Europe's citizens: how to create a conducive environment so we can achieve positive results but prevent the possibility, on the market, of fixed prices.\nI can assure you that we are looking at all possible ways of achieving a solution under which the prices for the patents would not be too high. You know very well from the debate on this issue how very difficult that is. I can tell you that we in the Commission are very unhappy with the delay - we have not been able to find an appropriate solution for the patent for such a long time - because it would definitely create the conditions for a leap forward on how to protect intellectual property rights and on how to improve and make Europe much more competitive when it comes to patent protection on an international level.\nLegal certainty and a new legal framework have been two very important issues on which we have been focusing in preparing our proposals. We have had quite extensive public consultations on this matter. We had 190 submissions and there were stakeholders from industry, law firms, academies and governments, so we think that when it comes to the final outcome, we will have managed to achieve the appropriate balance.\nI am very thankful for the underlining of the importance of EU 2020, because this is exactly why we need to improve and change the framework in which companies operate, looking into how to create positive, conducive environments so that research and development companies and companies involved in innovation can flourish, and into how these could bring additional added value to European economies, and into how to create the conditions for their staying in Europe and not looking for opportunities to manufacture the products somewhere else.\nI can assure you this was one of the elements on which the Commission, and my colleagues, Commissioners Almunia and Barnier in particular, put particular attention in terms of the Single Market Act. Because with a single market, we now have new opportunities to unlock new potentials, to open new avenues and to create conditions which will be important for really good progress, especially in R&D sectors.\nTurning to the concrete questions by Mr Schwab, who pointed out certain differences in the Commission approach to this particular issue of small chain suppliers against large chain companies, we came to the conclusion after a very serious review process and our very extensive consultations with the stakeholders, with the Member States, that the approach we are advocating right now corresponded more closely to the current situation, to the present data we had received, and this was the reason why we are suggesting this line forward.\nPresident\nI have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today, Thursday, 25 November 2010, at 12:00.\n(The sitting was suspended at 11:30 and resumed at 12:00)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Volcanic ash crisis (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the oral question to the Commission by Brian Simpson, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the volcanic ash crisis (B7-0217\/10).\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nauthor. - Madam President, Mr Simpson apologises for not being present during the discussion on the ash cloud crisis. Ironically, in view of this evening's discussion, he has been caught up in the flight restrictions related to the ash cloud restrictions in the UK and therefore has been unable to travel to Strasbourg for the discussion. I will therefore be speaking on his behalf this evening.\nThe oral question on the volcanic ash crisis is just as relevant today, in the context of the ongoing disruption to airspace, as it was at the time of the initial eruption of the Icelandic volcano last month, when we saw much of EU airspace closed for six days. We are now dealing not only with the aftermath of that disruption and its financial impact but also with the present ongoing uncertainty of continued and prolonged disruption to European airspace.\nWhile I believe that some important lessons have been learned and acted on following the unprecedented scale, duration and cause of the initial airspace shutdown, it is clear that the response at European level needs to be stepped up a gear in the face of ongoing disruptions.\nFaced with the challenges that the unprecedented nature and unspecified duration and the disruption is causing to air travel, I am concerned today to get assurances that the mechanisms we have in place for coping with the disruption are working effectively and that, where gaps have been identified over the last few weeks, these are being adequately addressed.\nI am pleased to say that the Air Passengers' Rights Regulation has proved vitally important in providing a safety net to ensure that it is not the passengers who bear the brunt of the financial consequences of the disruption and who are not left stranded by the chaos. The airspace closure has, however, raised important questions about airlines fulfilling their obligations when it comes to air passengers' rights, especially in the light of any compensation afforded to the aviation industry.\nWhat feedback is the Commission getting on the treatment of passengers, and what assurances can it give that airlines are fulfilling their obligations in line with the legislation? Furthermore, the current situation has exposed the vulnerability of those passengers booked on third-country airlines for whom the air passengers' rights legislation does not apply. How does the Commission propose to address this gap in the legislation?\nWe also - very early on in this crisis - recognised the heavy financial losses suffered by the aviation industry during the airspace shutdown. My concern with any compensation package made available to the aviation industry is to ensure that compensation is directed at the different sectors of the aviation industry - not just the airlines - and that the compensation measures are of an EU-wide nature.\nI know that some Member States will be more sympathetic than others when it comes to giving financial aid to their airlines. What assurances is the Commission able to give that some conditions will be levelled to avoid any distortions in the compensation handed out at Member State level and to ensure a level playing field?\nI now turn to the most pressing concern today, which is over the procedures in place for defining no-flight zones in the EU. The continued disruption to European airspace has once again put the procedures applied for defining no-flight zones under the spotlight. There are concerns that Member States are being over cautious in their implementation of no-flight zones and that aeroplanes are safe to fly amid higher densities of ash than are currently allowed by EU rules.\nThe ongoing closure and opening of airspace by Member States over the last few weeks has very much highlighted the need for a more joined-up approach at EU level, rather than the differentiated approach we are currently seeing. I am also aware that the Commission has put renewed emphasis on improving data collection and modelling methodologies to give a more detailed picture of the risks involved for aeroplanes flying through an ash cloud.\nHow does the new information we have impact on the restrictions currently in place and the definition of the no-flight zones?\nFinally, we have seen the value of increased European coordination when it comes to responding to the ash cloud crisis. Further areas where we have recognised the importance of greater cooperation include the acceleration of the Single European Sky initiative and the creation of a mobility action plan to help the EU cope better during such crises.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to provide an update on the evolution of the Icelandic volcano crisis which, of course, is linked to aviation.\nThe European Union has been heavily affected by the consequences of the Eyjafjallaj\u00f6kull volcano eruption in Iceland. The volcano eruption laid a cloud of volcanic ash over most of Europe. Volcanic ash contains many problematic substances that are harmful to aircraft and, in particular, their engines. The presence of this safety threat in the sky forced national authorities to take decisions, in accordance with the relevant procedures developed at international level, to close off all affected airspace.\nThe European Union immediately mobilised resources to tackle the most pressing problems. Taking into account evolutions in the situation and the need for a more differentiated approach to the model and risk management procedures, the Commission took the initiative, over the weekend of 17 and 18 April, with the Spanish Presidency and Eurocontrol, to propose a coordinated European approach. As a result of this work, in full cooperation with Member States and the industry, new procedures were defined. At the extraordinary meeting of EU Transport Ministers that took place on 19 April 2010, this new procedure was endorsed, thereby allowing for a gradual reopening of airspace in a coordinated manner as of 08.00 on 20 April 2010.\nAs a follow-up to this immediate action, the Commission produced a report addressing the impact of the volcanic ash cloud crisis on the air transport industry. It received broad support from the Council of Transport Ministers at its extraordinary meeting of 4 May 2010. Whereas the focus of the report was to address the current volcano crisis, it has nevertheless sought equally to address the European Union's need to be able to deal effectively with similar crisis situations in the future, should they arise.\nThe events of the past 10 days have shown that the situation is far from being resolved at this stage. The volcano continues to be active, and recurrent closures of airspace continue to take place, depending on the weather conditions affecting the dispersion of the ash cloud. The Commission is therefore committed to ensuring a prompt follow-up to the Transport Council conclusions as adopted on 4 May 2010. I am happy to report the first steps taken as a consequence.\nThe European Crisis Coordination Cell has been agreed with effect from 11 May 2010. The final arrangements for setting it up are being made this week. The nomination of a functional airspace blocks coordinator was endorsed by the Single Sky Committee on 7 May 2010. The designation of Eurocontrol's performance review committee as an SES performance review body was also carried out by the Single Sky Committee on 7 May 2010. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has been given the task of defining binding standards for engine ash tolerance levels.\nThe Commission will shortly be calling for the creation of a task force to explore how the current European forecasting and dispersion models can be improved so as to enhance associated risk assessment and risk management in such crisis situations. There is more to come as the Commission works towards meeting the Council of Transport Ministers' expectations, as expressed in their conclusions of 4 May 2010.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu\nThe volcanic eruption in April highlighted to us that traffic in European airspace is not prepared with an appropriate response in the event of unexpected disruption. There has been no coordination, flexibility or effort to make the maximum possible use of flight conditions.\nThe SES II package was adopted in November 2009 in record time, as is also mentioned in the Commission's briefing note. The package was adopted in spite of Member States' resistance. In fact, the translation and publication took longer than the actual negotiations. The crisis has come and we have seen the benefit of implementing the SES II package.\nIn my view, if Member States dropped their current reservations, we could have a Single European Sky in next to no time. To do this, we require a network of direct routes and an efficient traffic control system which disregards national borders from now on. Unfortunately, there is no intention of this happening. The only solution therefore is for us to implement the SES II package extremely quickly.\nThe Commission has tabled urgent measures which have actually already been requested in the approved regulations. They are excellent measures. However, the main action required is to create functional airspace blocks by no later than the specified deadline or by the end of 2012. This also requires the regulatory guide, which, unfortunately, is not mentioned in the Council's conclusions of 4 May. The guide's absence can be used by Member States as a pretext for delay. In addition, the guide must be the instrument used to ensure that, by the requested deadline, we not only have coordinated traffic zones, but a proper Single European Sky too.\nThe guide must provide for traffic control within the blocks, coordinated with adjacent blocks so that there are no overlapping areas. Otherwise, we will replace the current national boundaries with the blocks' boundaries, thereby extending without any justification the deadline for implementing the Single European Sky. I do not believe that we need to consider in future that an SES III regulation will be required to combine the blocks. This approach also allows the SESAR system to be implemented in ideal conditions at minimal cost.\nIn 2011. the last Member States will join the Schengen area. I believe that it is unacceptable for us to maintain borders in the sky when we do not have them on the ground.\nSa\u00efd El Khadraoui\nI want to start by thanking you for your answer. In my opinion, a number of questions have not yet been answered fully, and so I should like rather more explanation of several points.\nMr Simpson's absence demonstrates that the issue is indeed still current, and that the consequences of such eruptions are unpredictable and can be far-reaching in terms of our citizens' mobility, and also in economic terms if the situation is protracted. As I see it, it also demonstrates that we cannot, in fact, rule out the possibility of something similar occurring in a few weeks' time, for example - in the middle of the peak summer season - and the airspace having to be closed.\nConsequently, we must continue to work not only on structural measures to improve the efficiency of our aviation and of our transport system in general - I shall return to this shortly - but also on better crisis management. A minute ago, you also talked about setting up a kind of coordination cell. More clarity will be provided on that subject this week.\nNevertheless, could you perhaps already tell us a little more about the kind of task you envisage for this coordination cell? What exactly should its initial tasks be? The occurrences in April have made it abundantly clear that coordination between the parties concerned - such as airports, airlines and travel agencies - falls short, and that there is no mechanism for informing the parties concerned of what they have to do in such cases. Also, stranded travellers, for example, do not really know what their rights are.\nThus, as I see it, we need a European preparedness plan to enable the right decisions to be taken rapidly and the right contacts to be developed. In fact, the same goes for the repatriation of travellers; after all, where tens of thousands of people are concerned, a system must be set up somewhere to facilitate this.\nPassengers' rights are a very important element. Europe has done a very great deal of work in this field, which is to be welcomed. As you know, though, there are gaps in the legislation. We are talking about third-country airlines, which do not actually fall under our legislation, and so I would advocate integrating these kinds of rights into our aviation agreements with third countries. I also think that we need to monitor the application of this kind of legislation by the Member States. We heard just this week that the Italian authorities have fined the airline Ryanair. That is good news, but what is happening in the other Member States? Can we obtain an assessment of this?\nOf course, there are also the numerous structural measures, but I do not wish to dwell too much on those: the Single European Sky that is under construction, and also the railways, for example. The railways proved not to be a viable alternative. There are many reasons for this: it has to do with different systems and also with circumstances such as our lack of so much as an integrated ticketing system. In my opinion, that is also very important, Commissioner. Therefore, a very great deal remains to be done, but you have our support in this.\nGesine Meissner\nMadam President, Commissioner, we have already held a debate about the ash cloud and the associated problems for aviation in the immediate aftermath of the volcanic eruption.\nWe observed various things in this crisis. We observed, for one thing, that aviation really is essential for the transport sector, as it is not only passengers that get stranded, but goods, too, can be left untransported. In Germany, for example, BMW had some production bottlenecks due to not receiving deliveries. We observed that we need every mode of transport, including aviation. For another thing, we observed that it is a significant crisis for the airlines if it is not possible to fly for several days. A five-day break, the airlines said, could be coped with. A 20-day break, however, could perhaps have caused a collapse of the entire industry lasting quite some time. We need not talk about compensation just yet, the airlines themselves said, but if it had lasted longer, that would have been necessary.\nPassenger rights have been subject to varying comments from different speakers. They have now put to the test the rule that, in such extraordinary cases, too, everything can be done for passengers in relation to information, compensation and recompense to the extent that they need it and in the way we originally laid it down here.\nThere are still two subjects in particular that I would like to go into. The first is the Single European Sky. We do not have a single European airspace, and that is something that was painfully absent this time, too. A single European airspace clearly would not have prevented the volcanic eruption, we all know that, but we would certainly have been better able to bring about the smooth evacuation of passengers. We have appointed a Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) coordinator, of course. He is now starting work, and we all very much hope that his work will relatively soon be able to lead to a single European airspace. The question is also how long will it take until we actually achieve this? Perhaps you are not in a position to answer that precisely.\nWe have also discussed before whether better European coordination of the railway sector - something that we have long been wanting and, on paper, have long had - could have helped passengers to get home more quickly. In this regard, too, we observed quite clearly where our difficulties lie.\nI will now move on to my final question. Do we have good crisis management arrangements for cases like this? We have the institute in London, which is actually there to provide information when there are earthquakes. It also deals with volcanic eruptions as a secondary responsibility. Now it has been producing computer projections based on second-hand data, and it has been criticised for that. What can we learn from other parts of the world where volcano eruptions are more common, such as the United States, Indonesia and others? What other measurements do they take? According to my information, they are better prepared for such situations. Perhaps we had not planned for this in Europe, but we do then have to learn the resultant lessons. We are a hi-tech location, we have a lot of opportunities, and researchers in Germany, for example, have called for a specialised monitoring network for those aerosols, those minuscule items, that volcanic ash contains. What else do you think that we can do? How can we improve our technologies in the interests of aviation, the people and goods?\nEva Lichtenberger\nMadam President, the closing of European airspace was doubtless a necessary preventive measure in the interests of safety. Subsequently, and before the airspace had to be closed again, a more suitable technique to handle the problem should have been found. Unfortunately, I have to say that this clearly did not succeed at all, either in coordinating the measurements, in the analyses or in respect of passengers. The second time, too, the treatment of passengers who were held up due to flights that were downgraded was extremely inadequate, and it must be a priority to improve this. I find myself wondering when there really will be plans in place.\nCommissioner, you have, furthermore, not provided a very detailed answer to the question relating to funding and potential compensation for the airlines. That is a key issue, as this subject continues to be constantly under discussion. Quite how, then, is this to be solved? Who, exactly, is to be compensated? The airlines? Do they then pass the money on to the passengers? For example, will business people who missed important appointments receive compensation? Will a dealer, a company, that had to wait for replacement parts receive compensation? Why should it only be the airlines that receive compensation? I do not regard that as justified if you compare it with the economic consequences of this crisis. Moreover, we really need to take account of the fact that, ultimately, the airlines have been receiving a long-term subsidy from European citizens through the abolition of the kerosene tax, meaning, of course, a priori that they already have a subsidy.\nCommissioner, this question is pending and I await an answer from you.\nRoberts Z\u012ble\nThank you, Madam President. I should perhaps like to start by thanking Commissioner Kallas for his endurance during those five days. We might perhaps consider that the first two or three days could have seen a little more action, but on the whole, I believe that the Commissioners carried out their work extremely properly, and that the decisions of the Council were such as to give great encouragement within the context of the Single European Sky to the measures taken on the adoption of functional airspace bloc coordinators and the implementation of the measures by the European Aviation Safety Agency, and many others of these measures were taken quickly. At the same time, I think it very important that by understanding this pressure between business interests and the political interest, and by standing up for passengers' rights, the rule under current legislation that decisions about the opening or closing of particular airspace are taken by Member States was preserved. Since, if we were to imagine that, God forbid, an accident were to happen, then the Commission or the relevant European institutions might perhaps have exceeded their powers, and there would then arise a very big question, not about how large the losses to business were, but about who was responsible for the wrongly taken decision that helped bring about the accident in one particular airspace within the EU Member States, then the situation would be very different. As a consequence, I believe we should draw some conclusions from this relatively critical situation. In the short term, several measures have been taken, as I said, but, of course, as far as passengers' rights are concerned, as Mr El Khadraoui has already mentioned, several low-cost airlines in fact ignored passengers' rights (and these are not third-country airlines, these are airlines from EU Member States) and, in principle, abandoned their passengers for five days and nights; in reality, they will be the winners - they will save money - and this remains an unresolved issue directly in the sphere of implementation in relation to passengers' rights as they currently stand in the European Union. Another challenge in the long term is the lack of connection in several European states via other means of transport with the central part of Europe. Thank you.\nJacky H\u00e9nin\nMadam President, first of all, I feel it is essential to point out that in this case, as in others, the precautionary principle must prevail, because human lives are at stake. However, if it is to prevail, its application must not result in extreme decisions that would lead citizens to view precaution as ineptitude.\nTherefore, in this case, why did we only take into account the use of an old virtual mathematical and meteorological model and ignore the pilot unions, which recommended test flights and the use of weather balloons? Perhaps we might then have avoided total paralysis of the airports and the shambles that followed.\nWhile the VIPs have always been treated well, a large number of European citizens were abandoned by the whole world, including by their own governments.\nFinally, I repeat my request for a parliamentary committee of inquiry to bring to light the fraud that some people have been engaged in during this crisis.\nJuozas Imbrasas\nI will not repeat the thoughts already expressed by many speakers on the consequences of the Icelandic volcano, the closure of air space and the losses incurred by airlines and consumers, i.e. passengers, who were imprisoned in the airports. I am pleased to hear today that there will soon be decisions on the creation of the Single European Sky and that, according to the Commissioner, an airspace coordinator already began work in May. Today, however, as we are not sure whether we will be able to coordinate such unstable situations or even slightly similar situations in the future, I feel that we should think about how to develop and devote greater attention to other, alternative means of transport and ways of carrying passengers, as the German MEP mentioned, railways, for example. In our region, the Baltic Sea region, represented by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (which are on the edge of North-Eastern Europe), this situation with the eruption of the volcano has especially highlighted our need for good rail services and here I have in mind the Rail Baltica project. I understand that other European regions possibly have the same problem as well and the situation is not any better (is it?), but today I am talking about my region and therefore in this case, we would like to have the opportunity to reach Western and Central Europe through Poland, once Poland has joined our rail track. Otherwise, we will be isolated from the EU's transport system. Other countries have railways and possibly motorail trains, but our three Baltic States do not have this yet. Therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner whether, in the immediate future, sufficient attention will be devoted or is being devoted to the suitable implementation of alternative transport projects? With the help of the European Union, will we manage to gather the required political will and ensure alternative means of transporting passengers so that we can avoid such consequences in similar crisis situations.\nLuis de Grandes Pascual\n(ES) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Kallas for being here and for the work that he has done during this difficult time.\nThis is a debate that had to take place, ladies and gentlemen, and unfortunately, I think it will not be the last of its kind. I will spare you any repeats of the statistics of this serious event and the negative impact that it has had on the economy. I simply wish to remember those who were affected.\nFirstly, there were the passengers. Ten million people were left without flights and with no guidance as to what to do. The impact on passengers was so great that the provisions of directives and regulations could not protect them. The exclusion of liability in contracts due to catastrophe or force majeure brings to mind the need for a joint fund to tackle the consequences of a global disaster such as that caused by the volcano.\nI now come to the airlines. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that they lost EUR 1 700 million worldwide. The Association of European Airlines (AEA) assesses the loss at EUR 850 million at European level. This blow was all that they needed to accentuate a spiralling crisis that is threatening many airlines with closure.\nThe other victim has been tourism. The consequences for tourism have been devastating. Firstly, due to the cancellation of contracts that had been made in advance, as is usual in this sector, and secondly, due to insecurity, which has caused a change in normal booking trends.\nThis is my diagnosis, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. There can only be one conclusion: the European institutions do not have the tools to effectively tackle a crisis of this magnitude.\nNow I come to the criticism, because criticism is necessary and inevitable; self-criticism, if necessary. No one can be exonerated, because everyone involved acted badly, late and inefficiently, sometimes through no fault of their own. The Member States cannot be exonerated because, although the decisions were within their competence, they were still unable to act. The European institutions cannot be exonerated because they took four long days to react, and because their reaction, which invoked safety as their priority, did not unfortunately produce calm, but paralysis.\nI will now discuss the Commission's response. Today, the Commission is reiterating the measures that it had announced to us. In my view, they are reasonable measures, but there is a lack of clarity about the timescale for implementing them.\nWe are not talking about something in the past. Even today, there is a latent threat of flights being grounded, and it is concerning that we are dependent on air currents. I know that we cannot fight the elements. This was said by a famous Spanish sailor regarding a big naval battle that we lost.\nThe crisis will not help us to take measures. The Member States will be reluctant to provide resources. If we are mean, however, this volcano could do more damage to the European economy than is being forecast.\nI ask the Commission to be determined, and I ask the Council to urgently tackle the need to take decisions. I ask everyone to be generous in implementing alternatives to make up for the incapacities of the institutions. I do not hold the Commission or the Council responsible, but we need to acknowledge the diagnosis that the institutions have not been capable, as they currently stand, of solving a crisis of this magnitude and proportions.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\n(ES) Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Kallas for his work over the last few days and say that the crisis involving ash from the Icelandic volcano causing European mobility to be blocked, which even yesterday caused further closures of European airspace in Ireland and the United Kingdom, along with the two extraordinary Council meetings called by the Spanish Presidency at the Commission's suggestion, have taught us several things.\nFirstly, they have taught us that this crisis has affected the whole sector, not only airlines but also airports, and we congratulate the Commission on its comprehensive vision when considering the consequences and assistance. This has been done by Mr Kallas, Mr Almunia and even Mr Tajani, who has considered the impact on tourism and on the agencies. We therefore welcome this approach by the Commission.\nSecondly, while we already knew that the Single European Sky was necessary, we now know that it is urgent. This is why we need to definitively appoint the coordinator - a former colleague of ours who is highly qualified - and, of course, remove the obstacles that still remain in the Council.\nWe also urgently need to launch the Single European Sky ATM Research system, which underlies the Single European Sky, along with guaranteed funding. Could the Commission tell us what reluctance or reservations it observed in the Council meeting on 4 May? We need to know. We even also have the impression that there are Member States that are opening up airspace more than others, and that is not good in a very competitive sector such as air transport.\nIn addition, although Parliament has been prioritising passengers' rights, and that has been reiterated, with strong reticence on the part of the Council, now the need has clearly been seen to review the application of these laws. We need the Commission to be implacable with the low-cost airlines that have spread confusion by lying to passengers and to the public. The necessary penalty proceedings must naturally follow.\nI also invite you, Commissioner, to launch a pilot project that my group proposed for the 2010 budget of having consumer offices in the airports to facilitate the necessary measures for passengers and consumers in the midst of the general confusion.\nWhile some of us were already fighting for rail networks, trans-European networks, as an alternative to modes of transport with a greater impact - and this has been demonstrated in Spain by the AVE high-speed train, for example, between Barcelona and Madrid - now we know that we urgently need to build an alternative secondary mobility system, as is prudently done with electrical and telecommunications networks. This is why the review of the trans-European networks with a view to the financial perspectives must be more ambitious.\nMarian Harkin\nMadam President, my particular perspective in this debate is on the impact on the more peripheral airports and on airlines which are already in economic difficulties.\nI live on an island which is behind an island which is off the coast of Europe. As such, our peripheral airports and our airlines are particularly important for connectivity and mobility. There are a number of regional airports on the west coast of Ireland. We have Donegal, Sligo, Ireland West Airport Knock, Shannon and Kerry. Given our proximity to Iceland and our island status, we have particularly severe problems to deal with because of the ash.\nWith reference to peripheral airports, I believe the Commission should fully promote international PSO routes in terms of connectivity of peripheral airports to hubs and that Member States should be given real flexibility when it comes to State aid to peripheral airports. Furthermore, there are many airlines already in financial trouble and they may go out of business because of this crisis. Let us not fool ourselves. It is not going to go away any time soon. This will lead to job losses in the airline sector and consequently, less competition in the market. We have to look very seriously at how the EU can play a constructive role, both from the perspective of an equitable distribution of financial assistance and the crisis management tools that are at our disposal.\nFinally, it is important to realise that current legislation was put in place to stop airlines cancelling flights because it suited them, but we are now in a position where airspace is closed and airlines cannot fly. The financial burdens are very significant on all actors - passengers, airlines and airports. The question is, who is responsible, and who bears the financial burdens?\nIsabelle Durant\n(FR) Madam President, since this new volcanic eruption is confronting us with the same problems that we have already experienced, I would like to go beyond the crisis management and coordination system, in which progress has been made, and emphasise, as others have done, interoperability and the rail reservation system. Land transport and, in particular, the railways, must be able to take the place of air transport more easily when it is put out of service. It is not just volcanoes that put it out of service; it may actually be grounded on other occasions too.\nHowever, beyond this aspect, and more structurally still, I would like to ask you about risk cover by the sector itself in this type of crisis - and I stress by the sector itself. In fact, I think that State aid, every time that it is granted (or every time there is a problem), will very quickly prove to be untenable at budgetary level and will lead to quite unacceptable discrimination between airlines, between operators in the aviation sector, who would introduce identical demands and, finally, between the ultimate beneficiaries of this potential aid and those who would be excluded from it.\nGiven the size of the airlines, I think we must do as we did in the banking sector and move towards prudential rules in their case, rules that would oblige them to provide themselves with a form of compulsory insurance. This insurance would enable them to cover this type of risk by pooling the cost of the cover, without always asking the Member States to insure them free of charge, particularly as airlines already benefit today from the historic tax exemption on kerosene and airline tickets.\nFinally, we must also ensure that these airlines duly compensate their passengers, but without passing the bill on to taxpayers.\nJacqueline Foster\nMadam President, we are all aware of the horrendous disruption caused, and continuing to be caused, by the volcanic ash cloud. More than 100 000 flights have been cancelled and around 12 million passengers have not been able to travel as planned. Goods and cargo have been delayed or not transported at all and businesses, both large and small, have been affected. Our European airlines and airports have suffered catastrophic financial losses. I believe that European airlines alone have lost more than EUR 2 billion.\nIn all this chaos, one thing is clear: air transport is enormously important for the European economy, and as individuals, we depend on a thriving and efficient air transport industry where safety for crew and passengers is the first prerogative. As such, I applaud the decision of the Commission to respond decisively following the compulsory grounding of the European air transport sector.\nThe Commission has recognised the need not only to consider financial compensation, but also the necessity to speed up the implementation of SESAR measures. As a general rule I believe that the state should not artificially support business. Risk, as we all know and accept, is part of running a business. However, these are exceptional circumstances. We have not seen such sustained disruption to the industry with such enormous financial losses since 9\/11 and, notwithstanding the financial difficulties currently facing all Member States, I would urge them to back plans to support an industry which simply cannot sustain further losses.\nThe question now is, what can and should be done in future to deal with such crises? Firstly, airlines must be involved in discussions about possible airspace closures from the outset. Secondly, the SESAR package must be brought forward in a sensible fashion. I still have some reservations about the creation of a network manager. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but I strongly believe some questions remain to be answered. For example, what would be the exact role? To whom would this person be accountable? How would this improve the current situation? I look forward to serious debate on the issue, Commissioner, before any legislation is implemented, as a knee-jerk response could prove more damaging than intended.\nI also think it would be wise to look at North America and elsewhere to see how they deal with the issue of volcanic ash. In the UK, we apply the same terms of reference as the ICAO, but the Americans use a different method to calculate the ash drift. They seem to apply a more measured approach and I believe that we could perhaps learn something there.\nIn addition, we must remember that when decisions are made in the EU regarding closing EU airspace, the impact of such decisions does not stop at our borders, and discussions with the remainder of the ICAP countries must take place.\nFinally, as European policy makers, we have a responsibility to develop a viable long-term strategic vision for aviation in the EU, taking into account the international dimension. I believe we should support the establishment of measures to improve risk management, settling justified compensation claims without distortion of competition, as well as promoting well balanced, cost effective structural reforms.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) The closure of air space after the April eruption of the Icelandic volcano confirmed that air transport is highly sensitive to various restrictions on flying conditions. Not only clouds of volcanic ash, but also heavy snow, whirlwinds, thick fog and other weather phenomena cause airline companies huge complications in the provision of regular flights.\nResponsible airline companies therefore conclude various policies with insurance companies, which are supposed to cover their financial losses resulting from unforeseen emergencies. The costs of this airline company insurance are, of course, included in the price of air tickets, and passengers also pay as part of the price of the air ticket for the airline company to provide them with the necessary services and alternative transport arrangements in the event of an emergency.\nI would like to emphasise and repeat once more, Commissioner, that passengers make a payment as part of the price of an air ticket so that airline companies will be able, in the event of an emergency, to deal with the resulting problems operationally, and to request appropriate compensation from the insurance company for the resulting damage later.\nAn ordinary EU citizen who does not directly use aviation services has nothing to do with this business. It is therefore totally inappropriate to transfer such aviation losses to EU Member States. It is therefore quite right that governments who run their affairs wisely do not want to comply with these absurd demands. If anyone is to compensate airline companies for the restrictions arising from the exceptional weather conditions, it should be their insurers, who must fulfil contractual obligations within the scope agreed in their insurance policies.\nAfter all, that is how it works for every one of our citizens in the EU: if their house burns down, for example, or ice crushes the roof, they receive compensation only from their insurance companies, if they are insured at all. They will not get a new house or better accommodation from any airline companies or EU governments.\nWhy should they, therefore, contribute towards making up for the lost profits of airline companies? That would surely be absurd. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that in a healthy entrepreneurial environment, no support - and I mean no support at all - of this kind can be justified for airline companies from the governments, and therefore from the citizens, of the EU.\nJoanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska\n(PL) In April, a volcanic eruption caused the complete paralysis of air traffic in European air space. This event, which was not, of course, caused by anyone, resulted in adverse effects both for passengers and for all European airlines. At dozens of airports, passengers were left to their own devices and did not have access to information about the resumption of flights. The only fairly specific information came from statements about the closure of more areas of air space.\nAlthough we cannot blame anyone for the forces of nature and their effect on our daily lives, we should ask very directly about this situation and sum up the actions of the European Union institutions which are responsible for matters such as ensuring the safety of air passengers.\nUnfortunately, I think their action was definitely insufficient and very delayed in relation to the event which had taken place. For after all, the total chaos in air traffic experienced by passengers, and their complete lack of knowledge about when flights would be resumed, show the EU institutions, including principally the European Commission, in an extremely bad light. Therefore, I would like to find out what the Commission intends to do in the future in the case of other volcanic eruptions. What steps will the Commission take to prevent a repeat, in a similar situation, of the paralysis of almost the whole of Europe and, most of all, to improve the flow of information directed to passengers which, hitherto, has been decidedly lacking? I think that the measures currently proposed by the Commission are, unfortunately, not sufficient.\nSpyros Danellis\n(EL) Commissioner, the closure of two major airports yesterday, in London and Amsterdam, due to a new volcanic ash cloud, demonstrated that the grounding of flights in April was not the result of an improbable event with no long-term repercussions or risk of repetition. Moreover, Mr Simpson's absence from this evening's debate says far more than his presence.\nWe are going through a difficult economic period, which is bringing with it successive mergers in the aviation sector and which is governed by uncertainties for the airlines and their employees. For three consecutive days in April, the international industry lost USD 400 million a day, threatening to blow efforts to restructure the financially weaker airlines in Europe sky high. What is certain is that suitable institutional instruments to conduct a risk analysis at European level and to use a specific method to process all the data at the disposal of the Member States and the European authorities were, and still are, lacking.\nThe risk of a repetition of the highly damaging confusion which we experienced beneath the ash cloud is real and the measures taken must institutionally safeguard the Union's ability to intervene in a coordinated and premeditated manner in this type of crisis, thereby limiting the incredible inconvenience to millions of passengers and the financial losses to carriers and tourist companies.\nPat the Cope Gallagher\nMadam President, as Ireland does not have a land connection to mainland Europe, Irish air passengers have faced extreme difficulties; I would venture to say, more than any other Member State. For example, I myself travelled to Strasbourg this week overland, and had to take a ferry to Wales, a car to Folkestone and a train to Strasbourg. I raise this because it is typical of the many journeys undertaken by Irish people in recent weeks.\nThe EU Transport Ministers have established three separate flying zones based on the safety risk to aircraft. I have to say that, since the introduction of the third zone, over 300 000 hours of airline operations have taken place. This is a welcome development and, of course, further measures are still needed.\nI strongly support the efforts to fast-track the introduction of the Single European Sky concept. The Declaration of Madrid, adopted in February by the Spanish Presidency, established a roadmap for putting this policy in place. I have no doubt that the Commissioner, who is with us this evening, will spearhead this.\nThe role of Eurocontrol must also be closely examined. It must be given statutory powers as opposed to the coordinating role which it currently holds. As early as yesterday, a joint agreement was reached between Ireland and the UK so as to curtail the disruption of air travel: a welcome development.\n(GA) Volcanic ash does not recognise any political or physical borders and this incident reminded us once more of the immense power of nature. It is now clear that there is a real need for a common air transport policy in European Union airspace. The role of the European Union must be strengthened in the aftermath of this crisis.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\n(LT) The consequences of the volcanic ash crisis had a negative impact on the transport system of all of Europe when ash from the erupting volcano forced the cancellation of more than 100 000 flights and disrupted the journeys of 10 million passengers. This crisis affected the European Union's Eastern Member States particularly badly, as they remained completely isolated from Western Europe and, unlike other EU Member States, did not have the opportunity to choose alternative modes of transport. Yet again, this proves the importance of the development of transport infrastructure, the development of Trans-European Transport Networks and the creation of a system of alternative means of transport, both for transporting goods and passengers. Therefore, we must establish a passenger transport system that operates effectively, which is not so dependent on air transport, but is dominated by other alternative types of transport, especially for transport in Central Europe. We really must create a transport system that would not only ensure the effective transportation of passengers, but the smooth functioning of the economy. I agree with the ideas mentioned on the realisation of additional links and I therefore urge you to support the European rail corridor project for the competitive transportation of freight, which would allow the Baltic States mentioned to be linked to other Western European countries and would allow the creation of added value for the entire Community. In addition, following the implementation of this project, the region's residents would have an alternative to air transport.\nGabriel Mato Adrover\n(ES) Madam President, I am going to talk about tourism, a fundamental sector for the Canary Islands, which receive around 12 million tourists per year. If there is one thing that tourism needs, it is certainty. Situations like the one that we have experienced - and which may be repeated - have dramatic consequences for this strategic sector for the Canary Islands.\nThe losses have not only been suffered by the airlines, the airports and the tour operators: hotels, car hire companies, restaurants and services in general have suffered huge damage. Between 15 and 23 April alone, 313 818 aeroplane seats were cancelled in the Canary Islands, with losses of around EUR 57.3 million as a result of the tourists not coming. This is, of course, a significant loss.\nWe need immediate measures when the event occurs, such as opening airports at night without additional costs and looking after the public, the passengers, properly; but we also need compensation.\nI am not going to criticise what was done or what was not done or say whether the crisis was managed well or not. It is only worth being aware that it could happen again and that we need to be prepared for it.\nKarin Kadenbach\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your steadfastness when it comes to passenger safety issues. In recent days, we have seen that it is clearly not only in the financial sector that major speculation takes place but that a few of the airlines, too, are prepared to gamble with the safety of passengers, at least in words - though luckily not yet in actions. After all, we are not merely talking about the passengers in the air, but also the people on the ground. I must ask you to continue working to this end. I must also ask you to continue working for passenger information and passenger rights.\nOver recent days, we have seen that not everyone and not every age group has unrestricted access to the Internet. Telephone lines were broken, the Internet was not available, and people who are not routine business class fliers like we here in the plenary are, tourists and older age groups, had hardly any information. I must ask you to continue working to this end.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\n(PT) Madam President, the situation created by the eruption of the volcano in Iceland has demonstrated the significant impact that a certain type of natural phenomena - that are fortunately rare, but demonstrably occur periodically - can have on the economy and society. By doing so, it underlined once again the importance of a preventative approach to these phenomena. In this case, that means seeking to adopt any measures that reduce the aforementioned impact, not preventing it from happening, as that is clearly impossible.\nHowever, it is not legitimate to use a pretence at better crisis coordination in response to these phenomena as a pretext for seeking to breathe new life into a broad range of initiatives. I am talking about the Single European Sky initiative and the goal of opening European air traffic control up to liberalisation and then privatisation. In this regard, if there is one thing that the current volcanic ash crisis has confirmed, it is the importance of keeping air traffic control in the public domain: it is done in the public interest and is, first and foremost, a basic guarantee of public safety.\nAngelika Werthmann\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about disturbances in air traffic and also its economic impact on aviation. I would like to stress, once again, that the safety of Europe's citizens is the most important thing.\nCommissioner, many steps have been taken and it is now time to contemplate specific alternatives and to implement them, for example, the expansion of the trans-European high-speed network, which can also help reduce CO2 emissions.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are 2 000 volcanoes around the world, 50 of which are active. Thus, it is not just a European problem, but a problem for international aviation.\nWe need to clarify in the research where exactly there are risks and where there is also a certain scope of responsibility. I would therefore ask the Commissioner, together with Eurocontrol, to perhaps entrust the European Research Council with the task of carrying out research in order to properly judge this risk. Ultimately, the final responsibility always lies with the aircraft captain and consumers are also called on to consider whether or not this poses a risk for each of them. Everyone can remove the risk by simply not flying. An objectification of the entire issue must be at the heart of things, however.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMadam President, the Joxer character created by the great Irish playwright, Sean O'Casey, observed the whole world as 'in a state of chassis'. And certainly the evidence is there for all to see. If we look downwards, we see oil gushing from an oil well, decimating the environment; if we look upwards, we will see volcanic ash gushing from a volcano decimating the airlines, and if we look outwards, we see recession gushing from the banks decimating the economy.\nCertainly I have suffered, like many more, from the volcanic ash, the first time going home: it took me two days; I had to hitchhike part of the way. The second time I could not get out to the last plenary; it took me one and a half days to go to Brussels and one and a half days to come here, but the one thing I have learned is that it is impossible to book a ticket on the Eurostar when you are travelling. You need your credit card to book it and you need it to get the ticket, which is impossible when you are in transit.\nI would ask the Commission to use their influence to try and get them to have the same system as that which applies to ferries and airlines.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\n(ES) I am not the only one, Madam President, but thank you. I just wanted to add that we need to be able to extensively use all the available technology in order to measure the ash. In fact, a few days after the closures, in a visit to Astrium in Toulouse, we were told about an extremely detailed information system on the composition of the atmosphere via a satellite network, and we are not clear as to whether this existing systematic information was used, which, moreover, comes from a European enterprise, namely the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company. Could the Commissioner tell us whether it was used or whether this is being considered?\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for the many interesting and detailed comments on this ash problem. I only had three minutes at the beginning. Now I can elaborate at least 10 times more on all these issues, but I will be brief - do not worry - or at least not too long.\nI can only say that it has really been a very exciting and extraordinary period, and it is back again. It is clear that volcanoes continue to erupt as this Icelandic volcano is doing. This is all part of life for the aviation industry, but it is not only volcanoes but also thunderstorms, snow and such occurrences which all disrupt aviation. This is a part of this business, we must be very clear about that. Nobody alone can be responsible for this risk - no airlines, no governments, no European Union. I must also say that so far, the European Union has no jurisdiction at all in regulating air traffic. It has been intergovernmental bodies that have been dealing with this so far, as well as national authorities.\nTo exclude, prevent or foresee everything which can happen in aviation is impossible. The risks must be shared and clients who decide to use aviation services must be prepared - as we must all be - for some delay if, for example, the runway at Brussels airport is not cleared of snow or some other thing.\nRegarding the criticism that we acted late and regarding who in fact acted: I was there in Eurocontrol; the risk from ash is a real risk, and we cannot hold out for the possibility that we will finally find scientific solutions concerning what size of particle would be considered dangerous for engines, because nobody wants to give this assessment. We can determine particle size and we can assess the cloud, but nobody wants to give an assessment and to say that this ash is no longer dangerous for the engines. This will be a very complicated thing. The decision to close airspace was taken strictly in accordance with the existing rules and with all relevant institutions who were responsible for this. To those who ask who is now responsible for the closure of airspace, I would ask them who would be responsible if the airspace had not been closed and something had happened.\nWhen Eurocontrol sought to find some different approaches to the ash cloud, it was not an easy decision or easy discussion because it was a matter of deciding to take enormous responsibility for the safety of aviation. The safety of planes and lives must come first. I think it was done reasonably fast under these circumstances because the volcano was, and continues to be, very exceptional and extraordinary.\nRegarding the future, the key issue mentioned by somebody is what about Indonesia, what about the United States? There is a responsibility, which mainly rests with the pilots. In Europe today, pilots tend to reject this kind of new responsibility. European air traffic is very busy and there must be some kind of combination between greater flexibility and clear data about the possible threats and possible risks. I do not know about Indonesia, but in the United States, the system is very simple: it is the pilot who decides how to circumvent the ash and I must say that this works very well. But in Europe, we must obviously first create some common approach to the methodology of possible assessment of risk.\nRegarding passengers, I must say that we have always consistently and forcefully stated from the Commission side that passenger rights legislation must be complied with. This is a very clear message. Again, the enforcement of this legislation is in the hands of Member States but I understand that most airlines and most Member States also have taken this very seriously. There are different examples and, of course, in the aftermath, there will be exposure to negative examples as well, but mostly they have been taken seriously, and we are planning a revision of passenger rights. We will definitely then assess what to do with the attempts to abuse passenger rights and excessive interpretations of passenger rights. In general, the passenger rights legislation has worked very well and the logic must be there. Passenger rights stipulate that passengers must be provided with information, with care and with rerouting or reimbursement under these extraordinary circumstances, not compensation. This is a different word.\nThere is a huge programme under way with the Single Sky initiative in order to streamline air traffic management, and I cannot complain about the cooperation between Member States during this particular period. The Transport Council was very cooperative and made many decisions which probably, under other circumstances, would have taken much longer. I really cannot say that we had bad cooperation with Member States in preparing and handling this extraordinary Transport Council.\nRegarding finance and financial consequences, its rules are very simple and they are very clearly described in our paper prepared by three Commissioners - Rehn, Almunia and myself. This is State aid, and State aid can be given if Member States consider that there are enough reasons to give State aid to an airline which is in trouble, because passenger rights and all these costs must be borne by the airline. If the airline is in trouble and if a Member State considers that this is really a very bad situation, then State aid can be given, but, before State aid is given, a very careful assessment must be made not to create distortions and unfair advantages in the market. This was the main concern of airlines as well, and a fair approach to everybody is also the Commission's concern; our competition department will definitely look very carefully at all possible State aid cases.\nSo far, I do not know if anybody has applied for State aid in this particular area because, as I said at the beginning, airlines have contingency plans.\nSomebody mentioned that they should have insurance. I asked them as well about the insurance. Insurance is more or less impossible because you cannot describe the product, or you can describe the product but it will be so expensive that it is not affordable. They have contingency plans on how to deal with extraordinary circumstances which disrupt the schedules. Of course, as an economist, I can see that there is a lot of room for different fantasies, what to calculate under the losses and what is a real number. It is a huge work to define the exact consequences of this volcanic ash which can be presented as a claim.\nRegarding alternative transport, we will, of course, push ahead. We will have a TEN-T meeting soon where the Commission will push ahead for the development of a network of other modes of transport. I asked railways what is possible and what they actually did during this crisis, and they sent a lot of interesting information. There were additional trains, but the information about availability, timetables and other things remain, so far, very poor. One of our biggest priorities for the near future will be to have better information about all these possibilities.\nAgain, if there is a crisis in aviation, then bringing passengers home or taking them to destinations will still mainly be in the hands of airlines. It is at the planning stages that it is very important to also consider other modes and indeed other engines. This is another interesting story. There are lessons to be learned, and we are learning these lessons, and we will push forward with many plans and measures to create more streamlined air traffic management in Europe.\nI must stress that volcanoes do not obey any rules, and we cannot exclude possible extraordinary events. There will always be some risk which must be taken into account, and such a risk must be part of planning our activities.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nJarom\u00edr Kohl\u00ed\u010dek  \nCommissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when a volcano erupted in Iceland in the 18th century, the country was veiled in a cloud of ash, and in Europe crops failed for the next three years. We do not have reports on the damage to air transport. This year's far smaller eruption of Eyjafjallaj\u00f6kull has literally wrought havoc with air transport in the European Union. The damage to airline companies and airports - in other words, the direct damage - has had a counterpart in the chaotic care given to travellers stranded in various corners of the world. The rights of passengers are certainly an interesting topic for academic debate, but in this case, they were the lowest priority for the staff concerned. We have no reports of other forms of transport being used to bring people home. The chaotic responses show a lack of coordination, and also hesitation, at a time when quick decisions should be made on re-opening air space. Commissioner, will the Commission speed up its work on applying the partial results of the SESAR programme to the practice of managing aviation operations? My other questions would merely repeat the questions of Brian Simpson.\nJoanna Senyszyn  \nThere are 56 000 citizens of the European Union who are ill and waiting for a transplant, and this includes 2 000 in Poland. Every day, 12 people die because of the shortage of organs available for transplantation. Organ donation rates range from less than one donor per million individuals in Bulgaria to 34-35 donors per million individuals in Spain. In Poland, the figure is 11. Most organs are taken from deceased donors on the grounds of prior consent (the opt-in approach) or presumed consent (the opt-out approach). In Poland, cells, tissues and organs can be taken from deceased donors if the person who has died had not registered with the Central Register of Objections. The development of transplantation requires an atmosphere of social approval for filling in the declarations of will which make it possible to take organs after the person has died, as well as condemnation of opposition to donation.\nI, personally, am actively involved in work to promote transplantation, and I encourage all fellow Members to do the same. In Poland, I have distributed badges and bracelets which encourage support of transplantation medicine. With fellow Members from other political groups, I have started the 'Chain of Relatives', a national social campaign to propagate transplantation and voluntary blood donation. Promoting the idea of transplantation and coordinating the exchange of experience between Member States can save thousands of lives. It is essential to create a common EU database of organs available for donation and transplantation, and a database of all living and deceased donors. This would also be a significant tool in the fight against organ trafficking and human trafficking.\nDebora Serracchiani  \nThe affair of the Icelandic volcano and its current consequences lead us to reflect that the European Union must not be unprepared for an emergency or unexpected occurrences, but must protect passengers above all else using existing or new management instruments or measures. As an example of such measures, could airline companies not have offered to buy train tickets to avoid long queues at train ticket offices, especially for passengers with reduced mobility?","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I just wish to say on this report that I am pleased that our group's Amendment 1 was accepted and, therefore, I welcome this development. There is a challenge to protect soils in the European Union, but it is a Member State competence and does not require an EU approach, or EU directives or regulations. Therefore, I welcome the outcome of this vote.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, I am very pleased with this and would also like to thank Mr Swoboda very much because this important report has been adopted with a very large consensus.\nI would like to take the opportunity to urge our Slovene Members, for whom and for whose country I have the greatest sympathy, to find a way once again of continuing Slovenia's great achievements towards European integration. This country was the first new Member State to introduce the euro and was the first to implement Schengen. Slovenia is a pioneer of European unification. I would like to see Slovenia, in its national interest, also act as a pioneer in connection with the accession of Croatia to the EU.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, in principle I support the accession of Croatia to the European Union, but I did not vote in favour of this report. I abstained because there are still a number of problems in Croatia, one example being the problem of corruption. Experience has now taught us that corruption has actually increased in a number of countries that have acceded to the European Union before they were actually completely ready to do so.\nThe problem with this report is that it states that the conclusion of the negotiations could perhaps be reached in 2009, which is to say this year, while, in my opinion, it is, in fact, unwise to tie ourselves down to a given date. Croatia should be allowed to accede when it is completely ready. At this moment in time, that is absolutely not the case.\nRomana Jordan Cizelj\n(SL) It is my sincere wish that Croatia becomes a member of the European Union as soon as possible and this is a wish that is shared by Slovenia. If our wishes are to become a reality, we need to assist and cooperate with Croatia. We can resolve disputes by listening carefully to all of the parties involved. However, there is nothing in this report, which was endorsed by the European Parliament today, which suggests that we have struck the right balance in voting on the so-called Croatian-Slovenian border dispute. In order to avoid bias, we should also include the principle of equity as a minimum requirement.\nIn conclusion, I would like to point out that, if we really want to solve this problem, we should ensure that both Slovenia and Croatia observe the outcome of the relevant international body. This is why the parliaments of both countries should ratify that outcome beforehand.\nMarusya Ivanova Lyubcheva\n(BG) Thank you, Mr President. I supported the Turkey progress report. The negotiations with Turkey on accession to the European Union pose a serious challenge to all Member States of political and economic significance, as well as in terms of the issue of security. It is particularly important for the country to meet the accession criteria and show consistency, sufficient precision and transparency towards the citizens of the European Union. I feel that it is especially important for the process to progress via good cooperation with neighbouring countries. In this respect, I think that we must note certain progress between Bulgaria and Turkey with the agreement which has been reached on initiating negotiations on matters which remain unresolved so far, specifically on resolving the property issues of the Thracian refugees, which is happening thanks to the efforts of the European Parliament. We will monitor this process particularly closely as it concerns the rights of thousands of people, which must be respected across the territory of the European Union. The Thracian question is also just as important as relations between Turkey and the other neighbouring countries. Thank you.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n- (SK) We know what a testing time our friends in the Balkans have had. This applies both to Slovenia and Croatia, when they were attacked by Serbia and our sympathies lay on both sides. I must say that it was generous of the EU to accept Slovenia into the EU before all of the disputes between Slovenia and Croatia had been resolved and I believe that we should adopt a similar approach now towards Croatia.\nI am sorry that some politicians in Slovenia would now like to block the accession of Croatia, but this is what I am told by Mrs Jordan Cizelj, who has a sensible and, I would say, balanced approach to this political question. I trust that the informal agreement to be discussed further between Croatia and Slovenia under the auspices of the Commission will end in success.\nPresident\nLadies and gentlemen, allow me to explain a point in our Rules of Procedure. To speak during the explanations of vote, you must make a request to the services before the start of these explanations. Of course, I am very flexible and I allow the Members present to speak. But we are not using the 'catch the eye' procedure. You have to put your name down beforehand, prior to the explanations of vote.\nKristian Vigenin\n(BG) Mr President, I supported the report which was drafted on Turkey's progress as I believe that it is an objective report which offers both Turkey and the European Union the opportunity to forge ahead together with Turkey's preparation for membership. At the same time, I would like to express a certain dissatisfaction that the Chamber rejected the Socialist Group's proposal for it to be noted that Turkey's membership of the European Union is a goal shared by Turkey and the European Union.\nI believe that if we want more rapid progress from Turkey on the problems we see with its development, we must also be sufficiently open and not leave our partners in any doubt that the goal of this process is still actually Turkey's admission to the European Union. Turkey's role will grow and it is in the European Union's interest to have a non-Christian country among its Member States because this will give us a number of opportunities to conduct policies which are not possible at the moment. Thank you.\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the Attack Group is voting against the Turkey progress report because we do not see any progress. In fact, no progress could be achieved anyway. Turkey does not consider anything else other than its own interests, which do not include respect for human rights and the other European and Christian values. For more than 80 years Turkey has not fulfilled the Treaty of Ankara, according to which it owes Bulgaria USD 10 billion. Just imagine how it will comply with European regulations.\nYesterday Mr Wiersma mentioned that failure to acknowledge the 1915-1916 Armenian genocide is a problem. What should we say then about the acts of genocide against the Bulgarians which went on for 500 years, such as the massacres in Stara Zagora, Batak and Perushtitsa, described by the International European Commission in 1876? Mr Wiersma also said that there is no place in the EU for an Islamist Turkey; however, 20 years ago Turkish Islamists blew up coaches in Bulgaria, carrying women and children. Indeed, Turkey paid for monuments to be erected for these terrorists. This is modern Turkey, governed by a fundamentalist, Islamist party. These are its values and we think that they are not appropriate for Europe.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, 'to err is human, to persist is diabolical'. Never has this saying been more appropriate than in the lamentable saga of the accession negotiations with Turkey.\nSince 2005, you have been giving us the same negative reports on human rights, respect for minorities and the commitments made to the Union, whilst keeping the objective of accession intact.\nNow, in reality, that is not the problem. The underlying issue lies in the wish of Europeans no longer to accept the consequences of the freedom of establishment which would necessarily result from accession.\nIt also lies in the fact that Turkey belongs geographically, culturally, linguistically and spiritually to an area which is not Europe. Consequently, we must abandon this fiction; we must abandon this masquerade of accession and immediately begin practical discussions, in other words aim for a partnership built on our mutual and reciprocal interests. This accession procedure must be abandoned.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, in the crucial areas - human rights, the rights of minorities, religious freedom, freedom of expression - Turkey has made next to no progress, and in the last few days has even taken steps backwards.\nHowever, irrespective of this, the Commission claims that we are nevertheless obliged to take a positive position, as this is an important strategic partner. That is true, but that is a foreign policy matter. The fact that we need strategic partnerships is not a criterion for accession.\nHowever, I have nevertheless quite clearly voted in favour of the report, because the Socialist call to focus the report on accession was rejected. This report is a great success and a breakthrough for us, because it expressly avoids setting accession as a goal and because it talks about a long-lasting, open-ended process, the outcome of which is still unclear. We would have preferred a 'no' to full membership, but this wording nevertheless comes close to that and is therefore a great success for those of us who are happy to say 'yes' to partnership with Turkey as part of our foreign policy, but say 'no' to accession.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, I abstained from the vote on the report about Turkey because, while this report contained a complete catalogue of criticisms relating to the number of major wrongs that are still ongoing in Turkey, I believe that the only possible conclusion to this report surely had to have been that the negotiations must be stopped, and indeed on a permanent basis, because, after three years, there has still been no appreciable improvement in the situation in Turkey.\nI am, in any case, of the opinion that the European Union must remain a European project and that, therefore, there should be no place within the European Union for a country like Turkey, which is not a European country.\nYesterday, a Member from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament said that he would never accept Turkey being further Islamicised. Well, I hope that he and his group will also come out against the Islamicisation of Europe, although I shall not hold my breath.\nMartin Callanan\nMr President, this report sets out Turkey's progress towards eventual membership of the EU. That is an eventual aim that I support. However, I do have some concerns about Turkey's progress towards membership.\nOne of my concerns is the gradual erosion of the secular republican ideal and the growth of religion in politics. I am also worried about some of the human rights abuses in Turkey that have been documented and some of the actions that have been taken against minority communities. We need to see action over some of those areas before we can consider Turkish membership.\nHowever, it is also important for us to be honest with Turkey, and to say clearly and unambiguously that, if it fulfils all the conditions that other Member States have fulfilled, then it has the right to join. It is not right for individual heads of Member States to put unfair and unbalanced obstacles in the path of Turkish membership. If Turkey fulfils the conditions, then it has the right to join, and should be permitted to do so. We need an EU which is wider and not deeper.\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\n(EL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on Turkey due to the positive elements for Cyprus in paragraphs 32 and 40, even though I disagree with the content of Amendments 9 and 10.\nAmendment 9 introduces an unacceptable position on - albeit temporary - derogations from the principles on which the European Union is founded, including the four fundamental freedoms. This has been done at a time when negotiations are being held between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus, who are the only people who can decide on the matter.\nAmendment 10 contradicts the fact that the CFSP is part of the Community aquis for the EU and the Member States, and third countries cannot be given carte blanche to participate in planning and decision-making procedures.\n\u00c1rp\u00e1d Duka-Z\u00f3lyomi\n(HU) For the last three years, Macedonia has been a candidate country for EU membership. In spite of this, accession negotiations have not yet begun. Unless the European Union promptly takes decisive steps, the resulting loss of credibility could have destabilising consequences for the region. Macedonia has progressed a great deal in the last few years, achieving good economic results, moving closer to a functioning market economy and showing success in the field of lawmaking. Consensus has been reached among government and the opposition, civil society and public opinion in order to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria as soon as possible. Coexistence between national and ethnic communities has also been well organised. Greece's stubborn obstruction of the start of negotiations for accession is beyond comprehension. The naming of the country must not be an obstacle! Bilateral talks about the name can be held simultaneously. I support the report because it is an important message to the Macedonian people and will give a decisive impetus to starting genuine negotiations before the end of this year. Thank you very much.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, this report sends an important signal to a country that is playing a stabilising role, has exemplary legislation on minorities, has a broad government majority in which all nationalities are represented and has taken a clear European course under the leadership of Prime Minister Gruevski. I therefore gladly voted in favour of this report, and I believe that we should emphasise two points in particular: firstly, we want the Council and the Commission to tell us this year when accession negotiations are to begin and, secondly, we will not tolerate any bilateral troublemaking, and definitely not with regard to this bizarre name issue. The country is called Macedonia, whether that suits some people or not, and we must finally start to smooth this country's way towards Europe.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, I voted against Mr Meijer's report because I, and my party, are of the opinion that enlargement must be brought to a halt for an indeterminate period after the accession of Croatia. European citizens want nothing to do with any further enlargement in the short or medium term, and certainly nothing to do with an enlargement to include Turkey, of course. Yet it is time that this Parliament listened, for once, to those it is supposed to represent.\nThat being the case, I also oppose the commencement of accession negotiations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which this Parliament is calling for, as well as the granting of a European perspective to the entire Western Balkans. Some of these countries or entities are Islamic through and through and, as far as I am concerned, should not be allowed to join the European Union.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, I was very pleased with the vote today.\nI visited Macedonia very recently, on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, set up by Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister of my country, and saw a country with vibrant political parties and a fascinating tax policy, with flat taxes on both corporation and income tax, and a growing economy. It is a country that this coming month is going to have free, fair and honest elections - probably better than the ones we recently had in the UK, with postal votes. Such a country should be allowed to join the European Union, should it choose to, based on its own self-determination - which is why my previous colleagues should possibly reflect on this matter.\nToday we have seen a significant change because, up until this point, Greek Members of this House have been making themselves look completely absurd, and have been placed in a position of ridicule because of their arguments about the name of this country, which is the Republic of Macedonia.\nMartin Callanan\nMr President, the problem with speaking after Mr Heaton Harris is that he has made many of the same points I wanted to make on this issue. It seems to me blatantly absurd that Greece should continue to pursue this long-standing and, frankly, ridiculous tirade against the name of Macedonia. I have some beautiful counties in my constituency - Durham, Northumberland - and it really does not bother me too much if another Member State wishes to give itself the names of those fantastic counties.\nFor the accession negotiations to be held up not because of an ethnic dispute or a democratic dispute or a human rights dispute but purely because the country decides to name itself Macedonia, is patently ridiculous. I hope that the Greek Members will see the sense of this. I hope that Macedonia will be judged on free criteria that apply to everybody else and, if they fulfil those criteria, if they are a democratic, secular state, if they pursue the right human rights policies then, like all other Member States, they should have the right to join and not be subject to a ridiculous veto by Greece purely on the grounds of the name.\nMartin Callanan\nMr President, the Tamil Tigers have been designated a terrorist group by the EU and by the United States, but thankfully it looks as though their bloodthirsty campaign for an independent Tamil homeland may now be coming to an end. Sri Lanka deserves to live in peace, as we in Europe do.\nLike other colleagues in this House, I support a unitary state for Sri Lanka. I think it is also appropriate to place on record that I also think it is probably a good idea, within that unitary state, to grant the Tamils a degree of autonomy. I do not support the Tigers' campaign of violence, and I consider it actually essential that the Sri Lankan army be permitted to continue their military campaign against the Tamil Tigers.\nHowever, it is also appropriate to recognise that there is a humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka at the moment, and the aid agencies should be allowed access. So perhaps it is appropriate to ask for a cessation of the fighting, whilst aid agencies can get access and whilst civilians are allowed to leave the disputed areas. But after that we have to allow the army to continue their campaign.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, the growth of a corpus of international jurisprudence not anchored in any elected national legislature is one of the most alarming developments of our age. We are reversing not just 300 years of legal understanding of territorial responsibility, that is, that a crime is the responsibility of the territory where it is committed; we are also going back to the pre-modern idea that people who decide on laws should not be accountable to the people who live under them, but rather only to their own consciences.\nIt might seem very reasonable that, if a man like Milo\u0161evi\u0107 or a man like Karad\u017ei\u0107 is not receiving justice in his own country, we need to do something about it. But the objection to authoritarians like Milo\u0161evi\u0107 is precisely that they vitiated the democracy of their country and set themselves up as being above the law. If we replicate that problem internationally, we drag ourselves down to his level, as we did with the farce of a trial we had in The Hague, where for six years we had 27 changes of legal procedure, imposition of counsel and, ultimately, no conviction.\nI am not in favour of Mr Milo\u0161evi\u0107: he was a baleful and wicked Communist. But bad men deserve justice - bad men, especially, deserve justice - and when they do not get it, it is the rest of us who are diminished.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, we all know how important water is and in the developing world in particular, where access to water is very difficult, it is young girls and women who suffer the most. Their educational prospects are hugely diminished because they are the water-bearers, if you like. I saw this in India on a delegation visit and it is very important that we invest more in water management and make sure that it does not become an impediment to the educational progress of young girls and women.\nI particularly welcome the vote on paragraph 2, which declares that water is assumed as a public good and should be under public control regardless of how it is managed. It is a precious resource and it is there for the good of the public, not for individual control or profit.\nMarian Harkin\nMr President, I, too, am very supportive of our motion on the resolution of water and welcome our vote on paragraph 2, where we strongly declared that water is a public good and should be under public control. I personally strongly oppose the privatisation of water.\nWe have seen in recent times how the relentless pursuit of profit has brought the global economy to its knees. We certainly do not want to see the same thing happening where water is concerned. In order to ensure water quality and ongoing improvements in the distribution system, there needs to be continued investment in the transition system. There is no incentive for those in the private sector to do this because, of course, the temptation is simply to increase the price to the consumer, rather than invest in upgrading the transmission system. I have seen this happen in my own county of Sligo, where certain sectors of the community will end up paying more for their water than their fair share because there is simply a lack of investment by the private sector in the transmission system.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I voted in favour of this resolution and report, but I have some concerns. This morning, the Commission acknowledged that we do not know where the WTO is heading at this point, and therefore how it knits in with the strategic partnership.\nWe cannot allow a situation where either the strategic partnership arrangement - or indeed a world trade agreement - has a negative impact on Europe's food security concerns. I reiterate the issue around food production standards, which are higher in the European Union. We penalise our producers where they do not meet those standards. We cannot allow a situation where we bring in food from third countries - Brazil or elsewhere - which does not meet our production standards and which results in very unfair competition for producers of food and agricultural commodities within the European Union.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, of course a strategic partnership between the European Union and Mexico, and also, in fact, countries like Brazil, is a good thing and something that is in the interests of the EU. The report itself is framed in a largely balanced way, but what I would say is not in the interests of Europe - and this is something that will also give rise to a whole range of questions amongst the general public - is the provision in the report that calls for the conclusion of a mutual agreement on an immigration policy. This does not bode well and it is also the reason why I chose to abstain in the vote on this report.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n- (SK) I have also voted for the resolution on the situation in Tibet on the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising because the Chinese authorities have tightened the security in Tibet recently and have forbidden journalists and foreigners from entering the region.\nToday's debate in the European Parliament broadcasts the message that we are extremely concerned about the situation in Tibet, particularly the suffering and reprisals against innocent inhabitants.\nI call on the Council to set up a Truth Committee in accordance with the resolution, with the aim of finding out what really happened in the negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.\nI call on the Chinese Government to release immediately all persons who have been arrested merely for participating in a peaceful protest.\nMarco Cappato\n(IT) Mr President, I take the floor to express my satisfaction at the widespread support the Assembly has given to the motion that we have put forward with Mr Pannella and Mr Onyskiewicz, The motion does something different from what we heard from Mrs FerreroWaldner today; that is, it takes sides: the side of the search for truth, for the real reasons why talks broke down between the Chinese and the Tibetans, rather than looking at this from a neutral standpoint, as the Commission and the Council unfortunately continue to do, as if it were enough for us to simply hope for dialogue between two parties.\nI would like to stress that the behaviour of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament seems to me to be particularly hard to understand; first they were opposed to the debate, then they were opposed to my tabling a resolution, and then they actually voted against it, with Mr Ford offering a political explanation that we are passing too many resolutions on Tibet. Well, perhaps the party and Mr Ford do not understand - or else they understand all too well - that much more is at stake here; the freedom and democracy of more than a billion Chinese citizens as well as the Tibetan people.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, it goes without saying that I voted in favour of this resolution; although, of course, we cannot allow ourselves to think that this ultimately innocuous resolution will make much impression on the totalitarian communist regime in China, with whom we nonetheless are so happy to trade.\nWe would make more impact on the regime if this Parliament and the Council had the courage to state that the occupation and subsequent annexation of Tibet were contraventions of international law and, as such, cannot be recognised by the European Union. We must keep ramming home the message that Tibet must be an independent state and not an autonomous province of China and that a genocide and an ethnocide have been and are being carried out in Tibet.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":3,"2013-48":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n- (CS) Mr President, the extent of the financial crisis shows that neither banks nor consumers have been taking responsible decisions. I am strongly in favour of investing in financial education and I have also approved the report, but I cannot agree with superficial campaigns and general principles. I am concerned that we have analysis as the situation may vary between the Member States. I also know that the education must be narrowly focused on the specific requirements of a range of different groups of citizens in order to be really effective.\nI would like to bring to your attention some exemplary practice from the Czech Republic. For the last three years a single person has been running a website called www.bankovnipoplatky.com. This website makes a vital contribution to the financial education of those Czech citizens who are on the internet. This shows that this issue can be solved cheaply and effectively. What is missing, however, is education for schoolchildren and the older generation and we will not manage this without public funding.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n- (SK) The financial crisis has provided European consumers with an excellent opportunity to check their knowledge of financial matters. They have been given a wonderful lesson in the importance of their understanding of personal finance, in savings assessment, in the use of insurance products, and in reading of ordinary bank statements and receipts. All these subjects require a knowledge of financial terminology and its correct application in the management of their finances.\nFor this reason I consider the report from the rapporteur Mrs Iotova to be a further important contribution from the EP in the area of consumer protection and I have voted in its favour. I firmly believe that the education of consumers must begin in primary school. The Member States should include this topic, especially finance, in textbooks of primary and secondary schools. The DOLCETA and EUR\u00d3PSKY DI\u00c1R websites should receive more promotion.\nI appreciate activities of consumer organisations aimed at educating not only schoolchildren but also teachers. Various competitions, organised with great enthusiasm, attract large numbers of young consumers. Under my patronage and within the context of consumer education for schoolchildren, the Slovak Consumers' Association is organising an annual competition called Consumers for Life. The competition is generating enormous interest and the winners will be awarded a trip to the EP.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to offer my explanation of vote. I think there is probably a consensus in this room that the credit crunch and the liquidity crisis that we faced were caused by poor lending decisions taken, not only by banks - and those decisions were forced on them by the Clinton Administration and successive regimes which suggested that banks should lend to communities that were deemed uncreditworthy - but also by consumers making poor decisions. Having been encouraged to take out loans which they perhaps could not afford to repay, they then found themselves bearing the brunt of being unable to pay those loans.\nThis highlights the importance of consumer financial education. However, we seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that, whatever the problem, the EU has a solution. If you look at the solutions listed here on the Commission website, in the Europe Diary, they actually do very little to address the issue of consumer education. We should be looking at community organisations - like the Croydon Caribbean Credit Union in my constituency - that help solve these problems at the community level and not the European level.\nAstrid Lulling\n- (FR) Mr President, I asked Parliament to vote against the report since only a small minority voted for guide levels lower than those currently applied.\nI should like to point out that the Commission is not in favour of guide levels. In 2005, this House voted in favour of the Rosati report to abolish guide levels, and now we are taking a step backwards and reducing what we voted for. Most Members do not know what they voted for.\nNow we are reducing the current guide levels by 50%, which is to say, instead of 800 cigarettes, you have voted for 400, instead of 10 litres of spirits, you have voted for 5 litres, instead of 90 litres of wine, you have voted for 45 litres, instead of 110 litres of beer, you have voted for 55 litres. You are taking a step backwards and halving current levels for purchase by private individuals.\nI believe that the message to Commissioner Kov\u00e1cs and the Council of Ministers is, all the same, clear; there are only five Members who, in the end, are not going to vote in favour of my report. I would therefore like the Council to know that the Commissioner - as he said yesterday evening - agrees with indicative limits, but those which currently apply. This must be clear, Mr President; as rapporteur I must say this because it is essential in order to interpret the vote.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, it is my privilege to represent the handsome villages, the rolling downs and the bluebell groves of the English Home Counties. Like every other MEP for South-East England, I have received dozens of heartbreaking complaints from constituents who have suffered from the arbitrary confiscation of legally purchased alcohol and tobacco at the Channel ports.\nLabour's repeated hikes in the excise duty have served to drive income that ought to be coming to retailers in my constituency across the Channel. In time, jobs have also been pushed from the English Home Counties across the water. Revenue that ought to be coming to the British Exchequer is instead going to Continental treasuries.\nThe Government's response has then been to spend this dwindling income stream on hiring more and more excise officers in a futile attempt to police a system wherein most of our alcohol and tobacco had now become smuggled. That is the system which, to their shame, Labour MEPs have just voted to go back to. I think it is a disgrace.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, I would just like to echo the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers, Ms Lulling, the rapporteur, and my colleague, Dan Hannan, from the South-East of England.\nI, too, as a Member of the European Parliament for London - the greatest city in the world and capital of the greatest country in the world - have received a number of letters from constituents complaining about the heavy-handed approach of customs and excise as they have sought to go about their life and purchase alcohol and cigarettes from the continent and bring them back for their own enjoyment or the enjoyment of their family and friends.\nWhat do the customs and excise duty officers do in the United Kingdom? They pick on them, they ask intrusive questions, they haul them outside their vehicles, including pensioners, and they question them intrusively trying to find out exactly how much alcohol they drink and how many cigarettes they smoke in some sort of Gestapo-type inquisition. This is not the sort of behaviour we expect from law enforcement officers or excise officers in the United Kingdom or across Europe. Voting on the report today in the way we did, we have gone backwards - not only backwards before 1992 but to a period previously where there was no free movement, or very limited free movement, of goods.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n- (SK) I voted in favour of the report because the occurrence of excessive weight and obesity in the European Union has increased rapidly over the last two decades, with almost 22 million children overweight and this figure growing by up to 400 000 a year. More than 90% of childhood obesity cases are caused by poor eating habits and lack of exercise. These children suffer from serious nutritional disorders as well as joint disorders, lower immunity and an increased frequency of illnesses.\nFollowing the approval of the White Paper on 'A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related health issues', the present directive is good news for the fight against childhood obesity. I consider the scheme to increase the distribution of fruit and vegetables in European schools as necessary. We should also give more consideration to children in pre-school institutions. Counselling and creating good and balanced eating habits would contribute more to the development of a healthy population than this distribution scheme alone.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, the School Fruit Scheme as well as the School Milk Scheme and the scheme to distribute food to the most needy in the EU are marvellous EU initiatives which are very necessary and must definitely be supported. The distribution of free fruit and vegetables to schoolchildren will not only contribute to improving their health and changing their eating habits, but will also produce a positive social impact. I take a favourable view of a number of the European Commission's proposals, and consider that they will not cause major controversies. At the same time, I hope that the Commissioner, and in particular our Agriculture Ministers from the EU-27, will be slightly more generous. We must remember that the health of our children is at stake, and we should not economise on it.\nHynek Fajmon\n- (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in the same way as the other PPE-DE Group MEPs from the Czech Republic, against the Busk report on fruit and vegetables in schools. Parents should have primary responsibility for the healthy diet of their children. The European Union has no authority in the areas of either education or health. These matters must be administered by the Member States in accordance with their own national preferences. There is no rational reason for the European Union to be using taxpayers' money to pay for schoolchildren to have one piece of fruit per week. The EU should have concerns about genuine Europe-wide issues, for example, the removal of barriers to the four fundamental freedoms, and it should not contravene its own principle of subsidiarity.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, we have come a long way from the time when we were trying to keep schoolchildren out of orchards as they stole apples to the position today, where they have no interest in either apples or orchards. So this fruit scheme is welcome. The problem is that many parents are not aware of the importance of fruit and vegetables, so it will educate children and parents about the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption.\nOf course the key to the success of the scheme will be back in the Member States. We do not want a complicated, rule-based scheme. We want flexibility and we need to engage with teachers, in particular, who will deliver the fruit and vegetables, and with parents, so that they will ensure that children eat and enjoy fruit and veg and develop healthy eating habits throughout their life.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Mr President, teenagers weighing over 150 kg are a frequent sight in American cities. I do not want us to make the same mistake. The promotion of healthy eating models and the consumption of healthier, non-fattening products in childhood and in youth are an investment in the health of future generations. They will also produce savings in the costs of treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular and bone diseases.\nFor this reason, a scheme which is too modest will in practice be inefficient both in terms of health and in terms of economics. That is why I supported Amendment 7, which quadruples the minimum expenditure on fruit for schoolchildren, and thus guarantees one portion of fruit or vegetables at least four days a week, not just once a week. I am pleased that it was an amendment proposed by the Commission. The introduction of the scheme should not depend on parents' agreement to cofinance it. In particular, the children of poorer parents should have the chance to receive free fruit at school, and therefore the funding for the scheme should be increased.\nIvo Strej\u010dek\nMr President, let me explain why I voted against the report by Ms Pervenche Ber\u00e8s and Mr Werner Langen. There are at least three points I would like to stress.\nThe very first one is that the report calls for a higher and deeper coordination of economic and financial national policies. The second is that it will entail a highly coordinated fiscal policy that will need political unification, and the consequence of the political unification is the third reason why I voted against.\nI do not share the view that political coordination that eliminates natural differences among Member States will become the remedy and a healing answer to current European problems. The current European problems are the free movement of labour and the free movement of capital and services.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Viewed from the perspective of the 10 years of existence of Economic and Monetary Union, we need to ask ourselves whether we truly associate the euro sign with prosperity and stabilisation. There is no doubt that there can be only one answer to this question. While accepting that there have been some negative aspects to adopting the common currency, such as price rises during the initial stage, it must be emphasised that the euro has become one of the world's leading currencies.\nEconomic and Monetary Union has contributed to the growth of economic stability in Member States and has also had a favourable impact on international trade, thus benefiting the EU. The positive impact of the euro became particularly noticeable most recently, when the global financial crisis made us aware of the benefits of a stable exchange rate.\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) I would like to offer an explanation of my vote. I abstained from the vote on the application to strip Massimo D'Alema of his parliamentary immunity because, as a lawyer, I have certain reservations about our Parliament's authority in this matter, and I have no right or desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Italy.\nGyula Hegyi\n(HU) As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I welcome the result of the vote. We are talking about a technology that, if all goes well, can offer a partial solution to climate change, but we must not allow it to distract us from the importance of the entire climate package.\nThe new Member States, including Hungary, have significantly reduced their greenhouse gas emissions since the end of the 1980s. It would be a serious indignity if they were now punished by those who until now have increased their harmful emissions. For this reason, we would like to achieve a proportionate distribution of 10% of the revenues from the carbon trading scheme among those Member States where the per capita GDP is lower than the European Union average.\nSimilarly, we would allocate 10% to those who have reduced their emissions in the past 15 years. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has succeeded in gaining an exemption for long-distance heating systems from the Climate Change Levy, an achievement that must be maintained in the interest of millions of low-income European citizens. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, I join those mentioned above in supporting the report.\nWritten explanations of vote\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) I am voting for this measure. Kazakhstan has embarked upon a process of democratisation which is proceeding more slowly than the extraordinary economic growth that the country has experienced in recent years: there is a huge presence of foreign entrepreneurs investing large amounts of capital in this former Soviet republic. Within this context, the European Union ought to be constantly encouraging action targeted at increasing spaces of freedom, democracy and social justice for Kazakh citizens, and not just acting as a trade partner with growing interests. Economic growth and democracy ought to go hand in hand.\nDrago\u015f Florin David  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted during the consultation procedure for the report which approves the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Kazakhstan, and which also took into account the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU. This report will help stimulate cooperation between Romania and the Republic of Kazakhstan.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I voted for Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report on a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and Kazakhstan. I did this despite my continued reservations regarding the human rights record of the Government in Kazakhstan. It is important that Parliament and the Commission continue to monitor the situation in Kazakhstan and if it worsens or even fails to improve over the following twelve months we should take action to suspend this Agreement.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski and, therefore, for the conclusion of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Kazakhstan.\nI endorse the position adopted by the rapporteur, as well as that of the Council, in believing that the existence of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Kazakhstan prior to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria makes it necessary to draw up a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to allow the new Member States to sign it.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) The document in question does not fundamentally alter the content of the Regulation adopted by this Parliament in November 2006, which established a public-private partnership to develop a European air traffic management system.\nThe amendments now proposed to the Regulation aim to recognise SESAR (new generation European air traffic management system) as a Community body and allow the application of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities to its staff. Amendments are also proposed to the quantification of the Community contribution and its transfer to SESAR, with a maximum of EUR 700 million coming in equal parts from the budget of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and from the Trans-European Network programme.\nThe establishment of this company represents a dangerous precedent in the use of public money for private purposes. The public sector approach could have been taken to update and improve air traffic management systems, including with regard to reliability, thus guaranteeing the safety of professionals and users of airspace. We consider that these objectives will not be any better achieved by subjecting them to the interests and pressures of the private sector. For these reasons, we did not support this report.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - This proposal will have a substantial positive financial impact on the European air traffic control infrastructure modernisation programme. I support the proposal, the funds which are saved as a result of which will be invested in research, development and validation activities for the benefit of the entire community.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I would like to declare that I voted for the report by Mrs Niebler on the establishment of a joint undertaking to develop SESAR, the new generation European air traffic management system.\nIt is clear that large-scale Community projects in the sector of research and technological development demand joint efforts by the public and private sectors to produce lasting beneficial effects. In this case, I believe that new generation harmonised air traffic management is necessary to sustain the future growth of air traffic in European skies in economic and environmental terms. I therefore believe that we should warmly welcome the establishment of a joint undertaking in this sphere. I would, however, like to emphasise the need to learn from the past (I refer in this case to the liquidation of the joint undertaking Galileo) and to formulate a clearer definition of the status that this legal person ought to have, so that the benefits of scientific and technological progress are not hindered by problems of a procedural or legal nature.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mrs Wallis on the codification of the statutory markings for two- or three-wheel motor vehicles. As the Directive on statutory markings for vehicles of these kinds has been amended on several occasions, I believe that codification is necessary to achieve better understanding and accessibility for citizens to this Community legislation and, as a result, to the possibility of exercising the rights that are enshrined within it.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Mayer concerning the conclusion of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. I join with my fellow Member in his view that the proposal put forward by the Commission designed to replace the 1988 Lugano Convention can help to make the system for the recognition and enforcement of judgments swifter and more efficient in the areas affected, and in particular as regards the registration and validity of intellectual property rights.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nThis proposal is particularly important because the application of the regulation control procedure strengthens greatly the European Parliament's rights to observe how implementing measures are being applied. The European Parliament is granted the right to control a draft implementing measure. Moreover, there are additions to the basic regulations, granting the European Parliament the right to oppose a draft measure or propose amendments to a draft implementing measure.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I support the excellent report by Mrs Ber\u00e8s on the amendment of the Council regulation on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Following the introduction of the new comitology procedure, namely the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which extends Parliament's rights of oversight over implementing measures, I believe that we need to move forward with the general alignment process recommended by the Commission so that the new procedure can be applied effectively.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Between 2007 and 2008 Italy submitted applications in respect of redundancies in Sardinia (1 044 redundancies, 5 companies), Piedmont (1 537, 202), Lombardy (1 816, 190) and Tuscany (1 588, 461), following liberalisation in the textile and clothing sector. For a total of 5 985 redundancies in 858 companies, Italy is requesting a financial contribution of EUR 38 158 075.\nAs we have said before, this Fund cannot be used as a temporary 'cushion' for unacceptable socioeconomic costs resulting from the liberalisation of trade, particularly in the textile and clothing sector, and for the increasing insecurity of workers.\nGiven the (potential) expiry on 31 December 2008 of the double-checking surveillance system for exports of certain categories of textile and clothing products from China, we need to establish mechanisms limiting imports from any country to the EU.\nGiven the increasing number of companies closing down or relocating their production, the rise in unemployment and the increased exploitation of workers - particularly in Portugal - we need to halt the policy of liberalising world trade (instigated by the EU and the Socialist Government in Portugal) and defend production and employment with rights in the various EU countries.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund at the request of Italy offers an excellent opportunity to consider the reactions that will be needed in the future when the combination of the effects of globalisation and the economic crisis becomes even more acute. The format of this Fund, which is based on principles restricted in their scope, suggests that the European Union regards globalisation as a fact and its negative effects as a reality to which we must adapt and not oppose. This is a realistic view with significant potential to be effective, in my view.\nUnderstanding global changes and channelling efforts to react to these changes is more appropriate than believing in the possibility of avoiding these changes indefinitely, or even believing that this opposition is in itself virtuous. Adjustment to globalisation is a more appropriate political option than opposition to globalisation.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I support the report by Mr B\u00f6ge on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. I agree that the applications put forward by the four Italian regions comply with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in the EU Regulation and are in line with the reasons underlying the establishment of the fund. Today it is more necessary than ever to help those workers who have lost their jobs as a result of changes in the structure of world trade and to assist them to rejoin the labour market. I therefore support the application for mobilisation of the fund as expressed in my fellow Member's report.\nPhilip Claeys\nin writing. - (NL) I voted against the report for various reasons. There was no serious debate in committee. Only 7 out of the 28 members were present. In fact, it was not even possible to have a debate in the plenary meeting. Even before the vote in committee, when Mr Vanhecke was not allowed to learn the content of the report, it was discussed on Flemish public television. This is an outrage. Worst of all, though, is the conclusion of the report. They recommend that immunity be lifted, although Mr Vanhecke is not the author of the controversial text, and the Belgian Constitution clearly stipulates that only the author can be prosecuted if known.\nOn account of this crummy dossier, Mr Vanhecke is running the risk of losing his political rights, since the division of power and the Belgian court's independence only exist in theory. This matter is a political manoeuvre to single out a Flemish nationalist opposition leader. It is a disgrace that the EP should let itself be taken advantage of for this purpose.\nCarl Lang  \nin writing. - (FR) Both the Committee on Legal Affairs and the members of the political groups in plenary today have once again shown just how unimportant they consider impartiality and respect for the law to be, when compared with their obsession with getting rid of all those who are not part of their large family of Euro-federalists.\nMy colleague, Mr Vanhecke, is the target of a veritable witch-hunt in Belgium, the sole aim of which is to condemn him and force him to step down from the political stage. The European Parliament has forgotten that, when any request is made by a state to waive parliamentary immunity, it has a duty to apply the rules on the protection of MEPs in full, as laid down in its Rules of Procedure.\nLike Mr Gollnisch, who had his parliamentary immunity withdrawn solely for political reasons in 2006, Mr Vanhecke is himself the victim of what constitutes a very real assault, by the transformation of a legal issue into a political issue. It is unacceptable for an institution to claim, wrongly, to be democratic.\nFernand Le Rachinel  \nOn 13 October 1981, in the chamber of the French National Assembly, Andr\u00e9 Laignel, a socialist MP, issued his famous retort to opposition MPs, arguing that the nationalisation sought by the government was unconstitutional. In it he claimed that they were changing the debate from a legal one to a political one and, although they were entitled to do so, in this case, they were in the wrong legally, since they were in the minority politically.\nThe European Parliament has clearly taken this phrase to heart since it is getting rid of all those who dare to bother it with political views that are deemed not to be sufficiently federalist or pro-European for its tastes.\nMy colleague, Mr Vanhecke, is the target of a veritable witch-hunt within this European Parliament, to which he was legitimately elected. This institution is totally wrong and disgraced in accepting the unacceptable: lynching one of its members by flouting all the legal principles and legal protections relating to parliamentary immunity that are currently in force.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) In view of this report and the associated legal proceedings by the Belgian authorities, it must be stated unequivocally that the whole process - in particular the court proceedings - represents a purely politically motivated persecution of the former leader of the Vlaams Belang party, Frank Vanhecke. Mr Vanhecke received this writ two days after relinquishing the leadership of the party.\nIt is also clear that, with only six months to go to the European elections, the aim is to blacken the name of the Vlaams Belang candidate for political motives. According to the Belgian Constitution, it would also have been legally necessary to prosecute the author of the article, as his identity is known, rather than the publisher. I therefore vehemently stress that a politically motivated criminal prosecution should not be seen as providing cause to revoke the parliamentary immunity of Frank Vanhecke and that this witch-hunt by the Belgian justice authorities should be condemned in the strongest terms. A similar situation arose in 2003, when criminal proceedings were initiated against Daniel Cohn-Bendit from the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, although this was rejected by the committee at the time because there were suspicions of political motives. The situation is the same in this case, if not even more clear, which is why I am obliged to vote against the motion.\nFrank Vanhecke  \nin writing. - (NL) With not one of my illusions intact, I have to say that the European Parliament is turning into the disgraceful accomplice of a political lynch mob staged by the Belgian courts. In the presence of 7 out of 28 members, I was given 20 minutes in the Committee on Legal Affairs to defend myself in respect of a dossier of hundreds of pages long. In plenary - contrary to Rule 7 of our own Rules of Procedure - I have not had the opportunity at all of speaking up for myself.\nShould this happen in Russia, we would be up in arms. As for me, I keep my head up and continue to stand up for the free expression of opinion in Flanders and in Europe, not least where the issue of immigrants and the danger of Islam are concerned.\nMarco Cappato  \nin writing. - (IT) We in the Radical delegation, together with Marco Pannella, are voting against the Lehne report on the immunity of Mr D'Alema because it reaches illogical conclusions that can only derive from grounds - or reflexes - based on self-defence on the part of the Italian and European political class.\nThe report argues that the request for authorisation to proceed is unfounded because the intercepted material is already sufficient to support the charges against those under investigation. If the request by the public prosecutor's office were in fact directed towards charging Mr D'Alema, then the request would be unfounded, since Parliament does not have to take its decisions in accordance with Italian law.\nIf the intercepted material is truly useless, however, and the request unfounded and downright unnecessary, then why should the European Parliament have to decide 'not to authorise the use of the telephone interceptions in question and not to waive the immunity of Massimo D'Alema', as the report proposes? Why should we not follow the decision by the Italian Parliament, which in the context of this inquiry granted authorisation to proceed against Mr Fassino?\nWe willingly give credit to the ALDE Group for deciding, by choosing to abstain, not to align itself with the social unity of the Group of the European People's Party and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament on this dubious decision.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) In recent years, many new financial products have appeared on the market. The increasing complexity of these products makes consumers more and more defenceless, and frequently unable, without expert assistance, to determine which financing offer is best suited to their needs. This leads to many wrong decisions, especially by those less well off.\nIn Poland, we come across many instances of fraud, or simply of consumers making poor financial decisions, unaware of their implications. In these circumstances, financial education is essential and is the best way of protecting consumers from making wrong financial decisions.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nin writing. - (LT) Financial education is an important matter on the EU's agenda, especially in the midst of the financial crisis. Consumers need basic skills to help them choose and completely understand information and offers. Consumers are confronted with an ever growing supply of increasingly more complex goods and services. Meanwhile consumer information and advice do not correspond with the level of complexity of financial products. As a result of this situation, consumer vulnerability as regards financial matters is on the increase.\nIf gaps in the knowledge and financial competence of financial intermediaries and consumers are reduced, the risk of over-indebtedness, defaulting on payments or bankruptcies will also be reduced. There would also be an increase in lender competition and the overall efficiency of the market, as consumers with more knowledge can understand how various financial offers differ and can choose the one which best suits their needs. Knowledge and skills are not currently good enough to ensure that consumers can manage their finances properly.\nDrago\u015f Florin David  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for fair, unbiased and transparent financial education, as well as for the obligation on service providers in this area to offer proper, correct information. The information must be clearly distinguished from commercial advice or advertising. I hope that Member States will pay special attention to the groups most at risk, such as young people, pensioners or workers at the end of their career.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nLike many texts by this House, Mrs Iotova's report is an example of a seemingly good idea with a deceptive title. A cursory reading could lead one to believe that it is about protecting consumers by informing them of their rights and educating them about financial services; in short, about enabling them to have a responsible and informed relationship with their bank.\nIn reality, it is about turning people, from childhood (from primary school, so it seems), into perfect little customers of a financial system that is hungry for their savings but mean when it comes to lending, about foisting upon them all kinds of financial products which pseudo-initiates call complex and which, for the most part, are simply absurd, and about getting them sensibly to do their accounts and to prepare for retirement - with the banks, no less - even though they are also paying into compulsory public schemes.\nAt a time when the world's financial system has just shown how perverse it is, when the banks are grudgingly granting credit to enterprises and to individuals despite the hundreds of billions of public aid released, when workers and small and medium-sized enterprises are paying the price for ongoing financial folly and when the world's 'big players' pretend to be implementing reforms to prolong the life of this system, that this report is unconvincing is the least that can be said.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) In this time of financial crisis, this report has assumed new importance. This is because the mortgage crisis has revealed the dangers which can stem from failing to provide borrowers with appropriate information. It has also demonstrated consumers' inability to understand financial and economic information and the impact which changes in macroeconomic indicators could have on the repayment of their loans, and thus their lack of awareness of the risk of insolvency and excessive debt.\nThe report calls attention to the need to educate consumers and raise their awareness, and thus enable them to use their own knowledge to assess the financial products offered to them. I therefore support the initiative calling for the development of financial education programmes, especially those drawn up with potential users in mind, which take into account their age, income, education, and the area of their employment or interests. In addition, financial education programmes must be based on practical and real situations which we encounter in our everyday life.\nI hope that the report will help financial institutions, as well as consumers themselves, to understand the need for financial education. I believe that both can benefit, since insolvency and excessive consumer debt represent a problem for the lending institutions whose clients are experiencing difficulties with debt repayment.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Iotova report on consumer education on credit and finance. The world is heading into a period of huge financial uncertainty and many of Europe's citizens are fearful for their jobs, their savings, their pensions and their future. In such a period of uncertainty, consumer awareness of credit, debt and finance in general is surely more important than ever. This report calls for financial education to be tailored for specific groups and initiatives of this kind at an EU level are to be welcomed.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) I voted in favour of Mrs Iotova's report on improving consumer education and awareness regarding credit and finance. This is a necessary and welcome committee-initiative report.\nThe crisis caused by subprime loans (high-risk housing credit) has shown that borrowers have been kept too much in the dark. This lack of information and understanding has led to a situation where they are not properly concerned about the risks of insolvency and over-indebtedness. It also has to be said that consumer awareness and advice have not kept up with the pace of complex financial products.\nAn adequate level of financial know-how would, in many cases, reduce the risk of over-indebtedness and defaults on payments. It would also give consumers more scope for comparing the competitiveness of loan providers, which in turn would boost the viability of the market.\nI particularly support the suggestion in the report to include financial education more obviously in the national school curriculum and provide young people with all the financial information they need when embarking on their professional career in the face of new challenges with regard to how to use their income.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) We need fair treatment of investors and borrowers with long periods of limitation and a shifting of the burden of proof. Risks and costs must be apparent and comparable from the outset. In the case of Lehman Brothers in particular, private individuals were massively hoodwinked, for example being told that risky share certificates were secure and even being advised against selling just before Lehman went to the wall. Citizens are now faced with a wave of enforced conversions of their foreign currency loans or are required to pay up for the increased refinancing costs of the banks, contrary to public policy.\nIn this situation simply saying our citizens are stupid and calling for a general lesson in 'financial education' is a real slap in the face, particularly because not even the self-appointed financial gurus were able to see through the various layers of speculation. By calling for greater market efficiency instead of greater competition between lenders, this report continues to pay lip service to the myth of the self-regulating market. I cannot express strongly enough my rejection of this report.\nNicolae Vlad Popa  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of the report drafted by Mrs Iotova as it encourages Member States to develop educational programmes for pensioners who could be at risk of financial exclusion, as well as for young people starting their professional careers who are faced with the challenge of determining how to make appropriate use of their new income.\nConsumers who do not have any financial knowledge have problems in choosing products and services which best suit their needs. It is hard for them to evaluate the advice given and they may therefore be misled, falling victim to unfair selling practices\nI welcome the Commission's initiatives in the area of consumer financial education, in particular the recent setting-up of the Expert Group on Financial Education. I think however that this Expert Group on Financial Education should have clear responsibilities and powers.\nThe website already created by the Commission for educating consumers (http:\/\/www.dolceta.eu) has proved to be useful. I hope that this online tool will continue to be developed and updated in all the official languages.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) One of the most significant factors in the financial crisis has been the extreme ease of supply, or the excessive tolerance of debt. The conclusions that must be drawn from this are, firstly, that it would seem beneficial to impose an obligation on banks to ensure that those to whom they lend have the ability and are likely to repay the debt, given the facts of the crisis and its causes. At the same time, the lack of awareness among consumers as to the risks associated with credit - starting with the issue of changes in reference rates - suggests that any action aimed at consumers can and must be taken. Clearly, the pressure from an economic model based on maximum consumption will be difficult to counteract with campaigns of this type, but the effort to raise awareness is necessary and, in our opinion, useful.\nIn any event, this report should encourage greater transparency and the establishment of clearer rules in the conditions for services to be supplied by lenders. As for education on credit or any other type of consumption, the most important element is education in general which equips people with the tools to make daily decisions.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nin writing. - (LT) The trust of Europe's consumers is essential for the internal market to work efficiently and thrive. The common market encompasses almost 500 million consumers and an abundant variety of goods and services.\nSince 1997 the Commission has been using the Internal Market Scoreboard to monitor and draw attention to the way Member States are implementing internal market legal acts. The Consumer Markets Scoreboard determines problem areas, so it can be a universal and flexible means of reporting shortcomings worthy of attention to society, market subjects and institutions. In spite of this, the Consumer Markets Scoreboard has never been aimed at reporting to the consumer on the internal market and it is very important to rectify this. We must ensure that the market works as well as possible and that consumers are offered services whose price and quality match their expectations. For this it is not necessary to adopt more or stricter legal acts. Sometimes a more appropriate and more effective method may be the supply of information, education or self-regulation.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nThe single market serves not only businesses, which thanks to the successive elimination of barriers have the whole European market virtually within arm's reach. It was also created with consumers in mind, to enable them to enjoy the same standards in all Member States.\nThe Consumer Markets Scoreboard provides a tool for monitoring, analysing and identifying single market problems from the consumer's point of view. It uses indicators which include prices, complaints, satisfaction and switching. In spite of the fact that some outcomes shown on the Scoreboard seem questionable - for instance prices, because although simple to communicate and compare, the final price is affected by many variables, not always reflected by the Scoreboard - the indicators undoubtedly represent an extremely useful and appropriate method of assessing consumer outcomes in the single market.\nI should like to stress that this is the first version of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard. We can therefore expect a further version which will respond to our concerns. It is important for the Scoreboard to be written in comprehensible language, easily understood by a range of users, as its results are undoubtedly an interesting source of information about consumer outcomes in the single market.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council directive concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and would especially like to emphasis the importance of the adoption of Amendment 48 on guide levels for importing alcohol and tobacco. The reduction (50% lower than the previous indicative guide levels) is a step in the right direction towards a more responsible policy that takes public health seriously. However, we would like to point out that we only view this as a first step towards a more ambitious policy in this area. Furthermore, we are pleased that Amendment 60 and Amendment 68 have been rejected. As a result, excise duty will continue to be collected in the country of destination.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List has chosen to vote in favour of the report, as we are of the opinion that it will go some way to providing the opportunity to unite requirements for efforts at national level with regard to health policy with a free internal market. However, we have chosen to vote against certain proposals that have strong federalist overtones.\nThe June List feels that it is very important, for example, that Swedish alcohol policy can be pursued in accordance with the values and decisions of the Swedish Parliament. This requires the payment of excise duty in the recipient country for distance selling of alcohol, for example. This would not be the case if the amendments were voted through. On the contrary, it would mean, among other things, that the provisions concerning goods acquired by private individuals would be extended to apply to distance sellers, whereby excise duty is paid in the Member State in which the goods were acquired. As the costs incurred as a result of national public health problems, such as alcohol and tobacco-related diseases, are largely funded by the national levying of tax, the proposal concerning freedom from excise duty in connection with distance selling would hamper the prospects of the public sector handling public health problems effectively.\nThere is also a problem from the point of view of competition, as a distance seller can offer the same product as national players, but considerably cheaper, simply because excise duty is not paid in the same country. The June List is in favour of competition, but is of the opinion that players should compete on equal terms.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this directive, which will limit fraud and contraband cases that reduce state revenue. This modernised and simplified directive will reduce the obligations on operators while enabling them to combat excise fraud more effectively.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Our tax systems are very complex and to a certain extent are really only transparent to specialists. For this reason, every attempt to improve formalities and general conditions and to combat tax fraud is to be welcomed, provided that the taxation sovereignty of the Member States is preserved and no attempt is made to harmonise tax rates by the back door.\nIt is equally important to have clear rules for tax-free sales outlets and for travellers themselves. This project seems to have such an objective, which is why I have voted in favour of the Lulling report.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mrs Lulling concerning the general arrangements for excise duty. The provisions included in the Commission's proposal are certainly not sufficient to guarantee private individuals and companies in the EU the freedom to make cross-border purchases and sales of goods without encountering unnecessary tax obstacles.\nIn fact, although the Commission's proposal contains some improvements and changes, such as Article 37 (the tax markings that Member States may impose must not give rise to a double tax burden), there is a need to extend the provisions governing purchases by private individuals to distance selling, creating a genuine internal market in excisable goods purchased by private individuals for their personal use.\nLars Wohlin  \nin writing. - (SV) I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has finally changed its opinion and taken a more restrictive line with regard to alcohol. The result of today's vote on the Lulling report on general arrangements for excise duty will entail a 50% reduction in the guide levels for the import of alcohol. The opportunities for tax-free shopping at ports and airports will also be restricted. Another consequence of the report is that there will be nothing to prevent, for example, the collection of Swedish excise duty on goods ordered from another EU country via the Internet. On this matter, the European Parliament merely has an advisory role, but today's results nevertheless represent an important milestone.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - Far too little fruit and vegetables are eaten in the EU in relation to the WHO's recommendations of a minimum 400 grams per day. There is an obesity epidemic among children. This is particularly severe in Malta.\nA high intake of fruit and vegetables reduces the risk of a large number of diseases and prevents overweight.\nIn 2007, organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables underwent a fundamental reform towards greater market orientation. Fruit and vegetables are now fully integrated into the single payment system.\nExcessive weight entails a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and certain forms of cancer. A daily intake of 600 grams for people 11+ should be our target.\nThe Commission proposes an allocation of EUR 90 million in the Community budget. That corresponds to one piece of fruit one day a week for 30 weeks a year and covers children aged 6-10 years.\nTo achieve all the positive effects of introducing a school fruit scheme, there must be increased funding. A school fruit scheme should consist of a portion of fruit per pupil per day and not only be aimed at school children aged 6-10.\nRichard Corbett  \nin writing. - I welcome the adoption of the Report on the School Fresh Fruit Scheme. This proposal will produce real health benefits for millions of children across Europe.\nThe funding of free fruit for schoolchildren through the Common Agricultural Policy budget will show tangible benefits of the CAP to ordinary European citizens. The co-financing of the scheme by the EU and Member States will allow the extension of the existing Free School Fruit Scheme in England and the creation of similar schemes in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.\nAlthough a larger budget than the \u20ac90m envisioned by the Commission would be welcome - as the Parliament has pointed out in its Report through its request for an increase in the budget to \u20ac500m - the creation of this scheme will give children regular access to free fruit and its attendant health benefits, such as a lower chance of developing obesity, diabetes, and other serious diseases in later life. As well as providing immediate benefits for child health, the scheme will help to shape young people's views on nutrition, creating a healthier Europe and reducing the costs to State healthcare systems.\nHanne Dahl  \nin writing. - (DA) The June Movement has voted in favour of the report as a whole, despite the fact that, in principle, we are opposed to agricultural aid. We think that it is important to give children healthier eating habits. However, we are opposed to the requirement for the fruit to be of Community origin, as this makes it an indirect subsidy for European farmers. Finally, we would also like the fruit that is given to the children to be organic.\nDrago\u015f Florin David  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of better financing for this scheme, as well for defining more clearly the products which can be included in this scheme. The statistics show that there are approximately 22 million overweight children in the EU, with more than 5 million obese children, mainly due to the excessive consumption of products with high levels of fat, sugar and salt. Against this background, it is more than necessary for the EU and Member States to get involved by creating healthy eating habits, especially by providing a varied range of seasonal fruits. I also voted in favour of increasing the budget allocated to this scheme from EUR 90 million to EUR 500 million as the initial sum allocated to this scheme is equivalent to offering one portion of fruit to each child aged between 6 and 10 for a period of 30 weeks.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - Although I believe parents are ultimately responsible for the health of their children, and that any school fruit scheme must be flexible enough to accommodate local, regional and national conditions, I welcome this report.\nThere is an obesity epidemic among children and it is estimated that there are 22 million overweight children in the EU, 5.1 million of whom are considered to be severely overweight. Children in the EU are not eating enough healthy food and healthier options need to be made available. I hope this proposal can go some small way towards alleviating childhood obesity.\nLena Ek  \nin writing. - (SV) There is no doubt that children feel better for eating fruit. Apples, bananas and oranges prevent obesity and keep us healthy. In a way, therefore, it is understandable that many people have today voted in favour of a proposal in the European Parliament to subsidise fruit for school children in the EU.\nThe problem is simply that the responsibility for our fruit consumption does not lie at EU level. It is first and foremost the parent's responsibility to instil good eating habits in their children. In second place the responsibility lies with the municipalities and in third place with the State. As a federalist, I would like decisions to be made as close to citizens as possible. This is, in fact, something the EU wants too. According to Article 5 of the EC Treaty, decisions that it would be more appropriate to take at a lower level shall be taken at that level. I therefore voted against the Parliament's proposal to increase the fruit budget from EUR 90 million to EUR 500 million.\nIn the EU, we should work to lower emissions and increase mobility and to combat crime. More fruit, better exercise and fewer sweets are issues that are much better dealt with by schools, parents and local politicians.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Busk report on the proposal to set up a scheme to distribute fruit in schools because I feel that Community support for the free distribution of these products to children is vital in promoting healthy eating habits in the European Union and, consequently, improving the health levels of Europeans.\nThe increasing prevalence of obesity and overweight among the European population, particularly in infancy, is the result of combining poor eating habits with a sedentary lifestyle. We therefore urgently need to develop effective measures for combating this epidemic, not least by promoting healthy eating habits in the early years of life. In cooperation with families, schools can play a fundamental role in getting children to eat healthily.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We support this report to which we contributed several proposals. Despite opposition from the European Commission, the report defends the distribution, free of charge and on a daily basis, of fresh fruit in schools to improve the quality of health and life of children, particularly children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.\nOur support for this scheme takes account of the need to encourage young people to appreciate fruit and vegetables, which will have a very positive effect on public health and the fight against child poverty. However, in order to be effective, this scheme must be extended to a wider range of children which means that, in the future, it must be extended to other age groups and deprived sectors of society. This scheme must incorporate Community preference, in other words priority for national and local production, and its financing must come from the Community to ensure greater social cohesion.\nThis scheme could serve as an example of a policy ensuring true solidarity between countries. We hope that all this does not simply end up as another propaganda campaign and that agreement can be reached in the Council to make the necessary funds available so that it can effectively applied in all countries.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I support the Committee on Agriculture's proposal for a School Fruit Scheme but along with my British Labour colleagues I want to retain an element of national co-financing to ensure an increased coverage. Equally I support the reference to organic, local and regional products, but this cannot entirely replace the necessity of best value for money or variety. In the South West of England I would welcome the exchange of our splendid local varieties of apples and pears for the bananas of Cyprus and the Canaries.\nNeena Gill  \nin writing. - I am very pleased that the health of our children is being tackled at European level.\nObesity amongst children is a growing concern in Europe, and even more so in the UK where almost 25% of the population is obese and 10% of children are overweight. This issue is a serious concern to many of my constituents and I welcome an initiative to tackle it.\nAddressing eating habits in childhood is key to preventing obesity later on in life, and the consumption of fruit and vegetables is proven to reduce the rate of obesity and cardio-vascular diseases.\nIn the UK, the appeal of convenience food is leading to the development of bad eating habits, which in turn cost our health service an annual GBP 6 billion. It is clear, then, that supporting this initiative also makes good economic sense.\nThis is why I voted in favour of this report and I hope that Member States will make effective use of the funds to fight what is becoming a real problem for our children.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) An already bad idea from the Commission has been made even worse by the amendments tabled by the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, particularly when the committee wants to increase the expenditure ceiling from EUR 90 million to EUR 500 million at tax payers' expense. The committee emphasises that this only concerns fruit that originates within the Community. Fruit originating elsewhere is totally unimportant.\nThe committee's proposal, which, in a big brother-like manner, states that seasonal fruit should be distributed, giving preference to a varied range of fruits so as to enable 'children to discover different tastes', is completely ridiculous.\nOnce again, the European Parliament is interfering in education policy. Member States are to 'incorporate these measures in an educational manner into teaching packages on health and nutrition in schools'.\nThe majority in this European Parliament have a distorted view of the common agricultural policy. According to MEPs, taxpayers have a horn of plenty with money to throw into agricultural policy and rural development. Thank goodness that the European Parliament does not have the power of codecision in these areas - and that is how it should stay.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) I am very pleased that we have today adopted the School Fruit Scheme. In the opinion on health issues associated with nutrition, overweight and obesity, adopted by the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I wrote that special importance must be attached to the problem of obesity among children and the young, since overweight is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, hypertension and some tumours.\nThe School Fruit Scheme aims to promote good fruit and vegetable eating habits and to teach schoolchildren about healthy eating. Eating habits are formed in childhood, and it has been demonstrated that people who learned in childhood to eat a lot of fruit and vegetables will keep to a similar diet in their adult life.\nThe distribution of fruit to schoolchildren is certain to contribute to increased consumption of fruit and vegetables among the very young, so that the impact of the School Fruit Scheme on preventing an obesity wave among European children and young people is certain to be significant. What is more, the impact will be greater if eating fruit in school is more than symbolic. I therefore note with satisfaction the vote in favour of a significant (fourfold) increase in the budget allocated to the scheme.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Busk report and wholeheartedly support this initiative to provide fruit to Europe's schoolchildren. My own country, Scotland, has one of the poorest health records in Europe and the government there is actively pursuing a number of policies targeted at improving the health of children in the hope that this will improve their wellbeing in later life. This EU initiative will complement the Scottish government's work and is therefore welcome.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nin writing. - (PL) In my view, the School Fruit Scheme is of more than symbolic significance - 'here is the European Union giving something to children' - it is an initiative promoting good eating habits. It seems to me that we should include secondary school children in it as well. I should like to stress that in this way we would be helping poorer families, which are frequently unable to give fruit to their children. Naturally, it offers an additional opportunity to farmers and fruit growers. Fruit and vegetables, and in my country especially apples, are relatively easy to distribute. However, we must remember that the fruit must be of good quality, clean and fresh. We must also prepare our schools to put the scheme into effect. Realistically, it cannot be introduced earlier than the start of the 2009\/2010 school year.\nAs far as cost is concerned, it is not astronomical: the Commission's proposal assesses it at EUR 90 million, and it could perhaps be higher. This is true, but at the same time we should be aware of the high cost of treatment of diseases associated with overweight and obesity. Let us not make this scheme a one-off initiative, just for show. Let us involve in it the national, regional and local authorities responsible for education. Let us also retain a sensible flexibility when it comes to the details of selecting fruit or vegetables, remembering that it is intended to promote our children's health in the best possible way.\nTunne Kelam  \nin writing. - Having decided to vote against the report by Niels Busk, I declare my full support and sympathy for the topic debated - to provide more fruits for the schoolchildren in Europe. Increased obesity among young people is an ominous problem.\nHowever, I support first and foremost the principle of subsidiarity. I am absolutely convinced that Member States and their Governments should be trusted in taking good care for their young generation. It is not the business of the EU to regulate concrete problems like the current one. The initiative in question is undoubtedly based upon good intentions. But starting to solve such problems with all-European regulations is neglecting the role and responsibility of the very actors in question: parents, schools, local governments and national governments. I am sure that they all have the same concerns and motivation to address the need to increase fruit consumption in their schools.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this scheme which provides funding for free fruit and vegetables for schoolchildren. This can only produce positive results, helping to reduce obesity among children by moving closer to the 'five a day' recommendation, which is why I have voted in favour of it.\nErik Meijer  \nin writing. - (NL) In my explanation of vote on the 2009 budget of 23 October 2008, I drew your attention to the value of the EU's involvement in providing schoolchildren with fruit. A school fruit scheme can be useful to prevent children from becoming ever more obese and unhealthy. The question is why the EU should take care of this, rather than the municipalities that organise education. Payments are currently made from the EU fund to the Member States, which are obliged to add a further sum, with the municipalities then being responsible for implementing the scheme. This way of working creates much unnecessary administration and time-consuming red tape.\nDuring the recent budget discussion, the amount was doubled to EUR 182 million, and thanks to the Busk report, this sum will be increased to EUR 500 million in future. The Dutch Agriculture Minister, who is in favour of the present scheme, has announced in the press that she considers this enormous increase to be of no value and will be speaking out against it. Since it is not Parliament that decides on this, but the Council, it is to be expected that this increase will not materialise. Meanwhile, though, school fruit has, in the public mind's eye, come to represent EU priorities that are wide of the mark.\nDumitru Oprea  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of Mr Busk's report, based on the conclusions from healthcare organisations about the illnesses from which modern man suffers, many of which are due to poor diet. Eating fruit may help to prevent and\/or cure these illnesses, thanks to the vitamins it contains.\nWe need to teach our children how and what to eat. This is why I believe that this may also involve education about diet, all the more so as the World Health Organization recommends that children up to the age of 11 should eat at least 400 grams of fruit and vegetables every day. On the other hand, an explosion is being observed in the number of children 'enjoying' an unhealthy, absurd and unsuitable diet, with the blame for this lying not just with the school or family, but with all of us, society as a whole. This kind of dietary behaviour needs to be stopped immediately.\nSchool is one of the areas responsible for forming habits, which should allow us to adopt again the habit of eating fruit. For this reason, I give my total support to the distribution and eating of fruit in schools. This scheme should be on the list of main priorities in terms of decision-making factors so that it can be implemented as soon as possible.\nNeil Parish  \nin writing. - Conservative MEPs abstained on the Busk Report on the Commission's proposal to introduce an EU-wide School Fruit Scheme. While very keen to see healthy eating habits promoted among youngsters in the UK and the EU, we have reservations about the budgetary allocations proposed in this report, which are considerably greater than the EUR 90 million proposed by the Commission. Depending on the result of the votes, the Parliament will call for budgetary allocations of at least EUR 360 million and even as much as EUR 500 million. We believe that it makes more sense to start the scheme with a lower level of financing and review subsequently the budgetary needs in the light of experience gained - as argued for in the Commission's Impact Assessment.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) The market for fruit and vegetables in the EU is currently regulated by demand. The introduction of the School Fruit Scheme will support the consumption of fruit and vegetables in the EU and will increase the demand which will not only boost public health, but it will also benefit European fruit and vegetable growers.\nA high intake of fruit and vegetables reduces the risk of many diseases and prevents the occurrence of excessive weight and childhood obesity. The health perspective is therefore the most important reason for a School Fruit Scheme supporting the consumption of fruit. As eating habits are created in infancy, it is my view that it is not enough to start in schools but rather in pre-school institutions.\nHowever, the EUR 90 million which the Commission is proposing to allocate from the Community budget will provide only one piece of fruit per week, which is not enough either to change eating habits or to make an impact on public health.\nI consider a realistic budget for this scheme to be EUR 500 million, as proposed by the EP. Such a sum would provide one portion of fruit per pupil per day and at the same time would enable the scheme to target not only schoolchildren between the ages of 6 to 10 years but also younger children in pre-school institutions.\nI firmly believe that the money spent on the School Fruit Scheme to support the consumption of fruit in schools across the EU will bring savings in healthcare costs for the Member States and I have therefore voted in favour of the report by Niels Busk.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The merits of the scheme proposed in this report are clear. Encouraging (and in some cases simply ensuring) the consumption of seasonal fruit by the youngest in society has virtuous aims, both immediately, by promoting a diet rich in variety, and in the future, in terms of developing healthy eating habits. There are, however, two points which must be raised.\nMultiplying the guarantee mechanisms to ensure that the fruit offered is produced in Europe makes it feel like the motives behind this action are not just the diet of young people but primarily the promotion of European agriculture. Furthermore, although the correlation between this issue and the common agricultural policy is clear, as already mentioned, the need to tackle this at Community level is dubious. Obviously, the choice between distributing apples or Rocha pears should be left to the Member States. However, we do doubt whether there is a need to establish a Community scheme in this respect.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nin writing. - (FR) On 1 February 2007, when my report on promoting healthy diets and physical activity in the EU was adopted, the European Parliament delivered a number of strong messages, including the fundamental role of education in relation to nutrition and health in order to prevent overweight and obesity, which affects more than 5 million children, and the call for the Commission and the Council to take the necessary measures, within the framework of the review of the CAP (common agricultural policy) in 2008 and 2013, to enhance healthy nutrition incentives within the framework of rural development policies.\nThe Commission seems to have heard the message with this European scheme to distribute free fruit in schools for children aged six to ten from 2009\/2010. Now it is up to the 27 Member States to play the game. Obviously a lot of time, money and staff will be needed and menus will also need to be changed in many school canteens for the WHO (World Health Organization) recommended daily intake of five fruits and vegetables (400 grams) to become more than just an advertising slogan written in small print on television screens.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Busk on the scheme to promote the consumption of fruit in schools. It is clear that the children of the European Union eat little fruit or vegetables, partly because of the bad diets that they have in school canteens. High consumption of fruit and vegetables, however, would reduce the risk of contracting serious diseases and would prevent children becoming overweight and obese. Furthermore, eating vegetables from childhood is a good habit that continues throughout life.\nI also agree with the rapporteur that the resources earmarked by the Commission for this scheme are totally inadequate. In fact, the proposed subsidy allows the provision of only one portion of fruit one day a week. It should also be said that I am, to tell the truth, pleased with the fact that the Commission is in any case taking to heart the various existing experiments with a view to making qualitative improvements to the scheme.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) In Sweden, we usually tell our children that fruit is nature's own sweets. I like fruit very much myself and I think that it is a good thing for Europe's children to eat sufficient quantities of these wholesome foods. Thus far, I share the rapporteur's views. That said, the responsibility for our schoolchildren eating a sufficient quantity of apples and bananas must, nevertheless, rest with the children's parents and, possibly, the municipalities providing their education. The European Union must not play the part of a supranational fruit police. Let us instead concentrate our energy and our resources on more pressing tasks.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I fully support the Commission's proposals on distributing free fruit and vegetables in schools, as part of the strategy on tackling obesity among children. Not only do I fully support the use of EU money to tackle a priority public health concern faced by all Member States, but I also support the strong social element attached to the proposals, in that they will allow Member States to support children from more deprived backgrounds who tend to eat less fruit and vegetables and who tend to be more at risk from obesity. Furthermore, this is the first time that CAP money will be used to tackle a public health concern, a sign of a change in thinking on the aims of the CAP.\nI am happy that Parliament has sent a strong message to the Commission and to the Council, in supporting an increased budget enabling more children to benefit from the scheme. However, I do not agree with Parliament's position stipulating that fruit and vegetables should only come from the Community. We should not lose sight of the fact that this scheme is about promoting a wide variety of fruit and vegetables to school children and tackling obesity.\n(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1)).\nBart Staes  \nin writing. - (NL) The battle against the bulge must start from a young age. The supply of fresh fruit in schools can be a huge incentive to eat healthily. This is why this scheme, which makes at least one piece of fruit available to each child between the ages of 3 and 10, is to be welcomed with open arms.\nIt is estimated that in the European Union, 22 million children are overweight, 5.1 million of whom are obese. Not only does this create many health problems, it also increases the cost of healthcare in the Member States. If the Commission endorses Parliament's proposal to increase the budget from EUR 90 million to EUR 500 million, every child can learn good eating habits from a young age. This gives them more chances of sustaining these habits and preventing obesity as a result.\nThis report also comments on the composition of the fruit supply. The Member States should give preference to locally produced and seasonal fruit. The report calls for health and eating advice for children, together with information about the characteristics of organic farming. I am pleased with the content of the report, and for that reason, I voted in favour.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - I support the principle of trying to make fruit more accessible to young people in schools. The successful Scottish project of trying to get more fruit and vegetables available through schools has seen record numbers of children eating more healthily. The programmes have been targeted at those most in need and I would hope that this scheme would target the poorest and most vulnerable children first.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament agree with the analysis of the situation in the euro area. We appreciate the fact that social aspects of the cooperation have been highlighted and that the problems with growth are emphasised. At the same time, we do not support paragraph 40 of the report, which states that Member States outside the euro area that fulfil the Maastricht criteria and have no derogation in the Treaty should adopt the common currency at the earliest possible opportunity.\nWe are of the opinion that this lies outside Parliament's competence to comment on. We respect the decision taken by the Swedish people in a referendum and would like to emphasise that this is a matter that should be dealt with in the respective Member States.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We all voted against this report which deifies the Stability Pact, fails to see the consequences of the current serious economic and social situation, ignores the worsening social and regional inequalities and forgets the rise in unemployment and poverty.\nIt is unacceptable that this report insists on the false independence of the European Central Bank, instead of defending its democratic scrutiny and the alteration of its objectives to take account of the need to concentrate on production, creation of employment with rights and improvement of people's purchasing power, particularly among workers and pensioners.\nRegrettably, the proposals tabled by our Group were rejected, specifically those criticising the fiscal and competition policies and drawing attention to the growth in job insecurity and low pay and to the consequences of deregulation and liberalisation.\nIt is also regrettable that our proposal to repeal the Stability Pact and replace it with a new Strategy for Solidarity, Development and Social Progress was rejected.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nThe least one can say is that the 'generally positive' assessment drawn up by the rapporteurs on ten years of Economic and Monetary Union does not seem completely objective. Not surprisingly, the few problems identified are analysed as being the fault of the Member States and of a lack of European integration.\nThe truth is that the introduction of the euro automatically led to an explosion in the prices of convenience goods and to a fall in the purchasing power of workers. The truth is that the Stability Pact is a budgetary and social Malthusianism. The truth is that the lack of an exchange rate policy and the overvaluation of the euro have undermined the international competitiveness of the euro area. The truth is that a single monetary policy and a single key interest rate for 11 or 15 economies with very different structures and levels of development are inevitably as ill-suited to the needs of each individual one of these economies as they are to those of the whole.\nThe euro has failed to bring the promised prosperity to its members, who, for the most part, are now in recession. This is because the euro, in its conception and in its operation, is not an economic tool. It is above all a powerful political tool for destroying the independence of nations.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this report, which calls for improved economic coordination in order to try to prevent a prolonged, deep recession. This roadmap should improve the monitoring of the financial crisis, and should provide valuable support to the economy.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mrs Ber\u00e8s and Mr Langen which takes stock of a decade of Economic and Monetary Union. I fully agree with the fact that the European Parliament, the only European body directly elected by the people, has played a very important role over the first decade of Economic and Monetary Union. Parliament acts as co-legislator in the field of the internal market, in particular with regard to financial services; it conducts dialogue on the coordination of economic policies through the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs; it has a dominant role in monetary policy, with the appointment of the members of the ECB's Executive Board. These are only a very few of the primary functions carried out by Parliament over recent years. I would like to end by congratulating my fellow Members on the report, particularly in light of the emphasis placed upon the enlargement of the euro area as a springboard for the EU's new economic future.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) The 'EMU@10: successes and challenges after 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union' report is one of the most important reports presented to this plenary. At a time of financial difficulties, it provides a new framework for discussions about the economy. The report offers a detailed analysis which enables us to see the positive and negative aspects of Economic and Monetary Union. It contains interesting conclusions about the common currency, the euro.\nThere can be no doubt that the introduction of the euro has been a huge financial success for the EU. It must be acknowledged that it has withstood a lot of market turbulence. However, the common currency does not affect all regions in equal measure. Differences in the development rates of different European Union states are becoming increasingly more pronounced. Today, at a time of financial crisis, coordination of economic policy has become a necessity. We must also abide by the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact.\nIt is extremely important to support the independence of the European Central Bank. Its powers must be limited to monetary issues, that is to maintaining price stability, and its exclusive power to set interest rates.\nFor these reasons, I support adoption of the report.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - The Conservative Party has recently published \"Fair Play on Women's Pay: A six-point plan to overcome the gender pay gap\". The Conservative Party wants to help to stamp out the pay gap once and for all.\nThis includes compulsory pay audits for employers who are found to discriminate, new measures to help women into work and up the careers ladder, and extending the right to request flexible working to all parents of children aged eighteen or younger.\nEqual pay is crucial for a fair and equal society, but national governments and parliaments are generally best placed to act in ways that are most effective for their own societies and economies. This recommendation by the European Parliament is over-prescriptive at the EU level.\nThe Bauer report is not one we can support, however, as the request for a new legislative proposal on equal pay is based on Article 141(3) of the EC Treaty which is covered by the Conservative Party's pledge to opt out of the Social Chapter.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic  \nin writing. - (SV) The gender pay gap is a huge problem and something that both individual workers and social partners have a particular responsibility to address. This type of discrimination violates basic provisions of the Treaty and employers who do not take responsibility for this should even now be prosecuted in court.\nHowever, this is contrary to our fundamental view of the Swedish labour market and the parties' responsibility, as per current legislation, to create new legal instruments to direct wage formation at EU level or by means of a state wage policy. Wage formation is not, and should not be, an EU competence.\nAs our request to remove references to new legal instruments for directing wage formation at EU level was given a hearing, we have chosen to vote in favour of the report as a whole. Unfortunately, the report still contains a number of undesirable details, such as the proposal for an 'equal pay day'. Parliament's persistent habit of requiring the proclamation of days, weeks and years for various phenomena is placard politics which does not distinguish between different subject matter. On the contrary, the subject matter itself is viewed in a banal and casual way.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) The gender pay gap is a problem throughout Europe. The Community legislation on equal pay for men and women, in force since 1975 and revised in 2006, is clearly inefficient.\nWe applaud the rapporteur for asking the Commission to submit a legislative proposal by 31 December 2009, based on the recommendations contained in the report. We also congratulate her on the responsible and serious way in which she has presented her recommendations, which are focused on the central issue, unlike some of the amendments tabled by the socialists which do not help to solve this problem as they consist of details from political folklore or recommendations which are unfeasible given that they fall outside the competence of Member States.\nIn Portugal, between 2005 and 2006, despite identical circumstances, the gender pay gap increased by 8.9% under the current government. The unemployment benefit paid to women in 2007 was 21.1% less than that paid to men. The amounts paid to women, including with regard to extended benefits, are below the poverty threshold and actually fell between 2006 and 2007.\nThe Portuguese Social Democrat MEPs support this report. In spite of socialist folklore, we do not confuse the essential with the additional and we will not allow the additional to destroy the essential, namely to change an unacceptable situation of discrimination.\nBrian Crowley  \nin writing. - The principle of equal pay for equal work helps to remove discrimination against women in the workplace. But we must go further in protecting women's rights. The aim of this report is not only to enhance the value of women's work but improve the quality of public services also.\nMore than 30 years after the introduction of equal pay legislation, women in the EU earn 15% less than men and progress has been slow in closing the gender pay gap with men. Twenty years ago, the gender pay gap in Ireland was about 25% and now the gap is 13%. Even with this progress, the gender pay gap remains a serious cause of concern. New challenges arise, particularly in this economic climate, which need to be identified and solved.\nMany women continue to be concentrated in a narrow range of occupations, in part-time and low-paid work, and in jobs where their skills and contributions are undervalued. We need a multifaceted approach. We need to increase the labour market participation by women. We need to improve child care services and child benefits to help reintegrate women with children back into the work place.\nDrago\u015f Florin David  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of abolishing direct and indirect discrimination, social and economic factors, as well as segregation on the labour market. The report urges a neutral professional evaluation which should be based on new systems for classifying and organising staff, on professional experience and productivity, evaluated primarily from a quality perspective. It is also being proposed to arrange a European Equal Pay Day to make the general public and employers aware of wage inequalities.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - I supported this report as we need proper enforcement of existing laws on the principle of equal pay. However, while the enforcement of existing laws on the principle of equal pay for the same work and for work of equal value is crucial to achieving gender equality, the restoration of choices to all women is also very important. There needs to be flexibility in the system and a proper work\/life balance. Women must be given: the choice to marry or not; the choice to have children or not, to have a career, to have further education or not, to stay at home, to go out into the workplace, to start a business or to have access to property. The challenge is to ensure that economic pressures do not remove these choices.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Bauer report on equal pay for men and women because it is unacceptable that women earn less (the difference in the EU is 15%), even though they possess more skills (58% of graduates and 41% of doctorate holders are women).\nThe report suggests ways of revising the current legal framework, including proposing the introduction of penalties for non-compliance and calling for greater dialogue with the social partners. The principle of equal pay for equal work or for work of equal value is not just a fight of women, but of all society. Women are needed in all areas of business, particularly in those traditionally regarded as masculine. This is proven by the fact that women make good managers.\nIn the current context, and to achieve the growth and employment objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, the active participation of women is essential.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Although the report has been adopted with most of the amendments tabled during the debate in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, which made it into a good report, the PPE-DE Group could not refrain from weakening its scope during the vote in plenary, knowing that an absolute majority of 393 votes was needed.\nAs a result, certain proposals have regrettably fallen and are not contained in the final resolution, including some detailed recommendations on the content of the new proposal requested from the European Commission on compliance with the principle of equal pay for men and women.\nHowever, this is still a positive resolution which we voted for. We would stress the need for measures which value work, which give priority to employment with rights and a fair distribution of wealth, which help to overcome pay differences and stereotypes linked to certain tasks and business sectors that discriminate against women, and which value the professions and activities in which women predominate. These particularly include the retail and services sectors, and industries such as cork, textiles and clothing, footwear, food and others where very low pay exists in the professions and categories dominated by women.\nNeena Gill  \nin writing. - I am speaking on this today as the gender pay gap is a concern to many of my West Midlands constituents, as well as to most of us here.\nThe gender pay gap in the UK is wider than the European average and women have recently received the dire news that this gap is now increasing.\nEquality between men and women is a fundamental right and a democratic necessity. Only with the equal participation of all our citizens will we achieve the EU objectives of growth, employment and social cohesion.\nEconomic arguments to change are compelling: unlocking women's potential could contribute up to 2% of GDP. In times of financial instability, it is crucial to ensure that our economy uses all the resources it has. It is also crucial to make sure that women do not suffer even more.\nAlthough legislation has been passed and initiatives have been proposed, it is not enough. Many of my constituents are in favour of stronger action to fight the gap.\nThis is why I welcome this report and proposals to introduce pay audits and attribute more power to equality bodies.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) After careful consideration, the June List has chosen to vote in favour of the report. Increased equality on the labour market, reduced pay gaps between professional women and men and equal pensions are important objectives in a just society. Thus, the ideas for more statistics, revised legislation and training to counteract common notions in society concerning gender are important.\nHowever, the June List is critical of the EU's seemingly insatiable need to incorporate more and more policy areas within its sphere of competence. It is our fundamental view that issues relating to regulation of the labour market should primarily be dealt with by individual Member States and should not be taken up at EU level.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The principle of equal pay for men and women is explicitly stated in the Treaty of Rome and it is therefore a scandal that such huge disparities between the genders still exist across the EU. It is therefore essential that the European institutions take real action in this area and I accordingly voted in favour of the Bauer report.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - The pay gap, which was one of the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs but which has not been adequately addressed by some Member States, has a serious impact on the status of women in economic and social life. I support this report, which will address women earning 15-25% less than their male counterparts in Europe.\nAngelika Niebler  \nin writing. - (DE) In today's vote I voted in favour of the report by my colleague Edit Bauer. However, I did not find this easy as I have some reservations about the content of some points.\nA policy of equality has existed at European level for almost 50 years. For the last 50 years we have had a clear statutory framework. Nonetheless, despite all our efforts in the direction of equality, both at European level and in the Member States, we still have not succeeded in fully eliminating the discrimination against women in terms of pay.\nThe call for new laws as formulated in the Bauer report should be rejected. It is not possible to achieve a change in attitude in our society through legislation. Experience in recent years shows that the causes of the pay gap between men and women are mostly outside the ambit of the legal system and that legal regulations cannot by themselves improve the situation of women in the labour market.\nNew laws simply create more bureaucracy and thus increase the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. For this reason, I am in favour of a more consistent implementation of the existing regulations to abolish gender-specific pay differences and against additional legal regulations.\nDumitru Oprea  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of Mrs Bauer's report, given the gender inequalities which, unfortunately, still exist. Equality between women and men is a fundamental value of the European Union.\nPromoting the principle of equal opportunities between women and men is a relatively recent concern for the European Union - featuring in the Maastricht Treaty or Amsterdam Treaty - although various aspects have been highlighted by many declarations or international agreements, such as the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women of 1967.\nIn Romania two of the fields in which the majority of workers are women would be health and social services and education (69.5%). Professions and workplaces dominated by women still tend to be undervalued compared to those where men predominate. Inequalities and discrepancies in applying gender criteria have a definite impact on pay. The average wage difference between women and men is 8.5-15%, and even bigger in the private sector, in the latter's favour. This contravenes Directive 75\/117\/EEC relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for women and men.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) Unless we have equal pay for women and men, we will find it difficult to achieve the objectives proposed for 2010: improving living conditions, achieving economic growth and eradicating poverty. The fact that in the European Union women earn on average 15% less than men and need to work roughly until February (418 days per year) to be paid the same amount as men sounds an alarm bell. Specific measures need to be taken to combat this.\nEqual representation in the European Commission and European Parliament may be our political signal for a better representation of women in all decision-making bodies and, implicitly, for eliminating these pay gaps.\nI voted in favour of this report and I congratulate the rapporteur.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mrs Bauer on the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women. For years this age-old problem has been under debate: it is disconcerting to note that, in some EU countries, differences in pay are primarily attributable to the high level of job-related segregation and the impact of the pay structure. We therefore need multi-faceted policies targeting the implementation of legislation that already exists, but which is not very effective. I applaud the work accomplished by my fellow Member, which is designed to consolidate the legislation in force, but to take into account the fact that it is difficult to influence economic segregation through legislation of this type. Finally, I support the cause because we need to have pay policies designed to reduce inequalities in pay and to achieve better pay for low-paid workers, among whom women predominate.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - The creation of a European Equal Pay Day is something I support. The fact that women are still discriminated against, being paid an average 15% less than their male counterparts for the same work, is totally unacceptable in 2008.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nin writing. - (EL) The Communist Party of Greece voted against the report, because it uses equal pay to reduce working women's rights to the lowest common denominator. Working women should not forget that, on the pretext of applying the euro-unifying legislation on gender equality, the EU and the centre-left and centre-right governments of the Member States have proceeded to abolish their vested rights, such as the ban on night work for women. The EU and the New Democracy and PASOK parties have used the same legislation to engineer an increase in the retirement age for female civil servants in the name of abolishing discrimination and of gender equality.\nNot only does the report fail to address the real causes of unequal pay between men and women for the same work, and the fact that women and young people are the first victims of part-time work, flexible contracts of employment and flexicurity, on the contrary, the solutions it proposes move in precisely this direction. The argument of 'reconciling family life and work' is used to generalise flexible forms of employment for women and propose hot money from public funds and public works contracts and financing as a reward for 'good capitalists' who apply what is self-evident: an equal day's pay for an equal day's work for men and women.\nGraham Watson  \nin writing. - This report makes recommendations to the European Commission on applying the principle of equal pay for men and women, and that principle is the key to ensuring dignity, fairness and equality in pension entitlements.\nFor years now I have strongly backed the Plymouth Senior Citizens' Petition calling for the just treatment of older women.\nI was proud to submit three amendments to the Bauer report, reflecting the Plymouth campaigners' demands, and I am delighted that all three have been accepted.\nThe European Parliament has recognised that many women lose out on earnings as a result of their work caring for children and older people. It has called on the Commission to eliminate the risk of poverty among pensioners and secure for them a decent standard of living. And it has set as a goal the equality of male and female pensions, including the retirement age.\nNow we need the European Union and national governments to take heed of these words and turn fine sentiments into forward steps.\nPension equality for senior citizens is a worthy goal, and I am proud to support this report.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We have chosen to abstain, as we think that it is, in principle, wrong to pre-empt the legislative process that is currently in progress concerning precisely these issues in an own-initiative report.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) I support Mr Ehler's report for two reasons.\nLacking its own raw materials, the European Union is becoming one of the largest energy importers in the world, increasingly dependent on external oil and gas suppliers. These are the sectors associated with the greatest geopolitical risk. Coal reserves will remain available for longer than oil and natural gas reserves, and may acquire strategic importance for us, in the event that energy supplies are threatened for political reasons.\nIn addition, producing energy from fossil fuels such as coal can be viable in spite of stringent environmental standards, and this offers good prospects to European and Polish mines. The introduction of clean coal technologies will contribute to the significant development of Poland's infrastructure and its economy.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nin writing. - (LT) The Commission communication on 'Supporting early demonstration of sustainable power generation from fossil fuels' is a very important step towards further discussions on political and financial measures. Today it is obvious that the European Union will only be able to implement its ambitious goals in the area of post-2020 climate policy if it ensures the use of broad CO2 capture and storage technologies at power stations. We really must make progress in preparing and adopting legal regulations on geological capture and storage of CO2.\nAlthough at the moment attempts are being made at European level to adopt a directive on geological capture and storage of CO2 as quickly as possible, there is a shortage of appropriate initiatives at national or regional level, which are particularly necessary in the area of transport infrastructure.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic  \nin writing. - (SV) For as long as fossil fuels are required to meet the EU's energy needs it is important to support initiatives that aim to alleviate the environmental effects, for example using CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technologies.\nHowever, we are of the opinion that proceeds from auctioning emission allowances should go to the respective Member State and not be earmarked for different projects. Otherwise, there is a risk of the emission allowances system becoming ineffective and controlled from the top.\nDrago\u015f Florin David  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for this report because it emphasises the importance of increasing the allocation of European funds for research, aimed at implementing new technologies for capturing greenhouse gases, especially CO2, particularly funds aimed at implementing pilot projects which will raise the profile of this research, along with the opportunities offered by it and the safety of new technologies. Europe cannot give up yet the biggest energy resource it owns, fossil coal, as many of the Member States still guarantee their energy independence by processing fossil coal. We need to guarantee future generations that producing electricity from fossil fuels is sustainable and causes as little pollution as possible.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - I supported this report, as it is in line with the amendment I tabled on the financing of large scale CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) demonstration plants, in my report on the review of the EU's Emissions Trading System.\nOur dependence on fossil fuels is likely to persist for some time and we should be exploring all options in order to mitigate their harmful effects. CCS extracts and buries the carbon from any hydrocarbon source rather than allowing emissions to enter the atmosphere. If implemented without delay and given proper financing CCS could reduce CO2 emissions in the EU significantly.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - This report recognises the need to reduce emissions from fossil fuels which will be used to bridge the gap until we can become reliant upon renewable energy sources, which is why I support it.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Ehler on supporting early demonstration of sustainable power generation from fossil fuels. It is clear that the European Union will only attain the ambitious targets in its climate policy if it succeeds in ensuring broad use of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technologies in power stations.\nThe strategic importance of coal must not prevent us from finding a way to use this precious resource in a manner that does not have an impact on climate. In addition, I agree with the rapporteur on the paucity of measures adopted by the Commission to ensure that such ambitious projects can be completed by 2015. Finally, I welcome the assessment made by Mr Ehler, stressing the absence of an appropriate legislative framework that has financial resources available to it. It is absolutely vital that we remedy this absence.\nElisabeth Schroedter  \nin writing. - (DE) By adopting the Ehler report the European Parliament has decided on a completely outmoded energy strategy. CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) is intended to make production processes that are damaging to the climate seem 'climate friendly'. However, it does not avoid or reduce CO2 production, as would be the case with renewable energies for example. In the opinion of the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, massive public funding of CCS makes little sense at an economic level. This money would be put to better, more sustainable use if it were invested in research into the more efficient use of renewable energies.\nThe Ehler report goes further than the Commission: it seeks to use European structural funds for CCS investment, which will deny these resources to disadvantaged regions and their sustainable development plans. A CDU member who represents Brandenburg, Mr Ehler is seeking to put money in the pocket of Vattenfall, Europe's fifth-largest power company, enabling it to open more lignite mines in Lusatia (Brandenburg\/Saxony), threatening more villages with resettlement. It is known that Vattenfall intends to generate power from lignite for the next 50 to 60 years, even though this is only possible with an efficiency factor of less than 50%. Energy-intensive CCS technology will reduce this by a further 10% to 15%. This is a retrograde step, which is why we do not accept this report, but instead have lodged an alternative proposal.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"2. Support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions concerning support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone.\nCorina Cre\u0163u\nauthor. - (RO) One of the problems affecting justice systems in many countries around the world is not so much the absence of a well-structured legal framework, but more particularly the lack of enforcement of the judgments made by the justice system. In countries afflicted by the scourge of civil war, a permanent state of conflict or massacres, the consequences of this situation are catastrophic from a humanitarian and development perspective.\nIn the case of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, it is all the more important that legal judgments are enforced because this court is establishing a series of important precedents in international law. It is not only the first court of this kind set up in the same country as where the events being tried took place, but it is the first which has indicted and convicted, in the person of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, an African head of state still in office at the time when the trial started.\nThese aspects, combined with the recent conviction of three former rebel leaders from the civil war period, are strong indications of the determination of the international community and Sierra Leone Government to fight hard against the feeling of impunity displayed by those who have committed atrocities for an entire decade.\nThe international community must fully complete the implementation of the project proposed for reinforcing the process of justice and law in Sierra Leone. The Court's mandate comes to an end soon, in 2010, and the Sierra Leone Government has been totally frank about not being able to ensure that the sentences passed will be enforced.\nIt is vital therefore for the European Union and its international partners involved in the peace process to uphold and support the enforcement of the sentences passed by the Special Court. It is not only the progress towards peace and stability in the region which depends on this, but also the credibility of the Special Courts set up with the support of the international community in other countries.\nCharles Tannock\nauthor. - Mr President, international humanitarian law is a relatively new and somewhat imperfect body of jurisprudence, but it has already achieved some major successes. In Europe the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia has paid an immensely important role in bringing justice to a region torn apart by a series of savage wars. Similarly, a tribunal in Tanzania has been prosecuting those responsible for the Rwandan genocide of 1994.\nWe therefore know the potential of such courts to help war-torn regions by ending a climate of impunity and moving on. In many ways justice delivered in this way is as valuable as financial assistance from the European Union. That is why the international community should continue to support the Special Court for Sierra Leone by providing secure jail facilities in the Member States, if necessary and when required, for jailing convicted tyrants.\nOne of my proudest achievements in this Parliament was my role in this Parliament's resolution calling for Nigeria to hand over Charles Taylor to the Court, which is what eventually happened through the mediation of the UN. But there are plenty of others who will escape unpunished without a robust and well-funded special court for Sierra Leone.\nMikel Irujo Amezaga\nauthor. - (ES) Mr President, two years ago I had the opportunity, as part of a mission headed by Mrs Isler B\u00e9guin, my colleague, who is in the Chamber here, to visit Sierra Leone, to attend the Special Court and to become aware of the huge task that it was accomplishing, not only for Sierra Leona, but also for mankind as a whole.\nThe Special Court for Sierra Leone has of course set a precedent, as has already been mentioned here. It has set a precedent in that, as the resolution states, it is the first international court to be funded by voluntary contributions, the first to be established in the country where the alleged crimes took place and it was also the first court - as has already been pointed out - to indict a former head of state.\nFor all these reasons, not only because it constitutes a precedent, but also because it is a benchmark for other courts that have been created and modelled along the same lines - such as the courts of Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia or Lebanon - we consider it vital that this resolution, on which we have now been working together with the court for several months, be adopted.\nTwo years ago we adopted a resolution to support its funding, since at that time the Special Court was going through a difficult period, was without any funds and did not have the necessary support - and here we should thank the European Commission too, which gave the court its financial support.\nNow we are asking, above all, for two things: firstly, that those who have been convicted should serve their sentences - what is at stake here is not the operation of the Special Court, which will conclude its work next year, but the legacy that it is to leave us - and, secondly, obviously, that all this should be accompanied by more funding.\nIn short, the Special Court for Sierra Leone is a fine example and a benchmark for all of us and for all courts that have dealt with war crimes. It is a fine example and a benchmark and it is a lesson being given to us by the second-poorest country on the planet: as we entered the court, we saw the slogan 'no peace without justice'. That is exactly why we have a moral obligation, not only as Europeans, but as human beings, to ensure that the legacy of this Special Court leaves its mark on history.\nErik Meijer\nauthor. - (NL) Mr President, Sierra Leone, like its neighbour Liberia, has been faced with full-scale atrocities, as a result of which many citizens lost their lives or became seriously injured, mentally or physically.\nThe criminals who got child soldiers to cut off the limbs of innocent citizens should be punished and not be given an opportunity to repeat their crimes. It looks like the attempt to organise this punishment between 2000 and 2010 is set to fail. The UN's Special Court for Sierra Leone is unable to function. Anyone found guilty cannot be locked up in Sierra Leone for any decent length of time.\nThe question now is what can we still do to guarantee a better outcome? The Court will not succeed without external funding, an extension of its mandate or without prison places outside of Sierra Leone. The resolution is right to draw attention to these options. This statement must lead to measures quickly. Otherwise it will be too late.\nFilip Kaczmarek\nMr President, in Poland we sometimes say that 'what you begin, you should also finish'. This is very relevant to today's debate, which, above all, is about financial support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. It is true that we are in the middle of a crisis, and the Court, which is maintained from voluntary contributions made by various countries, absorbs large sums of money. We must not, however, allow this body, which is the only one of its kind, to end its work in international disgrace - and it would be a disgrace, if for financial reasons the Court ceased to function and the accused were released.\nThe European Union, and especially, in my opinion, the United Nations, are obliged to carry the work of the Court through to completion, to ensure financial support and to carry out the sentences handed down by the Court.\nThe work of the Court and its high costs are the subject of much controversy in Sierra Leone itself, because a great many people there are waiting for compensation, and Sierra Leone is one of the world's poorest countries. This is why, when judging the past, we should not forget the future.\nEwa Tomaszewska\nMr President, the Special Court for Sierra Leone has sentenced Issa Hassan Sesay, the Commanding Officer of the Revolutionary United Front, to 52 years' imprisonment. It has also sentenced Morris Kallon, one of the commanders of the RUF, to 40 years' imprisonment, and Augustine Gbao, responsible for security in the RUF, to 25 years' imprisonment.\nThey organised one of the most cruel rebel movements of modern times. Drastic mutilations of the civilian population, and in particular amputations of limbs on a massive scale, sexual violence as a weapon, enrolling children in the army - these are only some of the brutal methods used by the RUF, which was commanded by the defendants.\nA heavy sentence in their case is a strong signal which should restrain others from committing similar acts, and a sign that the civilised, democratic world will not stay silent, and has a strong tool for reacting to the perpetrators of such atrocities. That tool is the Court, and the Court should be supported, both financially and politically.\nMarie Anne Isler B\u00e9guin\n(FR) Mr President, I am in fact glad that this debate is taking place, because we have been trying to put it on the agenda for several sittings.\nSo today, not long before the end of this mandate, we would really like to stress that Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries in the world, which has really succeeded in establishing this Special Court to try those responsible for the atrocities, should be supported.\nHaving been the head of the European Union Election Observation Mission in Sierra Leone, I really believe that it is our political and moral responsibility to support this court, because it would be truly unacceptable and unimaginable for this court to be unable to continue its work for what are potentially financial reasons.\nI therefore urge the Commission to support it, financially, of course. Moreover, at the time the judges of these courts asked us to provide financial support to help keep this Special Court going.\nHowever, now it is at political level, because it is coming to an end in 2010. We must...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nAntonio Tajani\nVice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission has made a strong commitment to assisting the transition by Sierra Leone from a post-war situation to a situation of growth and development. The Commission certainly supports the country's commitment to the consolidation of peace, stability and, above all, democracy.\nIn this regard, the Commission recognises and welcomes the vital role that the Special Court for Sierra Leone has played and continues to play within the context of the reinstatement of peace and stability in Sierra Leone. We are convinced that the Special Court's activities can transmit to all the message that no serious crime against humanity, no genocide and no war crime will remain unpunished.\nThe Special Court for Sierra Leone has, in fact, played an essential part in the development of international law, by virtue of the case law that has been created on issues such as the recruitment of child soldiers and forced marriages, which were the subject of the Special Court's first judgments. To this end, the Commission has been supporting the Special Court's activities since 2003. We have given the Special Court EUR 2 700 000 through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. The aim of this funding is to support the activities of the Special Court on communicating its objectives of promoting the rule of law, international humanitarian law and human rights in Sierra Leone and the region of western Africa as a whole.\nFurthermore, in 2008 the Commission adopted a project, funded by EUR 1 million, under the 10th European Development Fund, conceived together with the Special Court and the Sierra Leone Government. The project, which is to be carried out during 2009 and 2010, will integrate previous activities and sets out to ensure a lasting legacy on which to rely after the conclusion of the Special Court's activities, in particular through the capacity-building of legal professionals and the strengthening of institutional capacity within the Sierra Leone legal system as a whole.\nHaving been informed of the Special Court's budget problems, in 2008 the Commission provided it with emergency aid to the tune of EUR 2.5 million, funded from the Instrument for Stability and intended to cover the funding costs, and chiefly the salaries, of the Special Court's employees. On this point, the Commission was pleased to learn that the Special Court has managed to cover the budget deficit for several months. We are confident that, despite the world financial crisis, the international community will manage to find the resources necessary for the Special Court to carry out its tasks successfully and in full, and to complete the trial of Charles Taylor, former president of Liberia.\nBefore I conclude, I would like to express my support for the request for further examination and investigation into the roles and functions of the various special courts, and on this point I am pleased to inform you, on behalf of the Commission, that two initiatives are to be funded in this sector under the human rights 'conflicts and security' heading within the Seventh Framework Programme on research.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today at 12 noon.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Martine Roure, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council concerning the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on action to combat racism and xenophobia.\nMartine Roure \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, the European Union is based on humanist values, of tolerance, multiculturalism and protection of fundamental rights. We share strong values that should be protected. The fight against racism and xenophobia is one of our priorities, but we must bear in mind Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is devoted to freedom of thought, conscience and religion while respecting the inalienable right to freedom of expression, in accordance with Article 11 of this same Charter.\nThe Commission presented a proposal for a Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia in November 2001, in order to bring closer together the legislative provisions of Member States in relation to racist and xenophobic offences and to fight more effectively against racism and xenophobia in Europe. Until now, and despite an initial opinion issued by the European Parliament in July 2002, this Framework Decision has been at a standstill. In spite of the efforts of several Presidencies, Member States have still not been able to reach an agreement on the definition of punishable behaviour and the level of corresponding penalties to be imposed. It is, therefore, absolutely essential to have a European instrument that makes it possible to combat racism and xenophobia.\nRecent statistics show that racism and intolerance are on the increase. The growth in extreme right-wing parties in Europe and, unfortunately, within our own Parliament, obliges us to strongly condemn any speech that incites hatred. This Framework Decision obliges us, however, to find a fair balance between freedom of expression and sanctions for offensive behaviour. The freedom to mock and criticise certain excesses, be they political or religious, are necessary in all democracies.\nThe European Council has finally come to an agreement on this subject and we are pleased about this. Indeed, the European Union must spread a strong political message to fight against public expressions of racism or hatred. We cannot allow ourselves to fail again on a text that is symbolic for the European Union. I should like to thank the German Presidency for this strong message, which confirms that Europe is not just a great market, but is working for the defence of the fundamental rights of all European citizens. This new compromise is the fruit of long and difficult negotiations and we are aware that, of necessity, it has its weaknesses.\nNonetheless, I want this political compromise to constitute a minimum level of harmonisation that will allow Member States to go further in future, and I am particularly pleased by the addition of a review clause which will make it possible to achieve a higher level of harmonisation in future years. Having said that, in order to compensate for these weaknesses, I call on the Commission to present in parallel a proposal for a directive on the fight against all the forms of discrimination listed in Article 13 of the Treaty, in order to strengthen European legislation in this area. I know, in fact, that Mr \u0160pidla is working towards this, I think. I hope that we shall soon have a proposal for a directive.\nFinally, this political agreement on the framework decision has brought about substantial changes in the text in comparison with the Commission's first proposal on which Parliament gave its opinion. Consequently, Parliament should be consulted again in the next few weeks. We will issue our opinion quickly, you can be sure of that, because we have all worked hard for several months. We are all set.\nThis instrument is absolutely necessary for us to live in a world at peace, in which everyone is respected with their differences, beliefs and ways of life. This instrument is essential if we are to put an end to hatred and racism in a united and fraternal Europe.\nFranco Frattini\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Roure for her speech and for her report. The political agreement reached at the Council last April, after five years of negotiations, was certainly highly significant.\nThis agreement, albeit on a less ambitious version of the framework decision than the Commission's original proposal, in fact ensures that from the moment the framework decision enters into force and is transposed in each Member State, there will no longer be any safe haven in Europe for those who incite racial hatred, racism and xenophobia. This represents a political success.\nI appreciate that the text of the framework decision contains penal provisions that could have been much harsher. I would have preferred stricter legislation. However, as the rapporteur has just said, we had to accept a compromise because, it being a framework decision, the principle of unanimity meant that we could not set our sights as high as we would have liked to.\nNevertheless, for the first time we have a common rule, stipulating that behaviour inciting hatred or discrimination based on race, skin colour or religion must be punished with criminal sanctions in all Member States. Consider how important it is to punish behaviour inciting anti-Semitic or Islamophobic hatred at a time in which we are talking about integrating immigrants from outside the European Union into our communities.\nOne of the main issues has certainly been to find the balance between criminal punishment for such behaviour, which is not free expression of thought but concrete incitement to commit violent acts and must be punished as such, and due respect for freedom of expression. We have worked hard on this aspect and I believe that the final result is satisfactory.\nThe measure is not intended to punish ideas, but behaviour inciting other people to commit criminal acts, to attack, to wound, to kill and to commit real acts of violence. All this has absolutely nothing do with freedom of thought. We are not punishing ideas, but those who, on the basis of a mistaken, if legitimate, idea, move from this idea to behaviour inciting others to attack and to commit criminal acts. This is the boundary between freedom of expression of thought, which must be safeguarded, and concrete incitement to violence.\nThis is why I believe this decision to be significant. It is for this reason that we have established the principle - which is highlighted in Mrs Roure's report - by which a racist motive shall be considered an aggravating circumstance in all offences. If an ordinary offence involving physical violence is committed for racist motives, it must be more severely punished, since not only incitement as such, but also racist motives, make a given offence more serious than the act itself.\nThis is an important principle, and I believe that the fact that all 27 Member States have accepted it unanimously puts the European Union in a better position to uphold this key value listed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.\nPatrick Gaubert\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to apologise for Mrs Esteves, shadow rapporteur for my group, who unfortunately will not be able to take part in this debate.\nI thank Mrs Roure for her work, her application and her perseverance because, yes, perseverance was needed to keep on demanding that the Council reach an extremely necessary agreement. More than five years of negotiation to reach a proposal for a framework decision on racism and xenophobia: is it really reasonable to have stalled for so long measures that are so fundamental to the lives of our fellow citizens?\nI should like also to warmly thank the German Presidency for succeeding in breaking the deadlock on this text. The European Union is founded on communities with values, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. By uniting, we have all decided to share those values.\nLadies and gentlemen, declarations of good intentions are not much use, if they are not followed up with strong actions. That is why it was necessary to act, to act practically, so that intolerance, in all its forms, should no longer poison our continent. Harmonisation of the legislation of Member States in relation to offences of a racist nature was vital. Henceforth, every Member State will have to make it an imprisonable offence to publicly justify, deny or crudely trivialise crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and I am satisfied about that.\nNonetheless, I will not hide from you that my satisfaction is not absolute: yes, the adoption of this text sends a strong signal, especially in this European Year of Equal Opportunities, but I am afraid that its added value may be minimal. In fact derogations are anticipated and flexibility accepted. Therefore, behaviour will be penalised only if it could incite to violence or hatred towards a group of people. How, then, is it tolerable for a revisionist to be able to express his views in some European countries in the name of freedom of expression? Freedom of expression stops when the rights of others are flouted. I completely understand that there are different cultural and legal traditions in our Member States, but the fight against racism must not be the subject of any compromise. Tolerating certain expressions of hatred is, in actual fact, accepting them.\nLadies and gentlemen, as elected representatives, we shall have to be clear and condemn forcibly these acts of violence. We must remain vigilant because our fight in defence of human rights and for respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights is far from over. I ask you, tomorrow, to vote very broadly in favour of this text. This battle is ours. It is an honour to our European democracies and an honour to our Parliament.\nEmine Bozkurt\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I am not only indebted to Mrs Roure for her report, it also receives my unqualified support. Racism is a persistent and growing problem in European societies. This is why more and better instruments are needed to address it, including at European level, should this prove necessary. As racism knows no boundaries, neither should measures to address it therefore.\nLast year, my resolution on racism in football met with overwhelming support in this House, and I hope that this will also be the case for Mrs Roure's report tomorrow.\nIn the resolution on football, we called for a tougher approach, but a European stand on racism should not confine itself to football alone. Europe must promote the safeguarding of equal treatment for all its citizens. This is why proper education is needed, as is Europe's active commitment in favour of social inclusion in a bid to isolate those advocating racism and xenophobia and to strive towards a tolerant and diverse society.\nI am pleased that hate crimes are being highlighted in particular in Mrs Roure's report. I also endorse the appeal not to introduce a hierarchy among the different grounds for discrimination. All forms of discrimination, including Islamophobia therefore, should be addressed in the same tough way.\nThe report mentions 9 million victims of racism and xenophobia. This is probably an accurate figure, but as I see it, 494 million citizens are the victims of racism, because if racism goes unpunished, then this has a damaging effect on society as a whole. Europe is there for everyone, and we should, above all, keep it this way.\nSophia in 't Veld\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all I would like to pay my compliments to Martine Roure, who has once again done a great job. I would also like to commend the German Presidency for having secured this deal, but again I note with deep regret that the Council is absent during this important debate.\nHowever, I am very happy that this legal instrument has finally been adopted. It is long awaited and very welcome, but now much depends on whether and how it will be used in practice, because a legal instrument making hate crimes a criminal offence is only the last resort. A legal instrument will not eliminate racism. Only our own attitude and our own mentality can do that, and we need much more than just this framework decision.\nWe need to promote equality, respect and tolerance, and that should be more than just words. Each of us has a responsibility in Europe. Legislation is not enough and we should lead by example. I very much concur with Mr Gaubert, who made reference to statements by people in public. That does not just apply to the average citizen but, even more so, to prominent politicians and religious leaders - in short, opinion leaders. It is therefore regrettable that even prominent people in Europe have recently made statements that incite hatred and violence. They contribute to a climate of intolerance and hatred. I refer, for example, to the President of one of the Member States, who made very denigrating remarks about Roma people. It is unacceptable and I think that Parliament at least should speak out against such unacceptable statements.\nI am also referring to a Member of this House, Mr Giertych, who issued an anti-Semitic leaflet. Fortunately we reacted very strongly to that. I am also thinking of Mr Wilders in my own country, who made the most outrageous remarks in a debate yesterday, to which nobody reacted. That is another problem: we allow these extremists to set the political agenda. Even the mainstream parties have adapted their language to the language spoken by extremists. So we should look very carefully at our own statements and our own behaviour.\nFinally, I very much agree with the call for the legislation to be extended to cover other groups, because we all know that hatred and violence against homosexuals is rampant in Europe, even in my own country, unfortunately, as it is against women. Sometimes we tend to forget that, but there are many statements that somehow seem to make violence against women acceptable. The next step should be to create a legal instrument that condemns incitement to hatred and violence against all groups of society.\nJean Lambert\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her commitment on this ongoing dossier, which should have been on the statute books before now. As others have said, we also think that action is important.\nLast year, we saw a rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes in many parts of the European Union, or at least those parts which record such crimes effectively. As others have said, it is the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and many of our citizens, residents and visitors still face discrimination and hate crimes simply because of the colour of their skin, their beliefs or because they have committed the perceived crime of being foreign. The Director of Human Rights First stated that 'victimising one member of a particular group threatens all members of that group and causes immeasurable harm to society at large'.\nMy group sees this framework decision as a complement to existing legislation, but we also want to see existing legislation fully implemented. We support the call to be reconsulted on this dossier, and we have some concerns, for example that provisions for mutual assistance between Member States have been removed, which may make it more difficult to combat cross-border racism. We know that there is significant international organisation, for example, among groups based on despicable concepts of racial supremacy.\nWe have co-signed the constructive amendments to this report. Other amendments represent to us part of the problem, but we look to the Council for constructive and forceful action in conjunction with Parliament.\nGiusto Catania\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Roure for her persistent work with the Council in putting together this framework decision. It has taken a long time, but we can say that we have at last reached an important milestone.\nIt is quite right that we should combat racism and xenophobia with legal instruments, but I think that above all we must implement widespread cultural action. I believe that this Parliament also has the means to initiate an effective information campaign in Member States, to ensure that this framework decision can be organised into a great cultural battle of ideas.\nI believe that it is necessary to fight against racism and xenophobia, because the data provided by the European Monitoring Centre are alarming. There are increasing reports of racist and xenophobic behaviour, and it is my belief that we must tackle those who frequently attempt to incite racial and religious hatred. This can be achieved primarily through the media, which are all too often used to communicate messages that are highly dangerous for society.\nI believe that the initiative adopted by the Council, but above all the work carried out by Mrs Roure in this Parliament, will serve as an effective tool for the political efforts and for continuing this work. As Mr Frattini has said, we need to establish the limits within which there is a balance between freedom of expression and the fight against racism and xenophobia. I believe that this is vital and that we need to implement strong political measures and important cultural action.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, in the Berlin Declaration adopted on 25 March this year it is stated: 'European integration has shown that we have learned from our history full of bloody conflicts and suffering'. I believe this is so, and one proof thereof is the document we are considering today.\nThe basic resolution defines the following as crimes: fomenting hatred and violence, public endorsement of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and refusal to acknowledge these crimes or immense trivialisation of these crimes. The basic resolution limits itself to crimes perpetrated on the basis of race, skin colour, religion, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin. However, it does not deal with similar crimes committed for other reasons, such as hate and violence against certain people because of their political beliefs, or their affiliation with a certain social group, or the social situation of groups of individuals - for example, the crimes perpetrated by totalitarian r\u00e9gimes.\nI think the time is coming for a supplementary document which could deal with fomenting hatred and violence, public endorsement of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes directed against groups of individuals defined by criteria other than race, skin colour, religion, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin, which I have already mentioned. Such a document might address, for example, social situation or political beliefs, refusal to acknowledge these crimes, or trivialisation of these crimes. Criminal responsibility could be laid down in these instances.\nThe European Commission's initiative in fostering public discussion at the European level of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity, and war crimes perpetrated by totalitarian r\u00e9gimes and those who endorse them, grossly distort them or diminish them, is welcome and worthy of support. On the basis of these discussions, after two or three years it should be possible to submit another proposal concerning a fundamental resolution on these crimes.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\n(LT) Mr President, I congratulate the author of the report, Martine Roure, on her courage, and extra loud praise goes to Germany, which has proclaimed adoption of a resolution on the fight against racism and xenophobia to be a priority of its presidency.\nThe idea of the European Union is based on tolerance, trust and peaceful coexistence of nations. Unfortunately, in recent times the number of racist and xenophobic attacks is not diminishing; instead it is getting close to 10 million per annum. Racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic elements are being used not just by extremist parties - even the apparently more stable mass-membership parties and their leaders do not shy away from them. Even in this Chamber and in some national parliaments it is not uncommon to hear speeches steeped in extreme nationalism and xenophobia.\nI agree with the rapporteur that in a culture based on rights and freedoms, criminal law is the last resort to be used desirably as little as possible. However, it is inevitable that penal policy will have to be used to tighten up this area. I fully support Commissioner Frattini's opinion that a racist motive in a crime should mean an increased penalty for that crime.\nNo less a priority is education, likewise dialogue between different religions and cultures, and a measured and thoughtful look at the past. Even when people are feeling their most tolerant, if discussions start about whose tragedy is the greatest and whose pain hurts the most, this is the road to the trampling of tolerance and lack of trust in one another.\nFor the new countries of the European Union the issue of restoring historical justice is particularly sensitive. The time is coming for an attempt to reconcile the attitudes of old EU members and the new countries to the tragedies and painful events of the 20th century. This needs to be done without some parties feeling a monopoly on morality, able to force their opinion on other nations. The most important aim is not to exacerbate, but to heal wounds, to learn from history and to block the path for any rebirth of racism and xenophobia.\nSajjad Karim\nMr President, whether it is the increase of Islamophobia or the sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks, intolerance in Europe is on the rise. It is long overdue and more important than ever for the EU to remain firm by adopting legislation to counteract these worrying phenomena. This text does not, in itself, constitute the concrete action needed to address the persistent problems of racism and xenophobia in Europe today. It could be stronger by using the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination as a benchmark.\nSecondly, this legislation must reaffirm Europe's commitment to our core values of respect for diversity and intolerance of discrimination, a commitment that must amount to so much more than the sum of the political compromises of the Council's text. In the current political climate, where support for right-wing extremism across Europe has brought racism into the mainstream, moderates must use this legislation and the dialogue that will surround its implementation to take back ownership of the diversity debate. We must rebuild the bonds of trust between divided communities and we must ensure that feelings of alienation are replaced with a much-needed sense of security.\nCarlos Coelho\n(PT) Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, first, I am delighted to say that I share Mr Gaubert's kind words for Mrs Roure. She is an MEP to whose outstanding work we have become accustomed, and she has once again proved this and, as Mr Catania correctly pointed out, her tenacity.\nCrimes of a racist nature continue to be a constant, persistent problem in all Member States. The first step must always be that of prevention. It is necessary to try to prevent racism and xenophobia by means of a policy of education as early as possible and by means of political and social discourse aimed at preventing the dissemination of hate and the promotion of xenophobia and racism.\nThe figures from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia confront us with this reality in the EU. Whilst it is important to recognise, in legal terms, that the Member States have legal provisions at their disposal, it is also necessary to point out that there are major differences between these provisions, and that harmonisation needs to take place. This framework decision is therefore welcome insofar as it comprises a certain level of harmonisation of the Member States' criminal law and improved mutual assistance in combating racism and xenophobia.\nWith this initiative, Parliament has presented its recommendations and adopted its positions on an issue on which - let us not forget - it has been much more consistent than the Council.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Nazism and communism are two banks of one river. Nazism has been studied in detail by academics and politicians; it is well known and condemned by the international community. Germany itself has contributed to this process, understanding and acknowledging its historical mistakes.\nWe know little about the other bank of the worst crimes of the past century - communism. It is hardly discussed; therefore, its crimes against humanity have not yet been acknowledged on a global scale. About 20 million people died during the Nazi period and the Holocaust; but 100 million people of various nationalities became the victims of communism.\nI support the Council's basic resolution and the declaration adopted with the basic resolution, in which the Council condemns the crimes committed by totalitarian r\u00e9gimes.\nI invite Member States to continue the work of exposing the crimes committed by communist r\u00e9gimes, assessing them appropriately and supplementing the basic resolution. I invite the European Parliament to initiate discussions about the crimes of communism and to make its own input by acknowledging communism to be a crime against humanity.\nMarios Matsakis\nMr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Roure, for her excellent report on this important but, it seems, highly controversial subject. It is important since it is estimated that millions of people fall victim to racist crime each year. It is controversial since it involves striking a balance between effective action to combat racism and xenophobia on one hand and respect for freedom of expression on the other.\nIn fact, the subject apparently seems to be so controversial that the text currently under discussion has been the product of several years of negotiations. This of course begs the question, was it strictly necessary that so much time was and still is spent before arriving at a suitable solution? Let us think of the millions of people who have suffered as a result of this serious time lag. Is the reason for this extreme delay purely technical politics, or even negligent indifference? Or is there some underlying attempt not to proceed speedily as some influential political forces are not so favourable to such action and are themselves bordering on being racist and xenophobic?\nPerhaps the Commissioner can reassure that the latter is not the case at all and that my fears are utterly unfounded.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)\nDavid Martin \nin writing. - I have become increasingly concerned by the rise of racism and xenophobia across the EU, both in new Member States and established Member States. In a Union which has the free movement of people as a central pillar, this is doubtless an issue which requires Community action. Indeed, initiatives like the European Year of Equal Opportunities, which we are currently in, are key to spreading best practise in eradicating discrimination. It is important that these efforts are redoubled in order to counter the rise in Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism and discrimination against other minority groups, especially those from new Member States. We, as a House, and all of the European Union institutions and Member States must do our utmost to rid Europe of the scourge of racism and xenophobia, and make clear that it will not be tolerated.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Problem of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counter-terrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the problem of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counter-terrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control.\nSarah Ludford\nrapporteur. - Madam President, over the past decade, laws and practices have been introduced enabling the retention and exchange of huge volumes of personal data. Currently the EU itself is proposing a number of measures that facilitate profiling, a technique of pulling together data from various sources in order to make a sort of template against which are identified those people whose characteristics, behaviour or associates seem suspicious and who merit further screening as likely perpetrators of crime or terrorism.\nThere has also been a move in policing towards a predictive and preventive approach which, while not without value in some circumstances, can lead to repressive measures against innocent people based on stereotyping, often on the basis of race or even religion.\nThe reason I am concerned about profiling and data-mining is because they depart from the general rule that law-enforcement decisions should be based on an individual's personal conduct. The danger exists that an innocent person may be subject to arbitrary stops, interrogations or travel disruption. Then, if that flagging of them as a person of interest is not promptly removed, longer-term restrictions could follow, such as refusal of visas and entry, bans on employment or even arrest and detention.\nIn a world of increasing international exchange of data, the identification of someone as a person of security or policing interest, if not corrected, could have not only inconvenient or expensive but indeed appalling consequences. One need only remember that Canadian torture flight victim, Maher Arrar - on whose horrendous experience the film 'Rendition' was based - was picked up due to profiling based on people his brother happened to know; having done nothing himself to merit suspicion, he nonetheless spent seven months in a Syrian torture dungeon.\nThe report I am presenting to you has benefited greatly from the considerable input of the shadow rapporteurs, whom I warmly thank. It outlines human rights, data protection and non-discrimination standards in an attempt to uphold two basic principles for any profiling exercise to meet: that repressive consequences should be based on individual behaviour, and that the principle of equality under the law should be upheld.\nNot all profiling raises legal objections. We are all familiar with thrillers where the psychologist is called in to draw up a criminal profile of the murder suspect; and if a witness gives a clear description, a profile - of a bank robber, let us say: white, male and 30 - it would be nonsense to arrest someone who was Asian, female and about 50.\nThe most obvious risk of profiling is on the basis of ethnicity or race. If used by police officers as the only basis of deciding whom to stop, search or arrest, it is lazy, misguiding stereotyping, which amounts to illegal discrimination against minorities.\nThere is much concern about the victimisation of Roma people in this way. In my own city, London, the impact on young black men has led to tougher guidelines and safeguards - none of which, it must be stressed, should impede the intelligence-led investigation of crime.\nBesides concerns regarding legitimacy, I strongly question the effectiveness of profiling. To keep looking for suspicious people on the basis of looks or behaviour can distract from the search for those who are really dangerous. There is also the risk of the real criminals adapting to the profile by using innocent-looking people as drug mules or suicide bombers or by changing travel routes away from those monitored.\nCounterterrorism efforts focus the spotlight on Asians, especially those of Pakistani origin. Thirty-two per cent of British Muslims report being subject to discrimination at airports. There is a great risk of alienating these people, who may then end up not cooperating with the police, ultimately hindering security.\nThis report therefore asks for European or national legislation on profiling to be brought in compliance with existing European law and international treaties. If possible, all safeguards for profiling should be drawn together in a single legal instrument.\nBesides the legal assessment, further studies should be conducted into the proportionality and effectiveness of profiling. The Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in their respective capacities, should play a key role in those studies.\nFinally, if profiling is to be used legally and fairly as a means of contributing to the maintenance of security, a coherent and just legal framework must be established.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 Kov\u00e1cs\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, on behalf of the Commission I would like to welcome this initiative by Parliament to bring the issue of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counterterrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control, to the centre of attention at European level.\nThe Ludford report represents a very good platform that contributes further to this issue by launching a broad discussion and suggesting how to tackle this problem. I want to underline that already existing data protection legislation ensures a high level of protection of personal data - including sensitive data such as information on ethnicity or race - and applies regardless of the technology used. Therefore, it is obvious that general data protection principles apply to profiling as one of the ways of data processing as well.\nThe Commission strongly believes that unjustified or unnecessary ethnic profiling is an unfair and prohibited practice, even when this is done for law-enforcement purposes or in connection with immigration, customs and border control, and is contrary to the fundamental values of the European Union.\nUnder important instruments proposed by the Commission - like the Schengen Border Code, Eurodac, SIS, VIS - the use of unjustified ethnic profiling techniques is not authorised. For example, as regards border controls, the provisions of Article 6 of the Schengen Borders Code require that border guards execute checks with no discrimination against travellers on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief.\nI would also like to mention the activities of the Fundamental Rights Agency in this field. The Agency is about to present a good practices handbook for combating and preventing ethnic profiling. The Commission supports the inclusion in the 2010 work programme of the agency of joint training with FRONTEX, where the said handbook could be used. The Commission also supports the inclusion in the 2010 work programme of the agency of a project on implementing Article 6 of the Schengen Border Code that aims at collecting data.\nFinally, the Commission welcomes the minorities and discrimination survey that was presented yesterday. The sections on law enforcement and border control provide us with further and recent data on experiences of ethnic profiling. The Commission will, of course, carefully study the results of the Minorities and Discrimination Survey, which will be published chapter by chapter through the year. But already now we can conclude that racism and xenophobia are still persistent phenomena in the European Union and that they affect the lives of members of ethnic minorities.\nThe Commission agrees with the draft report that processing of data for statistical purposes, including ethnicity, race or origin, could be used to identify indirect discrimination or unjustified law enforcement practices. However, this angle has to be properly assessed. Therefore, the Commission is looking into the opportunity to ask the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party to prepare an opinion on the processing of personal data for statistical purposes, including ethnicity, race or origin.\nThe Commission is also following closely the activities of the Council of Europe on the draft Recommendation on Profiling. The Commission is about to launch a request to the Council for a mandate to be authorised to negotiate this draft recommendation.\nAs regards the need for a legal framework to define profiling, the Commission believes that the relevant EU legislation on border management and data protection is adequate to protect fundamental rights. Indeed, it requires that any processing activity has to be grounded on a specific, recognised legal basis and respect particularly the principles of necessity, proportionality, purpose limitation and accuracy. It is subject to supervision by independent public authorities. Currently the framework also contains strict rules relating to the processing of sensitive personal data or automated decisions. All these principles also apply to profiling as one of the ways of performing processing of personal data.\nThe Commission is committed - and I am personally committed - to fighting racism and xenophobia to the full extent of the powers conferred by the Treaties, and this includes cases where racism comes from public authorities. The Commission is determined to reinforce our policy to fight racism and xenophobia in the Stockholm context, which should include tackling the issue of ethnic profiling.\nAgain, on behalf of the Commission, I very much welcome the draft report, and I look forward to its adoption in plenary tomorrow.\nClaude Moraes\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, as Socialists we fully support this report and contributed to it because we believe it is the first time in this Parliament that the political, legal and moral debate surrounding ethnic profiling and its effects on ordinary people has been raised properly.\nWe believe that predictive profiling and data mining are issues which have long been unexamined and I very much welcome the Commission's positive approach to both recognising this issue and understanding the possible indirect discrimination that can be caused by ethnic profiling.\nThe Socialists hope that if this report is adopted tomorrow and following the upcoming Council of Europe recommendation on profiling, there will be sufficient political impetus to address this issue at the highest levels. Why? For my constituency of London and for myself personally, I can say that I know what ethnic profiling means. It means being stopped and searched regularly because of how you look, rather than being stopped and searched because of proper intelligence, proper policing, with proper procedures put into place.\nThis kind of profiling is a waste of resources. It does not catch terrorists; it does not catch criminals. What it does is target indirectly or directly those who are vulnerable, who have an ethnic background which is just the wrong background\nThis can lead - and I think people should understand this - to strip searches and other abuses which we have seen. This report is an important step forward in protecting people against something which so far has been unexamined, but I am glad that Sarah Ludford had now raised it in Parliament and we will fully support this report tomorrow.\nCarl Schlyter\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank Sarah Ludford for her report. Kathalijne Buitenweg cannot be here, but I will represent her views.\nI must begin by asking: what is a terrorist? What kind of feeling do terrorists create? They create insecurity. Terrorists also make everyone vulnerable, and prevent them from pursuing their life as they want to.\nThen you look at the anti-terror legislation with profiling and you see it creates insecurity and it creates problems for people living their daily lives. You cannot combat terrorism with anti-terror laws that create the same feelings of insecurity.\nI think the European Court has been very clear on this, saying that this should be banned. We can see that it is neither efficient nor legal. The Carter Center in the US has showed it was not efficient. The German surveillance scheme on 18-40-year-old Muslim men in Germany was not efficient. It does not work, and I very much hope that we can take away the last exemptions allowing airports and harbours and so on to use these inefficient methods that make people feel bad.\nAnd how can you say that you will have a high level of protection when people leave CDs with 20 million people's data on them lying in caf\u00e9s, and when we know how easy it is to hack into computers? I did it myself as a kid actually.\nSo I think this report is important. The Council needs to adapt its logic and spend the resources efficiently, targeting specific individuals and focusing the time on them instead of going for ethnic registration, which is in complete violation of any human rights standards.\nEmine Bozkurt\n(NL) First of all, I would like to thank Baroness Ludford for this fine report. The report should have been even stronger, but it represents progress in the debate on this subject.\nSometimes 'profiling' can be necessary, but such cases must be clearly delineated and protected against abuse. The possibilities for storing, exchanging and interpreting information have, in recent years, increased faster than the necessary limits which democracies set for themselves in this regard. The US security services have not gained better or more reliable information as a result of data mining and investigation based on profiling, but instead primarily a heavier workload. A security agent compared it aptly with filling a water glass with a fire hose, in other words, particularly inefficient.\nNaturally, profiles based on ethnic origin have been used for years, even if we generally call it by another name. Even I, all of 1.60 m tall, and thus hardly the most threatening physique, have been regularly taken aside at customs. A minor personal irritation, but many people who scrupulously abide by the law experience this inconvenience not regularly, but systematically. Such people get the message from our society that they are always suspect, less worthy and unwelcome. We are not going to catch true criminals, who come from every population group, by this method.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 Kov\u00e1cs\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, the interventions of the different MEPs show the importance of the issue of profiling and the respect of fundamental rights and the attention paid to it by Parliament.\nThe report gives an excellent picture of the questions raised by the use of profiling techniques, in particular when they are based on ethnicity, race, nationality or religion for law enforcement, immigration or border control purposes.\nThe Commission follows closely - and will continue to follow - the problems posed by the use of profiling in general and, in particular, in the sectors expressly referred to in the report.\nThe Commission is currently launching a consultation on the challenges posed by new technologies to data protection. Its results should provide the Commission with elements that will feed its reflection and guide it when dealing with the problems that profiling can pose in the areas of justice, freedom and security.\nThe recent results published by the Fundamental Rights Agency on minorities and discrimination in the EU, which the Commission welcomed yesterday, show that racism and xenophobia are persistent phenomena in the European Union and that they affect the lives of our minorities.\nThe Commission has to carefully study the results of this survey in order to decide the way forward. Again, I very much welcome the draft report, and I am looking forward to its adoption in plenary tomorrow.\nSarah Ludford\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I very much welcome the Commissioner's positive response. I think some of the things he has talked about will be extremely useful - the Fundamental Rights Agency, guidance on ethnic profiling, the Commission working with the Council of Europe on its recommendation, and the suggestion that the Article 29 Working Party can be asked for guidance.\nI would like to push the Commission a little bit further, though, on focusing on the specific problems of profiling. After all, we do have a recommendation on the table for profiling in the context of PNR data, so there are special problems.\nI would like to thank very warmly the small but select band of colleagues who have contributed to the debate. I think two things came out strongly: first of all, the fact that so-called 'security' measures can create insecurity and, secondly, that they can be a waste, instead of a targeting, of resources. So we are talking here about effectiveness as well as civil liberties.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, Friday, 24 April 2009, at 12 noon.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Advanced therapy medicinal products (vote) \n- Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik report\n- Before the vote\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik \nrapporteur. - Mr President, as rapporteur I would like to take this opportunity to make a clarification in introducing this report.\nI wish to condemn and strongly oppose the behaviour of some of my shadow rapporteur colleagues who, by bypassing the rapporteur and presenting block one as a so-called compromise with the Council, are undermining the role of Parliament.\nThere are eight political groups in this House, but only three groups - the PSE, ALDE and GUE\/NGL - have agreed on these over 70 amendments. We have not been informed by the Council that COREPER has accepted this package. I therefore urge you to vote to reject block one and support block two, which is the result of the work done by the parliamentary committees.\nHowever, at the same time I should like to state clearly that I will listen to the voice of this House, and that as the main rapporteur I will give my definitive support to this proposal.\nDagmar Roth-Behrendt\nMr President, I simply want to stress that I myself, and members of some of the other political groups, used their democratic right to table amendments in due time. I wish to underline that all of the amendments in block one reflect the votes in committee and are in line with an agreement reached in a technical trialogue with the rapporteur, who then decided not to continue with that trialogue. We did not exceed our powers in relation to any of those items and I would propose that we proceed to the vote. I always respect the democratic procedures applicable here.\n(Applause)\nBefore the vote on Amendment 66\nHartmut Nassauer\n(DE) Mr President, I do not believe that Amendment 66 is covered by the compromise amendment, and would be grateful if we could have an additional vote on that.\nPresident\nAccording to the analysis that has been done, Amendment 66 is covered by Amendment 127, which deals with derogations for hospitals. Therefore, we believe that matters have been voted on.\nAlejo Vidal-Quadras\n(ES) Mr President, in order to ensure that the vote runs properly, I would ask you please, when you announce that a roll-call vote is starting, to leave a little more time before closing it, because some Members find it difficult to keep up with your fast pace.\n(Applause)\nSo please allow for a few more seconds between opening and closing the vote. Thank you very much!\nBefore the vote on the amended Commission proposal\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, according to my voting list, we should have also voted on Amendments 24, 35, 44, 45, 61, 62 in two parts and on Amendment 66, which we have not done. I would therefore ask you to put them to the vote, please.\nPresident\nThese amendments, Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, have been covered by the first package.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities - C6-0354\/2008 -\nMarie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou\nrapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, Directive 2002\/15\/\u0395C really did need revising and, following a report which it was obliged to present, the European Commission tabled suitable amendments to help this industry, in order to safeguard the health and safety of its workers and, at the same time, to facilitate healthy competition. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs accepted the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and, despite my recommendation, rejected the Commission proposal; in other words, it did not agree to exempt self-employed drivers from the scope of the directive. I must point out that the 2002 directive made provision for self-employed drivers to be included as of 23 March 2009. Developments are not as they appear in the wake of the impressions and excitement caused by the debate on a directive on road transport.\nAs far as driving times and rest periods are concerned, there have been significant developments since 2002, because Regulation (EC) No 561\/2006, which entered into force in 2007, applies to all lorry drivers and ensures they have suitable driving times and rest periods.\nTherefore, to include self-employed drivers in a directive on working time would be to misunderstand the concept of self-employment, because when someone is self-employed, they set their own working time. This would therefore be a serious, harmful action against small and medium-sized enterprises, it would restrict entrepreneurial freedom and we would be helping to create additional administrative burdens. This would set a precedent for starting a debate on the integration of self-employed persons in other sectors, thereby limiting their ability to work as long as they like. This leaves a serious problem: who is self-employed and who is a 'false' self-employed person? It is clear that certain workers claim to be self-employed but are not. The European Commission had proposed that we lay down criteria so that we can distinguish 'false' self-employed persons. However, this would not be possible, because controls are still carried out nationally. If, therefore, European legislation stipulated who was a 'false' self-employed person and who was not, this could not be made visible from national controls. Thus we have the facility now, with our new proposals, to determine at Member-State level who will and who will not be included in the directive on persons performing mobile road transport activities. We also call on the European Commission in our proposals to re-determine the results of the application of the directive. I call on my fellow Members to reject the amendment which aims to refer the proposal back to committee and to support my group's proposals, which are also supported by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Independence and Democracy Group.\nAntonio Tajani\nMadam President, honourable Members, you know that road safety is one of the priorities of my work as Commissioner for Transport.\nIt is also important to emphasise from the outset that, while road safety is of course a key element when discussing an issue such as drivers' working time, our debate today is not about road safety but about social legislation, not driving time but working time.\nThe question we must answer today is this: should self-employed contractors be subject to restrictions on working time on the same terms as employees? This is something we must look at very carefully, because there are no precedents in European law establishing how long a self-employed person can work for in an office or laboratory.\nIn 1998, when the Council and Parliament first debated the directive on the working time of mobile workers, the situation in the road transport sector was totally different from what it is today, as the rapporteur, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, said: at the time it was common practice to dodge the rules in force on driving time, meaning that professional drivers spent far too long at the wheel. On the basis of the previous regulation on driving time, introduced in 1985, it was nigh on impossible to control driving time effectively.\nIn that context, between 1988 and 2002 legislators discussed a Commission proposal aimed at regulating the working time not only of employee drivers, but also of the self-employed. As a result of that discussion, the sectoral directive on the working time of mobile workers was adopted. The hope was to reduce the negative consequences for road safety arising from inadequate driving time rules by extending the scope of the laws on working time to include self-employed drivers.\nThe problem was not resolved, however, and following a conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council, the Commission was invited to weigh up the pros and cons of extending working time rules to self-employed workers and thus present a proposal in 2008. The Commission met this request, publishing a detailed study in 2007 that came to the following conclusions.\nFirstly, that working time must not be confused with driving time. As far as the latter is concerned, the situation has changed radically. As you know, this House, together with the Council, has adopted new rules on driving time. Among other things, these rules provide for the use of the digital tachograph, an extremely reliable monitoring device, and a specific implementing directive.\nThe new rules, which have been in force since 2007, apply to all lorry drivers, thus including self-employed drivers. With the new digital tachograph, which records a lorry's every move, minute by minute, a driver cannot drive for more than nine hours a day and an average of 45 hours a week. In essence, it is now possible to monitor the application of these rules much more rigorously than it was in 1985.\nSecondly, there are no precedents in Community social legislation governing the work of the self-employed. A self-employed worker cannot in fact be forced to do extra hours insofar as he is, by definition, free to organise his own work as he wishes. What is more, it is virtually impossible in practice to control the working time of this group of people.\nThirdly, the overall balance between the advantages and disadvantages of extending the rules on working time to the self-employed is very uncertain, and it is not possible to demonstrate that applying the directive in question to self-employed drivers will bring clear advantages. Lastly, it is very important to point out that the application of working time rules to self-employed drivers is ineffectual and very difficult to achieve, since these drivers do not have to record their working time for salary purposes, not to mention the fact that the administrative costs of applying such rules would be very high.\nFourthly, one aspect where intervention is needed, however, is that of 'false self-employed drivers', that is to say drivers who are formally self-employed, but in reality are not free to organise their own working activity, because they are entirely dependent on a single company that provides their income and their orders. In social terms, they are vulnerable. Now, in theory, they are covered by the directive, but the failure to apply it means that this does not happen in practice. The Commission's proposal is therefore to step up the implementation of the directive and provide 'false' self-employed drivers with the social protection they need.\nAt a time of economic crisis, to impose an additional administrative and financial burden on small and fragile businesses, which must face the consequences of the recession, would not send a good message. For this reason, in conclusion, the Commission welcomes the amendments tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Independence and Democracy Group, which are in line with the Council's common position adopted during the last Transport Council, and, through these amendments, is sending a clear message to the industry: the phenomenon of 'false' self-employed drivers will not be tolerated, and legislators will ensure that the rules are applied throughout Europe.\nJohannes Blokland\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (NL) Madam President, the moment of truth is fast approaching. Tomorrow afternoon, we shall be voting on the report by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou. The rapporteur and I, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, share the same perspective on free enterprise, and so together we have signed 10 or so amendments that the Council, too, can accept. I am grateful that Commissioner Tajani can support them.\nTomorrow, we shall first have to deal with the amendment tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that seeks to reject the proposal. I am still highly indignant about this amendment. Last week, however, this indignation turned to horror when I saw the position paper of the European trade unions. For fear of a stray Romanian or Bulgarian self-employed driver, it dusts off untruth upon untruth to persuade MEPs to vote against the Commission proposal.\nThe paper intimates that self-employed drivers work 86-hour weeks. Drivers, both employed and self-employed, are permitted to drive for an average of 45 hours per week in a two-week period, as Commissioner Tajani has also pointed out. Are we to understand, then, that they are spending 41 hours per week working on their businesses? Nor does the paper's argument about road safety hold water. There is no evidence of a correlation between road safety and exempting self-employed drivers from the rules on working time; in fact, the reverse is true.\nIncidentally, it is clear from the position paper that the trade unions know full well that their position is extremely tenuous. The environment and the internal market are dragged in kicking and screaming to supposedly demonstrate that we should vote in favour of the rejection proposal, when the Commission's very extensive impact assessment shows that the proposal will actually be beneficial to the functioning of the internal market, the transport sector and the environment. That is why, tomorrow, we must vote against the amendment tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that seeks to reject the proposal, and in favour of the rapporteur's amendments. I trust that common sense will prevail during the vote.\nFinally, I wish to add that I thought the email Mr Hughes sent last Saturday completely inappropriate. Making politics out of the fatalities of ... (The President cut off the speaker)\nEva-Riitta Siitonen\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, working time restrictions should not extend to self-employed entrepreneurs and drivers, and, fortunately, both the Commission and the Council have reached this conclusion.\nIn my country, Finland, a restriction on working time would have a very adverse effect on self-employed drivers. Drivers in Finland tend to be small-scale entrepreneurs. Over half own the vehicle they drive. They therefore do everything themselves: they maintain their vehicles and do their own accounts. Self-employed drivers are already bound by the same limits on driving time and compulsory rest periods as drivers who are employed by someone else. This is important for the future. Driving times themselves should not be extended, but if this amendment by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament were to enter into force, drivers would not be able to maintain their vehicles or do their accounts during their time off, for example. In any case, how would compliance with such a regulation be monitored?\nIt is vitally important to aid employment and entrepreneurship during an economic crisis. I hope that everyone will agree with the Commission and the Council of Transport Ministers to keep self-employed drivers outside the scope of regulated working time under this Directive.\nJan Cremers\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament considers the proposal for the revision of the rules on working time in road transport insufficiently well thought out and inconsistent. Poor transposition of and compliance with the legislation cannot be a reason to relax the rules. As the Commission says, legislation can be efficient and effective only if it covers all parties concerned.\nIn questions to the Commission, I have endeavoured to obtain clarity as to what action the Commission plans to take against the use of 'false' self-employed workers. In this context, the intention that has now been voiced in the Council not only to exclude self-employed drivers from the scope but also to omit to take satisfactory action against 'false' self-employed workers finds no favour with the PSE Group.\nThe activities of both employed and self-employed drivers are equally relevant to their own and to other people's safety. Making a distinction is out of the question in the eyes of our group. I must support the Commissioner: it is not the first time that self-employed workers, too, have been included in the coordination of safety on construction sites in order to guarantee their own safety and the safety of others.\nBilyana Ilieva Raeva\nDuring its last session of this parliamentary term, Parliament must adopt the directive on the working time of mobile workers. As rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I think that it is irresponsible of us to support the rejection of the Commission's text in its entirety, as was suggested. We Liberals support and firmly stand behind the need for the tens of thousands of self-employed mobile workers to retain their competitive advantage and the purpose of being self-employed.\nThe current situation is alarming. The current directive removes a fundamental principle of the free market, namely, entrepreneurship and support for it. It is unacceptable for us to treat those working according to a labour agreement on an equal footing with those who are self-employed. Unlike salaried workers, the self-employed work on the basis not of a specified number of hours, but of the goods which they handle as well as the number and type of shipments. Including them in the new directive will actually destroy their entrepreneurial drive.\nLegislation stipulating the working time for the self-employed would mark a dangerous, unjustified precedent. There is no similar kind of regulation in any other sector. Adopting such a decision would have an adverse impact on the European economy.\nThe definition of night work is also of great practical significance. At the moment, Member States can define night time themselves. This enables them to maximise the number of working hours for transporting passengers and goods according to the varying daylight. As you know, night time in Finland is different to night time in Italy. Flexibility helps reduce congestion during peak hours, while also reducing the majority of harmful emissions from traffic.\nI would finally like to add that the Liberals, supported by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and many other fellow Members, would like to continue the debate on the basic elements of the directive. In other words, we support the flexible, pragmatic position which was approved in the Council and proposed by the European Commission on excluding the self-employed from the directive. I strongly urge you to vote in favour of this.\nSepp Kusstatscher\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, the concern throughout the world and all the measures currently being taken to combat swine flu, like those taken a few years ago against bird flu and BSE, are completely out of proportion to the lack of consideration given to the much higher number of deaths on the roads. Forty thousand people die every year on the roads of the European Union. Large numbers of people are injured or permanently disabled. All of this is simply accepted, as if it were an act of God.\nEveryone knows that a disproportionate number of lorries is involved in serious road accidents. The main causes are speed, overtiredness and alcohol. This directive is a move towards ensuring that drivers do not become overtired. Not only driving times, which are monitored using the tachograph, but also loading and unloading times should now be considered as working time for everyone. This is the right solution. If a driver has been working for several hours before he climbs behind the steering wheel of a 40-tonne truck, he is already tired and will find it difficult to concentrate. For me it is completely incomprehensible that this regulation should only apply to drivers who are employed by others and are not self-employed. The only excuse is that it is more difficult to monitor the working time of self-employed people. This may be true, but does a self-employed driver present a smaller risk behind the steering wheel when he is overtired?\nStephen Hughes\nMadam President, we need to reject this proposal from the Commission for three clear reasons. Firstly, they argue that Regulation (EC) No 561\/2006, on driving and rest time, covers everyone and therefore there is no problem excluding the self-employed. This is wrong. Driving time represents only half - on average - of the working time of a driver. Those not covered could indeed end up working 86 hours per week, every week of the year.\nSecondly, the hundreds of thousands of drivers driving vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes are not covered by the Regulation. Worse still, if they are excluded from this directive there will be no limits at all on their working time.\nThirdly, the Commission makes a distinction between self-employed and 'false' self-employed, and says it does this because you cannot inspect or control the working time of the self-employed. If that is so, how will they control the working time of the 'false' self-employed? This is an abdication of responsibility and an open invitation to unscrupulous employers to constantly search for new forms of 'false' self-employment to avoid the law. We need to reject this proposal from the Commission.\nVille It\u00e4l\u00e4\n(FI) Madam President, firstly I wish to thank Commissioner Tajani for having done a really excellent job and who, in his speech just now, very commendably pointed out that this is not about safety and the number of hours spent driving so much as the number of hours spent working.\nWe have to respect the fact that in Europe there are small and medium-sized enterprises that do their work and create jobs, and this would be a slap in the face for small-scale entrepreneurs, especially in the current economic situation. Two weeks or so ago we had a fierce debate here on how small and medium-sized enterprises keep the entire European economy going. Now we face the practical issue of whether we should support them or not. What Commissioner Tajani stated here is what we should be monitoring and what we need to do to ensure that these self-employed drivers can continue working after the hours they have spent driving.\nAntonio Tajani\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to reassure those Members who have expressed concerns regarding the text we are debating. Road safety is definitely not at stake, I repeat, it is one of my priorities to fight to reduce the number of road accidents.\nI think we should not confuse working time with driving time. I can well appreciate what you have said: a self-employed worker can work first and then be tired when he gets behind the wheel, but I do not think that a self-employed worker can be controlled in any job. Obviously, the self-employed worker is also aware of what he is doing, he can even load a lorry and wait and rest for two, three, or four hours, and then get back behind the wheel in an excellent condition as regards safety.\nIt is in fact very difficult to control any kind of self-employed worker, artisan or small entrepreneur. What is more, these are the men and women who represent the backbone of the EU economy.\nHaving said this, we are concerned with guaranteeing the health and safety of employees and of those workers who appear to be self-employed, but for all intents and purposes are employees. That is why the Commission - and I think the rapporteur shares our position on this - wants to bring the activities of 'false' self-employed workers under legislative control too.\nSo this is, I believe, an important signal, this legislation meets real requirements, and I think it right to emphasise again how important it is to make further progress in this area. That is why I would ask the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance to reflect on the comments that have been made and to understand that, as far as the Commission is concerned, road safety is and will remain a priority, but that this legislation does not cover that sector, rather it is aimed at better regulating the working time above all of road transport workers, and to assimilate the 'false self-employed' to 'employees' because in reality they are not self-employed workers, but de facto employees.\nSo then, may I reassure again all those who have expressed concerns, because I believe that the text that may be adopted is a good text, heading in the general direction of the interests of European citizens.\nMarie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou\nrapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for his clear speech and his ex-post clarifications, by which I mean his assurance to the Members that his main objective is road safety and, at the same time, to safeguard the competitiveness of the European economy and support small and medium-sized enterprises. I thank all my fellow Members for their views and I would point out that this is precisely the dialogue that we want to leave open by voting against Amendment 54 rejecting the Commission's proposal. I therefore call on all my fellow Members to reject Amendment 54, so that the dialogue remains open and we can help workers who are being exploited and who claim to be 'false' self-employed persons. We want to help improve employment in road transport with full safeguarding of road safety under the regulation that covers everyone and of working times under the directive before us.\nI should like to remind the Members that I have sent them an article from a German newspaper which makes clear from the examples given that the risk during driving is not from excessive work, but from poor use of the time which each person has at his disposal, regardless of whether he is employed or self-employed, which is, in fact, irrelevant. What is important is how each person takes responsibility for his actions and drives in such a way as to behave as a mature person who is conscious of his obligations within society as a whole. We shall not achieve this by raising obstacles to work. In referring to the building industry, Mr Cremers revealed the intention of all those who are supporting these views in the run-up to the elections.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Tuesday 5 May 2009.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"One-minute speeches (Rule 144) \nPresident\nThe next item is one-minute speeches.\nGy\u00f6rgy Sch\u00f6pflin\nMr President, the mounting crisis in relations between Estonia and Russia affects us all. What we have is a clear case of undue pressure by a large country against a small one. This is the kind of behaviour from which the European Union protects small states. Russia has persistently accused Estonia of nurturing something that it calls 'fascism', without producing a shred of evidence. The campaign brings the very idea of anti-fascism into disrepute, above all because Russia itself is behaving like a fascist state. The campaign dishonours the memory of those who really did fight fascism and especially those who gave their lives in that struggle, millions of Russians included. Anti-fascism means democracy and equality of respect for all. Russia, by contradicting this, is reviving fascism and thereby turning into a threat to Europe as a whole.\nProinsias De Rossa\nMadam President, I would like to raise a serious matter of EU funding being misused, in my view, for the destruction of archaeological heritage in Ireland. I appeal to Commissioner Dimas to intervene directly with Minister Roche in Ireland to ensure that these subsidies, which are being provided to build the N3 motorway in County Meath, are not facilitating the destruction of a recently discovered Neolithic site - a 'woodhenge'. This is an extremely important site, quite close to the historic Tara Hill. The Director of the National Museum in Ireland has called for a complete archaeological excavation, but, given that Minister Roche has been deaf to all expert advice so far, there is a real risk that this unique Neolithic site will be lost. In view of the European investment in this motorway project, it is essential that the Commission step in to ensure that a significant part of not only Irish heritage, but by definition also part of European heritage, is properly excavated, and that if necessary the N3 motorway be reconfigured to achieve that objective.\nMarco Pannella\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we are about to witness a dishonourable - I repeat: dishonourable - episode in the European Union, the responsibility for which rests primarily with the Council and with the inertia of the Commission, which are in breach of compulsory mandates that we have given them. In December 1994 we were defeated by a mere eight votes when the universal moratorium on the death penalty was about to be established. Since then, for 13 years, the overwhelming majority of the UN has been ready to vote for this great principle of civilisation. Since then the European Union has prevented them from voting.\nParliament has said during this part-session that the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) that will take place on Monday 14 May is probably preparing, once again, to betray the mandate entrusted to it and to postpone for yet another year this certain victory.\nMadam President, I would ask you to urge the President of Parliament to deal promptly with the issue.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, Poland's fruit growers have suffered yet another setback. Poor protection of the internal market against excessive imports and dumping has been compounded by frost which has destroyed some 90% of this year's harvest. The losses, estimated at some 1.5 billion EUR, are beyond the means of the Polish Government and insurance companies. Low returns on fruit farming, particularly soft fruits, and especially since Poland's accession to the EU, has meant a reluctance to insure harvests, both by insurance companies and by the farmers themselves, who simply cannot afford it. This situation requires immediate assistance from the European Union, both emergency aid and long-term aid for the coming years. If not, Poland's farmers will be condemned to bankruptcy, and the EU to importing its fruit from third countries.\nGerard Batten\nMadam President, the European Commission has wisely dropped plans to enforce complete metrication in the UK. It realises that nothing would be more likely to ferment rebellion against the European Union amongst the general population than for them to lose the pound, the pint and the mile. This is a victory for Britain, but it is only a skirmish that has been won. The European Union has made a tactical withdrawal in order to fight more strategic battles later. The struggle for British independence is still being waged and the final victory, when Britain leaves the European Union, is still some way off. The next big confrontation will be over the revised European Constitution. At this point I would like to add my voice to those calling for a posthumous royal pardon to be granted to the metric martyr, Steve Thoburn, who was convicted in the year 2000 for the heinous criminal offence of selling bananas in pounds and ounces.\nHans-Peter Martin\n(DE) Madam President, I should like to inform the public and those responsible of an outrageous case of obstructing the work of an independent Member of the European Parliament. In Austria, the top candidate of the Liberal Forum at the last student elections, Martin Ehrenhauser, received a letter on 20 April 2007 stating: 'We are offering you a job as a contract agent from 15 May 2007 working for the political group of Non-attached Members in the European Parliament.' Mr Ehrenhauser travelled here. Suddenly the letter is no longer valid. The reason: a political instruction from the very top, from the new Secretary General, Harald R\u00f8mer.\nThis is unacceptable. It was a bolt from the blue and in this case it affects me. You will be aware that every Member has the right to work with at least one member of parliamentary staff in his group in his mother tongue. I am the only one who is denied this privilege, because there is a desire to make the work of an unpleasant critic more difficult. At the same time, it is precisely the large groups here that allocate themselves legions of staff who are loyal to their party. Altogether Parliament employs thousands of staff.\nI call on the Bureau and those responsible to investigate this case. This kind of thing is detrimental to Parliament and it is also detrimental to our understanding of democracy.\nJaroslav Zv\u011b\u0159ina\n(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in these post-modern times, marriage is becoming less and less popular, especially among young people, yet it remains the foundation of the family. It is thus in the interest of the Member States and of the EU as a whole to support marriage. Following our accession to the EU, I frequently hear complaints about the long-term complications people face when they marry citizens of other Member States.\nIt is hard for EU citizens to understand that there is no agreement between EU Member States on the mutual recognition of official documents. Men and women wanting to get married have to spend time and effort going around numerous offices to complete bureaucratic formalities in order to make the wedding possible. For me too as an MEP it is hard to understand why the offices of one Member State refuse to recognise marriage certificates or confirmations of citizenship as stated in normal documents. Young people find the process of obtaining current documents and having them super-legalised especially arduous. I am under no illusions about our ability to harmonise codes. Nevertheless our citizens certainly deserve some simple measures aimed at simplifying those laws.\nEugenijus Gentvilas\n(LT) Russia is behaving disgracefully in Estonia and is not even trying to hide its behaviour. The Russians have commenced an economic blockade against a European Union Member State. In the past, Russia has behaved more subtly in Latvia or Lithuania, or in other countries, which is perhaps why the European Union has been nonchalant about most of Russia's actions. After the events in Estonia I urge you to reconsider the European Union's relations with Russia. Strategic partnership should be replaced by principled, honourable and pragmatic cooperation.\nIn my opinion, it is essential to postpone the 18 May meeting in Samara. We need to lay out the European Union's opinion to Russia on what conditions are essential for such meetings to be able to take place again in the future. Javier Solana must go to Moscow and clearly state the European Union's position. Europe has enough arguments. My fear is that some European Union leaders will want to have yet another photo opportunity with the antidemocratic Putin, rather than defend the European Union's democratic values.\nMalcolm Harbour\nMadam President, I start by saying to you - and I hope you will convey this to the President - how much I enjoyed the initiative he took in inviting Nobel Prize winners here this afternoon and particularly hearing from distinguished scientists speaking to us in this Chamber. We have many issues to deal with, colleagues, involving science and technology and we do not have enough dialogue with the science and technology community. Through this speech tonight, I would like to draw to the attention of all my colleagues the fact that the Parliament's own Science and Technology Assessment Unit, of which I am privileged to be Vice-President, with my colleague Mr Busquin as President, is holding a major event in the June Strasbourg week, called the STOA Experience. There will be exhibitions of recent work and many distinguished scientists will meet and talk to Members about the projects we have under way. I hope many colleagues will take a real opportunity to step up dialogue between ourselves in this Parliament and the leaders in the science and technology community within the European Union.\nPresident\nThank you for drawing that to our attention, Mr Harbour.\nJohn Attard-Montalto\nMadam President, I would like to emphasise a point which is not universally known in the European Union. This is the fact that - with the exception of Denmark - cars are most expensive in my country, the smallest country in the EU. This is mainly due to the fact that there is an extraordinary tax called registration tax, which is sometimes higher than the value of the car itself. This means that, in a country where wages are on a par at most with middle-income Europe, the price of vehicles, whether new or second hand, is exorbitant. This creates undue stress for middle- and lower-income families when it comes to changing their cars. It also affects the whole idea of world climate change. Although Malta is small, car owners find it terribly difficult to change their cars to more efficient energy-saving cars and those which produce less exhaust.\nMarian Harkin\nMadam President, as an Irish Member I am delighted to have one minute to add my voice to the many voices who celebrate and applaud what happened yesterday in Belfast. Indeed it is fitting that earlier today we congratulated Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan, David Trimble and John Hume, all Nobel Prize winners, for their contribution to peace-building and peacemaking in Northern Ireland. Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan worked within their communities and that is where real peace building is achieved, between people, between families, between neighbours and between communities. But we also need political leadership to drive the process forward and today we honoured two of those politicians, David Trimble and John Hume. There were many other politicians at different levels who took risks for peace and they too deserve our applause.\nAs we celebrate 50 years of the EU, it is most appropriate to recognise that the EU has also played an important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, giving us moral and economic support. For that support I believe I can say on my own behalf and on behalf of Irish people, thank you to the EU for believing in us and supporting us on the road to peace.\nAntonio De Blasio\n. - (HU) Over the past six years, factories on Austrian territory have been continuously polluting the waters of the R\u00e1ba River. The R\u00e1ba crosses the Hungarian border already filled with polluted, foamy water. The Hungarian Minister of Environmental Protection, who stepped down yesterday, gave the Austrian factories until 1 May to stop the pollution, but no progress has so far been made. On 1 April, together with my colleague I personally delivered to the Austrian authorities the petition of the Hungarian delegation of the People's Party, calling upon the provincial and federal government to take the necessary steps. To date we have received no answer to our petition.\nThe Austro-Hungarian Water Commission, which years ago granted the factories an operating licence, is currently holding its annual meeting. This commission is made up of delegates by the governments of the two States, and the revocation of water rights licences likewise falls within their competence. We must do everything possible to stop this harmful, cross-border environmental pollution; therefore I call upon the Austro-Hungarian Water Commission, and thus indirectly on the governments of the two Member States in question - in which I request the assistance of Parliament - to revoke, effective immediately, the water rights licences of those factories which are polluting the river.\nMarios Matsakis\nMadam President, as we celebrate 50 years of European values and fundamental principles, democracy in a candidate Member State is struggling to survive. The elected Government of Turkey is openly threatened by the country's biggest enemy, its army generals. The Turkish army, instead of protecting democracy, is set on a course to destroy it. Irrespective of our personal stance on Turkey's accession to the EU, it is to our benefit and to the benefit of the Turkish people that Turkey continues its reform process. It is our duty to support the political powers of Turkey, represented today by Mr Erdogan's Government, in their fight against the anachronistic armed forces, represented by Chief of Staff General Buyukanit. I call upon the President of this House to make a statement as soon as possible to express our strong support for the Government of Turkey and our dismay at the interference of the army in the politics of the country.\nThe European Parliament's message to the Turkish army generals should be loud and clear: 'Keep to your barracks and stop your war on democracy'.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n(SK) I have been following the situation concerning political prisoners in Cuba for quite some time. It was with pleasure that I received the news that several opposition groups had recently come up with a joint declaration in which they committed themselves to a united approach in the struggle for a peaceful transition to democracy on the island.\nThe signatories of the declaration include such well-known dissidents such as Oswaldo Pay\u00e1 from the Christian Democratic Movement for Liberation, Elizardo Sanchez from the Cuban Human Rights and National Reconciliation Commission, and Martha Beatriz Roque and Ren\u00e9 G\u00f3mez Manzano from the Assembly for the Promotion of Civil Society. The document was also signed by the members of the organisation set up by the wives of political prisoners, known as the Ladies in White.\nA unified peaceful opposition is essential to pursuing the changes that are needed by the people. One must not overlook the fact that, despite some political and philosophical differences, these groups share the same goals, including respect for human rights, reconciliation, the release of political prisoners, non-violence and cooperation.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) The purpose of my presentation is to warn European consumers who wear Chinese textile products. Regrettably, many of those products are coloured using azocolourants that do not meet the standards set in Directive 2002\/61\/EC on azocolourants.\nWhen people wear such textile products, the azocolourants penetrate the body like silent killers and cause cancer. Just as recently as May 2006 the laboratories of an authorised entity operating in the town of Svit, Slovakia, tested a sample of 90 textile products for children randomly collected on the Slovak market, most of them imported from China, and found that every fifteenth product was hazardous.\nOne can reasonably assume that large batches of essentially identical textile goods are to be found on the markets of other EU Member States. As these are extremely dangerous products, I urge the Commission to take effective measures to shorten as much as possible the time between sample collection and the publishing of an alert in the RAPEX system. The 3.5 months or more that it now takes is long enough for the hazardous product to be sold out and disappear from the market. I find these facts disconcerting, and I strongly believe that we must not remain inactive.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, there is a saying that you can tell who your real friends are in a crisis. At the moment, Poland's soft fruit farmers are facing such a crisis because of the frosts that have hit Poland in recent weeks. Soon these farms and their families will sink into poverty. Poland's farmers are hoping for some support from the EU, and that someone will reach out with a helping hand. This is what should in fact happen, as that is what solidarity means, that is what being together and helping one another in difficulty means. Lech Wa\u0142\u0119sa, who is present in this House today, could tell you much more about this. Help from the European Union will create a good climate and increase our citizens' regard for the EU. Here in this House, in the EU institutions, we need to develop instruments at EU level to help those countries, regions and industries that have been afflicted by natural disasters.\nPresident\nThat concludes the item.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-30":2,"2024-26":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"2. Azerbaijan: freedom of expression\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on seven motions for a resolution on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan.\nFiorello Provera\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe has embarked on an interesting Eastern Partnership project, which has met with support and encouraging collaboration from six countries: Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Azerbaijan.\nThis operation is improving the relationship between the European Union and these countries and may lead to democratic and economic development of the area, albeit to a varying extent depending on the history of each country. Given this intelligent political strategy, in my view, it is inappropriate to hold this urgent debate on two young bloggers sentenced following events for which proceedings are still ongoing while we overlook other situations that are truly tragic, such as the recent massacre of 57 people who had come together to support a presidential election candidate in the Philippines.\nAll parliamentary groups, with the exception of ours, support a motion for a resolution on Azerbaijan that is harsh and out of step with the partnership initiatives that we have undertaken. I am convinced that the strong views contained in the resolution put to the vote today may not only lead to the Azerbaijani Government stiffening relations with Europe, but may also have a counterproductive effect on the case of these two young people, in that this resolution could jeopardise the granting of a pardon.\nIn this regard, I would like to remind you of the decision, adopted yesterday in plenary, whereby we rejected a resolution on the Aminatou Haidar case so as not to compromise the ongoing diplomatic negotiations. I feel that it is also contradictory that in the same session, two resolutions are being put to the vote, one on Belarus and the other on Azerbaijan, both very different in tone, when these two countries are part of the same Eastern Partnership.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg\nWhen, on 11 November this year, Europe marked the anniversary of the end of the First World War, in Azerbaijan, a sentence of several years' imprisonment was passed on some journalists who had dared to write about the country's widespread corruption and unemployment. The journalists were officially charged with spreading hooliganism and terrorism.\nIn the ranking produced by Freedom House, Azerbaijan has the status of 'Not Free'. Reporters Without Borders say Azerbaijan is in 146th place out of 175 countries surveyed in terms of freedom of speech. Disturbing signals are also coming from analyses conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which has evaluated Azerbaijan on the question of political freedoms. In this context, last year's refusal by the authorities in Azerbaijan to grant concessions to foreign media, such as the BBC and Radio Free Europe, should not surprise anyone.\nI think the time has come for the European Union to review its approach to Azerbaijan and, taking advantage of the participation of Baku in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Policy, to begin to exert greater pressure on the authorities there. In addition, I would like to add my voice to the appeal of my political group for the unconditional release of the imprisoned journalists and adequate revision of Azerbaijani law.\nMarietje Schaake\nauthor. - Mr President, Azerbaijan is signatory to a number of partnerships with the EU. It is active in the neighbourhood policy as well as in the Eastern Partnership. This does not only relate to trade. Azerbaijan has also signed up to respect democracy, human rights and the rule of law. However, currently, these are all under serious threat with the present regime.\nToday we highlight the case of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade, which represents a crackdown on free media, free expression and civil society that is much deeper and wider than the case of merely two bloggers, as they have been called. They did indeed use new media like Facebook and Twitter for their youth organisation's work, but the fact is that we do not even know why they are imprisoned as evidence to defend their case has not been admitted in the trial, and the trial did not meet international standards - and, indeed, looks fabricated.\nIf we cannot rely on the Azerbaijani Government to stay true to its commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of the law through the various agreements it has itself signed with the EU, then Europe cannot consider Azerbaijan to be a credible partner at all; this is also true of trade relations.\nThis resolution urges the Azerbaijani Government to adhere to its own promises and to start building its legitimacy in the international community by respecting its own citizens, granting them democratic and human rights and allowing for respect of the rule of law.\nYesterday, we awarded the Sakharov Prize in this House of the European people, and we saw a very impressive speech by the laureate, Mr Kovalev, who said that fear can only be met by freedom of thought, and freedom of thought can only be expressed when freedom of expression is actually guaranteed and when we listen to those people who are simply addressing issues such as opposition to their government, which we, as Europeans, have to guarantee in partnership with Azerbaijan in all areas.\nUlrike Lunacek\nMr President, the previous speaker has already mentioned some of the details of this resolution. The resolution was prompted among other things by an incident in July 2009 in which two young bloggers, Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade, were attacked in a restaurant, went to the police to report the incident and were then arrested themselves.\nThey were prosecuted and, according to all the international observers, including Amnesty International, the court proceedings were far from fair. For example, the video which was apparently taken in the restaurant, which clearly showed who had been attacked and that the attackers were other people and not these two bloggers, was not played.\nIt is therefore clear that the judgment does not meet the criteria required by a state under the rule of law. I very much hope that all the evidence will have to be presented in the second trial when it takes place.\nI am pleased that we have succeeded in introducing a resolution which is supported by almost all the groups. I regret that Mr Provera's group is not joining us and instead is emphasising that we should wait for the case to resolve itself and to make use of the diplomatic channels.\nMr Provera, I believe that it is necessary for Parliament, which is in partnership with the Parliament of Azerbaijan, to express itself clearly. Human rights represent a fundamental issue. Mrs Schaake referred yesterday to the Sakharov Prize. We must speak out in support of freedom of thought in all parts of the world and ensure that it is protected.\nPresident Aliyev has often said how important the rights of every journalist are and that they must be defended by the state. It is our job to remind everyone of this and I very much hope that in future, there will be another resolution on partnership between the Parliament of Azerbaijan and the European Parliament, as unfortunately this was unsuccessful two weeks ago.\nJoe Higgins\nauthor. - Mr President, I welcome the attention drawn to the appalling and consistent crushing of human rights in Azerbaijan: no freedom for the media, dozens of journalists jailed, some beaten, some even killed in recent years. But we must ask why the regime of Mr Aliyev is implementing such horrific repression. The reason of course is to try and cover up the regime of enormous corruption which exists in that country. The ruling elite has enriched itself fabulously, especially in the oil and gas industry, while 90% of the population of Azerbaijan live in acute poverty and have seen no benefit from the natural resources of their country.\nWestern governments and multinational corporations act, as usual, with great hypocrisy in this regard. They routinely deal with the regime to facilitate doing business, and the corporations make massive profits from the exploitation of the natural resources properly belonging to the people of Azerbaijan. Western governments should be asked why they do not demand that the oil-well be used to transform the lives of the people, instead of propping up this regime.\nMembers of the European Parliament, quite correctly, are harsh in their condemnation of the crushing of the right to dissent and to demonstrate freely in Azerbaijan, and I cannot let this opportunity pass to also condemn the disgraceful repression of protests by the Danish police in Copenhagen in recent days, who arrested up to 1 000 entirely peaceful protestors, handcuffed them and left them lying for hours in the cold.\nWhen I protested and demanded the release of some CWI colleagues, the police themselves told me that it was preventive arrest, preventive detention. What goes for Azerbaijan should certainly go for a Member State of the European Union as well.\nRyszard Antoni Legutko\nMr President, in Azerbaijan, for fairly mild and delicate criticism of the government, two people have gone to prison after being given stiff sentences. What does this mean?\nFirstly, that the country does not have good legal institutions, and it does not look like such institutions are going to arise. Secondly, that Azerbaijan has an authoritarian system which is taking control of more and more areas of political life. Every concession is punished. What can we do in this situation?\nWe should certainly intervene in every specific case of the violation of justice, as we are doing in this debate. Such interventions have quite often been successful. It is significantly more difficult to force institutional change. To date, the efforts of the EU in this area have been unsatisfactory, partly because we are still lenient towards some tyrants and vociferous in our criticism of others. The representatives of Memorial mentioned this several times in this House.\nWe also have problems in part because the process of coming out of authoritarianism is very difficult, arduous and prolonged. It is a very pessimistic conclusion, but I close with this thought: in spite of everything, we should not cease in our efforts, and should be consistent in exerting pressure.\nTunne Kelam\nauthor. - Mr President, at the beginning of this year, the European Union made a statement on freedom and media in Azerbaijan. I regret the fact that, after concern on media freedom was expressed during the regular meeting with Azerbaijani parliamentarians, there has been no feedback. The European Parliament therefore has to take a stand. This is, by the way, going to be our last resolution adopted in 2009.\nThe main concern of the EPP Group, and I am happy that all factions share the same concern, is the deterioration of media freedom in that country. The widespread practice of harassment, persecution and conviction of opposition journalists is alarming. We call on Azerbaijani authorities to release the journalists in jail without further delay. This also concerns two young bloggers.\nThe second problem is a recent decision by Azerbaijani authorities to cancel the FM radio licences of several international radio stations like Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, BBC World Service and others, depriving listeners in this country of valuable and independent sources of information. Here I ask colleagues to agree to an oral amendment to paragraph 7 of the resolution: namely, not only to voice regret at the situation, but also to urge the Azerbaijani Government to cancel its decision and renew FM licences for the radio stations mentioned.\nVariety, freedom and independence of information are key to a robust civil society, as Sergei Kovalev told us yesterday in this Chamber. This applies fully to the EU's relations with Azerbaijan too.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\u0117\non behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, Azerbaijan is an important partner of the European Union. It is certainly an essential partner in efforts to ensure European energy security.\nHowever, no matter how important oil and gas are, they are not everything. Azerbaijan has made commitments to work for a democratic and pluralistic society, as enshrined in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and the Eastern Partnership policy, in which Azerbaijan intends to participate fully. We should applaud steps in the right direction taken by President Aliyev, for example, to free 119 prisoners, including five journalists, at the end of 2007.\nHowever, the situation of media freedom is only getting worse. We have a number of cases to support this claim, such as the situation of bloggers, the licences of the BBC, Radio Free Europe, etc. We must not shy away from reminding Azerbaijan that people must have the right to speak out freely, even if this means having critical views towards their governments. That is the basic principle of a democratic society, and a democratic Azerbaijan has to be an aim just as important as...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117\nFreedom of expression is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democracy. Azerbaijan ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and has undertaken to observe the provisions of Article 10 of this convention, which is devoted to freedom of expression and information. This Article establishes every person's right to freely express their opinion, receive and share information, without let or hindrance from governing institutions. Azerbaijan also has made a commitment not to flout human rights and not to impinge on individual freedoms and to safeguard the principles of democracy in its country by participating in the implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership initiative. However, recently in Azerbaijan, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association has increasingly come under threat and media activities are restricted. There is growing violence against journalists and civil society activists. I would like to urge Azerbaijan to take into account the European Parliament's proposals and encouragement to improve the human rights protection system and to ensure respect for media freedoms.\nRyszard Czarnecki\nMr President, Azerbaijan has appeared once again on the agenda of the European Parliament. We spoke about Azerbaijan in the last parliamentary term, when we adopted three resolutions, including one about freedom of the media there. We also spoke about the Southern Caucasus, again including Azerbaijan.\nWe are interested in Azerbaijan and have a great deal of goodwill for the country. It is trying to find its way step-by-step, and, indeed, is moving ever nearer to the western world, and not to the east. We should appreciate this. I think that we look upon Azerbaijan with a great deal of goodwill, and also on the authorities there. However, that goodwill must not order us not to speak out about things we do not like. Certainly, a situation in which two bloggers are locked up because they say what they think about the authorities is something which should not take place.\nWe should support the pro-European tendencies of the Azerbaijani authorities, because all the time, a political discussion is going on there about whether to be closer to the European Union or to Russia. In so doing, we should support all those who want to be closer to the western world. However, when supporting them, we must talk about the values which make up that world - freedom of the press and freedom of expression are a fundamental value, and we should make this very plain.\nAzerbaijan is certainly not in an easy position, because Russia is trying to rebuild its area of political and economic influence, but when helping the Azerbaijani authorities to draw nearer to the EU, we must speak out about the country's deficiencies.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\nFreedom of expression is a very important feature of a democratic society. It is therefore correct that the EU monitors very carefully any actions aimed at intimidating those who openly criticise the mistakes of government officials.\nFrom this perspective, I understand the challenge of the European Parliament to the Azerbaijan office expressing disquiet over the results of a police investigation mounted against young people who make satirical references to visible shortcomings in the political life of the country. I agree that we cannot ignore the clearly unfavourable signals coming from Azerbaijan and I do not doubt the criticism of the political environment in Azerbaijan, but I also feel that there has been no emphatic criticism from the European Parliament concerning the current events in the Philippines, where 57 political hostages have been murdered. In my opinion, we should address all issues that shake the democratic world.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, following the first European elections in 1979, I had the honour of working with Otto von Habsburg, who is now seriously ill, to establish the human rights tradition of the European Parliament, including these topical and urgent debates on a Thursday afternoon. I was elected to the European Parliament in 1994 and I had the honour of working with Mr Schulz and others to further develop this human rights tradition, which we are rightly proud of. For this reason I was shocked when Mr Provera said with reference to Mr Schulz, who did not deserve this, that the case should not be taken up and almost repeated the threats made by the regime in Azerbaijan to civil rights activists in the country by saying that they will have to put up with it.\nThe human rights prize has already been mentioned today. I remember well that when we expressed our support for Andrei Sakharov, Vytautas Landsbergis and other campaigners for civil rights, people said at the time: Please do not get involved. We will make use of the diplomatic channels and you are causing more harm than good. Now we know that it was decisive for these people that Parliament spoke out clearly on their behalf. Therefore, Mr Schulz, ladies and gentlemen, let us continue our tradition of independence on a Thursday afternoon. I would like to ask the group chairs to give us some freedom to act.\nThis has nothing to do with party politics. During the last session, one Member said that as we were just about to hold meetings with China, we could not talk about China. Today it was a different subject, the Western Sahara. Perhaps this is justified in individual cases, but I am seriously concerned about our human rights work. Ladies and gentlemen, the case of Azerbaijan demonstrates how important it is to be discerning here. The country was a Soviet satellite state. Monocultures were established, the country was destroyed and subjected to a brutal regime. Now it is slowly beginning to become more democratic. As a member of the Council of Europe, it has committed to human rights and we must help it to continue along this route.\n(Applause)\nCristian Dan Preda\n(RO) I, too, support what Mr Posselt said earlier. At the same time, I would ask for the Azerbaijani Government to respect the right of freedom of expression of every citizen and to immediately drop the charges against the two young men, accused on the basis of fabricated evidence, as Mrs Lunacek mentioned earlier. I believe that this action must be taken urgently because the situation with regard to press freedom in this country has deteriorated sharply, as is also indicated by the latest reports from the Council of Europe and OSCE.\nI also think that the Azerbaijani Government must take this action urgently because it must respect the commitments arising from both the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership.\nI will conclude by saying that I, too, was shocked by the turn of events today with regard to Mrs Haidar, all the more so as the suffering she is going through could be avoided through good cooperation between the Moroccan and Spanish authorities.\nI believe that our resolution would not have done any harm, but actually a lot of good.\nTadeusz Zwiefka\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to quote from Article 47 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan: 'Everyone may enjoy freedom of thought and speech.' Unfortunately, they are only empty words, for the constitution is not respected.\nFor over five years, I have been a member of the EU-Southern Caucasus Parliamentary Cooperation Committees. I visited Azerbaijan during every joint parliamentary session. In one of the documents, there is a point about the violation of the principles of freedom of speech, and about how journalists and publishers end up in prison, often on fabricated charges, and that they are not given medical help when they are ill. We have a case of a journalist who died because he did not receive medical assistance.\nI had the opportunity to visit Azeri prisons. The standards which are found there are far different from those to which we are accustomed in Europe. It is good, therefore, that we keep on saying that in Azerbaijan, the principles enshrined in the constitution should be respected.\nPawe\u0142 Samecki\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, Azerbaijan is important to the European Union as an energy producer and transit country, and also as a contributor to regional stability in the Southern Caucasus. Azerbaijan is one of the six partner countries under the Eastern Partnership, and we attach great importance to respect for the common values underpinning this relationship.\nA partnership and cooperation agreement has been in place for 10 years. However, Azerbaijan has expressed its interest in building closer relations with the European Union by concluding an association agreement to replace it.\nFollowing the decision of the EU Foreign Affairs Ministers in September to start preparations for concluding such agreements with the Southern Caucasus countries, discussions on the negotiation directives, including for Azerbaijan, are now ongoing.\nIn line with the Council's decision, the start of negotiations for all the Southern Caucasus countries will be conditional on sufficient progress in meeting the necessary political conditions, namely the rule of law and respect for human rights, the principles of the market economy, as well as sustainable development and good governance.\nEach year, we draw an in-depth and balanced assessment setting out progress made by each partner country to implement their action plans under the European Neighbourhood Policy. We have just started the preparatory work for the 2009 report.\nI do not want to pre-empt our report but would like to make a few remarks, particularly on the situation regarding fundamental freedoms and human rights. In our 2008 report, we stated that 'Azerbaijan has made good progress in economic development, but continues to show a poor record of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law'.\nSince then, we have unfortunately seen some negative developments, including changes to the Constitution, the abolition of limits on the mandate of the Head of State, as well as the detention and subsequent condemnation of two bloggers.\nNegative developments also include the continued persecution of human rights defenders, opposition activists and journalists, in addition to further deterioration of media freedom.\nThe European Union has, in its various contacts, taken up these issues at all levels with the authorities and will continue to do so. At the same time, the Commission is mobilising a wide range of tools to assist Azerbaijan to meet the challenges of a new agreement.\nWe are using assistance under the ENPI instrument. We provide targeted support under the comprehensive institution-building programme. This will have important elements related to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary.\nAzerbaijan will also benefit from assistance under the European initiative for democracy and human rights.\nLastly, under the existing partnership and cooperation agreement, we are proposing to set up a subcommittee dedicated to justice, freedom and security, and human rights and democracy. This will constitute an important and additional forum for communicating our messages.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at the end of the debate.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Draft general budget 2009 as modified by the Council (all sections) (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mrs Haug and Mr Lewandowski, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009 as modified by the Council (all sections) (16257\/2008 - C6 0457\/2008 -.\nJutta Haug\nMadam President, Commissioner, it seems the President-in-Office of the Council is not quite here yet. In any event, the second reading of the European budget is on tomorrow's agenda. In all probability, the vote will not take much time. The fact that few things remain to be put to the vote and even fewer are in dispute is thanks to the constructive cooperation among all the Members involved - both in the specialist committees and in the Committee on Budgets - for which I should like to express my sincere thanks. I am all the more pleased since I know that this cannot be taken for granted. This also goes for the groundwork done by the entire team on the Committee on Budgets, the work of all the group staff and the support of the personal assistants, so thank you!\nI should also like to extend my thanks to the Commission for its willingness to cooperate. Its communications with us may not always have pleased everyone concerned, but it was always helpful and, above all, it spoke to me at the various levels, which cannot be said of the Council Presidency. Thus far, the French Council Presidency has not managed to speak to me, the general rapporteur, on a single occasion. Not one single time! I have not even received a response as yet to a letter I wrote before the trialogue on 13 November - which is very strange, very disconcerting.\nWhat was not at all strange or disconcerting, however, was how the Council team behaved at the conciliation meeting. Its behaviour and attitudes were what we have come to expect. Firstly, there must be no revision, however small, under any circumstances. Secondly, the payments are to be reduced in any event, even if the gap between payments and commitments becomes a ravine. Thirdly, the unspent appropriations from the current financial year should preferably be handed over immediately. In any case, approximately EUR 4.9 billion will be channelled back to the coffers of the national Finance Ministers. We in Parliament are delighted to have been able to persuade the Commission to promise a carry-over of EUR 700 million for rural development. We also think that the binding joint declarations on simplifying the procedure and on accelerating the implementation of the Structural Funds programmes, and also the promise that more funds for payments would be proposed without delay if need be, will be helpful in managing the tasks of the coming financial year.\nThese tasks will be not exactly trivial. The impact of the financial market crisis and its repercussions on the real economy will be felt in all our Member States. Therefore, Parliament is, by all means, prepared to free up funds for job creation or preservation, funds for providing economic momentum - in addition to the range of instruments already at the disposal of the European Union. We are prepared to do everything necessary at the maximum speed possible - not indiscriminately, of course, but if it is clear what projects the funds are to be provided for and how appropriate they are, not one of us will be left in the lurch.\nParliament is also prepared for a revision of the medium-term financial programme. First of all, however, the Council needs a common position.\nWe may be voting at second reading tomorrow, but I have the vague feeling that what we are voting on is just a budgetary framework. The additions to it will be demanded of us little by little over the year.\nJanusz Lewandowski\nMadam President, the second reading of the budget of the European Institutions will, in principle, be a repeat of the first reading, and it remains for me to explain why this is so.\nIn the case of the Council, we respect our gentlemen's agreement and appreciate the Council's restraint in terms of budgetary spending for 2009, whilst acknowledging the additional need for resources in relation to the Reflection Group. In the case of the other institutions, it is worth noting that the Court of Auditors' increased need for funding is due to the downpayments on its new headquarters (in the final analysis, this method for funding the new headquarters will be cost-effective for European taxpayers) and, in the case of the European Court of Justice, it will need funding for its new urgency procedure, which requires funding in order to employ additional staff.\nAs far as the European Parliament is concerned, we tested the pilot project this year. The pilot project has produced encouraging results, thanks to the excellent cooperation of Parliament's administrative services, for which personal thanks must also go to the Secretary-General, Mr R\u00f8mer. The test was not insignificant, as this will be a special year for the European Parliament, due to the upcoming elections, the need to fund the election campaign and the completely new regulations concerning the status of MEPs, along with greater transparency in relation to the pension fund and new rules for employing and funding assistants. The fact that the issue of MEPs and their assistants is being addressed is good news in an election year.\nOf course, this will involve additional costs in terms of the European Parliament's budget. In spite of this, we have made an effort and have achieved the goal which we had been working towards for a number of years, namely that of ensuring that, notwithstanding the specific needs of the European Parliament, its budget does not exceed 20% of the European Union's administrative spending. Overall, it looks like the vote on Thursday will be brief, thanks to the good cooperation of the coordinators and the excellent cooperation of the European Parliament's Secretariat - and here, I would particularly like to mention Marianna Pari and Richard Wester. These are people who should be mentioned on such an occasion.\nDalia Grybauskait\u0117\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to stress that the 2009 budget negotiations have been very specific, very important and difficult as never before. The main focus in this budget is on growth and jobs. This year, the budget preparation has also focused on the funding of the food aid facility instrument for development countries. Together, we have been able to find a balanced agreement to secure this EUR 1 billion.\nHaving a budget is not enough. We need to execute it properly and in timely fashion. In this respect, considering that cohesion is a key factor for stimulating economic growth, Parliament has stressed the importance of effective budget implementation and the need for improvement and simplification. We agreed with that during our negotiations. The Commission shares this objective and, on 26 November, presented proposals for accelerating implementation and simplification of management of the Structural Funds.\nLast week, the European Council fully endorsed this approach, and I hope now that the required changes in the relevant legal acts can be agreed smoothly altogether.\nLooking forward to the near future, we all have to recognise that we will shortly face other challenges in order to address the financial and economic crisis in Europe. The recovery plan for the European economy presented by the Commission includes elements which will have an impact on the Community budget next year. The European Council last week supported this recovery plan. The Commission therefore presented a proposal to revise the multiannual financial framework in accordance with the interinstitutional agreement.\nThis has to be approved by both Parliament and the Council in the coming months and I count as usual on cooperation, especially on Parliament's side.\nTo conclude, I would like to recall that negotiation on the 2009 budget has required compromise on all sides. It has also shown that the best results can be achieved in a spirit of fair cooperation between the institutions. That would not have been possible without the constructive and responsible role of Parliament throughout the whole negotiation process. I also want to stress the crucial role of the presidency tackling the Member States' position.\nFinally, let me express my gratitude to Parliament's negotiating team and, in particular, the chairman, Mr Borg, the rapporteurs for 2009, Mrs Haug, with her innovative approach this year, and Mr Lewandowski, and also all the political coordinators of COBU, who gave the Commission and Parliament a lot of help.\nI wish us all a positive vote tomorrow, and I wish you all a better than expected New Year.\nL\u00e1szl\u00f3 Surj\u00e1n\nWe have heard about the difficulties that had to be faced. I believe that, under the leadership of Jutta Haug, we have quite successfully resolved these difficulties. She deserves our thanks for her work and for the fact that each political group can feel that it has ownership of this budget.\nDrawing up a budget is politics expressed in figures. What is the message, I wonder, that the European People's Party sees in this budget? In our view, we need to give European citizens greater security, and the European Union is ready and able to do so. Around one third of the budget is devoted to items that increase the sense of security. The amendments made by the European People's Party and European Democrats have increased the budget by around EUR 1 billion, thereby raising its profile; I am thinking of funds for supporting small businesses, preserving jobs and creating new ones where possible, developing underdeveloped regions, for energy security and for planning projects such as Nabucco. Food security is also very important, however, especially these days, not to mention defending the borders of the Schengen zone and preventing illegal immigration.\nNaturally, no matter how good this budget is, it is far from perfect. Part of the reason for its flaws lies with the Member States. It is unacceptable for Member States not to use the resources which the EU makes available to them, for billions of euros to remain unused in the EU coffers. Certain Member States introduce artificial obstacles, making access to calls for tender even more difficult than we ourselves do. The efforts of the European Commission to simplify these processes are commendable, but we must not allow Member States to create effects or enact changes that run counter to these endeavours.\nHowever, the fault does not lie exclusively with the Member States. The EU is incapable of responding rapidly to the challenges of a changing world. Of course, we have solved the problem of food aid, but at the cost of such vehement debates! And now, when we ought to be moving forward, we face difficulties in handling the economic crisis as well. I think that in the coming period, over the coming year, we will have to implement considerable simplifications both in the existing frameworks and in the interests of greater flexibility. Thank you for your attention and I hope that we will have a good budget.\nCatherine Guy-Quint\nMadam President, Commissioner, please allow me to note the Council's absence and the innovation on the part of the French Presidency, honouring us with its absence, which is a first. I would like to say, Jutta, you had thought that it was out of contempt that the French Presidency had not met with you. I believe simply that this absence shows the contempt this Presidency has, or its Ministers have at any rate, for the budget of the European Union.\nI will not go back over the proposals of our rapporteurs, but I would like to dwell on just a few thoughts. I shall repeat, once again this year, that the budget is inadequate and the multiannual financial framework is unsuitable. There is a lack of funds for economic recovery policies, research, lifelong learning, networks, and aid for SMEs and micro-enterprises. It is difficult to implement the policy of territorial solidarity and, in particular, the Cohesion Fund, and therefore billions of euros are left in unused payment appropriations. Too much money is earmarked for aid for market agriculture, which leaves margins unused due to legal bases that prohibit new commitments. There are problems in using the sums set aside for rural development and the environment. Money is being scattered on security and justice policies, far removed from the Council's public commitments, and citizenship and information policies are practically bankrupt and do not enable real communication with European citizens.\nHowever, the promises made within the framework of external action are the last straw in terms of the lack of realism. Needs are continually piling up, conflicts and poverty are taking hold all over the world - Somalia, Darfur, Asia, typhoons, cyclones, famine, war in Palestine, Kosovo, now in Georgia - and the allocated resources are not changing. Every year, mission impossible becomes ever more impossible.\nOnly the creation of a billion-euro fund, which is essential in order to attempt to revive subsistence agriculture in the poorest countries, has provided a faint glimmer of hope. Trusting the financial perspective, we were hoping that we could continue to implement the traditional policies and find, in the margins available, enough money to respond to this different emergency, to which establishing the fight against climate change must be added. That is to overlook the fact that the budgetary agreement is negotiated with the Council and that the Council, rather I should say the 27 governments of the Member States, in addition to their traditional problems, are facing the financial crisis that is threatening the European economy, but which is being experienced as 27 national budgetary crises.\nThat is why we are forced to adopt a budget that is not in line with Members' expectations, a budget in which the gap between commitments and payments is giving rise to increasing concern with regard to the sincerity of the budget procedure. The desire to contribute as little as possible to the revenue of the Union leads the Member States to adopt simple and unproductive positions. Firstly, they keep payments to a bare minimum, hence the payment appropriation of less than 0.9% of GDP, with commitment promises that are never monitored, and they do not facilitate the implementation of European policies in their country so as to avoid cofinancing and thus allow unused appropriations to flow back into the coffers of each state.\nAdmittedly, the Union's usual policies continue to be implemented as well as can be expected. Innovative actions, which are often promoted by our pilot projects, and preparatory actions are being implemented by the Commission. The European budget, however, is characterised by promising everything and not investing sufficient funds in implementation procedures, with the willingness of each of the Member States.\nOnce again, we have two new urgent challenges to face this year. The first is the fight against climate change, and the Council's conclusions on the subject are modest but at least it has made some conclusions; investments need to be made this year and increased in 2010. The second challenge is the EUR 200 billion economic stimulation that has been announced. Only EUR 5 billion of that amount is needed for new investments. The financial perspective therefore needs to be reviewed somewhat.\nYesterday, the President-in-Office told us that this review had been acknowledged, but the Council tells us that it has been blocked. What, then, is the situation? We in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are ready.\nTo conclude, we absolutely cannot continue on this course, since political Europe is falling apart before our eyes. The time has come to review the financial perspective so as to restore balance to Europe's revenue and expenditure, to deconsecrate some immutable policies and to finance dynamic policies to effectively meet the real needs of people around the world.\nLastly, I would like to wish the Commission good luck. It is up to you to implement this budget accurately without wasting a single euro. It is up to you to show sceptical states and convince them of the added value that the Union provides, both politically and in budgetary terms.\n(Applause)\nAnne E. Jensen\nMadam President, I would like to begin by thanking the two rapporteurs, Mrs Haug and Mr Lewandowski, for their extremely competent and professional work on the budget. I would also like to thank our chairman, Mr B\u00f6ge, and Commissioner Grybauskait\u00e9, because they have been so good at finding solutions. The budget is, of course, highly inflexible. The budget framework is inflexible - we are not simply moving unspent money from the agriculture budget framework over to other parts of the budget, and recently the Commission has almost made a habit of challenging this flexibility - challenging this rigidity. We should not be ungrateful to the Commission for this. I think that it is good to try new ways, and I would like to say that we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe wholeheartedly support this budget and the solution that has been found for the food facility, the one billion that has been found to create more food in developing countries. What we are pleased about is that it was possible to find a solution that did not involve large cuts in other programmes, but that we found the funds in the Flexibility Instrument and the Emergency Aid Reserve.\nI am also pleased by the Commissioner's assurances that the Commission does intend to look into the Structural Fund Programmes and that they can be simplified. We have an historic task over the next few years, and that is to ensure that the necessary development takes place in the new Member States. I think that this is certainly the most important aspect of the EU budget.\nOf course, along the way, we have complained about the lack of initiatives in the budget relating to energy, and then, at the eleventh hour, a memorandum arrived in the wake of the financial crisis, stating that the EU budget, too, was to be used in an attempt to initiate growth. We have proposed five billion for various initiatives within the energy sector, and I would like to say on behalf of my group that we are prepared to find a solution to this - we are prepared to find funding and also to work quickly, but if we are to look at how the individual programmes are made up - more money for TEN-e, more money for research programmes and more money for the CIP, in other words, programmes we know well - we should also take our time to ensure that we do this in a sound and sensible way. However, I look forward to constructive cooperation on these matters and I would like to thank the Commission for the initiative. It is perhaps a bit of a shame that it has come so late, but we will happily work constructively on these matters.\nHelga Tr\u00fcpel\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the 2009 budget is no less, but also no more than a compromise. Nor is this any surprise, as we have just heard. The financial perspective does not permit great leaps; the structure of the European budget is much too rigid and inflexible for this as things stand.\nNevertheless, the 2009 budget sends out some important signals. For example, we have succeeded in providing EUR 1 billion more for food aid; that is, for the poorest of the poor, and hopefully for sustainable agricultural policy in the poorest countries. We shall also be spending a little more on small- and medium-sized enterprises - very important to economic development - and a little more on tackling climate change.\nNew priorities are necessary, however. We need a revision of the European budget, and I should like to address this speech in particular to the Member States, including the government of my home country, Germany. We must respond to the crisis in the short term, but naturally also in the medium and long term. Obviously, the EU budget cannot replace national budgets or national policymaking, but anyone who does not adapt to crises is guaranteed to fail.\nRecently, I saw on television the press conference broadcast when the head of General Motors appealed to the United States Congress for further loans. He argued, 'We need to build green cars, we need to invest in green technologies', and he was right. Unfortunately, this manager was rather slow in realising this, and stocks of unsold American trucks are piling up. It is indeed true that our economy needs to be restructured. Europe must manufacture new, environmentally-friendly, high-tech eco-products if we want to see economic success in the next few years, on both the internal and world markets.\nWe must reduce emissions significantly. We must reduce our dependence on oil. We must invest more in renewable energy and much more in research. This will create opportunities for new products and thus also for new jobs. We must certainly change our agricultural policy; it must be linked to ecological energy generation. That, too, will present Europe's farmers with a new opportunity.\nWe must also spend more on well-understood development aid - not as charity, but because it is an intelligent, strategic policy to introduce fair trade worldwide and to really develop a strategic approach to narrowing the prosperity gap on a global scale. We must also realise at long last that we have to link growth to environmental protection and the fight against climate change. We need a new model for thinking about growth, and this goes not only for Europe but also for emerging economies such as India and China, and the United States too, of course.\nWe very much hope that the new Obama administration will bring a change in American thinking and a rethink regarding the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. All this must also be reflected in the European budget, however, which is why new priorities are necessary. We must answer the question as to where the money comes from. My group - the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance - is of the opinion that more environmental taxes are needed. CO2 consumption must be taxed, and kerosene taxes must be brought in at long last. This should supply a large proportion of the European budget.\nEverything we are hearing from the Commission at present - that is, every couple of months - indicates, however, that internal logic is showing that we need a revision of the European budget to demonstrate to the public that we have indeed understood, that we want to change things, that we need new priorities, that we want to spend more on research and development, and that we need new propulsion technologies.\nOf course, we must also carry out more research in this regard; there is no way around this. As we have already discussed, cereals belong on the table and not in the tank - something the European Union must also make clear. During the economic crisis, we must put more money into education: into the Erasmus Mundus Programme for student mobility and university exchanges, and into lifelong learning. This is the only way to give young people in Europe new opportunities on the labour markets of the future and also in their personal lives.\nWe must invest more in cultural diversity - this is the wealth of the European Union, and citizens will thank us for this when they see that European funds are really reaching their local area. If we wish to behave responsibly, we must also do more in the way of preventive external policy, rather than reacting only when it is too late. That too, falls within our political responsibility. It is important to act in good time; which is why we need more resources for the Instrument for Stability.\nIn view of the forthcoming elections in June, we must show the European public that we have understood, that we have courage, and that we are prepared to change European policy, including with all due moderation with regard to the European budget. I hope and believe that citizens will appreciate this when it comes to the elections.\nWies\u0142aw Stefan Kuc\nMadam President, I welcome the fact that only a few amendments to the budget remain. It is difficult to judge who is right and we will not know the truth until the end of 2009. It is fortunate that, following the approval of the budget, we will be able to implement changes at the very start of the year, as we do each year.\nYesterday, the Chairman of the French Presidency, President Sarkozy, said that there is less debate on major issues than minor ones. This might mean the same thing as Commissioner Grybauskaite's statement that, in the future, we should draw up a completely different budget, and not only change the budget headings, but ensure that they are better integrated.\nThe current, fragmented budget, which contains many headings, is not very readable. It takes a long time to draw up, and leads to much debate. In fact, it is only up-to-date for a few days, if not a few hours. This was the case with the 2008 budget, where corrections were already introduced at the first meeting of the Committee on Budgets. It would be preferable to introduce broader headings, and define for what purpose the resources could be used. This would make the implementation of the budget significantly more flexible and would provide the European Commission, as well as the European Parliament, with better opportunities, as they could monitor how the funding was spent throughout the whole of the time it was in force, and immediately respond to any needs that might arise.\nThe recent increase in funding by the Council in 2008, or the increase in budgetary funding for the forthcoming years by EUR 200-250 billion, proves that there is no point to these year-long debates on the details of the budget for the following year.\nEsko Sepp\u00e4nen\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, the grand total for payment appropriations in next year's draft budget is lower than it has ever been. There will be enough cash for payments if the same payment policy is adhered to as in recent years. The Commission will not be fully implementing the budget.\nYesterday, Parliament decided to repay the Member States almost five of the six billion euros that has not been used for payments this year, although it had been budgeted to be spent. A billion was added to next year's budget for food aid. Since the Commission made this proposal, the price of food has halved, and the EU will soon have to intervene in its own production. There are a million starving people in the world, and aid will of course flow as needed, but the arguments behind the Commission's proposal have become obsolete in six months.\nLast week saw the Commission indulge in PR and propaganda in connection with the preparation of the budget in order to promote its programme for the economic recovery of the Member States. This is budgetary acrobatics and a sham. The EU's contribution of five billion means that the money was moved from one Article to another without the Member States committing to new money for the EU's use. These are not genuine recovery measures to put right the damage caused by globalisation. We need robust action as a drug to cure us of the disease of 'funny money', and the EU is simply not delivering. The European Commission and the Council of the European Union are not prepared to decide on action of this sort.\nNils Lundgren\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, as usual, we have a document here that is an exemplary piece of parliamentary handiwork from those who have prepared the budget. At the same time, we find ourselves in the absurd situation of being in the process of doing something that we should not be doing. We are currently discussing how we are to spend more money. This Parliament does not represent taxpayers, is not seeking to restrain spending, but is instead worried that not enough money is being spent. Not only is more than two thirds of the money spent on things that we should not be getting involved in as a parliament, but it is also used for completely the wrong purposes. The money is still going on agricultural policy, rural development and regional policy, that is to say, all things that are the Member States' own responsibility, and which they should pay for themselves.\nA lot has also been said, and quite rightly so, about 2009 being a year of crisis in Europe, the US and, in fact, the whole world, and then we ask ourselves: what should we do? Here? And my answer to that is that we cannot do anything about this here. The EU countries use perhaps 40 to 45% of their money for public expenditure. One percent comes here and is used for the wrong things. We are marginalising ourselves with this approach. Thank you very much.\nSergej Kozl\u00edk\n- (SK) I would like to express my appreciation for the text of the resolution on the EU general budget for 2009 submitted by the Committee on Budgets and its rapporteur, Jutta Haug. Its wording expresses the risks of next year's EU budget in a thorough and comprehensive manner.\nIn my view, the main issue which is still open is budgetary provision for the impacts of the EU plan to deal with the consequences of the financial crisis. The extent and direction of the crisis remains open. The most important initiatives will be aimed at sustainable development, employment growth and support for small- and medium-sized businesses, as well as support for cohesion between the regions, which is a key factor for stimulating economic growth in Europe.\nIn 2009, we can expect to see a more rapid drawing down of resources from the structural and cohesion funds especially in the new states. It is therefore appropriate to emphasise the obligation of the budgetary authorities to provide additional payments on time. A potential source of these payments could be the EUR 7.7 billion reserve against the payment ceiling of the multi-annual financial framework. In this context, it is essential to adopt measures for simplifying the mechanisms of structural and cohesion funds in order to set about improving the ability to draw on them in EU countries.\nSalvador Garriga Polledo\n(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to give a special vote of thanks to the representative of the French Presidency, Mr Sorel, who has set a wonderful example of collaboration with the Committee on Budgets by attending all the debates we have held.\nParliament's work on the draft EU budget is once again reaching a satisfactory conclusion this year. We have needed the many years' experience of negotiating between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. We know the limits of each institution and we have been able to reach agreement on the basics, so tomorrow's vote may be presented as an institutional success for the European Union.\nAll these years of mutual familiarity also tell us, however, that the agreement on basics this year falls short of those basics that we ought to be able to demand under normal circumstances.\nThe problem is that this draft budget was planned many months ago in March or April without taking into account the huge scale of the economic and financial crisis. It is not uncommon, therefore, since some Member States have also done so, not planning far enough in advance.\nOur budgetary procedure is essentially very rigid and does not allow for corrections along the way. Parliament made some proposals at first reading that did aim to help with economic revival and provide a safety net for citizens, mainly through amendments tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and also the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Some of them were adopted by the Council, while others were not.\nIt is only at the end of the process, once conciliation has already taken place, that the Council and the Commission are finally coming up with great ideas about how to use the EU budget to boost economic growth. When improvisation is combined with urgency, the most likely outcome is disappointment.\nIn the end, the response to the economic crisis will be made at national rather than Community level, and the EU budget will not, unfortunately, be the powerful economic policy instrument that it should have been.\nWhat I cannot understand is why, in the economic boom years back in 2005-2006, the financial perspectives that were approved were so pared back and limited that the annual budgetary policy could not be used as a countercyclical weapon.\nWe are hamstrung by the annual ceilings, and the multiannual financial framework is of no use in crisis years.\nI have a final thought. The two Community programmes most affected by the 2006 financial perspective agreement - trans-European networks and rural development - are the ones that have now been chosen to boost Europe's economic growth from Brussels.\nMy question is: who should now be held responsible for having cut them back so hard in 2006?\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm\n(SV) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy's rapporteur for the budget, I have to say that in the committee, we agreed at a very early stage, even before the crisis began, that we must give higher priority to climate and energy measures and small- and medium-sized companies in particular. We have now come to the same conclusion in the Committee on Budgets, and I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their exceptionally constructive cooperation in connection with the budget this year. We would also stress the necessity to concentrate on investment in common growth and infrastructures.\nI was listening to Mr Lundgren from the Independence and Democracy Group a little while ago. He has, of course, completely misunderstood this. No one believes that we could have so large an EU budget that the EU itself could counteract the efforts to improve the economic situation. The things we should be doing are common things that individual Member States cannot manage, to build the EU into a common market, a real common market. Now that we have removed barriers to trade, we must also acquire a common infrastructure, in particular, a common energy infrastructure, and common research so that we can take the lead worldwide. This is, of course, what it is all about; it is not about taking something away from the Member States.\nI spoke for the first time in this budget debate in 1999. What were we talking about then? Well, the same things we are talking about today - jobs, growth, simplification and increased efficiency, increased flexibility in the budget to improve the EU's ability to react quickly to new challenges. However, we are, unfortunately, still going over far too much old ground. The Commission's initiative in conjunction with the recovery plan is therefore welcome, even if it has been put together very quickly.\nIn any case, I think that the most important thing we can do now is to bring about a more real and stable change in the EU's budget policy. The results of the Commission's open cooperation on the long-term budget demonstrate what this is all about: a stable and long-term investment in growth, environment and climate policy. This also means that we can get away from the current state of affairs with continual ad hoc efforts to revise the budget plan. We now need a new structure for the long-term budget. This is the most important thing that the Commission can do now. Thank you.\nNathalie Griesbeck\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this year, once again, the budgetary procedure has forced our Parliament to negotiate bitterly the total amount of the 2009 budget, as well as the priorities that we have set ourselves in order to achieve targets both in terms of growth and employment, within the framework of a well thought-out economy, but also in the context of a global crisis, and in terms of external policy and the policies referred to under Heading 3: 'Citizenship, freedom, justice'.\nAs we have always said, and indeed repeated, the multiannual financial framework is tight and absolutely requires this fundamental reform since, in the future, even less than it does today, it will not enable us to meet the many essential needs of an enlarged Europe with 27 Member States.\nIn this context, the budget that has been proposed to us by the rapporteurs is basically as good as it can be, and I am delighted that the Commissioner announced this morning that it has been agreed to perform a vital review of the multiannual framework. I welcome her constant presence here with us and I too regret the absence of the Minister for the Budget, which was announced briefly on the electronic screen at the start of the session. Apparently, the Minister did not see fit to join us.\nI am particularly pleased, in terms of the budget, by the efforts made in favour of lines on the fight against global warming, support of SMEs, tackling energy dependence, as well as measures that were adopted for a more humane, more humanist Europe that is better equipped to meet the fundamental challenges of migratory policies.\nI would still like to express my concern regarding the appropriations allocated to rural development and I wish, once again, to condemn the emphasis that is placed on this policy in favour of rural territories.\nMany thanks to Mrs Haug, her team, Mr Lewandowski and the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets.\nZbigniew Krzysztof Ku\u017amiuk\n- (PL) Madam President, I would like to draw attention to three issues in this debate.\nIn times of a deepening financial and, therefore, economic crisis in the European Union, this budget is exceptionally small. Commitments amounting to just over 1% of gross national income, payments amounting to 0.9%, and especially the margin of EUR 3.2 billion, testify that the largest Member States do not want to fund the European Union's most important objectives.\nSecondly, the European Union very easily takes on additional commitments which were not foreseen in the financial perspective. Recently, an additional EUR 1 billion has been earmarked for preventing famine in the third world, while EUR 0.5 billion has been pledged to help reconstruction efforts in Georgia. This expenditure, which is absolutely justified, will have to be funded at the cost of other important activities, which the Union committed itself to funding much earlier.\nFinally, in terms of efforts to overcome the economic crisis, individual Member States, especially the less wealthy ones such as Poland, have pinned their hopes on the initiation of advance funding of projects using structural funds. I hope that this exceptionally modest budget will, nevertheless, allow us to fund large investment projects in this way.\nPedro Guerreiro\n(PT) As we underlined in October, what should have marked the EU budget for 2009 was political measures and associated budget lines to effectively respond to the worsening economic crisis.\nHowever, instead of targeting and increasing the funds to promote economic and social cohesion and to enhance the purchasing power of workers, the EU budget proposed for 2009 reduces payments to an unprecedented level (EUR 4 billion less than the amount adopted for the 2008 budget). They even fall short of the amount planned in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-2013, which was already totally inadequate. In relative terms, this represents the lowest EU budget since Portugal joined the European Economic Community.\nThe proposed EU budget for 2009 supposedly supports the European economic recovery plan and what passes for European solidarity. In truth, the motto is every man for himself, in other words, a policy that will further increase the disparities between those countries that are economically more developed and the cohesion countries.\nWhat we urgently need are budgetary measures providing effective support to small-scale and family-based agriculture, fisheries, the textile and clothing industries, the shipbuilding industry, and micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises. These measures should defend the productive sectors in each Member State, particularly the cohesion countries, employment with rights and decent wages for workers.\nJeffrey Titford\nMadam President, 'arrogance' is the word that springs to mind when reading this lengthy report, because the text is redolent with it. For instance, paragraph 25 laments the fact that the funds available 'do not, as they stand, allow the Union to assume its role as a global player'. The same paragraph refers to the EU having the 'capacity to assume its role as a global partner'. Whoever wanted the EU to have such a role? Why does it have such an inflated sense of its own importance? Certainly no one in my country has been given a vote on the development of the EU as a global player. We were told it was a common market, which would provide cheap wine and nice holidays.\nI also note that the 'global player' wants its trademark for use in all communications with the masses and wants a major information campaign for the 2009 elections. For 'information', read 'brainwashing', because the EU will no doubt sell itself as the greatest benefit to humanity since penicillin, rather than the grotesque enemy of democracy and freedom of thought that it really represents.\nThe aforementioned arrogance spills over into everything it touches. There is no better example than the recent disgraceful and disrespectful treatment of President Klaus, a head of state, at a meeting in Prague by Members here. I put it to you that the EU has no democratic mandate whatsoever for the empire-building outlined in this budget.\nJean-Claude Martinez\n(FR) Madam President, at Christmas, little boys receive red cars to play at being firemen, and little girls receive Barbie dolls to play at everything else.\nLikewise, the Commission and the Council of Ministers have a small budget with which to play at public finances. We are playing, then, at having a tea party with the budget, dishing out a little for Galileo, a little for Kosovo, or a little for Palestine. There is even a little for fruit in schools.\nA financial and economic tsunami is sweeping across the automotive industry, across property, across services, and we are playing around with a budget of EUR 116 billion, which is the total of the Spanish budget for 42 million citizens, or rather 45 million, and we are dealing with 400 million citizens. I am not even going to mention the US budget of EUR 2 000 billion.\nA continent is about to go into recession and we are dividing up a few crumbs. We also continue to drone on about the rule of 1% of gross national income and deficits that must not exceed 3%.\nThere are two lessons in all this. Firstly, when you cannot assess the price of a barrel of oil, falling from 100 to 40, while Goldman Sachs was predicting 200, and when you cannot make forecasts over a few months, how can you have a multiannual financial framework for seven years? That is a scientific absurdity.\nThe second lesson is this: the entire history of the budget shows that legal ceilings, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act in the US, the rule of 1% of national income, are all, again, foolishness. Public finance is driven by empiricism, and not by dogmatism. We needed to have a budgetary energy plan to change the economic climate. That was called a large European loan. We needed to have the room to change things but, for that, we needed ambition.\nPresident\nI would like to remind all Members to be careful not to speak too quickly as the interpreters cannot keep up.\nReimer B\u00f6ge\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteurs, Mr Lewandowski and Mrs Haug, and also the coordinators and staff of the Secretariat and the group. The latter, in particular, were, at times, stretched almost beyond their limits with their workload, as is usual for them every year. I also wish to thank the French Presidency for the good, fair negotiations. I realise that the Presidency would have been prepared to go a bit further if the majority in the Council had allowed this. I should also like to emphasise that the Commission engaged extremely constructively in the negotiations. Commissioner - if I may say this openly here - since we have managed to achieve a good working relationship, I would not object to your standing as a candidate again next year.\nLadies and gentlemen, the 2009 budget is divided into three stages. The first stage is to be voted on tomorrow. We are financing the EU's basic needs with EUR 133.7 billion in commitments and EUR 116 billion in payments, and have managed to get the Food Facility on track by means of an emergency operation: by amending the Interinstitutional Agreement, using the flexibility instrument and making a redeployment within Heading 4. It is good that this is on track, but it must also be made clear that a review of the existing development instruments in both the development cooperation section of the budget and the European Development Fund is also part of the package if we are to achieve a better solution and better prospects in the long term, including for the security of food supply in developing countries. It also makes clear the vital importance and urgency of a fundamental revision of Heading 4 - 'The EU as a global partner' - in particular.\nPart 2 will need to be discussed when the pecuniary benefit of the declaration adopted takes effect; that is, the acceleration and simplification of the existing rules in respect of the Structural Funds and of the implementation of rural development. If we all do our homework on this in the first quarter, this should and will result in supplementary budgets with increased payments to the Structural Funds and the agricultural funds, which will also support economic development. If we do not then manage to exceed EUR 120 billion in payments during the year, there must be administrative and political consequences. Anything else would be untenable.\nThe third point concerns the economic recovery package. The figures we are discussing from the European budget of course tend to be downstream, and so I should like to say two things in this regard. The first is that it is right and vital for the European Investment Bank to become involved, but there should be no new shadow budget outside the European budget in the long term - that is unacceptable. The second is that we are prepared to ensure the proposed revision on the basis of the right projects and the necessary procedures, including in conjunction with the priorities of linking up energy networks in the interests of the solidarity laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon in energy policy, and putting broadband connectivity in disadvantaged rural areas on track - as a supplement to all the other necessary measures already on the agenda.\nCostas Botopoulos\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to say that the absence of the representative of the French Government today shows another side of a Presidency that is otherwise warmly congratulated for its political successes. This other side of the Presidency, which does not play the game with the rest of us, also stands in stark contrast to the reaction of our committee and of the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, who, on the contrary, has very readily taken part in playing the budget game.\n(EL) Ladies and gentlemen, may I say that the budget we are debating today and which will be voted on tomorrow includes one success, which just remains to be implemented, and three major problems. The success is, of course, that we have managed, albeit at the last minute, to get food aid into the budget, which was well needed and shows that Europe understands the problems of the times.\nHowever, there are also three major problems:\nFirstly, this budget, at a time of economic crisis, which I would remind the House did not start in September 2008, as many speakers have said, since we saw the omens of it a year ago, does not respond at all to these difficult circumstances; it is cut off from reality. We have very low commitments and commitments which it is not at all certain will be implemented. The second problem (which several speakers mentioned) is the problem that has arisen with the Structural Funds. It is unbelievable that so much money has come back from the Structural Funds from the previous year's budget and that nothing is being done in order to ensure that we shall manage to sort this out for the following year at least. This entire system needs revising. The third problem is the doubts which we have in the face of economic aid, the famous 200 billion, 30 of which are from the Community budget. Again unfortunately, there is nothing to show us that this money will be found, and it must be found, because we need it.\nJan Mulder\n(NL) Madam President, I too should like to start by thanking all those involved for the role they have played in this year's budgetary process. We have again managed to prepare a budget for 2009. The usual ritual - taking the form of a day's meeting - has once again come to pass in the Council.\nOne of the things that struck me when I cast my mind back is the importance some groups attach to a certain percentage of payment credits. I fail to see that it is important whether it is 0.88, 0.92 or indeed 0.9. What is important is that it is adequate. The Gross Domestic Product may, for all we know, drop next year, in which case it would be higher than the 0.9 that has now been agreed. Would this really fill the various Parliament groups with a sense of satisfaction? This is beyond me. Payment percentages thus need to be adequate, not more or less. If the worst came to the worst, an additional budget could be prepared for later on in the year.\nThere is one trial project I should like to draw to your attention, as part of which a study is being carried out into the justification of extra allowances after 2013. I should like to urge the Commission to take note of it, because if we start the debates on it next year, then it is important, to my mind, that we know why we give these extra allowances. Does this represent actual payments for services rendered, yes or no?\nSe\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain\n- (GA) Mr President, I welcome the recommendations made in the European Union draft budget for next year. I particularly support the recommendation it includes for the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. Financial support is being provided for the programme PEACE III and for the International Fund for Ireland.\nI am also happy that the budget is giving financial support to the peace process in the Balkan region and in Palestine. The European Union will also help with the rebuilding of Georgia, showing that it is the largest peace process in the world. It also gives financial support to the poor countries and we are trying to maintain that custom. The European Union must be to the forefront in order to implement the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.\nS\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard\n(DA) Mr President, one of the most elementary tasks of a parliament is to scrutinise the finances. This naturally requires parliament to have the opportunity to inspect the different budget items. It is therefore totally unacceptable for the Council to continue in its closed position towards Parliament. We have today heard how the French Presidency has failed to respond to any of the approaches made by Parliament's rapporteurs responsible for the 2009 budget and, as rapporteur for the Committee on Budgetary Control on the granting of discharge to the Council for 2007, I can add that the Council has been equally unwilling to respond to my approaches. Thus, the Council is not only closed with regard to the future, but also with regard to the past. This is not just a problem with the French Presidency; it is a problem with the Council in general. Their argument is to refer to a so-called 'gentlemen's agreement' between the Council and Parliament dating back to 1970. Excuse me? 1970? That was when the EU was called the EC. At that time, the EC consisted of a handful of countries and Parliament was not elected, but appointed. This 'gentlemen's agreement' therefore belongs to the past and has no value today. As Parliament, we must demand openness, full access to information and cooperation from the Council.\nPatrick Louis\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for the 14th consecutive year, the European Court of Auditors has refused to approve the budget of the European Union.\nWhile the Commission's accounting procedures have been praised by the Court - which is nonetheless the least of things - you will note that only 8% of the European Union's accounts are duly approved. We all understand that at this rate, no private enterprise could survive such criticism. That means that 92% of the European budget, that is to say, more than EUR 100 billion, remains affected by an excessively high level of discrepancies and irregularities.\nI was just quoting from the report. These irregularities are accompanied by many irresponsible acts. When you think, for instance, that a communication agency has a budget of EUR 15.4 million to send a ballot box into space with the slogan 'You can vote anywhere', people may rightly feel that you are mocking them.\nIn the current climate, where households and Member States are having to tighten their belts, at a time when France is a net contributor of EUR 7 billion, we need to stop taking French and European taxpayers as Santa Claus figures for the European Union, since in June, they will become bogeymen.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, in constantly repeating the dogma of the self-regulating market, the EU has not only omitted to set clear limits, lay down rules and carry out oversight, but also continuously failed to free itself from the financial markets of the United States. In doing so, it has neglected its duty to protect Europeans from the negative consequences of globalisation.\nFor years, we have been told there was no money for the social and health fields, and yet millions upon millions of euros have been squandered on prestige projects, for example the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, whose budget has almost quadrupled despite massive criticism from the Court of Auditors. Now, at a time when citizens are feeling let down once more by the EU in the face of the threat of mass unemployment, Brussels goes and arms itself with a new EUR 200 billion economic recovery package that, in my opinion, is a sham.\nIn the final analysis, the amount of the resources deployed will probably be less important than the appropriateness of the measures actually pushed through.\nVille It\u00e4l\u00e4\n(FI) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Haug and Mr Lewandowski, as well as the coordinators, for their excellent and very responsible work. I would also like to thank Mr B\u00f6ge, as Chairman, whose energetic contribution did much to ensure that we achieved such a positive outcome.\nWe live in momentous times. An economic crisis is at the door and we have to think about how the European Parliament can send the right kind of signal to the public. I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lewandowski, for not using up the entire 20% increase. It is an indication of the fact that we acknowledge our responsibility towards the taxpayer. When we consider that next year is election year and that there will be a new Members' Statute, this has been a very challenging task and the end result is excellent.\nI would like to raise just one point regarding Mrs Haug's report, which concerns the new budget heading, that of the Baltic Sea Strategy. There has been some discussion on this, and I am pleased that a decision was taken on it, because it represents an opportunity: it is a big step towards improving the state of the Baltic Sea.\nWhile the Commission prepares its Baltic Sea Strategy for next year, it is important that there is also a heading for this in the budget. Strategies mean nothing if they only exist on paper, so we also need to create content for the strategy, and after the Commission has completed its own work, it will obviously be easier for us to create content for the relevant budget heading.\nAs we also know that Sweden, as the country that will hold the presidency, is making the Baltic Sea Strategy its priority, this is precisely the right time to include it in the budget. That is why I wish to thank everyone for the attention they have given to this issue and to one of the priorities for next year.\nVicente Miguel Garc\u00e9s Ram\u00f3n\n(ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end of the difficult and complex budgetary process. We vote tomorrow, and I trust the outcome will be favourable.\nThe world is going through a serious crisis, with its epicentre in the financial system, which has already contaminated the real economy. Policy changes are therefore required in order to reorient our economic model, stop the disintegration of our productive structure and prevent any increase in the adverse social and climatic effects that are now occurring.\nWe must accept our portion of responsibility and ensure that the 2009 budget is a good instrument that can help us get out of the crisis and continue on the road to creating a Europe of its citizens, a social Europe and a Europe of rights that measures up to our history. We want an inclusive Europe, and I give as an example the inclusion in the budget of the pilot project designed to facilitate the integration of the Roma people. We want a Europe of solidarity, both inwardly and outwardly, starting with its southern and eastern neighbours.\nI would like to mention the budgetary dimension of the Barcelona Process, now the Union for the Mediterranean, in which we have placed such great hope. We want a Europe that can continue to feed its people and can wage war on the scourge of hunger and social exclusion around the world. The aim of all that is to foster the sustainable, peaceful development of the peoples of the world.\nLadies and gentlemen, if you adopt it tomorrow, the effective life of the Union's budget for 2009 will begin. After that, it must be properly rolled out, implemented and, if necessary, revised. We shall be watching carefully.\nI take this opportunity to wish you all the very best for the coming year.\nDaniel D\u0103ianu\nMr President, the EU budget is being discussed at a time of rising anxiety regarding the economic crisis which is engulfing its Member States. This crisis prompts the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to think about how the EU's budgetary resources can combat the economic downturn.\nA considerably speedier disbursement of the Structural Funds in the new Member States is essential under the new conditions, and the Commission's intention in this respect is more than welcome. However, this intention has to turn into concrete deeds, and the EU budget has to be ready in case additional payment appropriations are needed, as the report correctly highlights. Incidentally, this hinges precisely on the simplification of procedures.\nFor the non-euro area new Member States, the leeway for using the budget stimulus out of their own resources is much reduced because of this financial crisis, and the credit crunch is likely to prevail on the international markets in 2009. Therefore, EU funds and other forms of EU assistance within the framework of what I would call 'credit enhancement' are badly needed in order to fight the severe economic slowdown which is to be expected.\nDonor countries might relish lower payments from the EU Structural Funds, with a view to the reorientation of these funds for other uses, but let us not deceive ourselves. If new Member States get injured by this crisis more than their intrinsic weaknesses warrant, the effects would be bad for the Union as a whole.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\n(PL) Mr President, today's debate on the budget is more significant than it has been in the past. Much depends on the Union's budget, its size, and how it is allocated, especially in these times of serious economic crisis and in view of the looming food crisis.\nIn addition to the economy, food and energy security, we also have to focus on the development of backward regions, such as the eastern part of the European Union. We must also improve the way in which we manage our resources, including the management of restructuring funds. The budget clearly lacks funding for culture, education, science and the fight against poverty. This is due to the limited resources foreseen in the budget and proves that 1% of GDP is not enough to properly tackle the tasks at hand.\nThe proposed budget is extensive, detailed and, as a result, not very readable. It is high time that we thought about this problem and, in the future, adopted a different format.\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\n(EL) Mr President, the draft budget 2009 is proof that the conservative political priorities set by the European Union do not respond to the needs of the peoples of Europe. At a time of acute economic crisis, with unemployment rising, payments do not account for even 50% of commitments for the European Union funds. Not only is the development sector not being used as a tool to address the problems but, in certain instances, the funds are operating in pre-crisis conditions. By contrast, in the security sector, FRONTEX, the actions of which, according to independent studies, infringe conventional individual rights and freedoms, there have been no cuts to the budget. In the research sector, there are subsidies for space research, the objective of which is global monitoring while, on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of actions concerning social integration, social exclusion and young people have had their subsidies cut. In agriculture, the 2009 budget follows the agreed financial framework, the main feature of which is expenditure cuts. For agricultural development, payments in 2009 will be equal to or less than the undertakings made in 2007, at a time when small- and medium-sized holdings are shrinking. This fact goes against the very title of the budget, which is to conserve natural resources.\nHans-Peter Martin\n(DE) Mr President, this budget must sadden interested Europeans and will, I hope, outrage them when it comes to the European elections next June, for it is another expression of the simple failure by a Union that is, alas, in a state of paralysis to convey the message: yes, we have understood!\nTo have understood would have meant finally taking each large block, subjecting it to sober analysis - there are consultants and economic research institutes for this purpose - and reviewing it against the objectives set. This would have led to the conclusion that one third, possibly even half, of the EUR 114 or 116 billion could now usefully be ploughed into this major crisis with absolutely no problem. Instead, the resources continue to be squandered and spent on the wrong areas and, above all, on fattening an unbelievable bureaucracy and political caste. That is tragic for Europe.\nSimon Busuttil\n(MT) To begin with, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work. I would like to refer to the budgetary area of justice and home affairs, especially that of immigration and here I would like to focus on two points in particular. First of all, we have increased our budget for the FRONTEX Agency for the third consecutive year and this, I believe, is a positive sign. We have increased it not because we are happy with the work that FRONTEX is carrying out but because we are, in fact, dissatisfied. We want this Agency to do more and to be more effective. Therefore, we have allocated enough money so as, for example, to ensure that FRONTEX's maritime missions will be carried out on a permanent basis. Secondly, we have earmarked an additional\nEUR 5 000 000 towards the European Refugee Fund in order to set up a European-based programme on internal reallocation between the European Union countries, so that persons who arrive in countries that are already shouldering a large and disproportionate burden can get transferred to another country within the European Union. I am referring here to the resettlement or reallocation programme. This fund and this money will allow us to put this programme into action for the first time, and I hope that this programme will now begin to operate, because it is necessary to help those countries with a disproportionate burden. Therefore, I believe that now that we have invested money in these two areas in next year's budget we will finally be able to make progress.\nBrigitte Douay\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to thank our rapporteurs, who have managed, in difficult circumstances, to put together this 2009 budget, the last before the elections in June.\nThe cohesion policy, with 36% of this budget allocated to it, is one of the main Community policies, a genuine tool for solidarity and economic and social equity, which we must strengthen, make more effective and better promote. Indeed, it is the tangible expression of solidarity within the European area, which is the most visible on the ground, as close as possible to regions and citizens, in the areas where they live and where the European Union can speak directly to each one. Mrs Guy-Quint has just stressed the problems associated with using annual budgets, particularly those of the Structural Funds.\nAs far as cohesion is concerned, all those involved know how difficult it is to implement European funds on the ground. Putting together dossiers is a complex and long process, which can lead to errors that are damaging to beneficiaries, the image of the European Union and even the future of this policy. Simplifying procedures, providing better information, improving the training on this new cohesion policy for the national and local operators concerned, and sharing experiences and best practices could certainly promote better use of these appropriations. After all, in this time of crisis and increasing euroscepticism, sound functioning of the cohesion policy and proper use of European funds can enable us to restore confidence and foster the sense of involvement among European citizens if they feel part of the process, provided, however, that we can improve the visibility and better explain the benefits of this policy, where it is implemented. That is the responsibility of all the Union's institutions, in the best possible partnership.\nIstv\u00e1n Szent-Iv\u00e1nyi\n(HU) Mr President, for years, a serious, recurring problem with our budget has been the significant gap between the funds committed and the actual payments made. This difference has grown this year to an unacceptable degree, thereby endangering the credibility and meaning of the entire budgetary process. In 2009, at a time of economic and financial crisis, we simply cannot allow this to happen. It is the joint responsibility of the Commission and Member States to speed up and simplify payments and thereby restore the credibility of the European Union's budget.\nSecondly, I thank my fellow Members for having supported the numerous important recommendations I made to the budget package. This package contained five main priorities: state-of-the-art environmental protection (including a 10% increase for the LIFE programme), innovative business development, the fight against corruption, progressive social policy and a significant expansion of the world's largest student exchange programme, the Erasmus Mundus. Thank you very much for your support in this, as I consider that these are important matters.\nFinally, every year I am obliged to draw attention to the fact that the financing of our foreign policy objectives is inadequate. In next year's budget, this is even more obvious. It is only with the help of creative accounting that we were able to secure a source of funds for the most important goals. There is only one reassuring aspect to this unfortunate situation: a proper, comprehensive mid-term review. If we do not do this, it will be difficult to take seriously the European Union's ambition to be a global player.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European budget starts with a zero; 0.89% of gross national income is to be spent in the way of payments next year - EUR 116 billion. National budgets generally have two places before the decimal point. I think that we have shown in recent years that a great deal can be achieved with an extremely economical use of taxpayers' money.\nHowever, we are currently experiencing a budgetary crisis, and I do not believe that the EUR 5 billion proposed by the Commission will suffice to provide the necessary momentum. Therefore, together with the Council, we should strive to refrain from passing money back and forth and transferring funds back to Member States this time. This House should adopt unanimously a package covering the trans-European networks, research and development, the European Institute for Technology, Eureka, and the Erasmus programme and education. We should sit down together here to put together, quickly and efficiently, a package that really reaches our small- and medium-sized enterprises.\nIndeed, this is also why Parliament is insisting on our introducing a separate budget line for the 'Small Business Act' and, in particular, a budget line for climate change. In the field of energy efficiency, in particular, an intensive programme can be started immediately to enable us to launch a major offensive against the looming, extreme unemployment heading our way next year, and thereby preserve employment.\nAfter all, two thirds of our workers are employed in small- and medium-sized enterprises - generating 50% of our gross national product - and millions of new jobs could be created in these enterprises in connection with this action on energy efficiency.\nVladim\u00edr Ma\u0148ka\n- (SK) I would like to thank Jutta Haug, Mr Lewandowski and the coordinator for their excellent work. They are certainly also aware that there are changes on the way in the 2009 budgetary year and we will have to react flexibly to the developments in the financial crisis.\nIn the area of cohesion policy, it will be extremely important for us to show flexibility in securing the necessary resources. We must be ready for the early provision of additional payments from budgetary resources, especially in the event of an accelerated implementation of structural policies.\nFor the national economies of the new Member States with relatively low levels of economic development, the cohesion policy creates the potential for gaining ground on the developed states more rapidly. Especially today, in the current time of financial crisis, it is important for us to use this instrument effectively. Analysts in some Member States have calculated the negative impact of payment delays on employment, on work productivity and on economic growth in these regions. If we had managed to draw down financial resources at the rate expected in the multi-annual financial framework, the new Member States would be seeing work productivity levels over 2% higher than they actually are today, economic growth over 2% higher and employment levels 1% higher. From this perspective, we should consider supporting cohesion as a key factor in stimulating decisive macro-economic indicators in the EU.\nThe differing levels of bureaucracy in the various Member States has a negative impact on the drawing down of financial resources. It is therefore essential for us in the EU to cut back bureaucracy across the board when drawing down from European funds.\nLadies and gentlemen, you undoubtedly wish that we could confront today's global problem from the principles of solidarity and within the framework of the entire Community. We must therefore guarantee the availability of resources needed in future for the cohesion policy.\nJean Marie Beaupuy\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, many of my fellow Members have pointed out, even just now, the inadequate take-up of budgets, particularly where the Structural Funds are concerned. It is therefore essential that we remedy this situation by taking appropriate, practical measures. I am delighted to see included in this budget the amount of EUR 2 million for the Erasmus pilot project for local and regional elected officials, a project which I personally proposed several months ago.\nIndeed, this inclusion in the budget follows on from the specific proposals in my report on governance, which was adopted last October, and by a very large majority in this House.\nIn order to implement our regional development policies effectively, it is not enough to adopt regulations and budgets. It is vital that elected officials who manage local and regional projects can become real engines for achieving the objectives of Lisbon and Gothenburg, by using their knowledge. With this Erasmus scheme for local and regional elected officials, we can both strengthen human links and, above all, provide the means for more rapid and more effective use of the Structural Funds.\nMany associations of elected officials have already informed me that they are enthusiastic about this Erasmus scheme for local elected officials. Furthermore, with the support of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, we will be able to launch this new instrument and thereby apply the slogan: 'Think global, act local'.\nValdis Dombrovskis\n(LV) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the European Union's draft budget for 2009 I would like to stress that the most important thing in this budget is not what has been done but what has not yet been done. The draft EU budget for 2009 had already made provision for an amount of payment appropriations 3% lower than this year and, in addition, the European Commission has come forward with a proposal to reduce the amount of payment appropriations still further - by EUR 3.5 billion this year and by EUR 1.1 billion next year. I doubt that the reduction in the amount of EU budget payments is the most satisfactory response to the financial and economic crisis. In the European economic recovery plan, the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund measures laid down, the simplification of the rural development fund procedures and the speeding up of fund acquisition, the payment of EU fund advances and the increase in the share of EU co-financing have not yet been reflected in the amount of payment appropriations set out in the European Union's 2009 budget. However, the truth is that whether it is possible to regard next year's budget as a successful response by the European Union to the financial and economic crisis will depend precisely on these measures and on the question of how far they really will increase payment amounts. I hope that the EU institutions will demonstrate their ability to react quickly to challenges, and not be engulfed in the usual bureaucracy. In general, we should welcome the European Commission's proposal to allocate an extra EUR 5 billion to increasing the European Union's competitiveness. However, the source of funding- resources from the common agricultural policy - is difficult to comprehend. If there are EUR 5 billion to spare in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, then why is the European Commission doing nothing to ensure fair competition within the internal agricultural market and at least in part to even out the inappropriate differences between the levels of direct payments made to the farmers of various EU Member States? Thank you for your attention.\nMarusya Ivanova Lyubcheva\n(BG) Mr President, Commissioner, I must first of all congratulate the rapporteurs and coordinators and highlight the exceptional efforts they have made in managing the procedure for the adoption of the budget at a very high level.\nA very serious attempt was made to attain the maximum level of commitments and settlements, while keeping close to the ceilings allowed by the multiannual financial framework. There is, of course, no shortage of challenges. We could regard this budget as an initial response from the European Union to the international financial and economic crisis. This is what makes it so difficult.\nIt is only natural for us to look at the budget in terms of the key priorities we have for implementing the European Union's policy. Unfortunately, in the case of priority 1B, which relates to sustainable development, cohesion for growth and employment, there will not be sufficient resources available to address the Member States' major, high-priority projects. It is specifically the Cohesion Fund's role to allow economically weaker Member States to receive support to help them resolve their infrastructure problems, boost their competitiveness and achieve a higher level of regional development.\nIt is the fund which helps raise living standards, especially in the new Member States. If these countries are not granted any funds, they will make significantly slower progress, especially at a time of crisis. That is why I have some serious criticism of the budget's inability to help in this respect. How the budget is implemented is also important. The initial debate on simplifying the procedures to achieve greater feasibility and minimise the risks of malpractice and abuses needs to be speeded up. We also need to enable the gap to be narrowed and the level of payments to be increased.\nThe proposal to review the multiannual financial framework is no bad thing and offers additional resources for growth allocated in 2009-2010. The intended purpose associated with attaining the low carbon power generating objectives is good, but it is hardly crucial. We need to show much greater flexibility.\nI would like to conclude by saying that we should adopt the budget, but with preventive measures to deal with the financial and economic crisis. Although it is difficult to reach, agreement is important and necessary. We need to give it our support.\nKy\u00f6sti Virrankoski\n(FI) Mr President, first, I wish to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Haug and Mr Lewandowski, for their excellent work. I would also like to thank Commissioner Grybauskaitand her closest assistant, Mr Romero, for the excellent cooperation they have shown all year long, as well as the Presidency for its constructive participation in the preparation of the budget.\nI only wish to address one issue, which is that of the Structural Funds. This year, we repaid monies to the Member States, in one form or another, as unused appropriations. In Amending Budget Number 2, we reprogrammed EUR 2.8 billion, and in Amending Budget Number 9, we returned EUR 4.5 billion in unused payments.\nAgainst this background, it is astonishing that the Commission is proposing a EUR 5 billion recovery package while, at the same time, it has not even used up the funds budgeted for structural policy. The reason is the control and monitoring system, which is extremely complex. In many countries, it is still unapproved.\nThe European Parliament proposed a joint resolution in conciliation that would recognise the need for simplification and the existence of structural shortcomings. The Commission and the Council did not want to go along with this resolution. The European Council, however, has just proposed adopting virtually the very same position and, indeed, the very real need for simplification and greater efficiency needs emphasising.\nMargaritis Schinas\n(EL) Mr President, this budget is the last in the current parliamentary term and the first budget we shall have voted on since the financial crisis came knocking at our door. It therefore has a special significance: it is a budget which European citizens will examine closely.\nFor me personally, this budget has a bittersweet taste, because it includes successes, but it also has shadows. I personally certainly count among the successes the fact that we have managed, albeit marginally, to increase payments in relation to the Council's position, that we have found relatively more resources for competitiveness, the environment and security and that, for the first time, we have a discrete position for dealing with illegal immigration on the southern borders of the European Union, where countries such as mine receive a hundred thousand desperate people every year, who come knocking on the door of Europe via its southern borders. For all these reasons, we have cause to be satisfied.\nHowever, I am very disappointed that this first budget of the crisis was unable to send out a message that Europe is willing and able. Out of two hundred billion, we are still trying to work out how to spend five billion, which some Member States want back instead of putting towards competitiveness. It is a lost opportunity. For this year, I believe that we could have done more. I am still hopeful that in the Council, the usual suspects who like to refund surpluses to the national ministries will make one more effort, so that next year at least, we have a more ambitious approach.\nEmanuel Jardim Fernandes\n(PT) Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, on her excellent work, and also several colleagues on their contributions. I should like to talk about the fisheries sector and its positive and negative aspects.\nThe overall appropriations allocated are much the same as in the previous financial year. This is a negative aspect, given that previous budgets already represented the minimum necessary to implement a common fisheries policy and a maritime policy with the requisite resources. The reduction in payment appropriations and the inadequate response to the needs and specific aspects of the outermost regions are also negative.\nThe increase in external economic pressure due to the current financial crisis and substantial variations in fuel prices is worsening existing pressures resulting from fleet under-capacity and erosion of the resource base.\nAlthough the Commission proposes restructuring the fisheries sector in line with the current macroeconomic situation, concrete measures are needed to help ensure the survival of the European fishing fleet and the subsistence of those who give so much so that we can have access to one of the most basic foodstuffs.\nI welcome the adoption, as a preparatory action, of the initiative that I tabled to set up a fish price observatory in the amount of EUR 4 million. I also welcome the increased support for fisheries resource management, the non-compulsory contributions to international projects, the strengthening of dialogue in the vitally important fisheries sector, as we noted during a visit by the Committee on Fisheries to Madeira, a Portuguese outermost region, the pilot project on networking and exchange of best practices, and the conclusion of the Sixth Framework Programme. The maintenance of appropriations for cooperation in the area of bio-economic development, for the Community Fisheries Control Agency and for the preparatory action on the European maritime policy is also positive.\nLastly, I must welcome the creation by the Commission of a budget line, as yet without any appropriations, for an ad hoc financial instrument in order to adapt the fishing fleet to the economic consequences of fuel prices. This is one reason ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nP\u00e9ter Olajos\n(HU) As I already stated at the time of the first reading in October, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I welcome the EU budget for 2009 for several reasons. On the one hand, it is already a significant and positive fact that next year, there will be EUR 14 billion available for environmental protection, nature conservation and, among these, first and foremost, for the LIFE+ objectives. On the other hand, it is worth noting that this amount is some 10% higher than last year's, which is a good indication that nowadays no one is calling into question the significance of this area, especially as regards climate change. The latter subject is, moreover, one of the budgetary priorities for next year as well. Of course, all this is closely linked to the vote at noon today, when we will be deciding on the climate package.\nAlthough these draft directives may fall short of our original expectations in several respects, they are ambitious when compared to the proposal published by the Commission in January last year. Achieving the goals set out in them will require money and political will. The amount may be small, but it is important to emphasise that the pilot projects which will be starting next year have a value of EUR 7.5 million. The substantive work, which includes drafting and publishing the tenders, can be expected early next year, but the Commission has indicated on several occasions how important it considers the implementation of these projects and has guaranteed its full cooperation. Since the October plenary, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) is the only body that has failed to make any substantive progress. We are therefore obliged to continue to recommend maintaining the 10% reserve, but I hope that this problem, too, will soon be resolved. These are my observations and recommendations, which essentially agree with those made at first reading. I call on my fellow Members to vote in favour at second reading as well. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Jutta Haug on the report. Thank you very much.\nMaria Martens\n(NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Haug. Our working relationship was very pleasant indeed, and the Committee on Development is satisfied. Three things were important to us. First of all, the food crisis should be addressed, and we are pleased that the Committee's proposal has been adjusted and that a compromise has been struck that found support with Parliament and the Council, as a result of which EUR 1 billion became available for the food crisis.\nWhat matters ultimately is that a sustainable solution be found, which is food safety for the developing countries themselves, and that is what our trial project is about. A major problem in this is that small farmers do not have access to micro-credits. It is difficult for them to get hold of good sowing seed and manure, and to be able to invest in irrigation if they are unable to pay the money up front. We are pleased, therefore, that our proposal for the trial project for micro-credits to small farmers has met with widespread support, and we trust that the Committee is willing to implement this trial project.\nSecondly, as for evaluation, we can put up with much criticism about development cooperation these days. In order to gain support, not only do we need to explain what we meant, but especially what we have achieved. It is unfortunate that the Committee's reports are still very much fixated on intentions. This is why we have pleaded for more capacity in the Committee in order to improve the evaluation of results. We welcome Parliament's support for these proposals.\nThirdly, Mr President, we continue to argue in favour of an increase in the budget for Chapter 4, foreign expenses. If we want to realise our ambitions and responsibilities, which are justified where Kosovo, the Middle East and so on are concerned, where the main issue is not just development cooperation but also conflict resolution, then it is obvious that more funds and flexibility are needed.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I have two brief comments. I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work.\nOn development aid, I think it is important to point out that, while the process of finding the EUR 1 billion was fraught, it is positive that Europe is doing something in response to a problem. However, it is worth remembering that commodity prices have actually plummeted, as have energy prices, so this EUR 1 billion should do a great deal more than we had hoped for if it is properly spent. I think we need to have close scrutiny to ensure that this money goes to where it is intended and where the need is greatest, namely on the ground, producing food in places where that food can be produced.\nMy second comments also relate to the agricultural sector, but concern the future more than this particular budget. I have some concerns about comments made by the Commissioner on the so-called lack of valued added for spending on agriculture. I know we will have time to debate this in the future, but it must be a rigorous and vigorous debate. I believe that European farmers are best served by a common policy, not one where Member States can pick and choose, because citizens will lose out in terms of food quality and safety.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, the approval of the budget always involves a clash between our expectations and reality. The framework of the budget is not very flexible, and it is difficult to reallocate resources. Although this does reflect the stability of funding for specific activities, it also means that it is difficult to respond to a constantly changing reality.\nThe current budget does not, in view of the current situation, reflect the wishes of many MEPs, such as the need to counteract the growing economic crisis, or to fund new technologies which will be used to improve the environment and combat climate change. The budget does not meet the expectations of young people, schoolchildren or students, with regard to financial support for youth exchanges, access to education and study abroad.\nFinally, I would like to say that successive budgets and financial perspectives have been more geared towards continuing previous budget plans and objectives, rather than responding to current and future challenges. That is why we need regular reviews of financial perspectives, as seven years is too long in terms of budgetary planning.\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Mr President, I should like to take up a point raised by my Austrian colleague, Mr R\u00fcbig, a little while ago. We are spending less than 1% of European Gross Domestic Product on Europe and, at the same time, requiring the EU to cope with more and more tasks for more and more Member States. This does not add up! In the light of this, it is really incredible that we have been on an economy drive for many years, one that has involved not only the economical use of our funds but also, basically, the Finance Ministers reclaiming money and channelling it into their national budgets at the end of the year.\nThere are enough new tasks we should be spending our money on. There are also tasks to which we have not really been allocating due budgetary funds for years. The expenditure on EU information policy ought to be significantly increased if we really wish to draw European citizens closer to Europe. There are a great many tasks in the field of student and trainee exchanges in which Europe could become involved.\nJutta Haug\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, I wish to thank all the Members who have participated in the discussion in this House, who have delivered speeches, even if, in several cases, the 2009 budget was just the occasion for the speech rather than the subject of it. Above all, I wish to thank the Members who have stayed with us from start to finish and joined in the discussion.\nThe European Economic Recovery Plan presented to us by the Commission has been raised in many speeches, and is preying on many people's minds. I can do no other than reiterate what I have said many times before: the European driving force for Member States' economies is EU cohesion policy. Really implementing this properly and honestly will enable us to get ahead, and will undoubtedly mean that the economy does not cause us such great problems over the next year. Of course, we would not get by on our EUR 116 billion in payments, but the whole of Parliament would be standing by to guarantee the relevant payments in supplementary and amending budgets.\nWhat the Commissioner said is true, of course: a budget is always a compromise. The 2009 budget is no different from its predecessors in that respect. We have had to grant the Council these low payments, the Commission has had to grant us the EUR 700 million redeployment for regional development, and we have had to cut back our priorities. Nevertheless, we have managed to preserve a good many of these priorities: more payments for action to combat climate change, more payments for the social dimension in terms of the creation of more and better jobs, and more for support for SMEs. We have accomplished this, and for this I am grateful to all my fellow Members. Thank you very much!\n(Applause)\nJanusz Lewandowski\nMr President, in the section of the budget for which I am responsible, the only thing that remains unclear is the future of the Lisbon Treaty, which alters the Parliament's competences and may have an impact on the budget. In view of the fact that the other problems have been resolved, I would like to support the previous speakers who have requested a review of the Financial Perspective. This is something we already clearly needed in the second year of the current perspective if we want to be able to fund the European Union's international objectives and commitments.\nIt is also unfortunate that the conciliation procedure with the Council entailed negotiations involving millions of euros, at a time when billions had been promised in a nebulous crisis package. In view of this, the budget we will probably approve tomorrow will be more subject to change than it has ever been before.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe speakers were so disciplined that we have finished in good time, and this is a good message for budget discipline in the future.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 18 December 2008.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nG\u00e1bor Harangoz\u00f3  \nin writing. - We ought to be concerned - in line with our rapporteur - about the negative effects on European citizens that will arise as a consequence of global recession. Our concern should be particularly focused on the most disadvantaged of our citizens, those who will, without any doubt, suffer the most from the effect of the financial turmoil. The Union ought to maximise its efforts in facilitating the access to available resources - within the ceilings of the agreed multiannual financial framework 2007-2013 - for beneficiaries on the ground and we should therefore particularly improve and simplify measures in order to accelerate the implementation of structural and cohesion funds. As a matter of fact, the low levels of payments in the implementation of Cohesion Policy do not reflect the needs on the ground when facing the challenges of the current economic crisis. Cohesion Policy is the greatest instrument of solidarity in the Union and its role in tackling the negative effects of a global crisis of this scale is essential.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Negotiations on the PNR agreements with the US, Australia and Canada (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on\nthe oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Cornelia Ernst, Helmut Scholz and S\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left - B7-0412\/2011),\nthe oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance - B7-0413\/2011),\nthe oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Birgit Sippel, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament - B7-0414\/2011),\nthe oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists - B7-0415\/2011),\nthe oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - B7-0416\/2011),\nthe oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Axel Voss, Simon Busuttil and Manfred Weber, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) - B7-0417\/2011).\nCornelia Ernst\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have already adopted a number of resolutions on the subject of passenger name records (PNR), which include specific requirements. In all cases these have been concerned with necessity, appropriateness, proportionality and the prohibition of profiling. We consider the legal basis of the agreement with Australia to be inappropriate. The agreement with Australia is aimed at harmonising the transfer of data prescribed under Australian law with European law, and particularly the law on data protection. An absolute requirement, therefore, is that reference must be made to Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.\nMoreover, we would question once again its proportionality. If you bear in mind that, according to the Australian Government, in 2009 just five people were traced and accused of terrorist offences - and it was not even clear whether this was achieved as a result of PNR data - then it does not seem particularly proportionate for millions of records nonetheless to be retained for years on end. As we all know, when it comes down to it they are being used for profiling purposes - and we do not even have a uniform agreed definition of profiling yet. I do not know how often the Commission has already been asked for such reasons to prove that the transfer of PNR data is necessary, or to present and look into alternatives. A really substantive report is necessary if this is to be investigated.\nOne more comment on purpose limitation: how can we ensure that the data is used only for the intended purpose if various third countries conclude agreements with each other under which PNR data is systematically exchanged? This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to ensure this.\nMoreover, we are awaiting a very clear answer from the Commission on the relationship between PNR and the US Secure Flight programme. As everyone is aware, the purpose of the Secure Flight programme is to exclude so-called potentially dangerous passengers from flights. There have been frequent cases of mistakes being made and passengers being misidentified, as a result of which the persons concerned have been prevented from travelling and have practically no legal means by which to defend themselves.\nOne final word: please do not forget that we are talking not just about self-determination - about self-determination in the sphere of information - but also, and above all, about freedom of movement as a basic right, as laid down in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.\nJan Philipp Albrecht\nauthor. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m, ladies and gentlemen, this esteemed House has repeatedly made clear what it expects before it is prepared to even consider accepting agreements on passenger name records (PNR).\nFirstly, we decided over a year ago that in no circumstances was PNR data to be used for so-called data mining or profiling. That means putting a stop to wholesale searches being carried out on an arbitrary basis and a return to investigation based on genuine cause. Yet what has the Commission delivered? A licence to link up and analyse all kinds of data for personality profiles and risk indicators. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not acceptable.\nSecondly, we expressly asked the Commission to obtain an expert opinion from the Fundamental Rights Agency. What has been done? Nothing whatsoever. It was only at our instigation that the Agency has now submitted a report on the planned EU PNR system, in which it has flagged up clear breaches of basic rights.\nThirdly, we expressly asked the Commission to obtain a data protection impact assessment. What has been done? Once again, nothing.\nFourthly, we have repeatedly demanded proof that such a measure is proportionate and necessary; in other words, that there is not a less intensive measure that could perform the same purpose. This proof has not been provided either.\nI am pleased that the Polish Presidency wants to proactively address this issue. Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m, I find it embarrassing that you are evidently not in a position to resolve these issues. Instead you pull the blanket over your head like a frightened child. Please would you finally take note of the fact that there are huge legal problems with the PNR agreement and the planned EU system. Your own Legal Service says so. The Legal Service of the Council says so. The Fundamental Rights Agency says so. The European Data Protection Supervisor says so. Various highly regarded think-tanks say so. It is high time to put an end to this business of storing data 'just in case', on no basis whatsoever, in every area of life. Were you actually to present these PNR agreements to Parliament, then the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance would insist on having them examined by the European Court of Justice.\nRepresentatives of the Commission, right from the start you have hushed things up, distorted the facts and concealed the truth. You have put on a brave face and in so doing pulled the wool over people's eyes. It will not enable you to succeed, however.\nBirgit Sippel\nauthor. - (DE) Madam President, I must admit to the House that I am a little confused where the debate on passenger name records (PNR) is concerned, because the facts and the issues that need to be clarified are not new. Nonetheless, one gets the impression that we are not making any progress - worse still, that we are moving back to worse conditions than those previously agreed.\nThe signing of the agreement with Australia is currently also stalled because the Member States have asked for more time to review it. I fear that the reality is somewhat different, but I would like to hope that this has something to do with the fact that the Member States, too, have realised that not every means is justified in the fight against terror. As most of us here will remember, negotiations on the SWIFT Agreement were very difficult, but were eventually brought to a successful conclusion. I am astonished that we are now moving at a different level as regards data protection and data security, and I get the impression that we are back to standards below those that we have agreed previously. A retention period of 15 years is far too long. In the case of the 11 September 2001 attack that was so incisive for the US, for example, 15-year-old data would have been no help whatsoever because the perpetrators were much too young for data that was so old to have had any relevance.\nIn my view, there is a very close link between proportionality and the use of data for a particular purpose. You cannot collect millions of data records from innocent citizens for 15 years and then say: 'Actually, we are going to use this data for everything', as is currently stated in the text of the US agreement. That is not acceptable. I would like to make it quite clear that this requirement applies not just to the US, but also to the Commission and to our Member States. If you adopt a measure to fight terrorism and serious international crime, then this measure must be limited to precisely that and cannot be expanded to allow other areas to be included by the back door.\nTimothy Kirkhope\nauthor. - Madam President, I want to particularly thank the Commissioner for coming here this evening and of course Sophia in 't Veld, our rapporteur, and all the other shadow rapporteurs who are still working hard on what has been a very long journey on these three PNR agreements.\nI had hoped that in this plenary session we would be voting through the agreements between the EU, Canada, the US and Australia. However, for reasons which you have already heard and explained yourself, Commissioner, there are still outstanding issues.\nI believe that the swift adoption of these agreements is essential and that such agreements are an essential tool in the fight against terrorism. I think it is right that we use this time to ask the right questions and gather as much information as we can from the Commission as to the compatibility of such agreements with European law, and on their practical implementation. These questions will no doubt be raised once again in my own report on the EU PNR agreement.\nBut, for me personally, the necessity and the proportionality of these agreements have been long apparent from the number of crimes they have helped prevent, and the number of criminals that they have contributed to catching. These are serious crimes and serious criminals: murderers, rapists, drug-traffickers, child-traffickers and terrorists. The questions which we are asking here this evening are incredibly important. Answers to them would make the process of decision-making for this House a lot easier and a lot more informed.\nThere will always be ideological differences within this House, for example as to how long data should be stored, and there are even those who would argue it should not be collected at all. But I believe we have reached a workable and reasonable conclusion on these questions which should satisfy all, with good safeguards and checks and rights for EU citizens.\nWe are at a crucial juncture, at which every negotiation and every process finds itself. A time when we have to move forward and do our jobs; when we have to look at what we have on the table and then make some positive decisions, and I hope that is the way that we will now go forward.\nSophia in 't Veld\nauthor. - Madam President, I am very much looking forward to the answers to these very detailed questions.\nI would like to start by adding yet another one. We know that South Korea and Qatar have repeatedly asked to begin negotiations with the European Commission for an agreement because they too are requesting the transfer of PNR. So far the Commission has turned their request down. That means that there is no legal basis for the transfer of data to those countries. We know that other countries will soon follow suit. I would like to know what the Commission's course of action will be.\nSecondly, I would like to highlight one point from the oral question, and that is the issue of necessity and proportionality. The demonstration that we had two weeks ago in Manchester of the use of PNR underlined what we have been saying here for a long time. PNR data can, in particular circumstances, be useful, maybe even necessary, when people cross borders, but the long-term storage of data concerning all passengers remains very problematic.\nEssentially, what is being done is that data is stored because it may come in handy one day in order to solve crimes that have not yet been committed and that we are not aware of. That is not proportional and your own legal advisers and those of the Council agree. I look forward to your answer.\nAxel Voss\nauthor. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the challenge that we constantly face when it comes to data and data transfer is the endless search for balance between security and freedom. Freedom without security is fragile. Security without freedom is repressive. In other words, we need as much security as is necessary in order to allow freedoms, but not so much security that these freedoms are jeopardised. In my view, that is exactly what the debate on passenger name records (PNR) is about.\nSuch a system can indeed generate greater security and make travel easier, but in this area - where we must constantly find the right balance - there is one question that continually arises, and that is: where is the line that we do not want to cross? These questions are our attempt to communicate this to you. There are legal problems. There are practical problems. There may be problems relating to its application generally under European law.\nWhere the agreement with Australia is concerned, it seems to me that we have a good starting point that we can build on. The same cannot be said of the agreement with the US. This naturally leads us to ask - as Mrs in 't Veld has just mentioned - just how so many different agreements can be reconciled with each other. What do the others want? To start with, we need to clarify exactly what profiling means. It may sound highly dangerous at first, but profiling can also be highly objective - as in the case of the UK authorities. That seems to me to be entirely acceptable. I have a feeling that this is our last opportunity where the US agreement is concerned, so we should continue negotiating in any event.\nI have a last brief question regarding Canada. I have heard that the negotiations have been broken off. I would be grateful if you could give me some feedback on this.\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, let me try to answer all these questions, which are indeed very detailed. But this is a good moment to take stock of where we are.\nThe negotiations with the US, Australia and Canada have now reached an advanced stage. The negotiations with Australia have been concluded and the Commission has recommended that the Council sign and conclude the agreement and put it to Parliament. The procedure for signing is pending in the Council due to parliamentary scrutiny in some Member States.\nThe negotiations with the US are well advanced but still ongoing. The draft text has been made available to the Council and to some members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The negotiations with Canada are also ongoing. There have been delays due to the parliamentary elections in Canada. We hope to be able to present you with a draft text very soon but I cannot undertake to do so before the summer break.\nSo important decisions will shortly be made on these three agreements. Ms in 't Veld and certain others mentioned agreements concerning numerous countries, but the aim is to make a single joint multilateral agreement out of these three bilateral agreements. But that is for later, there are no negotiations whatsoever ongoing with any other country.\nLet me start with a few remarks on necessity and proportionality and on profiling. The question of necessity and proportionality is something you face in many issues, including EU PNR. It is a very important question.\nThis issue was analysed in depth in both our communication on PNR from last year and the impact assessment that accompanied the proposal for an EU PNR. The analysis essentially revealed three things: firstly, PNR is used by a growing number of countries globally to prevent and to bring to justice those guilty of serious crimes and terrorism. Serious crimes and terrorism continue to cause very serious harm to victims, as well as to the economy and citizens' sense of security.\nSecondly, PNR can make a unique contribution because it helps identify people who are not known to be involved in criminal activities but whose travel patterns fit with those of drug smugglers or human traffickers. In other words, while simple passport data may not be enough to catch criminals already on the wanted list, PNR data makes it possible to identify a wider range of persons who are likely to pose a security risk.\nThirdly, there is evidence that PNR data has already been successful in preventing and fighting serious crimes and terrorism, both in Member States and in third countries. Data has been particularly important in identifying and dismantling criminal networks involving crimes such as drug-smuggling and human trafficking. My services have already met with you once to present evidence on the necessity of PNR and there will be a follow-up meeting tomorrow.\nThe Commission is therefore convinced that PNR is an important tool in fighting serious crime and terrorism, when it is complemented by strong data-protection guarantees and when the necessity and proportionality principles are respected.\nThe issue of profiling was also raised. That has been discussed already and there is no exact definition of it in EU law. Profiling is generally understood to be an automatic data processing technique where a profile is applied to an individual in order to take a decision that affects him or her.\nThere are, therefore, three different uses of PNR: firstly, reactive use in specific investigations after the flight. Secondly, real-time use prior to the flight, by checking PNR against pre-determined risk assessment criteria and against databases on wanted persons. Thirdly, there is pro-active use - also known as trend analysis - to create or update risk assessment criteria.\nOf these three uses of PNR data, only one - real-time use - might potentially be considered to be a form of profiling, in this case the checking of the PNR against pre-determined risk assessment criteria. To ensure that this use will not adversely affect individuals, the new EU-Australia PNR agreement explicitly prohibits automated processing and always requires human involvement before adverse decisions are taken on the basis of PNR data.\nThis prohibition was not present in the PNR agreement from 2007, so it is an important step forward. The Commission is seeking to have the same provisions included in the US and Canadian agreements. A similar provision is also included in the Commission's proposal for the directive on the European PNR.\nThe Commission's approach to both the European PNR and PNR agreements with third countries is therefore in line with EU data protection legislation, which grants every individual the right not to be subject to a decision which produces legal effects concerning him or her, and which is based exclusively, or to a decisive extent, on automated processing of data on him or her. Against this background, the Commission is not convinced of the need to develop any new legal definition of profiling.\nOn the EU-Australia agreement, the Commission's view is that the new agreement respects the Council's negotiating mandate and the resolution of this House. We consider that it respects the principles of necessity and proportionality. We should bear in mind that the agreement has a well-defined and specific purpose limitation - a limited period of detention of all PNR. PNR will be masked-out a short time after the flight and stored anonymously. Strict conditions apply on transfers of data to third countries and PNR must be transmitted by air carriers exclusively by the 'push' method. The question of proportionality should be viewed in the general context of the laws of the third country, in this case Australia, and the security threat faced by that country.\nMembers have raised important questions on dispute resolution, suspension and termination. The procedures for terminating the agreement would be the same as those for concluding the agreement and therefore Parliament's role is fully assured.\nSuspension of the agreement is regulated by Article 218(9) of the Treaty. There is no formal role for Parliament. However, a parliamentary resolution calling for a suspension would certainly be a very important political consideration for whether the Commission would desire to launch such a procedure.\nFinally, the Commission agrees with the European Court of Justice that the main purpose of PNR agreements is police and judicial cooperation, and not data protection. That was confirmed in 2005 by the European Court of Justice in the US PNR case. It was clearly stated that PNR agreements should be drawn up using the legal bases for police and judicial cooperation.\nOn the US agreement, you asked whether there were any bilateral agreements between the US and Member States on PNR. This issue was discussed in detail in this House in October 2010. The US signed a memorandum of understanding with several Member States as part of the Visa Waiver Programme. The memorandum of understanding was intended to commit the parties - the US and the specific Member States - to enter into negotiations on passenger information, information on the screening of known or suspected terrorists, information to combat terrorism and serious crime and information on migration and border security matters.\nThe memorandum of understanding was not intended to be in itself the legal basis for the exchange of data between that Member State and the US. It merely expressed the intention of the two parties to have specific agreements to govern the exchange of data. Only such an agreement would then be the legal basis for exchanging data.\nIn order to implement the memorandum of understanding, the US and the relevant Member States signed only two types of agreement, namely agreements on enhancing cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime and agreements on the exchange of screening information concerning known or suspected terrorists.\nFollowing that debate, and in the context of the negotiations, we again examined the issue, and asked both the Member States and the US whether there were any bilateral agreements between them on PNR. Both sides replied categorically negatively. Both the Member States and the US assure us that the only agreement regulating PNR is the one that the US signed with the EU in 2007. No further agreement exists.\nSecure flight data are not to be confused with PNR data. They differ both in nature and in function. They are much more limited in scope since secure flight data include only the name, date of birth and gender of passengers. Such data are used by the US authorities exclusively to prevent individuals already known to pose a security risk - i.e. those on the US no-fly list - from boarding an aircraft. Secure flight data is collected by air carriers on behalf of the US authorities and PNR data is collected by air carriers for their own commercial purposes. To reduce their economic burden, carriers generally choose to provide the required secure data with the PNR data to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On receipt, the secure flight data is retrieved from the PNR and stored separately for seven days and then deleted.\nAnother very important issue is ad hoc 'pulls' by the US authorities. Last year's joint review acknowledged that there was a problem with regard to both the number of ad hoc requests for PNR data and the fact that the DHS executed such requests by 'pulling' the data. It strongly called for improvements to this state of affairs and for the US authorities to step up their efforts to encourage air carriers to use the 'push' method of transmission only.\nThe US has acknowledged that the high frequency of 'pulls' is problematic. The issue is being re-discussed in the context of negotiations with the US on the new PNR agreement. The Commission's aim is to ensure that data are transferred using the 'push' method, with recourse to 'pulls' only in strictly limited circumstances.\nFinally, you asked about the opinion of our Legal Service. I can say that the Commission is seeking improvements to the text on a small number of key issues. We have emphasised to the US that the support of both the Council and the Parliament is needed for the final outcome of the negotiations.\nOn the issue of the transfer of data between the US and Canada, this was, and continues to be, governed by the memorandum of understanding signed between those two countries. Its purpose is the sharing of 'look-out' and advance passenger information data between Canadian border service agencies and the United States Customs and Border Protection to identify high-risk travellers and facilitate the flow of legitimate persons across the border.\nWe have carefully assessed these agreements on a strictly confidential basis and we are convinced that they do not violate the PNR agreements with either country.\nI am sorry this was long but there were very many questions that I had to answer. I hope I have adequately answered the questions asked in this plenary.\n\u00c1gnes Hankiss\nMadam President, Commissioner, our resolutions on issues of internal security will reflect our basic European values faithfully only if they express a continuous balance between safety and freedom. It is worth drawing attention to the fact that security, similarly to data protection, is a fundamental right of citizens. It is true that many look at profiling with hysterical rage as if it were the devil's instrument, but do we know what profiling and data mining really mean? Do we know what we are really talking about?\nIt is indispensable for the Commission to create the necessary definitions - with almost scientific thoroughness - because we cannot combat the present forms of terrorism and organised crime successfully with conventional means of criminal investigation. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that profiling is a well-established and very efficient method in the broadest sense of the word in the criminal investigation procedures of Member States, and is applied without major problems.\nFurthermore, when talking about PNR agreements to be concluded with third countries, we cannot avoid addressing the PNR issue of the EU itself. It would be very advantageous for the EU, for its Member States and for the aviation industry if our PNR system was centralised. If we really think that mutual data transfer is important, that is, not only to provide, but also receive information from third countries, then we have to establish a unified European institutional framework here, in the EU, which will really be able to collect and process data, providing equal access to information to all Member States. Although we have heard several proposed solutions to this issue, the final solution has not been found yet. We should consider the possibility that the most efficient solution could be to give Europol competences which would allow it to play a leading role in the operation of the PNR mechanism of the EU. I suggest that we consider these possibilities when negotiating the future mandate of Europol.\nMonika Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1\nMr President, in May and November last year, Parliament spelt out quite clearly in its resolutions what it was expecting from the negotiations on access to passenger name record data. The Commission was to ensure that agreements with Australia, Canada and the United States would respect European Union law on personal data protection.\nThe United States has been mentioned here. Looking back over the 10-year history of our mutual negotiations, the US has unilaterally imposed conditions on the European Union, but on the rare occasions when a request has been made by the Union, the United States has refused even to think about modifying its data protection system.\nThe opinion delivered in May by the Commission Legal Services on the agreement between the EU and the US left no room for doubt: in its current form, the agreement violates fundamental rights. The Commission's response was to send us the text of this agreement untouched, two days after the opinion was published. If the agreement remains in this form, I hope Parliament will exercise its authority and refuse to approve the agreement.\nCommissioner, we do want to see the agreement approved, and we will gladly approve it, but not until it respects European data protection standards such as proportionality, purpose limitation, legal redress and the guarantee of independent review.\nSophia in 't Veld\nMr President, I will be very brief.\nFirstly, I am intrigued to hear about the plans for a multilateral agreement for all the other countries. I am wondering why they get different treatment and when this will start, because some countries are already asking for PNR.\nSecondly, on the legal opinions of the Commission and Council Legal Services, they were actually not on minor issues. They went right to the core. They challenged the core: the proportionality and the necessity of long-term storage. I would like to hear a little more about that.\nThirdly, regarding the legal basis, the European Court of Justice did not confirm police and justice cooperation as a legal basis; it simply rejected Article 95 - internal markets - as a legal basis.\nFinally, Commissioner, on 'push' and 'pull', the Parliament's resolution is crystal clear: 'push' only. No 'pull': not even a little bit of 'pull'. It is like being pregnant: you cannot be 'a little bit' pregnant. There is no such thing as 'a little bit' of 'pull'. 'Pull' is giving a log-in to a third country. 'Push' only!\nRui Tavares\nMr President, I think that there is no excuse here for the lack of clarity. We are facing a paradigm change in investigation. Citizens know that, previously, they were investigated if they were suspected of a crime or if they had committed a crime. What happens with the processing of passenger name record (PNR) data is that everyone is investigated, including innocent people, and therefore, whether or not this is justified, proportional or necessary, it is essential that citizens are told clearly that they are being investigated, even when they are innocent. This cannot happen without a very clear debate with the citizens, particularly when their data are in the hands of third countries, as is the case. This is why we are discussing the agreement with the United States here today.\nMost people would agree to their data being used to stop a terrorist blowing up the plane in which they are flying. That is not the issue. However, what would people say if a large part of their data, including credit card details and addresses, were in the hands of a third country for 15 years, a long time after the aeroplane had reached its destination? This is what is happening now with the agreement that we have with the United States. Let us be clear: over 15 years many administrations come and go, so an administration that says that it will not carry out data mining might do so at a later date. It is therefore necessary for the agreement to be perfectly clear, as I believe that the agreement that we have today contains large gaps and loopholes that can be exploited for different purposes. I would like to know what the Commission is going to do to close these big gaps in the agreement that we have at the moment.\nMarie-Christine Vergiat\nMr President, how can the fight against terrorism and crime be reconciled with the protection of personal data? Since 11 September 2011, security-related legislation and the recording of personal data have been amplified, namely on the grounds that current techniques should allow us to progress towards 'zero insecurity' while carrying out ever increasing checks on our fellow citizens.\nNumerous studies now show, however, the adverse effects of this legislation; Commissioner, even the Commission's own Legal Service and the European Data Protection Supervisor acknowledge these effects, but nothing is being done about them. Personal data continues to be recorded and increasingly so. You state that results can be seen: I remain perplexed and I would in this respect like to refer to a comment made by a US senator in encouraging the US Government to stand its ground. He said: 'Since the agreement with the EU was signed, at least two terrorists have been arrested.' How many thousands of people's personal data have been recorded for two terrorists? Could their arrests not have been achieved by other means? Of course they could, especially as the two persons in question were arrested after having made very numerous plane trips between their country and the United States. Moreover, one of them was not even arrested in the US. Therefore why is the number of people for whom we record data increasing? Why is the period for which data are held being increased to 15 years? Why do we hand over such great quantities of data, including bank details, without the least guarantee as to how they are used as far as profiling and passing on to third countries are concerned, and without our fellow citizens having the least guarantee as to whether legal action is possible?\nI have to say, Commissioner, that I found your answers unconvincing.\n(The President interrupted the speaker)\nI remain unsatisfied and I maintain that it is not through wide-scale recording of personal data that the problem will be solved, but rather by allocating resources, and in particular human resources, to the departments concerned.\nMartin Ehrenhauser\n(DE) Mr President, I have just three very simple and brief questions for the Commissioner. The Commission has already received various legal opinions on the subject of passenger name records (PNR). We asked the Commission to provide us with the three most recent. In response we have received just the cover pages of two, and nothing at all of the third.\nMy question to you is as follows: is that what you mean by transparent policy, and when are you going to publish the most recent opinions by the Legal Service? This is very important, because above all there is a suspicion that the applicable law is being breached.\nMy second question concerns proportionality. The retention periods in the drafts vary from five to 15 years. My specific question to you is: what retention period would you consider to be no longer proportionate - 15, 20, 30, 100 years? Perhaps you could provide us with specific figures.\nMy third question concerns necessity. The Commission has yet to provide adequate figures on the costs. When will the Commission finally commission an independent study that guarantees cost transparency?\nClaude Moraes\nMr President, as one minute is not long, could I just check whether the Commissioner answered the question about the scope of the US agreement. I am not sure if we heard your answer to that.\nYou have said what the status of the various negotiations is. For the Socialist and Democrat Group there are currently too many differences between the PNR negotiations. It is important that, regardless of what third state we are negotiating with, we build on common principles.\nSecondly, we cannot have vastly different standards of protection for European citizens depending on which third state they are flying to. By doing this we risk creating an incentive for Member States to begin to develop bilateral agreements which will then undermine our work at EU level. We should ensure full respect for the Charter. The scope - as everyone has said - should not be unnecessarily wide. Data retention periods should respect the tests of proportionality and necessity and we should have proper redress.\nAll of these principles are still up for grabs in some of the negotiations. If the EU institutions' own legal services are providing opinions against the current status of negotiations, then we should listen and ensure the agreements we put in place respect the fundamental rights of EU citizens.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, the high-flown statements from the EU that it would ensure adequate data protection have now been exposed even by the Commission's own Legal Service as mere window-dressing, as has been our criticism all along. Fundamental rights, human rights and data protection are clearly foreign concepts to the Americans in the so-called fight against terror. Millions of data records are being stored there, airlines are being forced to pass on data and passengers are being refused entry to the US without even being told on what suspicions the decision is based. Part of the Commission's negotiating mandate was to bring to an end the illegal blackmail that is forcing the airlines to hand over data. While the retention periods in the Australian agreement have been set at five and a half years, without sensitive data being released, the US Department of Homeland Security is to continue to be given 15 years more or less unrestricted access to all personal data. It is all too Orwellian.\nIt is one thing to retain data on suspects, but hoarding data on innocent citizens is quite unacceptable.\nCarmen Romero L\u00f3pez\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, as we have seen throughout this afternoon's debate, we are still far from reaching a conclusion on this issue, because in my opinion - and Parliament has taken the same view - there is not much transparency in the talks held by the Commission with the various countries, and there are many outstanding and confusing issues that we do not fully understand. It is a very important agreement, because the common standards to be used in the agreement with the United States will later serve as a benchmark for other agreements, and above all for the European Passenger Name Records (PNR), for which I am going to be a shadow rapporteur.\nI believe it is important to have the maximum possible level of transparency, and for us to know exactly, for example, when the 'pull' system mentioned here will be used. What will the profiles consist of, exactly? It is not acceptable for a person to be prevented from travelling and to be monitored because he or she has the same surname as a citizen of the same country who is being sought for drug trafficking.\nThere have been many mistakes. The more guarantees and the more safeguards we create on such an important issue, the better things will be, because Parliament, following the Treaty of Lisbon, will be responsible for voting on it. This is why we must reach a conclusion on this issue, and we have not done so yet.\nTanja Fajon\n(SL) Mr President, Commissioner, you have replied to some of the concerns but, unfortunately, it seems to me that, once again, we have before us an offer which the citizens of Europe simply cannot and should not accept. This proposal does not improve the standards of protection of personal data, as even our Legal Service has recognised.\nI get the impression that someone is persistently turning a blind eye. Will practically any reason, even the slightest crime, really justify our personal data being stored in this way? We need to know for exactly what purposes the US authorities will be using the data. We cannot allow them to use the data of many millions of passengers, including their credit card numbers, at US borders for security purposes unrelated to the prevention of terrorism and serious crime. This is a major retrograde step for the protection of personal data.\nI do not know how we are going to explain to people that the US authorities may store our records for up to 15 years. The draft agreement is highly inconsistent with fundamental human rights. We have every reason to reject it. It is high time therefore that the Union showed some resolve and that the European Commission returned to the negotiating table, improved the proposal and ensured that any encroachment on our privacy has a genuine legal basis.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) Mr President, in a letter sent on 16 May 2011 to the Directorate General for Home Affairs, the European Commission's Legal Service warns that the draft EU-US agreement on the exchange of passenger name record (PNR) data is contrary to fundamental human rights.\nThe Commission's legal experts mentioned grounds for concern about the draft EU-US agreement, such as the proportionality of its enforcement in the event of minor crimes which do not come under the scope of the prevention of terrorism or serious crime. The draft document proposes keeping the collected data for up to 15 years and does not provide for any course of legal action.\nThe Commission's Legal Service points out that its previous comments were not taken into consideration when drafting the current version.\nI would like to ask the Commission whether negotiations are ongoing with the United States at the moment and separately with Australia, and how the Commission views this legal report because, if the Commission ignores it, it is disregarding the legal advice of its own Legal Service.\nIoan Enciu\n(RO) Mr President, I have understood how important passenger name record (PNR) agreements are to the European Union. However, at the same time, it is important that a proper balance is also struck between protecting European citizens' privacy and the need to combat terrorism.\nCommissioner, we must have firm guarantees from these states to the effect that the level of protection afforded European citizens' personal data will be just as high as it is in the European Union. In addition, rules must apply which correspond to those in the European Union concerning how long data can be kept and the provision of access to administrative and legal appeals. It was not appropriate for me to raise the issue now, this evening, about the lack of visa waiver reciprocity for five Member States - Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Poland and Romania - with regard to the United States and Canada. However, as you have mentioned this subject, I would like to ask you when this rather uncomfortable problem for the European Union will also be resolved.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) Mr President, a civilised society plainly needs to defend itself effectively against the criminal actions of various terrorist groups. In connection with the draft agreement on the use and transfer of passenger name record data, however, we would like to express concern as to the adequacy and proportionality of the agreement, particularly in relation to the European Union's responsibility for protecting the personal data of its citizens.\nThe Legal Service's latest expert opinions indicate that the text of the draft agreement provides inadequate protection for the personal data of our citizens, and even falls short of personal data handling requirements under European law. I would therefore like to ask you, Commissioner, to consider the scope and proportionality of the European Union's proposed commitments, so that we are not obliged to reject the draft text of this important interstate agreement in the final stages of the approval process in Parliament.\nAngelika Werthmann\n(DE) Mr President, there has been much debate already on the subject of passenger name records (PNR). Data protection is regulated in the EU by Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The joint bilateral efforts to counter terrorism are not what is in dispute here. Nonetheless, I wish to make it clear that protecting the privacy of our citizens is of the utmost importance and is highly valued by them.\nI note that in the new US-EU agreement the retention period is even longer than it was in the old agreement. This is one of the aspects that cannot be allowed to remain. In the words of Ambassador Eacho, 'freedom without security is fragile; security without freedom is repressive'. In other words, it is a matter of finding the right balance.\nCarlos Coelho\n(PT) Mr President, many thanks to Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m for her answers. I especially liked it when she stated that this system is useful when (and this was the word she used, 'when') data are strongly protected. Now, the question that is raised is this: are we or are we not faced with a system, particularly with regard to the United States, in which European legislation on data protection is being respected? The Commissioner has legal opinion at her disposal. It seems to us that there is an attempt to force us to adapt to their data protection standard. As this concerns our data, however, it is they who have to adapt to our legal framework, and we have to be assured of this. However, it is not obvious whether this is actually happening in terms of proportionality and the use and retention of data.\nFinally, the Commissioner gave the idea that 'pull' was possible in certain circumstances. I would remind you of what Mrs in 't Veld said: that is, according to the European Parliament, no 'pull' is possible; only the 'push' system should be allowed.\nCsan\u00e1d Szegedi\n(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, here in the issue of passenger name record (PNR) data transfer we are not talking about cooperation in the field of data protection, but about data protection error. It is simply an offence that the United States reckons that Europe is not able to filter criminals. It is extremely dangerous to give out data of European Union citizens especially in these circumstances, when the United States can store even the most private and most confidential information for 15 years. Let me ask you, who will decide who is a terrorist or a suspected terrorist in Europe? My other question to you is what will we receive in return, if this agreement - God forbid - were to be concluded? The other important point is that the EU must at last realise that it has grown up, and must change its attitude to the effect that it should enter only into agreements concluded on the basis of parity, be it with the United States, Canada or Australia.\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I will comment on a few specific questions.\nThe multilateral agreement that was announced in the communication on external PNR - where we also outlined a few guiding principles - will be based on the Australian system. On the legal basis, the Parliament's Legal Service said in 2007 that the correct legal basis was police cooperation. With regard to the costs of the EU PNR, an impact assessment and an independent study have been conducted on costs. They are on our website and Members are welcome to look at them.\nLet us be very clear about what we discussed today. Today we have three agreements with Australia, Canada and the US. We have decided jointly to renegotiate them. What we have achieved so far is a huge improvement, but there are no texts before you today to vote upon because negotiations are still ongoing.\nI am here today to answer a few questions and I hope I can provide some clarifications. I am willing to hold further discussions, but we already have agreements and we are trying to make improvements to them. So far we have improved them immensely in terms of definition, clarity, data protection and legal clarity.\nThere will be developments and processes will be defined, but let me remind you that a country has the sovereign right to decide who can land on its territory and to impose certain conditions. We cannot change that.\nI cannot discuss ongoing negotiations; I cannot go into details. I cannot comment on leaked documents. I have tried to provide as much information as possible to the coordinators, the rapporteur and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I am willing to continue to do so and to discuss all texts we draw up as the process continues.\nI am quite positive that we will reach an agreement that considers both the necessity to protect our citizens against terrorism and organised crime and that also includes robust provisions on data protection. But today we were here to answer questions on certain issues. I have done my best to do that. I am sorry if you do not like the answers but there is nothing to vote on today. Hopefully there will be before too long and then we will most likely have the chance to discuss it.\nIn the meantime the Commission is available to provide information. Mr Priebe will come to the committee tomorrow to give further information on the necessity and proportionality of PNR and provide some statistics. We are willing to come and see Members at any time to inform them and discuss specific details.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Homophobia in Europe (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on homophobia in Europe.\nI have to inform you that the Union for a Europe of the Nations Group has tabled a motion to omit this debate on the grounds of inadmissibility. Mr Szyma\u0144ski is to speak in defence of this motion and now has the floor.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, I ask the motion for the debate on homophobia be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 167 of our rules of procedure. The grounds are that this House was misled as to the grounds for the debate, which is to discuss a bill that has never existed, does not exist and will not exist, as was quite clearly stated by the Polish premier.\nThe proposal is to discuss the statements of certain Polish politicians, which the Polish premier corrected by stating quite clearly that the Polish Government has not proposed any kind of discriminatory policy against homosexual circles. In my view this should suffice to withdraw the motion for a debate on this issue, as the grounds for the debate do not exist.\nManfred Weber\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, where anti-discrimination is concerned, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats' position is perfectly clear; it unequivocally endorses the decisions taken by this honourable House and expressed by it in various resolutions and legal acts.\nHaving discussed the Polish minister's utterances in the House's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, we asked the House's legal service to give us some idea of what importance should be attached to them and whether or not they were contrary to European law. The legal service replied that it regretted its inability to give an opinion, as this was not a legal matter, and that is the very point made by our friend from the Union for Europe of the Nations Group.\nThe Group of the European People's Party would like to see this issue taken seriously, and so we have moved that our agency recently formed to deal with these matters be mandated to monitor developments in this area and keep a close watch on them. I would like to make it clear that, while the Group of the European People's Party endorses these decisions, we do believe that there is no reason to bring these matters before Parliament again, and it is for that reason that we are in favour of deleting this item from the agenda.\nKathalijne Maria Buitenweg\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, I think that the PPE-DE Group also knows that today we are not just talking about one statement by one Minister. It is a much broader debate. I think it is obvious to the majority in this House that this motion has only been put forward because some people do not want to discuss discrimination against homosexuals. However, we are politicians in a democracy and if you do not like a resolution, you simply vote against it.\nI cannot understand why this should be inadmissible. Next time we will declare a debate about the internal market as inadmissible! The topic falls within the remit of the European Union. Equal rights are at the core of the European Union. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam - I do not know whether everyone is aware - Article 13 stipulates that we have a role in anti-discrimination legislation. It is not the first time that we have discussed homophobia and nor, unfortunately, will it be the last.\nMy point is that it is very clear: it is admissible because it falls within our remit. The only reason it can be otherwise is because you do not wish to discuss it. Let us debate it this afternoon and take account of it when we vote, but let us not distort a debate.\n(Applause)\n(The motion of inadmissibility was rejected.)\nG\u00fcnter Gloser\nMadam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, 'Europe - succeeding together!' is the motto that the German Presidency of the EU has chosen as its watchword; 'Europe - succeeding together'- but what does that mean? It did mean that we, in Europe, have to keep on reminding ourselves of what is positive and good about diversity, respect, recognition and tolerance, because diversity, respect, recognition and tolerance are the core values upon which is founded the Europe in which we share.\nAt first sight, it would appear that those whose orientation is towards their own sex are today accepted and tolerated more widely than ever, and the work of associations plays a vital part in this, for movements of lesbians and gay men are ever better organised and encourage their members to affirm their sexual orientation openly. Following as it does centuries of institutionalised discrimination, that is a heartening development. I speak for Germany, and our history has given us a particular responsibility, in that, 60 years ago, homosexuals were among those who fell victim to the National Socialist machinery of extermination.\nIf one takes a second look, it rapidly becomes evident that homophobia is still very much alive and kicking in many parts of Europe, and current events show that in ways that make us ashamed. Homosexuals are still exposed to prejudices, intolerance and officially sanctioned discrimination, and hate-filled tirades and acts of violence against sexual minorities are daily occurrences, often going unpunished by the criminal law.\nIn this regard, I can wholeheartedly endorse the words of Hans Winkler, who, speaking to your House as a representative of the Austrian Presidency of the Council not quite a year ago, stressed that: 'Wherever the safety and dignity of any man or woman living in the European Union are in jeopardy, so are the safety and dignity of all of us, and with it the credibility of our Union and its principles and institutions.' That is still true today.\n(Applause)\nDiscrimination against homosexuals is a problem against which we have to bring all the means at our disposal to bear. Fighting homophobia calls for perseverance. Continuous work is needed in order to progressively demolish the walls of prejudice and intolerance in people's heads, while, at the same time, there is a need for the building of new structures founded on acceptance, equality and respect. To be sure, people's thinking cannot be changed overnight, but official positions and laws can be, and must be, changed if fundamental human rights are to be protected, and in this regard we, in Europe, have already taken a great step forwards.\nThe European Union is founded upon the principles of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. To be specific, Article 13 of the European Communities Treaty, and also Article 21 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights explicitly forbid any form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and, over and above that, the EU's Member States, as members of the Council of Europe, have committed themselves to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights.\nEver since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, the European Union has been empowered to address discrimination on a wide range of grounds, including discrimination by reason of sexual orientation. Since then, the European Union has, by adopting the equality directives, put in place a wide range of regulations making it possible to take action against discrimination right across the European Union; in the world of work, for example, an EU directive has prohibited discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, handicap, or sexual orientation.\nWe may well already have made considerable progress in changing the legal position on protection from discrimination and on the promotion of equal opportunities across the EU, but that is no reason for us to rest on our laurels, for even the best-drafted legislation avails nothing if the political will that it be consistently implemented is not strong enough and it is not supported by the population as a whole.\n(Applause)\nThis is where there is work for the Commission to do, because its task is to monitor whether directives such as the ones I have mentioned are transposed properly and in good time by the Member States, and the newly-established Fundamental Rights Agency will in future be giving it additional support in this, as soon as it is fully up and running. Even so, I have to emphasise that responsibility does not lie with the Commission alone.\nWe, too, as people in positions of political leadership in the EU or at national or regional level, can and must give a good example by promoting tolerance, understanding, mutual respect and peaceful coexistence, and we also need to keep a watchful eye on the Commission's monitoring activities in the countries that are candidates for accession or have the potential to be such. Accession negotiations no less than stabilisation and association agreements require that all conditions be fulfilled, and that includes specifically those applicable to the human rights of sexual minorities.\nAt the end of the day, we have to influence the way people think, in order that the walls of prejudice and intolerance in their heads may be brought down, and I am glad that the joint initiative of the Commission and the German Presidency of the Council made it possible for the first European Equality Summit to be held in Berlin on 30 and 31 January, marking the inauguration of the 'European Year of Equal Opportunities for All', which offers a unique opportunity to promote a more solidarity-based society and to mobilise everyone concerned in order to drive forward the European Union's new Framework Strategy on Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities, both now and after 2007.\nThe intention behind the programme is that the public be made more aware of the right to equal treatment and of the ways in which discrimination is combated, and to spread the news that everyone is entitled to equal treatment irrespective of their gender, race, ethnic origin, religion or outlook, of any disability they may have, of their age or of their sexual orientation. Let us make use of this opportunity to fight intolerance and discrimination together and to promote diversity, respect, acceptance and tolerance as positive things.\nOnly if we work together can we ensure that the European Union can claim, with pride, to be 'united in diversity'.\n(Applause)\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nMadam President, honourable Members, I should first like to remind the Chamber that, in my statements on homophobia on 17 January 2006, and on the increase in violence motivated by racism and homophobia in Europe on 14 June 2006, the Commission strongly condemned all forms of homophobia, which represents an attack on human dignity.\nThe Commission wishes to emphasise its serious commitment, as a matter of principle, to upholding the basic rights on which the EU was founded. The Commission will do everything in its power to fight homophobia. It is necessary to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is clearly outlawed in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, Article 13 of the Treaty allows for the adoption at a European level of appropriate measures in the fight against discrimination on the grounds of gender.\nIn the year 2000, the Council adopted a directive, on the basis of Article 13, establishing a general framework for combating discrimination in employment and occupation on several grounds, including sexual orientation. The Commission will monitor the implementation of the directive in all Member States, including Poland. It will not hesitate to take firm action against Member States if directives are not properly implemented. The Commission wishes to point out that in 2005 it launched studies into the current national laws prohibiting all forms of discrimination, including discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, in areas other than employment and occupation.\nThese studies demonstrated that all Member States to which the studies related have in some areas gone further, often much further, than Community law. There are, however, significant discrepancies between Member States as regards the extent of protection. The Commission also stated in its political strategy for 2008 that it will propose fresh initiatives aimed at preventing discrimination in areas other than the labour market, including discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.\nIn this context, in February the Commission launched an impact assessment in order to establish whether further EU intervention is justified in areas other than employment and occupation. The Commission is now carrying out extensive consultation with the general public and with interested parties such as NGOs and social partners. The results of the impact assessment are expected at the end of 2007. The Commission is aware that protection under the law alone is not enough to guarantee the protection of the people concerned. It is also important to fight prejudice and stereotypes.\nThe European Year of Equal Opportunities for All 2007 establishes the following aims: to inform the citizens of their rights, to support diversity as a benefit, to promote equal opportunities for all in economic, social, cultural and political life. The Commission welcomes the national strategies drawn up by the Member States in the context of the European Year. All countries including Poland have incorporated all grounds of discrimination into their strategies.\nThe Commission has become aware of the statements made by a member of the Polish Parliament, who has declared his intention to table a proposal for an act that would ban the promotion of homosexuality in schools and in all other youth or leisure organisations. According to information at the Commission's disposal the proposal in question has yet to be drawn up and the statements made by the Polish Government are not binding. This law, were it to materialise, could be in breach of fundamental laws contained in the European convention on human rights and the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. It also could be in breach of the principle of non-discrimination in employment and occupation, that is to say, in breach of Directive 2078\/EC.\nThe Commission will monitor further developments closely and will not hesitate to take action in the event of breaches of Community law.\nManfred Weber\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make clear - perhaps rather more calmly than before - that we in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats stand fully behind the European Parliament's resolutions and behind the directives that have been adopted here and which the Commission has described. Europe is an area of the rule of law and we have to defend that.\nHowever, the occasion for today's discussion, namely the statement by this Polish minister, which is unacceptable and which the Group of the European People's Party rejects, is no reason for such a debate. As Commissioner \u0160pidla pointed out, when we discussed discrimination against homosexuals only a few weeks ago we saw that unfortunately some of Europe's politicians say things that are unacceptable and we must fight them by political means.\nI would like to say that it should make us stop and think when Polish Members of all groups - and I am thinking in particular of the discussion among the Liberals - have said that what happened in Poland is unacceptable, but that the debate must be conducted primarily in Poland itself and that Poland itself is dealing with the unacceptable things that were said there. It has been said that Poland does not need a Big Brother interfering in its affairs and that they will deal with the matter themselves. That should give us pause for thought. We will do those who are fighting discrimination in Poland as we would wish no favours by making a big issue of it here.\nPlease therefore accept - and it is a procedural matter we are raising here - that we consider it inappropriate to debate this matter today, because we have enough decisions and directives about it. No to discrimination, No to homophobia in Europe! We therefore propose that our agency should continue to monitor the situation and keep an eye on it. The Group of the European People's Party will act accordingly tomorrow.\nMartine Roure\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Madam President, on 16 January 2006, I spoke in this very place to defend the resolution against homophobia. It was not the first time, and I fear that it will not be the last. Indeed, we were hoping to put a stop to the difference in treatment suffered by homosexuals on Union soil, and we fully realise that there is still a long way to go. Let us remember that we are a few days away from the International Day against Homophobia.\nThe text being submitted to us today mentions not only known cases of homophobia in several EU countries but also, in fact, a declaration by the Polish Deputy Prime Minister. It is not a question of stigmatising this or that government or this or that Member State, but these diatribes reveal this rise in homophobia within the European Union. These remarks reveal, in fact, an unacceptable state of mind, and they are not the remarks of the man in the street. They are those of a member of government.\nThis needs to stop. We must once again take a stand against these sickening remarks, and I should like, here and now, vigorously to denounce the new revolting and despicable publication by Mr Giertych, a Member of our Parliament, who has just had his second pamphlet distributed, in which he implies that homosexuals are sick. All those who rightly feel hurt by these hateful acts and words and all those young people who discover that they are different, some of whom go so far as to commit suicide, must know that that is not what Europe is about.\nWe cannot spend our time voting for resolutions designed to fight against the discrimination suffered by homosexuals. In the future, we must think about tools that will enable us to act effectively. From now on, everyone within the Union must shoulder his or her responsibilities.\n(Applause from the left)\nSophia in 't Veld\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Madam President, I should like to clear up a misunderstanding: this resolution is not about Poland, but about homophobia. Unfortunately, Poland does not have the monopoly on homophobia, which is, regrettably, to be found throughout the world. It is a fact, though, that we discussed the problems in Poland one and a half years ago and that they are still there today. As Mrs Roure rightly pointed out a moment ago, it not just anybody who has made statements of this kind, it is opinion leaders and members of the government who have contributed to a climate in which hatred and violence have become the norm.\nTwo weeks ago, a homosexual man was beaten to death on the street in my own country - a country that is extremely tolerant and liberal - because somebody thought he looked too effeminate. Beaten to death! Can you imagine? That is the kind of thing that happens in a climate that is created by people who are guilty of making homophobic statements. You cannot say, therefore, that because there is no legislative proposal yet, we do not have a problem. In that respect, I am also delighted that Mr Weber, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, as well as the ombudsman, have dissociated themselves so emphatically from the statements of the Polish minister in question.\nI would be appreciative if the Council and Commission could respond with a statement that is just as emphatic. As the Commission, and particularly the Council, have said, we do have laws, rules and treaties; all of which are wonderful, but they have not managed to stop these people from making homophobic statements of this kind. We would like to see more action. We would, for example, like the Council to indicate the measures it intends to take in respect of this Education Minister. Will you tolerate that this Education Minister attends meetings of European Education Ministers, or are you prepared to consider suspending him as long as he refuses to distance himself from his statements?\nThis is the first time that we have made statements of this kind about Member States - plural, because there are several of them in the European Union. We are always keen to point the finger at other countries, but I think that if we take Europe seriously, if we are a community of values, we should put our own house in order first. I hope that this House will, today, send a very strong message to Europe and to the world that these are the values for which we stand.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\nMadam President, aggressive behaviour against homosexuals is a problem in many European societies, but it is certainly not the biggest problem. We also have problems with such behaviour on the part of government agencies, such as the police, in Germany, the UK and Italy, for example. Even so, it would never occur to me to debate the matter in the European Parliament and to give advice. The governments of the Member States themselves know best how to deal with such matters.\nIt is unfortunate that some colleagues here do not think this rule applies to Poland, for example. There can only be one reason for this. This House is being led by the nose by a group of extremist MEPs who are riled by every word of polemics (applause) that stipulates or mentions homosexuality. I would like to point out that homosexuals are not outside the scope of criticism. That is the basis of democracy. Submitting so easily to homosexual censorship has become a hallmark of this House. I do not believe that this will do anything to help our authority.\n(Applause)\nKathalijne Maria Buitenweg\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (NL) Madam President, I should like to start with a word of reassurance for the last speaker - we have most definitely discussed hooliganism in this House before, but this is a different matter altogether, because in the case of hooliganism, the government does not incite the violence, whereas in this case, certainly in the case of Poland, I am beginning to get the feeling that homophobia is something that is - as it were - being staged by the state, certainly if one considers the statements that were made by members of the Polish Government to the effect that 'homosexuality is demoralising, perverse, a mental disorder and a threat to society'.\nI listened very carefully to what Commissioner \u0160pidla had to say to the effect that 'if a law is proposed, then I will respond'. I appreciate this, and I gather that Commissioner \u0160pidla can see why a law of this kind would constitute a threat to European values and an infringement of European law. Things, however, are already going wrong, and this is something I find lacking in the speech, for governments cannot, of course, make all kinds of unconditional proposals, only then to retract them, with it then being said that there is not really a problem anyway.\nAfter all, something is obviously being set in motion: this sort of thing is, of course, making homophobia more widespread, and the Commissioner is, after all, responsible for compliance with anti-discrimination legislation within the labour market. Surely you do not believe that the concept of equal opportunities within a labour market can survive within a society where homophobia is rife, so what are you proposing to do about this? How do you propose to deal with governments that - to all intents and purposes - promote homophobia? What are the repercussions for the labour market? This is what I would like you to tell us.\nFinally, for the benefit of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I should like to say that I regret that you have given your backing to the Union for Europe of the Nations Group for what you claim to be merely procedural reasons. It would be great if a whole delegation from Parliament, including your group, could attend a number of gay pride marches in Warsaw, in Riga and in many other countries. I would greatly appreciate it if we could stand there, hand in hand, so that is my invitation to you, and, who knows - it might actually happen.\nGiusto Catania\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it would have been extremely hypocritical if the European Parliament had not debated this issue today, that is, if we had not debated the fact that homophobic public displays and statements have increased in Europe in recent years.\nThe Polish minister's statements are embarrassing and come in the wake of his Government's ban on the Gay Pride celebrations. Despite public indignation, the minister has never withdrawn his very worrying assertions.\nSadly, this is not the only case in Europe. Displays of intolerance are on the increase in our civilised Europe. We often read about incidents of violence against men and women because of their sexual leanings, or we look on helplessly at the increasingly common cases of serious bullying at school, which can even lead young people to commit suicide, as recently happened in Italy.\nFor that reason, politicians must not show signs of intolerance and they must not issue statements like those the Polish minister made, because by doing so they risk legitimising homophobic attitudes.\nThis applies not just to politicians but also to the Church authorities, who more and more often do not miss an opportunity to show their aversion to homosexuals, branding them as sinners. No kind of discrimination is acceptable and, more to the point, no discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable.\nThis Parliament rejected Rocco Buttiglione as a Commissioner because of what he said. I think there needs to be a strong message from the Commission, so that it can keep the promises it made to adopt concrete measures against any form of discrimination.\nEurope's history and culture owe a great deal to the sensitivity of men and women who have been persecuted by authoritarian regimes and are still criminalised by reactionary and racist cultures in Europe. We owe a great deal to Sappho, Pier Paulo Pasolini, Oscar Wilde, Michel Foucault and Andr\u00e9 Gide, and it seems to me a serious matter that, if it had been up to these obscurantist cultures, these great artists would never even have had a voice.\nI believe, and I hope that Parliament too will agree with me, that a culture that is against homosexuals is unacceptable and should be strongly resisted.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, the fact that homophobia is still a problem in Europe in 2007 is deeply unfortunate and alarming. What is still more unfortunate is that there are fellow Members here in this House who, through their clearly homophobic statements, help make the situation worse for homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals. They make such statements not only here in the European Parliament but also, to a large extent, on their home territories. One of the consequences of stirring up homophobic feeling is that homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals are in danger of being exposed to both physical and psychological violence, as happened at quite a few Gay Pride parades around Europe last year.\nWhat is even worse is when faith and religion are used as excuses for discriminating against EU citizens. You can surely work out what I have in mind. These are medieval values that do not belong in our modern society. Europe in 2007 should be further along the road than that. Let us combat homophobia wherever it occurs: in politics, in the media and in the circles in which we all move.\nPhilip Claeys\non behalf of the ITS Group. - (NL) Madam President, we have already had a debate on homophobia in Europe - it was in January of last year - and, on that occasion, I said, among other things, that nobody in the European Parliament should accept that homosexuals, on account of their orientation, should be disadvantaged, attacked or intimidated in any manner whatever. At the same time, I also warned against the spirit of political correctness which is gradually suffocating the free expression of opinion. Indeed, in addition to homophobia and other phobias, a kind of 'freedom of speech-phobia' is starting to develop, an irrational fear of letting people express their opinions freely. What my group does not like in today's debate and the resolutions that have been submitted, is that one specific Member State is being targeted on the basis of information the accuracy of which is in dispute. This is not the right way to going about things. We should exercise more care in this area so as to prevent the people in that Member State from turning away from the European Union even more.\nMichael Cashman\nMadam President, I rise in sadness, and not in anger. After the Second World War, we still have not learned the lessons. During the 1930s we stood and watched as Jews, Communists, trade unionists and homosexuals were taken off to the camps. We stood. We said and did nothing.\nWe have now moved on. I say to those countries that have lived under domination and repression that they, of all countries, should know the value of fundamental human rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech and the right to a private life.\n(Applause)\nYou should be teaching us about fundamental values. That is why we will not hesitate to defend human rights and human rights defenders, wherever they are.\nLet me say to anyone who feels under attack wherever they are - and, as a gay man, I could have been born in Poland, Latvia or the Czech Republic in fear of my life, in fear of my job - you are not alone, we are with you and we will win for the simple reason that goodness and justice always succeed in the end.\nWhen we refer to politicians in office and the statements that were made, we are not talking about a one-off statement but rather a series of statements that have been calculated and made over the years. Hate-speak creates a climate that somehow lives are inferior, that the person poses a threat to society. A climate is created and fear is engendered, rights are under threat. Words once spoken cannot be taken back and the harm that is done continues and the words too often empower the thug, which leads to violence.\nI note that Mr Weber says 'no to homophobia'. However, it is sad that he also says 'no' to doing anything about it here in this House today.\nLet me finish on this: we will succeed, but that means we have to take up our responsibility to defend human rights and to end human rights abuses, wherever they are.\n(Applause)\nJan Jerzy Ku\u0142akowski\n- (PL) Madam President, I would like to say a couple of words on behalf of the Polish delegation in the liberal democratic Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group.\nFirstly, we accept no form of discrimination, and are for complete tolerance in matters relating to this debate.\nSecondly, we would like to stress that there is a big difference between non-discrimination in this area and the promotion of homosexual attitudes. Tolerance yes, non-discrimination yes, but promotion no, because such promotion is not a measure of respect for human rights.\nAnd finally, this is not a political issue, and should not be treated as such. It is a moral issue which is deeply related to pluralism, which should characterise the European Union.\nBogdan P\u0119k\nMadam President, those who were so willing to vote on the necessity for this debate just now were just as quick and willing to leave the hall. That is the best illustration that their intentions were not real, but artificial and for political purposes. It is an attempt to persecute a government in a country that does not please various options: liberals, the left, left-wingers, etc.\nThis I can understand, but, for heaven's sake, while thousands of pyres were burning in your countries in the not too distant past, those who fled those pyres gathered in Poland. Jews, persecuted throughout Europe, gathered in Poland. Poland is a symbol of tolerance. The attempt being made here to convince the world and Europe that Poland is a hotbed of intolerance towards homosexuals is a huge obscenity and political slander, a cynical ploy to delude public opinion in Europe. I protest against this ploy because it is fundamentally untrue.\n(Applause)\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\n(ES) I believe that Mr Cashman has conveyed the sentiment shared by the majority of this House very well and I therefore believe that we must insist once again that we must raise our voices in the face of certain attitudes.\nIt is not a problem of freedom of expression. The problem is that certain statements that are hostile to sexual freedom come from governmental institutions, States and governments that are part of the European Union, who have signed treaties, such as the European Union Treaty, Article 6 of which clearly defines freedom of choice, including sexual choice.\nLet us not confuse propaganda with the right to be free to be what one wants to be at any time, in any circumstance and in any Member States of the European Union.\nI therefore believe that these statements, which, as Mr Cashman said quite rightly as well, are not isolated, are part of a tendency, of a calculated strategy to question the fundamental values of the European Union. They cannot go unpunished.\nThis House had to react - I believe that it is doing so - though, regrettably, I fear that this is not the first time, but we will always insist and, although it is a bore to re-state the obvious, we must continue to do so because - as Mr Cashman also said - we are right and right will prevail.\nWitold Tomczak\n(PL) Madam President, everybody has the right to live and deserves respect and help. That includes misguided and injured people who have succumbed to homosexual inclinations. The solution, however, is neither blind acceptance nor intolerance, but understanding and kindness. The solution is to help sufferers to get better, which is what is expected of us.\nTo accept homosexuality as something natural and normal is to glorify pain and suffering. It is erroneous and dangerous political correctness. Homosexual acts are against the laws of nature, because they preclude the gift of life. Propagating them is an attack on the family and leads to abnormalities.\nDear Europeans, instead of levelling unfair criticism at Poland, you ought to be following Poland's example of morality, tolerance and normality. In this country, Coming out Straight. Understanding and Healing Homosexuality has been published. The author is Richard Cohen, who freed himself from homosexuality and is now a happy man and a father. Let us benefit from his experience.\nTo the so-called defenders of human rights who are raising such a fuss today and magnifying the problem I ask - why are you ignoring the moral degradation of the media, discrimination against normal families, why do you shut your eyes to the mass murder of children in their mothers' wombs? Do you realise that by promoting a civilisation of falsehood and death you are bringing about the destruction of Europe?\nJ\u00f3zef Pinior\n(PL) Madam President, the Campaign against Homophobia and the Lambda Association presented a report on the situation in society of bisexual and homosexual people in Poland in the years 2005 and 2006. The report paints a picture of persecution. Every fifth homosexual has been jostled or kicked. Half of those questioned have been insulted, harassed or blackmailed. Harassment has increased in recent times. Of the people who have experienced physical violence, almost 42% had experienced it more than three times in the past five years.\nIt is with deep regret that I have to confirm that homosexuals today cannot rely on the institutions of the Polish state, ruled by a conservative-nationalist-populist alliance, to afford them effective protection. In many statements representatives of the government openly express an ideology of hatred, intolerance and discrimination against homosexual circles. That is what makes today's resolution so important, my Polish compatriots of the right! For these people, the European Parliament has become a champion of justice, a leading light which keeps alive their hopes that their fundamental citizen's rights, and to a dignified life, will be upheld.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nSomeone wanted to raise a point of order.\nAlexander Stubb\nMadam President, no, I cannot do that because there is not one. I just wanted to say that listening to Mr Tomczak proves exactly why we need a debate on homophobia in this House. Those were the most homophobic statements I have heard in this House for a very long time, and I am truly saddened by them.\n(Applause)\nG\u00fcnter Gloser\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take advantage of this debate to come back to a speech which the Council President made here in this House about a Europe of values and tolerance. It is a very important point that holds true in very many areas.\nWe have discussed a great deal about various other matters today, directing our gaze to problems outside the European Union. If we do that - and we are right to do so - it is perfectly legitimate also to look at what we have still not put in order in our own House, namely intolerance towards homosexual orientation. I therefore ask you, even if many take a different view on this matter, at least to tolerate there being a debate and to see that it is also important that the Commission should have instruments on the basis of which it can take appropriate action to combat such discrimination.\nOn behalf of the presidency I can only expressly repeat that it is our duty not to leave this with the Commission or the parliaments alone, but that we must also actively seek to make our society aware of this matter so that such discrimination no longer occurs. I hope today's debate has at least made a small contribution to that.\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nMember of the Commission. (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, human rights are inalienable rights, and I feel that this is a fundamental value on which the entire European project is based.\nGiven that we have held a very profound and emotionally-charged debate, I should like to quote exactly what the Polish deputy minister said in his speech. According to the deputy minister, the proposed law will affect all those who promote homosexuality or other deviations. I feel that this detail is a sufficiently clear signal for us to conclude that if the law is adopted it will stigmatise a particular category of people on the grounds of their sexual orientation, and for this reason it is unacceptable from the standpoint of European law.\nLadies and gentlemen, the Commission will do everything in its power to uphold the rights of all citizens in all Member States, and I feel the message has come through strongly from this debate that homophobia is not only a phenomenon affecting some Member States, but rather a universal phenomenon. It is of course true that today we are dealing with a speech made by a member of parliament in a particular country.\nPresident\nIn conclusion of the debate, four motions for resolutions have been submitted pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.\n(The sitting was suspended at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, I am very pleased that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were mentioned in the report on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens. Paragraph 46 rightly states that access to finance is their greatest problem. That is correct, because it is still easier to secure financing of millions of euro for a hedge fund than to obtain a loan of EUR 100 000 for a small business.\nAgainst this background, I would like to see the report not only describing what should ideally happen, but also requiring the Commission to take concrete action.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Closer dialogue between universities and businesses will, in my opinion, contribute to economic growth. I am alarmed at the increasing unemployment among young people. The uncertain employment situation faced by young people often discourages them from starting a family or makes them want to postpone it excessively, and this ultimately has a negative impact in the economic and social sphere regarding the demographic transformation of Europe.\nThe dialogue should therefore include measures to support the entry of young people onto the job market, enabling the full development of their potential. Other topics should include making use of education as a means of combating poverty, inequality and social exclusion, with special attention being devoted to people with disabilities. For the reasons mentioned, I support the proposed report.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\n(GA) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report and it was the right thing to do.\nAs regards nuclear energy in general, however, I would like to say that many citizens are confused by it, and in my own country, almost everyone is against nuclear energy due to the terrible disasters which occurred in Sellafield and in Chernobyl. As such, I recommend that the Commission investigate the advantages and disadvantages related to nuclear energy, and that they publish a paper in order to give citizens the opportunity to make up their minds based on the truth rather than on emotions.\nFinally, I would like to congratulate you, Mr President, on the excellent job that you have done on your first day in the chair.\nSergej Kozl\u00edk\n(SK) The European Community provides financial assistance to Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria to support their efforts towards fulfilling obligations connected with the withdrawal from operation of first-generation nuclear reactors. The financial assistance for operational withdrawals which was provided to Bulgaria up to 2009 was intended mainly for preparatory work. The aim of the proposed continuation is to provide Bulgaria with assistance so that the country can operate and ensure the safety and maintenance ...\n(The speaker was interrupted)\nPeter van Dalen\n(NL) Mr President, a few of the amendments which the rapporteur has tabled to his report are nothing short of staggering. The rapporteur proposed dropping all the wordings about sound public finances, the breaches of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) which need to be brought to an end and the importance of the strict enforcement of the SGP and 250 members actually supported him in this. Staggering!\nThe aim of the rapporteur and of the 250 other members is to destroy the economy. How can it be that we still have 250 members who refuse to cut their coats according to their cloth? Two hundred and fifty members of the European Parliament who fail to understand that the land of plenty does not exist! All Member States will have to shed a lot of blood, sweat and tears to purge their debts, put their finances back in order and steer a different course.\nObviously, this is a tough message and will not go down well with the voters. However, if we fail to do this, the whole of Europe will go bankrupt! The path the rapporteur suggested is a recipe for how to destroy the sustainability of public finances in the short term. Fortunately, the amendments have not been adopted.\nVicky Ford\nMr President, I welcome this report on public finances. It is a vast improvement on the first draft.\nHigh debt and deficit levels are a grave concern to the UK and across many Member States. We must wean ourselves off fiscal stimuli and quantitative easing, and these should not be the accepted norm. There is a need to focus on overcoming our high unemployment levels now and reducing the tax burden on employment and SMEs. Resources are scarce and we agree that, where money is available, it should be directed to growth boosting investments, such as R&D and greener, smarter innovation. Finally, we cannot hide from our issue of ever-ageing populations. Pension schemes must be transparent and taken into account when looking at public debt.\nThere are some issues that I was wary of in this report. Migration, for example, needs to be handled sensitively. It can meet certain gaps in the labour force but must be controlled and take into account local factors. Yes, I agree that European problems do need European solutions, but we must be aware of the global economy and must respect the fundamental powers of our national governments too.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) I voted against the Hoang Ngoc report, mainly because of the nonchalance with which it calls for yet more mass immigration into Europe.\nHow detached from the real world can the European Parliament actually get? Our cities are already groaning under the problems of mass, uncontrolled immigration. It is time that we carried out a cost-benefit analysis at European level of the immigration of foreigners from outside the European Union. The governments of several Member States that have already been confronted with this issue have refused to calculate the cost of immigration and seem to think that it would be undesirable to gain any knowledge about this matter. How can that be?\nWe must also take into account the problems this will cause the developing world, which will witness a brain drain and the vital forces of their societies being siphoned off into Europe. Their problems will become even more severe, resulting in yet more immigration.\nDiane Dodds\nMr President, I voted against the own-initiative report on the Union for the Mediterranean for a number of reasons.\nThere is no doubt that a stable Mediterranean is a huge prize for the wider Europe. However, at a time when the economic climate across Europe is perilous, it is entirely inappropriate that this House should contemplate the expense associated with such a plan. Grand meetings of Heads of State, a 40-strong secretariat and neighbourhood packages do not represent a frugal economic policy at this particular time.\nFurthermore, I opposed Amendment 5 for asking that the upgrading of EU-Israel relations under the Preferential Economic Association Agreement should not proceed. In the delicate balance that is required from Europe, such calls will do nothing to give confidence to Israel that this House will act as an honest broker.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, in the early 1980s, when I was a young journalist, I paid a visit to King Hassan of Morocco whose accession bid to the EU had just been rejected. Following the visit, I wrote an article calling for a Mediterranean community. I had the privilege of working for Otto von Habsburg here, who said that the Mediterranean Sea had never separated Europe and its neighbours, but it must bring them together. In his biography of President Sarkozy, Jean-Paul Picaper wrote that the idea for the Union of the Mediterranean came from the pan-European movement.\nWhy am I mentioning this? Because I want to make it clear that this is not just a French obsession, as many people have said, and it is not a waste of money, as a previous speaker has stated. After the Eastern Partnership, it is the European Union's most important foreign policy tool. However, this is precisely the reason why we must ensure that it is properly designed and has a political structure. It must not simply be a free trade zone, because we know that the Mediterranean, as Churchill said, and I am aiming this remark at my British fellow Members, is the soft underbelly of Europe. We must ensure that this is not the case in future.\nTunne Kelam\nMr President, I supported the original paragraph 12 in this report expressing concern about the use of ethnic cleansing as a prelude to Russia's recognition of the puppet entities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. My proposal was to call on Russia to honour its ceasefire commitments without delay and to lift immediately its blocking of EUMM access to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I find it is a really intolerable and humiliating situation that the EU representatives have to ask for access to these entities which had been agreed. Against this background a call to Russia to respect the sovereignty and integrity of the Georgian Republic has no authority, unfortunately.\nWritten explanations of vote\nSophie Auconie  \nThe internal market and the euro represent two real shields for the European Union in the financial, budgetary, economic and social storm which the 27 are currently weathering. I voted in favour of this report, because it reaffirms the key role played by the internal market and gives a very good overview of the current stakes (budgetary coordination, development of education and research, aid for SMEs, strengthening and accessibility of SOLVIT and the Enterprise Europe Network). This is a reflection and a travel warrant which perfectly complements that of Professor Monti, who recently submitted his report entitled 'A new strategy for the single market' to the President of the European Commission, Jos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nin writing. - I voted for this report which addresses the current shortcomings of the internal market. The economic and financial crisis has substantially damaged the single market integration process. It is unfortunate to witness the re-emergence of economic protectionism at national levels which might result in fragmentation of the internal market. A large number of SMEs are leaving the market because their access to finance has been severely restricted in the times of crisis. It should not be forgotten that SMEs form an essential part of the backbone of the European economy and are the main drivers of economic growth and social cohesion. Member States should put greater efforts in implementing the Small Business Act and removing red-tape and other administrative and bureaucratic obstacles for SMEs.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nI voted against the report, because it promotes elements which are extremely onerous to real viable growth and to the interests of the workers and consumers in the EU in general. Firstly, the rapporteur not only draws the wrong conclusions; he also starts from the wrong premise in formulating his proposals, given that he claims that 'the single European market, along with the euro area, best illustrates the true meaning of EU economic integration and unity, and is certainly the most visible achievement of European integration for EU citizens'. He forgets the lack of fundamental social and political union and overlooks the real conditions in many of the countries in the euro area today.\nHe refers, in particular, to the social market economy, a vague term which basically means liberalisation of the market at the expense of even the last residue of social policy. The rapporteur also fully adopts the philosophy of competitiveness and the Europe 2020 strategy, which is not only baseless, but will have even more negative consequences for the people of Europe.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103  \nWe all know that the Europe 2020 strategy was launched with the aim of helping the European Union emerge from the current economic crisis and prepare its economy for the new decade. For this reason, I believe that the EU 2020 strategy must set realistic objectives for achieving by 2020 a green, knowledge-based, social market economy and sustainable development. Another objective is to create jobs in the agricultural and environmental sector as the single European market must be the cornerstone of the EU 2020 strategy, tackling the challenges of economic growth and consumer protection.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for this report because it argues that the single market is not solely tied to the economic aspect. It is essential to ensure that, in the revival of the single market, a holistic and a common approach is adopted whereby consumer and citizen goals, particularly those related to economic, social, health and environmental concerns, are fully integrated in a revived single market.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe internal market, as well as the policies related to it, has allowed the European public better access to goods and services, and more variety at a lower cost. The principles of the internal market have meant that European consumers have had access to more information and better protection of their rights, but they are also becoming more aware of their obligations. For this reason, the reality of the internal market is not static but dynamic. It is a reality that is changing in a globalised world; thought must continue to be given to how to develop it and improve its implementation. I agree with the rapporteur and would stress the importance of the European Union's internal market for European integration itself, for greater social cohesion, for sustainable development, for competitiveness, and for economic growth that will enable us to face up to future developments and compete in a globalised market.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe construction of an integrated, fully functioning single market is a process that is essential to deepened European integration, social cohesion, economic growth and the sustainable development of the EU. However, the economic crisis has undoubtedly affected public and consumer confidence in the single market. It is important that the European public sees the importance of the single market, the way it works and, most importantly, the benefits that it can bring to the public, consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises. Reviving the single market means that its various stakeholders must adopt a common holistic approach which incorporates the objectives of consumers and the public into a renewed single market, particularly those linked to economic, social, health and environmental concerns. This new programme for consolidating the single market must be carefully monitored so that it values social justice, guarantees the integrity of the market, stimulates innovation and aids the transition to a new digital era. These imperatives are likely to provide the single market with a competitive advantage against other major world economies. In order to create confidence in this single market, it is necessary to ensure that consumers are protected and to safeguard the public's social and environmental needs.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nI admire the rapporteur for managing to write, in all seriousness and without laughing, that the single market and the euro have served as Europe's protective shield during the profound crisis that has affected us for the last two years. Nothing has protected us, least of all the Europe of Brussels. On the contrary, it has established all the conditions needed for us to bear the full brunt: free global movement of capital, dismantling of public services and systems of social protection, increased job insecurity, and a monetary policy left in the hands of a central bank that is indifferent to the economic needs of Member States. These are the consequences of establishing a single market that has remained incomplete since 1992. It has also been an element of inertia, a superfluous element to be taken into consideration when Member States took things in hand. As for the euro, I think we should ask all those countries suffering from speculation what they think of its capacity to protect them. Today, it is a crisis factor in itself.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nThe common European market is an important achievement of European Union integration. It gives many possibilities to our citizens as well as to small and medium-sized enterprises.\nIn a report on the strategy and future of the EU market which was published and presented last week, Professor Mario Monti points clearly to the fact that citizens and consumers should be among the main beneficiaries of the common market. The market is not always favourable to them. Therefore, when working on further legislative proposals, their concerns should be taken into account to the greatest possible extent. We should try to ensure that questions, for example, of recognition of professional qualifications, correct implementation of the Services Directive, e-commerce, small and medium-sized enterprises and consumer protection are priorities as we continue to build the common market.\nAs Professor Monti has rightly observed, a certain fatigue with questions of the EU market can be felt in Member States, but it is precisely now that we need a strong common market more than ever before, as the crisis of recent months has shown us. Therefore, I welcome Mr Grech's report, which I had the opportunity to work on and which was our comment on the matter of the consumers and citizens in the EU market.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - This report could not have come at a more critical moment. The ongoing financial crisis has created a sense of mistrust and led to more discussions about protectionist measures by governments. In the long term, this would have detrimental effects on Europe's economy. I believe there is a connection between the economic problems and the lack of motivation in completing the internal market. Mr Grech correctly points out in his report that the citizen is the real centre of the internal market and that it should be the economy that works for the citizen, not the other way round. In Mr Monti's report, 'A new strategy for the internal market', he warns that the internal market is more unpopular than ever but also more needed than ever. It is my belief that we must act boldly, whilst taking into account citizens' concerns, to re-energise the internal market. I voted in favour of the Grech report, although in my opinion, it could have underlined more the situation of SMEs. However, with the important amendments passed, the result was well-balanced and I hope it will lead to well thought out legislative initiatives by the Commission.\nNuno Melo  \nThe construction of a single market has always been and continues to be one of the EU's main objectives. A well-functioning single market is a fundamental process to further European integration, social cohesion, economic growth and sustainable development within the Union. Doubts have been emerging over what stage the single market is at, because of the recent economic crisis: there are those who argue that it is fragile at the moment. If this is true, it is very damaging to the integration process of the single market, and to the history of the Union itself. It is very important at this stage to find an instrument that clearly and unequivocally informs the European public how the single market works, as well as the huge benefits that it can bring to consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I voted as I did.\nFranz Obermayr  \nThe report is moving in the wrong direction. Now it is time to protect companies in the various Member States from the effects of the global financial crisis and to put in place clear regulations for speculators and the free market. Instead of this, the cultural and economic differences between the markets, companies and business practices are being sacrificed in favour of a globalised market. For these reasons, I have voted against this report.\nRobert Rochefort  \nI voted in favour of the Grech report on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens. This document indeed finds a balance between, on the one hand, the objectives of an open economy capable of stimulating growth and job creation and of providing an integrated response to the major challenges of the future (such as competitiveness, research and development, industrial policy, and demographic and environmental issues), and, on the other, those of an economic system that is up to the task of delivering consumer protection and the social and environmental safeguards that citizens need. We must not forget the citizen and consumer in our recovery strategy.\nEurope must also adopt a holistic approach that fully integrates our citizens' concerns and other horizontal policy areas, particularly health, social and consumer protection, labour law, environment, sustainable development and external policies. The report urges the Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal to ensure implementation of an affordable, expedient and accessible Europe-wide collective redress system by May 2011, which I advocate.\nCarl Schlyter  \nThis report consists of the best content-free rhetoric I have seen this year and, for this reason, I cannot support it. That said, it does contain both good and bad proposals, and I am therefore abstaining.\nSophie Auconie  \nI voted in favour of the report on university-business dialogue because, in my opinion, it is essential that the link between training and the labour market should be improved. This is not a question of orienting students in line with the desiderata of the private sector, but of enabling young people to take account of the implications of working life. Links between universities and businesses need to be strengthened in order to make it easier for students to access work and for businesses to accept untypical careers more easily.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nI support this report on a more active partnership between universities and businesses. Universities play a key role in the successful transition to a knowledge-based economy, but the active participation of other interested parties, i.e. businesses and government institutions, is also required. To achieve efficient results, the education sector needs to be restructured and modernised and curricula need to be reformed and brought up to date in order to satisfy the needs of the labour market. Once the conditions have been created for graduates to find work in small and medium-sized enterprises, we would bridge the gap between the supply of young specialists and the demand of the labour market.\nMara Bizzotto  \nThis own-initiative report contains truly positive ideas for the future of our universities. Any change to the academic training system which helps modernise training programmes and, above all, brings graduates and the world of employment closer together, should be welcomed and strongly encouraged.\nToday, the European university system, one of the most important elements of our daily life with which we can sow the seeds for a robust, lasting economic recovery, must open up to the labour market: forging solid links, in terms of mutual exchange between universities and businesses, is a priority for Member States' institutions, and it must be mainly local and regional authorities which have a say in endeavours to bring the economic and training sectors together successfully. Only universities that talk to the businesses in their respective regions can hope to prepare young people to enter and permanently stay in the job market.\nWe all need, now and always, training establishments that are up-to-date and which, above all, reflect regional needs: this too, I am certain, is a vital ingredient for the growth of our regions. I therefore voted in favour of the report.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nToday, knowledge is a greater priority than ever. More needs to be done concerning the knowledge triangle, adopting a framework of reforms needed to make knowledge a social value, and strengthening the ties between businesses and universities, as in the case of the Knowledge and Information Communities of the European Institute of Technology (EIT). It is crucial that universities integrate the economic and social environment into their main sphere of action within their research and innovation programmes. It is essential to develop an investment strategy for new sources of growth, stimulating research, development, innovation and education with a view to strengthening our industrial base, an excellent service sector and a modern rural economy. The role of both public and private institutes of higher education, universities and polytechnics will be very valuable in building state confidence in these institutions. They should enjoy autonomy so that they are able to make their essential contribution to Europe's development. It is necessary to strengthen both the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary facets of education and research programmes and cooperation between universities. Information and communications technologies are a key instrument in this respect.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on university-business dialogue: a new partnership for the modernisation of Europe's universities, because it presents measures that contribute to enhancing European learners' employability. Cooperation between the education sector and business is essential for bridging the gap between the supply logic of the education sector and the demand logic of the world of employment.\nDiogo Feio  \nI believe that partnerships that enable the modernisation of universities, especially those that promote better education and qualifications for individuals, are essential for increased European competitiveness. This qualification will be reflected in terms of innovation, research and development, which are crucial for sustained economic and social growth. Partnerships must be established between universities and businesses in order to facilitate the entry of these workers into the labour market, helping reduce the high levels of unemployment that are being recorded today in particular. In this context, I would also reiterate the importance of the European Union's cohesion policy, funds from which will be extremely useful for this purpose.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nIn March 2000 in Lisbon, and March 2002 in Barcelona, the European Council approved the strategic objective of making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, making its education and training systems a global benchmark in terms of quality, and creating the European Area of Research and Innovation. The Member States are responsible for education and training policies, while the role of the EU is to support the improvement of national systems through new instruments at EU level, mutual learning and the exchange of information and best practice. The knowledge-based economy and rapid technological development present challenges to higher education and research in Europe, but they also open up new opportunities which must be effectively harnessed. In this context, creating quality partnerships in higher education and business is of the utmost importance. I believe that cooperation between the education sector and business at local, regional, national and transnational level is crucial for bridging the gap between the supply logic of the education sector and the demand logic of the world of employment.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe report on university-business dialogue adopts a position which we do not see as the way to modernise education. We must take the looming threats to free, public and democratic access to education very seriously. We believe that the errors resulting from the Bologna Process must be acknowledged urgently and, contrary to what the rapporteur says about the Bologna Process, the issue of mobility as a means of bringing the Member States closer together and making them more equal must be demystified.\nFurthermore, we should not forget that the Bologna Process is not neutral and involved initial investment, or that it has, at the same time, followed a policy of taking responsibility for university funding away from the state. The issue surrounding universities' autonomy is referred to several times in the report in question, with the idea of a 'partnership' between universities and companies being added to this point as a way of ensuring funding for the institutions. This university-business concept is moving away from the real meaning and value of education as a universal right and approaches education in terms of commercialising it, stripping it of content and quality. It is a neoliberal approach, to which we are opposed.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nI endorsed the Schmitt report on university-business dialogue: a new partnership for the modernisation of Europe's universities. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, who is, unfortunately, no longer a Member of the European Parliament. I warmly congratulate Mr Schmitt on his election to the Hungarian Parliament and on his being elected speaker. I wish him all the best.\nJarom\u00edr Kohl\u00ed\u010dek  \nThe EU currently finds itself in a very schizophrenic situation. On the one hand, there is a clear demand for universities to train practically oriented professional workers on undergraduate courses. On the other hand, people who really understand technical education know that the first three years of proper study at university should provide students with the theoretical foundation for further successful studies. This is the root of all the misunderstanding. A forum of universities and businesses, whatever format it takes, will always concentrate in particular on 'practically useful' graduates. However, the real bearers of fundamental research and important innovation are mainly graduates of engineering, master's and doctoral studies. If they are to achieve important results in their fields, of course, these graduates must acquire a proper grounding in the most important technical disciplines in the first three years of their studies. It is hard to imagine that they could get by on secondary school mathematics and a fleeting knowledge of the basic technical sciences, supplemented with an examination in simple and double-entry bookkeeping and a practical knowledge of preparing projects for an application to a grant agency. Responsible university lecturers advocate a view that does not vary greatly from my own, despite all the various declarations, forums, communications and new partnerships. For future discussions, I therefore recommend drawing a clear distinction between university education according to the Bologna Declaration and 'traditional' university education. The new, additional forms of so-called lifelong learning are, of course, also desirable.\nNuno Melo  \nUniversity-business dialogue is essential for the high-quality training to which the EU's young people aspire. Cooperation between the education sector and business at all levels is crucial for bridging the gap between the supply logic of the education sector and the demand logic of the world of employment. Partnerships between education and training institutions and companies are essential in order to enhance learners' employability, improve entrepreneurial potential, and facilitate familiarity with the world of work. That is why I voted as I did.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nIn its communication, the Commission refers to universities and colleges being given real autonomy. This kind of autonomy should go hand-in-hand with financial autonomy and this is unrealistic during the period of austerity which lies ahead of us. There are many examples of very fruitful cooperation between educational institutions and business. The need for increased dialogue in the context of the Bologna Process is not worded clearly enough and, for this reason, I have abstained.\nRadvilMork\u016bnait\u0117-Mikul\u0117nien \nProbably no EU Member State would doubt that cooperation between education and business is essential. Given that the crisis has highlighted not only problems of unemployment, but the importance of education that meets the demands of the market, I am pleased that by approving this document, the European Parliament is striving to initiate dialogue between the academic and business world. This should be viewed as something long-term, right from the beginning of studies in universities: various exchange programmes, the promotion of internships in companies, perhaps even consultations between universities and companies when devising curricula. If future employers integrate into the education system right from the beginning, there is a greater chance that we will prepare specialists who can better meet the needs of employers in the labour market.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nI voted in favour of European Parliament resolution No on university-business dialogue: a new partnership for the modernisation of Europe's universities (2009\/2099 (INI)), because the dynamics of today's labour market, economic development and change to development priorities require cooperation at many levels. Higher education throughout Europe faces a huge challenge. It has to keep up with a dynamically developing world and changing expectations of the market with respect to new employees. Today, the fact that opportunities in education and the level of education do not match market expectations is a very important problem. Preservation of this system, which is full of inequalities, is a mistake we cannot accept. For just this reason, the changes we should introduce must concern the whole field of education and the way young people perform in the labour market. As a former president of the Students' Parliament of the Republic of Poland, a statutory institution which represents all students in Poland, I often meet people who have just begun or are just ending university. Awareness of the labour market and its requirements is very low, and the level of education is equally unsatisfactory. In political bodies as well as student bodies, a common view is that what is important is how many practical and work experience placements people have completed, how many subjects they have studied or how many languages they can speak. However, the market needs quality, not quantity. Therefore, it is essential that we take action to improve cooperation between universities, the academic world and business.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nI voted for the Schmitt report to encourage cooperation between universities and companies. Nowadays, universities must engage in closer cooperation with the business world in order to provide a suitable response to the requirements of the labour market, especially in a globalised economy. In this respect, dialogue and cooperation between universities and companies should be based on reciprocity, trust and respect.\nThis objective could be achieved by introducing a system of knowledge vouchers, similar to that used in several Member States at the moment, which will enable SMEs in particular to improve their research capacity without compromising the universities' independence, autonomy and public nature. Both universities and companies can benefit from jointly developing multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary and entrepreneurial skills, as well as from the flexible adaptation of study areas, profiles and specialities to the needs of the economy and those of small and medium-sized businesses.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nI voted for the report on the university-business dialogue: a new partnership for the modernisation of European universities.\nThe EU needs to establish closer links and partnerships between universities and the business sector in order to develop a society based on knowledge and applied research and improve graduates' integration into the labour market. Unfortunately, discrepancies are being noted increasingly more often between graduates' skills and the qualifications required on the labour market.\nI encourage the Commission and Member States to draw up medium- and long-term forecasts for the skills required in order to correlate study programmes with economic development. Furthermore, I wish to draw attention to the need to increase the number of jobs, which is a priority for the EU, especially during the current recession.\nWe encourage the Commission to promote using the resources and instruments available to it the development of an entrepreneurial culture by simplifying procedures and cutting red tape in order to boost exchanges between universities and businesses.\nFinally, I wish to stress the importance of lifelong learning, particularly through distance learning courses specially adapted to the new technologies and beneficial in particular to the over-45s, who are more vulnerable and exposed to social exclusion.\nSophie Auconie  \nThe European Union protects its citizens. Apart from European regulations on dangerous products which people are trying to bring on to the internal market, apart from joint measures taken against terrorism, apart from joint initiatives to guarantee peace in Europe, the European Union is involved in the dismantling of nuclear power plants constructed during the Soviet era which might put our health in danger at any time. Twenty-four years after the horrendous accident in Chernobyl, I am pleased to have contributed towards security on our continent by voting in favour of this report. It is, in fact, vital that the measures taken in Bulgaria under the Kozloduy Programme continue in the period from 2010 to 2013.\nGerard Batten, John Bufton and Derek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - UKIP regards the safety of nuclear power generation as being of great importance, but perceives the EU's assistance to Bulgaria, ostensibly for this purpose, as being motivated by political considerations (preventing the reprocessing of fissile material, conveniently close to Bulgaria, in neighbouring Russia) and doctrinaire ones (the imposition of unrealistic wind-power policies) as well as by a desire to fund local conservation projects, which are not relevant to the remit of decommissioning. Consequently, UKIP members have voted against the extra funding asked for in this report.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe rules in force in Central and Eastern European countries regarding nuclear power and radioactive waste prior to accession were less demanding than the rules applicable to the EU at the time. The EU's intervention and financial assistance were therefore necessary, with the aim of increasing the level of protection of human health and the environment. The proposal on which we are voting fits into this framework.\nThe proposal for a regulation presented by the Commission is intended to provide financial assistance for the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Plant in Bulgaria and to ensure that the resultant radioactive materials are dealt with. According to the rapporteur, without EU assistance, safety may be compromised insofar as Type WWER 440\/230 reactors have serious design faults which it would not be possible to overcome.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe protection and promotion of human and environmental health are priority objectives in European development policy. Given this, I believe it is absolutely vital for the EU to safeguard sufficient financial and technical resources for decommissioning Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Plant in Bulgaria, as advocated by Parliament in this resolution. In so doing, Europe is closing off a major producer of high radioactive emissions and eliminating the risk of serious accidents. Alongside the safety conditions for decommissioning operations, it is crucial that the European Community assume an active role in helping Bulgaria to overcome the negative effects that the decommissioning will have on economic competitiveness, energy sustainability and the state of the labour market. In this context, the strategy for EU intervention must ensure support to encourage the creation of new jobs and sustainable industry in the areas affected by the decommissioning.\nRebecca Harms  \nin writing. - The Parliament today approved EUR 300 million to further assist the decommissioning of the Kozloduy 1-4 nuclear reactors. I do support this as further assistance will be necessary to ensure the safe decommissioning of the reactors. Parliament, however, rejected financing by these funds for polluting lignite power plants. Also, the proposal to use part of the funds to help Bulgaria find a solution for the final storage of nuclear waste was rejected. This led me to vote against the amended proposal. However, I abstained on the legislative resolution to allow for decommissioning funding by the EU.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nWe can only be delighted by any move towards the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant and the implementation of research programmes for renewable energies and nuclear waste. This is a step towards the gradual phasing-out of nuclear power, which we advocate. However, I wish to stress that I am baffled by the insistence on the 'final disposal' of nuclear waste. This method cannot provide a long-term solution, given the risks it poses to our ecosystem.\nI am also concerned by the lack of guarantees regarding the allocation of EU financial assistance aimed at facilitating the decommissioning process. How can we be sure that the EUR 300 million will not be partly used to finance the new Belene nuclear power plant in Bulgaria? Has Commissioner Oettinger not already committed himself to financing that project? I am voting in favour of this report in the hope of finally witnessing the decommissioning of the Kozloduy reactors.\nNuno Melo  \nThe accession of Central and Eastern European countries to the EU and their use of nuclear energy have led to the need to provide financial assistance to these countries so that they can effectively deal with radioactive waste and can improve protection of human health and the environment. The financial assistance adopted here is, therefore, within this framework. That is why I voted as I did.\nAlajos M\u00e9sz\u00e1ros  \nIn its accession agreement, Bulgaria, like Slovakia and Lithuania, agreed to decommission part of its nuclear energy production. Financial assistance was provided until 2009 for the permanent decommissioning of the nuclear energy plant at Kozloduy, but a request was made, as was done with the other Member States, for this to be extended until 2013. To this end, it will receive approximately EUR 860 million in assistance. However, the complete decommissioning process takes a long time since it is not enough simply to disconnect the power plant completely from the grid. In such cases, where there is a desire to shut a nuclear plant down earlier than planned, provision must be made for a replacement energy supply. Bulgaria did not destroy its energy supply, but it affects neighbouring countries, since they stop receiving electricity. The closure of four reactors means a loss of 1 700 MW of energy for Bulgaria.\nThe Bulgarian Government is unable, without the financial help of the European Union, to dispose safely of the spent fuel, part of which was, in any case, disposed of somewhere outside the EU Member States. I am also aware of the fact that the Bulgarian Government does not have reserves to draw on in the event of permanent decommissioning and, therefore, we must provide assistance. We have already invested a great deal of money in the permanent closure of nuclear power plants, but let us just consider whether it would not be more worthwhile if, instead of shutting down nuclear plants, we modernised them. I am not thinking specifically of Kozloduy here. We need to support the improvement of the safety norms in Central and Eastern European countries, since it is on account of their low level that nuclear power plants need to be shut down.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nAs long as there is no satisfactory solution to the problem of the final disposal of radioactive waste, it is hardly surprising that the candidate countries do not know which alternative they should choose. We must ensure that we do not provide financial aid to increase the protection for people and the environment and then find that the fuel elements are sold and possibly used for military purposes. Of course, it is in the security and environmental interests of the whole of Europe to find a final disposal solution. However, the resale of atomic waste must be stopped.\nWhen we have reached the point where the decommissioning of two reactor units costs EUR 1.78 billion, it is clear that the fairytale of cheap, climate-friendly nuclear power is over. This report highlights some of the problems involved with nuclear power and the decommissioning of nuclear reactors, which is why I have voted in favour of it.\nRovana Plumb  \nIn keeping with the commitments assumed through the EU accession treaty, Bulgaria must close Units 1-4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, which the EU granted financial assistance for up until 2009. I voted for this report to support Bulgaria's action to obtain an additional EUR 300 million in funding up to 2013 in order to complete the decommissioning of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, clean up the site and manage all the resulting waste in a sustainable manner in conditions which will not cause any harm to people's health and the environment.\nFurthermore, I support the Commission's request to monitor and audit the implementation of all the projects which will be run using this grant: research\/innovation aimed at introducing technologies based on renewable energy sources in order to meet the requirement to realise a further reduction of 18 000 kt CO2-eq produced from decommissioning. Particular attention must be focused on retraining the workforce to prevent unemployment from rising even higher and on the development of local communities, especially during the current crisis. All these processes must be carried out in a manner which is completely transparent to citizens, in compliance with the provisions of all the multilateral environmental agreements which Bulgaria is party to (Aarhus, Espoo, etc.).\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - As expected, we the Greens lost our last chance to amend the Harms report during the plenary vote on Community financial assistance with respect to the decommissioning of four units of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria.\nToday, the EP agreed to give EUR 300 million (until 2013) to Bulgaria for their current programme to decommission 4 nuclear units in Kozloduy. This positive signal towards Bulgaria was the reason why the rapporteur and the Greens\/EFA abstained on the legislative proposal.\nThanks to the Greens, the EP has finally recognised that Bulgaria has hardly any policy regarding the final disposal of nuclear waste. However, the Bulgarian government - with the help of the EPP and S&D - managed to eliminate any provision that would support any real progress on the issue of final disposal. Currently, the main hazards to humans and the environment are displaced to Russia, where most irradiated fuel elements are exported.\nThe EP has nevertheless managed to secure more public participation, transparency, auditing and reporting provisions compared to the original Commission proposal. We will see now whether any of these will be incorporated by the Council, which has the final say since the EP is only consulted on nuclear related issues.\nViktor Uspaskich  \nLadies and gentlemen, as with Bulgaria's Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, the decommissioning of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in Lithuania was one of the conditions for accession to the European Union. The decommissioning of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in 2009 has had a severe impact on Lithuania. After Lithuania regained independence in 1991, Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant contributed a lot to our economy and provided more than 70% of our country's energy consumption. Due to decommissioning, we were forced to relinquish our status as an energy exporter and become an importer of a broad spectrum of energy. Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant was a cheap source of energy for industry and consumers and was also a source of income thanks to exports. Like the decommissioning of Kozloduy, the disappearance of Ignalina will result in the loss of business and jobs for the local economy. Full financial support from the EU for Kozloduy and Ignalina is important in order to correct some of the economic and social consequences experienced with the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants. The financial turmoil of recent years has shaken Lithuania and many EU Member States, and has put on hold hopes of building new advanced nuclear power plants in the near future. However, it would be foolish on our part to give up nuclear power plants entirely. Nuclear technology is by no means a panacea for our energy security and natural disasters, but the use of efficient and safe nuclear energy could contribute to overcoming long-term strategic challenges.\nSophie Auconie  \nThe Structural Funds put in place in our regions need to interlock better with European loans for research and innovation. The van Nistelrooij report contains useful recommendations on improving the use of all of these loans. There is undeniable potential here for financing and growth for our territories. Similarly, greater synergy between the various financial instruments can only be beneficial at a time when we need to kick-start economic activity. Finally, these funds should all be involved in the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy. Having noted the quality of the report, I supported it with my vote.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nInnovation can be most effectively addressed at regional level by the proximity of entities such as universities, public research organisations or industry, promoting partnerships in the field of knowledge transfer, and the exchange of best practice between regions. The cohesion policy is a fundamental pillar of the European integration process and one of the EU's most successful policies, encouraging convergence between increasingly diverse regions, and stimulating economic growth and the creation of jobs. Promoting and applying successful models in the knowledge triangle is vital, as is ensuring the sustainable development of regional strategic research frameworks for innovation, in conjunction with businesses, research centres, universities and public authorities. I would like to highlight the potential of regional 'clusters' of those leading the way in knowledge-based mobilisation of the capacity of regional competition, and the inclusion of the development of 'clusters' in both the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the 7th framework programme. I would also like to draw attention to the importance of the knowledge and innovation communities created within the framework of the European Transparency Initiative, which link the main regional knowledge-based 'clusters' within Europe. I call upon the exchange of knowledge in regional 'clusters' to be promoted through the structural funds, since these 'clusters' represent a great opportunity, particularly for disadvantaged regions.\nDiogo Feio  \nI believe it is appropriate to analyse the way in which the indicative framework of the Community Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013 and, in particular, Guideline 1.2 on Improving Knowledge and Innovation for Growth, was followed by the Member States and Regions in their National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRFs) and Operational Programmes. Such analysis enables us to have a more specific view of what has been done and what challenges remain to be overcome, in an area that is increasingly on the agenda. At times of crisis, the avoidance of waste and duplications is not just beneficial but urgently required: I believe that it is important to carry out a thorough assessment of how cohesion, research and innovation policies are linked up with their instruments (Structural Funds, Seventh Framework Programme for RTD and Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme) to make them more efficient and productive.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nResearch and innovation are priority areas and are absolutely crucial for competitiveness and the success of the European economy in the current global climate of crisis, intense competition and increased efforts to address new challenges such as climate change and territorial cohesion. This crisis exacerbates the risk of regional imbalances and the worsening of economic and social conditions in the most disadvantaged regions. In the light of this, I support this resolution, which stresses the urgent need to achieve greater efficiency, flexibility and simplification of access to structural funds, so as to ensure quick access to support and financing mechanisms for new business projects and for the revitalisation of small and medium-sized businesses. This is a strategy that is extremely pertinent and important for the territorial cohesion of the EU, as it simultaneously ensures that this crisis becomes an opportunity to capitalise on strengths and improve efficiency in the profitability of resources.\nPetru Constantin Luhan  \nI voted for this report as research, development and innovation are key elements which can help the European Union to emerge more quickly and stronger from the current economic crisis, while also achieving the proposed economic development objectives. A consistent policy is required to do this, which is well targeted and funded appropriately. However, I think that consideration must be given to the regions' varying social and economic features. Limits need to be accepted and objectives set according to the actual situation, while requirements need to be identified by consulting all local, regional and national agencies.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nInnovations are important, but they cannot be dictated from above, as the Europe 2020 strategy attempts to do. However, they can be supported by means of subsidy programmes. It makes little sense for applicants for subsidies to be faced with a jungle of different funding institutions and regulations because of the lack of coordination between the EU and the Member States. Every step which we take towards simplification is a good thing, provided that it does not open up opportunities for abuse. The approaches described in the report seem to me to be good and I have voted in favour of them.\nNuno Teixeira  \nCohesion policy is an essential pillar in the process of European integration and one of the most successful EU policies, facilitating convergence between regions, as well as stimulating growth and employment using financing from the structural funds. In the current period of 2007-2013, all Member States have devoted a significant amount of their total financial allocations to innovation and development activities. I believe that cohesion policy is ready to create synergies with research and innovation policies regarding capacity building, networking and knowledge transfer.\nBetter use of funds will mean better research, knowledge and innovation capacity in the various regions, with the strengthening of the territorial aspect of partnerships for the design and delivery of public policies. This report is an initiative that I support because I think that it is essential for synergies to be implemented between the structural funds devoted to research and innovation and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development, with a view to greater efficiency in achieving the goal of the knowledge society.\nSophie Auconie  \nI voted in favour of the resolution, as adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament. The long-term sustainability of our public finances is fundamental today to the credibility of European economic and fiscal policy. The Greek crisis has proven that. Faced with the markets and credit rating agencies, the public powers need to demonstrate that they are responsible. This is also a necessity imposed by the demographic reality of today and the coming years. I therefore firmly rejected the positions advocated by the rapporteur, Mr Liem Hoang Ngoc, calling for the public deficit policy to be maintained. We must assume today that the public finances of numerous Member States are not sustainable and have the courage to remedy that. Our boat is taking on water. Even if it is not yet sinking, it is high time we started bailing.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nDuring the vote on Thursday 20 May on the report by the socialist MEP, Liem Hoang Ngoc, on the long-term sustainability of public finances, the UMP and Modem groups in the European Parliament voted enthusiastically for a text which the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe had amended line by line in order to turn it into a neoliberal manifesto. I voted against this text, which is an insult to the citizens of Europe. The UMP and Modem are raising the spectre of unsustainable deficits to justify unprecedented austerity measures throughout Europe from 2011. They propose transforming the Stability Pact into a Social Regression Pact. In this text, the right goes as far as rejecting the creation of a European public credit rating agency, while the private agencies are beating the drum and leading speculative attacks against the States in the euro area. However, it forgets that the rise in deficits is first and foremost the result of the crisis, the bank bailout packages and the failure of neoliberal policies. Today, the right is presenting the invoice to the citizens.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nThe huge deficits and debts facing many Member States of the EU is indeed an important problem, having created the financial crisis which we are experiencing and which we all need to manage. However, the causes of these financial aberrations are not the causes identified by the rapporteur. State budgets have been derailed because: a) in every crisis, state spending (social spending, spending for growth) increases, b) the merchant banks were saved and c) tax competition was intensified, with a clear reduction in corporation tax over the last twenty years. Consequently, our analysis of the facts is completely different from the analysis made by the rapporteur, who believes that the governments are responsible for the financial derailments.\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f  \nLast year, the budget deficit and public debt in the euro area amounted to 6.3% and 78.7% respectively of GDP, which was a much higher level than that set in the Growth and Stability Pact. The Growth and Stability Pact's limitations have been highlighted in the current crisis, as it has not been an adequate instrument for harmonising national economies. Consequently, I support a review of the Pact and the search for alternative mechanisms for restoring the convergence of the economies within the EU, as well as the setting up of a European public credit-rating agency and closer coordination of Member States' budgetary and monetary policies. In fact, I regard the decision made last week by the European Central Bank to purchase bonds issued by the governments in the euro area as a positive step. I decided to vote against the final report on the long-term sustainability of public finances as these aspects which I consider as being fundamental to ensuring the single European market's stability and to maintaining a modern welfare state in Europe have been removed from the report.\nDiogo Feio  \nIn the times that we are currently experiencing, in which many countries are facing serious difficulties with their public finances, it is essential to adopt political measures that lead to economic and social stability, but especially those that stimulate growth. As well as the deficit, the level of public debt must be analysed and best practices regarding this issue adopted, in such a way as to make a more stable situation possible and to prevent the recurrence of the same errors in the future. I also consider it essential to adopt reasonable criteria for the concept of recovering economy, since the Member States' situations are different. Finally, I would stress the need for a competitive tax policy, not just for the EU, but also with regard to third-country investments.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nAs the current crisis has shown, with its profound impact on economic development, the quality of life of citizens and social stability, the sustainability of public finances is a prerequisite for economic recovery and the reliability of development. The inadequacy of the revision to the Stability and Growth Pact has also become clear. I would therefore like to reiterate the need to strengthen the mechanisms of EU institutions, with a view to greater integration and territorial cohesion, so as to ensure greater capacity for intervention and protection in order to counter risks and deviation from common policy. I would also like to highlight the social concerns stressed in this report, which warns of the wide disparity between incomes of members of the public. This is a situation which undermines productivity and economic competitiveness. I agree, therefore, with the need to encourage Member States to introduce appropriate reforms in order to address these imbalances. Tax fairness and efficient government public spending are essential to the process of economic recovery and social cohesion. Reducing poverty, ensuring social cohesion and stimulating economic growth and productivity are indisputable priorities in the EU, and they will certainly be helped by a gradual reduction of the tax burden on jobs and on small and medium-sized enterprises.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nI agree with the report: current public debt and deficit levels will be difficult for future generations to bear, but are also a major problem today. However, I disagree with the proposed solutions. I do not believe that a report which omits the reason for the recent explosion of this debt and deficit can be taken seriously. It should be noted instead that it is the fact that the private debts of banks and the financial sector have been taken on by Member States, and therefore by the citizens and taxpayers of Europe, which has caused these deficits to increase to such an extent. We must hammer home the fact that the EU and the Eurogroup are now only taking action in order to please those markets that you believe to be rational and efficient, but which panic when the deficit becomes too great, and panic once again because they fear that the measures taken to reduce it may hinder a semblance of economic recovery. They have gorged themselves by charging a high price for a risk taken on the Greek debt that you have just done away with by adopting the latest measures. They have won on all fronts, increasing their own profits even further. Never mind the consequences for the real economy and the people.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI was forced to vote against the report by my colleague, Liem Hoang Ngoc, which the European right and liberals completed in a way which deprived it of its substance, simply defending dogmatic adherence to the Stability Pact and hence to austerity policies. Budgetary policy is not an end in itself; it is a tool which responds to political objectives. The priority should not be austerity, otherwise we shall nip in the bud what little growth is available; what we need is a philosophy of employment growth that we need to defend. For this, the EU needs to be given the resources to act, which means giving ourselves tools to steer the economy over and above those currently available to us under the Stability Pact, which are inadequate.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nThis document is proof of the desire to create a system of redistribution that caters for society as a whole. Its positive proposals relate to migration policies. It rejects the 'indiscriminate cuts' that have been made in public investments in the name of the crisis. After that, however, an inverse logic is introduced in specific proposals.\nRaising the retirement age; sanctioning a Stability and Growth Pact as a solution to the crisis even though it is clearly one of the causes; congratulating the European Central Bank for rescuing the banking sector; and promoting a social economy based on a sustainable, competitive market - so many neoliberal dogmas are repeated throughout the text. The crisis will make no difference: Europe is blinded by its dogmatism and deaf to its citizens' demands. I am voting against this report.\nClaudio Morganti  \nDespite the fact that the global economic and financial crisis is spilling over onto the sustainability of national budgets to a worrying degree, the report under consideration by this House contains passages that prevent me from voting in favour.\nFirst of all, paragraph 59 states that we can help end the crisis by raising employment levels and proposes the adoption of policies in favour of immigration from outside the EU, even leading to the award of citizenship. On the one hand, the text unduly confuses the economic issue with that of migration policy, while disregarding, in particular, the already high unemployment rate.\nOn the other hand, I do not think that Europe should promote the award of citizenship. Furthermore, some of the proposed amendments seek the creation of a tax on financial transactions and a European rating agency. We certainly cannot achieve better financial market regulation by introducing a new tax.\nLastly, with regard to the creation of a public rating agency, the amendment tabled does not hit the mark, since the best practical way to safeguard investors' trust is by guaranteeing the impartiality and independence of rating agencies, and not by subjecting them to political influence.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I deeply regret that the right wing has finally 'kidnapped' this report on public finances and has completely changed the main aim of it, making it a very neoliberal report. I applaud the decision of the rapporteur, Hoang Ngoc, to withdraw his name from it.\nMarc Tarabella  \nin writing. - (FR) It is simply unacceptable that this report has been adopted by the majority Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament; that is why, in line with our rapporteur Mr Hoang Ngoc, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has voted against it. How can anyone want to make our fellow citizens pay for a crisis for which the banks and speculators are largely responsible? The measures advocated by the PPE Group and the ALDE Group, namely the swift consolidation of public finances, cuts in public spending, particularly pensions and health care, and the unconditional implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact, will have disastrous long-term consequences on our societies We are heading straight for disaster if we do not establish a tax on financial transactions, as Mr Hoang Ngoc has proposed, and if we do not launch viable recovery measures. Let us not bring the citizens of Europe to their knees.\nNuno Teixeira  \nThe main purpose of this report was to analyse the long-term sustainability of the European Union's public finances with a view to its economic recovery. The debate on this in plenary could not have come up at a more opportune time, given the unprecedented economic and financial understanding reached last week by European leaders. On the one hand, the package of measures adopted - specifically the unblocking of aid for Greece, the accelerated restructuring of Member States' public finances, and the creation of a financial stabilisation mechanism - demonstrate strong solidarity. However, they make a period of sacrifice foreseeable, which will affect all Europeans. These sacrifices must be distributed in a fair and balanced way. This is a time for brave decisions at national level, with a long-term view and without cutting any corners. The public books are balanced by cutting spending and by increasing income, or by both at the same time.\nAt a time of economic recession, we have no alternative but to substantially decrease public spending by cutting waste and optimising the state's operations. Following several amendments, the final content of this motion for a resolution focuses on some of these challenges; that is why I voted for it.\nViktor Uspaskich  \nLadies and gentlemen, in 2009, Lithuania and some of our neighbouring EU Member States almost hit rock bottom. Maybe vultures are not circling above our heads, but we still do not feel safe: Lithuania's GDP fell by 4.1% from quarter to quarter and in the first quarter of 2010. Most Lithuanians understand that the need for painful victims and severe measures will not disappear overnight. The long-term sustainability of public finances is essential to achieve stability and growth. The solution is to reduce the budget deficit. In the report, it is accurately observed that high indebtedness and deficit levels are threatening sustainability and could have a disastrous impact on employment, public health care and pensions. The decision we have to make is not one to be taken lightly - the increasing government deficit is becoming a huge burden for future generations. Financial stability is important for the recovery of the Lithuanian and European economies. Therefore, I agree with the measures debated this week, for example, proposals on the European Systemic Risk Board and the European System of Financial Supervisors. Now more than ever, we need smooth coordination of markets and hedge funds and better supervision. We also have to continue to seriously implement our international commitments. Most importantly, it is essential to regain the public's trust and restore the economic self-esteem of each of our countries. We can achieve this by ensuring the long-term sustainability of public finances, talking straight and being transparent in everything we do.\nSophie Auconie  \nThe report on the contribution of the cohesion policy to the achievement of the Lisbon and Europe 2020 objectives is fundamental, in that it illustrates the extent to which this policy may be instrumental to the future of the Union. The Structural Funds, which guarantee the cohesion of European territories and finance innovation, help to bring about initiatives which, without any doubt, generate growth in the regions. I sincerely believe that the cohesion policy will be a vital instrument in achieving the Europe 2020 objectives, which is why I voted for this report.\nMara Bizzotto  \nThe difficulties that have always been highlighted by the political, social and economic diversity of Europe's heritage - as part of a large, but still disparate territory - have resulted, since the eighties, in the development of the cohesion policy. Cyclically, passing from one programming period to the next, Europe has been faced with the need to update its cohesion objectives. It has done so by revamping both the means, for which the Structural Funds have been, are, and will continue to be the essential financial basis of any EU policy which seeks to increase internal cohesion, and the ends, with which the various objectives and individual actions have constantly been reoriented in line with the requirements of the time. I am in favour of Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra's own-initiative report: the EU 2020 strategy must be included among the objectives of the cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013, supported by the objective of territorial cohesion and by the pragmatic approach of sharing the objectives at local level. Only in this way will we avoid the risk that the EU 2020 strategy will be reduced to one where the eurocracy blows its own trumpets, as was the case with the Lisbon Strategy.\nAlain Cadec  \nThe Structural Funds play a vital role in delivering the EU 2020 strategy, insofar as they constitute a powerful instrument for the economic development of all of Europe's regions. Mr Cortes Lastra's report rightly points out that the Lisbon Strategy only achieved concrete results when it was linked to the cohesion policy. I therefore agree with the rapporteur's recommendations on the improvements that need to be made to the governance system in the EU 2020 strategy compared to the Lisbon Strategy. It is vital to establish closer links between local and regional authorities and civil society stakeholders within the framework of multi-level governance. I would join the rapporteur in stressing the importance of a simplified approach to the use of Structural Funds in the future regulatory framework. After all, simplicity is one of the keys to efficiency.\nM\u00e1rio David  \nI am completely in favour of the proposals put forward in this report, seeking inclusion in the cohesion policy in order to pursue the objectives set out for the 2020 strategy. The new Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the principle of economic, social and territorial cohesion, and without this solidarity clause, the EU itself does not make sense! The ultimate objective of the cohesion policy is reducing disparities between the levels of economic development of the various regions and tackling the structural backwardness of the most disadvantaged and outermost regions. In the approach to the 2020 strategy, which is engaged in promoting growth, competitiveness and employment, it is important to note that the cohesion policy can be an important instrument for successfully achieving the goals that the strategy sets out.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe ultimate objective of the cohesion policy is reducing disparities between the levels of economic development of the various regions, targeting resources specifically for growth and employment. The 2020 strategy presents significant and ambitious challenges for Europe in five areas that are seen as strategic: (i) employment; (ii) innovation and research; (iii) climate change and energy; (iv) education, and (v) combating poverty. As I have said, this is an ambitious and daring strategy. I agree with the rapporteur that it must be conceived so that it is in harmony with future cohesion policy, and that the 2020 strategy must also be implemented at regional and local level, something that failed to happen with the Lisbon Strategy. This is crucial for economic development and growth in the different regions. As I come from a region of Portugal whose interests and wishes are often passed over in the interests of centralised power, as I have already publicly stated, I believe that implementing the 2020 strategy objectives at regional level may be of greater benefit to more balanced regional development.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nIn the European development project, there is much progress to be made on territorial cohesion, which is crucial in combating poverty and social exclusion, promoting employment and sustainable development, and in social cohesion. I have no doubt that small and medium-sized enterprises have a crucial role in the success of building Europe. Therefore, I support the recommendations made in this report, such as the need to simplify the rules for accessing and managing the allocation of the available funds in order to encourage their use and effective implementation, covering the entire EU territory. The regions implement more than a third of public investments in the EU, and the spending of the structural funds is increasingly concentrated on objectives related to growth and employment. I believe that it is essential for the EU to take immediate steps and concrete measures to 'meet the special needs of regions characterised by natural or demographic handicaps of a serious and permanent nature, such as coastal regions, islands, mountain regions, cross-border and outermost regions'. I would also like to reiterate that 'education and training are the fundamental preconditions for the development of the EU and can make it more competitive in the face of global challenges'.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe rapporteur finds it regrettable that the 2020 strategy has not duly incorporated an assessment of the Lisbon Strategy, and we share that opinion. The stated objectives of the Lisbon Strategy - economic growth, employment and social cohesion - have not been met; on the contrary, the situation in these areas has become worse. As we have been saying, this situation is a result of the Lisbon Strategy's objectives, and what objectives they were too! Very specifically: liberalisations, privatisations, and making employment laws less regulated and more flexible. These options, instruments and objectives have now been taken up again by the 2020 strategy. In the same vein, the rapporteur argues for the completion of the 'free, open and functional Internal Market'. Well, it has been this very 'free, open and functional Internal Market' that has led to the most poverty and social exclusion in the EU, and undermined its territorial cohesion. We do not, therefore, accept the alignment of the cohesion policy with the 2020 strategy, for the sake of its real objective: reducing disparities in the development levels of the various regions, and instituting true economic, social and territorial cohesion.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski  \nThe main objective of cohesion policy is to strive for a uniform degree of development across the regions of the EU. Thanks to the multiannual programmes and strategies which have been put in place as part of that policy, individual regions and, in particular, the poorest ones, have the opportunity for sustained economic growth, increased competitiveness and the creation of jobs. Over half of all investments in the public sector are being made at regional level, so local authorities are becoming the main participants in the realisation of the current Lisbon Strategy, and in the future of the EU 2020 strategy. We should give full support to the realisation of projects which come under cohesion policy, remembering that their greatest beneficiaries will most often be rural areas, and the author's promotion of the partnership approach makes it possible to inform the citizens efficiently about the objectives and results of projects which have been undertaken.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nIt seems that we are providing funding for disadvantaged areas which then ends up being spent in relatively prosperous regions. There are problems with subsidy policy throughout the EU. On the one hand, money is invested in regenerating villages to prevent rural communities from dying out and, on the other, these efforts are counteracted by regulations on privatisation and deregulation.\nIt is no use having a vibrant village centre if the village is almost cut off from the public transport network and the post office has been closed down. The report does not focus in enough detail on the problems of cohesion policy and, therefore, I have voted against it.\nMaria do C\u00e9u Patr\u00e3o Neves  \nThis resolution is an important document as it sets out the best course for the association which is needed between the cohesion policy and the EU 2020 strategy. At a time when there is much thought about the European cohesion policy after 2013, it is indeed important to present it as an indispensable tool of compliance with the EU 2020 strategy, reiterating the statement that cohesion policies are essential for enforcing the original plan of EU integration. The cohesion policy has been important in creating a better balance between European regions, and is now seen as crucial for overcoming the current financial crisis that the EU is experiencing by strengthening competitiveness and local potential. At a time when the EU budget is not expected to increase and when there is pressure on the cohesion policy budget (approximately 45% of the EU budget), we believe that a good link between the objectives of the cohesion policy and those of the EU 2020 strategy are essential for strengthening cohesion and simultaneously contributing to a positive response from all regions and members of the public to the challenges facing the EU.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - It is a pity our alternative resolution on cohesion policy and EU2020 was rejected. We, the Greens\/EFA, have thus decided to abstain in the final vote on the Cort\u00e9s Lastra resolution.\nElisabeth Schroedter  \nThe rapporteur, Mr Cort\u00e9s Lastra, originally produced a very balanced report on the relationship between cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 strategy. Its aim was to correct the extensive earmarking of cohesion policy carried out by the first Barroso Commission. It justifiably asked the question as to whether cohesion policy is a tool of the Lisbon Strategy and the new Europe 2020 strategy or whether it has independent significance and an independent value. The rapporteur had achieved a balance between these two aspects. We should be grateful to him for having promoted the independence of cohesion policy. We supported his approach. Unfortunately, the amendments, which were largely tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), heavily diluted the original intention of the report. We in the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance very much regret that. For this reason, we submitted the report once again to plenary as an alternative resolution, largely in its original form.\nUnfortunately, it did not receive a majority of the votes. This was not surprising, given the vote in the committee. However, our aim was to use this alternative resolution to make it clear that there was a minority view in Parliament which wanted to give the regions more rights to independent development than the earmarking model of the current structural fund period made possible.\nNuno Teixeira  \nThe cohesion policy is essential to realising the 2020 strategy's objectives: the promotion of education, training and research, the creation of jobs, and economic growth. Following the Lisbon Strategy's failures regarding the goal of cohesion, not least the lack of adequate consultation of the European Parliament and of participation by regional and local authorities, the report stresses the importance of the cohesion policy's contribution to future strategic objectives. It is, therefore, important to move towards a greater sense of ownership of the strategy's objectives amongst local and regional authorities and entities.\nThe regions have a crucial role to play as the vehicle to reach economic and social actors, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises. Given its horizontal approach, only through a strong and properly financed cohesion policy can development be fostered in the European Union, and the Union made more competitive in the face of global challenges. The regional dimension of Europe must be strengthened with a strategy that takes into account the specificities of the various regions or groups thereof, such as the outermost regions. For the above reasons, I consider the cohesion policy an essential instrument for realising the objectives of the 2020 strategy, so I voted for the report.\nSophie Auconie  \nThe Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a formidable project which requires strong political involvement on the part of the European Parliament. I voted in favour of this report, because it contains the following three ideas which are very important: 1) the new institutional structure needs to be effective quickly, in order to make the UfM operational; 2) adequate funding is vital if the UfM is to achieve its objectives and thus clarify the six major strategic projects (de-pollution of the Mediterranean, transport, renewable energies, education, SMEs, civil protection); 3) the success of the UfM depends on resolving regional conflicts in the Mediterranean basin.\nMara Bizzotto  \nThe Union for the Mediterranean is an ambitious project with a number of undoubtedly positive aspects, in particular, as regards the future possibility of strengthening, by means of this political and economic partnership, instruments to control immigration and combat the flows of illegal immigrants which have affected the Mediterranean in recent years. This is another reason why Europe can benefit from the prospect of a forum for dialogue with the Mediterranean countries, almost always transit countries for the majority of the illegal immigrants who reach the southern coasts of the continent.\nOf course, the channel for dialogue which will be opened must not be interpreted as an instrument to facilitate the flows, but one for regulation and for combating illegality; it will be down to economic trade, together with an overall pacification of the Middle East region - to which the UfM will have to endeavour to make an active contribution - to promote social and economic growth in the immigrants' countries of origin. Therefore, if the Union is built on solid political bases and has specific objectives, it will enable us to help, in their own countries, those people who today would wish to arrive en masse on southern European shores. In the hope that greater importance is placed on migration at the forthcoming summits of the Union for the Mediterranean, I am voting in favour.\nVito Bonsignore  \nBy voting in favour of the Peillon report, we have all acknowledged that the Mediterranean basin is an area of key importance, and that in a multipolar and interdependent world, large regional integrations, such as that of the Mediterranean, will be better positioned to cope with social, cultural, economic, environmental, demographic, political and security-related challenges.\nThe Mediterranean encompasses at once all of these challenges, which are crucial for the stability of the entire region, and which call for concerted, determined action.\nAt the forthcoming meeting in Barcelona, the Euro-Mediterranean Heads of State or Government will come together again to assess the progress made by the Union for the Mediterranean.\nIn my opinion, three political points should be considered at that time:\na) the time taken to follow up on the creation of the institutional set-up, determined in Paris, and the failure to make the most of the parliamentary dimension offered by the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly;\nb) the inadequacy of the financial resources and synergies employed; while recognising the progress and significant, tangible commitments made by some of our countries, including Italy, the overall impact of the Union for the Mediterranean with regard to creating an area of economic prosperity remains weak;\nc) the difficulty in decisively tackling issues such as peace, stability and security, an essential requirement in order to provide the Union for the Mediterranean with a political dimension and unity of purpose.\nJohn Bufton  \nin writing. - We oppose the Union for the Mediterranean. This would facilitate mass immigration from impoverished countries in North Africa. It would also allow North African al-Qaeda operatives in these countries to more easily enter Europe and carry out terrorist attacks. We also note the way the EU grants Morocco privileged economic status, despite that country's violent occupation of Western Sahara and the plundering of its resources.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nIn order to be an effective lever in building peace and prosperity and in promoting human rights, cooperation between European countries and other Mediterranean countries needs to be based on the principles of equality and mutually beneficial cooperation for the people in the area. It should help to resolve international and bilateral problems on the basis of the UN Founding Charter and international law, putting particular emphasis on the need for a fair and viable solution to Palestine, the Western Sahara and Cyprus. Unfortunately, no mention is made of these in the report, just as no mention is made of the unacceptable conditions under which thousands of people travelling with no travel papers are held on islands and in towns of the Mediterranean, affecting the human dignity of us all. In order for there to be real cooperation, the procedures for dialogue and understanding need to be strengthened and account needs to taken of the asymmetries in the area in all trade agreements, so as to safeguard equality between all the states. This sort of cooperation should strengthen and promote social and cultural exchanges and help to shape common policies and actions to protect the environment and combat climate change.\nAnna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic  \nThe Swedish Conservatives have today voted against report on the Union for the Mediterranean. This is because we cannot support the EU contribution to projects as part of a Union for the Mediterranean being allocated significantly increased resources in the EU's new financial perspective for 2014-2020. It is very important that we have constructive cooperation with the countries around the Mediterranean based on the principles of equality of treatment, solidarity, dialogue and respect for each country's dissimilarities and distinctive features. Regional cooperation with the EU in the Union for the Mediterranean must not, as some powers would like to see, become a substitute for integration into the EU and membership of the European Union. In addition, it is crucial for the EU to take responsibility and maintain its credibility, meaning that it must not promise money for various purposes without sustainable funding.\nM\u00e1rio David  \nFollowing the Paris Declaration on 13 July 2008, which created a new Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), the previous Barcelona Process should have acknowledged a new impetus, as expressed in the Declaration: 'a renewal of efforts to transform the Mediterranean region into a space of peace, democracy, cooperation and prosperity'. However, for the European Union, 2009 was a year of major changes (there were European elections for the President of the Commission, the Treaty of Lisbon's entry into force, the struggle against the economic and financial crisis, etc.) which have delayed the implementation of the UfM. I believe that this report correctly identifies the next steps towards achieving the objectives that were outlined when the UfM was created. I also look forward to the results of the second summit of Heads of State or Government, scheduled for 7 June in Barcelona this year. The strengthening of the Union's Mediterranean relations is essential, and I believe that only political dialogue and increased cooperation between the Union and the other Mediterranean countries will stimulate the creation of a space of freedom, justice, peace and sustainable and lasting prosperity.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - I supported this report on the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). Europe and the Mediterranean share many cross-border challenges which can be better addressed through a regional integration process, with effective institutions which can surmount the limits of bilateral cooperation. Such challenges are all the more acute in a context of crisis, and it is in the EU's interest to address the growing disparities between both regions, thereby contributing to a viable and secure future for the people of the Mediterranean. The EU and the governments within the UfM must prioritise the setting up of its institutions and infuse them with a coherent political strategy which keeps at its core the promotion of democracy and the advancement of human rights, including social rights. If these goals are to be meaningfully furthered, peace agreements between neighbours in the Middle East have to be reached. This necessitates an end to Israel's siege of Gaza and settlement policy, combined Palestinian commitment to non-violence and its State building programme along with mutual respect for the 1967 borders. I will continue to oppose the upgrading of the EU-Israel association agreement until Israel comes into compliance with its human rights obligations.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) because it advocates greater involvement of the European Parliament in this regional initiative. If the summit that is to take place in June in Barcelona is to be a success after two difficult years trying to get it off the ground, it is essential that the European Parliament be able to contribute because the result is of enormous importance to the success of the UfM.\nDiogo Feio  \nAny impartial observer would say that the Euro-Mediterranean partnership has not been making as much progress as would be desirable, and that there is still much to do before it really takes shape and acquires real and productive content. Historically, the Mediterranean Sea united rather than divided. The cultures that emerged on its shores constituted the nucleus of what was Western civilisation, and both sides contributed to forging identities with clear affinities. Religious wars replaced the bridge that had been there with a chasm, but in a way, that bridge is still there. I hope that the European Union, alongside its partners, will take real steps towards promoting and structuring a Euro-Mediterranean partnership capable of conquering fear, differences and mistrust, and surviving into the future without collapsing. Both sides of a sea that was once a powerful civilisation's lake have everything to gain from this development.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nGiven the precarious social and economic situation in southern countries, the deepening of relations with the countries of the Mediterranean is now all the more important. In this regard, I believe that there is an urgent need to move forward in a concrete and effective way with consolidating the Union for the Mediterranean. The strengthening of Euro-Mediterranean relations is becoming more pressing due to the impact that it will certainly have on consolidating a space of peace and cultural, economic, political and social development. I would like to emphasise, however, the concerns arising from situations relating to women's rights, gender equality and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: areas where the strengthening of European influence may be a factor for positive change. On the other hand, the enormous potential of renewable energy resources in the Mediterranean region is an example of the gains that the European Union could enjoy and make use of in order to achieve efficient energy policies, besides broadening the EU's trade area to 800 million people.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nWe completely disagree with the guidelines established in this report, which essentially aim to increase the economic domination of the EU's big companies over the southern part of the Mediterranean; access to, and control of, natural resources, energy in particular; the exploitation of labour power; and the repression of immigrants. It is noticeable that the majority in Parliament seem to live in an ivory tower, totally unaware of the consequences of so-called 'free trade'; they persist with these policies and so contribute to making the situation worse. For example, in Portugal, more than 100 000 jobs are being lost in the textile sector because thousands of companies are going bust, which is, in turn, because of increased external competition.\nThat is why a break with this path of progressively liberalising international trade is needed. This path has meant that the rights won by the workers and the sovereignty of the people have come under attack, natural resources and biodiversity have been appropriated by the big multinationals, the environment has been destroyed, unemployment has increased, millions of small farmers have been ruined, and food sovereignty and security have been put at risk. We demand the establishment of equitable and fair economic relations that are at the service of the people and the countries in both regions.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI supported the report drafted by my French socialist colleague, Vincent Peillon, because the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) aims to promote the process of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation through specific strategic measures both for Europe as a whole and also for the Mediterranean zone. In fact, regional integration is necessary for the promotion of peace, which is one of the main issues at stake in this cooperation, and it therefore needed to be strengthened. I think that the UfM is an excellent instrument for intervening with a very firm hand in the conflicts which persist in this zone and even for providing solutions to them. I hope that the next summit in Barcelona is a success, that the Member States really do re-launch the UfM and that, once the secretariat has been set up in Barcelona, a whole series of projects can take shape, in everyone's interests.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nThis report certainly has the virtue of stressing the urgency of recognising two states, the Palestinian State and the State of Israel, living in peace and security, and of fighting for women's rights and against discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, its virtue ends there. This text is essentially a pledge to current and potential private investors in the region, as evidenced by the numerous injunctions regarding the necessary protection and financial security of investments. This text also endorses the Barcelona Process and the creation of a Europe-Mediterranean Free Trade Area that goes entirely against the regulatory objectives that the situation demands.\nI am voting against this report. I believe that the interests of European and Mediterranean citizens should always take precedence over those of the financiers. The role of elected representatives is to strive for the common good. It is unfortunate that those who drafted this text did not make that their priority.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) The Union for the Mediterranean is seen by some people in Europe as a prestige project initiated by a few political leaders. However, I believe that the increase in cooperation between the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean is very much a positive thing. Particularly with regard to the increasing influx of migrants from Africa, it is essential for these states to coordinate the measures which they are taking in response. The structures of the Union for the Mediterranean provide the ideal means of supporting the work done by Frontex and, in particular, of involving the African states in projects so that economic migrants can be encouraged to remain in Africa.\nThe various projects that are planned, such as an increase in the exchange of students and the numerous economic programmes, which are intended to promote trade between the EU and the African states, are also very positive. However, these countries must not be pressurised into agreeing to a free trade zone, because this involves a serious risk of causing major damage to local and regional markets. Although I do not fully agree with some of the points made for the reasons mentioned, the report is balanced and this is why I have voted in favour of it.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nWith a view to the constructive development of relations between the European Union and third countries, I endorsed the report on the Union for the Mediterranean. In order to strengthen cooperation, we need to support the Barcelona Process, which has been less active recently. However, the Union for the Mediterranean Summit of states planned for 7 June 2010 in Barcelona is the perfect opportunity to put current declarations into effect, for the European Union cannot allow itself to lose significance in the region, with which it has traditional ties. Institutional structures, such as co-presidency, should be used to intensify measures for greater integration of the societies and economies of both sides of the Mediterranean Sea.\nRobert Rochefort  \nThe Heads of State or Government on both sides of the Mediterranean will meet in Barcelona on 7 June 2010. It is vital that this meeting leads to real progress - I am referring in particular to the establishment of institutions of the Union for the Mediterranean, but also to progress in the areas of economy and commerce, employment, the reduction of poverty, agricultural issues, food security, water and rural development. It is also essential that greater resources be devoted to the Union for the Mediterranean, which will be the main issue in upcoming financial negotiations for 2014-2020.\nWith that in mind, we should remember that it will have to be possible for EU aid to be combined with private funds and coordinated with those offered by the European Investment Bank and investment funds such as InfraMed. Moreover, the strengthening of South-South trade and the establishment of a Europe-Mediterranean Free Trade Area are essential for economic development and poverty reduction in countries on the southern shore. These measures are clearly mentioned in the resolution that has been submitted to Parliament, and I therefore support it.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - There have not been any big surprises in the amendments tabled by GUE\/NGL (all were rejected) except for the first part of Amendment 6 (Western Sahara).\nI wish to make it clear that I voted in favour of Amendment 6, which stresses Morocco's responsibility in the situation of Human Rights violations in Western Sahara.\nThe second part of Amendment 1 (which underlined the need to increase finances for the UfM) tabled by Brok, was also rejected.\nWe voted in favour of the report as a whole (adopted by a large majority).\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f  \nI voted for the Resolution on the 'Need for an EU strategy for the South Caucasus'. The South Caucasus is strategically important to the European Union. At the same time, the European Union can and must help this troubled region to develop economically and commercially. We can use trade policy to promote respect for human rights, energy security, democracy and good governance. In my capacity as well, as my political group's virtual rapporteur for this resolution, I urge free trade agreements to be signed with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. I believe that these agreements will foster economic development in the region by boosting investment and creating new jobs, which will reduce the level of poverty.\nM\u00e1rio David  \nI completely agree with this report, as I believe that following the Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit, the EU should strengthen its partnerships in the East, particularly with the three southern Caucasus countries, through a clear and well defined strategy. Maintaining peace, the stability of borders and the resolution of border disputes, progress towards democracy, the rule of law and the promotion of regional cooperation are essential for development in this region of the world. I therefore believe that the EU's action must be marked by encouragement for sustainable development, based on principles of good governance, absolute respect for human rights and policies of good neighbourliness, which should have peaceful coexistence between these countries and their neighbours as their prime objective. In this regard, I would like to highlight the important role that will come to be played by the EU Parliamentary Assembly - Eastern Neighbourhood countries. The geostrategic importance of the region, particularly with regard to the supply and transport of raw materials between the East and West, must be an important factor in establishing future agreements between the EU and these countries.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe recent conflict between Russia and Georgia - a country which has been proclaiming that it wants to join the European Union and that it shares the EU's ideals - makes it clear that a strategy needs to be defined for the South Caucasus region. Historically wracked by bloody conflicts and squarely within Russia's sphere of influence, the South Caucasus has been taking tentative steps towards stabilisation. However, potential sources of conflict remain, and these must be handled with the greatest possible seriousness and care; the tense relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan is ample evidence of this. I hope that the European Union will expand on what it already knows about this region, and contribute to peace and progress between the peoples of the South Caucasus. I also hope that the EU will contribute to the adoption of and generalised respect for freedom, democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law in the region.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe policy of enlargement and strengthening EU trade, political and cultural relations with third countries underscores the strategic importance of the Southern Caucasus countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Considering the geostrategic location of these countries, bordered by the powerful Russia, Turkey, and Iran, the European Union can and should adopt an influential approach and a collaborative role which can further peace and security in this region. This will be crucial for ensuring the best economic development conditions, both cultural and social, along with the democratisation of this region, which will also encompass the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The process of deepening relations aimed at integrating these countries into the European Union will certainly help to improve levels of justice, freedom and human progress. I also endorse the importance of an energy market development strategy for the EU, as advocated in this report.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis report on the EU's strategy for the Caucasus is just another part of the process of spreading a narrow viewpoint to disguise its economic and geopolitical interests in the region. This viewpoint is very focused on the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, and on issues of territory and Russia's sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.\nAs the rapporteur himself states, what is at stake is that the three countries of the Caucasus are essential for the 'transit of energy resources' and the 'EU's energy supply' - on which the Union depends greatly - and 'free trade' agreements to make the 'economy more attractive to foreign investors'.\nIt is in the light of these interests that the implicit support for the re-launched arms race and military build-up in the region should be understood; the EU is taking part in this process by getting involved in the sabre rattling between the USA, NATO and Russia. The majority in Parliament is involved in this hypocrisy: Parliament has set itself up as the knight in shining armour that defends states' territorial integrity now that it is about Georgia, but promoted, aided and continues to aid the process of Kosovo's secession from Serbia.\nJarom\u00edr Kohl\u00ed\u010dek  \nThe South Caucasus is a very interesting area which has been a constant topic of discussion in Europe for two hundred years now. There has been a conflict of interests in these places between Russia, Iran and Turkey throughout this period. The rugged contours of the landscape and the rich history provide a hint of the enormous ethnic and religious complexities. Now the EU has also discovered this region. It is truly wonderful how Mrs Tagliavini has obtained a perfect knowledge of the entire area, including the historical and present-day contexts, on the basis of the negotiations in Georgia. In fact, I bow down deeply before her. It is excellent that the authors of a report on the need to develop a new EU strategy for the South Caucasus have taken notice of an organisation such as the OSCE. It is a pity that they apparently failed to spot the relationships between the states in the area and Iran, and also the specific intentions of Turkey in the region. The authors have clearly forgotten the 'glorious' declaration of the independent state of Kosovo, and their unconcealed attacks on Russia and repudiation of local elections in Abkhazia and South Ossetia include the formulation 'de facto organs of the occupied territories'. This strongly reminds me of the findings of the mission of a certain Lord Runciman in the pre-war Czechoslovak Republic. Despite this, I believe it will be possible in the near future for the Members concerned to improve their knowledge of this part of Europe and for the next session to be more balanced. For the aforementioned reasons, the GUE\/NGL Group will abstain from the final vote on the resolution.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nUnfortunately, this report on the EU strategy is not balanced and I have already mentioned this in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Although the committee took some of my amendments into consideration, I still believe that the report is going in the wrong direction. Instead of taking a neutral and balanced attitude to the issue of Georgia, it uses the wording of US foreign policy, which aims to weaken and isolate Russia. With regard to the relationship with Armenia and, in particular, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, the EU has changed its position. This is completely incomprehensible and should be condemned. The rapporteur has apparently never visited the region and, therefore, he could not form his own opinion of the situation. For these reasons, I have voted against the Kirilov report.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nI voted against Amendment 7 because it removed an essential part of the report's text where Parliament calls on Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia and the inviolability of its borders which have been recognised internationally. It also condemns the Russian Federation's recognition of the independence of the Georgian separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as being contrary to international law. Firmly setting out this stance will help avoid establishing a similar precedent in future.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I am glad everything we wanted was adopted in the AFET Committee and the corrections tabled by the S&D, EPP and Greens were all adopted. The final vote, which was positive, has been very easy for us.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Impact of aviation security measures and body scanners on human rights, privacy, personal dignity and data protection (debate)\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the impact of aviation security measures and body scanners on human rights, privacy, personal dignity and data protection, by Philip Bradbourn and Marco Cappato, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs - B6-0478\/2008).\nPhilip Bradbourn\nauthor. - Mr President, I would like to focus the House's attention on the recent announcement by the Commission to apply whole-body imaging technology to Europe's airports by 2010.\nHere I would like the Commission to clarify and justify many points which have been raised in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The most important is why this step is seen merely as a technical change to the existing aviation security regulation and, thus, why parliamentary scrutiny of fundamental issues of personal privacy and dignity are being bypassed.\nThis technology has the potential - and, I stress, the potential - to force air passengers to undergo what could be seen as undignifying treatment, and this is certainly not a small technical step.\nIf we are to justify this to our citizens, we first need to know why it is needed at all. Are we heading down the route of using more technology just for the sake that that technology is available, and also, what extent will the technology be used for? I can understand that, in some cases, this should be a secondary measure, where an individual chooses not to be, as we say, frisked by a security official. But as a primary screening measure it is a very serious breach of our basic rights to privacy and is intrusive.\nWe have already seen, with the liquids rules, that the precedent is being set for extra security measures to become the norm in airports. However inconvenient these liquids rules are to passengers, it is certainly not an invasion of privacy.\nOther major concerns I have are with the storage of data. As I understand, storing of images is not the initial intention, but this is not to say that it is not possible to do so. Therefore, could the Commission outline what events could lead to the storing of this data, how it would be protected, and whether (and how) it could be ruled today that this possibility would not be used, so that it could be ruled out completely, thereby greatly alleviating many of the concerns of law-abiding passengers?\nI would also like to see that proper consultation is carried out with user groups. Tests have, indeed, been carried out on these machines at some airports - including in my own country at London Heathrow - but as yet, I understand, the results of this process have not been scrutinised by experts or the relevant parliamentary committees.\nFinally, I would urge the Commission not to head down the route of forcing individuals to submit to a potentially degrading process without first understanding the rightful concerns of innocent travellers.\nOf course we should be serious about security, but this form of blanket approach to technology has the potential to turn a legitimate security concern into an unacceptable peepshow for security industries.\nAntonio Tajani\nVice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament for having tabled this oral question, because it allows me to clarify an event and an issue which I consider to be important. With regard to passengers' rights - their right to safety and security and also their right not to have to put up with sometimes very long queues - as well as a control system that seemed to be obsolete and not always very effective, we have criticised all of this, and when I was an MEP I did so too. Instead, we must aim at having a control system that allows citizens to travel in as easy and pleasant a manner as possible. Thus, a few weeks ago we also announced which objects can be carried as hand baggage and which objects cannot.\nThe objective of the action being taken by the Commission and the Transport and Energy Directorate-General is to move in a direction that is helpful to citizens: always to protect citizens' rights under all circumstances is a commitment that I have made before this very Parliament, and which I intend to continue to honour.\nThe aim of the proposal - I want to state it very clearly, and therefore I am happy that we can discuss this matter today - is not the decision by the Commission to add body scanners as from 2010. There has obviously been a misunderstanding. The Commission has put a question to Parliament: does it consider that it would be useful to discuss the application and use of body scanners in airports as a non-mandatory checking system? That is the aim of the proposal, and that is what is stated in Article 4(2) of the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation security. The measure currently being considered by the European Parliament, under the comitology procedure with scrutiny, is restricted to making provision for the possibility of using body scanners as a means for ensuring aviation security.\nWith regard to the timetable, only if Parliament declares itself in favour, and only if we have verified that these instruments are useful and not damaging, particularly in terms of citizens' health, will we be able to assess whether to then start to make a decision establishing under what conditions these technologies can be used.\nWith regard to the procedure, in line with the comitology procedure with scrutiny, on 4 September I informed the chairman of the relevant parliamentary committee, which is the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Mr Costa replied to me on 26 September by letter, requesting further information, particularly with regard to the use of body scanners, namely, as to how the Commission intended to use the body scanners should a positive opinion be given.\nIn my letter replying to Mr Costa, sent on 7 October, I stressed several points. The first was that the measure under consideration was perhaps to look at the possibility of using body scanners as a supplementary option for checking passengers and not as a mandatory requirement. In short, passengers would be able to choose whether to go through a body scanner, should body scanners be deemed to be suitable, or to submit to a manual check as is currently the case.\nI stated that some aspects, especially the impact on passengers' health and particularly their privacy, will have to be analysed in more depth before any regulation is adopted regarding body scanners. In addition, the European Data Protection Supervisor's office would be involved - this is still what I put in the letter sent on 7 October to Mr Costa. Amongst other things, the Supervisor has already been invited, together with national experts, experts in the sector, and the MEPs on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Transport and Tourism, to take part in the workshop that is to be held on 6 November, with the aim of guaranteeing transparency, and of course prior to any decision being made. This meeting, which may also be repeated, is to establish whether there are any health risks, which is the issue that most concerns me. We need to know if these body scanners are damaging to the health of those who freely choose to go through them. We will then seriously evaluate their effectiveness, and this means, of course, listening to everything relating to citizens' rights to privacy. On this point, I repeat, the European Data Protection Supervisor will be heard, and I also intend to hear the view of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.\nHow might they be used, if Parliament were to decide to give the green light to an examination of the idea of body scanners? In my view, they would be used only as a non-mandatory tool and, of course, an alternative would always have to be provided under all circumstances, and there would therefore have to be such an alternative in airports. Thus, it would not be the only option, but one of the possibilities.\nThe second point is that the images would not be kept but would be immediately deleted; that is, there ought to be a technical mechanism to prevent the image of a person who decides to pass through a body scanner from being recorded. Thus it would be immediately deleted and absolutely not recorded - recording would be made impossible.\nThe other issue is with regard to health, which I consider to be a priority: at the workshop to be held on 6 November, we will ask all those responsible for air safety to give us news from the various countries of the EU on any reports of damage that might be caused by body scanners to human health: this means studies by universities, investigations by the various ministries of health or similar bodies, or statistics from countries that already use body scanners, starting with the United Kingdom, to find out if such risks exist.\nHaving said that, I have not taken any decision, nor do I intend to force the issue on this point. I am merely putting forward a problem to Parliament for consideration. Do we wish to examine this alternative, non-mandatory form of carrying out checks in airports, or not? That is the question. If we wish to examine this proposal, then we must verify whether it is feasible, or in other words whether it is possible, first and foremost with regard to health, and then we will have to look at other criteria, starting with respect for individual rights.\nAdditionally, it will be vital for the regulatory provision that may result from this to establish that operators will have to be far away and unable to see directly, but will have to be in a special, closed location. In other words, every guarantee must be given to ensure that this does not become an invasive tool, since it ought to be merely a tool intended to make things easier for citizens and to provide them with greater assurances. It is also true that, from the data at our disposal, in airports where the body scanner system exists, the majority of people choose to go through the body scanner rather than undergo an alternative form of check.\nThese are some of the matters that need to be considered. Of course, we have an option to regulate, if Parliament decides to agree to an examination of the idea of the body scanners. Then, there is also the possibility of further scrutiny by Parliament. It is my intention, as I have always said, partly because of my lengthy experience in this Chamber, to involve Parliament. That is why I was very willing and very happy to come to this Chamber today to debate the issue of body scanners. My aim is to involve Parliament and to come to a decision together.\nDo we want there to be Community regulation, if all the stages in examining body scanners are passed, or do we want to leave using this tool up to individual Member States? I believe that, if a decision is taken to look into the possibility of body scanners and if this possibility were found to be viable, it would be fairer and better for European citizens to have Community legislation. I believe that this would provide a better guarantee to all citizens who freely chose to go through the security checks using the body scanner system, as an alternative to another system, which would remain available in all the other airports, namely a manual body search.\nOf course, I realise that every kind of check is personally invasive. For me personally, a manual search is perhaps more invasive than being checked in a body scanner. Everyone is free to make their own choice. We do not live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we have to face many unpleasant situations; unfortunately, we have to tackle the terrorism problem, we have to tackle the crime problem, we have to tackle the drug trafficking problem, we have to tackle the Mafia and Camorra problem, all in the country that I know best, and so checks are unfortunately necessary. We do find some consequences of that, including for individuals, and we must ensure that the consequences for individuals are as slight as possible, by ensuring that there are no recordings, no notes and no infringements of privacy or fundamental human rights.\nThat is why I believe that it is right to debate this issue. Naturally, I defer to the wishes of Parliament, after having sought to explain the reasons why I have brought this possibility to the attention of Parliament. I hope that it can be dealt with and discussed purely with the interests of citizens in mind.\nLuis de Grandes Pascual\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission and Transport Commissioner, we are well aware of your efforts to inform the Committee on Transport and Tourism through its chairman, Mr Costa, and of the contents of this exchange of letters. I must now warmly thank you for the information provided to the House as a whole.\nHowever, I must criticise the fact that this resolution is being presented now when the deadline for this expires at 10 o'clock in the morning. This is not right. In other words, and in all sincerity, this is neither one thing nor the other. Likewise, I must say that, although there was consensus, the comitology procedure, even where subject to scrutiny, is totally inadequate for such a sensitive issue as that of body scanners.\nIn my opinion, we have to assess the impact on fundamental rights. We also have to assess, in advance, the impact on health. We must apply the principle of proportionality between what is proposed and the benefit that this will bring.\nThis House is frustrated about the issue of liquids, and this is being said by someone who advised the Spanish MEPs not to vote for the rejection, because making concessions, in the fight against terrorism, on the usefulness of a measure seemed to us to be taking things too far. It is true that we passed a vote of confidence and what you say in your letter is also true in that not even the new checks on liquids that are being trialled will be able to absolutely stop all possible explosive liquids.\nHowever, the intention - albeit voluntary - with regard to the body scanner seems to me to be woefully inadequate.\nIt is true that this may be voluntary and that it may be used as an additional tool - as already happens - in suspected cases of drug trafficking, where something is hidden in the body, but not as a replacement for a totally reasonable check which can be very useful and is accepted by everyone.\nIn any event, Mr Vice-President, this must be submitted to Parliament and to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Fundamental rights and personal dignity must be preserved. Any measures adopted in the fight against terrorism will have our support, but they cannot be presented in any old way. I feel that you should be very careful and tactful with how you make your announcements on this.\nClaudio Fava\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank the Vice-President, Mr Tajani, for some of the clarifications he has given, and I would like to respond immediately to his request. He is asking this Parliament if we want to examine this proposal together: the answer is yes. The oral question stems from this demand of ours. We would like to examine it while having at our disposal all the information needed in order to understand, as you rightly wonder, whether this tool is a necessity and above all whether it is safe and respects citizens' privacy, which is our priority.\nWe welcome the letter that you sent to Mr Deprez, chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in which you make a commitment that we would like to take as an official commitment. That is the commitment to consult the European Data Protection Supervisor. Our group does not yet have an official view regarding body scanners: we need more information and to examine the issue more thoroughly. Meanwhile, with regard to health, we would like to understand what actually constitutes an exposure overdose, particularly for frequent flyers, and on this point we need to be certain that the information is reliable, because for many years we have been forced to leave liquids behind, and now we discover that it was probably an excessive precaution and that the information and the assessments were probably unfounded. We need an assessment of the principle of proportionality and the full involvement of the European Parliament.\nWe do not believe that these measures can be seen merely as technical ones: they are measures that have a direct impact on human rights and on privacy. It is complicated to combine security, privacy and the protection of passenger health, but that is the responsibility that this Parliament endorses and which it entrusts to you. We hope that we can have this information and that you and the European Data Protection Supervisor will give it to us. We need some more data in order to be able to make a confident decision on how useful these body scanners are.\nMarco Cappato\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that this is first and foremost a procedural problem and not a problem on the substance of the issue, on which it is clearly not difficult to find agreement. In other words, it is clear, regarding the substance, that any security tool must be examined in terms of people's safety and privacy and the effectiveness of the measure itself, the cost-benefit ratio - how much these machines cost, because that too is a problem - and I believe that that will become the most sensitive aspect.\nIn fact, technologies like these are usually easy for well-organised terrorist groups to avoid, whereas they have an impact on citizens. This is true for fingerprints, it is true for the storing of telephone traffic and telephone tapping - well-organised groups are not afraid of these checks, but on the other hand they become mass checks on tens of millions of individuals. I therefore believe that we are in agreement that a tool of this kind can receive the green light from the European Union only after a rigorous analysis of all these aspects and only after such an analysis has resulted in a positive opinion on all these aspects.\nWith regard to the procedure, we have been given a document which, in part A of the annex to document 1258, has the title of screening allowed'; perhaps it is that title that has prompted us to sound the alarm, perhaps excessively, with regard to the procedure, because of the meaning of the word 'allowed'. What we are asking is that they should be allowed only after a technical assessment has been made and that therefore a totally political decision is taken. That is the message behind tomorrow's resolution.\nAt that point, it will be for you, following the political commitment that you have made, to find the technical path by which to achieve this objective, and in Parliament you will find a fair partner.\nEva Lichtenberger\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the Committee on Transport and Tourism we discussed the possibility of looking at these machines, following which, we received the first photographs that showed what the pictures were really like. It then became clear that the proposal should crumble on a technical argument. As I say, I do not want to go into more detail on this matter now, but there has not been, any impact assessment, as there was, for example, in the case of rear-view mirrors for lorries where almost every contractor in Europe was asked whether he agreed with there being a different type of rear-view mirror. On an issue such as this, which is so important, nothing was said. It was not thought to be necessary.\nThe images we have seen resemble slightly blurred black and white photographs of naked bodies. That is entirely obvious. It is certainly not prudery on my part, moreover, if I say to you today that I have reservations about this aspect, as an image of a naked body is a very private matter, and I want people to have the opportunity to decide whether or not people are to see them naked. We are told that everything is, of course, on a voluntary basis. Yes, this is not the first time we have been told such things. Anyone who refuses to fall in with the system would be under suspicion from the outset. The next step will be its compulsory introduction. As for the next step after that, I dread to think what it might be.\nI believe that this really is an approach that cannot be allowed to prevail as it stands. In a few years' time it will be compulsory, as security people have always come up with arguments in favour of arrangements such as this. Moreover, the next step after that is certain to be data retention, even if this is still at present rejected. We know, however, that whatever security people can do technically will in time be done.\nCommissioner, the European Union is in this way succeeding only in making itself still more unpopular and in sliding still further down the popularity stakes. That is because the Member States will blame the EU and not take on the responsibility for introducing this system.\nGiusto Catania\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to thank Mr Tajani, and to make a few points. The first is that in recent years airports have become the places in which the 'security' obsession finds its prime application. There is a common thread running through this proposal and the PNR proposal, with the indiscriminate handling of air passenger data, and the regulation on liquids, which was put in place after an alleged attack two years ago, but it was then discovered, after the regulation had come into force, that all those who had been suspected of terrorism had been acquitted.\nThe body scanner is the last frontier in this modern torture, as Stefano Rodot\u00e0 describes it. The mania for extracting ever more information that could be useful in the fight against terrorism is fostering an authoritarian interpretation of the rule of law. There is a clear violation of privacy, human rights and personal dignity. The new requirement for total surveillance is reproducing the apparatus of social control. The control mechanism of a 'mass-surveillance prison' is being developed within society, so that all citizens are gradually being transformed into suspects who need to be monitored.\nThe creation of these instruments is a confirmation of Foucault's theories, and the body scanner seems like a page taken out of the book Discipline and Punish. It is no accident that the main cradle of this strategy is the body: Foucault says that through the political technology of the body we can read the shared history of power relations. So, for these reasons and in this context the authoritarian character of the body scanner is apparent, and for these political and philosophical reasons it is not, in my view, acceptable to subject our bodies to this tool, which is yet another despotic display of technological power.\nSa\u00efd El Khadraoui\n(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are in favour of a European approach. Let there be no doubt about this. It should also be clear, though, that as the power of decision is being transferred from the Member States to Europe, the European Parliament should also have far more powers to take decisions and carry out inspections in the area in question. In fact, this is also what we agreed a few months ago when the regulation was amended.\nToday, we have a first set of measures that we need to look into. There are two important aspects in this respect. Firstly, there is the abolition of the liquid ban by April 2010, which is very positive, although we would like to see this implemented even sooner.\nThe second is the inclusion on the list of possible screening methods of the notorious body scanner. In that respect, you mentioned that trial projects are already underway in a number of airports, including Heathrow and Schiphol, and that European agreements are necessary.\nAs I understand it, the Member States in question cannot carry on running their trial projects if we do not regulate the issue at European level. The reasoning is therefore turned on its head. I think that we as the European Parliament should get to the bottom of this and that, before we can give it the thumbs up, we need a detailed response to a number of questions that have been raised here and elsewhere.\nYou have already given an answer to some extent, which fills me with great delight, but I think we should be more systematic with regard to privacy, something to which reference has already been made, and also with regard to the impact. What are the benefits of the new system compared to existing screening methods? We expect an answer from you to this question, and other questions, in a structured manner, and if the answers are satisfactory, then we will be able to actually give it the green light at a later stage.\nIgnasi Guardans Camb\u00f3\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we are not here tonight to talk about technical measures relating to transport nor about whether one machine is more efficient or cheaper than another in terms of security checks.\nWe have opened this debate because what we are talking about here is an issue of fundamental rights, the right to privacy and the possibility that the irresponsible, bureaucratic and uncontrolled installation of a machine may represent a serious attack on passengers' rights.\nWe therefore demand that no decision is taken on this matter without firstly examining its impact, without consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor, without establishing a legal framework laying down who is authorised to see us all naked and in what circumstances, and without confirming how it can actually be guaranteed in practice, at each airport, that its use will be free and voluntary and not imposed by the officers there at the time. Please tell us who will keep such private images of our bodies.\nI myself participated in the work on the Spanish law on closed-circuit television cameras in public places. This was made law in the case of Spain. I defended the usefulness of the system, but subject to full guarantees. These guarantees have not been given in this case and, until they are, adopting this proposal through comitology, Commissioner, is simply an exercise in the abuse of power.\nWilly Meyer Pleite\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, as we say in Spain, 'llueve sobre mojado', which means 'it never rains but it pours'. Until very recently, part of the Security Regulation was secret. This secrecy, this lack of transparency, caused serious prejudice to our citizens who did not know what to expect. We are now turning the screw even further, through a totally inappropriate procedure because it does not take account of the views of this House. However, it is not just about including this House, in plenary, but also about opening a public debate with our citizens, once and for all, so that they can give their opinion. We have actually reached a line beyond which the right to privacy, data protection and personal dignity may be cast into doubt.\nAs a result, this Parliament demands that we take a leading role as representatives of our citizens and that we have this debate, once and for all, as all the issues surrounding this line that must not be crossed, in other words the right to privacy, data protection and personal dignity, must be resolved.\nWe question the effectiveness, necessity and proportionality of this measure. As a result, we believe that it must be formally debated by the plenary of this House - and not through the comitology procedure - and of course a public debate must be opened with the people of Europe, who are, after all, the ones who will suffer all the checks - as is already happening - at all the airports in the European Union.\nJavier Moreno S\u00e1nchez\n(ES) Mr President, using body scanners at airports is a sensitive issue which directly affects the security and privacy of citizens.\nOur citizens demand transparency on such a delicate issue as this and we, in turn, demand transparency from the Commission.\nThis is not simply a technical issue that can be resolved using the comitology procedure. If we take that approach, then legitimacy and democratic scrutiny will be missing. People must be fully informed of those measures which directly affect them. We cannot allow the lack of transparency that has dogged the most recent airport security measures to occur once again.\nObviously, in this House we are in favour of measures that guarantee greater security when travelling and that speed up checks at airports. However, above all we are in favour of ensuring that our health and privacy are protected.\nWe want a technology that respects health and privacy and that does not cause more problems than it is trying to prevent.\nFor this reason, as has been said, prior medical and scientific studies must be carried out on the direct consequences of millimetre waves on the health of passengers and, in particular, in the case of the most vulnerable, such as pregnant women, children, the sick, the elderly and people with disabilities.\nIn terms of obtaining and processing these images, what does the Commission propose to guarantee confidentiality and privacy? As you said, it is vital that these images are immediately deleted and that there is no possibility of their being printed, saved or transmitted.\nMr Tajani, will passengers be able to choose or will they have to refuse to go through the scanners? It is clearly not the same thing. Is specific training planned for the security staff who will be operating this new technology? Has the cost:benefit ratio and the proportionality of a technology that would be used as an option been assessed?\nCommissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our objective is clear. We must ensure that information is provided to the people and that all aviation security measures respect fundamental rights and are applied equally at all airports.\nThe use of this new technology cannot represent another turn of the screw towards greater security - I am about to finish - to the detriment of fundamental rights. It is a question of balance.\nAdina-Ioana V\u0103lean\nMr President, let me put this straight. I am committed to fighting terrorism and to ensuring security for all citizens, but I am not going to explain to my constituents how 11 MEPs decided, in an obscure bureaucratic procedure, to allow body-scanning in European airports which would show them naked.\nThis whole comitology procedure is yet another example of how to push European citizens into Euro-scepticism. The Commission's argument - but also that of the developers of this technology - is that body scanners are intended as alternative to physical searches. But the moment we allow this technology, we will have no guarantee that it will not be used for primary screening. We all know from our experience in airports that some of them perform a mandatory physical search. Therefore the issue is whether we allow body scanners or not. Perhaps we should forbid them.\nSo I urge the Commission to suspend this procedure, which has put us in a messy situation. We need to have a large democratic debate in which Parliament and the EDPS have to be involved. This is invasive technology, and issues such as privacy, proportionality and efficiency must be carefully looked into.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\n(ES) Mr President, as evidenced on several occasions, the Committee on Transport and Tourism is in favour of maximum security with the least inconvenience to passengers and travellers. In principle, we therefore agree with reducing this inconvenience for passengers while, at the same time, maintaining a high level of checks and security.\nIn the case of liquids, Parliament has already suggested the alternative of scanners specifically to avoid all these difficulties. It is true that advances in technology should make this process easier.\nIn the current case of body scanners, you might think that there is a need for greater discretion in body searches and that a machine would perhaps make things easier and specifically avoid those exceptional situations in which a surface body search alone is not sufficient.\nHowever, I absolutely agree, as suggested by the Committee on Transport, with the need for every type of precaution to be taken, for travellers and European citizens to be guaranteed total security in relation to the application of this technology, if it is applied, and for current studies and tests - which are merely studies and tests - to provide positive conclusions. These scans must not be harmful in any way to health, they must not infringe the privacy of the person, they must not humiliate people, and the data and images collected must be subject to data protection.\nColm Burke\nMr President, I shall be very brief. There are just two points I want to make. I do not think that we should close all the doors on this matter. For instance, in a trial run at London Heathrow Airport over a period of four years, 98% of passengers opted for a body scan instead of the normal physical search. Clearly this represents a vote of confidence in the technology. It also increases security. I know other people disagreed with this tonight, but it increases security as it can detect ceramic and plastic weaponry which are undetectable to standard metal detectors.\nThe second point I want to raise is in relation to people who have metal implants in their bodies as a result of injuries or disabilities. They suffer constant humiliation, always being singled out for additional searches at airports. I propose a system for endorsing users' passports so that they are not subject to this humiliation on a regular basis. I ask that the Commissions look at this problem, because it is a huge problem at the present time for people who have suffered a physical injury and have an implant. I ask that that be looked at.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) I am proceeding on the assumption that passenger security in the aviation industry is vitally important. However, body scanning suggests obtaining detailed images of a human body. These images are an invasion of a person's privacy. I would like to refer to the conditions in which these images are to be used.\nCommissioner, we understand that the images will not be stored. However, are they to be used in accordance with all the conditions imposed by data protection legislation? What measures are you intending to take to ensure that staff using these scanners are familiar with, and abide by, the provisions of data protection legislation? Commissioner, even in circumstances where passengers give their consent to using these scanners, I would like us to receive the guarantee that the images produced will be deleted. Unfortunately, it will only be a number of years down the line before we are able to learn about the effects on people's health of using these scanners.\nErik Meijer\n(NL) Mr President, a measure which may seem justifiable for reasons of transport safety and terrorism is, from other points of view, anything but obvious. Press reports about body scanners in the Dutch press have caused a torrent of indignation. If the body scanner is a sound instrument, then it is presented in the wrong manner. Certainly as long as the effects on health and privacy are unknown, we cannot use them. Precisely because people feel threatened by all kinds of other, new developments, there is every reason to exercise extreme caution here.\nPresident\nCommissioner, pending the required clarifications and investigations, you now have the task of body-scanning this debate.\nAntonio Tajani\nVice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, I believe that today an important goal has been achieved, and that is the goal of launching a debate on body scanners, in order to understand whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed or not. It seems to me that the debate has shown there is a clear will to discuss the issue.\nWith regard to the method, and partly because of what has been decided with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon - and I hope that it will later be adopted by all the EU countries - I realise that Parliament wants to have its say, and wants to feel that it is a full legislator. I have only abided by the current rules. I do not have the authority to modify comitology; that is not within my powers. I can only have a report and ensure that Parliament is always involved in any case when there is a debate on an important issue, and also say whether a debate on the issue ought to take place.\nThe workshop that we have arranged for 6 November, which will include representatives of the Member States and MEPs, will be an opportunity - not that it is the only one, since it might be the first of a series of specific meetings - to assess all aspects of the use of body scanners, starting with what I consider to be the most important, human health. We will then tackle all the other problems relating to the possible non-mandatory use of this instrument, with the consensus of Parliament at the time. I do not wish to impose anything on anyone: I just want to assess possibilities.\nI say again that I believe that it is right to do this with Parliament, with the commitment that I have made - and I repeat it now, at the conclusion of this debate - to officially consult the European Data Protection Supervisor and listen to the views of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. As far as I am concerned, if after all the evaluations, on which I will report to Parliament, it is decided to go ahead with the choice of using body scanners, as far as the European Commission is concerned, my commitment is that body scanners - and I can guarantee this and I say it once again - will never be made compulsory and an alternative to them must always be provided by the airports.\nIf there is a European regulation then it must be on these terms: then, of course, if the laws are infringed it is clear that there will be consequences. If a legal provision is adopted, if we have a European regulation, then as far as the Commission is concerned one may agree or disagree, but that is the way things are. I make a commitment to do something: then if someone does not believe what I say and thinks it cannot be done. Otherwise we will not do anything.\nAs far as the images are concerned, they will not be recorded and they will never be stored. Thus it will only be a sort of walk through, given everything that will have to be done first. Should a decision be taken to use body scanners as an optional tool, the images will never be recorded or stored. That point will be in the text of the European Commission's regulation. If anyone subsequently breaks the rules, then the European Commission will take the appropriate measures. The same goes for any provision, and any criminal code. If anyone breaks a law then they incur the penalties laid down by the criminal code.\nToday there is a manual body search: any official who touches a citizen inappropriately is violating their privacy and breaking the rules, and is thus not abiding by the law. The official will certainly be charged and found guilty, after a proper legal process. Above all, I undertake to take great pains on the issue of health. I believe that all these guarantees must and can be assessed afterwards by Parliament, which I intend to consult again at successive stages, starting with the workshop to be held on 6 November. This will be a meeting where MEPs will be able to put questions, say what they think and raise any queries, including technical ones. I can give guarantees of a political nature, but not of a technical nature. We need the technical experts to respond. After the technical assessments, we will be able to give a response on that point. The MEPs who have been invited to the workshop will also participate in the assessment.\nI therefore believe that I am in agreement with what was said in particular by Mr Fava and Mr Cappato on this point. A general consensus can be reached, which will be a joint assessment as to whether or not it is advisable in the future to use this technological tool. If it proves not to be possible to use it because the relevant criteria have not been met, then it will not even be included in the list of possible tools to use. If we were to come up with a positive verdict, after all the steps that I have promised to carry out, then the text of the regulation would contain all the guarantees that I have undertaken to incorporate into it, as I have said both in my opening remarks in response to the question and in my concluding reply. This is a commitment, and I am used to keeping to my commitments, above all those made to a Parliament of which I was a part for nearly 15 years.\nPresident\nMrs Lichtenberger, I must interrupt a scanning procedure currently underway that is extremely dangerous, particularly for the health of the interpreters, whom we thank for their cooperation.\nI have received a motion for a resolution1 tabled by six political groups.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday, 23 October.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Internal market in electricity - Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity - Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators - Towards a European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on\nthe report by Mrs Morgan, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003\/54\/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity - C6-0316\/2007 -;\nthe report by Mr Vidal-Quadras, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1228\/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity - C6-0320\/2007 -;\nthe report by Mr Chichester, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators - C6-0318\/2007 -; and\nthe report by Mrs De Vits, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on Towards a European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers.\nJanez Lenar\u010di\u010d\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (SL) During the Slovenian Presidency of the Council, energy issues have been high on the agenda. Reliability of supply, the functioning of energy markets and sustainable management of the environment are indeed issues that are of strategic importance for the European Union and its citizens.\nIt is also becoming increasingly clear that energy is a field that must offer new knowledge and new services, if we wish the European economy to remain competitive in the world. More than a year ago the representatives of governments and Member States committed themselves to sustainable goals and to strengthening effective energy markets. The European Parliament also supported the targets set then and formulated proposals which the Council studied with great interest.\nThe third package on the natural gas and electricity markets was a very important legislative dossier for the Slovenian Presidency. Its main purpose, the main purpose of this package, is to continue the process of liberalising energy markets and increasing their efficiency and transparency. In line with the Commission's proposal, in studying this dossier the Council treated all five legislative proposals as one complete package, and therefore where it was logical retained the same solutions for documents relating to the electricity and natural gas markets.\nAt the meeting of the Energy Council on 6 June, the Slovenian Presidency secured broad support for key elements of the package of five legislative proposals. The most important element of this broad consensus is of course the third option of the organisation of energy undertakings. Here, at the same time, the two original proposals from the Commission were adopted. These proposals define either full ownership separation, or an independent system operator, while Member States also agreed with the third option, which enables an independent operator of the transmission network to be established.\nPermit me briefly to summarise the more important and perhaps also the more sensitive points of this agreement, which you will also be addressing in this esteemed House. The option of an independent operator of the transmission network may be used by countries in which, on the entry into force of the new directive, the transmission network will fall to a vertically integrated undertaking. It can be applied both to the natural gas sector and to electricity. This option allows undertakings to retain ownership of the transmission network on the condition that it is managed by an independent operator.\nRegarding the organisation of the transmission system and the system operator, in the context of a vertically integrated undertaking a range of requirements have been established that define the independence of the system operator, balanced and impartial operation, the safety of carrying out necessary investment and also protection of the interests of the vertically integrated undertaking itself.\nThis will ensure the following:\n1. independence of the operator, managers and supervisory authorities,\n2. avoidance of any conflict of interests,\n3. fair and non-discriminatory access to the network,\n4. fair encouragement of investments including for international connections,\n5. independent access to means and resources for the work of transmission network operators, and ultimately, this will ensure additional jurisdiction for national regulators regarding independent operators of transmission networks.\nAnother element of the agreement reached in the Council concerns investments by third countries in the European Union. The Council believes that the text should ensure such an approach to third countries controlling networks that will not be protectionist. At the same time, a guarantee must be given that companies from third countries will observe the same rules that apply to European Union undertakings. Here we need to take into account the interests of third countries and their undertakings seeking good partner relations with energy undertakings in Member States. Moreover, we will also need to analyse a range of energy investments already initiated on both sides.\nAnother very important area is investments and network development planning, especially the formulation of the European Union's ten-year plan for network development. A consistent and effective approach is ensured at all levels, especially as regards transmission network operators, in an open and transparent consultation process, as well as all the main players and the agency.\nIn this latter connection, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, the Presidency takes the view that we have succeeded in creating a truly independent agency with an effective management. Its tasks are focused on the areas of international and regional cooperation, and it will address in particular the issue of transboundary connections.\nOther important elements of the agreement relate to public ownership, the treatment of transboundary cases, enhanced regional cooperation, operation of the market, consumer protection and guidelines that should be adopted by committees of the Commission in comitology procedures.\nIn these few points I hoped to present you with a brief overview of the main elements of the consensus reached in the Council. I am convinced that the compromise text is also a fine basis for the next Presidency trio and cooperation with this esteemed House.\nAndris Piebalgs\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like first of all to congratulate all the rapporteurs, Ms Morgan, Mr Chichester, Mr Vidal-Quadras and Ms De Vits, on their excellent reports, as well as the shadow rapporteurs and all the members of the committees involved. The deadlines have been very short and the package is challenging and complicated. I have greatly appreciated all the work done over these few months and the very high level of involvement of the Members of the European Parliament.\nLet me again highlight the key challenges that we are facing. I know that they are of particular concern to this House.\nWith this far-reaching package, the Commission has one objective in mind: the interests of the citizens of the European Union.\nOf course, market opening cannot as such stop oil prices from increasing. However, exactly at a time of high prices, we need to ensure truly effective competition on our energy markets to guarantee that the effects of these prices on our citizens are as limited as possible. Already now, some of Europe's citizens have benefited from more choice and from more competition to keep prices as low as possible, as well as increasing standards of service and security.\nFor far too many of Europe's citizens, however, the process of developing real competitive markets is far from complete, and they are not in a position to make a real choice of supplier.\nThis is not just about better prices and more choice. Ensuring security of supply will need massive investments in new networks over the next couple of decades. If we allow the status quo to continue, these investments will just not be made to the extent needed.\nFurthermore, a functioning internal market is one of the key elements of the EU's efforts to tackle climate change. Without competitive electricity and gas markets, an emissions trading scheme will never work properly and our aims regarding renewable energy will quite simply fail.\nWe all agree on the need for legislative reforms to remedy the numerous shortcomings of the current legislative and regulatory framework. Indeed, in the Vidal-Quadras report of 10 July 2007, the European Parliament showed its determination in achieving such an ambitious policy in the field of energy.\nLet me now turn to some of the issues of the reports in more detail. Of course, the reports are very substantial and I will, therefore, focus on only some elements.\nMany amendments that are being proposed can be supported by the Commission. The majority of amendments on strengthening consumer rights in Ms Morgan's report are welcomed, and go hand in hand with the intention in the report from Ms De Vits. The emphasis on stronger regional cooperation of network operators is also welcomed. A number of amendments also usefully clarify or complement the Commission's proposal, in particular as regards the role of the network operator, the powers of national regulators and an effectively well-functioning and secure internal energy market.\nOn a number of issues, the Commission also supports the overall objective of the committee, although it may have some reservations about the precise wording of the proposals.\nI again would like to emphasis that the protection of vulnerable customers and the fight against energy poverty are essential to the implementation of market opening and should definitely be strengthened. The Commission will look carefully at the wording in order to respect the principle of subsidiarity. Price regulation should also not prevent proper investment signals and market entry.\nFurther, as regards the report by Ms De Vits on the Consumer Charter, I find the report and most of the proposed amendments very relevant. Many of the ideas have also been taken up in Ms Morgan's report, and the Commission can agree with many of these, not least on the need for better information to be rapidly delivered to consumers. As you know, the Commission will shortly propose to Member States an energy consumer checklist designed to help collect and deliver relevant information to consumers about their energy markets.\nIndeed, I agree that possible new consumer rights need to be introduced into the ongoing legislative process and that the purpose of the charter is to better communicate on energy consumer rights and thus render them more well-known with consumers.\nIt will be difficult to attempt to harmonise all public service obligations at EU level. However, the Commission will monitor the correct implementation of the directives, especially to ensure that vulnerable consumers are being defined at national level and that national support schemes are being made available in a transparent and effective way.\nIn addition, the Citizens' Energy Forum will be the driving force to establish competitive retail markets in the EU, while at the same time ensuring that vulnerable consumers are protected. Following the Conference on the Rights of Energy Consumers on 6 May, the Commission has launched a process of consultation with all parties concerned.\nOn energy efficiency and promotion of renewables, the Commission fully shares the concerns of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, but we believe that the Internal Market Directive is not the best place to discuss this subject. We believe the objectives of the committee can be pursued in the context of the new renewables directive presently under discussion.\nRegarding the fight against market concentration, we share the committee's view that this is essential, but consider that the Commission's proposal already gives the right and powers to regulators to take measures to ensure proper market functioning.\nOn two important points, however, we do not fully share the conclusions reached by the committee: the use of comitology and some issues on the role of the Agency.\nOn the use of comitology, the general deletion of this procedure would render ineffective the whole process of developing rapidly and efficiently new, very detailed market codes. They will be essential for moving towards truly integrated energy markets in years rather than decades. The most important issue is the ability to make legally binding on all network operators the technical codes adopted under the oversight of the Agency. For this purpose, the Commission needs to be able to adopt them in a fast and effective manner through the comitology procedure. Otherwise, they could not be legally binding within a reasonable timeframe.\nIn more general terms, guidelines are needed, precisely to have a strong Agency, in line with the position in the reports by Mr Chichester and Mr Vidal-Quadras. Without guidelines to frame its powers, the Agency would simply be unable to issue binding individual decisions on market players.\nProvided these essential elements are preserved, in order to take account of the committee's concerns, the Commission could, however, accept the deletion of some of the comitology procedures which, in our opinion, are less essential.\nOn the Agency, the Commission wants to establish an Agency with strong powers. The Commission can accept amendments which give general tasks to the Agency, and also ensures more open and transparent consultation with stakeholders. However, it is not possible to go beyond the EC Treaty.\nA number of amendments proposed by the committee regarding the decision-making powers of the Agency are not compatible with the principle established by the Meroni judgment. This concerns in particular the degree of discretionary power conferred to the Agency. I fully agree with the need for a strong and effective Agency and believe that this can be achieved through the approach suggested by the Commission where the Agency will develop codes that involve real substantive discretion and that these are then adopted through comitology.\nI will not end without tackling the issue of the effective unbundling of network operation from generation and supply. The current rules mean that a large number of network operators can effectively discriminate against new entrants. This has an especially stifling effect on investments in the grid and the introduction of new capacity.\nThe objective that we face, therefore, is to find an approach that will fully remove the inherent conflict of interest of vertically integrated network operators while providing them with the proper incentives to invest and to manage the grid in a non-discriminatory manner.\nThe Council reached a broad agreement on all essential parts of the package at the Energy Council of 6 June. The objective, following your vote, is to be in a position to achieve the adoption of the package at second reading at the end of this year. If the process is delayed, the package would be at risk of not being adopted before the 2009 elections. I count on Parliament and on the incoming French presidency to make full use of the months ahead in order to reach an overall agreement.\nLet me stress that at the Energy Council of 6 June the Commission formally reserved its position on the package, notably to take into account your vote tomorrow.\nHonorable Members, you have provided a strong input to this process since its beginning. I look forward to continuing to work together with you on these proposals in the coming months in the interest of European energy consumers.\nEluned Morgan\nrapporteur. - Mr President, I hope that if Parliament adopts the electricity report tomorrow, it will be an indication to energy companies all over Europe that we want the consumer back in the driving seat.\nBefore talking about the most controversial aspect of this directive, I would like to dwell on some of the areas where we have managed to find a consensus within Parliament so far.\nThere cannot be anyone within the European Union who has not noticed the massive increase in energy prices in recent months. All over the European Union there are people struggling to pay their energy bills so we believe that the issue of 'energy poverty' should be placed firmly on the EU agenda. After all, the ETS system and the renewables targets are European and they impact on energy prices.\nWe have respected subsidiarity, Commissioner, in our request that Member States should come up with their own definitions of energy poverty and an action plan for dealing with the problem. So, if the Council want a deal on this package, they need to understand that this is a central requirement of Parliament.\nAlready many rights for consumers exist in the energy field but they are not enforced. So we have asked the national regulatory authorities to use incentives and sanctions to ensure the consumer is protected.\nWe have also listed additional rights which should be enjoyed by the consumer such as affordable prices for low-income families, an easier way to switch suppliers, increased representation for the consumer, especially when they have complaints, and a fair deal for people in rural and remote areas.\nWe believe there should be a roll-out of smart meters within 10 years, which should boost energy efficiency, and companies should be creative in the way they charge for energy and not reward people who use more as is currently the case. Priority access should be given to renewables to enter the grid so that we can reach that 20% target.\nWe have got to understand that when we talk about transmission systems we are talking about monopolies, so clearly there is a need for very strict regulation.\nWe would like to see much better cooperation between national regulatory authorities and competition authorities. In this way, we might get to a point where we do not have almost half of the countries in the EU where one company dominates over 70% of the market.\nNow to the most controversial part of the report - the issue of unbundling. The clear thing is that the current system has not worked. There is a suspicion that some are not playing fair. They are giving priority access to their own company; they put obstacles in place which could stifle competition. That is why I believe, as rapporteur, that total separation of energy supply from transmission companies or full ownership unbundling - as was suggested initially by the Commission - should be the only option for electricity companies.\nIt is only in this way you will remove the conflict of interest. You can build as many Chinese walls as you want, but there will be no incentive for companies to encourage competition in the market if they also own transmission companies.\nWe need a level playing field: we need easier access for renewables and SMEs, but, probably more than anything else, we need a stable regulatory framework for the one trillion-worth of investment that is necessary in the EU market. If we fudge this issue now, we will not be giving a clear signal to those investors and the lights could go off in Europe. This issue will not go away and, if the lights go out, governments can fall.\nSo, who is resisting this? Germany, France, Austria, Luxembourg, Greece and Bulgaria: they think that strengthening these Chinese walls will be enough. Some suspect also that there is an effort to protect national champions who are happy to invest in other markets but are reluctant to allow others into their markets. We should not oversell the model however, we are not likely to see a reduction in prices under any model.\nWe know that the Council has come to an informal agreement on this issue. They have suggested the strengthening of these Chinese walls. Many of us, however, feel that this will not be enough for European consumers and have suggested sticking to a tough position.\nI would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs in particular and everybody involved in this package for the cooperation on this very complex dossier.\nAlejo Vidal-Quadras\nMr President, energy is still, for many reasons, one of the European Union's Achilles heels, mainly due to the unwillingness of some government or business elites to recognise that in order to achieve a common energy policy we need to have an integrated internal market that is open to competition, in which consumers can freely choose their suppliers and in which energy flows from Stockholm to Athens and from Lisbon to Vienna with no major obstacles. In order to achieve this objective, which is still a long way off, we have much ground to cover and many barriers to remove.\nIn the report on the regulation for which I am the rapporteur, which was almost unanimously adopted in committee, we highlighted the importance of increasing interconnections between Member States, the need to harmonise technical rules at European level, the advisability of giving greater power to the regulators' agency, of better allocation of the responsibilities of system operators, so that they take charge of drawing up network codes and consulting with interested parties during the drawing up of the codes, also giving them the opportunity to propose codes for themselves, provided that they do not contradict the framework guidelines.\nThese proposals arise from the desire that Parliament has already expressed, to have a European coordination body for national regulators, with the capacity to make decisions on matters with a European scope, avoiding duplication with decisions taken at national level, and to set up a European network of system operators to develop the necessary technical rules to ensure the fluidity of the European market. In this respect, my report is entirely consistent with the Chichester and Paparizov reports.\nIn order to achieve an internal market for electricity, we need to establish harmonised rules and regulations, ensure that all the players are using the same rules, promote interconnections and have independent regulators with sufficient powers to guarantee investments.\nThe report by my good friend Mrs Morgan largely contains the right answers to deal with these problems. The subject of ownership unbundling has been cause for a great deal of debate between us, which at times has been quite fierce. However, we are still friends, which shows that Europe has a future.\nI think that we are talking about a subject in which the national interest plays a principal role, in which different market models are contrasted, and in which there are established situations that we have to take into account. However, it is precisely these disparities that are largely preventing us from making progress, and I do not think that drawing up a varied \u00e0 la carte list of models is the solution.\nOwnership unbundling is not a panacea, but it is a necessary condition, although definitely not enough on its own, for achieving an integrated single market.\nSome of Mrs Morgan's ideas are more debatable, such as social tariffs to deal with the problem of energy poverty, because by doing this we would run the risk of interfering with the markets.\nThe Council reached a general agreement on the package more than a week ago. We will complete our first reading before the summer. However, to conclude, I would like to convey to the Council representative, our dear and respected friend Mr Lenar\u010di\u010d, Parliament's wish to negotiate an agreement at second reading that is satisfactory for the European Union as a whole.\nThe parliamentary term is coming to an end, and 'take it or leave it' approaches would be wrong, because, President-in-Office of the Council, Parliament reacts very badly when it is not respected or feels that it is being put under too much pressure.\nThis is not the time to divide ourselves into those who take a hard line and those who take a softer line or to act solely from the perspective of national interest. It is the time for sensible, balanced, and, in the best sense of the word, European approaches.\nGiles Chichester\nrapporteur. - Mr President, first of all I would like to acknowledge the major contribution of my immediate predecessor and, as it were, co-rapporteur, Mr Brunetta, who had to leave this House for another post in his mother state. I would like to thank the shadows for their constructive cooperative approach, which enabled us to create a broad consensus.\nIt is an interesting challenge to find the right balance between leaving the national regulatory authorities alone to do their own thing and to create an EU regulator. For markets to function well, the role of regulator is absolutely crucial. This agency would complement at European level the regulatory tasks performed by the NRAs and do so by providing a framework for them to cooperate with each other by regulatory oversight of the cooperation between transmission system operators by giving the Agency individual decision powers and by giving it a general advisory role. The Agency would have an advisory role vis-\u00e0-vis the Commission as regards market regulation issues and that is an important function.\nIn the course of the debate on this regulation we have become more convinced of the need to go beyond the Commission's proposals for the Agency to create an agency with more independence and more decision-making powers. If the Agency is to contribute effectively to the development of an integrated competitive energy market for the European Union, the Agency will need more extensive powers and be independent of the Commission in order to handle cross-border situations and deliver effective cooperation between the TSOs and the NRAs - the National Regulatory Authorities.\nSo we proposed new decision-making powers for the Agency, in particular over the development of the technical codes which my colleagues just mentioned, and the investment plans of the TSOs and a greater regulatory and financial independence. However, with that greater power and independence should come greater accountability to Parliament in particular, but to stakeholders as well. We have therefore proposed to increase the Agency's requirement to consult, its requirement for transparency and its accountability to Parliament.\nI should emphasis that we have sought to ensure coherence and consistency in this report and this regulation with the other parts of the package. We have been aware of the issues raised by the Meroni judgment, but nevertheless are of the view that our proposals are appropriate.\nThe proposed changes to the structure are designed to secure the most effective balance between the needs for regulatory independence and appropriate political control on the other hand. A key principle for me, and for us, is that the independence of the Agency is critical, not only for its effectiveness, but also for its credibility. We therefore propose a stronger role for the board of regulators, a time limit to ensure speedy decision-making and increased financial independence for the Agency.\nThe future of the European energy market and its development after the implementation of the third energy package will require an important role to be played by the Agency, and that is why the power and independence of the Agency must be enhanced over and above the level proposed by the Commission.\nMia De Vits\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Morgan report and my report on a European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers must be considered together. Today the structural unbundling of the energy sector is more necessary than ever, but it cannot be an end in itself. The question is and remains: is it to the consumer's benefit? That is not self-evident. In this connection, I note that in my country, Belgium, consumers' energy bills will be on average EUR 300 higher in 2008 than in 2007. I realise that rising oil prices are largely responsible - but certainly not entirely.\nCommissioner Kuneva's figures reveal, for example, that 20-32% of Britons who have switched provider since the opening of the market are now worse off than before. This is why it is essential that consumers know their rights with regard to the energy sector. This is absolutely not the case at present. There is a real lack of comprehensible information on these rights, hence the need for a strong, clear, comprehensible document enumerating existing rights: a charter.\nMrs Morgan has already talked about what this must contain. I should like to add a couple more elements. Consumers must be able to switch provider: of course. Free of charge and within one month: certainly. This means that they must be able to compare offers, however, and that is why it is important that contracts and invoices be standardised. To be able to make a comparison, consumers need to have an overview of their current energy consumption and to be informed of such consumption at least four times a year. Mrs Morgan also talked about this - and I support these ideas, which are also contained in my report - the 'smart meter', and the addressing of energy poverty and the National Energy Action Plans that must be drawn up to this end, are a substantial step in the right direction.\nAs regards the social tariffs, I should like to say to Mr Vidal-Quadras that, in our view, application of these must be possible, must be an effective instrument, for the Member States. That is the only thing we would say with regard to social tariffs, Mr Vidal-Quadras. Thus, it does not strike me as impossible to support that.\nIn addition, it would seem important to have physical points of contact where information can be obtained. After all, the digital divide remains incredibly real today.\nI should like to conclude with what may well be the most important point. In our view, if consumers wish to be aware of their rights and thus well informed, they need to be sent a copy of a charter enumerating their existing rights clearly and comprehensibly when concluding contracts. This is what our group is calling for, no more and no less: that existing rights be compiled and that consumers be provided with these in the form of a readable document. Therefore, I cannot understand the position of the Commission, Commissioner Piebalgs, or of the other groups. A few months ago, the Commission announced a charter; now, a few months on, all we have ended up with is a simple, informative checklist. It strikes us as necessary to go further. For this reason, I would appeal to the other groups to support the amendment tabled by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. We are not reinventing the wheel; we are merely asking that consumers be informed of their existing rights by means of a copy sent to them when they conclude a contract. If the most serious problem today - as noted by the European Commission - is clear information, or rather a lack of it, I believe that our proposal offers a solution.\nJ\u00e1n Hudack\u00fd\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (SK) The energy situation in Europe and throughout the world is forcing us to seek new effective solutions for a secure supply in the Member States at reasonable prices, subject to further liberalisation of the energy markets, greater market transparency and non-discrimination.\nI welcome the European Commission's effort to achieve progress, to create a space for clear-cut rules and relations between the relevant parties within the energy markets. On the one hand, this should lead to the creation of a better competitive environment, and on the other hand it should create an effective regulation mechanism capable of preventing crisis situations.\nHowever, intentions and reality are two different things altogether. Although it has been the subject of many debates and compromise proposals, the energy package still gives rise to many question marks and uncertainties. We all know very well that the biggest stumbling block is the Commission's proposal regarding ownership unbundling of production from transmission within the framework of vertically integrated companies.\nIs this really the most effective model to ensure more competition, less discrimination, lower prices and higher investment? The numerous analyses that are supposed to confirm these benefits are matched by a number of counter-arguments that cast objective doubts over these benefits.\nMy opinion is rather simple but backed up by discussions with both the supporters and the opponents of ownership unbundling. Those Member States that have other models in place must surely be able to make a choice. Eight of them suggested the so-called third way, which I suggested as draftsman of the opinion of the ECON Committee, as an alternative to the ownership unbundling model.\nIndeed, the above-mentioned committee has already adopted this proposal. Before reaching the final conclusions, we should ascertain whether each proposed model is functional, provides a continuous energy supply, is transparent and non-discriminatory, and whether its transparency and non-discriminatory character can or cannot be achieved through more effective regulation.\nWe also have to clearly establish whether or not the proposed solution represents a breach of the right of private ownership. In this context, I think that compromise Amendment 166, tabled by 40 Members, which enables the application of the so-called third way, represents an optimal solution under the given circumstances and respects the demands of a significant number of Member States.\nMariela Velichkova Baeva\nopinion draftswoman for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (BG) The proposed Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council to amend Regulation 1228 concerning access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity aims to accomplish the setting up of the Community energy market. The opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs underscores the improvement of competitive environment, overcoming existing barriers for new market entrants to access the network and promoting investment which is crucial for national economies and individual consumers. Regional cooperation and interaction among network operators help channel resources towards interconnectivity and diversification of supplies. For my country, Bulgaria, being a border of the European Union, this is an opportunity to integrate actively in the European electricity network. The energy area is driven by demand, supply and environmental impact. Any decisions should take into account the impetus gained in the energy sector, and its strategic importance for the development of modern economies.\nAlain Lipietz\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs went to Paris to examine all these directives. We also met with both trade unions and electricity transmission system operators.\nEveryone has campaigned for a stronger agency than the one proposed by the Commission. We are familiar with the case law of the Court of Justice and we are fully aware of the fact that the Commission was proposing not to change the Treaty in order to avoid creating difficulties.\nThat is why in its opinion, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs recommends strengthening everything to do with monitoring, recommendations and suspensive power, but advises against giving the agency the power of administrative policing that goes as far as imposing fines.\nOnly the Commission has this administrative policing power. I believe that in this respect, we can take account of the Treaties in their current state and also the needs for market regulation.\nAndr\u00e1s Gy\u00fcrk\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (HU) Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dissatisfaction among energy consumers has increased noticeably in recent years as a result of rising prices and a lack of regulatory transparency. It is for precisely this reason that it is so important that the European Parliament will shortly be giving its blessing to a legislative package that will help to ensure that the electricity market functions more effectively. I am convinced that the sharp rise in prices and the increasing helplessness of consumers has largely been due to the inadequate functioning of the market. In many Member States, it is still the case that consumers compete for suppliers rather than the reverse.\nIn Hungary, for example, market liberalisation at present means higher prices and deteriorating standards of service, thanks to the hotchpotch manner in which market liberalisation is taking place as a result of mistakes by the government. Adoption of the package of reports we are debating today could put an end to this situation. The new legislation may at last enable genuine competition to take place in the energy market, and suppliers may finally find themselves in the position of actually having to compete for the consumers.\nIn addition, the energy package also creates better conditions for the kind of investment that is absolutely vital for the future of Europe's energy supply. It will provide a stimulus for energy efficiency and, I believe, also facilitate the spread of renewable energies. Another welcome feature of the proposals is that they reinforce consumer protection provisions, compliance with which is often lacking at present. One of the reasons why this is particularly important now is because runaway energy prices are a major cause of poverty. In my opinion, efforts in the field of energy policy should always be assessed in the light of consumer satisfaction. We are taking an important step towards more effective regulation. The package of proposals will boost competition while at the same time improving security of supply. It is our hope that the adoption of this package will ensure that in future Europe's energy consumers will not face unreasonable prices as a result of regulatory inadequacies. Thank you very much, Mr President.\nGabriela Cre\u0163u\nRap avis IMCO. - (RO) Dear colleagues, the initial project of the Agency for the Cooperation of Regulators provided two possibilities to the Parliament: to reject a useless institution or create a more efficient one.\nIt has opted for the second solution, not despite the Meroni clause, but within the limits of the Treaty provisions. The amendments adopted in committees, generally convergent, have changed the initial prerogatives significantly. Consequently, at this moment, we are expecting that, by its activity, the Agency shall strengthen the role of national regulators and support their operation, allow the technical harmonization of European networks, as a condition for a real internal market and make possible the mutual supply of energy among the Member States, take into consideration the consumers' interest and carefully monitor the developments on the energy market.\nWe are expecting the Agency to be a useful instrument of the common energy policy. We are not expecting either the provision of these prerogatives to reduce the possibilities of the European Commission compared to the Parliament and in fulfilling the energy policy, or the decisions of a technical nature to substitute the political ones. Our final goal remains the provision of sufficient energy at an accessible price for everyone.\nLeopold J\u00f3zef Rutowicz\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (PL) Mr President, deriving benefit from the energy package that has been adopted will depend to a great extent on political decisions. Only France's leaders have made energy and the economy independent of gas and oil imports to a great extent. The leaders of the other countries lacked imagination.\nThe unforeseen massive rise in gas and oil prices is forcing us to decide on the scope we should give to developing atomic energy and other sources. How should we exploit the network in order to ward off a crisis? The proposed regulations on access to the network in cross-border electricity exchange and common principles on the internal energy market should promote full synchronisation of the networks of the countries of old Europe and the new countries. This will ensure greater security of energy supplies and may bring about a limitation of energy prices by increasing competition.\nThe Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators that has been set up should, in cooperation with entities acting in the market, ensure that the market functions properly. The Agency's powers should be increased to meet the needs of the market.\nI support regulation that promotes competition and the expansion of power generation.\nGunnar H\u00f6kmark\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Morgan on her efficient work on the report.\nI would just like to say one thing in response to her intervention earlier today: do not let Member States run away from their responsibility to fight energy poverty and secure the well-being of their citizens; do not let any government abdicate that responsibility.\nHaving said that, I would like to emphasise what I think is the most fundamental question in this discussion, namely: Are the European energy markets good enough? Are they functioning well enough? Is the legislation good enough regarding consumers' well-being, low prices, industry and competitiveness, and the opportunities to make the best use of all energy sources, not least renewables?\nI think it is fair to say that the answer is 'no' if we are to respond to the challenges of climate change, to decrease energy dependency and to connect the European energy markets with each other.\nThat is why we need reform and why it is important to get a level playing field opening up for new entrants, ensuring that we have open and fair competition. It is in this perspective that we need to look at the discussion about ownership unbundling. I think the Council has a responsibility to make a compromise among its members. Parliament also has a responsibility to try to contribute to the best possible solution and we have a common responsibility.\nI ask both the current presidency and the incoming presidency to take this question seriously. The energy markets of today are not good enough. We have a common responsibility to achieve the best possible solution and that is why I hope you will listen to Parliament and we will listen to you.\nReino Paasilinna\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (FI) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteurs and everyone else, but especially Mrs Morgania, who has seen though to its end what was a burdensome task. We are proposing, among other things, that consumers should have the right to compensation if an agreed service and its quality are not delivered. Consumers should have the right to change supplier quickly and have access to information on a product's energy background: for example, its effects on the environment.\nBoth my group and the majority of the committee supported the Commission in the matter of ownership unbundling. There should be a system of unbundling for energy producers, making them system operators independent of the owners of energy networks. In other words we have no faith in the 'big' model. It lost by a narrow margin in the vote.\nIn some countries competition works, and it is easy for consumers to make choices. In others, though, this is still virtually impossible. Most countries have opened up their markets; but a few continue with their decades-old protectionism policy, whilst they take over the markets of others at the same time.\nIn many countries it is in practice impossible for new energy companies to compete fairly in the market. We want to do something about this. The situation has led to the distortion of competition, poor investments and unreasonable consumer prices.\nAs much as 77% of energy in the European Union is produced from fossil fuels. Current wasteful ways of using energy have come to the end of the road, as fossil reserves are meagre and they are becoming scarcer, with fewer and fewer controlling them. Only in a viable and successful market is it possible to develop an effective emissions trading system, industry based on emission-free energy sources, and a European Union which is self-sufficient in energy.\nThe agreement reached last Friday in Luxembourg could be something approaching what Parliament wants to see, though with a few extra features. For example, consumer protection needs to be strengthened. This is Parliament's wish. The Commission still has too many powers in the proposal before us. The comitology procedure must not become a basic principle in lawmaking. It is not a basic principle.\nWe need separate rules on sanctions in connection with the implementation of new directives. The Union's infringement proceedings are ineffective, too slow and too political. Our aim is to achieve harmony during the French Presidency, and I hope that the forthcoming Presidency assumes its duties successfully, so that the present issue can be wrapped up before the end of the year.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis\nI would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Morgan, and express my gratitude to my fellow shadow rapporteurs for their constructive work. This document is an important step towards the creation of a united and competitive EU energy market. We have to take this step, as it is an essential condition for guaranteeing competition within the market and the interests of consumers.\nIn my opinion, the amended agreement is for the most part in line with the strategic goals of the energy policy of most Member States, that is the creation of an efficient, integrated EU internal market.\nThere are just a few things I would like to point out. Firstly, in the context of the Directive, the issue of energy security continues to be of great importance. In terms of energy projects intended to eliminate energy islands, such as Lithuania and other Baltic states, as well as certain other regions, the political willpower is vitally important, together with general EU policy based on common finances.\nIt is essential that the idea of cooperation between transmission system operators with a view to developing an integrated European energy market is actually put into practice and does not simply remain a topic of discussion. I would therefore like to call on my fellow Members to support Amendment 168. That would help us reach a decision on the issue of connections.\nSecondly, there is no doubt that the principle of mutuality remains vital in relations with third-country players.\nThirdly, the introduction of a European Agency would greatly facilitate cooperation between national regulators and the consolidation of the internal market. The Agency should be given sufficient decision-making powers.\nFourthly, the issue of the independence of national regulators cannot be overestimated. Their appointment must be transparent and open and their activities free from any influence by politicians or executive governance. The authority of all the Member States' regulatory institutions should be coordinated.\nStep by step, both the common energy market and the common energy policy would then be developed, which would ensure security of supply along with the highest acceptable price for all consumers. The sooner this is done, the better.\nRebecca Harms\nMr President, I would like to join my fellow Members in expressing thanks for the very good cooperation between the rapporteurs on this package and would like to be the first to respond to an accusation that played a major role in the German discussion about the energy package and particularly about the unbundling of production and transmission networks.\nWe Europeans are constantly being charged with wanting to make life difficult for large, successful companies. I did not find any such negative orientation in the debates held in the committees - not at all. In my view, it is a positive list that cannot be represented often enough by Brussels. We want fair prices for energy, particularly for electricity. We want transparent pricing, fair market conditions - including for new and smaller production companies. We also want better conditions for decentralisation - an important precondition for the organisation of transmission networks in order to be able to effectively take account of renewable energies and efficiency. What also matters a great deal to us is to put an end to the wastage that is occurring everywhere in the existing network structures. If that is not a positive list of goals for this energy package, then I do not know how it could be improved.\nMany fellow Members who do not agree with the majority decision by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy say that the market, if it is functioning and is left alone politically, can achieve all these goals itself. However, so far, the so-called energy market in Europe has pushed prices up to the highest possible level, and they are still rising. In some countries, there is absolutely no transparency at all for price formation. There is continuing concentration in the energy market and climate goals, environmental goals, are being met either in an unsatisfactory or at best in a mediocre way.\nThe unbundling of production and transmission networks is an important step towards bringing us closer to the positive goals in this energy policy. In the light of the Irish vote last weekend, it is also undesirable for a German-French political cartel to work against the suggestions of Parliament and against the original suggestions by the Commission, as that is a classic trade-off issue. The Germans and the French, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, are supporting domestic companies at present.\nWhat we want to see taken into account are the interests of consumers and the question of whether we are really future-proofing our energy sector or not. The majority of citizens would not choose a Europe of companies but, at this point, would choose a Europe of consumer protection and fairness. Thank you for your attention.\nRomano Maria La Russa\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, in spite of the fine proposals adopted by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which warmly welcomed the position put forward in the Morgan report - and I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur for the excellent work she has done - I am sorry to say that recently positions have emerged that in my view are designed to change the fine achievements of the committee.\nI refer to the Council's conclusions, which leave little space for a concrete change of approach to create a competitive and competition-based energy market. The Council is proposing the ITO model, which is in fact very similar to the third way. This position does not seem to me to be at all consistent with the work done by the committee, which has endorsed by a considerable majority full ownership unbundling and total opposition to the establishment of alternative systems, not to mention the marginal role of the agency. I wonder, therefore, what is the point of creating an agency if it is only supposed to play a purely advisory role?\nIf we tried to overcome the current diversity of legislative frameworks, according to the Council we would exacerbate the situation and create even more distortion. I therefore hope that Parliament will exercise its vote with awareness and will stick to the line set out by Mrs Morgan.\nMiloslav Ransdorf\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (CS) I would like to say that Commissioner Piebalgs is in a bind, and has basically become a victim of the bureaucrats who are making us take an action in a hurry, without giving it enough thought. It is also true that the data available to us is not reliable. The data they made available to us come from 2003\/2004, while the energy markets were in fact only fully liberalised in June 2007, and the practical information concerning the differences between the old and the new Member States has not yet been evaluated. It also has to be said that the practical information gained from the first two energy packages has not been evaluated. I believe that in addition to this criticism, which also applies to the underestimation of the risks as regards the Member States' energy security - risks that are too high because an absolute fortune was dumped on the market without any safety mechanism ensuring that it would not end up in the wrong hands - some positive solutions must be provided, too.\nI think that the Agency should have the competences that would enable it to prevent electricity blackouts, and that the Commission should have the power to impose a price moratorium in case year-on-year average energy prices rise by more than 30% in all the Member States. If the average growth in Member States reaches 30%, Commissioner Piebalgs and his colleagues should be able to impose a price moratorium, as the experience of some European Union citizens, namely fishermen and road hauliers, shows at present. I think that this measure would receive a positive response in the EU Member States and would enhance the prestige of our Community.\nJohn Whittaker\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, these reports bring the usual wish list of incompatible objectives: security of energy supply, an efficient energy market, reduction of CO2, harmonised rules for all countries and cheap energy for pensioners. Well, cheap energy for some means that the rest of us pay for it.\nPerhaps we think we shall win friends by forcing governments to provide subsidised energy to those suffering from so-called 'energy poverty'. Is there no area of activity in which the EU will trust national governments to do what they think is best for their own peoples? One thing that these reports should highlight, but do not, is the foolishness of the targets for carbon and renewable energy. The oil price is high and likely to remain high, yet the cost of energy to consumers is going to be higher still in order to subsidise renewables.\nIronically, sustained high oil prices are just what is needed to reduce CO2 emissions. They will reduce consumption and stimulate the development of alternative sources far more effectively than any number of targets and directives. Who knows? We may eventually find that wind power becomes viable.\nIn the end it will be very hard to impose harmonised unbundling rules across 27 Member States, irrespective of the benefits that this may or may not bring. Countries would indeed be foolish to rely too heavily on their neighbours for energy supplies. When the lights go out, when hospitals have no power, national interests are going to prevail irrespective of orders from the proposed EU regulator. That is how things are.\nJana Bobo\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1\n(CS) I very much agree that the Member States should retain their power to freely establish ownership relations between energy producers and transmission networks. I also welcome the strengthening of the independence of the rights and duties of national regulatory authorities. Regarding access to the trans-European networks, I see explicit auctions as a good solution. Of course, the proceeds from auctions should be invested in tariffs. I also agree that the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators should operate on the principle of each country having one vote.\nHowever, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that I am not convinced that ownership unbundling, auctioning or launching another Agency are the best ways of achieving better electricity markets. We are facing the reality of rising energy prices and energy consumption, and this, in my opinion, calls for more power stations to be built and, in particular, for massive strengthening of the transmission networks. It is also necessary to support and promote the nuclear option as a clean and safe energy source. We have to stop fearing nuclear power.\nNickolay Mladenov\nMadam President, I believe that this House, along with the Council and Commission, believes very strongly that consumer rights in the energy sector in Europe should be clearly stated and well protected. We are all convinced that mechanisms need to address the shortcomings that currently exist in our systems across the European Union.\nWe also all agree that we need a tool with which to clarify and consolidate energy rights that exist in European and national legislation. We agree that this tool should be part of a broader communication strategy, of which the Commission's checklist is an important part as well.\nThe report that Mrs De Vits has authored - and I would like to commend her on her work along with the work of the other shadows - is an important step contributing to this debate. It answers some of the key questions that European citizens are asking us and I would like to focus very briefly on some of these questions.\nEuropean citizens want to pay for what they consume and they want to know what they pay for. So firstly, the report talks very strongly about the need to have transparent prices and insists that these prices should be based only on consumption, that invoices should be developed along best practices existing in the European Union, that they should be comparable and that tariff simulators should exist so that consumers can see which company offers them a better choice.\nConsumers want to have a choice and they want to be protected from the fear of being disconnected from the grid, and that is why the report focuses special attention on this. It talks about the need to provide safeguards against disconnection and to use this only as a last resort in Member States.\nFinally, it addresses the question of vulnerable consumers. I agree very much with Gunnar H\u00f6kmark who said earlier that we should not let Member States get away from their responsibility. The responsibility to protect vulnerable consumers lies with the Member States: that is what we pay our taxes for.\nLadies and gentlemen, I call on you to vote tomorrow in favour of the report as it has been submitted to plenary.\nAnne Laperrouze\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my speech will focus on the issue of ownership unbundling, although I do not think that this is the most important issue. Actually, I think that we have wasted too much time on this issue.\nTo unbundle or not to unbundle, that is not the question. Managing a network requires industrial expertise. Electricity cannot be stored; the frequency and voltage of the grid must be maintained according to market demand. With ownership unbundling, the Commission still faces the risks of speculative or political system operation. The question of ownership, industrial management and network security has not, in my opinion, been sufficiently analysed.\nThat issue aside, we have managed to promote the role of one of the key players in the functioning of the internal market: the regulators. They must be given real powers so that they can exercise their rights and responsibilities. Through the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, regulators will have a pivotal role when it comes to cross-border issues and the harmonisation of technical codes to ensure that our networks function better and are more secure.\nThe Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has tabled three amendments: the first is to underline that the functioning of the internal market must hinge on the interests of the private and industrial consumer. This is self-evident, but it is still worth repeating. The second concerns long-term contracts which are subject to compliance with certain principles. These should be seen not as a barrier to competition but as a stabilising factor. It should be stressed that this is requested by industrial consumers. Finally, the third is there to provoke discussion. It is a question of the Commission, in consultation with all the market players, contemplating the move to a European transmission system operator. This may be a long way off, but it is an interesting point to consider. The future of the internal electricity market could be guaranteed with a European electricity transmission network.\nClaude Turmes\nMadam President, this market is not a market, but a hold-up: one costing EU consumers something like EUR 70 billion a year in undue windfall profits going to 10 or 12 big energy oligopolies in Europe. I can fully understand that these companies want to keep this going. How do they keep those undue windfall profits? First, you prevent ownership unbundling. I am sorry, but France and Germany are not small peripheral EU Member States. If they do not unbundle, we will never have a really integrated grid and we will never solve the conflict between producing electricity, trading it and facilitating competition through your grid.\nThe second issue - and that is what is happening now - is that they are trying to escape regulation both from the regulatory authorities and from the cartel authorities. Therefore they want to create regional markets. However, if we do not have a strong EU agency, these regional markets will be a regulatory no-man's-land: E.ON, RWE and EDF are too big for a regional market - France, Germany and the Benelux countries. Therefore, without a strong EU agency and a better interface between regulatory agencies and cartel authorities, this EUR 70 billion hold-up will continue.\nEugenijus Maldeikis\n(LT) I would like to start by thanking the rapporteurs for their balanced work and excellent cooperation. They had to face a rather difficult challenge, as the Commission had proposed a very complex, novel approach towards the document, the package of documents. The European electricity market (the model established over the decades) was based on national vertically integrated companies, which operated within their markets, protecting them.\nTo my mind, we have three main vectors and three main ideas: the development of the process of concentration on a European scale, the lifting of national restrictions through the implementation of the principle of unbundling activities; I see the second principle as the enhancement of the process of centralisation by establishing a European Agency, with the aim of achieving better coordination with national regulators, which is very good, and most of us are in favour of this.\nThe third principle, which was not clarified and, to my mind, remains quite obscure and raises quite a few questions, is the principle of isolation from third-party investments in European transmission systems, which could possibly... The Commission failed to supply clear answers regarding its vision for the future and what political, financial and economic hazards might ensue as well as how the consequences of implementing this principle could affect the energy policy or general EU policy.\nThere is one more thing I would like to mention: the market impulses referred to and the principle of unbundling activities are not strong enough to change the nature of a natural monopoly in an energy market, as some isolated markets still remain, as well as regional markets; therefore, political agreements would have to be achieved on a wide scale in such circumstances...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nEsko Sepp\u00e4nen\n(FI) Madam President, Commissioner, the most certain end result of the liberalisation and harmonisation of the European Union's energy markets is a hike in the price of electricity. That will be because of electricity's pricing mechanism, as Mr Turmes showed.\nThe market price is determined in the wholesale power exchanges. There the price of all electric power is determined by the most expensive production cost of the most expensive product. When the most expensive form of energy is coal-based, the exchange is a profit machine for the producers of hydroelectric and atomic energy. The same companies will also gain from the EU's emissions trading system. Emissions rights at the exchanges will also be added to the price of the electricity for whose production they are not needed.\nWe need to learn a lesson from the experiences of the United States of America. The NGO known as Public Citizen has estimated that in the 14 states in which the price of electricity is not regulated it is 52% higher than in the 36 states where it is. The problem with the electricity pricing mechanism has been ignored in Mrs Morgan's report.\nNils Lundgren\n(SV) The electricity market has been more or less monopolised in all the industrial countries. Economic research has shown that national economies stand to make large gains from the introduction of competition into the electricity market, but in that case it is important to break up vertical integration structures. The electricity producers should not also handle electricity distribution to customers; there is a need to unbundle the electricity sector. A small number of EU countries are carrying out such reforms. These are the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Spain. The EU institutions were not required. The countries are doing it in their own manifest interests. Opposition is considerable in many major countries, for example France and Germany, which are more interested in an EU state than in the prosperity which a free internal market offers.\nThere are strong reasons for the EU to force the pace. Effectiveness and prosperity will increase for all Europeans if competition in the electricity sector encompasses the huge EU market in its entirety. Political pressure needs to be brought to bear on the Member States which do not want competition.\nHans-Peter Martin\n(DE) Madam President, whether you like it or not, Ireland has voted. Now you must respect their decision. Europe has the opportunity of the century, by which I mean that Europe must finally become democratic and efficient. For the energy market, this means not holding back. Get stuck in to the big tigers, the RWEs, the EDFs - get right into the thick of things, where the problem lies, unbundle and apply subsidiarity. It is possible, it would be visionary, but it has nothing to do with the EU to date, controlled as it is by lobby interests and their centres of power. On the other hand, if you do not change anything in this area, and if you do not take the vote in Ireland into account and pronounce the Reform Treaty dead, then the chance of the century for a democratic Europe and for a fair energy market will become a world in which extremists, on both the left and the right, call the shots.\nHerbert Reul\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we had all agreed that this was about better prices, more investment in transmission networks and cross-border connections to create more competition and a market that is not so much controlled by one or a few companies.\nThen, when weighing up the facts, we found that those provided by the Commission do not add up at all. There is no evidence, no facts to prove that ownership unbundling leads to better prices and greater investment. It is not true - or can you tell me why prices are higher in the United Kingdom? Is there more investment in Spain? Is there less, or more, competition there than in other countries? The facts show conclusively that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.\nThe sensible thing to do, therefore, is to seek a compromise whereby Member States that wish to achieve this goal - which must be achieved - by taking a different route are free to do so. That is the background to the attempt at a third option, a third way. Incidentally, it is interesting that we in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy have moved some way on this over the last few months. There are other committees that have voted against ownership unbundling. In our committee, there is a new compromise on gas, worked out by Mrs Laperrouze and Mr Vidal-Quadras. There is also a new compromise within the Council. We are serious about voting again tomorrow on electricity to re-establish the way things were many months ago. However, that has been superseded; that will not be the result.\nA parliament that wants to be taken seriously must be open to these new conditions and changes. We have been rushed through the entire process and I was constantly told that we had to work fast, we had to hurry, we could still try the experiment of finding clever solutions that move in the direction of Parliament's decision. Therefore, I urge you to go beyond party lines and vote for the proposals we have presented here, to find compromises along the lines of what we voted for regarding gas and what the Council voted for.\nEdit Herczog\n(HU) Madam President, Commissioner, we have taken an enormous step this past year, because establishing a common energy policy represents an enormous step for the whole of the European Union. We are talking about the kind of energy policy that simultaneously promotes the strategic interests of the EU Member States, the rights and protection of Europe's residents, competitiveness and growth of the European economy, and conservation of our environment. These five proposals raise the prospect of achieving the kind of market integration which will not only transform the way in which companies in the energy sector operate, and separate and increase the transparency of energy generation, transmission and supply functions, but also give greater priority than ever before to the fundamental rights and protection of energy consumers. In the context of European coordination, the task of monitoring fair market competition, stimulating cross-border energy trading, and ensuring that high standards are met in response to consumer demands must be given to an authority invested with broader powers than hitherto, and which is independent both of governments and of the energy sector. This is why the European legislature has moved decisively towards establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators. The draft report produced by my fellow Member Mr Brunetta and later taken over by Mr Chichester has this as its aim. I was pleased to have the opportunity of working with them as shadow rapporteur representing the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PSE). I consider it a great success that, by establishing a responsible, independent and strong European agency, this jointly-produced draft regulation will not only promote cooperation among regulators in the Member States but also help to achieve the primary goal of fostering regional markets and developing the networks. As socialists we insisted on the creation of a strong and independent authority, since we know that in a liberalised European market everyone wants to buy where it is cheapest, and to sell where it is most expensive. We therefore really need the kind of regulatory authority that will take action to combat any market distortions that may occur. It is in the interests of Hungary and of all the other small Member States to create a strong authority, thereby helping to ensure its independence, establish cooperation, enhance market transparency and secure investment for development.\nMr President, I would like to remind everyone that European energy supply is not an ideological issue. The world has changed for ever. Whole continents are beginning to compete in the energy sector, and let us be candid about it: no one can remain isolated from electricity or motorisation. The goal of energy policy is to ensure Europe's supply security and competitiveness. I would nevertheless like to conclude by saying that the PSE Group believes that consumers should be treated as the key component of European energy policy. We very much regret that our conservative fellow Members do not support making the Consumer Charter mandatory. Thank you for your attention.\nWolf Klinz\n(DE) Madam President, in the last few minutes we have talked a lot about industry. I am glad that Mrs De Vits addresses the rights of energy consumers very directly in her report. Indeed, it is vital to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights and that they can also be certain that their rights will be observed.\nUnlike Mrs De Vits, however, I do not believe that we need completely new laws -certainly not at European level. It is more a matter of properly and appropriately implementing existing legislation into national law. We therefore need strong supervisory authorities that take care of this, and we must ensure that we have sufficient transparency so that consumers really do know their rights. The Charter can provide a meaningful supplement to this, not in the sense of becoming a binding legal document, but simply in the sense of providing a point of reference for politics and the economy by summarising consumer protection legislation relating to energy.\nWe all know - it is a matter of course - that our citizens can play a meaningful role in society and the economy only if they have access to appropriate provision of energy. To that extent, it is certainly important that we ensure that everyone, even the poor and the poorest of the poor, gets what they have a right to. However, I do not believe that it is for Brussels to prescribe social tariffs. We should leave that to the Member States and industry in the Member States. Otherwise we are not introducing anything more than a redistribution mechanism. The best scenario would be to link protection of the poor with the efficiency measures that are required to achieve our climate protection goals. Intelligent solutions such as digital counters can be very useful here. In that respect I have nothing against encouraging the industry to introduce these within 10 years. Then consumers will know exactly how much they are using and can plan around that and economise.\nAlyn Smith\nMadam President, I echo the congratulations to our rapporteurs made by previous speakers. I think Parliament has done a good job today for Europe's consumers, but I focus particularly on one issue and one amendment. That is Amendment 161 to the Morgan report, pushing for better access to the grid for renewable operators. I hope that amendment will be successful when we vote on it tomorrow. I call now for stronger action on the part of the Commission in cases where the national authorities are actually part of the problem rather than part of the solution.\nBy way of example, in the United Kingdom we have Ofgem, our national authority, which has a locational pricing mechanism for access to the UK grid that actually discriminates against renewable operators within Scotland, my country. I would like to see a greater degree of European coordination and action against the individual Member State operators where they are part of the problem. I think we have made a good start towards that today and look forward to seeing more of it.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\n- (PL) My congratulations on the reports, which tackle the most important consumer and political problems facing our continent. The unbundling of distribution from generation and trade in energy is of key significance for both individual and industrial customers. Where unbundling is introduced, energy prices fall, or rise more slowly. In countries where unbundling has been carried out, the mean rise in energy prices for domestic users was 3% during 1998-2006. Where this was not done, energy prices rose by 28%. Similar trends are visible in the industrial customer market.\nEnergy these days, though, is also about security of supply - in other words, politics. The Russian state monopoly has increasing investments in 16 EU countries. In Germany, in France and in Italy Gazprom even has access to individual customers. This is sufficient reason for execution of the principle of mutuality in commercial relations with third countries. Otherwise we shall be defenceless, and we shall pay for it with our security.\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\n(EL) Madam President, the common theme of the proposals for the energy market is its restructuring in favour of private enterprises, while public energy suppliers are being weakened, despite being left to bear the underlying costs.\nIn my country, where the energy market is controlled by public suppliers for the public good, anything like this will have very unfavourable consequences. The EU is asking for the base of the pyramid to be entrusted to capital enterprise so that the prices for other goods can be set. This is because, to a large extent, energy determines the cost of the production process, which will be passed on incrementally to the consumer.\nIn these times of ever-increasing energy demand and steadily rising oil prices, leaving the energy market to the mercy of the private energy giants will be disastrous and cartels are likely to be formed. The theory of price regulation through competition is simply a myth: in practice, it has led to the creation of powerful monopolies in a number of sectors of the economy, with devastating effects on the market and consumers.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Madam President, surely, given the record prices for petroleum, energy independence for Europe finally has to be a top-priority issue! The EU must reduce its current dependency on the Gulf States. We need to improve our relationship with other countries besides Russia without becoming excessively independent. We will also need to consider what to do about Iran in the long term. If a study comes to the conclusion that we are putting too much faith in the vague promises of Central Asian dictators and unconfirmed reports of petroleum stores in relation to the Nabucco pipeline project, then we will have to develop a constructive relationship with Iran which, after all, has the second-largest petroleum reserves in the world.\nIt must not be forgotten that the ever-increasing profits of the Gulf States, thanks to rapidly rising petroleum prices, are also used to promote Islamic fundamentalism around the world. This is another reason why, in my opinion, we in the EU must invest more in alternative energy suppliers.\nJerzy Buzek\nMadam President, I congratulate the Commissioner, and also the rapporteurs on their excellent reports and their good work in drawing up directives that might unify the European energy market. Long-term investment, the principle of solidarity, market access, regulation of cross-border flow - the important objectives of these regulations are all about this. Let us not forget that at the end of the day the consumer is number one - and that is what all these regulations are about: protecting the consumer, users' interests and energy in the European Union. Let us also keep in mind that our regulations will not provide a solution to every problem, such as the rise in oil prices, nor will they prevent a rise in energy prices linked to the introduction of CO2 emission costs, but they will significantly simplify and support our actions to the benefit of energy users.\nLet us tell ourselves that, yes, we know the solution proposed in Mrs Morgan's report will probably not be final. What we have here is a very good basis for discussions with the Council on the subject of a final solution. This final solution, where electric current is concerned, must be moderately distant from the solutions in the second package, otherwise the introduction of the third package would not make sense. At the same time the solutions for gas must be similar to the solutions for electricity, but they must definitely not be identical. Today we are clearly seeing that ownership division for the energy market will be greater more and further-reaching than for gas. We must accept and respect this.\nThis point is also very important - third party access to the market, access to parties from third countries. That is why this is also a key issue, in order not give privileges to investors from outside the European Union.\nJust to conclude, I would like to say that this is one of the most difficult discussions that we have had, and it has been conducted very properly and with respect for all parties.\nEvelyne Gebhardt\n(DE) Madam President, I am delighted that, in the De Vits report, we have a very good report before us and I am delighted that all our fellow Members are of one mind regarding solidarity, transparency and consumer protection. I think this is wonderful.\nHowever, I must say one thing: I find those on the right of the Chamber both cynical and hard to believe. It is hard to believe them because they are not in favour of a binding charter on the rights of consumers - something that is incredibly important if citizens are to know what rights they have. I find them cynical because everyone in this Chamber was united in backing the idea that air passengers should be aware of these rights, and air passengers are not exactly the poorest people in our society. For the poorest, however, who really do need to be aware of their rights, this will not be provided.\nTherefore, I ask you earnestly to reconsider. Please ensure that we make this Charter obligatory.\nPatrizia Toia\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this package is arriving at Parliament right in the midst of the great challenge that energy is posing for our society's future.\nWhat the unsustainable and unstoppable rise in crude oil prices, the perverse effects of the use of biofuels on the availability of food and the large energy demands of the developing countries are telling us is that action by the European Union is no longer just a necessity but is absolutely crucial. Above all, we need a legislative framework that will finally create a European market in electricity and gas, a market that is able to regulate itself in a balanced manner, that has national and European regulators, that guarantees competitiveness, openness, transparency and efficiency for consumers too, that allows large businesses to remain strong and at the same time allows new entities to be set up and to grow, that makes progress instead of going backwards. In this sense we hope that, for electricity, unbundling will not mean a step backwards, that is, that ground will not be lost as regards the good practices already in place in many countries in terms of separation of the network. What we need is a market that provides certainty for investors and operators, but also real opportunities for consumers, whether they are businesses or individuals. I would like to finish, Madam President, by saying that we must genuinely strengthen the hand of consumers by offering certainty, guarantees and fair prices.\nRoberts Z\u012ble\n(LV) Firstly, I would like to thank the Commissioner and the majority of my fellow Members for truly liberal access to the electricity market, which together with energy efficiency measures will really allow us to reduce prices in the future. Two theses - unbundling of ownership and transmission - are and will remain the basic model for genuine decentralised production and security for networks providing access to electricity produced from renewable resources. I also have one more dream I would like to see this package fulfil: that finally a unified European electricity network will be created and that the Baltic States will also be among the members of this electricity supply network partnership, on which we have experienced an endless number of obstacles both within the European Union and outside it. Thank you.\nLuca Romagnoli\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that in a Europe that every day is suffering from ever greater inflation and from galloping prices due in large part to the cost of energy, talking about a European charter of consumer rights is our clear duty and I therefore endorse the report and thank both my fellow Member and, of course, the Commission.\nIt is right to stress that an energy supply is a vital pre-requisite for participation in economic and social life. Nonetheless, one point is that there is already legislation in force, but often citizens' rights are not being respected with in terms of prices, tariffs or tariff transparency, with discriminatory rules that often prevent the comparison of tariffs.\nI can therefore only hope that joint action by the EU and the Member States, always abiding by the vital principle of subsidiarity - as the excellent report by Mrs De Vits also stresses - is crucial. The adoption of the third package, in my view, will also serve to ensure better protection for consumers as well as small and medium-sized professional users.\nNikolaos Vakalis\n(EL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact is that the third energy package has divided the political groups, especially on the issue of ownership unbundling.\nClearly, this split is due not to ideology, but to the differing internal situations and starting points of the various Member States; it arises from corresponding splits among the Member States in the Council. These internal situations should be respected if we wish to avoid internal social upheavals.\nPersonally, I fully endorse the idea of ownership unbundling, but I am well aware that unbundling could under no circumstances be imposed in my country at this time. There has to be an interim period to allow all parties involved to adapt to the new circumstances.\nAfter lengthy and laborious negotiations, the Council has achieved conciliation on the 'third way'. I therefore think we have a duty in this difficult issue to support the conciliation by possibly improving it on certain points in the light of experience.\nLadies and gentlemen, it is important that we all come out of conciliation with our heads held high. This can be achieved only if the vital interests of certain Member States are not put at stake. We must make no compromises on the basic principles of independence and effectiveness that should govern the activity of energy transmission system operators and energy regulators.\nTeresa Riera Madurell\n(ES) Madam President, I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs on their good work, and in particular express my support for Mrs Morgan's position with regard to full ownership unbundling between generation and supply activities on the one hand, and network ownership and operation on the other.\nLarge vertically integrated companies obviously make it difficult for new competitors to come onto the market and, in particular, for renewable energy sources to be developed and installed. All of this takes us further away from the objectives on competitiveness and combating climate change that we Europeans have set ourselves.\nI would therefore like to invite the minority that is against unbundling to leave aside national interests, which disappear in the short term, and to take steps towards joining in building a Europe that is strong and secure in terms of its energy supply.\nTo conclude, I would like to point out that while network access for renewable energy sources is essential for achieving our objectives, developing electricity interconnection capacity is no less essential, especially for the most isolated countries in our energy market.\nI would also like to thank the rapporteur who took this issue into account.\nAdina-Ioana V\u0103lean\nMadam President, the European energy market today continues to reflect, in my opinion, an old market structure dominated by national or regional monopolies, and this in spite of the evident benefits that liberalisation brings for European customers in terms of price, cost reduction and efficiency. This is to say that liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets is still a work in progress. For instance, we still need to move forward in eastern European countries to end state-owned domination of electricity production and to liberalise it, as we did in the distribution sector. I also welcome the steps that we are taking to ensure ownership unbundling as a necessary measure to finally complete our liberalisation of the energy market.\nIn addition to liberalisation, Europe must also support the development of LPG and LNG terminals and technologies. We need to encourage the creation of a world trade market for LPG and LNG to ease Europe's dependency on a single source for natural gas. Diversification and security of energy supply must now be as high on our agenda as liberalisation.\nRomana Jordan Cizelj\n(SL) Firstly I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for the fine work they have done. Europe started liberalising the electricity and gas market a decade ago, and right now we are closest to those genuine, long-desired results. The proposed measures place at the forefront the consumer, who in a well functioning internal energy market will be able to choose from among suppliers and opt for the best one based on his own judgement. I anticipate that an open and transparent internal market will also ensure access to the market for small companies and in this way increase competitiveness, improve conditions for investment in power stations and transmission networks, increase the security of supply and promote sustainable development.\nThe main precondition for a well functioning internal market is standard and clear rules that apply to all participants in the market. Different models in individual Member States will certainly not lead to the goal that has been set.\nAllow me this opportunity to congratulate the Slovenian Presidency. Indeed the Presidency has been focused entirely on coordination and finding a compromise, and despite the strong national interests of Member States, it achieved agreement in the Council.\nIn the European Parliament, too, the path to compromise is not easy. The pressures, including from Member States, are great. I trust that Parliament will confirm the compromise we drew up in the ITRE Committee. Despite the differences in the positions of the Council and Parliament, I believe that the compromise proposed by Parliament is a good basis for further negotiations and coordination among European institutions.\nFinally may I also express my anticipation that in fulfilling the objectives of the third liberalisation package, the French Presidency will invest maximum effort in coordinating work, seeking a compromise and pushing private interests entirely to one side. I also anticipate a similar commitment to finding timely common solutions on the part of the Commission. In this context I am grateful to Commissioner Piebalgs, who stated at the beginning that we must reach a common agreement by the end of this year.\n(Applause).\nHannes Swoboda\n(DE) Madam President, what particularly surprises me about this debate is that even though some of our fellow Members want to prescribe in detail how competition should take place - and there are several possible ways of doing this - they are not prepared to talk about more transparency, more incentives to save energy, opportunities for energy consumers to lodge complaints or the fight against energy poverty. These are precisely the points that I believe are crucial in the Morgan report and naturally also in the De Vits report. This is the signal we need to give to the citizens of Europe tomorrow: we have to say that people must not be affected by the full force of price rises but that there must be opportunities to avoid them by increasing the amount of energy saved and particularly by having more transparency in order to be able to choose other energy providers. I believe it is crucial to give citizens this freedom of choice and also to give them the opportunity to complain when malpractice occurs. I am very thankful to Mrs Morgan for this part of the report.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate\n(FR) Madam President, listening to all my colleagues this afternoon, I am quite surprised that we all agree on the need for a European single energy market, although I feel that we must work on energy efficiency so that consumers pay as little as possible. We are therefore all agreed on the objective to be achieved, but not on how to go about achieving it.\nI have not heard much talk or mention of the agreement secured by the Council on 6 June, which does not necessarily require the unbundling of ownership, production and distribution. Now, if unbundling and the single market had triggered a fall in energy prices, it would be apparent. This is not the case in Spain or in the UK, and the Commission has never been able to prove it.\nTherefore, let us stop demonising certain companies which actually have the industrial expertise and have shown that they can operate efficiently. When we want interconnection, when we want solidarity, it is doubtless preferable for Member States to be free to choose from several models.\nLet us put an end to that single way of thinking that rejects the third way, that makes accusations of a 'Franco-German cartel'. We know that the market alone cannot solve the issue of monopolies, which in any case exist everywhere. The Member States have taken a step towards an acceptable package that can be fine-tuned. If we do not accept it, we risk having no text at all, while our citizens are kept waiting. More importantly, I do not want to see good guys on one side of this Chamber and bad guys - i.e. those who still want to reach an agreement with the Council - on the other.\nAngelika Niebler\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we all feel the same about the situation on the European internal market. We do not yet have a European internal market; we have national markets and we have monopolies or small groups exerting control over national markets. We have a situation where energy prices are rising every day and we are dependent on imported energy. We all see the situation in the same light and we also agree on the goal.\nMany Members have spoken about this. We want more competition, falling prices, and more investment in transmission networks. We want interconnectors to be extended in order to permit cross-border exchange. We do not want the market to concentrate around only a few large suppliers. The big question is how we want to achieve that, and that is where we come to a parting of the ways. Many Members, including some who have spoken today, believe that ownership unbundling is the universal remedy. I say that if we go down this road only, then we are not seeing the full picture. This is not the way to go!\nAllow me to refer to certain countries; Mrs Grosset\u00eate also mentioned the situation there. In Spain, two companies, Endesa and Iberdrola, produce 48.3% and 28% of the electricity respectively. In Sweden, Vattenfall is boss, also producing almost 48% of the electricity generated; while in Italy the market is concentrated around ENEL, which has a 43.9% market share. Nobody can tell me that ownership unbundling will achieve what we want, which is to break up the market and create competition.\nTherefore, I would ask all fellow Members to support Amendments 165 and 168 tomorrow rather than continuing to see only half the picture. As for everything else in the Morgan report, I find it very satisfactory. My compliments to Mrs Morgan; she has shown a great deal of energy and commitment. However, on that particular matter, I think we should also open a second way for the countries that have unbundled in a different manner. Countries in which the state still owns 100% of the production and transmission systems - such as Sweden, for example - should not be required to change this. However, nobody can say that tomorrow we will be passing a package that includes equal competitive conditions. That is a fallacy.\nNorbert Glante\n(DE) Madam President, I do apologise for my late arrival. There are some very long distances to walk in this building and the lifts can be very slow sometimes. The matter we are discussing today and will vote on tomorrow is not necessarily a question of left or right - although it is true that we also have that type of debate in this Chamber - but rather a disputed question about what instruments will achieve our goal. We are agreed on the goal, and Mrs Niebler has just underlined it: we want more competition on the European market; we want prices to be more transparent; we want pricing that is easy to understand. The instruments to achieve this vary greatly, however.\nI am among those who proceed on the basis that the option of finding a third way can also be an instrument. We have included these suggestions here and emphasised repeatedly that this has not only initiated the third way, the Council's original suggestion, but that we have also introduced additional regulatory components because the third way that came to us from the Council was not enough for us.\nFrom this angle, we should talk about it again, take stock of ourselves and allow this second and third way as an additional option. What is even more important is that we in Europe achieve uniform regulations, and that the regulatory authorities in the Member States are given consistent competences and independence to implement what we decide here, because in the end, they are the ones who have to respond on the ground.\nRecent weeks have given us two succinct examples of the Commission's function of overseeing cartels and competition, although the timing does allow pause for thought. However, a company that violates antitrust law deserves to be punished; that is all there is to it. I do not make any concessions here. Nevertheless, we should discuss whether ownership unbundling is really the instrument we should be equipping ourselves and the regulators with, or whether we should offer more flexibility.\nI hope that tomorrow's vote will be such that we still achieve a compromise. Otherwise, we will definitely have to work with the Council to seek and find a compromise. Thank you very much and apologies again for being late.\nIeke van den Burg\n(NL) Madam President, speaking on behalf of the Dutch delegation of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I should like to compliment rapporteur Mrs Morgan most sincerely on the way in which she has prepared this opinion. We are in favour of unbundling. Indeed, this has already clearly been put into practice in the Netherlands with good results, including with regard to investment and the well-functioning market in both the gas and the electricity sector. I think it very important to carry this through at European level, too. I should also like to mention in this connection that Mrs Kroes, the Commissioner for Competition, has done her bit for this development, including by means of what she is currently doing with RWE and E.ON. I think that this is an important development, therefore.\nThe other aspect is energy poverty, and that is why we consider this a most excellent report by Parliament and hope that it goes through.\nArlene McCarthy\nMadam President, I should like to give an example of where the Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers can make a real difference. A small community organisation in Manchester asked for my help in resolving a complaint with its energy supplier. For five years the company was reading the meter but failing to send any bills. In March 2008, the group received an invoice for five years' electricity use totalling GBP 7 540.37, pushing them into debt.\nEnsuring consumers are aware of their rights - in this case the simple right to receive a regular bill - is fundamental to putting consumers in control of their energy consumption. At a time when every consumer in every country across Europe is facing soaring energy bills, we must give consumers the information and tools to manage their bills, cut their use and costs and, at the same time, contribute to cutting CO2 emissions.\nI urge the Commission to be bold in taking forward a charter of rights, working with regulators, Member States and companies to proactively promote and publicise these rights, and to abandon the notion of a watered-down checklist, which will not deliver a fair deal for consumers faced with today's complex energy challenges and prices. If we can have a charter of rights for air passengers, why can we not have one for energy consumers? Commissioner, I should like you to answer that question.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Madam President, the European Energy Agency in Paris has determined that we will experience an energy shortage in 2012. It is therefore vital that we devote our urgent attention to creating incentives and investing more in transmission networks and production. The present Electricity Directive provides a good incentive to also shorten the approval periods so that it does not come to a blackout in 2012.\nIt is also important to strengthen the national regulators so that we can accordingly push for the interests of our own industry in neighbouring countries. It would also be good if we had a regulatory agency for nuclear matters that could make pronouncements on safety and security according to the French model. That is something that ought to be discussed this week in the Council too.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) I congratulate the Rapporteur Ms. Morgan. The certainty of energy supply for the Union requires huge investments and investors need a predictable environment, which encourages long and medium-term investments.\nIn the context of climate change, the Union intends that, by 2020, at least 20% of its energy shall come from renewable sources. Access to the network for energy transport is essential. In recent years, we have had a rapid increase in energy prices and the European citizens are expecting an answer to their problems from the European institutions. The accessibility and availability of energy are essential for economic and social life.\nThe setting-up of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators will ensure better protection of the energy consumers' interests. I consider amendment 18 of the Chichester report to fall under the competence of the Council.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) I would like to congratulate the Commission on the proposed package of documents for the creation of a realistic EU internal energy market, as well as Mrs Morgan, who, in her report, has presented us with an expert assessment of the market situation along with possible solutions.\nI am glad that attention has been drawn to the existence of 'energy islands'. Lithuania is part of such an 'island' in terms of electricity and, in fact, gas supply. This country's situation after the closure of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in 2009 will become unpredictable because of its sole dependency on Russia. Therefore, integration into a common EU transmission system is vital.\nThe suggested implementation of ownership as the sole means of guaranteeing the independence of transmission operators along with the exclusion of third countries from controlling the transmission systems and transmission systems operators, the priority of the protection of consumer interests - these are the means that will guarantee energy security in the EU and the wellbeing of its people.\nVladim\u00edr Remek\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, as shadow rapporteur for the report by my fellow Member, Mr Chichester, I was one of the supporters of the proposal that in the event of a vote in the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, the Commission's original plan of one vote per country should remain unchanged. Putting into practice the so-called 'weighted' voting procedure would give an advantage to the bigger Member States, to the detriment of the smaller ones. The majority in the ITRE Committee supported the fairer principle and I believe that the same will happen during the vote in plenary. The majority of national energy market regulators also favoured the launch of an agency that would be more than just another bureaucratic debating club with no powers. Applying unequal conditions to the individual countries would basically devalue the effort to create a respected and functioning agency. Different national energy markets came into being under different circumstances and still have not been efficiently linked up. The Agency has the opportunity to help to achieve real interconnection.\nJim Allister\nMadam President, I strongly support unbundling between generation and transmission, but I would say that it needs to be thorough and I question whether it can sit comfortably with any state ownership in either sector. I say that in part from the experience of my own constituency, Northern Ireland, where we have recently entered a single electricity market on the island of Ireland, with much promise about what that would do for stability of prices.\nThe experience has been rather different. A couple of weeks ago I visited one of the largest consumers in my constituency. Three years ago they were paying just marginally more than the average UK price. Today, under the single electricity market in Ireland, they are paying 76% more than the average UK price. In effect they have been decoupled without gaining any advantage, and the primary reason is, I believe, because that single market was created without adequately dealing with the issue of the state monopoly of the ESB.\nLambert van Nistelrooij\n(NL) Madam President, to be brief, there has been a real decline in investment in the electricity market, particularly in cross-border grids, in recent years. A new legislative package is now needed, therefore, and Commissioner Piebalgs knows as well as my fellow Members how important the level playing field is to me. Splitting ownership is the best option, then. Fortunately, the Energy Council has realised that this level playing field does not exist at present.\nThe ban on takeovers by horizontal non-split undertakings in the coming years is justified, therefore; there is to be no cherry-picking of smaller-sized vital undertakings by non-split organisations. This gives organisations in the Netherlands, producers such as Nuon and Essent, the opportunity to develop a European outlook. It creates breathing space for the coming period. From this point of view, I wholeheartedly support the splitting of ownership now being proposed in Mrs Morgan's report.\nNeena Gill\nMadam President, I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work and support her position on getting a fairer deal for consumers.\nMrs Morgan has rightly indicated that this is best achieved through ownership unbundling and that means we need to reduce the concentration of power of large companies and allow better access for small and medium-sized enterprises.\nBetter regulation of electricity and gas markets is critical to ensuring fair competition and better prices for consumers and I am deeply concerned that soaring energy prices are putting Europeans increasingly at risk of energy poverty, especially the elderly, who are the most vulnerable.\nGiven the current conditions in energy security, we absolutely need a well-functioning gas and electricity market in Europe. Recently we have experienced problems with the supply of energy and this report rightly seeks to resolve some of these.\nI have received a number of letters from my constituents in support of Amendment 159 which would prohibit Member States from authorising the construction of new power stations that emit more than 350 g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt produced.\nJoel Hasse Ferreira\n(PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the regional integration of cross-border electricity markets must be seen not only in the light of what is being discussed today, but also in terms of creating a single European market for electricity.\nFurthermore, the range of energy issues in the European framework deserves a more comprehensive and forward looking approach. Hence the initiative we took on Parliament's STOA Panel, drawing up energy scenarios for the coming decades, using 2030 as a base reference. Parliament and some parliamentary groups are divided on the question of unbundling energy transmission networks and energy companies. This is sometimes of more relevance to national situations than to political and strategic choices.\nHowever, I would like to be perfectly clear on this matter, ladies and gentlemen. Personally I am in favour of a clear unbundling between the networks\/companies operating on the electricity grid and the company or body managing the grids. I believe that this is the most beneficial solution for consumers that guarantees the possibility of setting up a truly internal market for electricity, which should be one of our objectives as MEPs and European citizens.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) European electricity and gas consumers have the right to a universal service, that is, the right to be supplied with a specified quality, at reasonable prices that are easily and clearly comparable and transparent.\nI welcome the fact that the report by my fellow Member, Mrs De Vits, on the proposal for a Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers, is also included in the debate on the third energy package. At present, energy consumer rights are laid down in various EU documents, but are often not transposed into national legislation. I welcome the rapporteur's effort to make consumer rights more transparent. Consumers must have freedom of choice and the possibility of changing their supplier free of charge. They must understand what they are paying for. I want to thank the rapporteur for incorporating in her report my amendments in which I called on the Member States to provide financial support to consumer organisations in the area of consulting services. Consumer organisations do a great deal of work on behalf of energy consumers, especially vulnerable consumers.\nAnni Podimata\n(EL) Madam President, let me first endorse what the rapporteur, Mrs Morgan, has said about the need to protect the more vulnerable consumers in particular against rising fuel prices. I also agree on the need to combat energy poverty and vigorously promote investment in renewable energy sources.\nHowever, as for the major question of creating a single internal energy market, achieving this aim depends not only on mapping out and applying a single strategy, but also on awareness of the specific characteristics of each participant.\nComplete ownership unbundling is not an unconditional, essential precondition for investments in improving the network. The delays in modernisation may be due to a misguided energy policy that treats energy as a product to be distributed primarily with the aim of increasing profits rather than improving the system.\nJanez Lenar\u010di\u010d\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (SL) Permit me first one general thought. The fact is that in the Council we most certainly agree with the finding that the situation in the internal energy market is neither good nor satisfactory. For this very reason we have spent long years striving to reach an agreement on establishing a proper internal market in gas and electricity in order to establish true competition and equal conditions for all players in this market.\nOn 6 June, as I have already said, major progress was achieved in the Council. Today several speakers, including Mrs Morgan and numerous others, have stressed that complete ownership separation is the most effective method of establishing a proper internal market for gas and electricity. This is also the view of the Commission, and it is also the view of the majority of Member States. Nevertheless, a compromise was necessary to reach an agreement. This compromise was not easy, but we were able to secure it.\nThe compromise means that three options are available, and the Presidency's assessment is that the application of these options in line with the envisaged rules can lead us to a situation where equal conditions will be established for all players in the internal gas and electricity market, once true competition is established.\nAllow me to make some other points. Mention was made several times of the issue of poverty, or rather energy poverty. This is a very important issue, especially in circumstances where energy prices are rising in leaps and bounds. The fact is, however, that this is the responsibility and duty of individual Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity - and as was emphasised by Mr H\u00f6kmark and certain others, Member States are duty bound to ensure access to energy for the poor.\nThe issue of consumer protection was mentioned several times. In fact a considerable number of speeches discussed this. May I underline that the text of the Presidency, or the Presidency's compromise, contains a most important provision in the area of consumer protection. It requires that consumers are adequately informed about their consumption of energy, about the costs arising from this, and that they are informed with sufficient frequency to be able to settle their spending obligations. Moreover the possibility is of course envisaged of changing supplier at any time and also of being promptly and regularly informed of prices set by suppliers.\nSeveral speeches, including that by Mr Turmes, mentioned the powers of the Agency. The Agency will be no paper tiger. Particularly with regard to matters involving two or more Member States, the Agency will have the option of making binding decisions, which is a major innovation.\nSeveral speeches, especially those by Mr Biruti, Mr Zile and others, mentioned the problem of small and isolated systems. I should point out that the text of the agreement reached in the Council envisages derogations or exceptions for such countries and for such markets, up until their isolation is remedied.\nA word or two perhaps regarding renewable sources. Our package, the Council's package, envisages priority access to networks for energy generated from renewable sources.\nMay I conclude with the following: I would like to salute the determination shown by Mr Vidal-Quadras to ensure that Parliament and the Council should reach agreement in the second reading. This is also the wish of the Council. The Presidency agrees that the agreement secured on 6 June has created the possibility of such an agreement being reached by the end of this year. This is especially important in the light of our ambition to achieve an agreement on the climate and energy package as early as possible in 2009.\nI have ascertained from this debate that the positions of the Council and Parliament are not that far apart. I would like to thank the rapporteurs and everyone who participated in the debate. I think this debate will be most useful for the Council in its further work and in reaching our common agreement within the desired deadline.\nAndris Piebalgs\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, today's debate very much focused on households, and the Commission proposal goes beyond households: it is definitely also industry. With all due respect to vulnerable consumers, what we are trying to achieve is a well-functioning market. You cannot ever subsidise everything because it means taking from somebody to give to someone else; I know that there will be vulnerable consumers that we should pay due attention to, but basically what we are trying to achieve is a well-functioning interconnected European market based on the values and experiences that we have in other fields.\nThe energy market has only recently started to develop and it takes some time to put into place, but I believe that today's debate really shows that the Commission proposal addresses all the main areas correctly.\nThere have been slight doubts about whether the change is necessary. I believe that change is necessary: not only the Commission's annual reports, but also the competitive sector inquiry has demonstrated this. Parliament's Vidal-Quadras report said that we need a change and we need proposals.\nOn the ground we have also had some developments in competition law recently. The difficulty is that if you can discover anti-competitive behaviour, it is all ex-post: you impose fines but the consumer has already paid the price. So it is structural change that is necessary and I believe that the proposals we have made are a response to it.\nThere are a couple of issues where I believe we are going beyond just an energy market proposal. Let us start with the Agency. I completely agree that an independent Agency is a key. The difficulty I have is that we also have case-law which draws boundaries, and the Commission is made as strong as possible, within legal boundaries, if we have an Agency.\nOn comitology, I understand Parliament's questions about comitology but this is the procedure that we have and we should use this procedure to achieve the result.\nOn infringement, it was Mr Paasilinna who said that this is the procedure we have, and we should use it because we do not have another procedure.\nThere was a question about consumer rights. There is subsidiarity, but aviation is more of a cross-border issue. I believe the Energy Charter is more closely related to subsidiarity. We set a good example, but should we really bring in European legislation? I have some doubts. I am not necessarily against it, but there is a boundary between where European legislation is needed and where national law starts in this respect. At any rate I believe these are the issues, and Parliament will surely find the right approach.\nI shall finish by thanking Mrs Morgan, Mrs De Vits, Giles Chichester and Alejo Vidal-Quadras once again for their excellent reports. I think that the debate clearly showed that there was a lot of internal debate, and I am looking forward to the vote tomorrow, because the Vidal-Quadras report paved the way for us to make the proposal. I know that Council and Parliament will need to work to find a balanced solution. Both sides are ready. Much depends on the vote tomorrow where Parliament will stand, but I clearly understand that there is political will to find agreement and we will have the proposal adopted during this legislature for the benefit of our consumers, and I think that is great.\nCommission's position on amendments by Parliament\nMorgan report\nThe Commission can accept Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111,112, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152.\nThe Commission can accept Amendments 10, 11, 16, 24, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 55, 59, 60, 66, 68, 72, 79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 87, 95, 98, 100, 109, 110, 115, 117, 121, 125, 127, 138, 153, 155, 165, 166 and 167 in part.\nThe Commission cannot accept Amendments 3, 7, 9, 13, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 49, 51, 52, 53, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 75, 76, 78, 81, 90, 91, 96, 103, 104, 116, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171 and 176.\nVidal-Quadras report\nThe Commission can accept Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22 and 29.\nThe Commission can accept Amendments 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31 and 32 in part.\nThe Commission cannot accept Amendments 13, 19, 23, 26, 27, 30 and 33.\nChichester report\nThe Commission can accept Amendments 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 64 (regarding paragraph 3), 64 (paragraph 4), 66, 72 and 75.\nThe Commission can accept Amendments 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19 (paragraph 1a), 19 (paragraph 1da), 19 (paragraph 1db), 19 (paragraph 1de), 19 (paragraph 1df), 19 (paragraph 1dh), 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, 64 (paragraph 1), 68, 70, 74 and 76 in part.\nThe Commission cannot accept Amendments 8, 17, 18, 19 (paragraph 1c), 19 (paragraph 1d), 19 (paragraph 1dc), 19 (paragraph 1dd), 19(1dg), 20, 21, 22, 25, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 46, 50, 52, 55, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64 (paragraph 2), 64 (paragraph 5), 64 (paragraph 7), 64(8), 65, 67, 69, 71 and 73.\nEluned Morgan\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I should like to thank all those who contributed to a very interesting debate.\nI would like to reflect a little on what Mr H\u00f6kmark said about developing the best possible system to ensure security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness. I must say that the position the Council has come up with goes too far. I am disappointed with the informal agreement in Council, because it has bent too much to the will of the minority. I understand, of course, that there is a time and a place and a need for compromise, but I think it has gone too far.\nI am also disappointed with the Commission for not being firmer in defending its own position - do not forget that it is your own position that we are defending now. I would just like to remind you that you have backtracked and we have not - we are defending your position.\nWhat we have at the moment is not good enough. We have large industrial energy users coming up to us and asking us privately to unbundle, but when we tell them that we will try to do that and ask them to come and say that to us publicly, they say they cannot do that as they are vulnerable! That means that the consumer is not in charge - the consumer is not in control of the marketplace - and that is problematic.\nI think there has been a misunderstanding on the matter of special tariffs for vulnerable customers. I stand by this issue. I want to see special tariffs for vulnerable customers. However, we are not asking the EU to do this: we are asking Member States to do it and to take this issue seriously. We, the Socialists, in particular, have listened to what our constituents are saying: that high prices are hurting and that they are really suffering at the moment, and we want the issue of energy poverty put on the agenda in the Member States. It is not even there at the moment. Only one country in Europe has a definition of energy poverty. Put it on the agenda in your Member States because it is not there now!\nAlejo Vidal-Quadras\nMy first words should be to say thank you for the excellent cooperation and the wonderful atmosphere that there has been in the work of preparing these reports, especially with Mrs Morgan, Mr Chichester and all the shadow rapporteurs.\nWe will see, ladies and gentlemen, that what this is about is knowing what we want and whether we all want the same thing, because what cannot logically be said is that ownership unbundling is some sort of magic master key that opens every door and is going to give us the solution to all our problems. No one has said this.\nOwnership unbundling of the transmission system and generation is a necessary requirement, which helps, facilitates and makes it possible for the market to function correctly, for third parties to enter the market and for investments to be guaranteed. It does not, of course, solve all the problems. Who said that it would? No one did.\nIn my country, for example, where we have ownership unbundling, there are many problems. The regulators' agency is not independent enough. There is a tariff deficit, there are regulated tariffs that distort the market. We are an energy island that needs more interconnections. Does this mean that if we have ownership unbundling all of this will be solved? No, because this is due to other causes that have nothing to do with ownership unbundling. We will see if we use logic, aside from politics and national interests.\nConsequently, President-in-Office of the Council, I cannot speak on behalf of Parliament, because I am one MEP among 785, but I can give you an impression, after 9 years in this House, and I can tell you one thing: there is a will to reach an agreement, there is a will to negotiate, there is goodwill, President-in-Office of the Council, but tell the Council that this goodwill needs to be mutual. If it is mutual, as occurred in the case of the gas market, we will be able to arrive at formulas that fulfil our objective.\nGiles Chichester\nrapporteur. - Madam President, this has been a fascinating debate, the House is divided on a different basis from our normal left\/right or even north\/south antagonism and it has been intriguing to me, particularly as a British Conservative, to see how my colleagues from certain Member States have wriggled and twisted and turned in their desperate efforts to prevent change. I never thought my German colleagues would be much more conservative (with a small 'c', as in 'resistant to change') than myself.\nWhen I first came to this Parliament, I was a strong supporter and advocate of something called privatisation - Mr Allister mentioned this a while back - that is to say, removing ownership of these enterprises from the state and allowing private enterprise to run them more efficiently than a state monopoly does. Now I appreciate that this is an alarming concept in Europe, but it may be that the ultimate direction in which we should go is beyond ownership unbundling to privatisation.\nCan I say that I personally am persuaded of the importance of addressing fuel poverty: I think that block tariff reform could be a way to go. It seems quite extraordinary that we should be putting the marginal price of energy lower than the initial price, and thereby encouraging consumption when surely we live in an age when we want to encourage conservation and efficiency and make it more expensive to consume more.\nIt may be that market forces will do the business for us: the oil price is making people in my country change their habits and I notice - and I enjoy reminding my German colleagues of this - that E.ON has seen the benefit of market forces in its decision to unbundle its distribution service.\nWe may need a fourth package in the future, but I congratulate Mrs Morgan on what she has achieved so far. Hold the line: we look for a big majority tomorrow, because eventually those who are consumers in markets which are not unbundled will look to the other markets that are unbundled and say: 'We want that please'.\nMia De Vits\nrapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, I am pleased that today speakers have discussed not only unbundling but also consumer rights. Looking ahead to Thursday's vote, I should just like to request support for three amendments seeking to further improve these consumer rights and to inform consumers regularly about their consumption. I do not think it too much to ask that this be done four times a year. There is also the concept of smart meters and the imposition of a deadline for their roll-out, namely 10 years after the entry into force of the Directive.\nFinally, on the subject of the national action plans to tackle energy poverty, I should just like to say to Mr Vidal-Quadras that we are only citing the social tariffs as an example to Member States of a possible instrument. These are three amendments for which we request support in order to improve consumer rights.\nTo conclude, Madam President, I am disappointed with the Commissioner's response, in which he leaves the areas of consumer rights to Member States in the name of subsidiarity. I would say to him that we are moving towards a European market in energy, and so tomorrow British citizens will be faced with a German supplier. As I see it, this European market in energy means that we must also be able to give consumers a European answer.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote on the Morgan, Vidal-Quadras and Chichester reports will take place tomorrow.\nThe vote on the De Vits report will take place on Thursday 19 June 2008.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi  \nin writing. - (RO) As regards the \"Chichester\" report regarding the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, I support the setting-up of this Agency and its provision with increased competences.\nAs regards the amendment for establishing the headquarters of this institution in Brussels, first of all, I would like to request the opinion of the legal service regarding our competence, of the European Parliament, to make a decision in relation to this subject because, personally, I have the feeling that this subject falls under the competence of the Council.\nAs regards the city of Brussels, I confess that I have nothing against the city itself.....I even like it.\nNevertheless, I believe the vote the Irish gave last week is a new extremely important political signal, including in relation to the opinion citizens have on the Brussels bureaucrats and the way in which decisions are made in the \"closed\" circle in Brussels.\nAll the European citizens must feel part of and close to the European decision-making process. It is important that all the European citizens feel they are represented and the institutions should have locations across the entire Union.\nLet's bring the institutions closer to citizens and to get the citizens involved into the European debate! If we centralize everything in Brussels, we will jeopardize the European construction.\nI definitely reject the idea of establishing the headquarters of this new institution in Brussels.\nDesislav Chukolov  \nin writing. - (BG) Mr. President, Dear colleagues,\nthe notion of 'energy mafia' exists in quite a few countries in the world. This is a blanket term we commonly use to refer to things in energy that are unclean. Unlike in other countries, however, the energy mafia in Bulgaria is making a clear sign that it is about to enter politics, and that, not by going through fair and transparent elections but in the way it has always acted, buying its way in.\nThe newly established Leader Party is entering the political arena in my country in an exceptionally aggressive way, now and then coming close to the style of the Movement for Rights and Liberties in terms of roughness and ruthlessness. Both parties are buying votes but while the MRL operates exclusively in the interest of Turkey, the Leader Party and its leader, Hristo Kovachki, operate solely for their own benefit.\nDuring the most recent elections in my country, citizens were notified by mail that their utility bills would be wavered provided if they voted for that party.\nMr. President, do exercise your influence over Bulgarian politicians to prevent a situation that might, after the 2009 election, return MEPs to this House who would have been elected in this unfair and ugly way.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I fully support my colleague's report, and would have done so in person had it been possible. However, I do not believe that this means we cannot build new coal-fired power stations.\nThe coal industry is once again at the forefront of a revolution, with the 25th anniversary of the miners' strike fast approaching. This revolution is based on the clean coal and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies that are being developed at the Hatfield colliery near Doncaster. CCS technologies would mean that 90% of a power station's CO2 emissions are captured and then transferred to geological storage. Such technology could revolutionise the way in which the UK satisfies its energy requirements.\nIn addition to the benefits of using a natural resource that we possess in abundance, the jobs created within a nascent clean coal agency could give a lifeline to mining communities that have seen a quarter of a century of economic and social decline.\nUrszula Gacek  \nin writing. - (PL) I am very pleased to accept Parliament's position on the European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers, particularly the proposal that the consumer be charged on the basis of actual energy consumption.\nI hope this will lead to bills for all individual gas consumers being drawn up in kWh, and not, as in Poland, for example, in cubic metres.\nBilling according to the energy value and not the volume of gas consumed would definitely meet with the approval of consumers, who suspect, justifiably or not, that they are paying for 'air'.\nTunne Kelam  \nin writing. - I agree with the Commissioner that if we agree to continue with the present status quo, protecting national interests more than standing up for common European interests and values, then the EU will be unable to address the dramatic challenges we face.\nThat is why the EU needs real reform.\nI strongly advocate a national regulator - an efficient Agency having sufficient authority to supervise the fair functioning of the common electricity market.\nHowever, my key point is this: as the EU is based on the principles of free competition, we are committed to ensuring, not only in theory but also in real life, that in each Member State the consumer will be able to choose freely and without any difficulties between different electricity producers and distributors and to decide which is the best offer. So the real challenge for the Member States is to decide between consumers' interests and those of the big companies. Hesitations about putting the individual, the consumer, into the centre of our activities lead logically to events such as the Irish negative vote and the increasing indifference of our citizens towards the EU.\nFull ownership unbundling is a key condition for reform. The 'third way' is not a credible solution.\nJanusz Lewandowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, the way events are developing, EU energy priorities - environmental protection, security and market liberalisation - continue to be important, but their hierarchy needs to be re-evaluated. Spiralling prices for energy carriers, with social tensions and anxieties, plus the Gazprom offensive - all this requires quick reactions and exposes the need for security and cheapness of supplies. Meanwhile, the ambitious aims set for environmental protection and the battle against global warming are of a longer-term nature and bring with them challenges that could lower the competitiveness of the European economy and multiply social tensions.\nOne might regret that in our circle of 27 countries there is no determination to create a common and competitive energy market. Demonopolisation is meeting with resistance in several countries that are otherwise considered to be leaders in European integration. There is also a lack of solidarity in contacts with external oil and gas suppliers. Bilateral negotiations, such as those entered into in the west and the east of the European Union with Gazprom, are weakening our bargaining position. They are making it easier to engage in energy blackmail with those Member States that were historically linked to a monopoly supplier.\nDifferences in national interests are making themselves felt in the construction of a single energy market. The European Union needs proof that it will be able to arrive at satisfactory compromises despite differences. There is no area more important than energy, in which the capacity to build unity over and above divisions must be demonstrated.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski  \nMadam President, access to energy at manageable prices is one of the elements accelerating social integration and access to knowledge and education. Energy supplies have a significant impact on the way citizens function in social and economic life. Unfortunately, it is often the case that consumers, particularly private individuals and small- and medium-sized enterprises, have limited potential to make their interests effectively known where energy access is concerned.\nAccording to the data available, the Member States have not satisfactorily discharged their duty to provide targeted public services that reach the least privileged social groups. The European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers should resolve some of the problems that exist in this area. This Charter is supposed to be based on the idea of cooperation between Member States with full application of the principle of subsidiarity, bearing in mind that certain practices in the sphere of consumer protection may result in different outcomes in different Member States.\nEnergy suppliers and network operators should place themselves under an obligation to function with respect for the environment and to restrict radioactive waste as far as possible. Using renewable energy sources and guaranteeing consumers the right to make a conscious choice of energy source should also be made a matter of priority.\nLimits should also be placed on the formalities arising from a change in supplier; consumers should be protected against dishonest sales practices and consumer organisations should be set up. Above all, though, a solution must be found to the problem of energy poverty in order to enable all citizens to take part in many important areas of life.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"2008 annual report on the CFSP - The implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy - Non-proliferation Treaty (debate) \nPresident\nI welcome Baroness Ashton, and declare the session open.\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe report by Gabriele Albertini, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and the basic choices of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in 2008, presented to the European Parliament in application of Part II, Section G, paragraph 43 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006,\nthe report by Arnaud Danjean, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy,\nthe oral question to the Council by Gabriele Albertini and Arnaud Danjean, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the Non-proliferation Treaty - B7-0009\/2010), and\nthe oral question to the Commission by Gabriele Albertini and Arnaud Danjean, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the Non-proliferation Treaty - B7-0010\/2010).\nGabriele Albertini\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union needs to adopt a new approach and make a joint effort when facing global challenges. The powers recently obtained due to the entry into force of the treaty mean that Parliament engages in frequent, cooperative and effective discussions with our primary interlocutor, Baroness Ashton, who has the honour of acting as the new Vice-President\/High Representative for the first time.\nHer mandate was subject to our consensus vote in January and, on several occasions, the Parliamentary Assembly was promised that the Council and the Commission would be constantly involved in all the most important aspects of European security and defence. As the report itself confirms, the High Representative is therefore called upon to appear before the European Parliament and to consult it frequently and regularly.\nWith the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union's external action takes on a new and important dimension, but actually achieving this goal also depends on the European Union having the necessary budgetary resources. The European Parliament has a key role to play in its capacity as custodian of the democratic legitimacy of external action. The creation of a European External Action Service will give a diplomatic body and system to the European Union which, until now, has only been able to rely on national representation.\nThe roles of the official representatives, whose appointment is the responsibility of the High Representative, assume great relevance and topicality. Nonetheless, as stated in the report, Parliament is calling for greater powers of ballot and control over the roles and the mandates of individual representatives, upholding the principles of transparency and merit that must guide the High Representative when appointing candidates. It is hoped that we will eventually achieve a situation of double hatting - except in the case of the special representative, whose range of action should be regional - and that we will therefore benefit from economies of scale, making the European Union's external action more efficient and, at the same time, less costly.\nAfter an initial introductory section on strategy, the report addresses the issue of European foreign policy by theme and geographical area. The European Union must make its presence felt with the international organisations to which it is allied, especially the United Nations, the chief custodian of global security. It must play an important role, not only from the viewpoint of its seat on the Security Council, but also in terms of staff and delegations connecting the two bodies. We call on the Vice-President\/High Representative to let Europe fulfil its ambition to become an active, strategic and independent partner of a great ally such as the United States in order to respond to the global challenges of terrorism, finance, and the often fraught relationships with industrial giants such as Russia, China and Japan.\nThe report continues with a geographical analysis of what we can hope to achieve. In the Balkans, the theme of enlargement is introduced: the report praises the gradual achievement of the stabilisation process in Kosovo, where the European Union is present with the EULEX mission, but efforts must still be made to ensure that accession standards are respected for many countries close to candidacy for accession - Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina.\nIn the chapter concerning cooperation with the East and the Black Sea regions, the report deals with the issue of the European Union's energy supply security and dependency. In the section on Russia, it calls for a new partnership and cooperation agreement to be signed. As far as the South Caucasus is concerned, the report calls for the territory of Georgia and its ethnic minorities to be left intact, and for conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria to be resolved\nMiddle East: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the European Union must play a stronger political role in relaunching the peace process following the Council decision of 12 December 2009. Union for the Mediterranean: resolution of the Turkey-Cyprus conflict. Asia: Afghanistan, critical period for the establishment of a new government after the elections; Pakistan's key role in the fight against terrorism; concern over the violation of fundamental rights in Iran. Africa: positive contribution of the Somali coast defence mission. Latin America: need to create a stable and enduring partnership for relationships between the European Union and Latin America.\nI will listen to my fellow Members' comments with great interest and respond to them at the end.\nArnaud Danjean\nMr President, Baroness Ashton, the report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy that we are presenting today is an annual document by Parliament that provides a kind of interim assessment of the European Security and Defence Policy and submits proposals aimed at improving the effectiveness and visibility of that policy.\nThis year, this report lies within a very specific context, and thus it should become a force for proposals. This specific context is characterised by the combination of three major cycles.\nThe first concerns the 10 years of the European Security and Defence Policy, which we celebrated at the end of 2009. The last 10 years showed that Europe was able to conduct civil and military operations at the scene of more than 23 crises. That fundamental achievement can be built on further. It shows that there is a demand for Europe and that the Union has the institutionalpolitical and operational ability to rise to these challenges.\nThe second important cycle is, of course - and Mr Albertini mentioned it a moment ago - the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. The change in terms of security and defence goes far beyond a strict semantic adjustment. Indeed, the ESDP becomes the Common Security and Defence Policy, the CSDP, and it must take on a new dimension. The Treaty has enriched the range of tools and the scope of security and defence policy, particularly with the inclusion of assistance clauses, of solidarity clauses, with permanent structured cooperation and, above all, with the creation of the European External Action Service and of your role as High Representative, Vice-President of the Commission.\nLastly, the third major event that characterises the context in which this report was drafted is that NATO which, for 21 of the 27 members of the Union, is still the main reference point where the collective security of the European continent is concerned, is currently revising its strategic concept and that this assessment by NATO should also lead us, the Union, to define more clearly the conditions of this partnership, which remains fundamental.\nIn this context, the report's objective is less about persisting with a doctrine than about providing you with a necessarily evolving roadmap, for all the new institutions that are being established and that must learn to work together. The aim is to make the Union more credible, more effective and more visible in security and defence terms. In this regard, the European Parliament absolutely must be given a greater degree of responsibility in these sensitive areas if a policy of which the main aim is to guarantee the security of European citizens is to be fully legitimate.\nWith this report, we wanted to stress the following points. Firstly, we wanted to point out that, above all, the European Security and Defence Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy are there to serve the people of Europe, to guarantee and improve their security. This political ambition is not superfluous; it is not for appearances' sake. It corresponds to a need for our continent to strive to ensure its own security but also to contribute to the stability of the world around us, to tackle the crises and the threats that are developing in our environment. Beyond the traditional armed conflicts that continue to take place in our immediate environment, Europe must be able to express its interests and defend them in the face of the new threats - I am thinking in particular of piracy and cybercrime.\nWe also felt it important to stress just how unequalled Europe's added value in crisis management is, thanks to the variety of solutions it provides and the balance that it strikes in each of its operations between the civil and military dimensions. Moreover, in this regard, I reject the criticisms that some may direct at the Union's security and defence policy, namely to suggest that it is all about militarisation. I sincerely believe in the complementary nature of the civil and military instruments that the Union possesses, and the recent crisis in Haiti, where you went - and I believe that you were able to observe this good cooperation - testifies to the need to link our civil and military resources so that we can cope with natural disasters and major crises.\nPrecisely on the subject of these operations, we were anxious to review them all, to highlight what we feel are their strengths, but also, at times, their weaknesses - they have to be acknowledged so that things can improve. We were also anxious to highlight several regions of strategic importance for the security of the Union and to encourage the Council and the Commission to speed up the implementation of global strategies, in particular, for the Horn of Africa and for the AfghanistanPakistan region.\nIn the area of capabilities - both civil and military - which is a crucial issue in terms of the credibility of our policy, the challenge is to improve the Union's responsiveness. We have to be able to mobilise more quickly and more effectively the material resources and the competent personnel that the Member States have at their disposal. However, we also have to have the capability, by means of a security and defence industry that is efficient, that combines invaluable technological knowledge and that also accounts for hundreds of thousands of jobs in Europe, to provide ourselves with equipment programmes corresponding to these forecasted needs.\nThe Europe of industry and defence has begun to organise itself on our continent through the defence package. Issues relating to industrial and trade cooperation with third countries should be addressed quickly, particularly in the light of the recent problems encountered by European industries trying to access the US market, for example.\nThis is a brief, inevitably overly brief, summary of the priorities that appear in this report and which represent all the challenges that you will have to take up. Parliament is ready to play its full role, its full positive and constructive role, to help you realise this ambition, which is a common ambition. Moreover, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to thank all the political groups that have worked hard to enrich this report. We have all cooperated very well together to maintain a high level of ambition, while taking account, of course, of the characteristics of each of our groups.\nI would also take advantage of this opportunity, Baroness Ashton, to address with you today the issue of nonproliferation. On the eve of the NonProliferation Treaty review conference, to be held in May, the European Parliament wished to review with you the Union's commitment in relation to the fight against proliferation, and to the control of arms and disarmament; this is the meaning behind the oral questions that have been put to you and which you will answer shortly.\nThe international context seems to offer new opportunities on the eve of this review conference. Firstly, President Obama has strongly affirmed his ambition to have a world without nuclear weapons and his commitment to actively seek the ratification of the Comprehensive NuclearTestBan Treaty by the United States. Secondly, the conclusion with Russia of a new agreement designed to supersede the START Agreement seems to be going well and, lastly, we have the launch of the negotiations on a new disarmament treaty that would prohibit the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.\nWith regard to the reduction in nuclear arsenals, the priority is obviously to reduce the two main arsenals, that is, those of Russia and the United States, which it is commonly believed still alone hold nearly 95% of all the nuclear weapons that exist on the planet. We therefore welcome the commitment made by Presidents Medvedev and Obama to conclude a new reduction agreement in the near future. How does the Union, in this context, envisage supporting these efforts and cooperating with the United States and Russia?\nThe Union must also rise to the challenges posed to the nonproliferation regime and, more specifically, to those with which we are confronted by the two major proliferation crises that are Iran and North Korea, which remain the main threats to international security. Will the Union continue to commit itself effectively, completely, to resolving these crises, particularly in the case of Iran? We expect your guidance on this major issue, Baroness Ashton. Moreover, the Union has a role to play in promoting cooperation relating to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. You know that this is an important challenge. What actions are being carried out in this context, and what is your strategy on the matter?\nLastly, the European Parliament wants the Union to be a proactive force during the forthcoming NonProliferation Treaty review conference. The adoption of a new ambitious and balanced common position by the Union is crucial if the latter is to defend its position. Where do the Member States stand in this regard?\nCatherine Ashton\nVice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, thank you very much. I am delighted to be with you to discuss the big questions on Europe's international agenda.\nI want to begin by thanking Mr Albertini and Mr Danjean for their excellent reports. You have underlined, if I may say, the number, range and urgency of the challenges we face.\nFrom strengthening the rule of law in Kosovo to working with the emerging powers to share responsibility for global governance, from promoting peace in the Middle East - and may I join Vice-President Biden in condemning the decision to build 1 600 new houses in East Jerusalem - to providing shelter to the surviving victims of Haiti's earthquake, which I visited last week, from dealing with proliferation problems such as Iran, to devising effective answers to 'new' challenges such as energy, climate change and cyber security.\nEurope is going through a phase of building something new, where people have to adjust their mental maps and institutions have to find their new place. Doing so is messy and complicated - but also exciting, for it is impossible to overstate how important this moment is. Right now we have a chance to build what many across Europe - and many in this House - have long wanted: a stronger, more credible European foreign policy.\nOf course, the European External Action Service will be key to delivering this. We have to build a system that is robust, that will enable us to deal with the problems of today and the new problems that will arise tomorrow.\nFor years, we have been trying to frame and implement comprehensive strategies but the structures and the systems we had made this difficult. With the Lisbon Treaty and the External Action Service, we should now be able to achieve this.\nAt the heart of everything we do lies a simple truth: to protect our interests and promote our values, we must be engaged abroad. No one can hope to be an island of stability and prosperity in a sea of insecurity and injustice.\nOurs is, if I may say, a world in flux. To engage with it effectively, we need to frame it first. To me, the most striking features of today's world are twofold. One, a deep interdependence in political, economic and security terms: technologies, ideas, diseases, money - everything moves. We are connected in ways we have never been before. Two, the fact that power is shifting, both within political systems - roughly from governments to markets, media and NGOs - and between political systems - roughly from the old 'West' to both the east and the south. Both are the outcome of globalisation which is not just an economic but also a political phenomenon, both in its manifestations and, of course, its consequences.\nThink of the rise of China and others as major political players, or consider the political impact of the financial crisis. The debts are in the West; the surpluses are in the East. This redistribution of financial power is also shaping our political discussions. Or consider climate change, which is not just an environmental problem but also one with security and geopolitical ramifications.\nSo we have to deal with complex problems and we do so in a new geopolitical landscape. We need to adapt. This is not a time to fly on auto-pilot or to stick to the narrow defence of national ways of doing things. It is a time to be smart and ambitious.\nLet me give you some figures to illustrate the point. Europe's share of the world's population is 7%, down from 25% a century ago. In the last 60 years, our share of global GDP has shrunk from 28% to 21%. The economies of China, India and others are racing ahead at 10% per year.\nEconomic weight is translating into political clout and self-confidence. You feel it everywhere: from negotiations on climate change to Iran, to big energy deals in Africa or central Asia. If we pull together, we can safeguard our interests. If not, others will make the decisions for us. It is that simple, really that simple.\nMy preference is clear. We should respond as Europeans. Firstly, by pulling together, because unity is a pre-condition for influence and, secondly, by taking action, because the answer to a problem cannot be a paper or a meeting. If you want results, you have to act and sometimes take risks. And yes, there is a tendency in Europe to put process ahead of outcomes. Thirdly, by being both principled and creative because we must be both: principled in the defence of our values and creative in how we forge bespoke solutions to complex problems.\nAs Mr Albertini's report rightly points out, 'a new approach is needed if the EU is to act collectively and meet the global challenges in a coherent, consistent and efficient manner'. Out of that general picture come several core objectives: firstly, to ensure greater stability and security in our neighbourhood, by promoting political and economic reform. This is important in itself for reasons which are very self-evident, but our wider international credibility also depends on getting our neighbourhood right.\nSecondly, to address global security challenges, the challenges of our time. For this, we need comprehensive strategies, strong international organisations and the rule of law both within countries and between them.\nThirdly, to build a network of strategic relationships with key countries and organisations because the problems we face cannot be solved by any single actor.\nOn top of all this comes the creation of the European External Action Service - a means to achieve the other three objectives and a way to deliver the promise of the Lisbon Treaty.\nThose are the core tasks to which I have devoted my time since I took on this role. I first went to Washington and New York, which was the right way to start our important relationships with the United States and the UN. I have since been to Moscow, Kiev, the Balkans and Haiti. I will go to the Middle East next week and again to New York at the end of the month. In between, I have chaired the Foreign Affairs Council three times, attended the informal European Council and met with the College of Commissioners. I have worked hard to build the necessary internal consensus, visiting various EU capitals: Berlin, Paris, London, Vienna and Ljubljana. Naturally, I have spent a significant amount of time on the creation of the External Action Service and that will continue in the weeks ahead, including working with you.\nThat is also why, because of the interests of this House, I have ensured involvement from the European Parliament in the steering group that I set up. I will also discuss it this afternoon at the Conference of Presidents. When I come to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 23 March, we will have an opportunity for in-depth exchanges in the presence of all the relevant committees.\nAny time you create something new, there will be resistance. Some prefer to minimise perceived losses rather than maximise collective gains. I see it differently, and I hope the Parliament does too.\nThis is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build something new, something that finally brings together the instruments of our engagement in support of a single political strategy. A huge chance for Europe. We should not lower our ambitions but, rather, give ourselves the means to realise them. A moment to see the big picture, to be creative and take collective responsibility. If we get it right - and we must - then we will be able to shape a European foreign policy for the 21st century with an external service designed to achieve it: one where we mobilise all our levers of influence - political, economic, development and crisis management tools - in a coordinated way. A service that represents the European Union in geographic and gender terms too. I believe that is the only acceptable way to go.\nLet me illustrate what I have in mind when I say 'comprehensive approach' with a couple of examples.\nThe Western Balkans - I was pleased to travel to the region recently. In a way, the Balkans is the birthplace of EU foreign policy. More than anywhere else, it is where we cannot afford to fail. My purpose was to establish good working relations with political leaders, engage with civil society about what belonging to Europe could mean, and ensure coordination among the different EU actors on the ground. One conclusion I drew was that the region is making progress, even if it is uneven and incomplete. The European perspective remains the overarching framework - both as our objective and as the main incentive for reform. As I stressed everywhere, progress on the path to the EU depends on the commitment to reform at home. On human rights, the rule of law and regional cooperation.\nWe are backing up our strategy with available foreign-policy tools. In Kosovo, we have our biggest civilian mission and it is a success. In Bosnia, we have adjusted ALTHEA as the situation has stabilised and developed a training programme. We are pushing the European message hard in the run-up to the October elections. Throughout the region, we are making progress on visa liberalisation and people-to-people contact.\nSo our Balkan Strategy is what it should be: strategic in its objectives, multi-faceted in terms of instruments and tailor-made in terms of implementation.\nThe second example is the Horn of Africa. It highlights the interplay of state fragility, poverty, resource competition including water, with piracy, terrorism and organised crime. The only possible answer is a comprehensive one, which is exactly what we are doing. Our naval operation Atalanta has been widely hailed as a success. Our next step is to further develop our options for the transfer of suspected pirates for prosecution in the region. We are adding a training mission for the TFG in Somalia, with deployment expected in the spring. Through our Stability Instrument, we are funding flanking measures to build capacity, to train the maritime authorities and moving ahead with long-term development work in Yemen and Somalia on poverty, literacy and health.\nThe way we are engaged in Georgia follows the same script. When a frozen conflict erupted into open conflict in August 2008, we responded immediately. We took the international lead, we brokered a truce and deployed a 300-strong monitoring mission in record time. Since then, we are engaged across the spectrum of Community and CSDP means of preventing a return to violence and building stability in Georgia and in the region.\nWith the UN and OSCE, we lead the Geneva talks, the only forum where all concerned meet. We hosted a donors' conference for reconstruction and economic support in Georgia and we included Georgia - together with Armenia and Azerbaijan - in the European Neighbourhood Policy. We continue to promote those reforms and closer ties. We work on trade and visa liberalisation and we support confidence building measures to rebuild ties with the breakaway republics.\nThere is more work to do in Georgia, and we have a full agenda when we discuss it with Russia, as I did only 10 days ago with Sergey Lavrov. In this case, we demonstrated what the EU can do when we fully mobilise the resources we have. Those who were involved in those incredibly hectic weeks have told me that what was done in this case was exceptional. So we need stronger structures, more flexibility and better preparedness if we want Georgia to be the benchmark for our action in the future.\nLet me turn to our common security and defence policy and say that I agree with the broad thrust of the Danjean report about how important our missions are. They save lives, create the space for functioning politics to work and they mean that Europe can draw on all its instruments of power to meet its responsibilities.\nIt is striking to me how far we have come in the last ten years. More than 70 000 men and women have been deployed in that period in more than 20 missions. We do crisis management in a European way with a comprehensive approach in support of international law and agreements and in close cooperation with our key partners. We work well with NATO together in Bosnia and Herzegovina and along the coast of Somalia. In Kosovo and Afghanistan, it is more difficult because of the political issues. We need to get this right so I am working with the NATO Secretary General to improve EU-NATO relations in practical areas and set a positive climate. Let us see how we can develop our relations pragmatically. The UN is another key partner. There are many good examples of EU and UN cooperation on the ground - the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and indeed Kosovo. In recent times, we have got to know each other better, but we can and should strengthen this by focusing on areas such as planning and the sharing of best practice.\nIn the Danjean report, and more widely, people raise the question of whether it is time for the EU to have its own permanent operations headquarters. It is a serious issue that needs a serious debate. No one contests that we need a headquarters able to plan and conduct military operations. The question is whether the current system, relying on SHAPE or national headquarters, is the most efficient way or if something else is better.\nWe often find ourselves approaching this in terms of structures. I think we first need to do the analysis of what functions we need to perform. I see three main functions from which the decisions should flow: one, the ability to plan and conduct military operations, including advance planning, and to be able to react quickly when there is a need; two, the ability to develop civil-military coordination in a more structured way to maximise our capacity; and, three, the ability to establish links with others, to optimise the overall coordination and what we loosely call the 'international community'. If we use that analysis as the starting point for our discussions, we should be able to establish the necessary common ground and move forward to determine what we should do.\nThe report also calls for the establishment of a Defence Council, an idea that I know has been around for some time. The next meeting in April will follow established practice, but at the informal Defence Ministers' meeting, a consensus emerged based on my proposals to hold Foreign Affairs Councils in Ministry of Defence formation. That would enable Defence Ministers to come together and take decisions, for instance, on capabilities development.\nMy last point on that relates to the suggestion of a civil protection force. Let us start with the Haiti lessons learned exercise which is now under way. Then let us apply the spirit of Lisbon and see what options we have to mobilise assets of Member States together with EU instruments to support either the UN, OCHA or to act as the EU itself. The watchwords ought to be maximising synergies and avoiding 'hard' or artificial splits between how we handle EU internal and external crises.\nLet me, finally, turn to the question of non-proliferation, given the oral question that has been raised. I want to mention briefly the two most significant items: first, the Non-proliferation Treaty review conference scheduled for May in New York. I will be participating with the aim of ensuring that we do get a successful outcome. We should make no mistake: the entire treaty-based non-proliferation system with the NPT as a cornerstone is under growing pressure. To respond, we need to be ready to make our contribution: on access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, in particular, for developing countries, while avoiding proliferation risks, and that includes work on the multilateral nuclear fuel cycle approaches - I think 84 countries have benefited from EU assistance programmes; with progress on nuclear disarmament - politically, this is fundamental to create a constructive atmosphere; and by addressing regional proliferation crises, in particular with Iran, which has the potential to derail the conference.\nAs you know, the EU is leading the efforts to find diplomatic solutions. We fully support the Security Council process on further restrictive measures if - as is certainly the case today - Iran continues to ignore its obligations.\nSecondly, there is President Obama's Nuclear Security summit. We share the goal of the summit, namely, to strengthen the security of nuclear materials and prevent terrorists from getting access. I think that the EU has been providing support to the IAEA since 2004 to assist countries in this area and we will continue to do so.\nFinally, let me come back to where I started. The demand for European global engagement is enormous. We have to ensure that supply matches demand. The Lisbon Treaty gives us that chance. We should act in line with the letter and the spirit of the treaty, remembering why European leaders negotiated the treaty in the first place. I think the reason was clear: to build a stronger, more assertive and self-confident European foreign policy at the service of the citizens of the European Union. I know many in this House share that goal, and I count on your support to make sure it happens.\nNadezhda Neynsky\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - Mr President, I want to congratulate Mrs Ashton on her encouraging statement.\nAt the same time, as the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets on the CFSP, I want also to underline that it is of core importance that she initiate an audit of past and present CFSP operations and CSDP civil missions in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses. This way, the European Union will be more effective in providing security, will increase its autonomy and will most notably make wiser use of the relevant budget, which regrettably continues to be underfunded.\nIoannis Kasoulides\non behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, it is frightening to imagine a nuclear device, small in size but potentially lethal for millions of people, falling into the hands of terrorists. Some years back, we could say that this was highly unlikely. We cannot say this any longer.\nCountries like Iran and North Korea are in the process of acquiring, or have the capability to acquire, a nuclear weapon. A scientist from Pakistan has allegedly sold know-how to Iran, and North Korea has traded in nuclear material. Nobody is against Iran acquiring nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but patience is running thin if Iran is buying time in the dialogue with the 5+1, which we support.\nThe dual-track approach and the preparation of smart targeted sanctions by the UN Security Council are warranted. Nuclear proliferation is at such a critical point that it has led personalities like Henry Kissinger to argue that only the move towards total elimination will ensure non-proliferation and global security.\nSo we support an international treaty for the progressive elimination of nuclear weapons, a halt to the production of fissile material, bringing forward the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the reduction of nuclear warheads, START, etc., bringing all treatment of nuclear fuel under the control of the IAEA and strengthening its mandate and its verification powers.\nAdrian Severin\non behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, I hope we are agreed that we need a proactive foreign policy guided by our European common goals and based on our common values. This policy should recognise the indivisibility of security in the globalised world as it is a source of solidarity of interest both within the European Union and outside.\nSuch a policy requires and presupposes an adequate institutional instrument. Thus, the priorities are clear and I am happy to see that these priorities I am going to mention are the same as those of Mrs Ashton. An efficient External Action Service, a vibrant neighbourhood policy, a visionary enlargement policy, well-structured partnerships with the strategic players, both traditional and emerging, an effective strategy in coping with the global challenges, namely energy security, non-proliferation, migration, transnational organised crime, transnational expression of poverty, cultural conflicts and so on.\nAs far as the External Action Service is concerned, we need an institution which should be built not only on the principle of political and budgetary accountability but also on the principle of effectiveness. We should not build a service which preserves the old national competition or the present bureaucratic structure. The two-headed head of the European external actions must wear both hats at all times, thus assuring the unity of the service and the coherence of its action.\nOn external neighbourhood policy, we need an approach which does not exclude Russia and Turkey. On the Black Sea, we have to move from synergy to strategy. On frozen conflicts, we need regional initiatives and mechanisms of regional cooperation and security under international guarantees.\nOn global security, we need a new arrangement reflecting the post-bipolar-order realities. We have to promote our values in the world but in a secular way and not as new crusaders.\nI think that these and many others are our priorities which circumscribe a Herculean task. Let us work together - Parliament, the Commission and the Council - to accomplish this task.\nAnnemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck\nMr President, High Representative\/Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. Madam Ashton, first of all, allow me to welcome you and say that I very much hope that your excellent and powerful presentation today will indeed herald the end of a particularly difficult period for all of us, which began in November when the Commission' previous term of office ended. If we can agree on one thing, it is this: we cannot really afford such long periods dithering. From the end of November until very recently, it seemed - and I am sorry to have to say this - as if the EU had disappeared from the world stage, or had come very close to it. Let me reiterate that we cannot permit that to happen under any circumstances. Because, obviously, the world will not wait for us. You quoted some figures which clearly illustrate that. However, we have also witnessed a series of events which have clearly illustrated it: the natural disasters that keep on happening, the horrific attacks that keep on happening, the fact that some governments in the Middle East, despite being democratic, have nonetheless taken decisions which have severely hampered the peace process, or the little that remains of it, and so forth. We therefore need a high representative\/vice-president of the Commission who will be in a position to be present on the ground and not only in the European decision-making centres, but also in those elsewhere in the world. Both you and we knew that you were taking on a well-nigh impossible task. I admire you for taking it on. We have promised to support you in it. We are pleased to have heard you speak today and to have been witness to your powerful statement about the European External Action Service, which we all need so desperately. If there is anyone who still has the will to put an end to what the English call turf wars - one side fighting with gloves on and the other without - then I am sure that, if we all work together, we will be able to prepare ourselves well for what lies ahead. Thank you for your attention.\nFranziska Katharina Brantner\nMr President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, Baroness Ashton, we listened attentively to what you had to say. Unfortunately, we must observe that we will probably have to wait for some time yet before you develop plans for specific future projects from your essay on your principles, which we actually feel able to support.\nAllow me to say a few words about the External Action Service, however, about which I really had expected to hear something much more tangible from you. You repeatedly said that it is about coherence, which is the order of the day. In many cases, we need joint plans and programmes from the External Action Service and the Commission. Anyone who is in favour of leaving numerous policy areas to the Commission or the Council Secretariat should be honest and admit that he or she is in favour of the status quo, of the system under the Treaty of Nice.\nFor us, an important first point is to what extent we are able to achieve a majority on all the issues relating to civil crisis prevention, civil crisis management and reconstruction. In our view, this is all about the things that are covered by the term peace-building, which is to say, conflict prevention, early warning, conflict mediation, reconciliation and short to medium-term stabilisation. We need a corresponding organisational unit for that purpose and so we are proposing the creation of a 'crisis management and peace-building department'. I would therefore like to ask you your position on the creation of such a department. At this point, I would also like to really emphasise that we support both the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) budget and the Instrument for Stability being incorporated into the External Action Service, yet not as part of, and subordinated to, the Crisis Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD), but instead, in a new structure which I hope that you will create. I would like to hear your position on this.\nA second point that is important to us is the connection between the traditional foreign policy areas and new areas such as energy policy, climate policy, justice and internal affairs. What structures are you planning in order to give the External Action Service systematic access to these global policy spheres of the EU and its Member States?\nThere is one more point that is important to us: this must be a modern service with a balanced staffing policy. This week, we celebrated 8 March. It is thus absolutely clear that we believe the rights of women must be firmly anchored in this service and that women must participate in it. Baroness Ashton, a number of female MEPs have written to you to ask that you ensure that, from the very beginning, UN Resolutions 1325 and 1820 are implemented in the institutional structures of the service. So, my question in this connection, too, is: what are your plans in this regard?\nAs I said, you have our support en route to a sound common External Action Service. I look forward to your answers.\nCharles Tannock\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, the Lisbon Treaty is now a legal reality in the international order, even if it lacks popular democratic legitimacy because most EU citizens, including Britain's, were denied a vote in a referendum. Nevertheless, the ECR Group and British Conservatives are committed to positive engagement and to moving on within the new institutional framework.\nWe would like to see a similar approach from the Member States and the Commission. It is deeply ironic, in my view, that the first major institutional development under Lisbon, namely the creation of the European External Action Service, threatens to push the EU back towards the very introspection and bickering that Lisbon was supposed to have eradicated. Undoubtedly, the creation of the EAS must be subject to debate and consensus about who does what and does it best, but the CFSP foreign policy elements must remain firmly within the Council.\nBut we also need strong leadership, in theory enabled by the Lisbon Treaty, to forge a lasting vision for Europe's diplomacy in the world. We look to you, High Representative Ashton, to seize the initiative and to assert the authority and leadership provided to you by the treaty, to knock heads together if necessary and to chart the way forward. We will support you in your efforts if you can show that you are up to the daunting challenge.\nThe EU has had many years to think about this Service, so this muddling through and hesitation that we currently see does no credit to the EU's ambitions to play a global role in foreign policy through the CFSP.\nThere are more general points. The Albertini report, which I support strongly, sets out the Union's foreign policy priorities and rightly endorses the EU membership aspirations for the Western Balkan countries, particularly Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro, for which I am rapporteur.\nBut it also mentions the transatlantic alliance and NATO, which we believe are the cornerstones of the EU's foreign security policy. It rightly emphasises the EU's responsibility for resolving the frozen conflicts, particularly in Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh in our immediate neighbourhood, and good relations with Ukraine.\nBut, finally, Taiwan is also mentioned as an important partner for the EU and it should also be enabled to participate actively and fully in international organisations, according to the EU's policy and the 'One China' policy.\nWilly Meyer\nMr President, Baroness Ashton, Mr Albertini already knows the reasons why my group is tabling a minority opinion on the report on foreign, security and defence policy. We are basically doing so, Baroness Ashton, because we have reached a conclusion. In the countries surrounding us, in the European Union, security and defence policies now have nothing to do with defending territory: security policy is now a projection of foreign policy.\nWe believe that the prime objective of foreign policy should be achieving disarmament at international level: zero armament, using pragmatic policies that respond to the current causes of insecurity in the world.\nThe main weapons of mass destruction in the world today are hunger and poverty. These are weapons that we cannot fight using military force. We therefore believe that, based on this consideration, we should commit to a transitional security system that will enable the gradual demilitarisation of all security in the world. We obviously do not agree with the Union being linked to NATO, among other things, because NATO's strategy has been to choose to give a military response to insecurities such as organised crime and terrorism, which have never been matters for a military response.\nI believe that this growing militarisation requires the Member States to have increasingly powerful arms industries and to spend more on weapons. We are at our highest level in terms of civilisation and in terms of weapons, more so than in the Cold War, which is a far cry from pragmatic policies moving towards demilitarisation.\nNo, neither terrorism nor organised crime should be military targets. They should be targets for the police, for the international court services, for the intelligence services, for putting criminals in the hands of the courts, but they should not be the target of a military response.\nTherefore, we do not agree with this military focus. We do not agree with having United States military bases in the European Union. We do not want this for any state, we do not want any powerful state to deploy military force in the world, and we therefore believe that respect for international law is very important. We do not agree with the recognition of Kosovo - we do not believe in the recognition of any state that uses force outside of international law - because we believe in international law, and we therefore believe that the decolonisation process of the Western Sahara should be in this report. We do, of course, also ask for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which as NATO itself acknowledges week after week, is causing innocent civilian deaths. We do not, therefore, agree with taking the path of militarisation.\nFiorello Provera\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, Baroness Ashton, Mr Albertini's truly excellent report contains a passage that I consider to be of great political importance: the part connecting the phenomenon of immigration to the policy of cooperation with developing countries.\nTo control such enormous migratory flows by means of repressive measures and domestic policy alone would be unthinkable. Distributing migrants throughout European Member States would not resolve the problem either. On the contrary, it would encourage new arrivals. A key response for controlling migratory phenomena is the development of a cooperation policy, preferably coordinated at European level and aimed not only at economic progress, but also at social and democratic progress. Emigration must be a choice and not a necessity.\nIn order that this cooperation policy should be effective and reach those who really need it, it is crucial to promote good local governance, without which there would be inefficiency, corruption, wastage of resources and poor results. Ensuring local governance and the collaboration of governments is the goal of foreign policy, and cooperation must become an important instrument of European foreign policy: this is my personal message to Baroness Ashton within a sector that I hold very dear, in other words, cooperation.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, the fact that only very unspecific foreign policy goals were defined in the Treaty of Lisbon is coming back to haunt us now. There will probably also be a price to pay for the fact that, in Baroness Ashton, we have a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy without any real foreign policy experience who was foisted on the Union as the lowest common denominator that the Member States were able to find.\nIf we keep silent on all the important foreign policy issues, we, as Europeans, will be able to achieve just as little as a bunch of diplomats, who shake hands all over the world whilst professing different courses of foreign policy.\nThe disagreements about a European External Action Service, too, are something that we cannot really afford. This undoubtedly important new service should not and must not be run down, over the heads of the Member States, into a sphere of activity for Eurocrats.\nIt is probably time that we chopped our way out of the undergrowth in the establishment of this European External Action Service and that the EU was heard again in the outside world. It is also time that the new High Representative acted in a more sensitive way in respect of these matters, including, for example, in using all three working languages of the Union - thus including German - in the European External Action Service.\nWe must make the best use of the experience and good relations which individual Member States have with certain regions. Think, for example, of Austria's historical experience with the Western Balkans. In so doing, it must be clear that Europe's security is defended not in the Hindu Kush but on the external borders of the EU in the Balkans. The EU must stop acting as the extended arm and the funder-in-chief of NATO and the United States. European money is definitely better spent on FRONTEX than in the deserts of Afghanistan.\nCatherine Ashton\nVice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, if I might just give some comments directly on the issues and questions that have been raised.\nTo Mr Kasoulides, on the Non-proliferation Treaty review, it is vital that it succeeds above anything else. We believe we have to take practical steps: a comprehensive test ban treaty should come into force; the fissile material cut-off; support for peaceful uses of nuclear energy to find safe ways of making sure that we avoid proliferation - for example, the contributions we make to the nuclear fuel bank - and support for a very strong and effective IAEA. We must work of course especially, as we have said, in areas like the Middle East, which means that we have to continue to put pressure on Iran and address the issues that are raised there.\nMr Severin, on the External Action Service and the priorities that you gave, well, we are in the same place - exactly so. It is very important to me that the Service has political and budgetary accountability, exactly as you have said, and it must be effected in this double-hatted way. It is going to be essential too, as you have indicated, that we draw in and discuss these issues with other key partners. I think you mentioned, for example, Russia and Turkey. Well, Russia I have already visited. I was spending part of the weekend with the Turkish Foreign Minister: a real opportunity to talk in much greater depth about that relationship for the future. So I would agree wholeheartedly with the priorities that you set out and thank you for those.\nMrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, thank you for your kind words. I think it was not so much that the EU disappeared from the world stage. It is that the inevitability of that hiatus, of having a Commission that was effective, has now been resolved. And, for my own part, it has been extremely important because, until the Commission came into force, I did not even have a cabinet, never mind an External Action Service. And we are now in a position where we can begin to put the resources together.\nI think it is also absolutely right that you raise the importance of being visible on the ground. My difficulty, as you know, is that I have not yet learned how to time travel. But I think it is absolutely essential that, as we look ahead, we look at the priorities that have been set out with which I think this House will largely agree and make sure that my actions are addressed to those priorities, one of which is setting up the Service, which does not yet exist. It does not have a staffing structure. It is not there yet. But when it does have that, we will be able to demonstrate the force of Europe in the best sense of that word across the world.\nMrs Brantner, again your common theme to me of trying to get as much detail as possible: I think it is very important. Some of the issues that you have raised are very critical. We do not want duplication within the different institutions in terms of what we do. We want the geographical desk approach to what we do, and I agree with you about peace-building: that it is a very important part of where the EU should act.\nAnd in a sense, it comes into building the different elements of what we do well - the work we do on state-building, on justice, on the rule of law, the work we do on development programmes, the work we do on tackling the issues of climate change, the work that we do on providing support to governments and to people - all of that is engineered to make us more secure, stable and prosperous but actually, by doing so, we are creating a more secure, stable and prosperous world.\nThose objectives are extremely important.\nI agree with you completely about women. We need to get more women, for example, into our policing missions, where there are very few that I have seen so far. We need to make sure that women are firmly integrated into the service at all levels. That is a challenge we need to make sure that we address. But, most importantly, what I would say to you is that the External Action Service is at the service of the whole of the European Union.\nSo, what we do on justice and home affairs across the world, what do parliamentarians wish to do with other parliaments? We must use the Service as we build it to be able to be your servant in helping you address those issues on the ground. I think on those issues, we are in exactly the same place.\nMr Tannock: assertive leadership that is up to the challenge. Well, I hope that you will start to see what you would recognise as assertive leadership. It is very important, as you say, that we address some of these critical issues: the Balkans and the transatlantic relationship are absolutely core and central to what we do. It is why we spend a lot of time in discussion with the United States and why I personally spend a lot of time in discussion and dialogue with them and, of course, Ukraine.\nI hope that you were pleased with my decision to go to the inauguration and then to invite President Yanukovich to come to Brussels where he spent one of his first days. He was inaugurated on Thursday. He was in Brussels on Monday in order to begin to further and deepen that relationship for the future.\nMr Meyer, you talked about the issues of foreign policy and disarmament and the issues of whether it is appropriate to think in military terms. Let me just give you two very quick examples, one of which I have already described which was at Atalanta and the importance of having a comprehensive approach to what we do.\nWe have, off the coast of Somalia, ships which have been extremely successful this weekend, by the way, with the French navy in capturing pirates who were determined to create havoc in that part of the sea. Linked to that is making sure that they are prosecuted and treated properly by reference to our own judicial standards in the countries of that region.\nLinked to that is the development programme that the Commission is working on to try and support the economy in Somalia so that it improves. Linked to that is the work that we are about to start on training people to be able to provide security in the region. In other words, it is a joined-up approach and it is a comprehensive approach. That means you use the tools that you need to be able to address the problems that people face.\nAnother example: having been in Haiti last week, I must pay tribute to the Italians that I saw working there. People fresh from the tragedy of Aquila, but here we had the navy, we had the fire fighters, we had NGOs, we had civilians, we had doctors, we had psychiatrists, we had dentists, we had nurses, all working under the umbrella of the commander, actually, of the ship who had a hospital ship full of people who were being treated from the direct consequences of the earthquake. Young people with amputations; children who had terrible burns who were being treated; teams out there to support them.\nWhat I am trying to say is that I think you have to think about the comprehensive strategy and approach that we can offer that involves using the means that we have and using them to greatest effect.\nMr Provera, on development cooperation immigration, you make an important point, which is that, if people feel they have no other choices, then they will take risks, often with their lives, to leave the country where they live and were born and want to live. Most people want to be able to live in the country in which they have grown up.\nSo the important thing about development, in my view, has always been to be able to support the economic livelihoods of people in order to enable them to be able to stay and live where they wish to live in order to be able to get the educational support, the health support and so on.\nThat is going to be a very big part of what we are doing on the ground, and that helps particularly in states where instability, because of climate change, could be very difficult.\nFinally, Mr M\u00f6lzer, do not be so pessimistic, is what I want to say to you. It is not about operating above the heads of Member States. It is about building something uniquely European - not the same as what happens in Member States, whether it is Germany, Italy, France, the UK or wherever. It is not the same. We are building something different that is about long-term security and stability, economic growth on the ground that we can contribute to that is in our interest but that actually is also about the values that we hold dear.\nAnd, as for my languages, oui, je peux parler fran\u00e7ais, mais je ne suis pas tr\u00e8s bien en fran\u00e7ais. Ich habe auch zwei Jahre in der Schule Deutsch gelernt, aber ich habe es jetzt vergessen.\nSo I can do the languages, and I will get better and better. I look forward to getting to the point where I can have a real conversation with you in much better German than I can do today.\nElmar Brok\n(DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, the Albertini and Danjean reports, as well as the motion for a resolution on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, show that important decisions will soon have to be taken and that we need to prepare for that. Allow me to single out a couple of further examples. I believe that the European Union now has an important role to play in a crucial phase in which the aim must be to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons and that there needs to be a real flurry of activity in the 5+1 group, specifically in connection with the preparation of a UN resolution and the possible extension of sanctions, in order to prevent the advent of a new nuclear State by non-military means. The dramatic situation in the Middle East, and the resolution of the problems there, is connected to this, directly or indirectly.\nBaroness Ashton, I would like to thank you for travelling to Kiev to talk to President Yanukovich. It will be of crucial importance to succeed in bolstering such countries so that they do not make any wrong decisions and to be clear that a customs union with Russia and a free trade zone with the European Union are not compatible and for the advantages of making the right choice to be made clear.\nI have one more comment to add. In contrast to many foreign and defence ministers, we will exercise the necessary patience to build a sound External Action Service with you. We want this External Action Service. It must be successful. It is a precondition for our ability to speak with one voice. It would be wrong to take excessively quick and thus wrong decisions. We are not under time pressure here - we need a sound result. We do need to consider, however, that, in its history, the Union has been successful where the Community method was applied and that, where it has acted intergovernmentally, it has rarely or never succeeded. It must therefore be clear that those things that are Community policy must not be stealthily transformed into intergovernmental policy via the External Action Service. We need to build in safeguards to this effect so as to secure the efficiency of the unitary service but, at the same time, also the Community policy and the rights of the European Parliament that that involves - in respect of the budget, budgetary control and the granting of discharge - as well as political supervision rights on the part of the European Parliament. We hope for positive collaboration.\n(Applause)\nHannes Swoboda\n(DE) Mr President, I address you, Baroness Ashton, as Vice-President of the Commission, but also as High Representative - as, in contrast to the foreign ministers, I assume that, as High Representative, you also have some degree of political responsibility to this House. Today marks 100 days since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. There are two imminent and significant decisions to be made in terms of our direction of travel. One of them - as you, too, said at the beginning - is to expand foreign policy because the climate, energy and other matters are part of foreign policy, and the other is creating a dynamic and effective External Action Service.\nSpeaking of energy policy, Copenhagen showed that, if we are not united, if we are fragmented, if every Head of Government believes that he or she has to produce something specific, we will achieve less than we would otherwise have done. Not that we would have achieved something amazing, given the position of China and of the United States, but the terrible soap opera that was Copenhagen really should not be allowed to happen again.\nTherefore - and I agree with Mr Brok in this regard - we need to obtain a sturdy External Action Service. I, like many of us, am not surprised, but am nonetheless appalled, to see how many of the foreign ministers are making problems for you out of petty jealousy. We are saying this very plainly. Many do give you their support, but many are making problems. They simply cannot tolerate the fact that they no longer have the lead role to play and are instead foreign ministers again. At the end of the day, being a foreign minister is not a bad job, and it does not need to mean that you should decide every detail of what goes on in the European Union. For that reason, we also say clearly from here that we will use our parliamentary capabilities to the full not to prevent something, but to build something constructive. An External Action Service is constructive - as it says in the Treaty of Lisbon - when it is clearly subordinate to you, Baroness Ashton, and also, of course, when it collaborates closely with the Commission.\nSimilarly, we will not tolerate any legal activity that has hitherto been conducted using the Community method and that is to continue in that way under the Treaty of Lisbon suddenly becoming intergovernmental. That, you see, is exactly what many ministers and perhaps even many Heads of Government want, not only in order to undermine the Commission a little, but also to undermine Community law. That is not acceptable. A clear line must be drawn.\nHow that will play out in relation to the External Action Service is something there will be discussions about over the coming weeks - as before. I will thus also finish on something that has already been said. It is not a question of timing, even if we do want a solution quickly, but one of content-based presentation. It needs to be said once again, specifically to the Council of Foreign Ministers, that this Parliament will exercise its rights - no more, but also no less - in connection with the budget and the Staff Regulations because we have a goal, which is an effective and efficient External Action Service.\n(Applause)\nAndrew Duff\nMr President, I think we all expected that there were going to be teething troubles in bringing the treaty into force and we might apologise for failing to include a clause on time travel in the treaty, but the thing we failed to expect and cannot accept is a breakdown of trust between the Commission and Council in setting up the External Service. The solution is found in the treaty, which ought to be appreciated and respected scrupulously.\nArticle 40 protects the respective functions of the Commission and the Council. Both of them should apply pragmatism to ensure that a strong, effective, coherent diplomacy can be created across the breadth of policy. Catherine Ashton gives us a graphic description of the EU as a rising power from a declining continent. It is quite clear that the Afghan campaign is a problem that commands our attention; a profound reform of strategy and tactics is required. Our task should be to reassess the purpose, cost and duration of our engagement there.\nThe ALDE Group is anxious to press the accelerator on defence. We must find the common security interests of the 27 states and draw on comparable exercises in these states and a frank appraisal of the strengths of the ESDP missions, creating circumstances for bringing forward permanent structured cooperation in defence.\nReinhard B\u00fctikofer\n(DE) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, I would like to thank Mr Danjean for his excellent report, in which he explains where we now are in relation to the common security and defence policy. He also explains which points we do not have agreement on.\nIf Parliament adopts this report, it will have come further than the Commission and the Council, in a few specific points, as this report, for example, once again makes express and positive reference to the Barnier report on European civil protection. It is regrettable that Baroness Ashton has just rejected that idea once more.\nLady Ashton, I regret that one of the few points in your presentation where you said 'no' was to this idea of Mr Barnier's, whereas on most topics, you seem to be at the same place as everybody else.\n(DE) The new report, like the Albertini report, supports a Union training mission in Somalia. We in the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance reject that idea. We are stumbling into a mission, there, where it is clear neither what its added value is in relation to what has already been done in the region nor within what broader political framework it is based, or whether it actually makes any contribution at all to national reconstruction in Somalia. The likelihood is extremely high that we are paying over the odds in order to train foot soldiers who will then move on to the next warlord willing to pay the most.\nAllow me to make a third comment. This report talks of the goal of achieving Europe's strategic autonomy in the field of security and defence policy. For me, that is excessive - we are biting off more than we can chew here. I do not believe that any of the Member States is in a position to come up with the mammoth military expenditure that we would need if we were taking that wording of achieving 'strategic autonomy' seriously. As it happens, I also think that this would be a strategic mistake in any case. Europe must find its role in a meshwork of European and global security, and such a role cannot be that of a strategic stand-alone. It would therefore be better for us to agree, very rationally and realistically, to enhance those capacities and structures that give us the capability of acting more autonomously.\nPawe\u0142 Robert Kowal\n(PL) Mrs Ashton, Mr President, an influential Russian military officer has stated that if Russia had possessed Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, the invasion of Georgia would have lasted about half an hour. Meanwhile, France is selling Mistrals to Russia, despite the fact that the Sarkozy plan has not been implemented, and, at the same time, France is giving its support to the North European Gas Pipeline.\nIt is difficult to talk about security in Europe if we run away from discussion about the situation on the European Union's eastern border, but this is what happened throughout the work on the report, and I am speaking now, with great regret, to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. Efforts were made, at all costs, not to speak about matters such as the 'Zapad 2009' manoeuvres. Pains were taken not to speak about this, as if policy on security and defence - a common policy for the European Union, which it is our role to create - were the policy of only a few large countries. A great deal was said about what is happening a long way away on the other side of the world, and about what is happening in almost every part of the globe, but at all costs - this approach was also adopted by many Members - attempts were made to run away from substantial problems on the eastern border of the Union. It was an exceptional muddle of a kind of European megalomania and a disregard for the interests of some Member States. This is the reason why we are not going to endorse this report, but it is also a request I would like to make to Mrs Ashton.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nPresident\nExcuse me Mr Kowal, but you have spoken for one minute and 44 seconds instead of your allotted minute.\nSabine L\u00f6sing\n(DE) Mr President, on behalf of my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, I would like to make clear at this point that we are deeply concerned about the development of EU foreign policy towards militarisation and an increasingly interventionist policy. That is a dangerous development. I want to say, in all clarity, that we believe that a military approach to conflict resolution or to the supposed stabilisation of countries or regions is absolutely the wrong way to go to achieve greater security for the EU and the world. Military interventions - and Afghanistan, unfortunately, is a very current example of this - bring suffering, death and prolonged devastation, but no peace and no improvement in the situation as far as the resident population is concerned.\nThe Danjean report lists what are referred to as key threats that constitute a challenge for the EU's future security policy. One of these is climate change - something that has been overwhelmingly caused by the industrialised nations of the West. If people in the countries of the South have to take flight because they no longer have any water and food becomes scarcer and scarcer, they will represent a security problem for Europe. Such a view is cynical and inhuman. If States collapse as a result of neoliberal economic policy, they will constitute a security problem. What we need is not more military, it is a change, an end to the European Union's neoliberal orientation.\nThe European External Action Service, the European Defence Agency, the creation of a crisis management and planning directorate and the planned start-up fund to fund military operations are designed to make the EU a global player in military terms. We believe that moves towards centralisation in the European External Action Service are a dangerous and undemocratic development. The EU should assume a leading role in relation to demilitarisation and disarmament, especially in the field of nuclear disarmament. There needs to be a push for the obligation incumbent upon nuclear States under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is to say, complete nuclear disarmament, to be honoured at long last. This was a key promise that constituted the basis on which many States signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and have, as a result, durably refrained from acquiring nuclear weapons. Reliable guarantees of non-aggression are the best means of preventing proliferation as, otherwise, countries threatened with intervention will attempt to deter such an attack by means of acquiring nuclear weapons.\nIf nothing else, I would like, in this context, and in particular with regard to Iran, to point out and to warn that military operations or military activities of any kind to prevent proliferation are completely counter-productive and highly dangerous. We will be rejecting the Danjean report and have tabled our own resolution on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.\nBastiaan Belder\n(NL) Mr President, 'Chinese billions for the Balkans' is a recent newspaper headline which certainly calls for a European response in this debate since, at the end of the day, the new Chinese investment initiatives are targeting countries which have already become members of the EU or those which aspire to that status.\nCouncil and Commission, how do you view China's role in the Balkans? After all, it embraces a range of economic activities: from financing and carrying out major public works, to providing investment for industry and agriculture and buying up ports. The crucial point here is that the Chinese approach is definitely incompatible with Western standards. The big question now is: has this Chinese agenda on occasions thrown a spanner in the works of the EU's laborious enlargement agenda for this region? Whatever your answer may be, the Chinese clock is ticking faster and more productively than the Western one, in this region, as well.\nFinally, Madam High Representative, you will be making a trip to the Middle East. Noam Shalit, the father of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was abducted nearly four years ago, is counting on your full support to obtain Gilad's release. I am, too.\nMartin Ehrenhauser\n(DE) Mr President, let me briefly address two issues. First of all, the duty to provide assistance is clearly not compatible with Austria's neutrality, and for that reason, it would be important to include the following points in this report. It must be stated, firstly, that the duty to provide assistance is not legally binding, secondly, that the use of military means is not necessarily required and, thirdly, that the individual Member States retain the freedom to decide what the assistance they provide actually comprises.\nThe committee did not accept this, primarily from a content point of view. In my opinion, the very way in which this was rejected also demonstrates a serious lack of respect. I ask for more respect from you, Baroness Ashton, for us Austrians in this very sensitive area.\nMy second point concerns the minority report. The quality of democracies and societies, of course, is demonstrated time and again by their treatment of minorities. For me, it is a very, very good thing that we have this option of a minority report. I do not agree with all the points in it, but I am very pleased that Mrs L\u00f6sing did make use of this option.\n(Applause)\nMario Mauro\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to take advantage of the excellent reports by my fellow Members, Messrs Danjean and Albertini, to speak up again in support of the key role of the High Representative. For the good of all, it is to be hoped that she, Baroness Ashton, realises how important her role is, that she defends it, and that she is determined to assert this role when giving substance to the requirements of the treaty, for example in strengthening the European Union's relationships with its strategic partners, and in consolidating its own leadership in multilateral forums.\nIn short, we urgently need a strategy that ultimately identifies the real interests that we intend to pursue, and it is important that we involve Member States in significant objectives. It is also important not to let ourselves be conditioned by any interinstitutional disputes over the division of responsibilities - I am referring particularly to the future European External Action Service. Essentially, Baroness Ashton, we want you to play a key role. We want you to play a key role without being bureaucratic.\nAllow me, then, to make this observation: I am truly sorry that you have decided not to participate in today's discussion on Cuba. I know that you have every good reason for this and that you will be the first to participate in the discussion on the Arctic, which is also of great importance. But Cuba libre is not only the name of a cocktail: it is the rallying cry of democracy that so many people in this Parliament carry in their hearts. I therefore hope that you will find the time to attend, contribute to and back Parliament's decision with your strength and with the strength of your role. You are participating in the debate on the Arctic, and you will see that Cuba libre goes down better with a bit of ice.\nKristian Vigenin\n(BG) The report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Council's annual report was drafted in a spirit of cooperation and dialogue, which is indicative of our approach to all strategic issues. A substantial part of the report is devoted to the ramifications of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nOn this point, I would like to focus attention on one important aspect of our joint cooperation. The success of the common foreign policy and the actual results from the institutional reforms implemented are becoming a fundamental factor which will determine the attitude of European citizens towards the European Union's ability to defend their interests, to change and to develop. Justified or not, expectations are high for a sharp rise in the European Union's role on the world stage, and we have no right to disappoint Europe's citizens.\nUnfortunately, in recent weeks, the European press has, not without justification, been casting foreign policy in an extremely negative light, portraying it as a contest between Member States for posts in the new External Action Service, as a competition between the institutions in terms of which hat Baroness Ashton will wear more often - that of the Commission or the Council - and as an unfair struggle by the European Parliament to achieve greater influence.\nYou realise that this is harming us internally. Furthermore, it is also particularly damaging as a message to our external partners. Division makes us weak in their eyes.\nThis is why I am taking the opportunity in this debate to make an appeal. All of us who have a stance on devising and developing the Common Foreign and Security Policy must concentrate on the important strategic issues and endeavour to show, as quickly as possible, tangible results through more dialogue and a constructive approach. We owe it to Europe's citizens to make them feel that they are part of a single European Union whose voice is heard and has clout in global politics.\nPino Arlacchi\nMr President, the joint motion for a resolution on the Non-proliferation Treaty is a very important one, and the ALDE Group and I are very proud to have contributed to its elaboration. The resolution is holistic because it encompasses all the disarmament matters, from the NPT review conference to the issue of nuclear weapon-free zones.\nThis resolution calls for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and for the withdrawal of all tactical warheads from European soil, in the context of a brotherly dialogue with Russia. This resolution also frequently refers to a nuclear weapon-free world, a target to be achieved through a special convention and within an 'ambitious' timeframe - this means a short one.\nOur resolution is the European answer to President Obama's proposal of the abolition of nuclear weapons. This document should be considered, therefore, as a step on the road to the total ban of atomic weapons. It means to end the paradox of the possession of nuclear devices by some countries, which is legal on the one side, and the complete prohibition of chemical and biological arsenals for all countries, on the other side. Atomic bombs must be made illegal and their possession should one day be considered a criminal act. I am confident this Parliament will continue in this direction with even more drive and more vision.\nUlrike Lunacek\n(DE) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative, as this Parliament's rapporteur on Kosovo, I am very pleased to have heard you say that you consider the Western Balkans to be a focus of European foreign policy and that the European Union cannot afford to fail.\nYou also said, however, that Bosnia has stabilised. Baroness Ashton, in the current state in which Bosnia finds itself, stability and stabilisation are actually dangerous. Not everyone is able to take part in the democratic process. The constitution, as it currently exists - the Dayton constitution - was a sign of stability in the 1990s, but it is no longer that today. What kind of strategy do you, do we, as the EU, have to change that? You said that you have a strategy for Bosnia. That is handling by the Office of the High Representative - but where is the EU's strategy? I would like you to tell me that. I think that the EU still needs to develop a strategy in this regard.\nWhen it comes to Kosovo, you described EULEX as a success. That is only partially true. There is still much to be done here, for example, visa liberalisation for the citizens. Baroness Ashton, I call on you to ensure that the Commission immediately starts work on a roadmap in order to make it clear to the citizens of Kosovo that they will not be left on their own.\nUnfortunately, you did not answer a question posed by Mrs Brantner. A dedicated department, a dedicated Directorate-General for peace-building within the External Action Service, would be the order of the day. You agree with us that peace-building is important, but will you anchor it in the External Action Service? Will you set up a dedicated Directorate-General for peace-building? That would be necessary to make it clear where the European Union is heading.\nWhen it comes to Mr Danjean's report, I am very pleased that the committee accepted that further developments in the European security and defence policy fully respect the neutrality and the non-aligned status of some Member States. This means that they themselves decide where, when and how they participate and provide assistance.\nGeoffrey Van Orden\nMr President, where the EU can add value, and when it does not undermine our sovereign interests or compete with organisations such as NATO, we can support it.\nFor the most part, this will mean adopting common positions on certain key issues and civil tasks in the field of humanitarian assistance or post-conflict reconstruction and development, although I have to say that the track record of EUPOL in Afghanistan does not inspire much confidence.\nThe simple truth is that your role as EU foreign minister is to act as handmaiden for EU political integration. The effect of the External Action Service, the chain of EU embassies around the world, will be to undermine national representation in many capitals, armed perversely with cash that has come from our nations in order to take forward someone else's foreign policy.\nThe report before us on EU security and defence policy is a manifesto for EU military integration, deliberately confusing military and civil crisis management in order to justify an EU role. It relies on a bogus narrative concerning EU operations and increasingly seeks to involve the Commission in areas which are properly the responsibility of our nations and of the Council.\nVirtually every paragraph of this report advocates ratcheting up military EU integration at the expense of NATO and the sovereign integrity of individual European countries.\nI recall one of the great red lines of the British Labour Government's negotiating stance when it said it would resist the idea of a separate and permanent EU operations centre responsible for operational planning and conduct of military operations as this would be the clearest example of duplication of NATO, whose SHAPE headquarters performs precisely this role.\nBaroness Ashton, when I asked you about this on 11 January, you said you agreed with the position I took then. Now you seem to have changed your mind. I would be very interested to know what you really think now.\nNikolaos Salavrakos\n(EL) Mr President, the report by Mr Albertini is indeed outstanding and I congratulate him on it. He is a serious person and always delivers serious reports. The presentation by Lady Ashton was equally important and outstanding.\nI believe that numerous foreign policy issues are covered, but I consider that everything referred to in the two reports in terms of the proper exercising of foreign policy and security policy is inextricably linked to two things: firstly, a clear definition of the borders of the European Union, so that the European Union is treated with uniform respect and, secondly: resources, in other words money; I have read nothing about resources in either report, even though they are the most basic requirement for an effective foreign policy.\nI believe that the new order has brought with it a new global economic disorder. There is social and political disorder and monetary disorder is knocking at the door. What I want, therefore, is for Lady Ashton to coordinate the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, so that we can discuss the resources to support the policy adopted.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Mr President, Madam High Representative, I fear that what you have brought us today is a catalogue of areas for consideration or a catalogue of commonplaces. Unfortunately, your presentation contains very little in the way of strategic vision.\nFor example, what action do you propose to ensure that we build a greater rapprochement with Russia, instead of allowing Russia to drift further towards cooperation with rogue regimes, such as those of Iran and North Korea? What are your proposals as regards Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons? What position are you going to adopt concerning the growing anti-Western and anti-European trends in the Islamic world? A trend that can also be observed in candidate countries like Turkey.\nMadam Ashton, are you prepared to defend European achievements, such as freedom of expression and the separation of church and state, in a clear and uncompromising manner, in the face of growing political Islam? In my view, there can be no repetition of the weak attitude which the EU adopted a few years ago with regard to the Danish cartoons crisis.\nLike Mr Provera, I, too, would like to ask whether you are prepared to bring our Common Foreign and Security Policy into play in order to bring the flood of mass immigration into Europe under control? I refer here to both illegal and legal immigration. You have not answered that question.\nJacek Saryusz-Wolski\nMr President, I welcome the High Representative, Vice-President, and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council under those three hats. She has three hats. Our reports refer to the old times. Your office, Baroness Ashton, was meant to be a new era, so I will refer to the new era. You are representing a newborn office, an institution just born, which is having a difficult childhood.\nIt is a hybrid with an electric engine of Community method and a diesel engine of intergovernmental method. It is an orphan, whose supposed parents, Member States, Council, Commission, look at it with a certain suspicion and distance. Parliament is ready to fill the gap of parenthood.\nAt this early stage, there are risks of this Service being torn apart by diverging institutional rivalries and interests. Our Parliament was and is the strong proponent of strong EU foreign policy. You can count on us.\nPlease look at Parliament as your ally, maybe also as an honest broker among those who would be tempted to see only one hat on your head and not all three of them.\nParliament would expect the new institution, like others, to be linked with us by an interinstitutional agreement clearly setting out the rules of cooperation. We intend to codecide, as the treaty provides for, on financial and staff regulations in the spirit of the integral EEAS, not torn-apart EAS. Please consider strengthening your office in terms of competence and political weight by installing deputies to your office - kind of 'vice-ministers', including parliamentary ones. That would solve the problem that the day only has 24 hours, the problem which cannot be otherwise solved. You are needed everywhere and we would like you to multiply your possibilities to act on our behalf and on behalf of the Union.\nMaria Eleni Koppa\n(EL) Mr President, Lady Ashton, we socialists and democrats believe in a European Union with a strong presence on the international stage, a Union with a common foreign policy which can speak with one voice in what is becoming a more and more complex world, a Union with a separate defence identity, which gives it independence of choice and action and a particular role in the international sphere. I shall refer, in particular, to the excellent report by Mr Danjean, whom I should like to thank for his productive cooperation.\nI wish to raise four points:\nFirstly, especially after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the reference made to the central role of the UN system and the call on it to strengthen multilateral cooperation are important.\nSecondly, we support close cooperation with NATO. However, we would emphasise that this cooperation should not obstruct the independent development of the defence capability of the European Union. On the contrary, full account must be taken of the differences between the two organisations and their independence must be left intact, especially as regards decision taking.\nThirdly, I think that we need a paragraph on the need for enhanced cooperation with Russia, which is a strategic partner for the Union in sectors such as energy security, crisis management and others.\nTo close, I should like to express my satisfaction at the fact that the report now includes references to the need for general disarmament, with the emphasis on light weapons, anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. At the same time, however, I consider that the European Parliament should take a clearer stand and ask the Member States to provide real support for the Obama initiative for a world without nuclear weapons. Disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons can be achieved if each and every one of us takes a step towards attaining this ultimate objective.\nNorica Nicolai\n(RO) I would like to pay tribute to the quality of the two reports from Mr Albertini and Mr Danjean. This proves that there are people with expertise in this Parliament. I hope, Mrs Ashton, that you will take advantage of this expertise, which is in all our interests.\nI would particularly like to highlight the recommendation made in the report on this assembly's cooperation in monitoring EU policies. In light of paragraph 1 of the Treaty of Lisbon, I believe that we can share the responsibility of this Parliament and the national parliaments for promoting a more coherent approach on this political measure.\nHowever, I want to continue to mention, Mrs Ashton, the need to expect a much more coherent strategy from you on security policy. As far as the External Action Service is concerned, I believe that the staff who will work in this Service and for Europe's citizens must represent proportionally the expertise of the Member States because, unfortunately, very many institutions have achieved a hidden level of incompetence and bureaucracy, which could damage a global, coherent vision of the European Union.\nFinally, I would like to ask you a question about the battlegroups, structures which we have created but, unfortunately, have not used. They could damage the image of the security policy, and I would like to see what your vision is. As regards the Atalanta operation, my view is that a much more realistic approach is required because, unfortunately, the successes won by our forces are disproportionate to the intense level of piracy incidents.\nThank you.\nPaul Nuttall\nMr President, please allow me to speak frankly as one Lancastrian to another, because this is not going very well, is it? It really is not. Earlier on, Baroness Ashton, you said that Europe needs a credible foreign policy. How can we have a credible foreign policy when it has an incredible High Representative?\nYou seem as if you are stumbling from one crisis to another, so much so that the British Foreign Secretary had to write you a letter this week asking you to buck up, to get on your game. But we in UKIP were on to this from the start. We opposed your appointment because we said you would be clearly out of your depth - and we are being proved right.\nIt was said that your appointment, made by the Commission, would stop the traffic in Tokyo and Washington. But you have not even been able to appoint the Ambassador to Washington because old Barroso did you up like a kipper!\nIt is also claimed in the British press that you do not turn your phone on after 8 p.m. at night. But, Baroness Ashton, you are the highest-paid female politician in the world. You are paid more than Frau Merkel, you are paid more than Hillary Clinton: it is a 24-hour job. To top it all, yesterday it was reported that you are being provided with a Learjet. You are expected to do 300 000 miles per year. That would get you to the moon, and most people now would like you to stay there.\nCristian Dan Preda\n(RO) (It was not my turn, but I will continue anyway.) I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Albertini for the excellent report he has drafted, which highlights the role that the European Union needs to play on the international stage as a global player and lead actor.\nI particularly welcome the insertion of paragraph 47 in the text, which underlines the importance of regional cooperation within the framework of the Eastern Partnership and Black Sea Synergy, because I believe that this area is one where the European Union's involvement may lead to real change from both an economic and political perspective.\nOn the other hand, I would also like to extend my congratulations to Arnaud Danjean for drafting a report which successfully manages to touch on not only all the challenges facing, but also the achievements of the European Union in the area of security and defence policy. I believe that, at the time of the tenth anniversary of the launch of this policy, the proposals made in the Danjean report are extremely important in terms of improving the EU's actions, which will certainly contribute to the security of European citizens and, ultimately, to peace and international security.\nI would like to emphasise at this juncture one particular point from this excellent report about the importance of the partnership with the United States in the area of crisis management, peacekeeping and military matters in general. In this respect, the anti-missile defence system project launched by our US partners is important not only for my country, Romania, which has decided to be involved in it, but also in a wider sense, because the proliferation of ballistic missiles poses a serious threat to Europe's population.\nI should mention that I supported Amendment 34 submitted in relation to paragraph 87 of the report because I believe that if the anti-missile shield project could help establish a dialogue at European level, the reference to the dialogue with Russia does not make any sense in this context.\nThank you.\nIoan Mircea Pa\u015fcu\nMr President, the reports drawn up by Mr Albertini and Mr Danjean are very important documents coming at a crucial moment: the Lisbon Treaty has just entered into force, the EU has a new Parliament and transatlantic cooperation looks more promising.\nMr Danjean's report addresses the new security challenges facing EU members. To that effect, it calls for a White Paper which would trigger a public debate and raise the profile of the CSDP, establishing a clearer relationship between objectives and interests, on the one hand, and the means and resources to attain them, on the other.\nThe report also comes up with - and this is a very good thing - concrete proposals, and points to the areas which need further effort in the military domain. At the same time, some of the proposals, such as the introduction of a European preference principle for defence acquisition and a call for the obligatory participation of the European defence industry in the coming US missile defence system, look pretty impossible to reconcile, while answering every need with a new institution is not always practical.\nIn general, with Europe constantly diminishing its military expenditure since the end of the Cold War and a public disinclined to support military action in general, the approach to CSDP should not only be mechanical but equally political. Restoring political will in this respect is thus indispensable for a successful CSDP.\nFinally, the report is important because it addresses the very topical issue of the role of the European Parliament with respect to CSDP. I want to thank Mr Danjean and my colleagues for their contributions.\nMiros\u0142aw Piotrowski\n(PL) Mr President, the motion which has been submitted for a resolution of Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy is intended, among other things, to establish military structures as part of the European Union. I appeal for the establishment of a special European Union defence council and military operations centre. These instruments will serve to give the Union the status of a world player in military affairs.\nIt should be remembered that out of 27 EU Member States, as many as 21 are members of NATO. Only six EU countries do not belong to NATO, and most of these have declared neutrality. This gives rise, therefore, to a fundamental question - does the motion which has been submitted have as an objective the development of a number of EU countries, or is it also a serious step on the road to building a separate military bloc in competition with NATO? Even in the mid-term perspective, it will not be possible to maintain membership in both organisations at the same time. Therefore, voting in favour of this report, today, will, in reality, destroy the civil nature of the Union, will show the red card to NATO and will be the beginning of building an alternative military bloc.\nErnst Strasser\n(DE) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly congratulating my two fellow Members on their reports, which have formed the basis for a very good debate with excellent results. There are a few guiding principles that I would like to mention. Firstly, on the common foreign policy: unfortunately, we currently have a many-voiced image of the European Union. High Representative, I would like to ask and call on you to make sure that we help achieve and indeed ensure that Europe speaks with one voice. That is highly necessary if we are to achieve a pan-European alignment.\nSecondly, it is right that transatlantic relations have been mentioned. In the diplomatic field, in the economic field, in security policy and in defence policy, we do need a close partnership with our colleagues in the United States, but as equal partners on an equal footing. It must also be the case that citizens' rights and security issues be dealt with on equal terms, as Parliament ultimately impressively demanded in relation to the SWIFT Agreement.\nMy third point is that it is right that the Western Balkans are an absolutely crucial factor in the European security and foreign policy of the future. We need to give these States European perspectives. That means politically stable relations, personal safety and economic development. A European External Action Service should and must - and Parliament is on your side in this regard - help to achieve all of this. We perceive this European External Action Service to be a service for Europe and not for the Member States, for the institutions, European thinking and working, not for other interests. Parliament will be on your side on this issue.\nOf course, I also support the German Foreign Minister, who is demanding that German should be one of the working languages of the European External Action Service.\nWolfgang Kreissl-D\u00f6rfler\n(DE) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, yes, we need a common foreign, security and defence policy, but let us use it to obtain a world free of nuclear weapons. We know that that will not happen overnight; we have been fighting for this for too long to think that. However, perhaps we can succeed, together with Presidents Obama and Medvedev, in bringing this goal a crucial step closer.\nI also welcome the fact that, according to its coalition agreement, Germany's Federal Government intends to ask for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany. That would represent a clear and unambiguous signal. We also welcome the fact that the Secretary General of NATO is to hold a comprehensive debate about bringing the overarching goal of a world free of nuclear weapons closer without having to neglect security interests. That, too, would be a crucial step forward.\nBaroness Ashton, I believe that, together with a well-structured External Action Service, there is much that you will be able to achieve. I am therefore full of hope in this regard and I have to say that, in many commentaries that we have to sit through in this Chamber - in particular from a so-called parliamentary group from the United Kingdom - the quality in this House has really suffered terribly.\nEduard Kukan\n(SK) The excellent reports from my fellow Members, Albertini and Danjean, include many inspiring ideas about how to streamline the main aspects and key opportunities in implementing the Common Foreign and Security Policy.\nI would like to stress that right now, when the concept for creating the European External Action Service and operating it in the future is being processed, it is extremely important that this service is set up on a maximally rational basis right from the start. That is, to serve the European Union's primary objectives and the efforts to strengthen its position in the world.\nAs we can see today, this is not a simple or easy task. In developing the concept of service, we are already seeing that the often conflicting interests of the various European institutions and their individual components are clashing, and sometimes even with groups and individuals within them. To this we can also add the national interests of individual Member States. In this situation, it is necessary for all the players and participants in this process to be responsible, broad-minded and objective in order to be able to rise above their own egos and keep in mind mainly the common objective: the establishment of a diplomatic service that will be operating as a homogenous element, serving exclusively the needs of the European Union and its Member States. Here is the very important leadership role - yours, Baroness Ashton. It would be a mistake if special interests and the desire to impose own opinion at the expense of another at all costs, with the aim of demonstrating own importance and status, were to overcome the need for a broader perspective. The outcome of this effort will bear witness to whether we are really concerned about a stronger European Union or whether it is just another demonstration and contest about whose position within the European Union's structures is the strongest.\nRoberto Gualtieri\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam High Representative\/Vice-President, I would like to emphasise the fact that we are discussing three excellent documents drawn up by Parliament: ambitious documents that express clear stances, make clear-cut choices and are subject to broad consensus between the groups within this Parliament who care about Europe and its future. It is an important fact, demonstrating Parliament's will and ability to offer itself as a candidate to play a central role in CFSP\/CSDP on the basis of what I would call a dynamic reading of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nWe intend to exercise this role in the process of constructing the External Action Service, not only to guarantee Parliament's prerogatives, but also to contribute to making the service an organisation capable of ensuring that EU external action is consistent and efficient while, at the same time, strengthening and gradually extending the community method.\nAs regards the Danjean report, I would like to highlight that the concept of strategic autonomy is presented in the context of a multilateral approach, and that it is a condition for strengthening the strategic partnership with the United States. I would also like to highlight the fact that Parliament is united in requesting an Operations Centre, and I am glad that you, High Representative, have declared yourself open to a more exhaustive discussion of this idea.\nConcerning the non-proliferation resolution, I would like to underline the importance of envisaging a world free from nuclear weapons, the clear judgment on the anachronism of tactical nuclear weapons and the value of the positions recently adopted by some European governments on this front. Thus, Parliament's message is clear, realistic and ambitious, and we hope that the High Representative is able to grasp and endorse it.\nTunne Kelam\nMr President, may I congratulate colleagues Albertini and Danjean on their comprehensive and creative reports on foreign and security policy.\nThe EU is bound to be a global player, as you said, High Representative, but with seven per cent of the world's population and one fifth of GDP, it will be possible only on the basis of strengthened transatlantic cooperation based on common values.\nFirst of all, the EU should show a determined will to develop coherent strategies in five crucial areas: common strategies for China, Russia, peace in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and energy security.\nIt is still a major handicap for our credibility and efficiency in the world that often we have not been able to form a unified position in these areas. The principal challenge for you will be to carry into practice your excellent statement about building a single political strategy and taking collective responsibility.\nI welcomed paragraph 10 in colleague Danjean's report which urges the Council and the Commission to analyse cyber threats and to coordinate an efficient response to such challenges based on the best practices. Cyber warfare is not a challenge of the future: it has become an everyday practice. Therefore, it is an immediate task for the EU to work out a European cyber security strategy.\nFinally, on the European External Action Service: I think the forming of the EEAS should be based on a fair geographical balance and equal opportunities for representatives of all Member States, new and old, with application of the quota system. Only this will guarantee the efficiency and transparency and, finally, the credibility of the new diplomatic service.\nGood luck to you, High Representative, and thank you.\nRichard Howitt\nMr President, High Representative Ashton has asked us this morning to change mental maps, to challenge resistance to institutional change and to avoid narrow defence of national interests. If Parliament means what it says on the CFSP, we have to send a clear message that we will support a strong, comprehensive and inclusive External Action Service and, in observing our own prerogatives, we will not be part of any vested interests seeking to limit the capacity, and therefore the effectiveness, of that service.\nThat should mean appointments on merit and merit alone, appointments from Member State foreign ministries from day one and from across all of the European Union; it means incorporation of strategic advice on issues like energy supply and environmental policy; it means organisational structures which reflect global reach and give due weight to Africa and to transatlantic relations as well as to Asia, Latin America and our neighbourhood; it means sufficient financial margin, not just for rapid reaction or humanitarian response, but to move monies to reflect new political priorities; it means endorsing Cathy Ashton's decision to put disaster response above disaster tourism and for her to provide key direction to financial programming and it means this Parliament supporting new arrangements with deputising which reflect international practice rather than necessarily sticking to our past rules.\nFinally, I am delighted to see the Commission seat empty this morning and, for all those who campaigned for the Lisbon Treaty, we should not restrict their or our support for its full implementation.\nFrancisco Jos\u00e9 Mill\u00e1n Mon\n(ES) Mr President, the Union's foreign policy is entering a new phase, as Baroness Ashton and Mr Albertini have said this morning.\nArticle 21 of the treaty establishes objective principles. New positions are also created by the treaty, with a High Representative, a Vice-President of the Commission, a permanent President of the European Council, a European External Action Service, and a new Security and Defence Policy, which is the subject of the report by my colleague Mr Danjean, etc.\nThese innovations aim to ensure that the European Union has a much more effective influence in the world, and I think that summits with third countries continue to be an ideal instrument for achieving this. The European Union does not hold many summits with individual countries, so we should take care with them.\nThe summit held last week with Morocco was the first summit with an Arab country, and also symbolised advanced status being granted to Morocco. I would have liked you to have attended, Baroness Ashton. I also regret that the King of Morocco was not present. His absence meant that a summit that should have been historic lost political influence, significance and effectiveness.\nI hope that the Union for the Mediterranean Summit in Barcelona will also be successful in terms of the level of the delegations.\nI also regret the fact that the summit with President Obama planned for the spring is not going to take place. As the Albertini report states, the Treaty of Lisbon sets the stage for strengthening our mechanisms for dialogue with the United States. This and other subjects could have been dealt with at the summit.\nThe European Union and the United States should not miss the opportunity to deal at a high level with the bilateral matters, conflicts and global challenges that are now mounting up on the world's agenda. It would be paradoxical - and I will finish now - if now that we have the Treaty of Lisbon, we ran the risk of becoming irrelevant in this world that some are now calling 'post-Western' or 'post-American'.\nLibor Rou\u010dek\n(CS) Madam High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, in my speech, I would like to point out the need to create a partnership with Russia. The EU States and Russia face many common challenges and threats. I could mention the fight against terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan, climate change, energy security including nuclear security, and so on. Neither the European Union nor Russia can solve these problems alone. Cooperation is necessary and cooperation should be the basis for a new comprehensive agreement between the EU and Russia.\nI would therefore like to call on the High Representative to make use of her new powers and to speed up the negotiations with Russia. I would also like to ask you, Baroness, to make use of your new powers to coordinate more effectively the positions of individual Member States, as well as of the individual parties involved within out common foreign and security policy, because that is the only way we will be able to secure a unified approach and to promote values such as human rights, democracy, the legal state, equality and even-handedness in mutual relations.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nMr President, I welcome and support both reports and I congratulate both rapporteurs on those documents.\nNow for two points. Firstly, on the Danjean report, I would like to bring up an issue that has raised a lot of eyebrows in a number of EU Member States. I am talking specifically about the exclusive talks between Paris and Moscow over the possible sale of four Mistral warships to Russia.\nThe Mistral warship is clearly offensive in nature and it is indeed very alarming that some EU Member States are engaging in arms sales to third countries which might have very negative consequences for the security of other EU Member States or the EU's neighbours.\nThe Treaty of Lisbon outlines common defence aspirations and includes a clause about solidarity in the area of security and defence. Therefore, what do you reckon Parliament and other EU institutions should push for? A common set of rules inside the EU addressing arms sales from EU Member States to third countries.\nAs regards Mr Albertini's report, I would like to stress the importance of stability and security in East Asia. We welcome the efforts undertaken by both Taipei and Beijing to improve cross-state relations and to enhance dialogue and practical cooperation. In this context, the EU should strongly back Taiwan's participation in the International Civil Aviation Organisation and in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, as Taiwan's participation in these organisations is important to the EU and global interests.\nZoran Thaler\n(SL) Madam High Representative, I very much agree with you when you say that your key objective is a better and a more credible European foreign policy. That greater stability and security in the Balkans, our part of the world, is your key objective.\nWe really cannot afford any failure in this regard. I therefore recommend that you commit to two issues: firstly, to resolving urgently the relations between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, so that our Member State Greece can finally begin to breathe easy with regard to its northern borders; and secondly, to making efforts to ensure that Serbia, in the artificial dilemma of having to choose between the European Union and Kosovo, opts for the European Union, i.e. that it does not isolate itself. Perhaps it might be a good idea to remind our friends in Serbia of one important fact, which is that Serbia and Kosovo will be together again once they both become members of the European Union.\nMichael Gahler\n(DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, today you are sitting on the other side. If you switch round every month, that will be fine by me.\nAs this debate draws to a close, a number of primary evaluations have become clear. We want you to be at the head of an External Action Service in which you - as a fellow Member said earlier - wear both hats at the same time. These two hats should be the only duplication, though - duplication in the structures is not something that we need. The retention of the Community method must be ensured, not only in relation to the budget and EP supervision. To be quite clear about this, the new service must not be the exclusive toy of the Foreign Ministers, who feel insulted that they will no longer be included in the European Council. The same applies to the appointment of the staff and the filling of important positions within the service.\nWhen it comes to the Danjean report, I would like to give my full support to the line taken by the rapporteur. When it comes to the permanent operations centre, like Mr Van Orden, I have noticed that Baroness Ashton has moved on this issue since her hearing and, I must say, in the right direction, too, as I see it. You have moved from rejection to a test phase. I still believe that, if we are to operate civilian and military mission planning in a fully integrated way in the External Action Service, it makes sense to also run that service from its own operational headquarters.\nWith regard to the proposal from the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance to establish a Directorate-General for peace-building, I would say that, in contrast to my fellow Members who sit at the left-most edge of this Chamber, I believe the entire EU project, and specifically also our foreign policy, is a unique peace-building project. On that basis, I am not sure that we should be restricting this to a single department.\nMar\u00eda Mu\u00f1iz De Urquiza\n(ES) Mr President, we believe that the new institutions need some time to establish themselves, but we also believe that we should not take our eye off the ball. What is important is not, as some are asking, for the High Representative to be present wherever the European foreign policy is involved. What is important is for the European Union to be present on the international stage with the capacity to speak out in defence of its positions. This is what the reports are saying that we are debating today.\nWe therefore advocate a broad European Union policy on cooperation relations with all the countries with which we have interests, especially in terms of human rights, from Belarus to Cuba. We should have this policy for all countries in which we have an interest in terms of human rights, security and global challenges, because the European Union can make the difference, as has been shown with the joint position of the majority of the Member States achieved under the Spanish Presidency in the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and as must be achieved on the Middle East and on Cuba. This is a proactive and reformist step forward in terms of the external action of the European Union. We want a strong, genuine European External Action Service that supports the work of the High Representative and also responds to Parliament's aspirations.\nKrzysztof Lisek\n(PL) Mr President, Mrs Ashton, I would like to express satisfaction at the fact that we can, today, discuss the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy with you. In spite of several voices to the contrary, I would like to say that I am certain that the majority of this House wish you well and would like to see construction of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and a professional External Action Service, a service in which you will be able to make use of the best diplomats from all Member States of the European Union. Our discussion, today, about the Common Security and Defence Policy, is based on the excellent report of my boss on the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, Mr Danjean. The Union must, of course, build the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy. There are many challenges ahead of us, not only conflicts, but also natural disasters, the threat of terrorism and so on. We must, therefore, strengthen our operational capabilities. The Union must take care of its own security, but must also be active in the face of global challenges. This cannot be done without good cooperation with our allies from across the Atlantic. I think that, not just because most EU Member States belong to NATO, but because of those challenges, in fact, everyone expects that you will manage to initiate a good dialogue and build coherent cooperation between the European Union and NATO.\nBaroness Ashton, ending on a humorous note, I would like to express the hope that you have already sent your telephone number not only to Henry Kissinger, but also to Hilary Clinton.\nProinsias De Rossa\nMr President, I want to congratulate Vice-President Ashton on a speech with vision and substance.\nThe problem that some people have with you, Vice-President Ashton, is that you are not a macho general or, indeed, a narrow nationalist. I welcome, in particular, your emphasis on the rule of law between countries and urge you actively to insist that this is the case in the Middle East. Also, your commitment to the important principle of collective gains as against minimal Member State losses.\nThe Middle East is perhaps the most volatile region capable at the moment of stumbling into a widespread conflagration. You must work closely with the United States and press for the Council statement of 8 December to be central as a framework for progress there.\nFinally, I want to recommend strongly that you support the idea of a policy that the Middle East be a nuclear-free zone.\nAndrey Kovatchev\n(BG) I believe that the reports by Mr Danjean and Mr Albertini mark a step towards our much needed common vision for the European Union as a global player in safeguarding peace and security, and I congratulate them on this.\nDwindling defence budgets and the current economic crisis make it patently clear that if we want Europe to speak with a single voice in the world and send out strong signals commanding respect, we must use the available resources more prudently and efficiently.\nThe role of the European Defence Agency, which has been strengthened by the Treaty of Lisbon, is vitally important for maximising our potential through collective procurement, pooling resources and joint training. The interaction between the civilian and military aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy must be used to improve our Union's capabilities and effectiveness.\nI expect to see Mrs Ashton, as Head of the European Defence Agency and High Representative, taking on an active role in this direction. Finally, Mrs Ashton, I wish you every success in setting up the common External Action Service. I expect the principle of geographical balance to be observed when appointing the service's staff so that it can truly represent the whole European Union. Europe needs you to be successful.\n\u00c1gnes Hankiss\n(HU) Ladies and gentlemen, First of all, I wish to congratulate Mr Arnaud Danjean on this report, which is comprehensive and, at the same time, thoughtful on each individual question; for my part, I wish to speak on one point only. There are many countries among the Member States of the European Union, including my homeland, Hungary, which would like to play an active role, as full and equal members, in cooperating on European security and defence policy. At the same time, for well-known historical reasons, neither their material resources nor their capacity or even knowledge base allows them, for now, to be on the same footing as the largest countries. I therefore voted for those proposed amendments that seek to facilitate this sort of participation and catching up. On the one hand, this concerns ongoing structural cooperation, which may be and could perhaps have been formulated in such a way that it does not turn into an elite club of the strongest and the largest Member States, in other words, that it does not make unified and uniform demands on each participant, because in this case, certain countries will be left out, but instead, enables the smaller countries to take part according to their specialised abilities. On the other hand, the training networks need to be developed in this regard. I would like to thank the President for including these points in the report.\nIvo Vajgl\n(SL) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, today I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs who have so brilliantly led this debate, a debate which has resulted in this document, or rather, the documents of both Mr Albertini and Mr Danjean, being approved.\nI would say that these documents have been approved at the right time, at the start of Baroness Ashton's term of office, and that we have demonstrated in a detailed way what we want from the European Union's foreign policy. Baroness Ashton, you have used this opportunity very well in translating these two very specific documents into your own vision of the world and I congratulate you for that. Obviously, I will not always congratulate you, unless you make it clear where you stand on specific problems, dilemmas and crises. Today, I wish to congratulate you, in particular, for making that critical remark about the Israeli Government's action with regard to the construction of illegal settlements.\nTo conclude, allow me just to add that I think that, on future occasions, we should pay more attention to Japan, our old and trusted friend, and not be so fascinated with China and other fast-growing countries.\nPiotr Borys\n(PL) Mr President, Mrs Ashton, I speak, probably, for everyone present in this Chamber, when I say that foreign policy is one of the most important challenges before the European Union, and we would hope that, under your leadership, Mrs Ashton, the European Union will be a genuine regulator of foreign policy at world level.\nI will concentrate on two areas. The first is the political situation in the Middle East. We expect a clear position from you on strategy relating to the fight against terrorism. We expect, chiefly, that the situation, especially in Afghanistan, will be a situation from which it will be possible to withdraw. I would like, here, to suggest the use of all means, including, mainly civilian operations, as part of efforts to modernise a country which is, today, in ruins after 30 years of permanent war. I think, too, that political involvement in the rebuilding of Afghanistan is a key factor for stabilisation in the country. The second area is Iran which, today, is playing a key role in foreign policy in the region. I think that engagement in the fight to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons is a crucial task which also falls to you. We wish you great success here and trust that you will be able to coordinate your work well with American policy.\nI think the political situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Iran is crucial from the point of view of world security policy. Therefore, Mrs Ashton, your role in this is invaluable.\nIzaskun Bilbao Barandica\n(ES) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, you have described Operation Atalanta in the Horn of Africa to combat piracy as a success.\nHowever, last week, there was a massive pirate attack on Basque, Spanish and French fishing boats, which forced the fishing fleet to leave the area and withdraw to places where they can be protected, but where there are no fish, not forgetting the hundreds of people who are still held hostage on various boats.\nI ask you to apply the resolution that Parliament adopted in December for this Operation to protect fishing boats and to extend that protection. I also call for the strategies to be reconsidered, and for the techniques used by this Operation in the Indian Ocean to be reviewed urgently, along with how it is present there.\nStruan Stevenson\nMr President, 58 people lost their lives on Sunday trying to exercise their right to vote in the Iraqi elections, and 140 were seriously injured. However, violence, intimidation, threats of attack and blackmail did not deter millions of courageous Iraqis from going to the polls.\nThere have been repeated attempts to manipulate and distort the outcome of the election. The banning of more than 500 secular non-sectarian candidates by the bogus Accountability and Justice Commission, the repeated bomb attacks on polling day, and the deeply sinister delay in announcing the results, are all disturbing signs of dirty tricks.\nThe ominous interference of Iran has been a constant feature of this election, and we must today send it this stark warning: do not try to install a puppet prime minister in Iraq, do not try to defraud the Iraqi people of their democratic rights and do not plunge Iraq back into sectarian chaos, because the West is watching you, and you are under the spotlight.\nAndrew Henry William Brons\nMr President, Baroness Ashton's role is described in Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union as contributing to the development of a common foreign and security policy, as mandated by the Council, which, of course, contains the representatives of nation states. However, the same article states that she must be a Vice-President of the Commission, from which she operates. Furthermore, I understand that former Commission staff will be given preference over the staff of diplomatic and foreign ministries when staff are appointed to the External Action Service.\nBaroness Ashton, it is clear that your role was designed to undermine continually the influence over foreign policy by Member States, not only individually, but also collectively on the Council. You and your successors will be mandated by the Council only on paper. The real driving force behind the EU's foreign policy will be the Commission; Member States and the Council will be continually marginalised.\nAndrzej Grzyb\n(PL) A coherent and effective policy is the main message of Mr Albertini's report. I congratulate him on this report, as I do Mr Danjean. I would like to point out that there is also the personnel aspect to carrying out this work. The European External Action Service appears in the report, and despite the fact that this concerns the year 2008 - it is a pity that it is not, already, about 2009 - it is, here, a kind of marker which will be a measure of how, in fact, we carry out the work which now falls to the service headed by Mrs Ashton. I think the geographical balance we are demanding, as well as roles in this process for the European Parliament and national parliaments, seem to me to be extremely important, here. Clear recruitment criteria and a role for the European Parliament in developing the service are matters which are going to be the subject of careful evaluation in this Chamber. We would like to appeal for this process to be clear and plain, so that it will be understandable to us as the representatives of the individual voters who, after all, make up the European Union.\nJelko Kacin\n(SL) I wish to pay my sincere compliments to both rapporteurs, Mr Albertini and Mr Danjean.\nI would remind you of a tragic event which took place in Belgrade on 12 March seven years ago. I am referring to the murder of Zoran \u0110in\u0111i\u0107, former Prime Minister of Serbia. They killed him in order to stop the normalisation, democratisation and Europeanisation of Serbia. However, they have not stopped it. All they did was delay it. This event has also had a negative impact on the neighbouring countries and the region as a whole.\nMrs Ashton, I would ask you to help and encourage pro-European forces everywhere in our immediate vicinity. You will need to act in a timely and preventative manner. You have chosen for yourself a new institution and a new role, which are essentially two roles in two institutions, and you are becoming a double figurehead, as it were. There is no going back, either for you or for us. As you can only go forwards, I ask that you justify the confidence we have placed in you.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Mr President, comprehensive reports usually require differentiated evaluations, and this is true in this case, too. Thus, I am in favour of a common foreign and security policy that deals with illegal immigration, visa fraud, criminal tourism and bogus asylum claims. I am also in favour of a common foreign and security policy that deals with securing the borders of the Schengen area and clearly taking the bit between the teeth in the fight against organised crime. However, I am critical of, and opposed to, a common foreign and security policy that is designed to give the EU an active role in military issues, where the UN and NATO are already in place. This duplication should be rejected - and, of course, I speak from the special position of being a representative of a neutral State. I also reject the lifting of the visa requirement, an ill-considered lifting of the requirement for Balkan States whereby already, after a few months, around 150 000 Macedonians are en route to central Europe, two thirds of whom have already disappeared into illegality.\nThis is certainly no way to further the security needs of European citizens - it makes no contribution to security and it also, of course, does nothing to increase our citizens' desire for more Europe.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) I am concerned that the previous conferences have not produced tangible results in the area of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Such weapons and technologies have been proliferating. There is a growing risk of nuclear technology falling into the hands of criminal and terrorist organisations.\nThe Union should act jointly in this area and take a stand on the issue as a world player, to strengthen all three pillars of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and to achieve universal application and enforcement of the rules and instruments for non-proliferation. I consider it necessary to include the issue of nuclear non-proliferation among the European Union's priorities and to start a constructive dialogue with all the nuclear powers, not just the USA and Russia. The number of countries which have nuclear weapons is not just the five members of the United Nations Security Council. The Union should, therefore, in the interests of global security, make a political and diplomatic effort to ensure that countries such as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea become signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.\nCatherine Ashton\nVice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, I should like first of all to express my thanks for the contributions that have been made and say how much I thought this was an important and valuable debate in terms of our strategic direction.\nI want to say at the beginning that I agree completely with all honourable Members who spoke of the value and importance of the scrutiny of this House and the role of this House, not only in terms of that scrutiny, but also in terms of the expertise that I know exists within it. It is my intention to call upon that expertise and to hope to have as many occasions as possible where we are able to debate and discuss many if not all the important issues that have been raised today.\nI will be relatively brief at this point but I will just try to talk about a few of the key areas that I think honourable Members are most concerned about. I shall begin by saying that I did not say 'no' to the Barnier report. What I said was, on the basis of lessons learnt from Haiti and now the support we are offering in Chile, we wanted to look at how much more we could do, how we could operate more effectively, what we should have on standby and whether we should have something on standby. That requires us to consider strategically what we should be doing, and the Barnier report provides the backdrop to do that. I am very grateful to Michel for the contribution that he has made on that - it is the backdrop.\nOn the Non-proliferation Treaty: a number of honourable Members have raised the importance of the conference that is coming up in May, all of which I agree with. It is very important that we move forward now in terms of what the opportunity of May will afford us.\nI also agree that security begins with strong political relations. We have to consistently view our approach in the wider world as being about developing those strong political relationships in order to promote security, not only for ourselves but also for third states, for states with whom we are seeking to have that relationship or with whom we are in dialogue because of the concerns that we have.\nA number of honourable Members quite rightly raised the importance of the Balkans. I have indicated in my priorities that this is an incredibly important area of work. It is very important in the period building up to the elections in Bosnia that we promote the importance of the European Union and make sure that national politicians describe to their people the path that they plan to take to get closer ties with Europe and ultimately to become part of Europe.\nI agree on the importance of Valentin Inzko and the work he is doing in the Office of the High Representative. He and I are working together to think about the strategic approach - again for a future that takes us way beyond the elections to where we need to be in the coming months and years in order to retain the security. I take the point about the importance of stability: not only do we have to have it there, but we need to keep it there. There is concern in the region that we are seen to be moving forward and, on occasions, I feel we have got a bit stuck in what we need to do next. We need to take that forward.\nThat is particularly true, as a number of honourable Members have said, in Kosovo, where I have met the government. I have had conversations with the government and with the Prime Minister in particular, to look at what we would do with them in the future. Then there is Serbia, which is pushing very hard to become a part of the European Union. When I met President Tadi\u0107 and the government members, it was very clear there, too, that this is something they see as being their future, and they too understand the issues that we are concerned about on that journey.\nConcerning the debate on Cuba, I would have been there. It is simply that we have a clash. There is the Council of Presidents meeting to discuss the External Action Service and I cannot be in two places at once. That is what the European Parliament decided in terms of timing. I must obey and be present at that. However, I think Cuba is an important issue and I have no doubt that we will return to that subject.\nConcerning the separate department for peace-building, my response is that it should be in everything we do and I am always nervous about separating out something, as if somehow it is separate from every bit of work we are doing. If you look at how we are going to operate the External Action Service, it is like an umbrella organisation that takes in clearly the responsibilities under the treaty but which is also your servant and the Commission's servant.\nSo when the Commission is looking to do things on trade, on climate change, on energy security across the world, the External Action Service can be its tool as well, directly linking the work of the Commission to what happens on the ground. All of that, I would maintain, is about a more secure, more stable world. So for me, it is all about how we build in the idea that we are there to support efforts to ensure that we have peace and that we keep peace.\nOn Atalanta: I think the points made there are very positive. It is a very important mission, but it is a mission that has to be connected to all the other things we are doing in that region. I also take the point that we need to think about fishing and the strategy on that. That is very much understood.\nWorking groups: I think it is a very good idea for Parliament to have them. I think senior officials are linking with them well at the moment and we need to continue to do that.\nOn the operational headquarters: it is not that I have changed my position. What I said in January was that I remain to be convinced. We have now been looking at this, because, as I have been in the job a little bit longer, I am more engaged in the work that we are doing in terms of our missions abroad, whether in Kosovo, whether in Bosnia or whether in discussing what we are doing in Atalanta or indeed, what we have just been doing in Haiti, and so forth.\nIn my speech, I said that we need to look at what is necessary and then decide how best to achieve it. There are different views, but those views, I believe, will converge around a common theme, and that is what we ought to do. So it is about being convinced one way or the other as to how we do it.\nOn human rights: I want to describe that as a silver thread. The projection of our values and human rights is essential to everything that we do in the European Union and in the wider world. It is about how we make sure that it is a thread that runs all the way through all our actions in terms of support for the work that we are doing across the world to promote the values of the European Union. I want to look very carefully at how we do that, so it is not something that just becomes an add-on extra to a dialogue. It becomes an integral part of everything that we do.\nI agree as well about the strong relationship transatlantically with the United States. They are a strong partner with us on a whole range of things, particularly on crisis management, and it is very important that we build on that. I am also very keen to build on the work that we do with the US in areas of development, for example, particularly in Africa, where there is a potential - I believe, anyway - to do a lot more, certainly in the light of my experience with Aid for Trade as the Trade Commissioner.\nWe also need to think about other big partnerships. I have been talking to the Brazilian Foreign Minister about the potential of again working together on development where the economies of scale and the ability to collaborate enable us to release resources in a much more effective way to certain parts of the world which are in real need.\nI agree too on the cyber threats. This is a very important issue. It is here now. It is an issue we are going to have to keep looking at because inevitably, the threats change all the time.\nJust a little bit on the External Action Service. The geographical breadth of the European Union has to be represented within the External Action Service. I agree with that completely, but it will take me time to do it. One of the things that I have said to all the foreign ministers and I say to Parliament is: please resist the temptation to assume that, because the first four or five appointments I make are not from a Member State that you might know best, it does not mean that I will not make appointments in the future from those Member States. We simply have to build it stage by stage. Remember, as honourable Members know, it does not exist at all at the moment. I do not have a team or a staff for the External Action Service because, until the legal basis is done, we do not have anything. We simply have what we had before, trying to bring it together in a more coherent way.\nI will appoint on merit and nothing else. There are no favourites here. It is on merit. I want the brightest and the best and that is what I have said to Member States and the institutions. I want the delegations on the ground to be an umbrella, able to support the work of the European Union in all its different elements, as it is represented to third countries, as it works with third countries.\nIt is essential that it does that as otherwise, we will end up fragmented again. The question is how to do it, and that is why we are in dialogue with the Council and the Commission at the moment. If it were very simple, we would have done it by now. We just have to make sure that we do it properly and effectively. We will work that out in the next few weeks.\nIn terms of resources, I am going to argue for flexibility. I am going to argue that, if you have a crisis in a particular country or if you realise that you need to be able to move resources, we should deal with it, but deal with it within the context of parliamentary scrutiny. And again, we need to think about how to make that work, not just now but in the future.\nWe absolutely must avoid duplication; otherwise we will have gained nothing except more bureaucracy, which is not what we want to do. We have to make sure that this is a cohesive service that runs well, operating as an entity within the European Union, supporting and being supported by the other institutions. And, as I have said, we must remember that it does not exist yet. Let us hope that we can get the work done in the next few weeks. With Parliament supporting me, I am sure we will, so we can get this into being. We can lay the foundation stones but it will take time to build it, and that is so important that I hope that every honourable Member will understand.\nA couple of final points. On summits: we have lots of different summits. The question that we always have to keep in mind is the value and importance of them. I cannot go to all of them. There are simply too many. I will be at some. We were well represented at the Morocco Summit because both Presidents were there. I honestly believe that if the Presidents of the Council and the Commission are there, we have to start saying that is a strong EU representation at the summit. It does not always require me to be there as well, and they would agree with that.\nFinally, honourable Members talked about relationships with countries like Japan, with countries important to us in strategic partnership like Russia, the importance and value of the Middle East, where I will be travelling from Sunday onwards, and the importance and value of the Quartet, because I will travel through the Middle East. I think I visit five countries and then I will end up in Moscow for the Quartet meeting in order to discuss and debate what we do next.\nFinally, honourable Members, thank you for noticing I am on the Council side and there is no Commission. I will change sides. Until there is a seat in the middle, I will keep moving across. It will be your responsibility to remember which side I should be on as I come in.\nAnd, finally can I again thank Mr Albertini and Mr Danjean very much for excellent reports which have given me the opportunity to put forward my views today.\n(Applause)\nGabriele Albertini\nI thank my fellow Members, so many of whom have spoken, especially those who approved the key parts of the report, praising and endorsing its content, but also those who expressed criticisms and who, above all, did so in a desire to overcome the regrettably tragic instances where force has been used, and to dream of a peaceful world. A great Greek philosopher, Plato, said that only the dead will see an end to war. However, despite our refusal to bow to this philosophy and our attempts to prevent this happening, reality compels us to use force even on peace missions.\nI congratulate High Representative\/Vice-President Ashton, and thank her for having mentioned my report: one aspect of her approach that I particularly like is its dual nature, the way it seeks synergy between the tasks of the Council and the Commission. Her very physical location - which will alternate between the benches of the Council, here, and the Commission - exemplifies her wish to wear two hats.\nAs Parliament, I believe that we must support and promote this synergistic commitment. The European Commission pursues policies for development, neighbourhood, and for stability and the promotion of human rights and democracy; the Council undertakes peace missions and missions to implement the rule of law. This set of themes must find its ultimate expression in the European foreign diplomatic service, which must be efficient, effective, and equipped with the necessary skills and resources to be able to carry out its role as it should, and we will work hard to achieve this.\nI also thank the High Representative - and we will discuss this further on 23 April - for agreeing to be present at the hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the subject of the external service, which we will have the chance to discuss in greater depth. Today marks the beginning of our collaboration, but certainly not the end.\nArnaud Danjean\nMr President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all the speeches which, once again, have helped to enrich the debate, to enrich this report.\nI would like to reassure those who have voiced their doubts and, at times, their suspicions, about the fact that this report might open the door to more competition, with NATO in particular, and even to isolation. This is by no means the case; I absolutely do not believe that, and I would add that this does not appear in the treaty, quite the opposite. You can believe a French MEP who has fought tirelessly to have his country reinstated within the integrated structures of NATO.\nWhen we talk about strategic autonomy, what idea are we developing, what policy have we been developing, for 10 years? The answer is the ability of the European Union to intervene via civil and military missions in areas in which other organisations, including NATO, cannot. NATO could not have intervened to put a stop to the conflict in Georgia, where there is no UN or OSCE presence. NATO intervened no earlier than we did in the Horn of Africa to put a stop to events threatening our security interests.\nStrategic autonomy also means the ability to intervene with a range of instruments that we alone possess: civil and military instruments, legal instruments, financial instruments, development instruments. The European Union is best placed to develop this global approach in crisis areas.\nOur strategic autonomy also refers to our ability, where necessary, not to intervene, either in unilateral military campaigns, or - and this has been pointed out by several Austrian Members - because there are neutral countries among us and because we respect their status.\nThis is what is meant by European defence and security. This is what is meant by the strategic autonomy that we are developing by means of this policy. Never forget the origins of this European Security and Defence Policy. It originates in a tragic, bloody failure: that of the Balkans in the 1990s, where the European Union was incapable of coping with a major security challenge on its own continent. Let us not forget that. Our European citizens have not forgotten it, and they would not forgive us if we abandoned the ambition to see Europe play a role on the international stage.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nThat concludes this item. The debate is closed. I have received six motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure to wind up the debate.\nThe vote will take place today.\nElena B\u0103sescu  \nI would first of all like to congratulate Mr Albertini for drafting this report. I am pleased that the amendments which I suggested have been adopted. Last week, the European Commission announced funding for 43 major energy projects, including four involving Romania. In the future, the Commission must give due importance to the pan-European Constan\u0163a-Trieste oil pipeline, as well as to the development of relations with the countries in the Eastern Partnership. Efforts must also be stepped up in implementing projects as part of the Black Sea Synergy in order to ensure more effective cooperation in this area. The Republic of Moldova can play an important role in both the Eastern Partnership and Black Sea Synergy. The European Union must focus particular attention on relations with this country and support it on its journey to EU accession. The EU must have greater involvement in settling unresolved conflicts in the Black Sea region, including the conflict in Transnistria. The development of the transatlantic partnership must be a priority in the European Union's foreign and security policy. Relations with the United States are extremely important in helping consolidate global security and stability. Installation of part of the US anti-missile system on Romanian territory is proof of the confidence placed in my country.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nIt is regrettable that the process of multilateral disarmament has been interrupted and that there has been no political will to resume it for several years. For this reason, the coming 2010 review conference between the parties to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is of particular importance.\nAs the motion for a resolution which we have signed states, we are deeply worried by the danger presented by a new nuclear arms race. Therefore, the immediate cessation of the development, production and storage of nuclear arms is necessary.\nIt is necessary for the US to put an end to the development of new generations of tactical nuclear weapons and, moving in quite the opposite direction, to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.\nWe are also arguing for a peaceful solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear programmes and calling for the recommencement of negotiations, reiterating our opposition to any military action or threat of the use of force. As well, we warn that any military action could lead to an even deeper crisis in the region.\nEdit Herczog  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty review conference will be held in April-May 2010. It is important that the Member States of the European Union present a unified standpoint at that meeting and that they reaffirm all three pillars of the Treaty: non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, disarmament and cooperation on the civilian uses of nuclear energy. Member States must express their commitment to eliminating trade in nuclear weapons, progressively reducing the existing nuclear weapons stockpile and strictly monitoring the manufacture of materials needed for the production of nuclear weapons and the possession of products required for their production. Member States must take a leading role in applying United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887, adopted in autumn 2009 (on 24 September). Within the meaning of this resolution, Member States must place great emphasis on developing a comprehensive international agreement regulating the elimination of nuclear weapons under strict international supervision. In addition, they need to strive to introduce two concrete measures in the aforementioned areas, in order to set an example for the rest of the world. The EU Member States must promote the comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the renewal of the START Agreement between the United States and Russia. The EU must treat endeavours relating to nuclear fuel as a priority area and focus on harmonising, tightening and rendering transparent the regulations concerning their storage, transport and trade.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nLadies and gentlemen, I must say that I suspect the annual report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy for 2008 will not arouse such emotion as will our debate on the subject next year. For I hope that in a year's time, we will know what the European External Action Service looks like, and this new service is, in turn, going to have a huge influence on the development of European foreign policy.\nThe European Union has ambitions of being a global player. This is good, but those ambitions are not going to be easy to achieve. We have some hard work ahead of us. The European institutions must come to an understanding on the EEAS. This will not be easy, but without it we will not be able to improve foreign policy. We should go back to the fundamental values of the European Union, and use them as a basis on which to build our foreign policy.\nWe must always remember about solidarity, equality, uniform standards and human and civil rights. We must remember to maintain internal balance, and that we should defend those interests of all EU Member States which are not mutually exclusive. A key matter is, definitely, the need to improve coordination between Community institutions and Member States. Particular national interests should not conflict with our coherence or our community. Paradoxically, even those countries which want to be seen as a driving force for European integration sometimes act against the collective interests of the Union. Let us change this.\nKristiina Ojuland  \nMr President, some previous speakers have pointed out problems relating to the composition of the European External Action Service, which has begun work following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. I consider it extremely important to adhere to the principle of geographic equality in making up the EEAS and, as with other European Union bodies, to implement positive discrimination in relation to representatives from the new Member States, which is reflected in the transition period and which makes it possible to speed up career development. Representatives from the new Member States lack the necessary decades-long work experience in the institutions of the European Union, which is a prerequisite for filling the highest offices. It would be unfair if all the most important positions were filled by officials from the old Member States, and if officials from the new Member States had to stand on the sidelines for many years. This would obviously be a waste of resources because, for example, the representative from Malta might have much more know-how with respect to the countries of North Africa, Cyprus with respect to the Middle East, Bulgaria with respect to Turkey, Poland with respect to Belarus and Ukraine, the Baltic States with respect to Russia, and so on. I hope that the European Union will not make the mistake of only allowing the old Member States to make up the face of the EEAS, and I hope that instead, it finds an optimal solution which satisfies all the Member States.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nThe situation in the world is creating new challenges for EU foreign policy and requires a broader understanding of security problems. New powers have arisen and are becoming actively involved in global policy in various areas. Therefore, what is needed is dialogue at world level and the establishment of new principles for cooperation and for the division of roles. We must supplement the enormous role in world security played by NATO and the USA by establishing special mobile forces, as part of the EU, which will be able to tackle all kinds of natural disasters and catastrophes. The Union will not only be perceived as an institution which fights for democracy and human rights, but also as an institution which comes to people's aid in times of difficulty. The danger from other threats is clearly growing, and so energy and food security are becoming important. I think it is necessary to develop a new conception regarding the functioning of the EU's external service in which the areas of the Community's operation and the principles of establishing the service are defined, as well as principles for the division of roles and for cooperation with Member States' diplomatic services, to make clear what roles are played by individual EU institutions. Failure to elaborate the division of roles and competences at the outset could be the cause of misunderstandings between different institutions and leaders in the Union, as well as between the EU and Member States. Initial experiences with the function of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, and the general expectation that she should be active and present in different places, demand that we think about appointing deputies, or involving other Commissioners in areas of her work to a greater degree, since we have so many of them.\nTraian Ungureanu  \nI welcome the Albertini report outlining the main aspects of the Common Security and Foreign Policy, especially the paragraphs concerning the development of the Eastern Partnership and European policy in the Black Sea region. The Eastern Partnership and the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly provide a suitable framework for bringing the EU's eastern neighbours closer to European standards, as well as for clarifying certain states' prospects for joining the EU, such as the Republic of Moldova. I wish to emphasise, in particular, the importance of the rapid, specific assistance which should be given to the Republic of Moldova's pro-European government. In this regard, two European measures need to be speeded up: the process for granting EU macro-financial assistance and the visa waiver for journeys made to the EU by citizens from the Republic of Moldova. In the Black Sea region, it is vital to continue the European objective of guaranteeing the EU's energy security. I support paragraph 21 of the report which calls on the EU to implement the Nabucco project fully and as quickly as possible. Another issue during this debate, which is just as important, is a suitable assessment of the development of the US anti-missile defence project and its importance to European security. Romania's involvement in this project shows that Romania has become a net European supplier of security and has the full capacity to honour its security commitments to allies.\nJanusz W\u0142adys\u0142aw Zemke  \nI would like to make several remarks on the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy.\nIn the European Parliament's motion for a resolution, the main threats and challenges which Europe faces have been correctly defined. The problem is that we are not able to respond to them sufficiently, at least not always quickly enough. There are three main weaknesses, and if we could overcome them, we would radically improve the effectiveness of the Common Security and Defence Policy. The first weakness is a lack of determination of all the EU Member States to have a common policy and not just a verbal declaration of its necessity. Secondly - weak coordination of the work of numerous European institutions. There is still no reaction centre at Union level for critical situations. Thirdly, and finally, the military and civil potential which is really at the Union's disposal, and not just at the disposal of individual Member States, is too small.\nProblems with air transport, for example, are now proverbial, and this is of fundamental significance for a rapid reaction in crisis situations. Only progress in these three areas would make the Common Security and Defence Policy more effective.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Protocol amending TRIPS (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the recommendation by Gianluca Susta, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement (08934\/2006 - C6-0359\/2006 -\nGianluca Susta  \nrapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in Parliament for the support it has given me. I would also like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, as well as Mr Van Hecke, who preceded me in covering this dossier, for the excellent work carried out and for managing to maintain the unity of our institution right through to the end.\nIn my opinion, this has been Parliament's greatest strength in the campaign to promote access to medicines in the developing and less-developed countries where they are most needed. The right to health and access to health at affordable prices are fundamental rights and should be guaranteed for all citizens. Unfortunately we know only too well that this is not always the case: all too often the prices imposed by the pharmaceutical industry are too high, with the result that countries where they are most needed find themselves in difficulty.\nFor this reason, as I have already said on several occasions, both in the Committee on International Trade and in plenary, Parliament could not blindly accept the Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement as if it were a universal panacea, and then consider the matter resolved. Parliament wanted more to be done, at least within the European Union, because the European Union can and must do more.\nEven in the light of the regrettable events of this summer, such as the exchange of letters with Thailand, even if partially resolved, the European Parliament, which has always been a great advocate of using all the flexibilities offered by the TRIPS Agreement, could not give the go-ahead for the ratification of the protocol without obtaining real and effective guarantees from the Commission and the Council.\nI think it is fair to stress that during these months of close collaboration with the Commission and the Council, we have undoubtedly achieved an important goal for the European Union, by putting an essentially technical dossier at the top of the European political agenda.\nI believe that the end result can be qualified as a success, not only for this reason, but above all because we have succeeded in making progress in extremely sensitive areas, such as encouraging the use of the flexibilities provided for under the TRIPS Agreement so that we can promote access to essential medicines at affordable prices within the framework of national public health programmes.\nI particularly support the explicit reference contained in the Council Statement - presented on Monday - to Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement. For my group, this represents a guarantee and an assurance that Member States will be able to use this instrument without coming under pressure and that there will be easier access to medicines in countries where they are most needed.\nSecondly: I am also delighted at the results obtained in terms of TRIPS-plus, namely the more stringent provisions as regards those provided for under the TRIPS Agreement. Parliament, the Council and the Commission have agreed that there should be no negotiations in future bilateral or regional agreements with developing countries on provisions that might have negative consequences for health and access to medicines.\nDespite this, while recognising the efforts of the Portuguese Presidency, I would like to ask whether the text of the statement can be further improved, particularly in the section referring to poor developing countries. This expression could create confusion, since it is now customary to refer only to developing countries and to the category of less-developed countries. To insert a new category would complicate the situation. Above all, it is important to stress that all developing countries, hence even countries such as Brazil, India, etc., must be able to use the current system without running the risk of pejorative provisions being introduced in future.\nLast but not least, it is vital to underline the efforts made to date in terms of the transfer of research and technological development to southern countries. The ALDE Group is ready to give its assent because it believes that a 'no' would send out a negative signal to the countries most in need, and would be irresponsible on the part of the European Union given that the reopening of the WTO negotiations is unrealistic.\nHowever, this does not change the fact that we continue to have reservations about the efficiency of the mechanism studied and approved by the WTO. For this reason, and I am almost at the end now, I would like to confirm that the EU will not stop here. Parliament will do everything it can to ensure that the guarantees that have been given over the past few months will be honoured in practice.\nTherefore we ask Commissioner Mandelson, who in his letter confirmed that he did not intend to negotiate TRIPS-plus provisions, to remove from the draft Economic Partnership Agreement with the Caribbean countries the request for adherence to and acceptance of the obligations of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Patent Law Treaty and the intellectual property provisions of Directive 2004\/48\/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which unequivocally resemble TRIPS-plus provisions.\nPeter Mandelson\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I am very pleased that we have been able to find a solution agreeable to all on the important issue of access to medicines for poor, developing countries. Our debate during the last months has been fruitful and I would like to thank Parliament for the intensity and the quality of our exchanges. The Commission has always been receptive to the concerns expressed by Parliament and, indeed, shares most of them. That is why the Commission was at the forefront of the debate on TRIPS and access to medicines in the WTO.\nI have seen in this debate an opportunity for the Commission to clarify its position on a number of issues. We all agree that the amendment of the TRIPS agreement is one part of the solution among many others to the problem of access to medicines. Obviously, other measures are needed, in particular to improve health care systems and the infrastructures, notably in poor, developing countries.\nSome Members fear that the mechanism will not work. This is certainly too early to assert. In our regulation implementing the waiver, and together with Parliament, we agreed to evaluate it three years after its entry into force, and we will do it.\nWe also support the work of the intergovernmental working group with the WHO to explore other measures to further improve access to medicines.\nThe Commission has been able to reaffirm its attachment to the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement on public health and its support for the flexibilities contained therein.\nSimilarly, this debate allows me to dispel any misunderstanding about what the Commission is doing in the economic partnership agreements with ACP countries. Let me confirm that, in those agreements and in other future bilateral and regional agreements with poor developing countries, the Commission is not asking and will not ask for provisions which could affect access to medicines or undermine the TRIPS flexibilities contained in the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health.\nThanks to this frank and direct debate Parliament is now in a position to give its assent to the Commission proposal. The European Community will then join the other WTO members which have already accepted the TRIPS agreement. This acceptance will enable the EC to continue to play a leading role in the WTO on the issue of access to medicines.\nTo conclude, I would like to insist that access to medicines remains a priority for the Commission and I am willing to continue to work in a constructive spirit with Parliament on this matter in the future.\nMichel Rocard  \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry that the Council is not represented in our debate this evening because for once it is our main contact. The atmosphere here is euphoric, everyone is in agreement and tomorrow we are going to vote - by a crushing majority, I think - for the ratification of this amendment to the TRIPS agreement, which is supposed to provide and should provide better access to medicines for countries that are not sufficiently developed and do not have a pharmaceutical industry that allows them this access.\nWhat happened during the long debate we have had on this, is that Parliament was a little more doubtful than the Commission about the efficacy of this system. I believe - and I would like to thank the Council here for having listened to Parliament more than the Commission, for once - that this is what led to the statement distributed on Monday morning, thanks to which we have accepted that an agreement between us enables us to make this small step forward. It is an improvement, but it is an improvement the inadequacy of which we are aware of and regarding the effectiveness of which we have a few doubts. These few doubts need to be removed by the stringency with which the Member States and the Council apply the recommendations.\nI am delighted, however, by what has just been said by Mr Mandelson, who has himself announced a group of experts to find other measures, and an evaluation of these measures, and I think we will be discussing these matters again once we have seen whether the effectiveness meets our expectations. In any case, I am pleased about the positive conclusion to this necessary stage, even if it does not go far enough.\nGeorgios Papastamkos\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, as rapporteur of the European People's Party I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Sousa, and my other fellow Members for the productive cooperation we have enjoyed, for it enabled us to overcome certain differences between political groups and to maintain a united position on this important issue. The European Parliament has not been limited to areas of responsibility as laid down by the Treaty; it has not been restricted merely to giving its assent. In the July resolution a political victory was achieved expressing a united will transcending party politics.\nMaking commitments by the Commission and the Council was sought and achieved. They coincide to a great extent with the views of the European Parliament. It could be said to have been a rehearsal for institutional cooperation in light of the new role the European Parliament will play once the Reform Treaty has been adopted.\nThe acceptance by the Union of the amendment is thus backed up by real commitments, which ensure the process works successfully. The commitments also go much further: they lay down guidelines for an integrated approach to the issue of the public health of developing countries. The acceptance by the Union of the amendment to the TRIPS Agreement sends a positive and hopeful message to developing countries. We hope that it will also involve the active cooperation of other members of the WTO.\nKader Arif\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, during our last debate in July on access to medicines, I concluded my comments by calling on the Council and the Commission to make clear and formal commitments that would guarantee Europe's active involvement in finding new solutions and its desire to be a front runner in the fight for access to affordable medicines for everyone. We could not be content with a debate in which no precise commitments were made, and I note today that, after several months of exchanges between the three institutions, certain proposals we had made and that we really wanted are becoming a reality.\nFirst allow me to applaud the parliamentary work done, and done with a constant concern for accountability and openness. The three successive postponements of the vote in Parliament were motivated by a commitment to global public health. This showed us that the word 'solidarity' still had meaning in European policies.\nI would therefore like to thank first of all our rapporteur Mr Susta for his powers of persuasion and capacity for resistance, and all the shadow rapporteurs from the political groups, who throughout these months of collaboration, effort and Common conviction, have risen above party politics to show the quality of work that Parliament can produce. I therefore hope that the Council and the Commission will be able to demonstrate that the commitments made over the last few months during our various exchanges and in the written statement we have received will be respected.\nThese commitments are: that the Member States are free to use all the clauses allowing them to produce generic medicines and export them to developing countries, and not only to poor developing countries; that these developing countries can use all the flexibilities in the Doha Declaration to provide their populations with the essential medicines they need; that the European Union will not negotiate public health-related provisions in negotiations on trade agreements - and I also note the statements by the Commissioner; and finally that the EU will finance projects to develop research and manufacturing capabilities in these countries.\nThese are positive steps forward, and we want to make capital of them now, but I would like nevertheless to say that not all the issues raised by Parliament, or its legitimate concerns, have necessarily met with the desired responses from the other institutions. Our fight for access to medicines for everyone in the world goes on. That is why we will remain extremely vigilant regarding the application of the commitments made by the Council and the Commission today, and at the same time we will continue to demand that all our concerns receive a rapid, adequate response in the coming months. I recall that the first of the commitments made to Parliament was to complete the evaluation of the mechanism that we are to adopt tomorrow. Doubts persist over this, and they need to be addressed. Should that not be the case, in line with the commitments made to the developing countries concerned, the EU should draw the appropriate conclusions to come up with a truly viable, sustainable solution.\nI am therefore pleased about the commitments made by the Council and the Commission, and I will therefore call upon my group to vote in favour of ratification tomorrow, even though the long weeks of work we have just experienced lead me to think that, far from reaching an end, the collective agreement we have made is only just beginning.\nJohan Van Hecke\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) The WTO decision of 30 August 2003, which provided for a temporary derogation from the TRIPS Agreement, has now been transformed into a permanent derogation by a new decision of 6 December 2005. In his report, Mr Susta makes a number of very pertinent remarks on the practicability of compulsory licensing. I recognise very many elements from my 2005 report transforming the temporary derogation into a European regulation.\nI fully support the recommendations of the Council and the Commission, which Mr Susta links with the avis conforme. The mechanism created is indeed only a limited solution to the problem of inadequate access to medicines in poor countries. The EU must help developing countries find a long-term solution in terms of obtaining the most essential medicines at affordable price, and must stimulate investment in local production facilities. The transfer of technology, research and technical assistance are of course essential in this respect.\nIn this regard, I would refer to recent reports stating that the market share of generic medicines is falling once again, and giving the cause as the cheap production by pharmaceutical companies themselves of medicines whose patent protection has expired. This must present opportunities for poor countries, where, in line with the WTO decision, compulsory licensing can offer a solution in respect of medicines still protected by patents.\nIf we do not want to give vain hope to the millions of people still unable to benefit from the most essential medicines, more - much more - will be needed than a mechanism whose practicability is and remains highly dubious.\nRyszard Czarnecki\nMr President, as it happens, 14 years ago I was involved in the issue of intellectual rights in the Polish Parliament, as chairman of a special subcommittee. Today I have the honour of doing the same in our European Parliament.\nLike those who have spoken before me, I would like to emphasise the significant progress that we have made over the last few months, and I would like to stress that, as we see it, the European Parliament has done a lot to put right what was proposed by the European Commission. I am thoroughly convinced that the compromise we are proposing will help to improve access to pharmaceutical products in Third World countries, as they are what mainly concern us.\nCarl Schlyter\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, if I have understood correctly the Council will read the statement before the vote, otherwise there will be no binding commitment. I would then ask you to omit the word poor developing countries. It is completely irrelevant and meaningless in previous agreements. There are developing countries and there are the least developed countries, and Parliament wants both these groups of countries to be able to benefit from these mechanisms. It is clear that we are speaking the same language here. It is something I was wondering about in your speech, Mr Mandelson: you said that ACP countries had nothing to worry about, but then you also said poor developing countries, ACP countries. I hope that we are not restricting the discussion to them, and that your letter to Thailand does not set the limits for this, but that we are perfectly clear that developing countries which are not among the poorest also really need to be able to protect public health in order to be able to develop effectively, and that we must give them all the help and support we can. I hope that we agree on this.\nUmberto Guidoni\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has been called upon to express an opinion on whether the amendment to the WTO agreements on intellectual property - the 'TRIPS Agreements' - can be made permanent, as this would represent a swift solution to the problem of access to medicines by developing countries.\nConsidering that up to now, this amendment has offered no proof of its real effectiveness, it is important for the European Parliament to seize the opportunity offered by the ratification of the TRIPS amendment to secure greater guarantees that EU policy on access to medicines will be comprehensive, coherent and effective.\nThe TRIPS Agreement, as the Council has recognised, represents only part of the solution to the problem of access to medicines and public health; it is important therefore that the Council, as emphasised several times by Parliament, should declare its support for all those countries who intend to take advantage of the flexibilities offered by the TRIPS Agreements, to be able to provide essential medicines at affordable prices.\nThe European Union must do more to stem the health crisis in the world's poorest countries, particularly by ensuring that these countries can meet their own needs, without burdening them with bilateral or regional agreements, the 'TRIPS-plus' Agreements, on provisions relating to pharmaceutical products that risk having a negative impact on access to public health and medicines.\nWe also believe that it is the task of the Commission and the Council to support WTO initiatives to make TRIPS rules less complex, and specifically to maximise product availability.\nZbigniew Zaleski\n(PL) Mr President, halfway through it has transpired that among the millennium goals, we have done worst in combating TB, HIV and malaria. World Health Organisation statistics show that in 2005 more than one and a half million people died of TB, which had a high mortality rate in Europe before World War II. Each day 27 000 people die because of a lack of access to basic medicines.\nHealth is an inseparable condition for wellbeing and economic development, and I believe it is our moral duty to help less well developed countries in this respect. One positive step is to provide support for the protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement in order to allow access to medicines. It is not a complete solution, but we cannot not take the risk if we are to protect the lives of millions of people.\nThere is a risk. To begin with, obtaining a licence for the production of generics for export to countries in need is hedged round by numerous conditions that might put people off such an undertaking.\nSecondly, production of medicines of this type may create circumstances for abuse on the part of both the beneficiaries and the exporters themselves, and on top of that the infrastructure in poor countries is so weak that it is just not possible to undertake production there. For this reason some kind of extra, multi-level aid instruments are needed. It seems to me that the most important thing is financial aid intended for setting up local production centres, technology transfer, and investment in development and innovation. We are obliged to show social solidarity with these countries, but we are the ones who have to work out a way that will do most to increase the effectiveness of the aid provided while at the same time protecting our own market.\nFinally, Commissioner, I want to say that the Commission - and you, yourself, as head of a specific committee - have plenty of scope for new ideas to think about.\nErika Mann\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are discussing tonight and will be voting on tomorrow will be a small but important building block in the cooperation between the institutions, the Commission, the Council and Parliament.\nIn this procedure, Parliament's only options are to agree with the proposal or reject it. The way that Mr Susta, the rapporteur, and all the shadow rapporteurs - and here I would like to thank particularly Kader Arif from my group - have handled it increased considerably the predefined scope for Parliament to take action.\nHowever, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for expressly pointing out that this accord, this Protocol, which we will vote on tomorrow and which Member States will then be able to ratify, is only a building block - an important one, but only a building block - and that there are many more steps to be taken to give developing countries with no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector a real opportunity, which they need, to provide their citizens with essential medicines.\nThis step will help us in our cooperation and it will especially help us when Parliament gains further rights of consent in the many other policy areas, in the area of trade, for example.\nI extend sincere thanks to the Council and the Commission and all the Members who made it possible actually to achieve the flexibility that we now have.\nFrancisco Assis\n(PT) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given the ethical importance of this issue, the discussion that we are engaged in is of great political relevance. The dichotomy between protecting intellectual property and promoting the health and well-being of the populations of less-developed countries arises out of a conflict of interests that can be resolved only by a comparison of values.\nSimply put, this opposition is clear. On the one hand we have a certain debatable model of protecting intellectual property based on the argument of the incentive for innovation and the consequent expansion of scientific knowledge, while on the other are millions of poor human beings, living in countries with scarce resources who cannot be condemned to suffer and die for economic reasons at a time when we have the knowledge that can save their lives.\nThis comparison makes it clear on which side the fundamental values lie. In this light, at various times and in various places certain steps have already been taken to make the intellectual property protection system more flexible so as to promote access to medicines for all. However, it turns out that progress so far is not sufficient. The mechanism now being considered is merely a means of easing such a distressing problem.\nWe need to go further. Parliament has pointed in this direction, making a decisive contribution to encourage the EU to adopt a position in line with its underlying values. The solution now found reveals this concern and I would therefore like to commend the Presidency of the Council for its efforts to achieve, through statements and commitments, a position that shows Europe at its best: a political community always set on irrecusable humanist values.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nRichard Corbett \nOn behalf of the Socialist group I very much welcome this amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which will enable Parliament to deal much more efficiently and speedily with proposals to simplify European legislation, either through codification of existing legislation, without changes of substance, or else through recasting proposals where changes of substance are combined with the simplification of existing legislation.\nMore and more, European legislative proposals that we consider in this Parliament are about amending or updating existing European legislation rather than bringing forth new legislation on new subjects. Yet few things contribute more to the opaqueness and complexity of European legislation than the habit of having sets of directives amending previous directives, without the texts as a whole ever being consolidated into a single document. The Commission must speed up its program to codify existing Community legislation, not simply as an exercise in reducing the number of pages of the acquis communitaire, but to provide greater transparency and ease of access to all. In amending its Rules of Procedure today, Parliament is giving a powerful signal that it is ready to assist in this process and to do so with due speed and diligence.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. (PT) If anyone were in any doubt as to the objectives of these recommendations, one would only have to take a close look at the information provided on them by Parliament: recognition 'for the first time' of the public authorities' free choice of the operators of so-called road and rail passenger transport 'public services', be they public or private. In other words, this is tantamount to 'the award of public service contracts' in the framework of competition; that is, the undermining of the concept of public services provided by the public authorities, whereby the rights of the workers and of the users of affordable high-quality public services are not affected.\nAlthough it does contain some valuable points - such as the relevant authorities having the option to provide the services themselves, or directly to award the contract to an entity over which they have control - the adopted recommendation forms part of the policies of liberalisation and of promoting privatisations and monopolies at the expense of public funding on the basis of the forces of each country coming together.\nWe are very disappointed at the rejection of the proposals we tabled aimed at safeguarding workers' rights in the sector, such as the inclusion in contracts of provisions on the protection of jobs in the event of a change of operator.\nDavid Martin \nI supported these amendments to bring in new rules on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, which seek to rebalance the award of contracts for these services between the public and private sectors. I particularly support the move to repeal old EU legislation and replace existing national rules on competition in the public transport sector with standard Europe-wide rules.\nErik Meijer \nThe Commission proposal dating back to 2000, in which a duty to issue calls for tender was due to apply to the whole public transport sector, fitted into the political context of that time, when the prevalent idea was that the government should withdraw from many tasks, that taxes could be lowered as a result and that the market would be able to organise everything in an adequate manner. This formed part of the agreements which were concluded a few months before this proposal at the summit of Heads of Government in Lisbon, in the expectation that more market and more profit would also yield greater economic growth and even better and cheaper amenities for the public. This neo-liberal ideology has since been disproved in practice. The Lisbon Strategy has not come up to expectation. The market is not offering any answers, and certainly none as far as public transport, and other amenities that are both necessary and loss-making, are concerned. It would lead to the disappearance of integrated networks, with only the busiest lines surviving. Over the past seven years, we have had more experience of privatisation and tendering, and the disappointments experienced in that context have contributed to the growth of opposing forces. It was partly thanks to this that my objective as rapporteur, namely retaining municipal transport companies and freedom of choice, could be achieved.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nThe report on public service requirements on which we voted today raises expectations of a positive conclusion at second reading of an issue that has taken decades to resolve. The legal uncertainty of the current situation has only fomented disputes and served to hamper the development of the passenger transport public service market.\nWe therefore hope that this text is concluded, ensuring transparent market access conditions without the artificial restrictions that only serve to protect the status quo, in which we are burdened by bureaucracy and in which obstacles are placed in the way of better and more efficient provision of passenger transport for the people.\nGeorgios Toussas \nThe proposal for a regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road is yet another attack on grassroots income and on the rights of the public transport workers and passengers in general.\nFollowing the liberalisation of maritime and coastal transport under the anti-grassroots EU law in Regulation (EEC) No 3577\/92 and of passenger transport by air and rail, it is now the turn of local road and rail transport to be privatised, in order to increase the profits of big business.\nBig business is extending its tentacles to the daily movements of workers on trams, the underground, suburban railways and buses, with high ticket prices and a package of state subsidies in private, monopoly transport companies, with particularly negative consequences on safety and standards for those who work in and use these means of transport, the grassroots family as a whole.\nThe consequences of the privatisation of public transport, as proven by the experience of towns where it is already applied and by experience with the liberalisation of coastal shipping and transport by air is particularly negative for isolated areas and the poor classes of society.\nThe workers are also fighting against the anti-grassroots policy of the European Union in the transport sector. We are fighting for a high standard of modern public transport, with cheap tickets, which will serve the needs of the working and grassroots classes, which is why we voted against this EU regulation.\nDavid Martin \nI voted for the Council's common position on a proposal to deregulate pack sizes for pre-packed products. Once the legislation is implemented, it will be possible to sell many everyday consumer products in a wider range of sizes than at present. I believe that this is an advance for consumer interests.\nMarianne Thyssen \nCurrent European legislation on compulsory packaging materials is 30 years old and is no longer commensurate with current patterns of consumption. The new rules that we have approved here today in second and last reading - in complete agreement with the Council, for which I should like to give the rapporteur a huge compliment - are in keeping with the consumer demand for more diverse packaging formats. Obstacles to competition will be removed, and innovation encouraged, right across Europe. European manufacturers will be able to decide for themselves what packaging formats are best tailored to the requirements of their customers. As for the possibility raised in this report of the scope of the directive on the indication of price per measuring unit being extended to certain small businesses, I should like to say, by way of expressing a reservation, that I am all in favour of consumers being properly informed, and have nothing against demanding from large distribution chains that account for the lion's share of the market that they place the price per measuring unit on their products, but imposing this duty on SMEs or local shops as well would not be a good thing. I will therefore fight tooth and nail for this when Parliament, as it will shortly be doing, reviews current consumer legislation.\nDavid Martin \nI supported these amendments to bring in new rules on the manufacturing standards of road vehicles. These will raise environmental and safety standards as well as making it easier for producers to sell their vehicles Europe-wide. In particular I am glad that the legislation will take more account of the needs of disabled car users.\nMarianne Thyssen \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Harbour report, on which we voted at second reading today, deserves this House's wholehearted support, for, today, the green light was given for a type approval which will apply to such vehicles as buses, coaches and lorries in addition to cars. Mutual recognition of approvals, and for a wide range of vehicles, indeed, is yet another important step towards completing the internal market. Furthermore, the introduction of this framework directive will also benefit safety, partly because this is likely to accelerate the entry into effect of a number of safety measures for buses and coaches.\nThe simplification that this framework directive brings with it is a good thing for the consumer and the manufacturer, because it guarantees more internal market, increases safety and benefits the environment. All these reasons have persuaded me to give my full backing to the rapporteur.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nin writing. (PL) I am voting in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community\nMr Paolo Costa rightly stressed that the retrofitting of mirrors on every heavy goods vehicle registered after 2000 in order to eliminate the blind spot in the driver's vision would save the lives of more than a thousand people by 2020. Without this compulsory legislation and in accordance with the 2003 directive recommending the retrofitting of lorries from 2007 onwards, vehicles without wide-angle mirrors would only be taken off the road in 2023. This would significantly delay the work that needs to be done.\nThe method of financing the additional mirrors was also aptly described. The cost of retrofitting each vehicle should not exceed 100-150 euros, which is equivalent to one tank of petrol.\nI also agree with the proposal to investigate whether other vehicles, such as vans or other delivery vehicles, should also be fitted with these mirrors.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) I welcome the fact that the majority of MEPs have distanced themselves from the parts of the resolution on the EU-Russia summit in which the Left attempted to manipulate the European public into believing that the installation of the US anti-rocket umbrella in Poland and the Czech Republic has paved the way for a new arms race. This is a false argument on the part of the Left for two reasons: firstly, because this concerns the completion of a defence system that is meant to deter attacks from the east, from those regimes that threaten peace, and secondly, in relation to the arms race, Russia has increased military spending dramatically since Putin came to power, both in absolute terms and in terms of GDP, where the figure of 4% is still 30% more than the EU countries spend on defence. The resulting resolution is a forthright political message to take to the impending summit with Russia, stating that we do not accept that country's aggressive policies towards Chechnya, Estonia, Poland and other countries.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, the debate we held in Parliament before the EU-Russia summit was an example of our consensus and unity. It was stressed that the Union would defend the interests of every Member State in terms of its relations with Russia. Estonia was most frequently used as an example and mention was also made of the Russian embargo on Polish meat products. However, no mention was made of the fact that certain Member States are dealing with Russia on a unilateral basis, behind the backs of the other Member States of the European Union and contrary to the Union's interests. Instead, much criticism was levelled at Russia as a whole, with no attempt to distinguish the role played by those in power, who impose this policy, and the position of the average Russian citizen, who is subject to media manipulation. It is in the interests of Europe, Russia and the world to persuade Russian society to support values such as freedom, human rights, democracy and international cooperation on equal terms.\nMario Borghezio\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the vote by the Northern League for the Independence of Padania on the motion for an EU-Russia resolution is partly motivated by the desire to express a strong protest against the extremely muted attitude taken by the European Union to the Estonian crisis. A Member State, a small young nation, whose people have, courageously and determinedly, achieved freedom from the prison of Soviet communism, has been subjected to considerable threats by the former Soviet occupiers as a result of a domestic political decision.\nEurope has in the main been content to stand by, merely stammering a vague protest about the incidents around the Estonian embassy in Moscow. We ought to replace or, at any rate, to add to the words of empty rhetoric with which the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome was celebrated with a few far firmer and more courageous words in defence of that Member State, whose freedom has been threatened.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) As is well known, the June List believes that neither the EU nor its institutions should conduct foreign policy. A repeated pattern in the European Parliament is one whereby relations with a third country begin at the level of trade policy. That is something of which we approve. The trouble begins when further policy areas, such as foreign relations, aid and fisheries, are added. The EU should devote itself strictly to trade issues and cross-border environmental issues.\nIn itself, Amendment 9 from the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance is commendable. It should not, however, be dealt with by the European Parliament, because it relates to a foreign policy issue. At the UN's request, Mr Ahtisaari has put together a plan for Kosovo. However, it is not the task of this House to give its opinion either on the plan or on what action Russia should take.\nWith regard to the problems in Russia, for example the lack of respect for human rights and for the principle of the rule of law, the increase in trade is a good thing. When it comes to straightforward foreign policy issues, it is the national parliaments and governments, together with the UN, that should head up the work, however.\nDavid Martin \nI voted for this resolution which recognises the importance of Russia for Europe, especially in energy relations, but also highlights the need for democratic values and human rights. In particular I support the call for Russia to 'fully respect its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations', guaranteeing the protection of embassies and diplomats.\nCristiana Muscardini \nRussia is an important economic and trade partner for the European Union, which ought to develop increasingly close relations with that country, partly with a view to facilitating the process of democratisation and of respect for civil and human rights.\nWe cannot, however, conceal our concern in connection with what has been happening in recent days in relations between Russia and the Baltic States, and Estonia in particular. It should be stressed that it has now become a habit on the part of the Russian authorities to use economic and trade pressures against neighbouring countries with a view to obtaining geopolitical dominance in the region.\nThe EU must be united and unified in defending Estonia and, more generally, any of its Member States against commercial pressures and threats from any non-EU country.\nCatherine Stihler \nThe tension between Russia and Estonia requires a resolution. It is deeply concerning how quickly this difficulty over a local Estonian decision could escalate to energy supplies being cut off by Russia. Our dependence on Russia for our energy needs continue to worry those who have an interest in security of supply. 60% of Russia's oil exports go to the EU, which amounts to 25% of our oil consumption. In addition, 50% of natural gas exports from Russia accounts for 25% of the EU's total natural gas consumption. I hope that on 18 May when the EU-Russia summit will take place, these issues will be highlighted and addressed.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, I have voted against the Rocard report, a document that proves once again that the European Union lacks the willingness to face the reality of the Arab world. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that in the Arab world, there is not the slightest bit of interest in political reforms, and even less so in the cultural or intercultural dialogue that is so glorified over here.\nThe Rocard report should have been one great indictment of the dreadful state of the rule of law, the free expression of opinion and the freedom of religion in the Arab countries. Instead, this House and this report have taken the so-called cultural definition of human rights to a new level.\nMoreover, the fact that the European mandarins could not care less about the situation of religious minorities in Islamic countries is something we also recognise, on repeated occasions, in the European Union's attitude towards Turkey. Despite the hate campaigns against Christians waged by Turkish imams and those paid by the Turkish state, with all the fatal consequences that this entails, the accession process is quietly being kept on track. It is this spineless appeasement policy against the aggressive effects of Islam that my party will continue to fight.\nMarco Cappato\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the debate and the vote, we witnessed a conflict over an amendment that we tabled, which we are very pleased was adopted. The report makes it clear that we are seeking a commitment to religious freedom, or to the right of individuals and communities freely to profess their beliefs and to practise their faith, and the amendment stipulated 'also guaranteeing the independence and separation of institutions and political power from the religious authorities'.\nI was in agreement with the oral amendment by Mrs de Keyser making it clear that this holds good for all democracies. I regret the fact that there was an objection to the vote, but I do not believe that this changes the nature of the amendment. In fact, when we talk about the Arab world we are not just talking about Arab States, Arab nations or mere institutions, but about peoples and, as a result, about Arab citizens living in the European Union. When we talk about the separation of institutions and political power from religious authorities, we are also talking about ourselves, because the problem obviously exists, in a very specific form and nature, not only in Mecca but also in Rome. If we tackle the issue of secularity in those countries, it also means tackling it in our own countries.\nI would like to conclude by expressing my satisfaction also concerning the adoption of the oral amendment on the 'democratic Palestinian State', because, otherwise, the national State is at risk of not being a frontier of freedom, as we wish it to be.\nPatrick Gaubert \nin writing. - (FR) The report by Mr Rocard on reforms in the Arab world has just been adopted by a large majority, and I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the quality and balanced approach of his work.\nThis report proposes an innovative EU strategy in relation to the Arab world, based on a balanced partnership, with the aim of encouraging fundamental reforms that will involve changes in the law and the crucial involvement of civil society.\nThe report also has the virtue of pointing out the accommodating approach from which some regimes in this region of the world have benefited. At the same time, it acknowledges the efforts to establish dialogue via the regional integration mechanisms, such as the Barcelona process.\nFinally, the report places particular emphasis on the need for these States to insist upon the values of tolerance, respect for human rights and democratic principles if they are to guarantee their stability and prosperity. It also highlights the close link that exists between the rise in extremist movements in the political landscape and the economic and social reality prevailing in these States.\nBeing in favour of this new realistic and balanced approach, I supported the adoption of this report during the final vote in plenary.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) The European Parliament has today adopted a position on what the EU should do to bring about reforms in the Arab world. We are strongly opposed to this because this type of issue needs to be resolved through the UN.\nAmendment 20 by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe proposes that the EU should not support 'fundamentalist and extremist nationalist' movements. That is obvious, but the EU should not engage in foreign policy at all by supporting movements in other parts of the world. We have therefore voted against the amendment.\nIn Amendment 21, the ALDE Group wants, furthermore, to get the Arab countries to guarantee 'the independence and separation of institutions and political power from the religious authorities'. As an institution, the EU must definitely not have views on another country's system.\nBecause we do not consider that this is an issue for the EU, we have voted against the report as a whole in today's vote.\nDavid Martin \nI agree with the general thrust of the Rapporteur's stance on this issue. It is imperative that peace is brought to the Middle East, and the European Union is well placed to influence that process.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nOn this issue and this report I feel entitled to emphasise an idea that I have put forward on several occasions.\nWith the aim of promoting peace, prosperity, democracy and human rights in our neighbouring countries, on account of both the EU's direct interests and universal values, I advocate a European project that is based on partnership with our Mediterranean neighbours, a partnership that ideally would create, in the medium term, an area of free movement in the Mediterranean as close as possible to the EU model to which surrounding countries meeting the criteria of democracy, a market economy and respect for human rights - that is to say, the core of the Copenhagen criteria - can adhere. It would be a strongly enhanced partnership in return for reforms. It would also have the incidental and subsidiary virtue of being a solution that, if the conclusion were drawn that the accession process had hit insurmountable obstacles, might also involve Turkey, assuming that Morocco, Israel and Tunisia were interested.\nTo have prosperous and democratic neighbours, attracted by the prospect of benefits and with populations that would not need to emigrate at all costs, would be a constructive European project, albeit nothing new.\nMarc Tarabella \nDuring the vote on the Rocard report on reforms in the Arab world, we had to express an opinion on Amendment 21, which calls on those Arab countries that have not yet done so to commit themselves more fully to religious freedom or to the right of individuals and communities freely to profess their beliefs and practise their faith, also guaranteeing the independence and separation of institutions and political power from the religious authorities.\nAn oral amendment was then tabled, the aim of which was to extend this fundamental rule to all democracies - something that I fully support. Members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats took a stand against this extension. I took the view that I fully supported the content of the original text of Amendment 21. I therefore decided to vote in favour of this amendment, and I am delighted that it should have been accepted by 382 votes, with 222 votes against and 33 abstentions.\nEdite Estrela \nI voted in favour of the Kaczmarek report on the Horn of Africa: EU political regional partnership for peace, security and development, because I feel it is vital to consolidate the EU's presence in a region that has been devastated by three major conflicts - in Sudan, Ethiopia\/Eritrea and Somalia - and in which a significant proportion of the population, over 22%, lives below the poverty line.\nThe partnership for peace, security and development will only succeed if a regional strategic approach is adopted, one that seeks the involvement of existing regional organisations such as the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, along with other international partners under the scope of the UN.\nFurthermore, the international community needs to support the region to increase its chances of adapting to the serious repercussions of climate change. After all, whereas Africa is the continent that contributes least to greenhouse gas emissions, it is the continent that suffers most from global warming due to its underdevelopment and poverty.\nPedro Guerreiro \nWe feel that the principles that should guide the approach to the complex situation in the Horn of Africa region should be strict compliance with international law and the United Nations Charter, peaceful conflict resolution and d\u00e9tente.\nAny genuine solution to the problems facing the peoples and countries of the region should not form part of, nor promote, however indirectly, the imperialist agenda in the region. Imperialism of this kind reinforces the mechanisms of interventionism and militarism, as evidenced by the recent creation of a single US military command for Africa and the installation on the continent of new military bases.\nRather than interventionism, external interference in attempts at conflict resolution and the militarisation of the continent, and in particular this region, the time has come to promote diplomatic efforts - which are far from being exhausted, witness the recent peace agreement signed between Sudan and Chad - to resolve problems that lie at the root of the current serious situation, not least the unjust distribution of access to the rich natural resources in the region. Urgent humanitarian aid, genuine cooperation policies and development aid are also needed.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nin writing. (PL) Mr President, I support Mr Kaczmarek's report on the European Union's strategy for Africa, which aims to create a regional political partnership with the European Union to foster peace, security and development in the Horn of Africa.\nThe rapporteur has accurately highlighted the need for solutions to stabilise the Horn of Africa, which has been torn apart by conflict. Five out of seven of the countries in this region are at war with their neighbours. The proposal, put forward by the rapporteur, to appoint an EU special representative to the Horn of Africa, is worthy of our support. The representative would coordinate European Union initiatives in this region.\nAnother worthy initiative is addressed to the Council and the Commission, calling on them to begin consultations with other partners involved in the region, with the aim of organising a joint conference on security in all the countries in the Horn of Africa.\nMr Filip Kaczmarek stresses that focusing and coordinating initiatives, as well as cooperation in this region, could help to solve problems such as illegal refugees, border security, food security and the environment, control of the arms trade, education and infrastructure, as well as initiating a political dialogue between the countries in the Horn of Africa.\nCristiana Muscardini \nWe voted for the Kaczmarek report on the Horn of Africa, which adopted four of our amendments designed to place in context the tragedy of Somalia.\nWhile the report as a whole expresses great hopes for a political partnership between the European Union and the Horn of Africa, we wanted to stress that it is necessary to convene a global conference that is focused not only on security, but also on peace and development, tackling these issues with all the countries in the Horn of Africa.\nWe wanted to emphasise the fact that women and children are the ones who suffer the most during conflicts because they are the most vulnerable groups in the population, and therefore we added to the text an important reference to the United Nations resolution on women in conflicts.\nWe also added the statement that, in order to eradicate poverty and to promote economic development, a resolute battle must also be waged against the dreadful practice of female genital mutilation.\nFinally, we tabled amendments on the importance of the principle of self-determination of the Somali people and Somaliland, the only democratic entity in the country, riven by rivalry between clans and the infiltration attempt by the Islamic courts, whose only goal is to undermine the peace efforts in the country.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) The EURATOM organisation, unlike the European Coal and Steel Community, does not foresee an end to its activities. Even if it has not implemented all of its planned tasks or has not undertaken all of its planned activities concerning atomic energy, these tasks have been successfully accomplished by working together with other international institutions concerned with atomic energy. The present situation in the EU and world energy markets and the effects of climatic change from using fossil fuel and organic fuel make the EURATOM organisation even more relevant. Fifteen EU Member States have atomic energy plants, and atomic energy production is increasing in other countries of the world. The alleged lack of safety of atomic energy is just a political issue, given the present safety control mechanisms. The EURATOM organisation has to remain independent, which can be achieved by giving it the additional legal basis it requires. I have voted against the convening of an Intergovernmental Conference, as it is likely to be unproductive. As the discussions on atomic energy have shown, there is no need to increase Parliament's powers just yet.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Mr President, I would like to say how very pleased I am with the decision this House has taken today, by which it has unmistakeably confirmed that there has been for the past 50 years a democratic deficit in the Euratom Treaty and, by a large majority, demanded the power of codecision in matters relating to it. It really is high time that the Member States were not left alone to handle safety issues, because safety and the protection of health are matters of concern to Europe as a whole, and that is why the delegation has decided to endorse these demands.\nGlyn Ford \nI have abstained on this report. While I do not want the closure of existing nuclear plants, I am not in favour of their massive expansion, with all the problems that poses for health and the environment. It may be that the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is limited but the hazards posed by radioactive release were all too graphically demonstrated by Chernobyl and the nuclear disaster in the Urals so graphically described by Roy Medvedev. I also object to the undemocratic nature of Euratom decisions and the waste of resources in the boondoggle that is the ITER project. I supported its location in Japan rather than France as then the Japanese would have wasted their money rather than the EU wasting ours!\nBruno Gollnisch \nNuclear energy is a special form of energy. It has military and strategic implications, is subject to serious constraints in terms of the environment and the security of facilities and populations and possesses a political, real and even 'emotional' dimension. On its own it cannot meet the energy challenges or the perceived challenges in terms of climate change that are currently facing the EU Member States, but it remains inescapable in many respects.\nThe Euratom Treaty now makes it possible to have some freedom of choice: those States that wish to can develop this sector and this technology, in which Europe is the leader. Those States that do not wish to cannot be forced to provide themselves with a nuclear sector. Furthermore, the Treaty permits the existence of a framework of cooperation for the various parties on subjects of common interest.\nIt is because this framework, as it operates today, seems satisfactory to us that we voted against this report. The report recommends, in fact, that Euratom be transformed into a specialised annex to the EEC Treaty, with institutional procedures that would deprive the Member States of their freedom of choice. Furthermore, this move would be under the influence of a Brussels-controlled energy policy, of which we deny not just the relevance, but also the legitimacy. Energy policy must be the responsibility of the Member States, and of them alone.\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. (PT) Nuclear energy has been referred to as one of the energy sources that produces least carbon. Nuclear fission, moreover, is viewed as one of the better ways of addressing 'climate change', with saving and efficiency relegated to secondary importance.\nWe feel, however, that energy saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources should be at the forefront of any energy policy. In this field we should be promoting and carrying out more public research with the aim of achieving genuinely alternative energy that responds to the people's needs and to the demands of a sustainable development policy for our society.\nThe increasing liberalisation of the energy sector promoted in the EU, pandering to the interests of the large multinationals, undermines people's right to secure energy at affordable prices. Given the importance of this sector to the development of any country, we argue that it should be kept in the public sector and are thus opposed to its privatisation.\nIn addition, we are concerned about the report's approach of promoting nuclear energy, given that the dangers associated with producing this form of energy - dangers, that is, to the environment and to the people, dangers to the safety of the plant itself and the reactors, and the dangers involved in the processing and transport of radioactive waste - are well known.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nThere are some salient ideas in the report. For example, it notes that 'nuclear energy currently provides the European Union with 32% of its electricity and that the Commission considered it (...) to be one of the main CO2-free sources of energy in Europe and the third-cheapest in Europe.' It then draws the conclusion that 'the EU, in line with the Euratom Treaty, should defend its industrial and technical leadership in the light of the vigorous revival by other actors of their nuclear activities (Russia, USA) and the emergence of new world actors on the nuclear stage (China and India) which will be the European Union's competitors in the medium term.'\nI understand and acknowledge that this is an option with well-documented problems, one that arouses negative reactions, but I feel that nuclear energy should not be ruled out when it comes to the future of energy supply, due to the costs involved, the environmental impact and technological solutions involving the fewest risks.\nIn my opinion, it is in diversity and technological innovation that we must find the response to the current energy challenges and issues associated with them.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) Because the European Union is also a union of values that should safeguard the human rights of every individual within it, we have chosen to vote in favour of the present report.\nWe believe that, in this way, we have struck a reasonable balance between indicating the ethical policy we think a Member State needs to pursue and respecting the Member States' sovereignty.\nWe believe, then, that Denmark has a duty to accept medical responsibility for those who, on the orders of the Danish state, performed work through which they may have been injured by radiation in connection with the Thule accident in 1968.\nJohn Attard-Montalto\n(MT) Thank you, Mr President. I wanted to talk about regional and housing policy. The Treaty does not give the European Union specific powers on housing. However, European Regional Development Fund regulations for 2007-2013 do provide for houses to be eligible for funds in certain cases. The pattern of votes was important for four reasons. The first is the social dimension, involving recognition of the problem, which exists in my own country, of a lack of decent housing at reasonable prices. Then there is the environmental aspect, which includes the strategic development of houses in cities rather than the kind of move that recently took place in Malta, with the extension of the development zones. The environmental dimension also includes energy security and reasonable water and electricity prices. This is also in contrast to what happens in Malta, where the prices are sky-high. The fourth dimension is integration, that is to say an integrated process aimed at improving the quality of life, in contrast to what is currently happening in Malta in the village of Marsaskala, where they are building a recycling plant. Thank you.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund \nin writing. (SV) We voted in favour of the report on housing and regional policy. The report does well to highlight the role of housing policy in strengthening social and territorial cohesion. Housing policy is an important tool for the Member States to use in combating segregation, and the right to a place to live is fundamental.\nWe believe that housing policy is an important part of the Member States' welfare policies. In Sweden, the public housing sector is a socially motivated form of business activity, and Swedish legislation on rented housing is designed to provide social protection. The EU should regard the Member States' housing policies as integral to their welfare policies and so exempt such policies from competition rules governing state aid.\nWe believe too that the EU's definition of social housing should be broad enough also to include the Swedish model of housing for the benefit of everyone.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex \nin writing. - (FR) The lack of decent affordable housing directly influences the lives of the citizens, restricting as it does their ability to integrate into society, as well as their choices in terms of education, training and professional development.\nIn my view, housing problems are not limited to construction- and land management-related issues proper. They are also greatly influenced by poor urban planning, which results in some neighbourhoods that are affected by environmental damage - air and water pollution, noise, waste, congestion, etc. - and by problems when it comes to public services, accessibility and security becoming less and less attractive and sinking into impoverishment.\nFaced with problems of poor housing, it is local authorities that are more often than not on the front line. However, this power is still not sufficiently taken into account at European level. The local and European levels must therefore begin to cooperate in practice.\nAs a French member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, it is crucial to me that all Europeans have good access to social services, health care and training, as well as to trade and to public administration. It is their right.\nDen Dover \nin writing. British Conservatives have abstained on the final vote on the Andria report.\nWe support many of the aims of this report and, in particular, we approve the sharing of best practice in construction and technology of housing as a way to encourage energy efficiency.\nHowever, we are insistent that housing and housing policy be subject to the principle of subsidiarity and that therefore such issues are, and must remain, an exclusive competence of the nation states.\nPedro Guerreiro \nWe welcome the inclusion of our proposals, which highlight the importance of social housing and which attach priority to resolving the 'homeless' problem in the housing policies of the Member States.\nInvestment in social housing plays a crucial role in making housing available to many who would not otherwise have access to the property market, people who normally see their path to housing blocked.\nSocial housing is a way of combating property speculation, of ensuring the construction of social facilities and of promoting sustainable urban planning. In this context, support from the Structural Funds and regional policy could prove significant.\nWe therefore register our disappointment that our proposal to support housing cooperatives was not included. The model laid down in the report regrettably continues to be that of promoting public-private partnerships to the detriment of the cooperative sector.\nThat being said, the prioritisation of the 'homeless' issue in housing policy is vital in guaranteeing decent housing for all, and in combating effectively this growing form of social exclusion.\nAs regards the idea of establishing European level quality indicators defining the notion of 'adequate housing', we need to 'aim high'.\nMarie-No\u00eblle Lienemann \nI take a positive view of the fact that the European Parliament is interested in this major issue of housing in the European Union. This is a first step, but one that is far from addressing the main issue: guaranteeing the right to housing to all those who live in the European Union.\nThis right needed to be confirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which, today, makes it possible at least for the Member States to give aid to the very poor. This is a restrictive view of the right to housing - a right that ought to become universal and effective for all. What is more, the principle of having widespread competition in the single market has harmful effects on the completion of social housing, which is crucial in all of our countries.\nI am particularly worried about the fact that the collection of the Livret A - a system that guarantees ongoing funding for low-cost housing - in France is being called into question. I therefore believe that this report calls for a new stage and that we need to go further in terms of ensuring that housing policies cater for specific circumstances.\nDavid Martin \nThis report addresses the key question of housing. While the EU's competencies in this sphere are not extensive, it should intervene wherever possible, such as through the ERDF, to ensure that decent housing is provided.\nOlle Schmidt \nin writing. (SV) We in the European Parliament have today voted on a report describing the need for decent housing to be available to everyone in return for reasonable rents. For me as a Liberal, it is of course very important that people should have a roof over their heads, but this is an issue that should be dealt with locally or regionally rather than at EU level. That is why I abstained from voting today.\nBart Staes \nIf we want to make the quality of life in Europe really sustainable, (social) housing is an important lever in this. The Andria report on housing policy and regional policy is right to set the subject against the backdrop of the European Social Model, of energy policy, employment, urban development and the internal market. All these areas overlap, albeit with the friction that this inevitably entails. After all, poor housing and poverty go hand in hand, and poverty is still on the increase. The housing market has been undergoing major changes in recent years, due to supply and demand, but also due to social and demographic changes in our society. The lack of social housing is massive, even though accommodation is not only a fundamental right but also a fundamental aspect of regional development, both urban and rural.\nThe report makes explicit reference to the social component of housing, the energy poverty that often goes hand in hand with it, and employment that can generate sound, environmentally-friendly houses. It also deals with the need for an integrated approach and support of local governments in more depth. Although housing is, and will always be, a national issue, the pre-conditions could be guaranteed at European level. This is what this report is aiming at and that is why it receives my full support.\nCatherine Stihler \nThe Andria report is important to place the subject of housing on the European political agenda. With more and more people finding themselves excluded from the housing market, we must do all that we can to find solutions to the housing shortage. That is why learning from each other across the 27 Member States, sharing best practice and finding common solutions can help us tackle the growing problem.\nJohn Attard-Montalto \nThe issue of regional policy is one which affects directly the Maltese archipelago. I am of the belief that a whole country and not part of it may be eligible for the status of a region when special circumstances so dictate. This should preclude that in addition, within that country, certain remote or isolated areas are given additional considerations.\nPedro Guerreiro \nDefining a concept as vague as innovation, and describing the contribution made by innovation to economic development, is no easy task.\nThis report, in keeping with many Commission and Council documents, presents innovation as a cure for all ills and a new model for growth, confusing innovation with technological development.\nAlthough the report contains some proposals with which we agree, it neither distances itself from, nor criticises, the neoliberal 'Lisbon' strategy, with a view to commercialising knowledge, research and education. Far from it in fact; it advocates (Community) patents, the concentration of research into so-called 'centres of excellence', private-public partnerships and the unholy alliances of companies with research centres and public universities. It refers to the 'Seventh Framework Programme' but fails to criticise the programme's priorities and the cuts it underwent in the current financial framework. It hints that regional and local public transport should be privatised, and emphasises yet again the objective of using the Structural Funds to finance the 'Lisbon Strategy'.\nWe were therefore unable to vote in favour of this report.\nLastly, on the basis of proposals that we have previously put forward, I should like to mention the need to guarantee broadband Internet access for the outermost regions, which appears in the report, albeit in watered-down form.\nDavid Martin \nThis report combines two key areas for EU action: regional policy and innovative capacity. I support the approach of the rapporteur.\nCatherine Stihler \nInnovation and future regional policy is vitally important to making the EU the most dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. The point the rapporteur made, quoting Professor Hunt, the Nobel Prize Winner, that of the 20 top universities only three are from the EU and those three are located in the UK illustrates the need for a more strategic approach to funding research in Europe's universities. If we want innovation we need investment in Europe's higher education institutions.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna \nin writing. (PL) I am voting in favour of the report on the contribution of the future regional policy to the innovative capacity of the European Union.\nRegional policy should, within the framework of the European Union's innovative capacity, combine the cohesion of the Community with the need for pro-innovation measures. However, without specific solutions, innovation in general, and the ambitious challenges of the Lisbon Strategy in particular, will only exist on paper. Good examples of this are the results produced by individual countries in terms of their implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. It should be noted that, today, the USA is not the EU's only economic rival, and that countries such as China, India and others are also taking their place on the starting block.\nThe effects of introducing the principle of innovation will only be visible after many years, and many of us may no longer be here in this House. Other decision-makers will reap the benefits of what may be a successful policy, which is why decisions made in this field should be far-sighted. This is something that citizens expect of us.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex \nin writing. - (FR) At a time when labour law is the subject of debate in the European Parliament, and 13 years after the adoption of the Directive on European Works Councils, the adoption of this resolution constitutes an essential precondition.\nAs a French member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, there is an urgent need, in my view, to put an end to the inconsistencies and contradictions between the various European texts relating to information and consultation of workers, in order to prevent abuses by dishonest companies.\nIf employees are no longer to be held hostage by rampant restructuring projects, they must be allowed genuinely to make their presence felt in the decision-making process within the management boards of companies. Companies must be made to act responsibly and to apply the existing directives, or be punished.\nPedro Guerreiro \nThere are directives in existence on the worker's right to information and consultation and on the European Works Councils, which provide for some information to be provided to workers, specifically as regards the development of companies' economic and social aspects and decisions leading to substantial change in terms of the organisation of work or work contracts. The harsh reality, however, is that these directives are either simply not complied with or, when they are, they often fail to guarantee workers' rights - for example to employment - in the never-ending processes of relocations, restructuring, mergers and closures of companies, which have serious economic and social consequences.\nWe have long advocated the need to ensure that workers are kept fully informed and that workers' organisations are involved in the important decisions at such times. This would improve the right to information and offer genuine participation in decision-making, including the right to veto, the possibility of annulling decisions to close companies and the right to halt redundancies.\nAlso needed are measures such as making Community aid conditional on investment and on companies complying with contractual conditions that guarantee stable, lasting employment and sustainable economic development. It is also essential that we reject 'flexicurity' and liberalisations.\nCatherine Stihler \nThe need for action on better information and consultation for workers is urgently required. There is a need to review and to modernise current legislation as well as ensuring that Member States are properly implementing current information and consultation rules. The additional point reminding the Commission of the need for a coherent industrial policy and of the role social partners have to play should be noted.\nMarianne Thyssen \nToday, a large majority in this House approved a resolution that pleads in favour of new legislation in the area of information and consultation of employees. Unfortunately, the current directive has not even been transposed in my country. The Belgian Government has, for a long time, failed to do this and this has, in fact, recently earned it the condemnation of the European Court of Justice. When the Commission tabled this proposal in 1999, it soon transpired that the issue was a politically sensitive one. Despite this, it boils down to the simple requirement that all employees be, by means of suitable representation and an appropriate institution, informed and consulted about their company's activities. This is in the interest of both employees and businesses themselves. The instruments that are used to bring about this economic democracy and involvement can, of course, vary according to the size of business. It goes without saying that an SME should not be treated in the same way as a multi-national. The detail of the way in which the dialogue between employers and employees should be conducted, is, moreover, a matter for the social partners to decide on, and the resolution on which we voted today does, in fact, give them considerable responsibility in that regard. I set great store by this.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nViktor Uspaskich\n(LT) Mr President, I would like to announce that I support this decision, although my card was not working to begin with and that is why I want to announce this. Now to the matter in hand. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a change to the annual accounting responsibilities of micro-entities. This project caused stormy debate at almost all levels, both in European Union and Member State institutions. I am convinced that we must prepare common European Union rules. However, I would like to underline that by reducing the administrative burden on micro-entities, we must not infringe conditions for fair competition in either the internal markets of Member States or the European Union market. I think that a single tax should be created for micro-entities, which already exists in some states. If it could be calculated, it could be calculated either on the basis of the number of employees or turnover or territory, depending on the type of business. As a result, those companies would no longer be tempted to engage in illegal activities.\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, with the option of relieving micro-enterprises of the obligation to produce annual balance sheets, the European Parliament is clearly coming out in favour of the abolition of superfluous bureaucracy. With an EU-wide relief of approximately EUR 6.3 billion, we are also providing a tangible stimulus towards growth in Europe's small and medium-sized enterprise sector. Since the Member States are able to decide individually about this exemption from the obligation to produce annual balance sheets, I expect that as many countries as possible, especially Germany, will make use of this option. This arrangement will not only enable the enterprises in question to save time and costs amounting to around EUR 2 000 per company; it is also a very good example of how Europe is more citizen-friendly than many people believe it to be. It would be nice if this example in this Chamber could be followed by many further examples.\nTiziano Motti\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not back the Lehne resolution. I regret this, because it concerned micro-enterprises, which are the backbone of the economy, but above all, I believe that the resolution, as it stood, created competitive differences between enterprises of the various States, and this is not what we want, especially in this time of crisis. Keeping accounts is actually effective and necessary, for the very reason that it allows enterprises to compete on the market and also obtain bank credit, because the quality of management is measured on the basis of accounts for enterprises and micro-enterprises alike.\nI believe that we should work instead to help micro-enterprises obtain incentives to cut taxes, enabling young entrepreneurs and family businesses to be truly competitive on the market, and ultimately allowing them to obtain credit from institution, which, until now, have been chiefly concerned with large enterprises as far as I can see.\nMarian Harkin\nMr President, I am very happy to support the Lehne report, which will help to reduce the administrative burden on micro-enterprises.\nOne of the things that comes up again and again when you speak with small businesses is the issue of over-regulation and red tape and of being smothered under a deluge of paperwork. They do have a sound argument when they say that it is reasonable, as micro-enterprises, that they should not be subject to the same rules and regulations as bigger business.\nThe decision we took today is a sensible one and a well-founded response to the concerns of struggling small businesses in Europe. Most of the time, we are proposing new legislation in this House, but today we modified a piece of legislation. This will lead to a better business environment and increased competitiveness for small businesses and was well worth doing.\nVito Bonsignore\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Lehne for his report. The European Union looks closely at the world of business - as today has demonstrated - and, in particular, my group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has always included the backing of small and medium-sized enterprises among its own priorities. For these reasons, I think that the action we have undertaken, aimed at reducing bureaucracy and reducing costs for micro-enterprises, is very timely. This measure represents a tangible helping hand for small enterprises at this difficult time.\nFinally, I agree with the flexibility of the measure, which offers Member States the chance to adopt the directive at the most opportune time. The purpose of this is to avoid any kind of illegality which might arise from a sudden and excessive reduction of controls.\nPhilippe Lamberts\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the vote we have taken is remarkable in two respects. Firstly, because the three large groups decided to produce a joint resolution, which they submitted six minutes before the deadline, thus preventing the other groups from tabling any amendments to it. This closed attitude is unworthy of this House.\nSecondly, if only a text had been produced that made sense! At a time when the Commission, with the same political families, is capable of coming here with five objectives, with six policies to support these objectives, this House comes up with a resolution that says absolutely nothing at all, with the support of the three large political families.\nI believe that the resolution does much to ridicule this House which, in such an important debate as Europe 2020, is capable of doing nothing other than stating the obvious.\nRamona Nicole M\u0103nescu\n(RO) As is well known, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe was among the first to call for a more specific approach to the economic growth strategy. This is exactly why I would like to welcome the amendments which the EU 2020 strategy is introducing from this perspective.\nHowever, I feel that progress on certain aspects has not gone far enough. Therefore, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the 2020 strategy does not make it very clear what the relationship will be between the Cohesion Policy and this strategy. I think, Mr President, that the Cohesion Policy, as a financial instrument principally for regional development, must remain targeted at regions.\nIn addition, the Commission's proposal assigns the Council and Member States the main task of implementing and managing the policies arising from this strategy, while overlooking, however, the important role played by local authorities in achieving concrete results at regional and local level.\nI believe that the strategy's success will mainly depend on the way in which it is implemented at national, local and regional level.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) A declaration was adopted by the Heads of State or Government during the informal meeting of the European Council held on 11 February to support Greece's efforts to remedy its economic and financial situation. In addition, the topic of what the European Union will stand for in 2020, following on from the Lisbon Strategy, was also discussed.\nI believe that this vote is a vote for solidarity because, looking ahead to EU 2020, the established priorities must be pursued in a much more rigorous way, which allows, however, the specific features of each region to be utilised and the problems that each of them are facing to be resolved.\nEconomic competitiveness must continue to grow in order to create new jobs, while investments are needed in various areas, including education and research. I firmly believe that the problems specific to each region and each European Union Member State will be analysed and dealt with appropriately, based on the principle of solidarity, so that we can meet the targets which we are going to set for 2020.\nInvestment in education must be backed up by the existence of an infrastructure which supports the practical application of knowledge, social cohesion and the global growth of Europe's economic competitiveness.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou\n(EL) Mr President, it is clear from the Council conclusions and from the debate which followed in Parliament in Brussels and from the stand subsequently taken by the competent Commissioner and the heads of several Member States that, in times of crisis and when certain Member States are facing serious economic problems, we need, among other things, and within the framework of existing monetary union, European solidarity and new policies to address speculative attacks against certain Member States.\nAs such, the stands being taken at this time in connection with the creation of European institutions and structures to address such problems, such as, for example, a European monetary fund, are very important. We expect a great deal of the Council in days to come and look forward to effective action to address the problems in this critical period.\nViktor Uspaskich\n(LT) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to talk about the EU 2020 strategy. In principle, we support any initiative that improves the situation in the European Union, but this does not mean that there is no room for criticism and improvement. In my opinion, this can also be said of the European Union's 2020 strategy. Whether we want it or not, we must erase boundaries a little between the economic rules of national states. Of course, in this case, I am by no means talking about such areas as culture, tradition or national heritage. Nevertheless, we must underline that, in economic terms, the European Union market is a common market. Otherwise, it would be the same as if one state had started to apply different conditions to different regions. Therefore, no matter how much large and small EU Member States might resist it, an end date for common economic conditions must be implemented in the European Union. I also welcome the attention to the development of the hi-tech, knowledge economy and science. However, we must recognise that each European Union ...\nPresident\nI am sorry but I think we have heard enough. Thank you so much, Mr Uspaskich. I have cut you off.\nNikolaos Chountis\n(EL) Mr President, I voted against the report, because the EU 2020 strategy treads the same unsuccessful neoliberal path as the Lisbon Strategy, which widened regional and social inequalities, increased poverty and unemployment and was the basic cause of the crisis in the European Union. We therefore need a radical change to the framework within which economic and social policy are exercised, so that they revolve around full employment and stronger social rights.\nWhen the crisis broke, the leaders of the European Union kept their heads down at the informal summit, leaving each Member State to deal with its problems on its own and now they want to monitor public deficits. They treated Greece like the black sheep and they want harsh measures to be taken to the detriment of workers in Greece and other countries.\nThe anti-social and anti-development Stability Pact therefore needs to be replaced by a development and expansion pact as described in the motion tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left.\nFilip Kaczmarek\n(PL) The European Union undoubtedly needs a new strategy which will help and allow us to construct our response to the economic and financial crisis. An important element of the strategy should be a strengthening of the free movement of people, and that of all groups: workers, business people, scientists, students and even pensioners, and that is contained in our resolution. Another good feature is the greater emphasis on support for small and medium-sized enterprises. Without the development of such firms, an improvement of the situation in the Union will not be possible. Some people think the strategy says too little about cohesion policy. I do not know if this is so, because, actually, there is a part about the fundamental significance of cohesion policy for the future of the Union. However, I know that if this is not put into effect, no strategy will improve the situation.\nVito Bonsignore\n(IT) Mr President, the time has come for us to come of age politically. The crisis has shown that greater coordination and guidance is required from important and authoritative Community agencies, more resources are required for infrastructure projects and more focus on providing genuine support for small and medium-sized enterprises.\nWe need to organise a major effort to fully implement the internal market, and we urgently need to attempt a common fiscal policy. In the past, many turned a blind eye to the rubbish that the American banks dumped on the global market, falling back on pointless formalities, even within the Union. It is time for responsibility and courage. The resolution that my group and I voted for contains some of these things, but I think that President Barroso, the Council and Parliament should be more courageous.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) The new EU strategy is, in fact, the younger brother of the Lisbon Strategy. If it follows its elder brother's example, it will not pass its exams or qualify for anything.\nAt the same time as the leaders of the European Union were talking about the necessity of adopting the Lisbon Strategy, the Member States were, in fact, restricting the free movement of workers, and also of services. The new strategy is, of course, a little better than the version of a few months ago, where nothing at all was said about cohesion. At the moment, however, it is more like a wish list. We are going to verify the strategy in the European Union's seven-year budget from 2014. I hope it will be a strategy which will not contribute to domination of the new European Union by the countries of the old Union.\nZolt\u00e1n Balcz\u00f3\n(HU) I voted against the EU 2020 strategy. I voted against it because it clearly professes faith in neoliberal economic policy. It clearly states that it condemns protectionist economic policy, in other words, the State playing a role in the economy. Yet the financial and economic world crisis has shown that we cannot leave everything up to the markets. Moreover, its imperial conception is clearly evident. It stipulates that rules will enter into force automatically if Member States do not transpose them in time. It seeks to set up a European supervisory authority and, in certain places, it is also clear that it seeks to use binding legal acts to achieve results rather than allowing for autonomous decisions. This is why we voted against.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\n(ES) Mr President, as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would like to say that I, of course, voted in favour of the EU 2020 strategy, because I felt it was important for Parliament to give its opinion. I do, however, have a reservation, which I would like to explain to the House, which is that the wording of paragraph 18 raises doubts about something that is false. That is, something that is not true.\nIt says that the Court of Auditors has criticised the Commission and the Member States when, in fact, the opposite is true. This is because the management of 80% of the Union's budget has not been criticised; instead, this year, for the first time in 11 years, the Court of Auditors congratulated us and gave us a positive statement of assurance for the slightly more than 33% of the budget managed by the Member States, which is agricultural spending, and because the monitoring system has been improved and now works better.\nI therefore think that the wording of paragraph 18 will create a misunderstanding in the public mind that 80% of the budget is poorly managed and that we have been criticised for it. I would like to clarify this for you, ladies and gentlemen, and for the benefit of the European public.\nRamona Nicole M\u0103nescu\n(RO) I voted against the Goldstone report even though, initially, this report seemed to be a well-intentioned initiative to analyse closely the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and identify the best solutions for remedying the situation in the region.\nHowever, I would have liked this report to be more objective, in keeping with the provisions of international and humanitarian law. In fact, I was very unpleasantly surprised to note that in this report, the Israeli Government is measured by the same yardstick as used for Hamas, which is, as we know, an organisation featuring on the European Union's list of terrorist organisations. Therefore, I do not believe that this report will help in any way to ease the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along with the tensions and general situation in the region. This is the reason why I voted against the report.\nAlajos M\u00e9sz\u00e1ros\n(HU) The authors of the report drawn up by Justice Richard Goldstone's team are, in my opinion, internationally recognised experts whose insight and objectivity we have no reason to doubt. The report is non-partisan and balanced and therefore, we must create the conditions necessary for implementing its recommendations. I voted in favour of the report, although I do not agree with it on every point, but it is a good thing that we have taken the position adopted in Parliament today. Hopefully, it will help limit the excesses of the opposing parties and will, in the long run, contribute to achieving the much desired and lasting peace in the Middle East.\nKrisztina Morvai\n(HU) In December 2008, Israel launched a brutal attack on the Gaza Strip, as a result of which more than 1400 people died, for the most part civilians, including 450 children. Using objective methods and a wide-ranging gathering of testimonies, the Goldstone report exposed these atrocities and itemised which rules of international law Israel contravened by this brutal action. Naturally, the delegation to the European Parliament of the Jobbik Movement for a Better Hungary voted in support of the European Parliament's resolution on the acceptance and implementation of the Goldstone recommendations and, at the same time, we apologise to the Palestinian victims because the Hungarian Government, shamefully and in diametrical opposition to Hungarian popular opinion, continually adopts a position contrary to the Goldstone report in international fora.\nPeter van Dalen\n(NL) Mr President, the Goldstone report is too one-sided. Too many things have been laid at the door of Israel, and yet it was Hamas that was misusing civilian targets and civilians as shelters, arms depots and human shields. Unfortunately, Goldstone makes no mention of that whatsoever.\nPresumably, this one-sidedness is due to the fact that countries such as Saudi Arabia, Libya and Pakistan presided over the preparation of this report by the competent committee of the United Nations. These countries are not exactly world-famous for their brilliant track record on democracy and freedom of expression. If you have truck with countries of this sort, then what they do is infect you. Unfortunately, that is what swayed Goldstone as well and, for this reason, I voted against the joint EP resolution. As a matter of fact, the resolution is just as one-sided as the Goldstone report itself.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, I voted against the Goldstone report. I think it is a disgrace that the European Parliament adopted this report, albeit by a narrow majority, because this was a very biased move, and it has to be said that there was a considerable amount of internal disagreement in this House.\nI would like to comment on one point. More than 600 Members of the European Parliament quite rightly voted in favour of considering Hamas a terrorist organisation. Despite the fact that we almost unanimously agreed that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, we, or at least the majority, in this House, voted in favour of this report and appeared to approve of the measures contained in it, and of all the 8 000 rockets which Hamas has fired at Israeli civilian centres.\nI believe that Israel is under threat, and that is why the country had to defend its civilian population. Given this, it really is a sorry state of affairs that this very biased report went through, albeit by a tiny majority. I hope that such a serious blot on our record will not reoccur, but that as Europeans, we will really fight hard for democracy, human rights and freedom of opinion and do more to bring democracy to the Middle East.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Justice Goldstone certainly cannot be considered a paragon of objectivity. I voted against this report, because I have the impression that the report attempts to present the situation in the Middle East in black and white, showing Israel as the 'Schwarz' character - the villain. Actually, the situation is much more complicated. It seems to me that we should avoid such one-sided, unequivocal judgments. I, personally, have been to a place called Sderot - and I think you have been there, too, Mr President - which has been the target of several hundred missiles fired by Hamas fighters, as Mr Takkula said recently. I think, therefore, that this report is not something which the European Parliament should specially boast about in the future.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, we have heard a great deal about proportionality in this debate, and I wonder what opponents of Israel would consider to be proportionate. I wonder whether they would have preferred it if the Jewish state had simply taken an equivalent amount of ordnance and rained it randomly on Gaza. Would that have been a proportionate response?\nI would like also to examine the proportionality, or lack of proportionality, in this report. One has the eerie feeling, reading the Goldstone report, that one is reading about a violent assault in which the author has neglected to mention that the events took place during a boxing match. They have been stripped of all context.\nI am not saying that Israel should be beyond criticism, nor am I saying that Cast Lead is beyond criticism. Mistakes were made. Israel wants to get to a position where there is a stable Palestinian entity to be a good neighbour, but this policy of degrading infrastructure has retarded that goal. Equally, the partiality and tone of this report have pushed further away the idea of a two-state solution in which an Israeli entity and a Palestinian one live side by side as peaceable neighbours.\nAlexander Graf Lambsdorff\n(DE) Mr President, the German Free Democratic Party (FDP) delegation in the European Parliament today voted against the resolution from several groups to implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report. You cannot vote in favour of a report for which the very mandate was highly controversial - not one single Member State of the European Union had given its backing. A report that equates democratic Israel with a group officially listed by the EU as a terrorist organisation and a report that fails to give reasonable consideration to the deeper causes of the conflict is not one that we can vote in favour of.\nOur voting choice does not mean, however, that we would reject an investigation into the events connected with Operation Cast Lead. The opposite is the case, in fact. Israel should indeed thoroughly investigate all aspects of the operation, and if violations of the law did take place, they must be punished. Our voting choice likewise does not mean that we would endorse the policy of the government of the State of Israel in the peace process. We have been very pleased to see signs that talks are again taking place between Israel and the Palestinians, albeit indirectly for the time being.\nUS Vice-President Biden's visit also shows that the Obama administration is serious in its efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the region. It has our support in those efforts. That makes it even harder to understand Israel's snubbing of the Vice-President, with the building of further settlements in the West Bank being approved while his visit was still going on - a measure that drew thoroughly just criticism, and not only from the Palestinians.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) I am convinced that the European Union has to send a clear signal to Belarus that it is prepared to reconsider mutual relations if Belarus does not refrain from violating human rights and democratic principles and does not take corrective action.\nAt the same time, I would like to express outrage over the decree from the President of Belarus regarding control of the Internet which, in many points, is a clear denial of freedom of speech and of the press. Such legal action curtails freedom and democracy in Belarus and deepens the distrust of citizens and other countries, including the European Union, in its state authorities and their representatives. In the context of the recent arrests of civil society and democratic opposition representatives, it is impossible not to see the short time period between when the decree enters into force in July of this year and the upcoming presidential elections at the beginning of next year.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski\n(PL) I would like to thank fellow Members for drawing up this resolution and for its adoption by the European Parliament.\nBy endorsing this resolution, we have expressed support for the defence of the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, including national minorities. It is, at the same time, an initiative to defend the fundamental principles of democracy and tolerance, which are the foundation of Europe. I am pleased by the official position of Parliament on this matter, which supports the Polish minority in Belarus.\nI would like to take this opportunity to point out that Member States of the European Union should set an example to other countries and to our neighbours, and should take care that the rights of national minorities in our Member States are fully respected.\nFilip Kaczmarek\n(PL) I voted in favour of adopting the Belarus resolution. In the resolution, we demand legalisation of the Association of Poles in Belarus, which is led by Angelika Borys, and we express our solidarity with all the citizens of Belarus, who cannot take full advantage of civil rights.\nYesterday, I received a letter from the Belarusian Ambassador to Poland. He expresses concern in connection with the intentions of Members of the European Parliament who wanted the resolution to be adopted. In his opinion, those intentions arose as a result of unobjective coverage of the situation in Polish media. This is not true. The intentions which are behind the resolution are much more profound. It is about respecting the fundamental rights of citizens, respecting the rights of minorities and ensuring minimum standards and, as a consequence, it is about the good of Belarus and the good of Belarusians.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nMr President, I supported the resolution on the situation of civil society and national minorities in Belarus and today I would like to express once again my great concern at the recent human rights violations in Belarus against members of civil society and against members of the national minorities and their organisations. I would like to declare my full solidarity with citizens unable to enjoy their full civil rights.\nI would also like to strongly condemn the arrest of Angelika Borys, the chairperson of the Union of Poles in Belarus, and also Anatoly Lebedko, the leader of the opposition United Civil Party and the leader of the United Democratic Forces in Belarus, who has been the guest of this House on several occasions.\nRegrettably, the people of Belarus are not able to benefit from many projects and proposals the European Union is financing as part of our eastern neighbourhood policy.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, as regards the situation in Belarus, I regard it as very important that, as Europeans, we remember what our values are.\nI want to bring this to your attention because of the recent regrettable outcome of the vote on the Goldstone report and because in all matters, be they in connection with Belarus, the Middle East, the Far East or Africa, we need to remember the fundamental principles that guide us. They are democracy, human rights and freedom of opinion. This is the right of the entire European Union: the values that unite us and which endeavour to promote these goals. We have to bring this message home in Belarus. We need to ensure that the rights of minorities are taken into account there, and also that religious minorities, who have suffered persecution there in various ways, are recognised, along with their human rights and their freedom to practise a religion.\nIt is very important that we, as Europeans, ensure that we also take the European message to Belarus, thereby offering a prospect of hope there.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, although I support much of the wording of this resolution, I wonder whether we are best placed to lecture Belarus about the inadequacies of its democracy. We complain that Belarus has a weak rubber-stamp parliament, but look around you. Here we are meekly rubber-stamping the decisions of our 27-member politburo. We complain about the fact that, although they have elections, they rig them; we, on the other hand, have referendums, hold them honestly but then disregard the result. We complain about the survival of the apparatus of the Soviet Union there and yet we maintain our common agricultural policy, our social chapter, our 48-hour week and the rest of the apparatus of euro-corporatism.\nIt is a small wonder that the old systemic communist parties of the COMECON states were leading the 'yes' campaigns when their countries applied to join the Evropeyskiy soyuz. For some of them, in fact, it felt like coming home; I am reminded of the eerie closing pages of Animal Farm, where the animals look from man to pig and from pig to man and already find that they cannot tell which is which.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, aside from questioning the actual content of this resolution, I would also like to question its principle.\nFrench, Flemish, Hungarian, German and Austrian patriots are the subject of constant legal, professional and political persecution, and this amid the indifference, indeed with the support, of this House, which claims to set an example to practically the whole world and especially to those beyond its borders.\nFor example, last week we adopted a resolution on Ukraine, which included a provision that many Ukrainian patriots rightly find insulting to their national hero, Stepan Bandera. Admittedly, he endeavoured, under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, to tread a path between two forms of totalitarianism: that of Hitler and that of the Soviets. This does not make him any less of a hero for many Ukrainians, who rightly feel humiliated by the majority of this House.\nIt is the case that national heroes have generally fought against their neighbours. Does my friend, Nick Griffin, a true British patriot, take offence at the fact that, for us, Joan of Arc is a national heroine? Certainly not! Personally, I would like our Parliament to express the same reservations about the heroes of other foreign countries.\nKay Swinburne\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, the ECR recognises that the financial services industry cannot expect to escape from the crisis scot free. Enormous damage has been done through reckless behaviour, and the cost of sorting out the mess must be borne by those involved. Furthermore, new systems must be put in place to ensure that this never happens again, and that funds are available for emergency purposes to stabilise systemic failures.\nIt is possible that in the context of international agreement, the time has come for some financial transaction tax. Whatever the doubts about the practicalities of putting such a system into place, no measure should be ruled out as long as it has the backing of the whole international community and as long as safeguards are there to ensure that it works and cannot be avoided.\nMost of today's resolution has our backing, but we take exception to paragraph 7 for two reasons. First of all, we oppose new tax-raising powers for the European Union. This paragraph - carefully worded though it may be - suggests that this is a desired outcome. Secondly, the whole point of a financial transaction tax should not be to raise money for pet projects, no matter how worthy. Instead, it must be to ensure future financial stability and to protect against the kind of events that have caused the recent economic chaos.\nThis resolution, as it stands, is too focused on a transaction-tax solution, implies EU, not Member State, tax-raising powers, suggests utilising the money raised for funding development and climate-change projects instead of stabilising the financial sector and, finally, suggests that an EU tax might be feasible without global participation. For these reasons, we have voted against this specific motion for a resolution.\nJoe Higgins\nMr President, I abstained on the financial transaction taxes resolution because it is hopelessly inadequate for tackling the obscene antisocial speculation around the world by giant hedge funds and so-called 'prestigious' banks like Goldman Sachs.\nThe Wall Street Journal recently reported on a private dinner in New York on 8 February, involving 18 major hedge funds, where speculation against the euro was discussed. For months now, these financial sharks, known as hedge funds, which control over EUR 2 000 billion, have been deliberately speculating against the euro, and against Greece in particular, in order to reap billions in private profit.\nIncredibly, the EU Commission not only fails to raise a finger to stop them, but actually conspires with these financial criminals by bullying the workers and poor of Greece, demanding that their living standards be savaged to pay the ransom demanded by these parasites.\nWe do not need a financial tax. What we need is to take public ownership and democratic control of these hedge funds and major banks in order to use their massive resources for investment that will end poverty and benefit society, rather than destroying society for private greed.\nMario Borghezio\n(IT) Mr President, we abstained, but my main aim was to take a stance against the clear intention of the European Union and the Commission to introduce a tax, as demonstrated by Commissioner \u0160emeta's recent statements to European Voice about the supposed imminent introduction of a minimum tax on emissions.\nWe are against the idea of granting the European Union the power to levy direct taxes, an unconstitutional prerogative in almost all Member States, because it violates the principle of no taxation without representation. We will oppose in every possible way any attempt to introduce a direct tax, drawing strength also from the German constitutional court ruling of June 2009.\nI wish to remind you that President Van Rompuy hinted at this when, in a mysterious meeting held a week before his appointment to the Bilderberg group, which is not exactly the most transparent group in the world, he announced - and even committed himself to - the proposal of a European direct tax on CO2, which would cause an immediate increase in fuel prices, services, etc., and would therefore be detrimental to European citizens.\nThis EU tax proposal is unconstitutional.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, I am unconvinced of the case for a tax on financial transactions but I accept the sincere motives of the supporters of the proposal. It is an issue on which people of goodwill can come to different conclusions.\nWhat there is no case for whatsoever is the imposition of such a tax exclusively in the European Union. A Tobin Tax applied only regionally will result in a flight of capital to those jurisdictions where no such tax pertains, so why has this House just voted in such large numbers for a system which will disadvantage the European Union?\nThe answer is that it ticks all the boxes of a certain kind of Member of this House. It attacks the bankers, it attacks the City of London and, above all, it furnishes the European Union with an independent stream of revenue, which means that it does not have to go to the Member States.\nTaken together with the various other proposals that we see coming for the harmonisation of financial supervision, the alternative investment fund managers directive and so on, we see an epical threat to the City of London and we see the European Union being consigned to poverty and irrelevance.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, anyone who looks at the recent financial crisis will wonder how we allowed regulation and supervision to lead to a situation where we ended up with banks being deemed too big to fail and billions in taxpayers' money being used to prop up these banks.\nSo, when one thinks about this idea of a global financial transaction tax, it may seem reasonable if we want to help the victims of the financial crisis and also help those in poorer countries.\nBut if we think about how this would actually be imposed, and the real impact, and we follow it through the chain within the financial markets, in reality, you would find banks passing these costs on to their customers. It would also impact heavily on those of us who want to trade with developing countries or entrepreneurs in developing countries who want to trade with the rest of the world, and hit the cost of insurance, which is such a vital part of international trade.\nIf we really want to tackle this problem, we should not be handing billions in taxpayers' money to corrupt or incompetent governments. We should be making sure that we lift tariff barriers in both the EU and poor countries, to help entrepreneurs in poorer countries to create wealth and take people out of poverty.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) I appreciate the efforts of the European Union regarding the introduction of a single regime for bank transactions within the euro area.\nOn the other hand, I can see the introduction of these new rules being abused by the banks in order to raise fees they charge their clients. If, on the one hand, our banks, under pressure from the European Union, adjust payments for cross-border SEPA transfers within the euro area so that they are at the same level as internal transfers, the fees for depositing and withdrawing money at branches would concurrently rise. It is clear to all of us that the costs to banks for handling cash at branches in connection with the new rules have not changed in the least.\nAnd, therefore, we have to say loudly that the exploitation by the banks of the new rules which have been introduced in the euro area in order to increase their profits at the expense of our citizens is blatant doltishness. Therefore, it should be our duty to monitor carefully how the new regulations on financial institutions are being applied.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski\n(PL) I voted in favour of adoption of the resolution because, as a representative of my electorate, I cannot accept that anything should be agreed behind their backs and against their will. The Treaty of Lisbon has given the European Parliament new competences, which is also why the European Parliament should be able to stand guard over the rights of citizens.\nI agree with the authors of the resolution, who criticise the way the Commission's negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement are being kept secret as well as the lack of cooperation with the European Parliament on this matter. This action is directed against prevailing EU law on universal access to information about the activities of public authorities, and it is also action which restricts the right to privacy. It is good, therefore, that the European Parliament has taken up the matter of the transparency of the European Commission's negotiations, as well as the matter of counterfeiting and its prevention.\nMarian Harkin\nMr President, with regard to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the current negotiations completely lack transparency. To use the current negotiating formula to generate a global agreement is totally contrary to the transparent and democratic processes that we should expect from our lawmakers. Regardless of the content of the agreement, it is unacceptable to avoid public scrutiny when generating policies that will directly affect so many European citizens.\nOn the issue of content, we need to pay full attention to the European Data Protection Supervisor, who has issued a very strongly worded opinion on these negotiations. He strongly encourages the European Commission to establish a public and transparent dialogue on ACTA. He also states that, while intellectual property is important to society and must be protected, it should not be placed above individuals' fundamental rights to privacy, data protection and other rights such as presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection and freedom of expression. Finally, he states that a 'three strikes' Internet disconnection policy would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of EU citizens.\nThis is a very important issue for all EU citizens, and how the Commission and Parliament deal with it will say a great deal about accountability and transparency.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, one of the important things about this motion for a resolution was the fact that we managed to achieve an alliance right across the House.\nOne area of common agreement was the fact that, in the absence of any meaningful information surrounding these negotiations, what you saw on the blogosphere and elsewhere were rumours suggesting proposals such as the confiscation of laptops and MP3 players at borders. What was quite clear across the House was that we wanted information and more transparency on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations.\nThe Commissioner last night heard that message loud and clear, and I am very pleased that he has promised to give us more information. If the Commission is negotiating on behalf of 27 Member States and on behalf of the EU, then it is essential that we know what the negotiating position is, and also that there is a full impact assessment on what is being proposed to show how it will impact on EU industry.\nI welcome the comments made last night by the Commissioner and look forward to more transparency.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) What worries me is the European Commission's practice and procedure to negotiate the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).\nNegotiations are taking place in secret, behind closed doors, without properly informing the European Parliament and Members, who should, in the end, approve this document. I think we should change the procedures regarding when the European Commission expects Parliament to assume responsibility for any agreements that are submitted to it. And it will not be a good signal to either the European public or the outside world if we repeatedly have to return international treaties to the European Commission for overhaul. Such conduct is not indicative of good communication between the most important institutions of the European Union.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, as many of us know, the GSP system is up for review and the current system is coming to an end.\nOne of the things that is very important when we look at GSP and GSP+ is that, during the negotiations on the economic partnership agreements, there were many individual states in the proposed regions that were against signing a deal with the EU.\nOne of the things I have always criticised in the economic partnership agreements is that they take a one-size-fits-all approach to trade. What was also alarming, during the debate with the Commission, was that one of the officials announced that the economic partnership agreements were not only about trade but also about exporting the EU's model of regional integration.\nThere are individual countries that want to have agreements with the EU and want to be able to export their goods and services to us on a preferential basis. Therefore, what we should propose is to offer those countries that want a trade agreement, but do not fit the criteria of the economic partnership agreements, GSP+ as an alternative, and we should look to be more flexible.\nHopefully, we shall then help entrepreneurs to create wealth and take poor people out of poverty in many of these countries.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, barely noticed, South America and Central America are sliding into a form of autocracy - a kind of neo-caudillismo. In Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, we have seen the rise of regimes which, if not exactly dictatorial, are certainly not supportive of parliamentary democracy - people who, although legitimately elected, then set about dismantling every check on their power: the Electoral Commission, the Supreme Court, the Chambers of their Parliament and, in many cases, dissolving their constitutions and rewriting - 'refounding', as they call it - their states along socialist principles.\nWith all this going on, whom do the Left choose to criticise in that part of the world? One of the few regimes that genuinely enjoys popular support - that of \u00c1lvaru Uribe in Colombia, who has the support of more than three quarters of his population because he has restored order to that unhappy country and has cracked down on the paramilitaries of both Left and Right. It shows an extraordinary set of priorities that he should be the person that some in this Chamber have chosen to pick on. Shame on them.\n(ES) It is wrong to make things easy for the paramilitaries, how shameful!\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, I thank my colleague, Mr Albertini, for the excellent work he has carried out on this central theme in European politics. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union has shouldered greater responsibility for foreign affairs and common security policies, and I believe that many of us here hope that the institution to which we belong will take on greater responsibility and become more involved in foreign affairs.\nI especially agree that the High Representative of the CFSP should consult the European Parliament committee responsible when making appointments to managerial posts within the European External Action Service, which is currently being created, and that she should ensure that the European Parliament, as well as the Council, have access to confidential information.\nI therefore believe that the corner we have turned with this report is a first, important step towards creating a strong European foreign policy, determined to assert its own role and its own political weight on the international scene.\nNicole Sinclaire\nMr President, I voted against Amendments 17D and 19, which attacked NATO and called for the removal of NATO bases here in the European Union. Well, one of the last arguments of those who believe in this European project is that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for the last 50 or 60 years. Well, I would actually say that is a lie and that is was actually NATO which kept the peace in Europe with its forces.\nI think it is a shame for this House to have allowed such an amendment to be voted on. I noticed that the group which actually proposed this amendment are the remnants of a failed ideology that kept their people behind walls and breached their fundamental human rights. It was NATO forces that protected the rest of Europe from this nightmare. I wish to place on record my gratitude to the US and Canada and the other nations of NATO for sparing us that nightmare. I believe that it is in the UK's interest to cooperate with all of these countries against a new form of totalitarianism that is the European Union.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, I voted in favour because I wanted to emphasise that the hope of increasing civil and military synergy and collaboration between the European Union and its Member States, even whilst respecting some non-aligned or neutral positions, is a position that we can all broadly share.\nI also consider it important to set up an institution for coordinating mechanisms, such as a permanent European Union Operations Centre, under the authority of the High Representative of the CFSP, which would allow the joint planning of civil and military operations to be efficiently coordinated. The purpose of this would be to eliminate problems, disorders and delays which, unfortunately, continue to arise under the current system.\nNikolaos Chountis\n(EL) Mr President, thank you for your patience. I voted against this report, because it repeats the dangerous guidelines contained in the Treaty of Lisbon for the European defence and security strategy. In other words, it calls for the militarisation of the European Union, legitimises military intervention, recognises the primacy of NATO and the close relationship between it and even promotes - at a time of crisis and major social needs - an increase in military force.\nIn my opinion, the European Union should, more than ever now that the architecture of the world is under scrutiny, adopt a peaceful policy and a different political perception of security, should follow an independent foreign and defence policy, emancipated from the United States, should seek to settle international differences by political means and should lead the way in respect for international law and the enhanced role of the UN.\nI think that such a policy better expresses the views of European citizens.\nWritten explanations of vote\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nThe adoption of this report by a large majority indicates the concern we need to have for small and medium-sized enterprises. At the moment, 5.4 million micro-enterprises are obliged to compile annual reports, even though their area of activity is limited to a particular local area or region. If these companies are not involved in cross-border activities or do not even operate at national level, this reporting obligation only serves to create a pointless administrative burden, thereby incurring costs for these commercial companies (approximately EUR 1 170).\nThis is why this report is recommending that Member States waive the annual reporting obligations for commercial companies which meet two of the following criteria for consideration as micro-enterprises: total assets must be less than EUR 500 000, the net turnover amount must be less than EUR 1 million and\/or they must have an average of 10 employees throughout the financial year. Micro-enterprises will obviously continue to keep accounting records, in accordance with the national laws of each Member State.\nDuring the current crisis which Europe is going through, the private sector made up of small and medium-sized companies (including, therefore, micro-enterprises) must be encouraged, while also being regarded, in this difficult climate, as an area for absorbing the workforce made redundant by the state or private corporate sector.\nCarlos Coelho  \nI am voting in favour of the Lehne report regarding the accounts of micro-enterprises because I support active measures for de-bureaucratisation and those that support small and medium enterprises, which, in Portugal and in Europe, are responsible for the greatest amount of job creation. I raise the issue of the creation of future inequalities in the internal market. As Member States will be allowed to choose whether to apply for this measure or not, we will have countries with different rules for the same firms.\nCare will have to be taken to ensure that there are no negative consequences of the way these rules are transposed in relation to the ongoing efforts to combat fraud and tax evasion and also the fight against economic and financial crime (whether at national, European or international level). Care will also have to be taken to protect shareholders and creditors.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103  \nThe last two rounds of enlargement of the European Union have brought numerous benefits to old and new Member States alike, while also posing a number of challenges. I think that the decision to grant certain facilities to micro-entities should be regulated at European level and not come under the remit of each Member State. This is the only way to successfully cut bureaucracy for micro-enterprises and create a balance. Particular attention must be focused on removing all those difficulties that hamper the activity of micro-enterprises and discourage people from obtaining EU financial support.\nAnne Delvaux  \nOn Wednesday, the European Parliament approved a proposal aimed at abolishing the obligation for small and mediumsized enterprises to publish their annual accounts. In an effort to reduce the administrative burden, the European Commission proposed that countries that so wish can exempt their SMEs from this annual obligation to publish their accounts imposed by the current European legislation. I was against this repeal because, as a result of the Commission proposal, the European regulatory and harmonised framework will disappear for more than 70% of European businesses.\nThe option to exempt microentities from the obligation to draw up and publish their annual accounts will not serve to reduce the administrative burden. My fear now is that if the Member States are inconsistent in applying the option to exempt microentities, it will result in the single market being divided up.\nThat is also why the Belgian MEPs and the Belgian Government are fiercely opposed to the European proposal (Belgium has also rallied together a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers, where the proposal still has to be voted on).\nRobert Du\u0161ek  \nThe report on the proposal for a directive on the annual accounts of companies resolves the framework and broadens the obligation to submit accounts in the case of micro-entities. The aim of this measure is to reduce the administrative burden and thereby to help boost the competitiveness and economic growth of micro-entities. I welcome the proposal of the rapporteur, who gives Member States a free choice and allows them to exempt micro-entities from the obligation to submit annual accounts, i.e. to exempt them outside the scope of this directive. If it is a matter of entities limited to a regional and local market without having a cross-border field of action, they should not be burdened with further obligations arising from European legislation that is valid for the European market. For the reasons mentioned above, I agree with the wording of the report.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nI voted against the Lehne report because abolishing the accounting obligations for these microentities will not reduce the real costs of businesses and will create great legal uncertainty. Such an exemption will undermine the confidence required for relations between very small enterprises and third parties (customers, suppliers, banks).\nReliable information must be maintained in order to obtain credit. Without an accounting framework, bankers and other interested parties, who will still require information, are liable to find an excuse to reduce their lending. This situation will be detrimental to very small enterprises.\nAstrid Lulling  \nToday, I voted against the Lehne report, as I believe that the reduction in administrative expenditure for small and medium-sized enterprises must take place as part of a uniform and comprehensive approach for the whole of the European Union.\nWere this proposal implemented, more than 70% of European companies - indeed more than 90% in Luxembourg - would be exempted from the requirement to produce standardised annual accounts.\nAs a result, an important decision-making tool for the responsible management of the affected enterprises would be lost.\nIf the Member States did not implement this exemption for micro-enterprises in a uniform way - which is highly likely - this would lead to a fragmentation of the common market.\nThis measure is thus inappropriate. Those companies that carry out cross-border trade, in particular, would be put at a disadvantage. The only sensible solution is to simplify the rules for all micro-enterprises in Europe on an EU-wide basis.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nEspecially at a time when the economic crisis has hit small businesses hard, it is our duty to endeavour to provide them with all the facilities which might help them recover and offer support again to the European economy. Cutting red tape is important in this context. I welcome the decision adopted today. I hope that as many Member States as possible will implement it in an ideal and efficient way, for the benefit of small entrepreneurs and the economy in general.\nGeorgios Papastamkos  \nI voted in favour of the Lehne report, because it grants Member States the discretion to take account of the various repercussions which the application of the directive may have on their internal affairs, especially as regards the number of companies which come within its scope. The activities of micro-entities are of negligible cross-border significance. Moreover, the publication of annual accounts safeguards transparency and is the sine qua non for access by micro-entities to the credit market and to public procurement contracts and to their inter-company relations.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nI voted against the Lehne report and the Commission proposal. They represent a step backwards in terms of the internal market and pose an obvious risk of distortion of competition between small European SMEs.\nLet us be clear, the consequences of this proposal have been woefully underestimated. Moreover, they have not taken account of the fact that, in the absence of a European directive, each Member State will impose its own rules on the matter. It is therefore no surprise to see all the SME organisations, European organisations - and Belgian ones too in my case: the Union of the Middle Classes and the Federation for Enterprises in Belgium - overwhelmingly oppose this proposal.\nYes, a thousand times yes to a reduction in administrative burdens for businesses, and particularly for SMEs, but a consistent reduction, achieved by means of a proposal for a general review of the fourth and seventh Company Law Directives.\nRobert Rochefort  \nThe proposal submitted to us entails allowing the Member States to exempt certain enterprises (microentities) from the obligation to draw up and publish their annual accounts. I am, of course, hugely in favour of reducing the administrative burdens for businesses, in particular, for SMEs and very small enterprises. However, the Commission proposal cruelly misses the mark: firstly, it is not clear whether the proposed system would really reduce the administrative burden on these businesses (the statistical data currently compiled will have to be gathered by other means) and, secondly, this text, which leaves it up to each Member State to decide whether or not to apply the exemption, is in danger of fragmenting the internal market (in the highly likely event that some Member States will apply the exemption and others will not). This proposal should have been withdrawn and consideration given to the issue of simplifying the administrative burdens on these small enterprises (company law, simplifying the requirements of financial reports, accounting, auditing and so on) as part of the overall review of the fourth and seventh Company Law Directives, planned for the near future. I therefore voted against Mr Lehne's report on the annual accounts of certain types of companies as regards microentities.\nNuno Teixeira  \nThe objective of the present proposal relates to the simplification of the business environment and, in particular, the requirements for the provision of financial information by micro-enterprises, with the aim of strengthening their competitiveness and potential for growth.\nIn this context, I welcome the changes included in the report regarding the reduction in the administrative burden on micro-enterprises, as I believe that it constitutes an important measure in stimulating the European economy and in combating the crisis. This is because the activities of micro-enterprises are confined to single local or regional markets in which the production of annual accounts becomes an onerous and complex undertaking.\nHowever, I do not support the idea of exempting micro-enterprises from the duty to submit annual accounts. That decision, in fact, falls to each Member State to adopt, as it could have direct implications relating to the combating of fraud and tax evasion and the fight against economic and financial crime, as well as for the protection of shareholders and creditors.\nI therefore argue for the finding of balanced solutions with a view to adapting the way this measure is applied, rather than having a specific obligation in the document to maintain accounts regarding commercial operations and the financial position. It is, therefore, with some reservations that I am voting in favour of the present report.\nMarianne Thyssen  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament's adoption of the Small Business Act in March 2009 kick-started a series of policy proposals geared towards making the business environment in Europe more SME-friendly, through administrative simplification, among other means. The abolition of the accounting system for what have been termed 'micro-entities' appears, at first glance, to be a major act of administrative simplification, but, given the importance of financial information to all stakeholders, including lenders, tax administrations and trading partners, this will, on the contrary, actually open the door to more red tape and higher costs. In addition, companies will be denied a useful tool for internal business succession.\nHowever, I support the Committee on Economic Affairs' request that the impact of the meaning of any exemption granted to micro-entities be thoroughly assessed and placed in the framework of an overall review of the fourth and seventh directives. In my opinion, this proposal does not contain the instruments needed to tackle the issue of red tape effectively.\nFor these reasons, I voted to reject the Commission's proposal. Given that the report of my esteemed colleague, Mr Lehne, rests on the same principles as the Commission's proposal, nor was I in a position to support his report, either. I look forward to the Council making a wise and well-considered decision.\nDerek Vaughan  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the proposal to exempt micro-entities (small firms) from EU law on accounting standards. This is an extremely important proposal as it will reduce the unnecessary burden of red tape on small businesses and help over five million firms to make a saving of approximately GBP 1 000 each. The EU has made a commitment to reduce burdens on small and medium enterprises by 25% by 2012 and this law is a vitally important step along the path to achieving this objective. These small firms are often the first step on the ladder to successful employers of the future, and they need to be nurtured, especially during times of recession.\nSophie Auconie  \nI voted in favour of Mr Lehne's report on the annual accounts of microentities because, although the European Commission's impact assessment is, in my view, incomplete and insufficient, I wanted to adopt a position that was clearly in favour of simplifying the accounting obligations imposed on very small enterprises. Economically and socially speaking, it does not make sense for a very small enterprise to be subject to the same administrative constraints as much larger enterprises. Very small enterprises account for more than 85% of European businesses; in other words, they are the backbone of our economy, which urgently needs a boost. I therefore believe that a harmonised reduction in their obligations is along the right lines, albeit with an assurance that this will not hinder their access to credit. The assessment should therefore be carried out across the board, with account taken of the whole economic environment that surrounds very small enterprises, their relations with banks, with management centres - in the case of French enterprises - and, of course, with their customers. Let us not always think in terms of obligations but let us have faith in our entrepreneurs and our craftspeople who need us to reduce their administrative burdens.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nI voted against this proposal because it is liable, in the long run, to backfire on SMEs and, by reducing their access to credit, to deprive them of the conditions of transparency and of confidence that are indispensable to their management and to the dynamism of their activity. I do not believe that one can, on the one hand, request greater transparency from the banks by criticising them for the non-transparency of the financial markets, which led to the current crisis, and, on the other, seek to abolish the tools of transparency that are crucial to economic operators themselves and to the economic regulatory policies that we want to conduct at European level. Simplifying the accounting obligations for SMEs, and particularly for the smallest ones, remains an urgent requirement. The European Commission must urgently review the fourth and seventh Company Law Directives, which alone can provide a comprehensive, fair and consistent solution.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI welcome the adoption of the Lehne report that will certainly contribute to the reduction of the managerial burdens of micro-enterprises. Small enterprises frequently complain about the excessive regulation, burdens and bureaucracy that often endanger their financial survival. Micro-enterprises are right to argue that they should not be subject to the same rules and regulations as bigger businesses. Let us hope that the rules proposed in this report will lead to higher turnover and greater competitiveness for micro-enterprises. This report still gives Member States the flexibility to transpose the directive at the most appropriate time so as to avoid any difficulty that may arise from the reduction of regulation. However, micro-enterprises will be able to continue to draw up annual accounts on a voluntary basis, submit them to auditing and send them to the national register. In any case, micro-enterprises will continue to maintain their sales and transactions registers for the purposes of administration and tax information. The Commission forecasts total savings of between EUR 5.9 and EUR 6.9 billion for the 5 941 844 micro-enterprises if all Member States adopt this exemption. In Portugal, 356 140 Portuguese enterprises would be covered under this exemption if it were adopted by the Portuguese Government.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted against the proposal for a directive on the annual accounts of certain types of companies adopted on Wednesday, 10 March 2010. While I am in favour of a significant reduction in the regulatory burden borne by SMEs, I do nonetheless believe that accounting requirements also constitute crucial management instruments for their external partners (bankers, clients, suppliers and so on). By reducing their access to credit, this proposal is liable, in the long run, to deprive SMEs of the conditions of transparency and confidence that are indispensable to their management and to the dynamism of their activity. It is paradoxical, on the one hand, to request greater transparency from the banks by criticising them for the non-transparency of the financial markets, which led to the current crisis, and, on the other, to seek to abolish the tools of transparency that are crucial to economic operators themselves and to the economic regulatory policies that I support at European level.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nThe European Parliament, like the European Economic and Social Committee, is supporting the objective pursued by the Commission by presenting this initiative, which entails exempting micro-entities from administrative and accounting requirements, which are costly and completely disproportionate to the needs and internal structures of micro-entities and of the principal users of financial information, in order to enable them to rise to the numerous structural challenges inherent in a complex company, thanks to the full implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises and in accordance with a process integrated into the Lisbon Strategy. I regard the Commission's proposal for simplification as positive. Its aim is to ensure that the regulatory framework helps to stimulate the spirit of enterprise and innovation among micro- and small enterprises so that they become more competitive and turn the potential of the internal market to best account. However, micro-entities must still be subject to the obligation to keep records showing their business transactions and financial situation as a minimum standard to which Member States remain free to add further obligations. When all is said and done, I believe that we are helping small and medium-sized enterprises by reducing bureaucracy, and I welcome that.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves  \nI voted in favour of this resolution because it promotes the strengthening of economic coordination between the European countries, greater coherence between the Stability and Growth Pact and other European strategies, the implementation of an ambitious social agenda in the fight against unemployment, greater flexibility regarding retirement age and the promotion of SMEs.\nI emphasise furthermore the fact that the reform asks the Commission to develop new incentives for the Member States that implement the EU 2020 strategy, penalising in future those that do not comply. This is crucial to making the strategy a success, given that the problems which we are facing are common ones and require a solution at European level.\nI also welcome the decision of the European Council for its greater strategic realism, which provides it with greater clarity and fewer but quantified objectives.\nFinally, I cannot omit to mention the inclusion of agriculture in this strategy because this was not envisaged in the initial proposal and it is, without doubt, an essential objective if Europe is to achieve its aims, whether from the point of view of economics, foodstuffs and the environment, or in terms of a greater quality of life for its rural zones, which will generate employment.\nElena Oana Antonescu  \nThe EU 2020 strategy must resolve the problems caused by the economic and financial crisis through measures aimed directly at the sensitive points in Member States' economies. If the Lisbon Strategy was not wholly successful because too many targets were set, a strategy for exiting the crisis must be focused on a few clear, quantifiable objectives such as: providing solutions to combat unemployment effectively, especially among young people, the promotion and provision of support to small and medium-sized enterprises, which generate the most jobs and innovations, as well as an increase in the percentage allocated to research and development from the EU and national budgets up to 3%.\nWe must be aware that the room for manoeuvre for social policies in Europe will decrease in the future due to the ageing of the population, while the increase in productivity will only be able to come from greater investment in technology and education. If we want a more competitive labour market, we must restructure the social security systems and support more flexible working practices. At the same time, such a strategy must support the development of production methods which respect the environment and people's health.\nRegina Bastos  \nOn 3 March, the European Commission presented its EU 2020 strategy: 'A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth'. It is a proposal which agrees on five quantifiable objectives for the European Union (EU) through to 2020, which will provide a framework for the process and which must be translated into national objectives: employment, research and innovation, climate change and energy, education and the fight against poverty.\nIt is a strategy which focuses on concrete, realistic and appropriately quantified objectives: an increase in employment from 69% to at least 75%, an increase in Research and Development (R&D) spending to 3% of GDP, a reduction in poverty by 25%, a reduction in the rate of truancy from the current rate of 15% to 10%, and an increase from 31% to 40% in terms of young people aged 30 who have a higher education qualification.\nI voted in favour of the resolution on the EU 2020 strategy on the grounds that the objectives which it announces map out the path which Europe should follow and that it responds in a clear and objective manner to the problems created by the economic and financial crisis, in terms of unemployment, financial regulation and the fight against poverty. These problems will provide a reference point, allowing us to evaluate the progress which is achieved.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt \nI voted for this resolution. Since we will be unable to solve the current social and economic problems at national level, we therefore need to solve them at European and international level. The EU 2020 strategy should, above all, be an effective measure to overcome the economic and financial crisis, since the goal of this strategy is the creation of jobs and economic growth.\nHuge unemployment in Europe is the most important issue in current discussions, as Member States face ever rising unemployment with more than 23 million men and women without work and, as a result, there are great social and living difficulties. Therefore, most attention in this European Parliament resolution is paid to the creation of new jobs and to combating social isolation.\nMoreover, Parliament calls on the Commission to not just take into account unemployment and social problems, but to show effective means of solving these, so that this new strategy has a genuine impact on people's real lives. I would like to draw attention to the fact that Europe has already learnt from its mistakes, having been unable to fully implement the goals set out in the Lisbon Strategy earlier. Therefore, the new strategy for the coming decade must be based on a strong management system and it must ensure responsibility. Consequently, by voting for this resolution today, I am calling on the Commission and the European Council to concentrate on Europe's main social problems and to set out fewer, but clearer and more realistic goals, which it would then be possible to realise.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI welcome the recent debates held during the Informal Council of 11 February on the guidelines for EUROPE 2020, the new strategy for Europe. I congratulate the Commission on its initiative and call for greater cooperation with Parliament on such an important matter for the future of Europe. It is essential to invest in knowledge and in reforms that foster technological progress, innovation, education and training to promote prosperity, growth and employment in the medium and long term. I would also like to highlight the importance of concrete ideas for this strategy such as the digital agenda. It is essential to make the most of this potential so that Europe may recover from the economic crisis in a sustainable way. The cohesion policy is equally important in supporting growth and employment. EUROPE 2020, in its regional dimension should, therefore, include this priority as one of the pillars for a richer, more prosperous and fairer society. I appeal to the need to develop mechanisms of financing and governing with practical effects for the accomplishment of this strategy.\nAnne Delvaux  \nThere were high hopes for the Lisbon Strategy, the economic, social and environmental objectives of which were as necessary as they were ambitious. The strategy that succeeds it, the socalled EU 2020 strategy, which we voted on today, seems to me to be far less ambitious. Although it does retain some objectives to be achieved, such as the 3% of GDP to be devoted to research, and the preservation of the Stability and Growth Pact (3%), it is still regrettable that employment and the environmental dimension (which is much reduced) do not occupy a horizontal place in it. We are still a very long way away from a true, global sustainable development strategy.\nNevertheless, I supported this proposal because it is very clear that, in the face of the crisis and its many consequences, especially for employment, we cannot continue to stand idly by. I welcome the adoption of the paragraphs relating to an ambitious social agenda and to improving support for SMEs. In short, a new lease of life is needed. Let us hope that the EU 2020 strategy will provide it. Above all, let us hope that the 27 Member States will do their utmost to implement this strategy.\nHarlem D\u00e9sir  \nThe 2020 strategy is supposed to replace the Lisbon Strategy. It is, above all, in danger of prolonging the shortcomings, of ending in the same lack of results and of causing the same disappointment. It is neither a true recovery strategy nor a new perspective for the economic, social, budgetary and fiscal policies of the Union. The myriad good intentions are matched only by the absence of new instruments with which to implement them.\nEurope needs a different ambition; the citizens expect more convincing responses. Since the start of the crisis, the unemployment rate has increased by seven million. The banks are speculating again, hedge funds have not been regulated, the citizens are being asked to tighten their belts, drastic cuts are being made in public services and social protection is being cut back. The Greek crisis serves to reveal our lack of solidarity.\nThat is why Europe must debate a different view of its future, one that is based on true economic coordination, a recovery characterised by solidarity, a green growth strategy, an energy community, a cohesion budget, own resources, investment in education, research, fiscal and social harmonisation, the fight against tax havens and the taxation of international financial transactions.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a joint resolution on the continuation of the informal European Council of 11 February 2010. To achieve a social market economy which is sustainable, more intelligent and greener, Europe must define its priorities, agreeing on these together. No Member State can provide responses to these challenges by acting alone. EU policy cannot be merely the sum of 27 national policies. By working together for a common objective, the result will be superior to the sum of its parts.\nThis will allow the EU to develop a role as a world leader, showing that it is possible to combine economic dynamism with social and environmental concerns. It will allow the EU to create new jobs in areas such as renewable energy, sustainable transport and energy efficiency. For this purpose, appropriate financial resources must be made available which will allow opportunities to be taken and new sources of global competitiveness to be exploited by the EU.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe European Commission has made public the Europe 2020 strategy, which replaces the unsuccessful Lisbon Strategy and which provides important and ambitious challenges for Europe. These challenges relate, essentially, to five areas considered to be strategic by the Commission: (i) employment; (ii) research and innovation; (iii) climate change and energy; (iv) education and (v) the fight against poverty.\nThese are, in fact, areas which are fundamental if Europe is to overcome the crisis and reaffirm its role as an important player in the global market, with a high level of development and a competitive economy which is capable of generating wealth, employment and innovation. The European Union does indeed require ambition to defeat the challenges presented by the crisis, but that ambition must not cause problems for the effort at budgetary consolidation which is being demanded of Member States, in view of the weakness of their public accounts and their excessive deficits. For this same reason, I consider it vital that the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy be strengthened.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe principle of solidarity should be the basis for the EU 2020 strategy; solidarity among citizens, generations, regions and governments. This way, we will be able to combat poverty and ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion, by means of sustainable economic growth. This principle of solidarity must constitute the guarantee of the European social model.\nWe must deliberate on the restructuring of social security systems and on ensuring minimum social rights at the European level that will facilitate the free circulation of workers, specialised personnel, businessmen, researchers, students and retired people. The efficient use of resources becomes a necessity owing to this principle and deriving from the need for sustainability.\nThis strategy must generate the creation of jobs. We cannot accept that the EU has approximately 23 million unemployed men and women. Therefore, it is fundamental to support entrepreneurship and bureaucratic and fiscal relief for small and medium-sized enterprises.\nThis does not mean forgetting about industry or agriculture. We must resume the re-industrialisation of Europe. Sustainable agriculture with quality produce must also be our goal. To achieve this, we must advance the sustainable development of our primary sector and take the lead in the fields of scientific research, knowledge and innovation.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe Europe 2020 strategy, the recognised successor of the so-called Lisbon Strategy, must start by making an appropriate assessment of the methods of its predecessor. If this were done, it would find that the approaches which it implemented - namely, the liberalisation of important economic sectors and the deregulation and increased flexibility of labour laws - have been the causes of its results in practice: increased unemployment, insecurity, poverty and social exclusion and economic stagnation and recession.\nThe Commission and Parliament now seek to follow the same approaches. The proposed path is clear and neither the social or environmental rhetoric which it tries to set out are enough to disguise the following: total emphasis on the Single Market, pursuit of liberalisation, commercialisation of more and more aspects of social life, lack of job security, and structural unemployment.\nThe consensus which exists between the Right and Social Democrats regarding these approaches has been made quite clear. In the final analysis, they have together been its faithful protagonists in recent years. This strategy, essentially, is nothing more than the response of two tendencies within a single system to the structural crisis of that system. In following this approach, the strategy will itself be the origin of new and deeper crises. In following this approach, the strategy will inevitably face resistance and be fought by the workers and the people.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThe rejection of our motion for a resolution is regrettable. In it, we not only proposed a broad process of discussion on the proposals which have already been presented by the European Commission and a complete evaluation of the results of the Lisbon Strategy, with the aim of extracting conclusions for the new Europe 2020 strategy, but we also presented a set of new proposals giving priority to increased productivity and the creation of employment with rights, the resolution of the unemployment problem and poverty, and guaranteeing equality in social progress. The new proposals would have created a new macro-economic framework to promote sustainable development, strengthen internal demand and respect the environment, based on improvements in pay, full employment with rights, and economic and social cohesion.\nWe voted against the joint resolution which was adopted because it does not get to the root of the problem, does not propose measures which are an alternative to the Stability Pact, and nor does it propose an end to the liberalisation or labour market flexibility which have led to an increase in the insecurity of work and low pay. In this way, you allow the European Commission to continue to argue for more or less the same approach, one which has already led to unemployment for more than 23 million people and has left more than 85 million people in poverty.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg  \nMr President, for the last two decades, the European Union has been successful in many areas, from three ambitious enlargements to the introduction of the common currency, the euro. European Union citizens work less than the Americans or the Japanese (10% fewer hours per year) and retire earlier. Maintaining these gains at the current level is not easy during a crisis, so I am pleased to hear of the decisive measures on the part of the European Council and the European Commission, which aim to establish a comprehensive economic strategy - Europe 2020.\nAt the same time, before the European Councils in March and June this year which will give the strategy its final form, there are a number of doubts relating to the European Commission document which was presented on 3 March this year. Firstly, what kind of data will be used as the basis for setting national targets for the 27 different European Union Member States? What penalties or rewards await those Member States which, respectively, do or do not comply with the objectives imposed by the strategy? Finally, what role in the whole process has been reserved for the European Parliament since, until now, the Europe 2020 strategy has been a project piloted exclusively by the Council and the Commission? We must find answers to these questions before the European Council in June. Otherwise, to quote Mr Barroso, the Union will miss its 'moment of truth'.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, after the bitter failure of the Lisbon Strategy, which was meant to make Europe the world's most competitive knowledgebased economy in 2010, here we have the EU 2020 strategy, which is precisely an extension of that strategy. For flexibility of the labour market, read job insecurity for workers, increased competition at European and international level, the liberal reform of national social protection systems, and absolute respect for the stupid Stability and Growth Pact ...\nAll the ingredients are there to make this strategy one of national and social disintegration, like the Lisbon Strategy before it. The only innovations are those inspired by your new whims: making European economic governance mandatory and binding, even though the Europe of Brussels has shown itself to be completely ineffective in the face of the global crisis, and tending towards global governance in the name of so-called global warming, which increasingly appears to be an ideological pretext. We shall vote against this text.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted against this resolution because it does not place enough emphasis on the objective of full employment. Secondly, our priorities should be more focused on the fight against poverty and on sustainable growth. The European Parliament also lets slip the opportunity to emphasise the need to combat all forms of insecure employment, by means of a directive on part-time work, the introduction of a set of social rights that are guaranteed regardless of the type of employment contract, and measures to combat abuses in relation to subcontracting, and even unpaid work experience. Lastly, this resolution chooses to overlook the need to harmonise the tax base, which is of vital importance to the creation of a European social model. There is no doubt that the European Parliament has missed a great opportunity here as regards the construction of a social and sustainable Europe.\nC\u0103t\u0103lin Sorin Ivan  \nThe reality which we have all realised is that the 2020 strategy does not even have enough green or social policies. Another relevant observation is that the objectives are vague and the economic crisis is not being handled in a manner commensurate with its severity. This is why I feel that the role of the resolution voted on in the European Parliament plenary is to make important contributions to the European vision for the next 10 years.\nAlthough our role as MEPs is limited to the letter of the treaty, we can still make a substantial contribution. However, we must expect Member States to demonstrate political will and reflect on our position in a constructive way.\nObjectives such as 'a social market economy' and 'a budget reflecting smart, inclusive and sustainable growth' are vital to overcoming the effects triggered by the economic crisis.\nInvestment in education, encouraging student mobility and training in new skills which meet the labour market's demands are courses of action which we must devise realistic action plans for.\nPeter Jahr  \nIn the context of the EU 2020 strategy, agriculture will play an important part in Europe's future success. Particularly when it comes to sustainable growth and employment, and when it comes to climate change, European agricultural policy is highly significant, as it has an indispensable role to play in retaining jobs in rural and peri-urban areas. We should not forget, furthermore, that agriculture supplies 500 million Europeans with high quality food, provides 40 million jobs and is responsible for an annual turnover of approximately EUR 1.3 trillion. The production of renewable energy provides additional jobs and helps to reduce CO2 emissions and the dependence on fossil fuels. Agriculture is innovative, creates value and is the real source of sustainable regional economic cycles. European agricultural policy must therefore be given greater consideration in the context of this new strategy.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski  \nI would like to draw attention to an inconsistency between the targets of the 2020 strategy and the effects which will be the consequence of proposed changes to the budget priorities for 2014-2020. One of these targets is an improvement in environmental conditions. The change of budget priorities suggests a restriction on funds available for the common agricultural policy, which means that, in 2020, agriculture is going to have to be highly efficient or even downright industrial. This means it will be a threat to the environment, and this, in turn, means that the EU would have to depart from the European model of agriculture, which affords particular care to the environment, the landscape, biodiversity, the well-being of animals, sustainable development and the social and cultural values of the rural environment. There is a piece of old and practical wisdom which says 'better' is the enemy of 'good enough'. We should beware lest, in caring for the environment, we do the environment harm.\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger  \nThe objective of the European Union's future strategy is to accept current and future challenges and to master them as well as possible. In the context of the EU 2020 strategy, the agricultural sector, in particular, will play an important role in relation to the new, EU-defined challenges such as protection of the environment and the climate, renewable energy sources, biodiversity and sustainable growth and employment, specifically in rural areas. Europe must be aware that around 40 million jobs depend on agriculture, directly or indirectly.\nThe top priority, however, must continue to be the security of the supply of high-quality foods for 500 million Europeans, in particular, against the backdrop of the doubling of food production by 2050. European agricultural policy must therefore be given greater consideration in the context of this new strategy.\nNuno Melo  \nThe EU 2020 strategy is the latest opportunity for the EU to assert itself as a world economic power, after the Lisbon Strategy became a failure. Against the backdrop of the global economic crisis, the EU 2020 strategy has to be the model which all the Member States must follow in order to bring us into a new era, with new paradigms which will promote sustainable development based on good practice.\nAfter the loss of many millions of jobs throughout the EU, the fight against unemployment has to be its 'touchstone'. We have to be able to create jobs and make our workforce better trained and qualified. This will only be possible with the complete support of SMEs, which are responsible for the creation of most jobs. However, for the EU 2020 strategy to be a success, we cannot make the same errors which were made with the Lisbon Strategy, particularly the lack of commitment and responsibility on the part of the Member States.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nI voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution of the European Parliament. The EU 2020 strategy is intended to set new objectives, not only for political action, but also for the way in which we think. In order to make a good recovery from the crisis, we have to create common instruments and mechanisms which will not only eliminate the effects of the current economic crisis, but will also allow us to react appropriately to future crises and even not to permit them at all. The Commission, Parliament and all EU institutions should remember that working for the common good of Europe's citizens is, for them, a priority. It is the citizens' problems which are, for us, the most important, and it is the citizens whom we should serve by giving advice, offering help and taking action. In the context of the crisis, problems such as unemployment, poverty and social exclusion are the order of the day. If we want to build a modern, fully innovative, development-based and cohesive Europe, we must guarantee our citizens a sense of security in the future. I am disappointed that, in the original proposals concerning the EU 2020 strategy, agriculture was omitted. Economic reconstruction and realisation of the objectives of environmental policy are included in agricultural policy. Without inclusion of this policy in the EU 2020 strategy, and also in every successive strategy, we have no chance of achieving the objectives, not only in the areas I have just mentioned, but also in many others.\nGeorgios Papastamkos  \nI voted against the second part of paragraph 6 of the joint motion for a resolution on the EU 2020 strategy because it implies an intention to further dismantle the traditionally constructed European social state. The EU should make its social union more visible, by rebuffing competitive pressure on the international economic stage from forces which have either clearly stripped down social welfare benefits and structures or which apply social dumping. It would appear that social policy and employment policy are being adapted selectively and flexibly to market forces.\nThe unifying strategy tends to seek institutional integrity in everything to do with market forces; however, it would appear to be imperfect in terms of policy to regulate the impact of de-unification phenomena (such as unemployment, regional inequalities and lack of social cohesion). Now more than ever, the signs of the times advocate a more social Europe.\nRovana Plumb  \nI voted for this resolution as I believe that the EU 2020 strategy must provide an effective response to the economic and financial crisis and give new impetus and European coherence to the recovery process in the EU by mobilising and coordinating national and European instruments.\nI support the need for better cooperation with national parliaments and civil society as the involvement of more players will increase the pressure on national administrations to deliver results.\nAt the same time, I believe that European industry should use its pioneering role in the sustainable economy and green mobility technologies by exploiting its export potential. This will reduce resource dependency and facilitate compliance with the necessary 20-20-20 climate change targets.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nEurope is not the world's most competitive economy in 2010. Far from it: with GDP down by 4% and 23 million citizens without jobs, its state of health is not exactly brilliant. If the European Union needs a severe electric shock to get the economy and employment back in a virtuous circle, it must do so with similar objectives but using a method that is completely different from that of the Lisbon Strategy. It must also take account of the negotiations ahead of it in the areas of energy, climate change, industry and agriculture. That is why I support the determination tinged with pragmatism of the new 2020 strategy. Ensuring that 75% of people of working age actually have a job, and seeing the gamble of investing 3% of GDP in research pay off are now, more than ever, objectives that Europe must achieve. Whether the 27 capitals cooperate is another matter, however. That is why we are calling for penalties and incentives to be envisaged for the good and bad students of the 2020 strategy (section 14). Penalties on the one hand, and incentives on the other. The carrot and the stick. It is as old as the hills, but it works.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted 'no' to motion for a resolution RC7-0151\/2010 submitted today for voting in Parliament for the same reason that we Greens did not vote for the Barroso II Commission: because of a lack of ambition. On this occasion, it is the turn of Parliament's largest political groups to disappoint by adopting a resolution that is pure posture - it does not contain a single economic, social or environmental proposal. I believe that Europeans expect more from this Parliament.\nThe EU Parliament was sidelined during the design of EU 2020 strategy. Now that Parliament belatedly has a chance to react, its biggest political groups conspire to deliver an empty resolution. This is a missed opportunity to get the European Parliament into the heart of the debate on substance and onto centre stage as an institution.\nRichard Seeber  \nThe question of where the EU should be in relation to employment and economic development in 2020 is of key importance. Especially in times of economic crisis such as these, the EU 2020 strategy should act as the engine driving us out of the uncertainty. That makes it more important to choose the goals in such a way that they can actually be met. The policy is not an end in itself but has the purpose of creating realistic programmes that the population and the economy can keep pace with. The sustainable economy must be a major point in shaping the immediate future.\nThis is an objective that we must attain step by step, not least because of climate change. The issue of the security of raw materials, too, will, in future, concern Europe more and more, for which reason we should be paving the way for the sustainable use of resources now, and pointing European policy in this direction.\nBart Staes  \nI voted against the joint resolution, because the three major groups are obviously using it to endorse the business-as-usual approach of the Barroso II Commission. My constituents expect a different approach and want the Europe 2020 strategy to usher in a green new deal, a 21st century green revolution which will reconcile human development with the physical limitations of the earth.\nThe European Union continues to swear by the policy of uncritically increasing growth in GDP. However, the greens and environmentalists want to transform the Europe 2020 strategy from one which strives for GDP growth alone to a broader political concept of the future of the EU as a social and sustainable Union which will place people and environmental protection at the heart of its policies, seek to ensure human well-being and create the best possible opportunities for everyone. In our view, GDP must include a set of welfare indicators, as well as indicators which will take into account broad external economic factors and environmental pressures. My group has therefore submitted an eight-page text which explains our alternative approach in detail. I prefer that text to the three largest groups' compromise.\nMarc Tarabella  \nI voted against the resolution on the EU 2020 strategy because paragraph 6, which mentions the restructuring of social security systems and talks about greater flexibility for workers, has been adopted. Moreover, the resolution is more like a mishmash of more or less good intentions to the detriment of precise quantitative and qualitative objectives. Therefore, it would appear that account has not been taken of the almost complete failure of the Lisbon 2010 Strategy.\nNuno Teixeira  \nThe Europe 2020 strategy aims to set out a plan for the future to achieve economic growth and the promotion of jobs within the European Union. Its approach must be made on the basis of objectives which refer to a sustainable social market economy, the sustainable knowledge society, and the role of SMEs in promoting employment.\nA strong, modern and flexible cohesion policy must be a central element of this strategy. Embodied in the new Treaty of Lisbon, cohesion policy, through horizontal application, has an essential role in responding to the new challenges of the European Union. In this context, the objective of European territorial cohesion can be seen to be fundamental.\nThe priorities for European cohesion must aim not only at promoting competitiveness at European level, through the efficient allocation of funding, but also at helping disadvantaged regions to overcome their social and economic difficulties and to reduce existing disparities.\nThe active role of the European regions in promoting this strategy must also be highlighted. The importance of governance at various levels deserves to be highlighted. It will be desirable to have a deep sharing of objectives, tasks and responsibilities relating to the Europe 2020 strategy between the European Union, the Member States and local and regional authorities.\nFor the above reasons, I voted in favour of the aforementioned motion for a resolution.\nMarianne Thyssen  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, bringing about an exit strategy from the crisis is crucial in the short term, but something more is needed in the medium term. If we really want to give social market economy, our social model, a chance, we need more economic growth, green growth, that will make us competitive and create new jobs. Undertaking further investment in research and development, in innovative products, production processes and services, is crucial if we are to maintain our standard of living in the global economy.\nThis impetus towards structural reform is reflected in the '2020 strategy' proposed by the Commission. It is also crucial that the Commission change tack and focus on a number of smaller targets which are measurable and tailored to individual Member States. As the resolution rightly suggests, the strategy will fall short of ensuring that the stated objectives are enforceable. The absence of a genuine penalty mechanism if the objectives are not met, or even if insufficient efforts are made to that end, means that this '2020 strategy' is flawed in the same way as its predecessor.\nThe joint resolution provides a good basis for further discussions with the Commission, the Council and the President of the European Council. I therefore emphatically voted in favour of this resolution.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe joint motion for a resolution by the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe on the EU 2020 strategy expresses the joint decision by the political face of capital to use every means to implement the savage attack and anti-grassroots plans of the monopolies against the working classes and workers throughout the EU. The EU 2020 strategy follows on from and extends the anti-grassroots Lisbon Strategy by laying down the strategic objectives and plans of monopoly capital and laying the workers' fundamental wage and social rights on a Procrustean bed. To be precise, we have: widespread application of the famous 'flexicurity', in conjunction with 'lifelong learning', 'training and retraining' and 'mobility' of workers, abolition of collective agreements, shared jobs, drastic wage and pension cuts, an increase in the retirement age and sweeping changes in social insurance, health, welfare and education. It also gives capital massive sums from State coffers in the form of subsidies and incentives for 'green development'. The Greek Communist Party voted against the European Parliament resolution on the EU 2020 strategy.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nLong ago, Jacques Delors used to say that one cannot fall in love with a single market or a single currency. I am in love with a Union that takes the real needs of families in the Member States seriously, in strict accordance with national and European competences. However, on reading the EU 2020 strategy and our parliamentary resolution, I find that our ambitions are limited to a shy flirtation with the free market economy. There is no acknowledgement of the citizens' investment in social cohesion or solidarity between the generations. Should we not change our perspective on labour relations and the creation of the added value from which society as a whole benefits? The Commission is proposing a quantified target for combating poverty. This move will inevitably bring back the creaming-off process, which hardly helps the poorest citizens. The absence of a list of poverty indicators inadvertently demonstrates a lack of understanding of what poverty means. Poverty means much more than simply being out of work, and those who experience extreme poverty on a daily basis are not just looking for a job; they want proper access to existing rights. Europe 2020 should respond to this situation with greater enthusiasm and determination. I abstained.\nElena B\u0103sescu  \nI read both Judge Richard Goldstone's report and the conclusions of the ambassador Dora Hold, which dismantle many of the arguments presented in the report of the UN Commission headed by Judge Goldstone. While comparing them, I noted the biased tone of the Goldstone report and therefore, I have not supported the resolution on applying the recommendations from the Goldstone report on Israel and Palestine.\nActions must be analysed in a transparent and impartial way in relation to both sides in the conflict. The Goldstone report fails to mention the reason that triggered the Israeli operation in Gaza: nearly 12 000 attacks with rockets and mortars against Israeli civilians. Following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the number of rocket attacks has risen by 500%. While in 2004 and 2005, 281 and 179 rocket attacks respectively were launched against Israeli territory, following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (in September 2005) the number of attacks has risen to 946 in 2006, 783 in 2007, while 1 730 attacks took place in 2008.\nNot a single Member State of the European Union has voted in favour of adopting the Goldstone report as part of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Compliance with international law must be a priority for all the parties involved.\nAndrew Henry William Brons  \nin writing. - We decided to abstain on all of the votes on Palestine and Israel. We could not vote for resolutions that purported to give the European Union the power to conduct foreign policy or that were inconsistent with our policy of neutrality on the conflict. We do take a neutral policy position between Israel, the Palestinians and other Arab and Muslim countries. However, our policy is not a neutrality of indifference. In particular, we recognise that attacks on civilians either by states or by organisations are entirely unacceptable. Furthermore, we would be gratified to see an end to the conflict by an honourable settlement.\nNessa Childers  \nin writing. - Having visited Gaza earlier this year, I have seen in person how vital it is that Parliament acts in this area. The Goldstone recommendations need to be implemented in full, and I will be tracking this issue over the coming months.\nDerek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - Whilst I recognise that the conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is a humanitarian tragedy, my votes do not support the existence of international influence of the European Institutions as I do not recognise the European Union. My votes in Parliament on 10 March 2010 reflect my conscience on this subject.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - I sponsored this resolution which stresses that respect for International Human Rights and Humanitarian law is an essential prerequisite for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; it expresses concern at the pressures being exerted on NGOs by Israeli and Gaza authorities because they cooperated with the Goldstone enquiry; it calls for an unconditional end to the blockade of Gaza and calls for Europe to publicly urge Israel and Palestinians to implement the Goldstone recommendations. The Goldstone report itself concludes that the extremely high mortality among civilians, including over 300 children, arose from an Israeli policy of deliberately using disproportionate force contrary to international law. It also concluded that the siege of Gaza is tantamount to collective punishment of the 1.5m population, contrary to international law. It recommends that the State Parties to the Geneva Conventions (which includes Ireland) should prosecute those responsible for these policies and their implementation. I am currently preparing a formal complaint to the Irish Police based on the findings of the Goldstone report, to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the case for prosecutions in Ireland of those responsible.\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nWe Swedish Social Democrats do not believe that Hamas should be included on the EU list of terrorist organisations. We are very critical of Hamas and, not least, of its attacks on the Israeli civilian population, but, at the same time, we are concerned that the unconditional condemnation by the EU may aggravate the situation and cause Hamas to shut itself off even more. We do not share the opinion that the EU's decision to continue the political isolation of Hamas following its success in a free and democratic election is the right one. We believe that the EU must compare the possibility of achieving success by means of isolation and sanctions with the use of critical dialogue and cooperation.\nDiogo Feio  \nAnyone who has followed for many years, as I have, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can only conclude with sadness that many of the sincere efforts for a lasting peace continue to be insufficient to persuade and motivate those who have opted for violence to abandon it once and for all. The electoral victory of Hamas and the partitioning into two parts of the Palestinian territory, with each under its own authority, have significantly exacerbated an already grim situation.\nAs long as Hamas does not accept the legitimate existence of the State of Israel, dialogue will be no more than play-acting. For its part, Israel will have to take care that the stances that it adopts are appropriate and proportional, lest it endangers the international legitimacy which it currently has. Like Yitzhak Rabin, I also believe that diplomatic peace is not quite a genuine peace, but it is an essential step towards it. It is necessary to work in this direction and to remove the obstacles blocking steps towards genuine peace. The report of Judge Goldstone notes some obstacles put in place by both sides in this process, namely abuses and serious crimes which must be investigated, judged and punished.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nAttention must be paid to the armed conflict that started in Gaza on 27 December 2008 and ended on 18 January 2009, causing the death of over 1 400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. The loss of human lives was coupled with the destruction of most civilian infrastructure.\nThe High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Member States must work towards an EU common position on how to act on the Inquiry Mission's report on the conflict in the Gaza Strip and in Southern Israel.\nI want to emphasise that the respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law is essential to the achievement of a fair and lasting peace in the Middle East.\nI agree with the call for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Member States to control the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Goldstone report through the consultation of external missions of the EU and the NGOs that operate in this field.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThe adoption of this resolution on the conflict in Gaza by Parliament was a positive step as it recognises the violations of international law by Israel. This proves the impact which the Goldstone report has had on the Middle East peace process by making the constant violations of international law committed by Israel known within Parliament.\nThe truth is that the Goldstone report contains clear proof of the violations of international humanitarian law committed by the Israeli forces in Palestinian territory during its military operations in 2008.\nFor this reason, we want the conclusions of this report to be immediately adopted and its recommendations to be put into practice. At the same time, we urge European Union officials to ensure that there will be no strengthening of the EU-Israel association agreement as long as there is no end to the violations of international law and fundamental human rights which Israel continues to commit in the occupied territories of Palestine.\nCharles Goerens  \nThis is yet another retrospective assessment of the mistakes made by each of the parties involved in the conflict. If the same causes produce the same effects, there is reason to question the causes since the effects are always disastrous. The same causes are the launching of rockets over Israeli cities. The same causes are the disproportionate counterattack by the State of Israel. The same causes are the wretched situation of the inhabitants of Gaza. The same causes are also the exploitation of their misery by the most radical factions. Here is an idea: why not start supporting only those forces in the two camps that have genuinely chosen peace? Those forces exist on both sides and they are all too often accused of betraying their own people since they dream of a scenario in which it is possible to transcend the divisions in a region which has long been the backdrop of one of the most dangerous conflicts on the planet.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted in favour of the resolution calling for the implementation of the Goldstone recommendations because it is vitally important to obtain a pledge from the Israeli and Palestinian authorities that they will carry out impartial and transparent investigations into the Gaza tragedy of 2008-2009, not in an aggressive but in a determined way. The Member States, for their part, must work even harder to defend a strong position and must commit themselves to keeping up these demands on their Israeli and Palestinian partners. International humanitarian law must be respected by all the parties involved in the conflict, and the EU's objective must be to ensure respect for these principles.\nJoe Higgins  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution as it underlines the horrific circumstances that the vast majority of the Palestinian population in Gaza live in today and, in particular, calls for the 'immediate' and 'unconditional' opening of all Gaza's borders. I fully support the right of the Palestinian population to self-determination and their right to defend themselves against the repeated attacks of the Israeli army and state forces. However, I strongly disagree with the ideas of right-wing political Islam and of Hamas. I also oppose individual attacks against Jewish workers that further divide Israeli and Palestinian working class people. This only serves the Israeli Government and other extreme right wing groupings in Israel with a pretext to launch further attacks on the Palestinian population. The Israeli Government does not serve the interests of the Palestinian masses, nor of the Israeli working class. Attacks on living standards and democratic rights need to be jointly defeated by Israeli and Palestinian workers. The only solution that can achieve lasting peace in the region is a socialist Israel, alongside a socialist Palestine, in which borders are mutually agreed by both communities and are part of a democratic socialist confederation of the Middle East.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I strongly support the findings of the Goldstone report, and am pleased that the Parliament has endorsed its recommendations. I hope the process of lasting peace through a two state solution will be supported by the Goldstone findings.\nNuno Melo  \nThe EU should be deeply concerned for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, in addition to the victims it has caused, has, for decades, created great instability in the region and in the world.\nEven so, I believe that there are differences between what Israel does, as a democratic and sovereign state which shares and promotes the basic values of Western societies, and radical movements such as Hamas which, in the majority of instances, refuses to recognise the existence of the State of Israel. This serves as an obstacle to a full resolution of the conflict.\nThis does not prevent us condemning, in all situations, the acts of violence which have occurred on both sides of the conflict, which have shocked the world and which can only motivate and commit us still more to finding ways to promote understanding.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nToday's joint motion for a resolution on the Goldstone report once again gives expression to the EU's striving for a fair assessment and review of events during the conflict in Gaza. On 26 February 2010, both sides were once again called on by the UN General Assembly to carry out credible investigations and to submit further reports within five months. The Palestinian authorities have now instituted an independent investigative panel, which is very good news. The European Union's actions on the international stage must be focused on strict compliance with the principles and objectives of the UN charter and of international law. Similarly, compliance with international humanitarian law and the norms of international human rights law by Israel and by the Palestinians is a material prerequisite for the peace process, which is to lead to two States, coexisting in peace and security. With this resolution, the EU is attempting to prompt the attainment of a settled common position on the measures resulting from the report by the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel led by Justice Goldstone. The report also argues for publicly advocating that the recommendations of the report should be implemented and that responsibility should be assumed for all violations of international law, including imputed war crimes, for which reason I voted in favour.\nFranz Obermayr  \nThe joint motion for a resolution on the Goldstone report expounds the European Union's wish for an investigation of the events surrounding the conflict in Gaza fairly and in detail. On 26 February 2010, the UN General Assembly, too, once again called for an investigation within five months into the incidents and the alleged serious human rights violations. According to the latest information, so far, only the Palestinian side has complied, which is a great shame. In my opinion, the European Union must actively go in to bat in international organisations and committees for compliance with and the implementation of international law. That very respect for compliance with international humanitarian law and the norms of international human rights law by both parties in the conflict would be a basic precondition in the Middle Eastern conflict for discernible progress in the peace process, which could now suffer a serious setback, once again, as a result of Israel's planned settlement construction. The joint resolution calls for the recommendations of the report by the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel led by Justice Goldstone to be implemented, for which reason I voted 'yes'.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nHuman rights must be respected by all sides in the Middle East conflict. Every suspicion that human rights have been violated, by any of the sides, should be checked. Here, however, an identical approach must be used for all the sides of the conflict. The Goldstone report is a document which has created a great deal of emotion and controversy. It has met with numerous accusations of partiality. Many have pointed out that the report does not give equal treatment to all the factors which led to the conflict. The international community must not, however, turn its back on the conflict. The Goldstone recommendations include a proposal to conduct international investigations of crimes alleged to have been committed by any of the sides in the conflict. The realities of the Middle East conflict place a question mark over the possibility of doing this. There is a serious danger that the European Parliament will not be able to monitor actions taken by Hamas, but only those carried out by Israel. Taking these circumstances into account, I decided to vote against adoption of the joint resolution at the final vote.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1  \nI have not supported the joint resolution of the socialists, the liberals, the left block and the Greens on applying the recommendations of the Goldstone report on Israel. This report was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in November last year, by only five out of 27 EU Member States. The reason for this is that the report was not responsibly analysed at the level of the Human Rights Council, and thus the General Assembly voted on an unbalanced report, which describes Israel as a terrorist organisation. I am one of those politicians who strive for an objective and uncompromising investigation into all cases of alleged human rights violation in the Gaza conflict. At stake, however, is the credibility of the conclusions of the investigation. It is not acceptable to allow the politicisation of an ongoing investigation, which has yet to be completed. The aim, after all, should be to achieve a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the future prosperity of two independent states, Israel and Palestine, and not a power struggle between Europe and the US for influence in this region.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of motion for a resolution RC7-0136\/2010 on the Goldstone Recommendations, mainly because it insists on asking for a strong EU position on the follow-up to the Goldstone report and that implementation of its recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law should be publicly demanded, it asks all parties to conduct investigations that meet with international standards within five months, and it demands active monitoring of the implementation of the report by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission and the EU Member States. Furthermore, it adds new points to what Parliament has already said in the past, such as asking the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission to assess the results of the investigations by all parties and report back to Parliament, recalls that the responsibility and credibility of the EU and its Member States require full monitoring of the investigations and shows concern about pressure put on NGOs involved in the drawing up of the Goldstone report and in the follow-up investigations, including reference to the restrictive measures imposed on their activities.\nOlle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikstr\u00f6m  \nThis is not a good time to adopt a resolution on Israel. We can soon expect to receive a full evaluation of the Goldstone report and I believe that we should not anticipate it. The situation is a sensitive one and the conflict between the parties has become polarised. We must not aggravate the situation by adopting a resolution which will definitely be regarded as unsatisfactory by the parties involved. I also find it strange that the EU can adopt a resolution on a mandate which was not supported by any of the EU Member States on the UN Human Rights Council.\nMarek Siwiec  \nI do not think the joint resolution on implementation of the Goldstone recommendations on Israel\/Palestine fully reflects the views expressed by Members of the European Parliament during the debate which took place in Brussels on 24 February. The resolution does not adequately represent the position of the majority of the political groups which helped to create the document. The report to which the resolution refers - the Goldstone report - is biased, and does not treat all the factors which led to the conflict equally. In addition, the joint resolution does not mention the circumstances which led to the conflict, neither does it contain any reference to the 8 000 attacks on Israeli civilians organised by Hamas and other armed groups. Nor is there any information on the way Hamas has ignored the ceasefire.\nItem 7 of the document I am referring to shows plainly that the European Parliament will not be able to monitor actions taken by Hamas, but only those carried out by Israel. Such a position reduces the credibility of Israel's judicial system, and also of Israeli institutions, and undermines their ability to conduct investigations. Therefore, at the final vote, I voted against adoption of the joint resolution.\nCatherine Soullie  \nReducing the IsraeliPalestinian conflict to a mere comparison of the number of deaths in one or the other warring camp can only distort our view of this war, which has been going on for too long now. We all agree that it is difficult to find a solution to this conflict, since the causes themselves are complex and deeprooted. Thus, seeing things in purely black and white terms is impossible in this area of the world.\nThe mission led by Judge Goldstone was tasked solely with listing the violations of international law. Although not all of the conclusions in this report are unjustifiable, voting against these resolutions, which approved the approach and the conclusions of a text that I believe has been managed in a biased fashion but, above all, on the basis of incomplete objectives, struck me as being the most honest intellectual solution.\nYes, we do need to denounce and stop the abuses that are committed by one or the other of the warring parties in that region, but we need to be very careful with regard to the procedure used if we want the justice to be established in the region to lead us in the direction of a lasting peace.\nBart Staes  \nI voted in favour of the joint resolution on the Goldstone report, not least because it recognises that the people of Gaza continue to live under appalling conditions as a consequence of the blockade and because it calls for an immediate, permanent and unconditional opening of the border crossings. The approved text pushes for the implementation of the recommendations in the Goldstone report and for accountability for all the violations of international law, including the war crimes allegations. The report is the result of a balanced and thorough investigation, which was based on field visits and witness interviews.\nAccording to the report, the parties involved committed violations of international humanitarian law. The report holds senior officers of the Israeli army to account for the following: for the indiscriminate use of white phosphorus, for making no distinction between civilians and combatants, for the human consequences of the blockade, which is an instrument of collective punishment, and for a breach of martial law.\nThe report contains enough elements to require the UN Secretary General and the Security Council to start legal proceedings, which will be the best way to guarantee that all the doubts and discussions surrounding the events in Gaza are eliminated. I find it regrettable that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) have not thrown any weight behind this text.\nCharles Tannock  \nin writing. - The ECR Group does not recognise a substantial amount of the Goldstone report and hence we did not vote in favour of the PPE motion for resolution and the joint motion for resolution. The ECR Group has grave concerns about the legitimacy and biased nature of the report produced by Judge Goldstone and, especially, do not want to see members of the IDF or politicians indicted for war crimes. We do support continued talks for peace and security in the region, we support a two-state solution and we do recognise the humanitarian issues brought about by the ongoing conflict in the region.\nR\u00f3\u017ca Gr\u00e4fin von Thun Und Hohenstein  \nAs a global player, the European Union should keep in view not just the good of its citizens, but should also not forget to maintain a world perspective. For this reason, decisions made by Members of the European Parliament should be based on a reality which is more than just European. Voting on the resolution on implementation of the recommendations of Justice Goldstone's report, before the report has been adopted by the UN, is a mistake.\nLeaving aside the fact that there was not enough time to debate the report, we were not given a presentation of the report which included comprehensive coverage of the opposing arguments. In a situation in which the Member States of the European Union are not showing the will to take consistent action on Israel and Palestine, adoption by the European Parliament of any kind of resolution is not helpful to the peace process in the Middle East.\nFor these reasons, I abstained from voting on the resolution of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), and voted against the joint resolution put forward by the other parties. I have particular reservations concerning items J and 10 of the joint resolution, which, while they underline the tragic situation of the residents of the Gaza Strip, do not explain that this is a direct result of the rule of Hamas - a group considered by the international community to be a terrorist organisation. Furthermore, I cannot agree with items 2 and 4 of the joint resolution, which call for implementation of the Goldstone recommendations, while not all of them are legitimate.\nDominique Vlasto  \nThanks to the Goldstone report, it has been possible to highlight the need for independent investigations to be carried out quickly in order to establish the reality of events and the responsibility of the parties involved, and to draw conclusions from any violations of international law and humanitarian law committed during the Gaza conflict. These investigations must be conducted in an honest fashion by the Palestinian and Israeli public authorities. I hope that they will thus be able to facilitate a resumption of negotiations, and I therefore unreservedly support the principle of the investigations. I would also like to emphasise that this conflict in Gaza has caused the destruction of many projects financed by the European Union and intended to mitigate the humanitarian crisis suffered by the population, which is the victim of a shortage of staple goods and of a lack of access to basic public services. The population on the ground needs to be given hope and to continue to believe in a swift resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. It is only under these circumstances that the conditions will be in place to achieve a just and lasting peace between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state that are viable, safe and peaceful neighbours.\nDiogo Feio  \nIt is not long since I reminded Parliament that elections are not free in Belarus, that freedom of expression, association and protest do not exist and that there have been an increasing number of repressive activities directed by the authorities. Furthermore, political prisoners have still not been freed, the death penalty has not been abolished and there has been no guarantee of either the separation of powers, in particular, the independence of the judiciary, or respect for human rights.\nThe recent use of the police against the Union of Poles in Belarus and the denial of the rights that they were seeking are two further episodes which serve to weaken European confidence in the Belarusian dictatorship. They call for all European democrats, particularly European institutions and the governments of the Member States, to provide rigorous vigilance and a firm and coordinated reaction to the Minsk authorities, which continue to be loyal to the worst legacies of communism. The European Union cannot be the partner of a Belarus which does not respect either its own nationals or international law. As the saying goes in my country: 'better alone than in bad company!'.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe European Union should not recognise the legitimacy of the Belarusian Parliament until free elections are held in that country. Therefore, I call on the Belarusian authorities to undertake a complete reform of the country's electoral legislation, in accordance with the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe\/Office on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.\nThe actions of the Belarusian authorities against the members of the organisation that represents the Polish national minority are absolutely reprehensible, as are the politically biased trials and the fact that the judicial authorities apparently take orders from the executive. The EU cannot agree with the decision of the Belarusian authorities to limit Internet access or with the lack of guarantees of freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly and association and freedom to worship in churches other than the Belarusian Orthodox Church, as well as other rights and political freedoms.\nI argue that the level of Community cooperation with the Belarusian authorities should be directly proportional to the level of respect for human rights in that country. I still share the concerns about the Vice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy's statement on the repression of the Polish national minority, which was weak and late.\nNuno Melo  \nSince the end of the Cold War, relations between Belarus and the West have been moving forwards in the development of a new understanding and the European Union has been developing positive dialogue in terms of providing Belarus with incentives to make progress relating to democracy and human rights.\nThe above notwithstanding, the EU cannot accept actions which conflict with international principles and legislation regarding the rights of national minorities. The EU cannot hold relative opinions regarding human rights.\nKristiina Ojuland  \nMr President, as a co-author of the European Parliament's resolution on the situation regarding civil society and minorities in Belarus, I voted in favour of the resolution. Although, last year, the Lukashenko regime freed political prisoners and has become somewhat milder, the European Union cannot look the other way in the face of the recent human rights violations concerning members of the Union of Poles in Belarus. It is only possible to extend the benefits of the EU's Eastern Partnership to Belarusian citizens if the Belarusian administration guarantees the human rights and civic freedoms of Belarusians and begins democratic reforms. The concessions made by the regime up to this point have been continually insufficient, and the arrest of the leader of the Union of Poles in Belarus, Angelika Borys, as well as the refusal to allow the movement to be registered and the freezing of its assets, are yet another blow to relations with the European Union. In my opinion, following the continual violation of human rights principles and the rule of law, the European Union has no option but to consider reimposing sanctions on the Belarusian administration.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nI voted in favour of adoption of the joint motion for a resolution of the European Parliament. Several months ago, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Belarusian authorities to end the use of capital punishment on its citizens. Today, once again, we are talking about Belarus, violations of human rights and the principles of civil society. The European Union has opened up to Belarus. We have put the right measures in place, such as inclusion of Belarus in the Eastern Partnership. The trust we have placed in Belarus was supposed to initiate a switch to the tracks of democratisation and respect for civil rights. Unfortunately, this has not happened. In view of this, the European Union must be firm and adopt a stronger position on relations with Belarus, and must take effective action which will guarantee that the rights of minorities will be respected. I hope the present resolution will initiate changes in the desired direction. If this does not happen, I expect a review of the European Union's approach to Belarus and the imposition of appropriate sanctions. Every ineffective solution will be evidence of our weakness.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution which was, in fact, a text agreed among all the major groups, including ours. The resolution was unanimously adopted.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nThe absence of freedom of speech, problems with registering political and even social organisations and the use of State media for propaganda purposes are symptomatic of excessively authoritarian functioning of the State. The Union has extended a helping hand to Belarus in the form of inclusion in the Eastern Partnership, a programme which is intended to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. The activities of the Belarusian authorities do not meet international standards for the rules governing conduct towards the opposition and non-governmental organisations or standards concerning the protection of national minorities. It is important to find an adept way out of the situation, in which the Union should show its disapproval by specific measures, such as sanctions or visa restrictions, but, at the same time, we must not isolate Belarus from the rest of Europe, because all of Belarusian society will suffer, and not the authorities condemned by the Union. We should show Belarus how much it can profit from cooperation with the EU, and stipulate that the extent to which Belarus complies with EU requirements will be reflected in the support on which Belarus can rely.\nArtur Zasada  \nI was pleased to hear the results of today's vote. We have adopted a resolution in which we condemn the recent repressions against the Polish minority in Belarus. Adoption of the document by acclamation has a special implication. It is a vote of the entire Parliament, of all the political groups and of the representatives of the 27 Member States of the European Union. I do not imagine that Belarus will benefit from what is being offered under the Eastern Partnership without the prior re-legalisation of the Union of Poles in Belarus and the return of its property, and, in addition, without the release of political prisoners such as Andrei Bandarenko, Ivan Mikhailau and Arystom Dubski. Today, we have sent Belarus a clear signal. We are now awaiting a response.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nThe European Council has underlined that it is important to revise the economic and social contract between financial institutions and the society they serve and to ensure that, in the good times, society is able to take advantage of the benefits provided and is protected from risk. In this matter, the European Council has called on the IMF to consider all possibilities when carrying out a review, including taxes for financial transactions on a global scale. I support this resolution and think that the European Union must reach an agreement on a common position in this matter.\nThe European Commission must prepare an impact assessment of a general tax on financial transactions and examine its merits and shortcomings. I also agree with the resolution's provision that we must analyse at Community level how the financial sector might fairly help cover damage done to the economy because of it or damage that is linked to government interventions aimed at stabilising the banking system.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nThe current motion for a resolution, which comes in the wake of the G20 discussions conducted as part of the Pittsburgh Summit and of the request made by some international bodies, such as the IMF, may provide a solution for both avoiding any new financial disasters and for recovering the sums which the treasuries have made available to the banks to save them from collapse. In any case, the adoption of such legislation in France and Belgium, in a pioneering spirit, is welcome (with the United Kingdom also examining the possibility of introducing similar legislation), and we expect to see its impact.\nAccording to French estimates, the 0.005% tax will remove more than EUR 20 billion from the coffers of French banks. However, how is the banking sector going to respond? Will it restrict the number of speculative transactions, considered harmful, or will it take advantage of capital mobility and continue to carry out such transactions through bank branches located in states where this kind of duty does not exist?\nThis is why I think that the success of such duties requires a global approach, which also means presenting it to international bodies such as the UN. Even by doing this, it is difficult to believe that a joint global action can be achieved (compare offshore legislations).\nMarielle De Sarnez  \nBy supporting the resolution adopted today by a very large majority (536 votes to 80, with 33 abstentions), the French delegation of the Democratic Movement has repeated its wish to have an impact assessment and practical proposals from the European Commission on the creation of taxes on financial transactions. We call on the Commission to draft a proposal in order to define a common European position to be presented to the G20 in June. It would also be a good idea to evaluate the extent to which a tax such as this could help to stabilise the financial markets. The questions to which the Commission should provide answers concern the use of this tax to support developing countries' adaptation to climate change and the financing of development cooperation, but also the levers that the Commission could use to persuade its partners to join it in implementing this tax so as to prevent the migration of capital. Above all, however, an in-depth impact assessment must be carried out to ensure that this tax will not reduce the Union's competitiveness or sustainable investment, nor have negative repercussions for SMEs and individual investors.\nHarlem D\u00e9sir  \nIn 2000, I tabled with the Globalisation Intergroup the first resolution calling for the Commission to examine the feasibility of a tax on speculative capital flows. The resolution was not adopted, since it was just short of the number of votes required. Ten years have passed, the G20, like several Member States, is no longer ruling out the idea of such a tax, and above all, the financial crisis has served to remind us of the damage that volatile financial markets can cause.\nThat is why I welcome the adoption by a wide margin of the resolution on taxes on financial transactions. This is only a small step, but the message is clear. Parliament is calling on the Commission to finally take up the issue and to work on an implementation project. A tax such as this would have the twin advantage of helping to stabilise the markets and of generating huge revenues to help developing countries finance their adaptation to climate change and the fight against poverty.\nObjectors tell us that it will only be effective if it is global, but make a start we must, as some countries have done with the tax on flight tickets. A waitandsee policy will get us nowhere. We must show the way.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe financial sector has to accept its responsibilities for the economic crisis that still plagues us. Up to now, the real economy, taxpayers, consumers, public services and society in general have been the ones paying for a substantial part of the costs and consequences of the financial crisis. There are several Member States that have called for a tax on financial transactions.\nThe political and regulatory context in this area is different nowadays. There are new regulatory initiatives, such as the fight against tax havens, the removal of legal loopholes from management accounts, the requirements applicable to stock market transactions and the use of transaction repositories for the register of derived instruments.\nThe European Union must adopt a common position in the international framework of meetings of the G20. In order to do this, the Commission must assess the impact of a global tax on financial transactions before the next G20 summit.\nThis assessment must specifically evaluate the effects of the introduction of the tax on financial transactions in the European Union, as opposed to its introduction at global level. Costs have to be determined, as well as whether this tax will contribute to the stabilisation of financial markets.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThe various statements made in the preamble to the resolution now approved by a majority of Parliament are positive to see. This is particularly true of the statement that the financial sector must take a fair share of the burden of economic recovery and development, given that up until it now it has been the real economy of taxpayers, consumers, public services and society in general which has had to pay a substantial part of the costs and consequences of the financial crisis. However, beyond this, there was almost regret for any action which might help to lead to a possible tax on financial transactions, through the attachment of many constraints to the application of the resolution. That is why we abstained.\nRegrettably, there has been a delay in applying new regulatory initiatives and in advancing the promised fight against tax havens, the removal of legal omissions regarding management accounts, the requirements applicable to stock market transactions and the use of trade repositories for the registration of derivative instruments. It is necessary to make decisive progress and not continue in these muddy waters, which only serve to help financial speculators and large capitalist interests.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support a tax of financial transactions, and I am very pleased that this initiative is gaining such support. In order to be effective, it should be a global tax, and I support measures to introduce such a charge on financial transactions.\nArlene McCarthy  \nin writing. - We have voted overwhelmingly today to maintain the political momentum behind a global financial transaction tax (FTT). It is clear that the time has come for radical action to ensure the financial sector pays its way in the wake of the crisis and an FTT could be an important tool. It has strong support from the public and from NGOs and Unions across Europe. An FTT could help reduce volatile and risky financial trading while raising billions to help tackle the effects of climate change and help developing countries who have been hit hardest by the financial crisis. This resolution calls for the Commission to analyse options for such a tax and sends a clear signal that Europe will push for a global agreement to deliver on the public's demand for action. It is disappointing that the ECR Group and its Conservative Members, who are clearly against any financial transaction tax, have chosen in their statements to deliberately misrepresent today's vote as a call for an EU-only FTT. If Europe takes no action and comes to no view, then we will be left out of the international debate - our vote today is a mandate instead for Europe to help lead this debate.\nNuno Melo  \nThe Portuguese Democratic and Social Centre Party is, as a rule, against the creation of European taxes. There is also the fact that taxes are important tools at the disposal of the Member States, and more so than ever in difficult times, such as the present crisis. Finally, the different taxation options, whether via taxes or contributions, which are exercised in the various Member States, would necessarily give the tax in question here a more or less penalising quality, allowing injustices at European level, which would not make sense.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nFor me, it is an unavoidable truth that the financial sector should contribute fairly to the recovery and development of the economy, especially given that considerable costs and the consequences of the financial crisis were borne by the real economy, taxpayers, consumers, the public sector and society as a whole. A potential tax on financial transactions could reduce the immense volume of speculation capital that has again had a detrimental impact on the real economy recently, and thus also represent a step towards sustainable growth. However, before we consider introducing such a tax, we must carefully weigh the pros and cons. That process is exactly what the resolution proposed by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is calling for, which is why I voted in favour of the resolution. A crucial point that is only mentioned in passing in the text but that must be clearly defined before a decision is made is the potential use of the capital that could be generated by such a tax. I believe that the tax must be levied where the transaction takes place, and must also, in other words, benefit the States on whose territory the relevant stock exchanges are located. The exact method of calculation still has to be specified. If the EU insists on levying the tax itself, it must, in any case, be offset against the gross contribution of the Member State in question. Under no circumstances may it be allowed to lead to a tax competence on the part of the EU.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted in favour, today, of motion for resolution on taxation of financial transactions, and am delighted that, for the first time, Parliament has demanded an assessment of the feasibility and impact of introducing a financial transaction tax at EU level. This is considerable progress. Pressure must now be exerted on the Commission to propose concrete steps. European citizens expect the costs of the financial crisis to be borne by those on the financial markets who caused it. We cannot therefore be content with a minimalist solution in line with the US proposal, which would generate a few billion euro - a relatively small revenue considering the huge costs. Poverty reduction, the fight against climate change and tackling the financial crisis require additional revenue of several hundred billion euro. A cleverly designed financial transaction tax would provide such a revenue, while simultaneously curbing speculation on financial markets.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the resolution on the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) which aims to promote the creation of an integrated market for services involving payments in euro, which will involve effective competition and in which there will be no difference between payments in national or foreign euro.\nSEPA continues to work in an imperfect way and it does not cater for the real needs of its users. The European Community must set an appropriate and binding deadline regarding the use of SEPA instruments, after which all euro payments must be made using the norms of this system. It is equally important to ensure that the adoption of this system will not lead to additional costs for the European public.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe creation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is fundamental to the greater integration of the market for payment services. It will increase competition by treating euro payments across borders and within a country in the same way and it may come to have a direct positive impact on the lives of the European public.\nAs such, it would seem urgent for national governments to implement SEPA services and to make the rules which regulate this initiative adequate so that there will, in fact, be a simplification of the current position regarding payments services and a reduction in costs for the benefit of consumers.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) will be an integrated market for payment services, subject to effective competition and in which there is no difference between national and cross-border payments in euro. We should have established a legally binding time limit for the migration to SEPA instruments. Public administrations' migration to SEPA is below our expectations.\nTherefore, it is important that all interested parties - legislators, the banking sector and the users of the payment services - be involved in the achievement of SEPA. The continued legal validity of existing direct debit authorisations should be ensured in all Member States, since the obligation to sign new authorisations during the transition from national direct debit systems to the SEPA system would be costly.\nThus, the Commission must establish a clear, adequate and legally binding time limit for the migration to SEPA instruments, no later than 31 December 2012, after which all payments in euro will have to be made in accordance with SEPA norms. The Commission must aid public authorities in the migration process by developing integrated and synchronised national migration plans.\nNuno Melo  \nThe Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) must quickly turn itself into an integrated market for payments services. However, there is much to be done before this can be achieved and, despite the existence of directives which stipulate the framework for SEPA cards and the SEPA direct debit system, the truth is that these systems are not yet in operation. It is thus necessary to overcome all the obstacles to the implementation of the SEPA system so that it can begin to operate fully as quickly as possible. It is important that the transition period does not last beyond 21 October 2012.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nThe Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is a concept whose introduction will make everyday life easier for millions of Europeans. Irrespective of which Member State they are citizens of, they will easily be able to make rapid and cheap payments to persons or firms in another Member State at the same cost as payments made within the borders of their own country. In an age of Internet banking, this will bring about increased competition between banks, and this will benefit clients. Introduction of the SEPA is the next step towards realisation of one of the four fundamental freedoms of the common market - the free movement of capital. What is extremely important is that the SEPA will lead to an economic rapprochement between countries in the euro area and countries which, although Member States of the European Union, are not part of the euro area, as well as the other countries of the European Free Trade Area.\nTherefore, I fully support the European Parliament resolution on the implementation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA). At the same time, I appeal to the European Commission to give priority to the interests of retail banking clients and to questions of the security of the system while monitoring work on the introduction of the SEPA system.\nKader Arif  \nThe resolution on ACTA, which has been adopted today and of which I am one of the initiators, is extremely symbolic because it is unanimous. It is a clear signal sent out to the Commission, which has been negotiating this agreement in the utmost secrecy for two years. Parliament demands complete transparency with regard to the negotiations under way, as well as respect for the treaties, which entitle it to receive the same information as the Council. Whether in terms of the method or in terms of what we know of the substance, I am opposed to the way in which the ACTA negotiations are being conducted. We have many fears with regard to the calling into question of the acquis communautaire. Aside from the risk of reintroducing the 'flexible' response, respect for the fundamental rights of citizens, in terms of freedom of expression and of protection of privacy and of data, and the principle of nonliability of Internet access providers and hosts could be called into question. Parliament has already proved its commitment to these principles, and if the Commission does not change its strategy, I will lead the campaign against the ratification of ACTA by Parliament, as we have already been able to do for the SWIFT Agreement.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nin writing. - I voted for this resolution. Undoubtedly, better protection of intellectual property rights and combating counterfeiting and piracy are very important issues in the European Union and worldwide, and I very much welcome the opening of negotiations at international level to strengthen IPR and to fight counterfeiting and piracy more effectively. However, I am very disappointed at how those negotiations are taking place.\nUnder the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has to be informed immediately and fully by the Commission at all stages of international agreements, which is not the case with the ACTA Agreement. Moreover, the European Parliament will have to give its consent to the ACTA Treaty prior to its entry force in the EU. How will we able to do it if we are kept in the dark? I very much hope that the European Commission will fulfil its duty and will provide all necessary information on the state of negotiations.\nJan B\u0159ezina  \nMr President, I have voted for the resolution of the European Parliament on transparency and the current state of negotiations over the ACTA Agreement, because I share the doubts of the authors concerning the progress of negotiations to date. These are taking place under a 'restricted' regime, which means that only the European Commission and EU Member States have access to the negotiating documents. The European Parliament is completely left out, and yet its agreement is an essential precondition for the agreement to come into effect. I take the view that digital content and the handling thereof should not be included in the text of the agreement, and if it is included, the provisions in question should not be of a repressive nature. I strongly believe that the ACTA Agreement should not go beyond the framework of the currently valid intellectual property laws and that any penalties for copying digital content should be left to the discretion of individual states. The protection of privacy and the protection of personal data must remain a pillar of European legislation, which will not be undermined by international legal agreements. I am in favour of an ACTA agreement that will combat counterfeiting, which represents a real danger to the economy and the consumer and undoubtedly violates intellectual property rights. On the other hand, copying that is carried out exclusively for one's own needs should be left out. The inclusion of this would, in my opinion, conflict with the right to personal freedom and to information. In short, counterfeiting and copying cannot be treated in the same way.\nDerek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA resolution on Wednesday, 10 March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted in support of the resolution, we would have been recognising the existence of such legislation, but decided on that basis not to recognise the treaty.\nMarielle De Sarnez  \nDespite the Treaty of Lisbon and codecision on international trade, the Commission and the Member States are preventing a public debate from being held on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This lack of transparency arouses genuine suspicion, which can only be diminished by consulting the public and the European Parliament. While the fight against counterfeiting is indeed legitimate and necessary, the ACTA Treaty would make authors' rights and copyright more powerful. Must Internet access providers be allowed to control digital file exchanges and impose penalties on users, including cutting off their Internet connection? The cost of such monitoring would be exorbitant for access providers, and the checks complicated. Moreover, Internet piracy is not yet classed as a crime in either European law or international law. Therefore the idea of systematically imposing penalties on such a large scale is unjustifiable, all the more so given that Internet access, in the name of one's right to information, is still a fundamental freedom. The Commission will have to provide Parliament with a document outlining the negotiations and all the positions under discussion. If it fails to do so, Parliament could reject this text negotiated in secret, just as it rejected the SWIFT Agreement.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the resolution on the transparency and current position of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations because I support a transparent process in the conduct of negotiations.\nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament will have to give its agreement to the text of the ACTA Agreement before it becomes valid in the European Union. Parliament's contribution is essential to guarantee that the means of applying intellectual property rights will not obstruct innovation, competition, protection of personal data and the free movement of information.\nDiogo Feio  \nCounterfeiting constitutes one of the principal scourges of the global economy and efforts to combat it notwithstanding, it is evident that there is a manifest incapacity for individual states to bring this fight to a successful conclusion. The risks to the health and safety of consumers which the purchase of certain products can involve are today clear.\nFrom a commercial and industrial point of view, this parallel industry, which illegally feeds off the creativity and fame of others, weakens the value of brands and renders their special role less effective. In this way, although it is important to establish an open, free and just market, this can only succeed if counterfeiting is generally rejected and fought against by the main producers. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement may be a path which it is worthwhile to tread, but it must be understood and debated in a transparent way beforehand, as opposed to what has happened up until now.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nIn 2008, the European Union and other countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development opened negotiations for a new multilateral agreement aimed at reinforcing the application of intellectual property rights (IPR) and at taking actions against counterfeiting and piracy (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - ACTA). Together, they decided to approve a confidentiality clause. Any agreement related to ACTA made by the European Union must abide by the legal obligations imposed on the EU on matters of privacy and data protection legislation, as defined in Directive 95\/46\/EC, in Directive 2002\/58\/EC and in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the wake of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament will have to give its approval to the text of the ACTA Agreement before it enters into force in the European Union. In addition, the Commission pledged to immediately provide Parliament with complete information throughout the process of negotiating international agreements. Therefore, a legal basis should have been created before the beginning of ACTA negotiations and Parliament should have approved a negotiation mandate. The Commission should submit proposals before the next round of negotiations.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe general condemnation of Parliament regarding the suppression of information by the Commission relating to the ongoing negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the limitations which, by proceeding in this manner, the Commission has attempted to impose on scrutiny and democratic control, have been quite clear. For this reason, we believe it to be important that the resolution points out that the Commission 'has had a legal obligation to inform Parliament immediately and fully at all stages of international negotiations'.\nDemocratic and transparent procedures in the conduct of negotiations are required, as well as public debate on their content, something which we consider to be positive. Furthermore, we emphasise the argument for the need to respect 'fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, while fully observing the principle of subsidiarity', as well as the protection of personal data. That is why we voted in favour.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nThis draft AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement, known as ACTA, may seem like a good idea, so great is the suffering of the European economy and European jobs as a result of these unfair practices in the world of excessive free trade that you are imposing on us. However, as is always the case when there is something fundamentally harmful in an agreement negotiated by the Commission, everything is done in secret.\nI am thinking of the Blair House Agreement, which sacrificed European farming to feed the appetites of the US agrifood multinationals. I am also thinking of the scandalous MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which sought to exempt multinationals from the laws in force in the countries in which they were operating. Fortunately, that agreement did not see the light of day. In this instance, it is the 'Internet' section of ACTA that is in question: it literally boils down to introducing a monstrous worldwide 'Hadopi' law.\nCustoms could search the MP3 players, mobile telephones and laptops of any citizen suspected of having illegally downloaded a file. Access providers may be forced to cut their customers' connection or to supply information on them. This is unacceptable, and that is why we have voted in favour of this resolution, which calls for complete transparency in the negotiations and threatens to drag the Commission through the courts if it refuses.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI endorsed the resolution aimed at obtaining complete transparency from the European Commission on the subject of the negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which are currently being held in secret. Aside from the risk of reintroducing the 'flexible response', respect for the fundamental rights of citizens, in terms of freedom of expression and of protection of privacy and data, and the principle of non-liability of Internet access providers and hosts, could be called into question here. It follows that the European Parliament, as the voice of the European peoples, cannot be excluded from these negotiations and must receive the same information as that issued to the Council; this is a democratic requirement. Lastly, ACTA must not compromise access to generic medicines. In this context, considering, at this stage, the method and the worrying rumours circulating about its content, I can only vote in favour of a resolution that is critical of such an agreement.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nIn the resolution which has been adopted, the European Parliament has clearly declared its support for greater transparency in the European Commission's negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Piracy and counterfeiting are a growing problem for the European economy and for other economies throughout the world.\nThe economies of developing countries are increasingly becoming knowledge-based economies. Therefore, we also need clear and effective principles for the protection of intellectual property rights which will not interfere with innovation and competition, will not place an unjustified burden on legally conducted trade and will protect our privacy and fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech. This is why the resolution adopted today does not challenge the idea of making the agreement itself. However, the negotiations being conducted by the European Commission are not open.\nThe European Parliament and European citizens are not being kept up-to-date about progress in the negotiations. This absence of information is a cause for concern. We want greater transparency from the European Commission. We want to know, now, what obligations the European Commission's negotiators are accepting on behalf of 500 million European Union citizens.\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger  \nThe Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations concerning provisions of copyright law and combating counterfeiting and product and Internet piracy represent, without doubt, an important step towards the protection of intellectual property. Regrettably, the Commission's information policy in relation to the negotiations leaves a lot to be desired.\nThe lack of transparency about the state of the negotiations makes it difficult for the European Parliament to play a constructive part in drawing up the provisions and thus to ensure, in advance, that there is no curtailment of Europeans' civil rights and no violation of the directives on data protection. I support the motion for a resolution (RC7-0154\/2010) and thus the European Parliament's call on the Commission to frame its information policy in relation to the ACTA negotiations in a more transparent, complete and thus also holistic way.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Transparency of the ACTA negotiations is of vital importance, and I am glad the Parliament has called for full disclosure in such powerful numbers. While I am pleased to hear assurances that individuals will not be criminalised for personal use, and that the ACTA Agreement will not be used to prevent generic medicines reaching developing countries, I hope the Parliament will be able to access all documents and monitor the negotiations to ensure this is upheld.\nNuno Melo  \nThe lack of transparency in the negotiations of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are contrary to the spirit of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is essential for the Council and the Commission to immediately make available all the documentation which has been the basis of negotiations. Non-compliance with this basic duty by the Commission and by the Council could lead to Parliament using legal procedures to gain access to these documents, something which would harm the prestige of the European institutions involved.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1  \nI would like to thank the rapporteurs and all Members who are responsible for the fact that the European Parliament has clearly expressed its uncompromising position with such a huge majority against the non-transparent negotiation of such an important international agreement. We expect that the agreement will open up a new international dimension in the fight against counterfeiting, but without reducing the right of European citizens to privacy.\nI also see a problem in the fact that China has not been invited to the negotiations. In the debate yesterday, the Commission told me that it considered this to be a strategic error as well. The idea that China, which is the largest source of counterfeiting in the world, will sign up to a negotiated agreement later is unrealistic. I trust that our critical report today will persuade the Commission to reassess its approach to Parliament, which has joint decision-making powers in new areas, including foreign policy, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I supported resolution RC7-0154\/2010 on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and I am glad that a large majority of Parliament did so. ACTA risks becoming known as the 'Absence of Commission Transparency Agreement'. In its negotiations on ACTA, the Commission should be upholding the principles of transparency, human rights and the EU Parliament's legal right to information. Instead, the Commission is failing this litmus test of its compliance in informing Parliament under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU cannot continue to negotiate on ACTA if the people are not allowed to take part in the process.\nIt is also a totally absurd and unacceptable situation if MEPs, behind closed doors, have to ask the Commission about the content of the agreements we are supposed to vote on. Furthermore, the EU Parliament has shown that it does not accept secrecy and that it cherishes an open Internet for all. MEPs have also shown that the Parliament will not accept to be treated like a doormat. The Commission has been strongly urged to keep us fully and immediately informed on the ACTA negotiations.\nHarlem D\u00e9sir  \nThe current generalised system of preferences (GSP) will soon be coming to an end. I voted in favour of the resolution, a specific aim of which is to involve Parliament fully in its revision by 2012. This trade regime enables 176 developing countries and regions to benefit from preferential access to the European market in exchange for their ratification of ILO conventions on social rights and of UN conventions on human rights.\nIts implementation is unsatisfactory, however. That is why we demand, before the revision, a report on the current state of ratification, implementation of the conventions, an impact assessment of the effects of the GSP during the period 20062009, the inclusion of a condition stipulating that 27 fundamental UN conventions must be implemented, and more transparent investigation processes - involving, in particular, regular consultation of Parliament.\nIt is regrettable that, during this vote, an amendment calling for an investigation procedure to be carried out in Colombia concerning the numerous killings of trade unionists and the mass graves containing the bodies of hundreds of people killed in the region of La Macarena was not passed because of opposition from the right.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe European Union is the world's largest provider of humanitarian and development aid. We know that, every year, the European Union and the Member States give millions to cooperation and development programmes, that this assistance is necessary and that, in many cases, it makes all the difference.\nIt is, however, my conviction as a supporter of the market economy that development assistance can (and must) be provided by means of trade policies which benefit developing countries. I believe that within this context, there is a role for the Generalised System of Preferences, which allows developed countries to offer preferential and non-reciprocal treatment on products imported from developing countries.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nIt is by no means certain to say, as the resolution does, that the current Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is a mechanism to help developing countries. This mechanism has effects which accentuate the economic dependence of these countries as it leads to production for export, to the detriment of their internal market. To a large extent, it is the large transnational companies, some of them from EU countries, which benefit from this system, rather than the people of developing countries.\nThus, some of the intentions which are supposed to underlie the GSP create a contradiction with its actual results.\nOn the other hand, against a backdrop of increasing pressure for the liberalisation of international trade, it is apparent that the EU has been using the aim of this regulation as a form of blackmail to gain acceptance of the aforementioned free trade agreements through an unacceptable level of diplomatic and economic pressure on these countries.\nFor the GSP to become a mechanism of development aid, there will be a need, as we propose, to abolish and then renegotiate both it and other policies for development assistance, forming an effective solidarity, and combating economic dependency and the exploitation of people and natural resources by economic groups within the EU.\nNuno Melo  \nThe actions which the European Community has undertaken since 1971 in relation to developing countries through trade preferences under the Generalised System of Preferences are a way of making world trade more just and, at the same time, helping those countries with their growth and economic development.\nThe current regulations expire in 2011, meaning that it is necessary for us to start making immediate efforts towards working on a new instrument which could maintain and, if possible, even further increase the benefits which this system has been providing to developing states, something which is even more important within the context of leaving the international crisis behind us. If we are to avoid unfairness, it is, however, crucial that the new list of countries which will benefit from this system are realistic about their economic situation.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - In the end, I voted in favour of the common resolution on Generalised Tariff Preferences (GPS) (RC7-0181\/2010) although I am very sorry and upset that the Colombian Embassy has been very successful in convincing some of our colleagues to keep out almost all references to the need to investigate the human rights violations in Colombia and decide on the basis of the findings in order to decide whether to withdraw the tariff preferences for Colombian goods.\nCharalampos Angourakis  \nThe European Parliament report on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, in conjunction with the corresponding report on the Common Security and Defence Policy, produced by the anti-grassroots alliance of conservatives, social democrats and liberals in the European Parliament, maps out the constant support of the political mouthpieces of capital for the promotion of even greater militarisation of the EU, especially following the entry into force of the reactionary Treaty of Lisbon, and their active role in promoting the imperialist policy of the EU and the interventions and wars which it unleashes against third countries and peoples in every corner of the planet, in order to serve the interests and sovereignty of monopoly capital under conditions of escalating imperialist infighting.\nThe report calls for:\na) effective organisation of the EU's European External Action Service (founded under the Treaty of Lisbon), the new political\/military arm for organising, supporting and implementing the imperialist interventions of the EU;\nb) an increase in spending from the EU budget for its military and political interventions;\nc) better interweaving of the EU's political and military capabilities, with a stronger EU\/NATO link being pivotal in the more effective exercise of its imperialist interventions using military means.\nThe Greek Communist Party voted against and condemns this unacceptable report, which is purely and simply a manual for imperialist attacks against the people.\nElena Oana Antonescu  \nThe European Union must develop its strategic autonomy through a powerful and effective foreign, security and defence policy in order to defend its interests globally, ensure the security of its citizens and promote respect for human rights and democratic values throughout the world. Through having more effective European security agreements, Member States must demonstrate receptiveness towards making the European Union a bigger player on the international stage.\nI believe that the Council's next annual report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) must refer directly to the implementation of the European Union's foreign policy strategy, assessing its effectiveness, as well as offer the conditions for establishing a specific, direct dialogue with the European Parliament, focused on devising a strategic approach to the Common Foreign and Security Policy.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - I voted against amendment 18 as this amendment, in my opinion, contains a paradox. It deplores the logic of militarisation in its introduction and concludes that 'CFSP should be based on peaceful principles and the demilitarisation of security'. My personal position is in line with my country's international status of neutrality and therefore, as the amendment is not at all lucid, I decided that I could not vote in favour or abstain.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nI support this report, as I believe that a clear and coordinated Common Foreign and Security Policy may contribute significantly to the strengthening of the European Union's powers at international level. Undoubtedly, one of the most important CFSP matters is the EU's increasing energy dependence on sources of supply and transit routes and the need to curb the EU's energy dependence on third countries. I would like to call on the Commission's Vice-President and High Representative, Catherine Ashton, to implement without hesitation Parliament's recommendations on the creation of a consistent and coordinated policy by firstly promoting EU cohesion in maintaining a constructive dialogue with energy suppliers, particularly Russia, and transit countries, by supporting EU energy priorities, by defending the common interests of Member States, by developing effective diplomatic work in the area of energy, by establishing more effective crisis resolution measures and by promoting energy supply diversification, the use of sustainable energy and the development of renewable energy. I am convinced that only by acting together will the EU, in future, be able to ensure the uninterrupted and secure supply of gas and oil to Member States and increase the energy independence of the whole of the EU.\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nWe Swedish Social Democrats believe that the partnership between the EU and NATO should not be developed solely on the basis of the UN Charter. Therefore, we think it is important for the wording to include the perspective of the Member States on this question and to take into consideration the different traditions and positions of the Member States with regard to foreign, security and defence policy.\nDiogo Feio  \nLike many of the Member States (if not all of them), the European Union finds itself confronted with a budget which is much less grand than its ambitions and in no way sufficient for all that it would like to do. The list of the multiple European values and expectations on this matter emphasise this asymmetry.\nThe fact that, to achieve excellence, policy is an activity in which it is necessary to predict and take measures assumes a particular relevance when the issues in question are matters which are so essential to our common lives, such as foreign and security policy.\nThe Treaty of Lisbon and the consequent creation of the post of High Representative indicate the conviction of the Member States that there is a real need for promptness, coordination and convergence in European action in matters of foreign and security policy. Only after action in practice will we able to see if the provisions of the treaty are sufficient and whether what has been set out in its text will play its role successfully.\nI am hoping that the Union will be capable of responding effectively to this important challenge.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe report on the implementation of the European security strategy is an annual document by Parliament that assesses European security and defence policy and presents proposals to improve the efficiency and visibility of this policy. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the external action of the EU gains a new dimension and importance. Parliament plays a fundamental role here as a guardian of the democratic legitimacy of external action. The creation of a European External Action Service will serve as a diplomatic corps and instrument for the Union which, hitherto, could only rely on national representation. However, it is crucial that the EU has the necessary budgetary resources at its disposal to reach the goals of external representation.\nPetru Constantin Luhan  \nI would like to refer to a few points in the 'Western Balkans' subchapter of the report on the main aspects and basic options of the Common Foreign and Security Policy in 2008.\nConsideration must be given to the fact that at the Council Meeting for General Affairs and External Relations in February 2008, the decision was made that each EU Member State would decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, their relationship with Kosovo.\nAt the same time, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is expected during the first half of this year in the case relating to compliance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence made by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Kosovo.\nA balanced approach must be maintained in assessing developments in the stabilisation process in Kosovo, bearing in mind that some tense situations were noted during 2009, including during the election period in November. In this respect, I believe that there are numerous challenges to be overcome, especially with regard to law enforcement, the fight against corruption and organised crime, protection for the Serbs and other minorities, reconciliation between communities and the implementation of economic and social reforms.\nNuno Melo  \nThe Treaty of Lisbon brought Parliament new responsibilities with respect to common foreign and security policy, and we are ready to take on these responsibilities, and to contribute to the choice of both policies and the individuals who will represent those policies throughout the world, by scrutinising those nominated for the European External Action Service, also including here the special representatives of the EU. The EU has to demonstrate before the international community that it has a foreign policy which is becoming increasingly representative, coherent, systematic and effective. The EU must increasingly come to be the principal driver in building world peace.\nWilly Meyer  \nI voted against the Council's annual report to Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in 2008, because I think that the objective of the CFSP should be to define the EU's external policy, not defend its territory. I do not agree with the link between the EU and NATO established by the Treaty of Lisbon. Instead, I support demilitarisation and zero armament. I condemn the logic of the militarisation of the EU, which has intensified with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, and the changes that it introduced, such as the European External Action Service and the role of the High Representative. We are currently witnessing the highest degree of militarisation in history. Weapons expenditure is higher than it was even during the Cold War. The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left demands the withdrawal of all military bases belonging to the United States and other countries that are on the soil of EU Member States, and we ask for military expenditure to be used for civilian purposes in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nThis report attempts to position the EU as a stronger global actor. In so doing, however, it does not give any clear specification of objectives or direction to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The demand for a stronger financial footing must therefore be rejected, given this context. In future, international engagements should, in fact, be assessed for how sensible they are and their benefit to the EU. Ultimately, a strategy-based approach should be developed in the CFSP. I feel I must roundly oppose the objective of abolishing the principle of unanimity. This is particularly the case if, as has been stated several times, the aim is to have a closer partnership with NATO. The EU must manage to create its own structures, and must, of course, have the necessary resources available for such structures. When it comes to the numerous operations and missions, many of the current 23 different actions in which the EU is involved should be reconsidered. In Afghanistan, in particular, the strategy followed there under the leadership of the United States is to be regarded as a failure.\nThe EU's involvement should therefore be reconsidered without delay. In the context of the Eastern Partnership, it is worth pointing out, once again, that Russia's interests must be taken account of for historical, cultural and geographical reasons, and that unilateral action by the EU should be avoided. Since the report does not really take this into consideration, and because it is also deficient in other areas, I voted against it.\nMar\u00eda Mu\u00f1iz De Urquiza  \nWith regard to the Albertini and Danjean reports on the European Union's foreign, security and defence policy, I would like to make it clear that the votes of the Spanish delegation of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament confirm the non-recognition of Kosovo as an independent state. Kosovo has not been recognised by Spain or by four other EU Member States, or by 100 other Member States of the United Nations.\nTherefore, both in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and today in this Chamber, we have supported the amendments that were in line with our viewpoint. The position of the Spanish socialist delegation is, however, positive with regard to the stabilisation and enlargement process in which the countries of the western Balkans, Turkey and Iceland are now involved.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I have finally voted in favour of the report, known also as the annual report on the CFSP, mainly because two of our five amendments were adopted (the one on the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue and the one about the expectation that a strategic relationship between the EU and China will be developed). Finally, there were no major changes to the original draft and no surprises on the amendments adopted. The report was, in the end, voted with 592 votes in favour (among which ours) and 66 against.\nEva-Britt Svensson\nI have voted against the report, which states that the EU's values and interests must be advanced worldwide by deepening the Union's collective strategic thinking. This seems to be a neo-colonial approach. According to Mr Albertini, the EU's competence should cover all areas of foreign policy and all security questions, including a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence. Europe is divided on this issue. Parliament is also calling for increased budget appropriations from the Member States, in particular, with regard to the need for the EU to establish quickly a large presence at the UN which speaks with one voice. The EU Member States will, of course, keep their own seats at the UN, but the EU, with its one voice, will have a major influence over them. The European Parliament also believes that the EU and NATO should develop an intense and effective partnership. This is in conflict with my country's policy of non-alignment. The citizens of Europe have never had the opportunity to express their opinion on this issue because some of the Member States have refused to hold referendums on the Treaty of Lisbon.\nCharalampos Angourakis  \nThe EU report on the EU CFSP is a call for a widespread war by the imperialist centre of the EU aimed at the peoples. It marks a new escalation in competition with other imperialist centres.\nThe report:\nWelcomes the 70 000 members of the 23 military and 'political' missions of the EU around the world, in most cases, in cooperation with the US and NATO.\nWelcomes the imperialist maritime supervision of Somalia by the naval forces of the EU and calls for the EU to set up a Sudanese 'state policing and regular army mechanism' abroad, which must not overthrow the country's government.\nIt supports the creation of a political\/military Crisis Management and Planning Directorate and the creation of a permanent EU operations centre.\nIt calls for state terrorism to be stepped up and for democratic rights to be strangled in the name of 'combating terrorism' and 'radicalisation'.\nIt promotes the rapid organisation of the European External Action Service with political and military competences.\nIt calls for the organisation of military and political interventions, even in the Member States of the EU, within the framework of alleged mutual support provided for in the 'solidarity' clause of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nThe only interest the peoples have is in overturning the entire imperialist and anti-grassroots policy and the very construct of the EU.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nThe European Parliament has received, through the vote of the EU's citizens, more powers with regard to matters such as the budget and control over foreign, security and defence policy. In these circumstances, Members of the European Parliament must be included by the other EU institutions in the decision-making process and in appointing staff who represent the EU internationally. The powers which the European Parliament has received through the Treaty of Lisbon are intended to increase the legitimacy of the decisions concerning the common foreign, security and defence policy.\nThis justifies the request to set up a Defence Council as part of the External Affairs Council, as well as the creation of a permanent EU operations centre to deal with operational planning and the implementation of military operations. The discussions about the anti-missile shield, in the current form proposed by the US Administration, must take place across the whole EU, with the active involvement of the European Parliament.\nHowever, it must be made clear that the EU has exclusive rights in determining the defence and security policy, and the interventions of third states are not justified. The European Union decides how best to guarantee the security of its citizens, which must be done based on a consensus among the Member States, and not at all through the involvement of non-Member States.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe EU has variously been defined as an economic giant and a political dwarf, and this is supposed to mean that it has not been provided with the means necessary to pursue some of its aims, in particular, in respect of its foreign policy. There have been many instances which have demonstrated the lack of unanimity of will and action amongst the Member States.\nI am doubtful whether this situation can be changed in the short-term. Rather, I believe that this situation is entirely to be expected, given the number of states which make up the Union and their particular histories and interests. The question of common defence policy, something which touches upon the very essence of sovereign powers, has historically always been a matter of distrust for European countries and even today it deserves particular care, and quite justifiably so.\nThis must not prevent us from searching for deeper cooperation and coordination with the aim of improving our common security and defence. Its nature as a soft power not withstanding, the European Union should consider becoming a true second pillar in an Atlantic alliance which cannot continue to require the US to make all the sacrifices.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis report, which brings together the conservative right and the social democrats, is a dangerous symptom of what we have denounced many times regarding the Treaty of Lisbon: its contribution to the deepening of neoliberalism, based on the federalism and militarisation of the European Union as the European pillar of NATO.\nAt the behest of the great powers, the EU is aiming to settle its own contradictions and reposition itself within a process of arranging forces at an international level, based on a vision involving competition between powers over natural resources and markets and greater affirmation of the European Union as an economic, political and military bloc with ambitions for global interventionism.\nHere, the majority of this House has offered the prescription which it has been advocating for many years:\nthe militarisation of international relations and internal security on the basis of the aforementioned fight against terrorism;\nthe increase of budgets in these areas and the creation of new military capacities which will contribute to a new arms race;\nadaptation to the US and NATO concept of preventative wars and an increase in its intervention at the world level.\nThe result of these developments could be more conflict, exploitation and poverty in response to the crisis into which capitalism has plunged the world.\nThe path of peace requires a break with these policies.\nCharles Goerens  \nSubject to the following remarks, I voted in favour of the Danjean report. 1) The report calls for the abolition of the Assembly of the Western European Union (WEU). One therefore searches in vain for the slightest reference in the report to the work carried out by the Assembly to further European integration. It is too bad for the work of the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs when all day long, elements are praised even though they are often less commendable than the ideas that the Assembly in Paris has so far come up with. 2) Parliamentary control of European defence matters will have to take due account of the contribution of the national parliaments. Indeed, they are the ones on which the decision to make national troops and capabilities available to the EU for EU military operations will depend, and for a long time yet. The same applies to the financing of military operations, which are paid for out of the national budgets. The desire to prevent any democratic deficit in European defence matters should guide us in our search for an institutional solution that is truly acceptable at parliamentary level.\nRichard Howitt  \nin writing. - Labour MEPs welcome this annual review of the European Security Strategy and Common Security and Defence Policy, especially in the light of the changes brought about by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and, in this regard, especially welcome the role of High Representative, Baroness Cathy Ashton, in the associated debate in Parliament.\nWhile voting in favour of the report as a whole, we decided to vote against paragraph 20, which proposes the establishment of an permanent EU Operations Centre. It is our longstanding position and that of the British Government that there is no need for such a centre, which would needlessly duplicate existing structures. On Amendment 20, we chose to abstain as, although we wholeheartedly welcome moves towards a world free of nuclear weapons, we note the inaccuracy in this amendment that the 'US' weapons in this context represent NATO, rather than US capability, and, as such, we believe that the question of the removal of nuclear warheads from Germany or elsewhere is a debate to be held by NATO allies including the US. It is not a debate for the EU as a separate multilateral entity.\nNuno Melo  \nThe Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy are two fundamental pillars allowing the EU to become the principal actor of the international community in the fight against the challenges and threats which were identified in the European Security Strategy.\nNotwithstanding the fact that the EU considers the UN Security Council to be the primary responsible party in the maintenance and preservation of world peace and security, the EU must have policies which are effective and shared by all Member States so that it can respond in an effective manner to the those challenges and threats which have a global character.\nWilly Meyer  \nI voted against the Danjean report because it proposes a future Common Foreign and Security Policy that is focused on promoting the militarisation of the EU and its interventionism. It does not propose any civilian and peaceful focus or solution to the conflicts, focusing instead on defence and the militarisation of the EU. I am also opposed to this text because it refers to the Treaty of Lisbon and its application. This promotes a move towards the centralisation of powers, with no parliamentary control mechanism, which will turn the EU into a military player on the international stage. Instead of permanent, structured cooperation between the EU and NATO, which is what the report advocates, I am in favour of all activities being conducted strictly within the framework of the United Nations Charter and international law, with strict separation between the two institutions.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nMr Danjean's report into the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the common security and defence policy is very comprehensive and deals with numerous topics that are important for Europe. However, there is a lack of a clear focus on the fundamental shaping of EU foreign policy over the next few years and also a lack of a strict policy line. On the one hand, the report seeks to strengthen the EU's autonomy in respect of other global players, in particular, in respect of the United States, through having a strong foreign, security and defence policy, and this is something that I welcome. Yet the report again comes out in favour of strong cooperation between the EU and NATO and wants, for example, to create joint institutional structures. The call for a White Paper to be drawn up on the common security and defence policy (CSDP) which clearly defines the objectives of the policy is thus more than advisable. Much as I am critical of the increasing centralism of the European Union, I do support the creation of a permanent EU operations centre.\nSuch a centre would enable us to both plan and execute diverse operations more efficiently. In addition, avoiding duplication of work would also lead to cost savings. The solidarity clause in connection with natural disasters that is referred to, like the establishment of a European civil protection force, is undoubtedly worthwhile and something that we should indeed strive for. Nevertheless, in the light of the unclear position in various areas, I was forced to abstain from the vote.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I have finally abstained in the final vote on the annual report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy. This was the most complex and delicate report for us but we managed well. Two and a half of our 11 amendments were passed (with a very important one calling on the HR\/VP to overcome the imbalance between civilian and military planning capabilities). No other major changes were voted. The report was, in the end, approved with 480 votes in favour and 111 against. I, as I said, abstained, together with the rest of my group.\nEva-Britt Svensson\nI have voted against the report. This document is one of the most militaristic that I have read in all my years in Parliament. The European Parliament is calling for the establishment of a permanent operations centre which will be responsible for the operational planning and conduct of military operations and for strengthening cooperation with NATO. The European Defence Agency will develop military space surveillance capability. In addition, maritime surveillance capability is to be established which, among other things, will limit 'illegal' immigration. The report also calls for more Member States to take part in the EU's military operations than has previously been the case. The EU and Parliament are to become involved in discussions on a strategic concept for NATO. As a citizen of a non-aligned country, I cannot support this far-reaching report.\nTraian Ungureanu  \nI wish to thank all my fellow Members in the European Parliament for the support they have given me in plenary, voting in favour of Amendment 34 to the Danjean Report on the European Security Strategy.\nI initiated Amendment 34 with the aim of modifying the text in paragraph 87 of this report, which referred to the development of the anti-missile shield in Europe in the wake of a bilateral agreement between the United States and Member States, including Romania. The amendment proposes removing the recommendation to develop this system 'in dialogue with Russia' replacing this phrase with a more balanced wording of 'dialogue at continental level'. The new US project involving the development of the anti-missile defence system is strictly defensive in nature and guarantees the security of the whole of Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans. The project is not targeted against Russia. Consequently, I do not believe that there are any reasons for making Russia a participant and, possibly, a decision maker in the project's development.\nThese considerations have formed the basis for Amendment 34. I am pleased that this amendment was approved by 358 votes in favour. The number of votes in favour highlights that the support given has transcended the boundaries of political groups and national affiliations, demonstrating the importance of the motion for a resolution and the existence of a European majority which shares the same point of view.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nI consider that strengthening efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and achieve a world free of nuclear weapons is an absolute and important priority. Strengthening the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by having all the Member States sign and apply it comes within this framework. I opted to abstain from this particular motion for a resolution because it includes a basic point to which I am opposed and which the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left tried, unsuccessfully, to change. I refer to the phrase and import of the view that the EU can 'use every means at its disposal to prevent, deter, halt and, where possible, eliminate proliferation programmes, which causes serious problems'. To be specific, the use or the threat of use of military means, especially as regards Iran, is extremely dangerous, will not have positive results for peace, and contradicts the perception of the left on military action by the EU.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe principles which lay behind the signing of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and which date back to the period of the Cold War continue to be of relevance today and are even of greater urgency. The fall of the Soviet bloc led to the spread of nuclear material to various states, and the end of unified control over its use and storage raises fears over its irresponsible utilisation or even its deterioration, with unimaginable consequences for the health and safety of the region.\nThe increase in the number of members of the 'nuclear club', the terrorist threat and the relative ease with which weapons of mass destruction can be built today combine to deepen the climate of unrest in which we are now living. The European Union must be capable of assuming a common and coherent position on these questions, aimed at creating a world which is safer and increasingly free of weapons.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nInternational changes provide new opportunities on the issue of non-proliferation. At the beginning of his term, President Obama stated his ambition of a world without nuclear weapons and pledged to actively pursue the ratification of a complete ban on nuclear testing by the United States. The Union must be up to the challenges of nuclear non-proliferation, especially those posed by Iran and North Korea, which continue to be the biggest threats to international security. As for the reduction of nuclear arsenals, the priority is to continue to reduce the two main arsenals, that is, those of Russia and of the United States, which hold 95% of the world's existing nuclear weapons. Parliament expects a common and ambitious position from the European Union during the next review conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nNuclear disarmament at international level is of vital importance. This justifies the need to promote and strengthen the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to ensure its ratification by all states. In the current international climate, the danger of a new nuclear arms race is a matter of genuine concern.\nThe imposition of disarmament and of the end of the development, production and storage of new nuclear weapons are the basis of the spirit and letter of the NPT. The ongoing dispute over Iran's nuclear programmes requires a peaceful solution, based on negotiations which it will be important to resume. Any military action or threat of the use of force will be counterproductive and will have consequences which are potentially dangerous for the region. In this regard, we must show our clear opposition to plans which could, in any way, open the door to the justification of military intervention, as in the case of Paragraph G of the preamble to the adopted joint resolution.\nCharles Goerens  \nThe Iranian problem is at the heart of the debate in preparation for the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference. To recap: Iran, in accepting the NPT, abandoned over time the option to equip itself with nuclear weapons. If the Republic of Iran were no longer to honour its commitments, we would have two problems. In the short term, this would constitute a threat to stability in a region in which most of the players are tempted to adopt radical positions. In the medium and long terms, Iran's refusal to respect the provisions of the NPT would set a serious precedent as regards regional, and indeed global, security. It would clearly seem that the agitation of the members of the United Nations Security Council, who have the right of veto, plus Germany, is no longer enough to shake things up. A strong signal from the United States and Russia to show that they are both inclined unilaterally to reduce their nuclear arsenal could help give a sense of responsibility to the average nuclear powers that are also ready to disarm. Lastly, a strong gesture from the major powers could perhaps convince countries that are currently acquiring nuclear knowhow to abandon their projects.\nRichard Howitt  \nin writing. - Labour MEPs would like to express our deep commitment to the aim of a world free of nuclear weapons. We are proud that Britain as a nuclear power is leading efforts towards a nuclear non-proliferation agreement in May in New York that involves global consensus. We have supported this resolution with the clear aim of sending the message that the European Parliament and Labour MEPs will support all efforts to ensure we leave behind the bad old days of nuclear stand-offs and mutually assured destruction.\nWe decided to abstain on Amendment 2 as we believe that military doctrine is a matter for national governments to decide and not in the prerogative of the European Parliament. We also joined with our political group in supporting Amendment 3 as we believe there is a right for all states to develop civil nuclear power, but there is a responsibility for these states to reject the development of nuclear weapons. Labour MEPs will continue to support disarmament amongst possessor states, to prevent proliferation to new states, and ultimately to achieve a world that is free from nuclear weapons.\nSabine L\u00f6sing  \nin writing. - I am fully aware that international nuclear disarmament, and therefore the strengthening of the NPT and its ratification by all states, are of vital importance and that every effort should be made to implement the treaty in all its aspects. To ensure effective multilateral efforts, they must be set within a well-developed vision of achieving a nuclear weapon-free world at the earliest date possible. We must insist on the commitment of the nuclear weapons states under Article VI of the NPT to disarm completely, as it was a key promise and so many countries have signed the NPT and thus forego nuclear weapons permanently. We oppose the phrase in this joint resolution (Recital G): '... making use of all instruments at its disposal to prevent ...'.\nI warn, in particular regarding Iran, that any military activity to prevent proliferation is completely counterproductive and highly dangerous. I am convinced that the best way to deal with the problem of proliferation would be to abandon atomic energy once and for all, as its civilian use bears great dangers on its own and, moreover, it cannot be excluded with sufficient certainty that civilian nuclear technology will not be used for military purposes.\nNuno Melo  \nThe proliferation of weapons of mass destruction truly represents a serious threat to mankind, to peace and to international security. Extreme terrorism, unchecked and often fundamentalist, causes the world to fear and to try to prevent groups and governments with unscrupulous leaders from acquiring this technology.\nTherefore, it is important that governments that possess this type of weapon progressively demonstrate that they intend to reduce their arsenals, setting a good example. The next summit, scheduled for April of this year, could make a very important contribution to this matter, and there are high expectations of greater stringency and control over the unauthorised trading of nuclear materials.\nLet us also hope that the USA and China play an important role in the nuclear disarmament of the Korean Peninsula. It is still important that states do not distance themselves from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as it concerns all of us, not just some.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1  \nI am delighted that the European Parliament has clearly adopted the report on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. As a Christian, I welcome the fact that the representatives of Western civilisation, more than 60 years after the end of the war, realised that the existence of nuclear weapons was a huge global risk and therefore made efforts to reduce them. The fact that Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea do not intend to sign the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons constitutes a major risk. These countries also fail to fulfil international obligations in the area of nuclear safety. The fact that Iran denies access to its nuclear facilities to the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency constitutes a real safety risk, not only for states in its immediate vicinity, but also for the EU. In conclusion, I would like to thank Members for their effort to make the text of the resolution as balanced as possible.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I have finally given my 'yes' to this complex resolution (RC7-0137\/2010) on the Non-proliferation Treaty. Basically, I am glad that the original text presented by the PPE, Socialists, ALDE and the Verts\/ALE was confirmed and that one of our four amendments was adopted (331 in favour, 311 against), especially, surprisingly, as this was the one calling on all parties to review their military doctrine with a view to renouncing the first-strike option. The efforts of the PPE to delete the paragraph concerning nuclear free zones, including in the Middle East, was defeated.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - There are many elements to the resolution we can agree with. We are strongly in favour of a robust and effective Non-proliferation Treaty. However, the resolution as it stands includes some unhelpful elements and the ECR Group therefore abstained. Recital L questions the holdings of tactical nuclear weapons in five European non-nuclear states. We are in favour of the continued presence of such weapons as they contribute to burden-sharing and guaranteeing US military commitment to European security. In a number of places, there are implied criticisms of close allies whereas our criticisms should be aimed at those that are a threat to international security. Neither the UK nor France, nor indeed the US, now produce fissile material for weapons. It is a different matter to say that their production facilities for fissile materials should, at this stage, be abandoned. The call for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East is obviously aimed at Israel. Israel faces an existential threat from neighbours, several of whom have a history of developing nuclear and other WMDs, and indeed at least one, Iran, continues in that direction.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":7,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Preparations for the Russian State Duma elections in December (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the preparations for the Russian State Duma elections, which will be held in December.\nCatherine Ashton\nVice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much again for this agenda item. I think it is important that we take time to reflect on the upcoming Russian elections. May I also thank Parliament for the resolutions on Russia. Your resolution of 9 June on the opening day of our most recent EU-Russia Summit had real impact. Of course, Russia is a partner with whom I work on a large number of foreign policy issues, but today, I want to just focus with you on the upcoming elections.\nI think a number of decisions have been taken recently in Moscow which give us some ideas as to what we can expect in December for the Duma elections, and in March 2012 for the presidential poll.\nRussia is already in pre-election mode, with new party alliances and increasing debate. There are some encouraging signs: President Medvedev is calling for economic and political modernisation, and Finance Minister Kudrin insists on free and fair elections. At the same time, political pluralism still faces obstacles.\nAs honourable Members will be aware, on 22 June, the Russian Ministry of Justice refused to register the new liberal opposition People's Freedom Party (PARNAS). Parliament here is, of course, fully aware of this case; one of the party's leaders, Mr Kasyanov, has spoken here several times, and I met briefly with him today in Strasbourg.\nThe main reason given for the refusal to register this party was that a few minors, young people and people who were dead had been found among the party's 46 000 members. Another of the Party's leaders, Mr Ryzhkov, has rejected these claims as false or groundless. But, even if you exclude those people, he would say that the party would still have the required 45 000 members. Honourable Members know that the earlier political party, the Republican Party of Russia, met a similar fate in 2007, when authorities ordered its dissolution.\nOn 12 April 2011 this year, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that this dissolution was in violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As far as I am aware, the authorities have not yet acted upon this judgment. PARNAS seems to have been denied registration on the basis of this very same and unchanged law.\nThe Court also noted that minimum party membership requirements in Russia are the highest in Europe. The Court was not persuaded that these requirements are necessary, and stressed that small minority groups must also have an opportunity to participate in elections. It said that frequently changing membership requirements, linked with regular checks, had imposed a disproportionate burden on political parties in Russia. I think that ruling should give the Russian leadership pause for thought.\nAt the EU-Russia Summit, we again emphasised the need for political pluralism. President Medvedev acknowledges that a focus on too much stability results in stagnation. Two weeks ago, he introduced a bill which would lower the threshold for parties to enter the Duma from the current 7% to 5% - but, of course, this only applies to the Duma elections in 2016. We know that the purpose of democratic elections is to give voters a real choice, and a sense that their vote matters for the outcome. Our main contribution is to offer election observation; consultations between Russia and OSCE\/ODIHR are ongoing.\nRussia seems keen to cooperate, and to avoid a repeat of the situation we saw in 2007, when it did not admit any long-term observers. Long-term observation is important, in particular, to be able to evaluate whether there is fair access to television and other media during the campaign. We received encouraging signals at the summit, and I look forward to a request being sent from Moscow to the OSCE. I am also sure that many honourable Members would be interested in participating in this observation.\nLet me close with a few remarks about other human rights and rule of law issues in Russia. I believe our Partnership for Modernisation opens new opportunities for cooperation in this field, and I welcome the joint project with the Council of Europe on reforming the appeal system for civil and criminal court cases in Russia.\nI also welcome the opening of new forms of dialogue with civil society, in particular, the creation of an EU-Russia Civil Society Forum. Likewise, I welcome President Medvedev's decision to examine the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev and Magnitsky cases. The conclusions of the Magnitsky case were presented yesterday, while those on the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev cases will take more time. Let me restate that in their cases, the second verdict was disappointing.\nTo conclude, Russia remains an essential partner for the EU and a challenging one. I think there is an interesting debate going on within the country about the modernisation of society and economy, and changing attitudes and expectations will materialise and shape the new realities.\nThe nine months ahead will be very important for Russia's future development. We believe the democratic process must come from within Russia. We will continue to build our engagement, we will continue to build on our common interests, and we will continue to stand firmly behind our values.\nRia Oomen-Ruijten\nMr President, Baroness Ashton, during the last plenary session, I pressed for the debate that we are holding today. We do enjoy practical collaboration with Russia, but for us there is one important matter above all others - a fundamental value - and that is democracy. I get the feeling that, at this point in time, the Russian authorities are doing their best more to not permit political parties than to actually put democratisation and modernisation into practice.\nWhat is more, technical requirements can never be, and must never be allowed to be, an obstacle to the freedom of assembly or to establish a political party. In fact, precisely that kind of public debate and political participation by the citizens is something that governments should actually be encouraging. In this connection, I also have a question for Baroness Ashton; namely, have you heard that Boris Nemtsov was today issued with a travel ban by the authorities in Moscow and, if so, what are you going to do about it?\nIn the name of my group, I call on Russia, which is a member of the Council of Europe, to make adjustments to its disproportionately severe legislation governing the registration of political parties, as the European Court of Human Rights has called for recently in a carefully worded judgment.\nFinally, there is currently a motion before the Duma that seeks to simply disregard judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. I honestly do not see what advantage Russia envisages gaining by de facto withdrawing from the Council of Europe or simply denying the existence of the European Court of Human Rights.\nMy thanks to Baroness Ashton for her efforts. I also thank her for the clear position that she just took. The question for Baroness Ashton and for all of us here is, and remains: how can we ensure that fair and proper elections are held in Russia and how can we ensure that we can actually act as monitors of such elections on the ground?\nKnut Fleckenstein\nMr President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be brief, because the subject of Russia comes round every four weeks and I stand by the opinion that I expressed four weeks ago. Yes, we regret the fact that yet again, parties in Russia, most recently the liberal party, are not approved and therefore cannot stand for public election. I am convinced that no nation in the world will put up with this in the long term. I am also convinced that our Partnership for Modernisation could be implemented much more effectively if the Russian Government could allay concerns about democratic shortcomings and the rule of law with bold decisions. Until such time as that happens, we shall not let this subject rest, also because we believe that it is in the interest of our partner, in other words, Russia itself.\nFor my part, I should also like to add that I am equally convinced that we can achieve a great deal more by stepping up our talks and our cooperation than by adopting monthly resolutions, however appropriate these may be. Human rights and democracy are indivisible. Our public contribution to this is important, our criticism of Russia is justified, but we would be even more credible if we were to identify the shortcomings within the EU with the same honesty and acuity and perhaps even more unanimously than before. As long as Members of this House maintain - as they did yesterday - that modern Hungary is a model democracy, then, what my fellow Member from the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) said continues to apply: that the self-righteousness of some Members of this House is hair-raising. I agree with that. I am not saying this to please anyone in Moscow, but because I am firmly convinced that we can make a much more effective contribution than we are making at present.\n(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))\nMarek Henryk Migalski\n(PL) Madam President, I should like to ask Mr Fleckenstein about the comparison he made in the final part of his speech, namely, that we cannot criticise Russia, since similar violations of human rights also take place in Europe, for example, in Hungary. Did I understand correctly, or was there a mistranslation of some kind? I believe that these matters cannot be compared, and I would like clarification in this respect.\nKnut Fleckenstein\n(DE) Mr Migalski, you are absolutely right. The two things cannot be compared. However, I believe that you enhance your credibility by dealing with the problems in your own backyard - quite irrespective of any criticism, including of Moscow.\nMy second point is that, while we are perfectly entitled to criticise Moscow, the question must be how we can most effectively help bring about some kind of change. I am convinced that that will not be achieved through repeated resolutions.\nKristiina Ojuland\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the Russian Minister of Justice has consistently refused to register any new political parties since February 2009; the most recent being the People's Freedom Party, whose two leaders are among us today in the gallery: Mr Mikhail Kasyanov and Mr Boris Nemtsov.\nMadam High Representative, the future of EU-Russia strategic relations must be directly linked to efforts to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights in Russia. The Kremlin is breaching Russia's commitments as a Member of the Council of Europe and a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore ought to be disciplined if the requirements for political pluralism continue to be disregarded.\nMoreover, the Russian authorities continue to pressure the opposition. Yesterday, for example, the authorities issued a six-month exit ban for Mr Boris Nemtsov, one of the leaders of the party PARNAS.\nI recall that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe holds the right to withhold verification of the credentials of parliamentarians elected through elections deemed to be in breach with European standards.\nThe European Union must also insist that the Kremlin withdraws all decisions and regulations concerning the non-registration of political parties in Russia that do not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Putin has got until September to reconsider, when the elections are announced, but we can already see that the tracks have been laid.\nJacek Olgierd Kurski\nMadam President, the December elections to the Duma will point the way for developments over the next few years in our largest continental neighbour. Will we see restricted democracy, or even creeping authoritarianism? Unfortunately, we are under no illusions. All the facts point to a slow drift towards an autocracy ruled by the pro-Kremlin 'United Russia' party. Examples of what I have in mind include amendments made by the government to the electoral law increasing the electoral threshold to 7%, a stepping up of attacks and blackmail against opposition activists, the absence of pluralism in the media and a refusal to register political parties. This is a clear indication of the path the Kremlin has chosen.\nThe escalation of such measures should be linked to the results of opinion polls published by the independent Russian media, which show that there is less and less support for the actions of those in power. In view of these facts, what should we do? Above all, we should endeavour to obtain the release of opposition activists and politicians. We must respond in a spirit of solidarity to all violations of human rights, paying particular attention to attacks on the free press, and support the development of free speech by inviting Russian journalists to participate in the European debate.\nWerner Schulz\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow, we will once again be adopting a resolution on Russia. It will, in fact, be the fourth resolution on Russia this year, which is a clear indication of the backlog of problems and the difficulties in communication that have built up between the European Union and Russia.\nOur most recent resolution expressed our concerns and expectations in respect of the forthcoming Duma and presidential elections in Russia. Baroness Ashton, I can only hope that, together with Presidents Barroso and Van Rompuy, you addressed this very clearly in your talks with President Medvedev in Nizhny Novgorod. Yet what effect has that had? What has happened since then? By failing to allow the liberal PARNAS party, the Russian Government has demonstrated that it is clearly hell-bent on backing up its 'controlled' democracy and 'controlled' justice with 'controlled' elections. Even President Medvedev - and you stressed this yourself - has called for competition between political parties, as he has recognised that a governing party without competition will stagnate and then lead the country into stagnation.\nIt is thus in Russia's own interest for us not to let the Russian Government get away with infringing international obligations, as Russia is a member of the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, all of which should actually guarantee that it complies with all the generally recognised electoral standards. Only in April - and you pointed this out, too - the European Court of Human Rights found that the disbanding of the Republican Party was disproportionate and unlawful and called on Russia to follow up as necessary by 12 July.\nI believe that the only possible follow-up is for these electoral obstacles to finally be removed and the way cleared for free, real, fair and proper elections. Russia repeatedly demands freedom of travel within the EU, yet freedom of travel without free elections at home is a hamstrung and restricted freedom and leads to emigration rather than modernisation.\nB\u00e9la Kov\u00e1cs\n(HU) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs Ashton for the letter she sent me recently concerning my 11 May speech.\nIn connection with the Russian elections to be held on 4 December, I would definitely like to emphasise the importance of creating the status of a European Union election observer. I, myself - at the invitation of the 'Civil Control' social organisation - participated at the regional elections as an observer in March of this year. On this occasion, I was able to speak with Viktor Churov, the President of the Russian Election Committee, who informed me that currently, there is no agreement between the two countries about sending election observers. This is why I find it particularly important that OSCE negotiations be concluded successfully, and that representatives of the European Parliament also be able to participate officially in Russian elections. This is what I ask of Mr Fleckenstein, Chair of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, that in September, at the next committee meeting in Warsaw, we definitely raise this issue with the Russian negotiation partner.\nTraian Ungureanu\nMadam President, I would like to thank the High Representative for her detailed statement. The Russian decision to block the registration of a credible political party prior to the elections is not an aberration; it is yet another example of Russia's refusal to play by the rules while claiming to be a genuinely democratic post-Soviet entity.\nBut politically motivated killings, kidnappings and jailings, sanctioned by a corrupt justice system or ignored by the judicial authorities, are a common feature of the Russian democracy. Indeed, one can say that the Russian authorities perfected democracy to the point where opposition is not necessary any more and the voters are no longer essential. But if Russia is not willing to be honest with its own people, we should not expect honesty in Russia's relations with the EU. It might take one to kozachok, but it surely takes two to tango.\nSo I call on you and the Commission to make any further negotiations with Russia conditional on the fair preparation and conduct of the elections in December. Human rights and democracy should be at the centre of our relationship with Russia, and if we are ready to reset our relations with Russia, then Russia should reset its own relations with democracy.\nMarek Henryk Migalski\n(PL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, thank you very much for having raised the issue of human rights in your speech and, in particular, the Magnitsky affair. I have to tell the Commissioner that literally 90 minutes ago, in a room 100 metres away from the plenary chamber, the delegation for relations with Russia turned down an opportunity to vote through and adopt a statement on the Magnitsky affair, and rejected the stated intention of clarifying the cause of his death as quickly as possible and of punishing the culprits. It should be noted that the delegation did so in response to a motion to block the statement tabled by Mr Schulz, who has spoken so eloquently and genuinely about the problems of Russian democracy. Even hypocrisy has its limits. On the one hand, we talk about how we want to promote democracy in Russia while, on the other, we block the clarification of matters that are fundamental to this democracy, such as the death of Mr Magnitsky.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\nMadam President, I listened with interest to Mr Ungureanu's speech, and I would like to ask him how much time he has spent in Russia, since he presents himself as such a profound expert on this country, because, in my opinion, a full assessment of this broad issue - which is no simple matter, of course - requires spending a certain amount of time in Russia and learning about life not only in the centres, but also in the regions, and perhaps it would be a good thing if you could tell us about this.\nTraian Ungureanu\nMadam President, I thank my colleague for his very interesting question. I agree that you need to know the internal realities of Russia. The exact answer is that I spent altogether around two months in Russia at different times. I hope this will satisfy him.\nWerner Schulz\nMr Migalski, do you not think that your comments were completely unfair? We absolutely did not reject the substance of your statement on Mr Magnitsky. All we said was that it is very much out-of-date. You wrote it four weeks ago. The Fedotov report has now been published, and it sets out the details and circumstances of Mr Magnitsky's death very clearly. We needed to take that on board. Your statement needs to be revised. However, our opinions on the case are the same. I wish to distance myself from this hypocrisy. What you have said in this connection is outrageous. It is defamatory to say what you have said. Your time would be better spent updating your statement!\nMarek Henryk Migalski\n(PL) Madam President, to start with, Mr Schulz has misunderstood the purpose of the blue-card procedure, which is to ask questions, not to make pronouncements. However, I can tell Mr Schulz that four weeks ago, when he received the previous version of the statement on the Magnitsky affair, he said back then that he did not wish to comment on the matter, and he believed back then that we should not vote on it, since he did not wish to put his name to it. I would therefore ask him not to start trying now to justify what I believe is a hypocritical position. I will not retract my statement, although it may not be to his liking.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, if the Russian Federation wants to be a respected partner of Europe, it must abandon the totalitarian practices by means of which it is now eliminating the opposition, including the earlier exclusion of the PARNAS party from the elections.\nI used to live in the former Eastern Bloc, and I am therefore very familiar with the path Russia is gradually treading from totalitarianism via an authoritarian system to democracy. The current government, however, despite the judgment of the European Court of Justice, is systemically changing the electoral rules and frustrating free competition between political ideas. This proves, unfortunately, that the government is only pretending to build a democratic Russia. President Medvedev, in particular, is tightening the reins again.\nBaroness Ashton, I hope you will continue to insist on compliance with human rights in the Russian Federation, and on ending those practices which will otherwise become a barrier to cooperation within the framework of the Eastern Partnership policy. I firmly believe that these practices are intended to secure one-party government indefinitely, as a fellow Member said here earlier. I am concerned, despite everything, that the autumn elections to the Duma will not be declared to have been free.\nI would therefore like to ask a question in advance, if I may. What measures are you planning to take, Baroness Ashton, on behalf of the EU? What can we do now to avoid or at least minimise such a situation? Current events in Russia show that Russia is actually moving more towards an authoritarian system than towards democracy. That is bad for Europe as well.\nInese Vaidere\nMadam President, I will start by saying that I have a dream. I have a dream that Russia will one day be a democratic and wealthy country; wealthy not only for a small portion of the people but wealthy for all citizens. Each election provides a chance for this.\nYou can use it or you can lose it. I completely agree with the previous speaker in what she said and I will not repeat it. I just wanted to draw your attention to one very important aspect we did not achieve.\nBefore the elections, Russia needs long-term election observation - not just for a few days in election time - but long term. This is because the people have very limited access to the mass media. We have listened to representatives of the new party, PARNAS. They told us this situation is very unequal. This is a very important issue for our common future.\nPlease, Baroness Ashton, fight for this long-term observation mission.\nBastiaan Belder\n(NL) Madam President, it is clear that the Russian leadership in the Kremlin is not enamoured with serious opposition, which explains its non-registration of PARNAS on very dubious grounds. I read an interesting interview with one of the party's joint chairs, Mikhail Kasyanov, the former Prime Minister of Russia, about the motives behind this decision. He expects us to send a signal. We are doing so with this debate and tomorrow, we will also do so with the resolution. I am firmly behind it.\nIn the meantime, we can talk of an unhappy continuity in Russian history. Four years ago, you had to vote for a particular party, namely Mr Putin's and Mr Medvedev's party. It is now 2011, and this situation is repeating itself. The Pan-Russian Popular Front has recently been established. Unbelievable as it is, every possible association is being included without the members knowing anything about it. A member of the architects' association has just discovered this fact and protested about it. Mr Putin is to investigate the matter. It is absolutely obvious that we need to make clear to our Russian partner that political pluralism is political pluralism and nothing else, even in Russia.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) Madam President, Russia is one of the European Union's most important partners, a partner which, through its economic power and growing economic potential, will soon be having a greater impact on life in Europe. It is therefore surely important for us that political power in that country should reflect the plurality of opinions held by the citizens of that country. On the other hand, to expect that any world power - be it the US, Russia or China - would allow itself to be dictated to by us regarding the rules it should apply when organising its parliamentary elections is, in my opinion, a sign of over-confidence on our part. Like the authors of this resolution, I, too, sincerely hope that not just the December elections to the Russian Duma, but all elections organised in Russia, are honest, transparent and fair, but I am not sure we should send a message like this to a partner with whom we say we enjoy good relations. I firmly believe that Baroness Ashton has sufficient authority in Moscow to convey our concerns in a more diplomatic and sensitive manner.\nCatherine Ashton\nVice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, honourable Members, thank you again. I found that a very interesting and stimulating debate. As we think about how to address some of the areas of concern that honourable Members have quite rightly raised, I just want to make three very straightforward points.\nFirst of all, we have to continue to articulate our expectations to Russia as far as free and fair elections are concerned, and we will recall the international commitments that Russia has taken in this regard. I think it is very important as we move towards the elections that we continue to send that strong message: that we want to see these elections be fair and free; that we want to see the international commitments fully followed.\nSecondly, we want as well to offer our election observation. I said earlier that consultations between Russia and OSCE\/ODIHR are ongoing; they seem keen to cooperate. I hope that will happen and that this will also help in the light of some of the comments that honourable Members have made about the need to look at the long-term nature of observation.\nThirdly, we also need, and again Members made this clear, to make sure that at the level of the modernisation partnership, we are working closely to help support that process. We currently have 16 bilateral partnerships, and these look at issues like foreign investment, know-how and technology, as well as the rule of law of modern democratic institutions and civil society involvement.\nBecause I think it is also clear from what honourable Members have said that we want to send a very clear message to the people of Russia that we are a supportive friend, that we want to see progress, we want to see modernisation and we want also to be a source of inspiration when it comes to the democratic values we hold and our absolute passion for human rights.\nPresident\nI have received five motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday, 7 July 2011.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nElena B\u0103sescu\nI welcome the statement made by the High Representative at such an important time for every democracy in the world. I think that a real partnership between the EU and Russia must be based not only on common interests but also on sharing principles and values. These must include respect for the rule of law and for fundamental rights and freedoms.\nIt is vital that, in the run-up to and during the elections in December 2011, Russia lives up to expectations in terms of respect for democratic standards. Political pluralism is a definitive feature of modern societies. The organisation of free and fair elections ensures the expression of a variety of opinions, visions and options. This will allow the Russian authorities to make a significant contribution not only to strengthening the democratic nature of the state, but also to offering a viable model for neighbouring countries.\nTunne Kelam\nin writing. - The ability and willingness to provide an environment for free elections is a cornerstone of the democratic functioning of any country. The refusal to register the PARNAS party for the elections must be taken very seriously. This is a clear signal that Russia is not willing to allow free and fair elections.\nIn fact, Russia is mocking democracy. The case of Khodorkovsky is no longer that of one individual, but has become a grotesque symbol of the entire Russian judiciary system and the situation of the rule of law in Russia.\nThe EU cannot continue treating Russia on a case-by-case basis. It is unacceptable for the EU to allow Russia to dictate the agenda, as recently seen at the EU-Russia Summit that was dominated by the marginal issue of vegetable imports and exports, rather than Russia's serious violations of the rule of law and human rights.\nWe have to be clear that, if there is no change in Russia, the EU will not continue talks on anything with its so-called strategic partner. There can be no talks on the new PCA unless Russia takes concrete action to improve the judiciary system and to apply the rule of law and democratic principles.\nKrzysztof Lisek\nWe are seeing a great many alarming developments in the run-up to the forthcoming elections to the Duma, such as the refusal to register the PARNAS party and the increase in the electoral threshold. These developments, coupled with examples where freedom of speech has been disregarded and representatives of the press and media have been attacked, both of which are already regular occurrences in Russia, have given rise to widespread alarm. Russia should change its policies on the opposition and the free press. In particular, I support the call to lift the ban on leaving the country imposed on the opposition activist, Boris Nemtsov. The Russians should understand that respect for democratic standards is essential in order to improve relations between Russia and the rest of the world. Despite the fact that Russia is one of the European Union's largest and most significant partners, and despite the fact that it is assuming a more important role on the international stage, the European Union should continue to implement measures aimed at changing the situation in this country. I am counting on Baroness Ashton's future actions yielding better results. In the longer term, we should take concrete steps to encourage Russia to change its policies. I also hope that the forthcoming observation mission will have a positive impact on the course of the elections.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - In view of the lively and emotional debate on the resolution on the preparations for the Russian State Duma elections in December 2011, I wish to state that amendments to, and the regulation of, electoral laws should not favour specific parties or groups of entrepreneurs which are supported by specific Members of the European Parliament.\nIt looks as though financial oligarchic groups are lobbying with the intention of reshaping the existing political and economic balance in the Russian Federation, rather than changing the legal situation. In hearings and discussions, we should hear not only the opinion of opposition representatives from outside parliament, but also official Russian opinion.\nI would like to emphasise that many of the former high-ranking Russian officials who chose to leave the so-called political elite did not make any changes to the legislation and constitution of the Russian Federation when they had the chance. Their current appeals for action therefore seem strange. We should cooperate with the Russian Federation on elections and not dictate conditions, since dictating will not have any effect.\nCristian Dan Preda\nRussia is one of our main partners. It is also a Member State of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. This is why we pay particular attention to it during European Parliament debates.\nFive months ago, we adopted a resolution in which we expressed doubts about the rule of law in Russia.\nLast month, we emphasised in point 12 of the resolution on the EU-Russia Summit the need for free and fair elections by implementing the standards set out by the Council of Europe and the OSCE.\nHere we are again obliged to return to this subject, against a background where the PARNAS party has been deprived of the right to take part in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. This is an unfortunate decision. Some of the registration procedures used in Russia for political parties and candidate lists have proved to be unjustified. They have become an impediment to free and fair elections.\nIt is vital for the credibility of these elections in December that the Russian authorities allow the OSCE\/Council of Europe to carry out some long-term election monitoring missions. This will allow the international community to see whether progress is being made in establishing democracy in Russia or whether we are not dealing somehow with an imitation democracy.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":7}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"2009 progress report on Croatia - 2009 progress report on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 2009 progress report on Turkey (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the Council and Commission statements on the:\n2009 progress report on Croatia\n2009 progress report on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia\n2009 progress report on Turkey\nDiego L\u00f3pez Garrido\nMr President, I would like to begin by reiterating the firm commitment of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council to the enlargement of the European Union. Our work in this respect will follow the line of the renewed consensus on enlargement approved at the December 2006 European Council and the Council conclusions of 8 December 2009, which have also been endorsed by the European Council.\nAs highlighted in this House's resolution, which we are now going to debate, the first half of this year will be crucial for the negotiations with Croatia. They have entered their final phase, yet much remains to be done before we can reach a successful conclusion. We are going to have to look at difficult chapters such as those on competition, fisheries, the judiciary and fundamental rights, the environment, and foreign security and defence policy. We will also have to close provisionally some chapters with financial implications.\nTherefore, a great deal of work lies ahead. New Commissioner, \u0160tefan F\u00fcle, who was a former colleague of mine when I was Europe Minister - and I would like to welcome him and congratulate him on his appointment - is going to be extremely busy with the enlargement issue as far as Croatia is concerned, because as soon as next week, we plan to hold an initial intergovernmental conference at ministerial level to open the chapters on fisheries and the environment, two very important chapters that, as you can imagine, will require an enormous amount of work and dedication.\nAllow me to remind you about the conclusions on Croatia adopted by the Council in December. You are already aware of them but I would like to highlight a number of points. The Council commended Croatia for the considerable efforts it had made over the past year and the good overall progress made. It also referred to a series of financial measures for Croatia's accession negotiations and noted that the negotiations were entering their final phase.\nThe Council underlined that building on the progress already made, Croatia still had to make significant improvements in fundamental spheres such as the judicial system, public administration, and the fight against corruption and organised crime. It also needs to guarantee the rights of persons belonging to minorities, including the return of refugees and prosecution of war crimes, in order to build up a convincing track record in these areas.\nThe Council noted, too, Croatia's cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, although it felt that further efforts were necessary. We believe that we could achieve new goals in that area.\nNaturally, we also welcomed the signing of the arbitration agreement on the contentious border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia. The agreement was signed on 4 November in Stockholm and ratified by the Croatian Parliament on 20 November. The Council encouraged Croatia to build on these efforts in order to solve all outstanding bilateral issues, especially border disputes.\nThe Council also welcomed the creation in December, just over a month ago, of a working group to prepare the draft Accession Treaty of Croatia. Finally, implementation of the revised Accession Partnership will be crucial when preparing for the country's eventual integration into the EU. As I said, we have a great deal of work ahead of us.\nSince this is a joint debate on Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey, I would like to state that the Western Balkans are one of the European Union's main priorities. Stability in that region is vitally important to us, and in 2010, we are going to see a number of milestones in the region's transition: progress on the applications for accession - as we have just discussed - fresh impetus for the network of Stabilisation and Association agreements, closer regional cooperation and progress towards a more liberal visa regime.\nWe know that the prospect of joining the Union - what we call the European perspective of the Western Balkans - is the most important catalyst for stability and reform in these countries. It is undoubtedly a prospect, a real prospect, but it is not an automatic right.\nMoving on to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I would like to begin with a summary of the country's general situation and I will refer to the European Parliament's resolution, for which the rapporteur was Mr Zoran Thaler. The resolution does a very good job of presenting a dynamic situation, full of possibilities for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It highlights many of the challenges facing the country: widespread failure to comply with the law, corruption, implementation of the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, allocation of funds for effective decentralisation, access to justice, greater participation of women in political life, support for civil society organisations, persistently high unemployment, environmental problems, etc.\nThe resolution underlines the importance of having a timetable for the opening of negotiations as well as the common desire to find, as soon as possible, an acceptable solution to the issue of the country's name, which, as you know, is currently the subject of a dispute with Greece.\nI would like to make a few comments in relation to events you refer to in your resolution, such as the local elections in March and April - which the OSCE considered to have met the standards laid down - and the sixth meeting of the Stabilisation and Association Council, held in July 2009, which we concluded and which revealed that the country was truly fulfilling the commitments it had made under that agreement. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has continued to work on its relations with the European Union, which is why the European Commission stated that it had made real progress and recommended that accession negotiations be opened.\nIn its conclusions last December, the Council acknowledged the progress referred to by the Commission and agreed to return to the matter in the next few months. The European Parliament, as you know, has taken note of these Council conclusions of 8 December 2009.\nMoreover, 19 December saw the entry into force of the visa-free regime, in accordance with the Schengen system, for citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\nWe should also mention a number of specific points relating to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: inter-ethnic relations, differences of opinion between Macedonian Slavs over the 'antiquity' of the country and differences of opinion over its relations with neighbouring countries. All of these topics are reflected in various sections of Parliament's resolution.\nIn summary, I would like to say that some aspects warrant close attention, beyond the mere adoption and application of laws; some issues fall under the auspices of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, some are purely national matters, and some relate to neighbouring countries.\nThe European institutions believe that the future of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia involves membership of the European Union and that such aspirations will have to take the shape of full national integration, in accordance with the Ohrid Framework Agreement. This is what the European Union believes and will continue to believe.\nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to look in greater detail at the state of Turkey's negotiations and to present the Spanish Presidency's plans for this important enlargement issue.\nIt is important - and I want to say this at the outset - that we continue the negotiations with Turkey, that we keep the process on track. Building on the work of previous presidencies, we hope to convince everyone of the need to move this process forward where possible.\nThe negotiations have entered a phase which we could say is somewhat more complicated or somewhat more problematic, which requires Turkey to redouble its efforts to meet the conditions laid down. A number of technically difficult negotiating chapters await us. However, it is important - and I want to say this at the outset, too - that Turkey makes progress on the reforms concerning the European Union.\nAt present, as the new Commissioner knows all too well, the technical work is focusing on four negotiating chapters: public procurement; competition; food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy; and social policy and employment. We must stress that the energy chapter is also important and it has become especially relevant following the signing of the Nabucco Agreement.\nAt its last part-session, Parliament debated Turkey and, in particular, the country's democratisation. There is a contrast between, on the one hand, the process of democratic initiative, as the Turkish Government calls it, and, on the other, some worrying decisions such as the recent decision by the Constitutional Court concerning the ban on a political party, which has also been mentioned here and is a very sensitive topic.\nTherefore, in spite of the progress made, further efforts to ensure that Turkey fully meets the Copenhagen criteria are required in a number of areas, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion in law and in practice for all religious communities, respect for property rights, trade union rights, rights of persons belonging to minorities, civilian supervision of the military, women's and children's rights, and anti-discrimination and gender equality measures. This is clearly reflected in both Parliament's resolution and the Council conclusions of 8 December.\nI would also like to mention some other aspects of the Council conclusions. For example, the Council stressed that Turkey needs to commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, having recourse, if necessary, to the International Court of Justice. In this context, the Union urged Turkey - as we have done in the bilateral meetings with Turkey - to avoid any kind of threat, source of friction or actions that could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes.\nThe Council also noted with deep regret that Turkey has yet to implement the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement, the so-called Ankara Protocol, and that it has not made sufficient progress towards normalisation of its relations with the Republic of Cyprus.\nIn the first half of 2010, in the Association Council and the Association Committee with Turkey, we will have a chance to assess the development of our relations; it will be a good opportunity to examine significant problems, such as the political criteria, the progress made in adapting national legislation and the application of the acquis.\nWe have also planned a series of political dialogue meetings at ministerial level, between political leaders, that will enable us to look at our relations in the wider international context. In this respect, the Council expects Turkey to support the ongoing negotiations within the UN framework on the issue that I just referred to, namely the Cyprus problem, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded.\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to hearing your views and will respond to any comments or questions you might like to put to me.\nPresident\nI will now give the floor to Commissioner F\u00fcle. I would also like to congratulate him because it is his first day in office.\n\u0160tefan F\u00fcle\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, I am delighted that my very first official engagement since taking up office just some hours ago is here in the European Parliament. I also think that it is an excellent turn of events that the very first debate in this high House with a new Commission is taking place on enlargement. Thirdly, I am delighted that the European Parliament expressed its strong support for enlargement in three reports.\nThe resolutions are proof of the commitment of the European Parliament to the accession prospects of Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. This is a clear signal that enlargement will continue to be a top priority of the European Parliament and, together with my colleagues, I will do my utmost to bring this success story forward. I am very glad that my friend, Secretary of State L\u00f3pez Garrido, has just reconfirmed full support for this process on behalf of the Council and its Presidency.\nOn Croatia, I appreciate Parliament's fair and balanced report and would like to congratulate Mr Hannes Swoboda, the rapporteur. The report highlights the progress achieved by Croatia in meeting the criteria for accession but, at the same time, recognises the efforts that are still necessary for concluding the negotiations. Your report thus reinforces the messages and supports the work undertaken by the Commission. Let me underline that closure of negotiations in 2010 is still possible, provided that Croatia progresses in fulfilling all outstanding benchmarks. The ball is clearly in Croatia's court.\nCroatia has come a long way over recent years but important challenges still remain to be tackled. Here, we share a common assessment. Croatia needs to focus, in particular, on the further reform of its judiciary and public administration, the fight against corruption and organised crime, respect for minority rights including refugee return, as well as war crimes trials and full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.\nWe are encouraged by recent developments in fighting corruption. We hope that investigation into wrongdoing leads to concrete results. As for cooperation with the ICTY, which is a fundamental requirement, Chief Prosecutor Brammertz confirmed that full cooperation has still not been achieved. However, he acknowledged recent positive steps such as the setting up of the task force aimed at stepping up investigation efforts. I hope that the work of the task force will soon produce concrete results. Finally, the arbitration agreement of November 2009 between Slovenia and Croatia on the handling of the bilateral border issue has started a new momentum in the negotiations process which, I trust, Croatia will be able to seize by intensifying its efforts to address the remaining outstanding issues.\nAs regards the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 2009 was a good year as regards its reform process. Thanks to political consensus between all the main political forces, the country was able to make significant progress in key areas. It achieved visa liberalisation, and the Commission could recommend starting accession negotiations. I am glad to see that there is a strong consensus between Parliament and the Commission that accession negotiations should start, as expressed in Mr Thaler's constructive and forward-looking report. Now the challenge for the country is to maintain the reform momentum.\nWhile the country met the political criteria, there is still much work to be done. A shared vision of the future and effective political dialogue between the political forces will be crucial to ensuring progress. Continued efforts are needed in particular on fully implementing the Ohrid Framework Agreement and improving inter-ethnic relations, ensuring the rule of law and an independent judiciary, and successfully prosecuting high-level corruption cases.\nThe economic crisis has not left the country untouched. Unfortunately, the country was already suffering one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe. Now, more than ever, prudent macro-economic management and active labour market measures are needed to contain, and then reduce unemployment.\nLike you, I am convinced that the start of accession negotiations is key to maintaining the reform momentum in the country. Equally important, it will enhance the European perspective for the wider region. It is therefore in the strategic interest of the European Union. This is the message which I will be putting forward to the Member States and to the country so as to take the process forward.\nOn Turkey, I would like to thank your rapporteur, Ms Oomen-Ruijten, for her continued efforts towards a fair and balanced approach in her report on Turkey. The Commission remains committed to the accession process with Turkey as this process gives strong encouragement to political and economic reform.\nWork on the political criteria remains of the utmost importance, in particular, as regards fundamental freedoms. A number of landmark reforms have been carried out in the past year. Some of them were next to impossible only a few years ago. Last week, the security protocol that allowed the army to intervene without authorisation in the case of security threats was annulled. This is a landmark achievement in civilian-military relations. We will observe closely the follow-up of this conciliation. The submission of a draft law setting up an independent human rights institution and the much awaited anti-corruption strategy, adopted in principle by the Turkish Government on 21 January, are also promising.\nWe continue to support the democratic opening launched by the government. The success of this initiative requires the participation and support of all political parties and all segments of society. However, the Commission has concerns following the decision of the Constitutional Court to close the pro-Kurdish party represented in Parliament, the DTP. We also regret the arrests that took place in the south-east at the end of December. We condemn the terrorist attacks that took place at the same time. None of these developments is really conducive to the successful implementation of the democratic opening.\nHannes Swoboda\nMr President, firstly, I would like to extend my warm thanks to the Council and to Mr F\u00fcle for their statements, in particular, on Croatia. These statements indicate that both the Council and the Commission have the determination to complete this process as quickly as possible. I also agree with Mr F\u00fcle that it is possible to complete the negotiations with Croatia this year, given the necessary good will and the appropriate policies. Of course, it is also Croatia's responsibility, in particular, to take the decisive steps.\nI would like to say at this point that Croatia has made considerable progress, particularly in recent months and with regard to corruption. Croatia has shown that no one is outside the law or exempt from measures to combat corruption. This sends out an important signal. Croatia has also come to an agreement with Slovenia and has ratified the agreement relatively quickly in parliament, which shows that there is a strong shared determination to meet the necessary requirements. I hope that the same thing will happen soon in Slovenia. I am convinced that the Slovenian Government fully supports the agreement and I hope that the domestic political problems can soon be resolved and that the agreement can be ratified.\nHowever, there is still some work to be done. The point has already been made that the fight against corruption is an important element. However, the situation will not change overnight. There are many unresolved issues in this area, but I am certain that the government and the relevant public bodies have the will to continue this fight without exerting political influence.\nAs for the reform of the judiciary, this is not only about combating corruption, but also about a number of other issues, such as training for judges. Several steps need to be taken by Croatia to establish a modern judicial system and I hope that this will happen soon.\nWith regard to the collaboration with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Mr F\u00fcle has given us an accurate and complex description of the situation. Mr Brammertz has assured the Committee on Foreign Affairs that a great deal is being done. It is only a case of finding some documents relating to the case against General Gotovina, but Mr Brammertz himself has said that he does not know whether these documents still exist or whether they have already been destroyed. It may be that some of them have never existed. Nevertheless, I hope that Croatia does everything in its power in this respect. I would like the task force mentioned by Mr F\u00fcle to have broad support from experts from other countries, without giving automatic approval in advance to the efforts made by Croatia. However, I believe that a great deal of progress has been made in this area. I hope that the few small items outstanding will be completed in the next few weeks or months in order to convince Mr Brammertz that he is receiving full cooperation.\nA great deal has also been achieved with regard to the return of refugees or internally displaced persons. There are still a few problems at a detailed level which are relatively difficult to solve. When people have fled from houses that did not belong to them, where they were tenants, such as the social housing which existed in the former Yugoslavia, it is difficult to organise their return and ensure that they have a home again. Although a lot of people want to return in principle, as a result of the economic crisis and unemployment, when they arrive in regions where there are already high levels of unemployment, it may not actually be practical for them to return in such large numbers.\nIt is true that a great deal of progress has been made in this area. I am convinced that the current government and, I hope, also the opposition will work together to take the final steps. It has become clear over and over again in Croatia in recent months that a joint approach to European issues is the decisive factor. There must be widespread determination to solve the outstanding problems and, despite internal differences, to make it clear that the path leads to Europe and that Croatia must arrive there as quickly as possible.\n(Applause)\nZoran Thaler\n2009 was a good year for the candidate country of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The Commission of the European Union has confirmed this and the two presidencies-in-office, both the Swedish and now the Spanish one, have confirmed this. And that is what I, too, have said in my draft report.\nThe authorities in Skopje have addressed and fulfilled the key priorities of the accession partnership, commonly known as benchmarks. Secondly, FYROM was the first country in the region to comply with all the visa liberalisation requirements. It did so by as early as July last year and the visa-free regime came into force on 19 December. It has solved the border dispute with Kosovo and has cooperated successfully on regional initiatives, such as CEFTA and the South-East European Cooperation Process. It has also cooperated successfully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague. Last week, the FYROM Parliament passed a resolution on Srebrenica.\nWhat are we trying to achieve in Parliament with this resolution and with my report on FYROM's progress? Above all, we want to help. We want to help FYROM progress along the road of stability towards the European Union. We should remember that FYROM was the only former Yugoslav republic that successfully avoided Milo\u0161evi\u0107's wars.\nSecondly, we want to help our fellow Member State, Greece, and thereby the European Union as a whole, because we need to bear in mind that any country thrives only in so far as its neighbouring countries do. That is an empirical fact and one which can be proven. That is why I invite our friends in Greece, our fellow Member State, to try to solve this problem together with the government in Skopje and to relax its approach north of its borders. I invite Greece to be a true, fair and broad-minded leader, a mentor and a sponsor of the Balkans. The Balkans of today needs that.\nIn this respect, I would particularly like to welcome Agenda 2014, an initiative prepared by the new Greek Government of Mr Papandreou. Well done for this initiative! I stand together with Greece. Let us do everything we can to reach this goal. Let us show solidarity with both Greece, our fellow Member State, and with the FYROM. Solidarity must be mutual.\nWe need to bear in mind that the Balkans is like a bicycle ride. As long as it is moving, as long as it is pedalling forward, everything is more or less OK, but if it stops, it there is a blockage, if it reaches a stalemate, we fall down, all of us fall down. If we stopped now, peace, stability, security and social cohesion would break down.\nBy way of conclusion, let me stress one more fact: FYROM has been a candidate since 2005. We all need to be aware of the consequences of our decisions or failure to take decisions. Whenever I visit Skopje, I always make it clear to them that they are responsible for finding a solution with Greece, their neighbour.\nLet us therefore appeal here to the authorities in Skopje, Athens and Sofia, as well as to the Spanish Presidency, Commissioner F\u00fcle, Foreign Affairs High Representative Ashton and Parliament: let us do everything, each within their own remit, to help solve this problem. That is how we can achieve a different Balkans and a better Balkans than we have seen over the past 20 years.\nRia Oomen-Ruijten\nLet me begin by warmly welcoming Commissioner F\u00fcle: congratulations on your appointment and I look forward to sound collaboration with you.\nMr President, I would like to thank all my fellow Members, whose constructive contributions to the report have made it possible for us to achieve a consensus in most areas. I would also like to reiterate that my aim as rapporteur for this Parliament is to bring about a situation where we send out a clear, balanced and coherent message. I believe that we can only do that if we seek out a broad majority together.\nI actually have three messages for Turkey. First of all, and this is how the report begins, too, we have open debate, then there is the constitution and the enforcement of legislation. I will begin with open debate, democratic opening. From an entirely objective point of view, we welcome the broad debate that the Turkish Government initiated last year in respect of the rights of Kurds, the Alevi, the role of the army, and so on.\nHowever, Mr President, the judgment from the Constitutional Court last December ensured that terrorist attacks would take place once again. There was a wave of arrests of Democratic Society Party (DTP) members, and the threat of arrest still hangs over members of the Turkish Parliament. The open and positive debate that there had been since the summer thus seems likely to come to a premature end as a result. Of course, Mr President, as a representative of the people, I have respect for legal verdicts, but I also understand that the Constitutional Court has also said of the prohibition of political parties that Turkey should now enthusiastically engage with what has been recommended by the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission. I ask Turkey, then, to do so, to ensure that this kind of unfortunate situation does not arise again.\nMr President, that brings me to another verdict by the Court, namely the annulment of the law restricting the jurisdiction of the military court. As parliamentarians, we are in no position to criticise the judgment, but it does show, once again, that the basis of these judgments, the constitution, is inadequate, in the sense that - and I need to word this carefully - in any case, it gives grounds for such judgments to be made. That is why we are all calling, once again, for Turkey to bring forward a revision of its constitution without delay, as that is the only thing that can bring about the real reforms that are so necessary to modernise Turkish society.\nMr President, my third, fundamental point concerns the implementation and the enforcement of legislation that has been adopted. In the areas of women's rights, freedom of religion and the maltreatment of criminal suspects, the standards laid down also need to be complied with throughout Turkey. Mr President, I am therefore calling for additional attention to be paid to enforcement.\nI will turn now to the amendments. On Cyprus, I attempted to reach a clear and broad-based compromise with the shadow rapporteurs. Turkey needs to know that the supplementary protocol that has been agreed must be accepted without delay. In paragraph 34, I have called on all parties to ensure that a solution is reached in respect of the division of Cyprus. With this paragraph, then, I am specifically asking Turkey to send out positive signals.\nMr President, we emphasise, in a new paragraph 48, that both leaders must be encouraged to have courage in order to reach a solution for the island soon. This is absolutely necessary. I would say to Mrs Cornelissen that, although your amendment about violence against women is probably a little redundant, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) will also, as expected, support it.\nMr President, finally, I would like to reiterate, once again, that, this year, too, my aim is to produce a report that offers a very clear message that is critical, but also balanced. It is my belief that, if we adopt this report with a large majority, we will also be finding a good solution for Turkey in modernising the country and making it prosperous for all of its citizens.\nBernd Posselt\nMr President, we have clear expectations of the Council and the Commission. We expect negotiations with Croatia to be completed and negotiations with Macedonia to be started this year. This includes recognising that the policy on minority groups in these two countries is better than in many Member States of the European Union and that all the minorities and ethnic groups in both countries are represented in their governments. Mr F\u00fcle, the question of the return of the refugees, if you will pardon my saying so, has been handled by Croatia in a way which could serve as a model for other states. Therefore, I would like to say quite clearly that we should, of course, explain to these countries that they still need to make an effort. However, saying that the ball is solely in Croatia's court is totally unacceptable. Croatia has ratified the border agreement and I would like to join with Mr Swoboda in calling on the Slovenian Parliament to do the same thing. Three negotiating chapters remain to be opened by the Council. I would like to call on the Spanish representative of the Council of Ministers to ensure that they are opened during the Spanish Presidency. This will allow Croatia, if it is treated fairly, to complete the negotiations this year.\nAs far as the appalling blockade of Macedonia on account of the name issue is concerned, in this case, the ball is not solely in Macedonia's court either. Instead, the responsibility lies with an EU Member State which has set up a blockade that runs contrary to international law. I would like to make it clear at this point that the EU must behave in a credible way, in other words, we must demand things from others, but we must also live up to our own standards, otherwise we will lose all credibility. I feel that it is important for us to work towards voting on Croatia this year in this Parliament, after following a long and difficult path. Then the observers can come here, in the same way that the Czech, Slovenian and Hungarian observers came and were welcomed by us. I hope that European elections can take place in Croatia either next year or the year after and that Croatian Members will join us here in Parliament and help to prepare for the accession of other southern European states, with Macedonia being the first in line.\nKristian Vigenin\nMr President, Mr F\u00fcle, I want to join in congratulating you as a new member of the European Commission and say that it may, in fact, be an important sign that on this very day, the first debate in this Parliament involving the new Commission is actually on enlargement.\nIn fact, we do not need to reiterate that enlargement has turned out and proved to be one of the European Union's most successful policies. I wish you every success. Our Parliament will do its utmost to support you in these efforts because those of us here in the European Parliament are actually the strongest proponents of the enlargement of this region of security, prosperity and citizens' rights, which is the European Union.\nIn this respect, I think that the statements from the three rapporteurs highlighted the serious work which was done by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and them personally. I want to congratulate them on this and say that these three reports which we are discussing today were adopted by a huge majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I believe that this will also be the case today.\nI want to stress that we wish to use our reports to give a very clear signal to the three countries as well, even though the general debate will probably dilute our messages to some extent, that we remain committed to the process, but that there are issues which cannot be avoided and on which the three countries must take action. They are mainly linked to the fact that the European Parliament cannot and will not close its eyes to a whole series of issues related to the fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria supporting the protection of fundamental rights, media freedom and freedom of association, as well as the protection of minorities' rights, good neighbourly relations, etc.\nI would like to dwell briefly on three issues which, in my view, are of fundamental importance to making progress on the three countries' accession. Firstly, it is clear with regard to Croatia that the path to membership is already open for this country. The agreement reached with Slovenia is extremely important, but we call for its ratification as soon as possible so that it will provide the opportunity for the negotiations with Croatia to be concluded by the end of this year.\nWith regard to Macedonia, we hope that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will demonstrate the necessary flexibility. We also hope that the new Greek Government will find a solution to the name issue so that Macedonia can receive a date for starting negotiations by this year.\nAs far as Turkey is concerned, the Cyprus question cannot be avoided. Until progress is made on this first, Turkey cannot hope to make substantial progress in its process of integration.\nIvo Vajgl\nWith the Resolution on Croatia, which Parliament is to adopt here today, we will recognise that this country has made progress in terms of fulfilling the criteria for accession to the European Union, carrying out democratic system reforms and harmonising its legislation with the requirements of the acquis. That places Croatia firmly at the top of the list of countries with the prospect of becoming fully-fledged members of the European Union. That also opens up the possibility for Croatia to wrap up negotiations as early as this year, as we have stated in our report.\nWe are very pleased to note that Mrs Kosor, the new Croatian Prime Minister, has quickly and successfully taken steps in the areas where we have met the greatest obstacles so far: in the fight against corruption and organised crime, in implementing a programme of administrative reform, in addressing war crimes and in ensuring legal or constitutional protection for ethnic and other minorities.\nBy signing a border arbitration agreement with its neighbour Slovenia, the new Croatian Government has not only eliminated an obstacle to the negotiating process, but has also paved the way for the resolution of other issues. It is important that Croatia continues to address border disputes with its other neighbours and ensures that these negotiations are conducted in good faith and according to the principle of pacta sunt servanda.\nI should also point out that this resolution, which was drafted under the excellent guidance of my fellow member and rapporteur, Hannes Swoboda, has, in an objective and positive way, also highlighted problem areas where Croatia still has a great deal of work to do. To name but a few, these include cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, efforts made so far in prosecuting corruption, restructuring the economy and finances and greater commitment and sincerity in eliminating the obstacles to the return of Croatia's Serbian population. Croatia is their homeland, too.\nThe positive reports on the progress of Croatia and FYROM should also be seen as a definite signal of the EU's openness to enlargement to all the countries in the Western Balkans and a confirmation of the commitments we have undertaken towards these countries, Turkey included, provided they meet all relevant criteria. That, however, depends primarily on them. Let me conclude by wishing Mr F\u00fcle, our new commissioner, every success. I know he will do an excellent job.\nFranziska Katharina Brantner\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, on behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group, I should first like to extend a warm welcome to this House to Mr F\u00fcle as Commissioner. We are happy to work with you and look forward to our future cooperation. I would also like to thank Mr Swoboda for the good cooperation on the Croatia report. I think there was good cooperation in the process and I thank my colleagues.\nI would just like to say that we would have preferred to have had the debate en bloc so that we had all three countries, but separate sections, in the morning. We think that would have made more sense instead of having them all mixed up together, but that is a side note.\n(DE) The Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance is in favour of Croatia joining the European Union quickly and we welcome very much the rapid progress which this country has made. Croatia's quick accession will send out an important signal on security policy to the entire Western Balkans. It means that the promise of membership made by European Heads of State or Government in Thessaloniki to all the countries in the Western Balkans still holds. The credibility and validity of this promise represent an enormous incentive for all the states in the region to implement far-reaching reforms which will make these countries more secure, more stable and more prosperous.\nIt is important to say with regard to Croatia that the civil service there must be strengthened and made more transparent. The decisive factor here is not only the adoption of new legislation but, above all, the administrative implementation of the laws. We in the Verts\/ALE group would like to see better results in this area. We believe that the only solution to the problems of corruption and organised crime is the consistent implementation of new laws and directives. The same applies to the judiciary and the particularly important chapter concerning the judicial system that has not yet been negotiated. The announcements made by the Croatian Government are a good thing, but they must be followed by action that brings about de facto improvements in the situation in the courts. We would like to see more transparency and less political influence in this area as well.\nFor this reason, we are proposing four amendments, which I would like to encourage you to vote for. The first concerns the fight against corruption. We would like the construction and urban planning sector to be included in particular, as this is where the largest public contracts are awarded.\nSecondly, we would like a reference in paragraph 19 to the fact that the situation of gay men and lesbians is unsatisfactory. There have been repeated attacks on people from these minority groups. We have now received assurances from the Croatian Government that some of these cases are being investigated. We feel that this is a very positive sign and would like to encourage the Croatian authorities to speed up the implementation of the anti-discrimination act.\nMy final point is that we have no vision for a new energy policy for Croatia. Therefore, we would like to call on you to support our Amendment 7. We are looking forward to Croatia joining the European Union soon.\nCharles Tannock\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, the ECR Group favours enlargement of the European Union. We see not only significant benefits in a larger single market, but we also look - unlike some Members of this House - for a dilution of the federalist ambition at the heart of the European Union. However, candidates must be subject to rigorous and exacting standards as laid out in the Copenhagen criteria.\nWe therefore fully endorse the Commission's thorough approach to preparing candidates for membership and its willingness to learn the lessons of previous enlargements, in particular, the most recent ones to Bulgaria and Romania, where there were outstanding problems in the areas of organised crime and corruption. Croatia, along with Iceland - if approved as a candidate - is undoubtedly the country most ready to join the European Union, and its accession will help stabilise the Western Balkans. While recognising that a border dispute with Slovenia remains outstanding, we do not think that bilateral disputes can be allowed to delay Croatia's membership. Italy, after all, did not stop Slovenia joining in spite of border and minority disputes at the time.\nAs the Commission report makes clear, Croatia has also made some substantial progress in meeting the negotiating benchmarks, and the country's commitment to the EU's expectations remains strong. Macedonia is also now fully back on track towards membership, and we welcome its EU visa liberalisation, along with Serbia and Montenegro, and support immediate calls now to the Council to allow the opening of negotiations for membership for Macedonia.\nThe ECR Group believes that the almost comical name dispute with Greece should be resolved sensibly and rapidly. President Ivanov has helped to add momentum to Macedonia's EU ambitions, and we hope his request to meet the newly re-elected President of Greece will be reciprocated in the spirit of friendship and neighbourhood relationships. Meanwhile, Turkey's EU membership application remains problematic, not least in the field of human rights. The recent horrifying case of a teenage girl buried alive for talking to boys simply gives ammunition to those who say that Turkey has no place in the European Union. Its failure to recognise Cyprus or implement the Ankara protocols, as well as stalling in the ratification of the treaty to re-establish relations with Armenia, is a disappointment.\nFinally, as permanent rapporteur of the Parliament for Montenegro, I should just like to add that in my view, having recently visited this country, it is well on its way to candidate status, and I hope to see that happen as soon as possible.\nLastly, I, too, would like to take the opportunity on behalf of my group, the ECR Group, to congratulate Commissioner F\u00fcle on his electoral appointment yesterday, and my group will be fully cooperating with him in his challenging tasks ahead.\nTakis Hadjigeorgiou\nWe wish to emphasise from the outset that we are in favour of the integration of Turkey. We mean this and we believe in it. It is necessary, primarily for Turkey itself, in order to safeguard the rights of all minorities, to reduce the electoral limit for seats in Parliament and to safeguard labour rights, such as the right to strike and collective bargaining.\nFinding a real political solution to the Kurdish problem, recognising the Armenian genocide, normalising relations with neighbouring countries and ending the occupation of Cyprus are some of the issues which Turkey is required to address. As emphasised by the Council, it needs, urgently and without further delay, to comply fully and without discrimination with the additional protocol to the Ankara Agreement.\nIn ignoring international law, Turkey is preventing the Republic of Cyprus from exercising its sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. As such, we declare that we disagree with the position that the relevant energy chapter should be opened.\nTo close, I should like to mention the intention of some members to vote for an amendment calling for all interested parties to help to resolve the Cyprus question. I am sure that everyone will help. However, is this not unacceptably making everyone equally responsible, making the victim and the occupier equally responsible? If we want a solution to the Cyprus question, we must underline Turkey's responsibilities. We must speak openly to Turkey, whose integration, I repeat in closing, we support. However, it is the integration of Turkey into the European Union that we support, not the integration of the European Union into Turkey.\nBastiaan Belder\nAt the risk of upsetting Turkish diplomats again - note their reaction to numerous European Parliament amendments - I urge the Council and the Commission to put the following five points on the agenda in the forthcoming negotiations with the Turkish authorities.\n1. The granting of legal personality to all religious communities in Turkey - the fundamental precondition for the realisation of the freedom of religion in Turkey.\n2. The immediate ending of the public hate campaign against Turkish Christians beneath the cover of allowing the doubly negative loaded term 'missionary activities' in schoolbooks and local media, as if Turkish Christians were, by definition, subversive and bent on undermining the state.\n3. The immediate ending of the conspicuous discrimination against non-Islamic minorities when filling important civilian and military posts within the Turkish Government apparatus.\n4. Effective government measures against growing anti-Semitism in public life in Turkey. A Turkish academic recently spoke of a poisoned atmosphere. I am pleased that the atmosphere is still open enough for an academic to openly come out and say such a thing. What is needed, therefore, is effective government measures against the growing anti-Semitism in public life in Turkey, in which regard Prime Minister Erdo\u011fan, specifically, should take the lead role.\n5. Finally, a strict bringing into line of relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran with transatlantic policy on Tehran and its controversial nuclear programme. Turkey must spell out where it stands on the increasingly urgent issue of Tehran's nuclear programme. As a NATO member and EU candidate country, Turkey must nail its colours to the mast. It must make a clear choice.\nI call on the Council and the Commission to take the Copenhagen criteria and the urgent criticisms of Turkey that I have mentioned seriously and, Commissioner, once again, I would like to wish you all the best in your new role. I look forward to constructive consultation and I also have faith that you will take the Copenhagen criteria seriously and that we will thus be able to work on modernising Turkey, a country that I also want to respect.\nBarry Madlener\n(NL) Mr F\u00fcle, welcome to the House! Mr President, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), my party, has chosen to operate independently in this Parliament. In this case, we have enjoyed excellent collaboration with the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group and with Mr Messerschmidt, to whom I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks.\nMr President, first of all, I would like to say that the PVV is not in favour of enlargement - not to Croatia, not to Macedonia and certainly not to Turkey. Turkey's occupation of Cyprus is illegal, all of us in this Chamber believe that, and yet we continue to be involved with Turkey without seriously denouncing them for this. We do not impose any sanctions - or next to no sanctions - on Turkey. This, to me, is really weak-fisted behaviour, and I have therefore tabled an amendment that condemns this occupation and orders Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus, and to do so immediately. I therefore hope that you will all support this amendment.\nWhat is more, the freedom of the press in Turkey is under severe pressure. When I was visiting Turkey, the press was even moved on. We must strongly condemn this and that is why I have tabled Amendment 16.\nNow, ladies and gentlemen, we come to Iran, a rogue state. Mr Ahmadinejad, an Islamic dictator, terrorises his own population, wants to wipe Israel from the map and says so openly, is working on long-distance missiles, regularly carries out missile tests and yesterday began enriching uranium, which is suitable for nuclear weapons. Ladies and gentlemen, we can but express our disgust about this. Turkey, which wants to accede to the EU, counts the Iranian Government as a great friend and must be strongly condemned for this, which is why I have tabled Amendment 17. I count on your support.\nNext, I want to mention the negotiations with Turkey. Turkey, which counts Iran as a friend, occupies Cyprus, oppresses Christians, violates the rights of women, is a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), operates Sharia law, which limits human rights, and is an Islamic country, can never accede to this Union. We should not allow that to happen, for which reason I have tabled Amendments 18 and 19, which aim to bring an end to the accession negotiations. Thus, I hope that you will all support my amendments.\nEduard Kukan\nMr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Zoran Thaler on his report and thank him and all other colleagues for their very constructive work in preparing this draft resolution. A sincere welcome to Commissioner F\u00fcle, and my best wishes for the success of his future work.\nThe European People's Party considers that FYROM went through many positive developments during the last year. The progress it made in fulfilling most of the criteria towards starting EU accession negotiations is indeed both significant and remarkable. The fact that the Commission has recommended the opening of negotiations with FYROM should be seen as a clear message that this country is on the right track.\nParliament should therefore stand firmly behind this recommendation and, by adopting this resolution, send a positive signal to the country and indeed the whole region. I hope the European Council will confirm the Commission's decision and the call included in this resolution, and will give the green light for negotiations with FYROM in the near future without further delay. I also believe that up until this happens, the negotiations on the name issue will progress and relations with neighbouring countries will get better.\nFYROM should rise to the challenge and show that it is ready to fulfil all the Copenhagen criteria, on the basis of which its ambitions to become a member of the EU should be assessed.\nRaimon Obiols\n(ES) I think the report we are going to be voting on today, concerning Turkey's progress towards European accession, is a positive one. It is frank, and some criticisms can be made; but it is a balanced report and I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, for that.\nObviously, our political group would have placed greater emphasis on certain aspects. However, we have negotiated a broad consensus because we believe the report should be given as much support as possible by this Chamber.\nWe need to send out a clear message on that point. It should be a positive message, one of good will, but it should also be rigorous so as to boost the negotiating process and stimulate the advancement of modernising, democratic reforms in Turkey. We have to be clear on this matter: we need to overcome this phase of sluggishness and indecision in the negotiation process.\nAccording to opinion polls, public support for accession in Turkey has waned, and that public perception needs to change. The only way to achieve this is to ensure that the negotiations and reforms continue to move forward, that the European Union shows itself to be consistent with the commitments it has undertaken, and that it also avoids sending out contradictory signals which create uncertainty. Of course, Turkey must also take decisive steps on the path towards reform.\nTwo scenarios lie ahead: a vicious circle of divisions, confrontations and mistrust; or a virtuous circle of serious, rigorous, yet unambiguous negotiation.\nIf this report makes even a modest contribution to progress along those lines, then I think we can be satisfied.\nJorgo Chatzimarkakis\n(DE) Mr President, as the head of the delegation, I would like, first of all, to congratulate Mr Thaler on his very balanced report. Skopje has carried out reforms and is on the way to joining the European Union. We welcome this very much and are very pleased about it. The visa liberalisation was perhaps the clearest and most visible sign. It was a milestone in our cooperation. This objective has only been achieved as a result of close collaboration with the EU Member States. It represents openness, interaction and cooperation.\nHowever, we must not forget that Macedonia was granted the status of accession candidate four years ago and since then, we have constantly been asking ourselves when it would finally join the European Union. I would like to call on all the parties to ensure that the name conflict, which is currently the focus of attention, is resolved. We must make use of the momentum generated by the Council decision in December and by the new Greek Government. This momentum is diminishing day by day. I would like to explain to the parties that if we concentrate now on other topics, such as the financial crisis, the goal of Macedonia's accession will be pushed further into the background. We surely do not wish this to happen and this is why we must continue to make every effort in this area.\nMarije Cornelissen\n(NL) Over the last six months, I have seized every opportunity to travel to the Balkans and to Turkey and to talk to people there. It is tremendous to actually see what is going on on the ground there with a view to accession: major political breakthroughs, but also, and above all, entirely practical changes that benefit the people who live there.\nIn Montenegro, for example, the existence of homosexuality is finally being recognised. In Turkey, the shelters for women have finally succeeded in achieving good relations with the police, to name just two examples. We should be enthusiastic about what is being achieved in these countries and what is going well, but, at the same time, we need to be very clear about what still has to be done.\nThe European Parliament and the Member States must continue to insist on the criteria that we laid down at the beginning of the process. However, we also need to avoid watering down the power of the accession process by erecting extra obstacles.\nI just want to focus in on Macedonia for a moment. We all agree that the bilateral problem of the name must be resolved. We also all agree that the EU must provide all possible support in this process. Bilateral problems, in themselves, should not represent an obstacle to the accession process. This applies to Macedonia, but also just as much to Croatia, Serbia, Turkey, Kosovo and Iceland. For the people who live there, the prospect of accession is too important to be held hostage to the resolution of a bilateral disagreement.\nI therefore ask you all to also vote in favour of our amendment, Amendment 4, which aims to insert a new paragraph 30(2) into the report on Macedonia. I also ask you all to really bear in mind, in respect of these three reports, how very important the accession process is.\nTomasz Piotr Por\u0119ba\n(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr F\u00fcle, on your election to this capacity. I am certain we are going to work fruitfully and effectively together for further enlargement of the European Union. I am sure that you will complete the negotiation process of the European Union with Croatia before the end of the year. I am sure that you will also begin the process of negotiation with Macedonia soon. I hope this will also be this year.\nIn this speech, I would like to stress the exceptional role of Croatia as a future Member State of the European Union, particularly in the context of the defence of our common values and the security of our continent. We value the fact that Croatian units, as part of NATO, are present in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Around 300 Croatian soldiers, diplomats and police officers are also taking part in ISAF operations in three regions of Afghanistan. Our new ally has bravely supported our fight against terrorism in several NATO missions. I am certain that Croatia's membership of the European Union will contribute to continued stability in a part of Europe which only a few years ago experienced a cruel conflict and ethnic cleansing.\nIf Croatia completes all the reforms, it can finish negotiations with the European Union before the end of the year. This is a good objective, and I call upon everyone to support these efforts. We should value the fact that Zagreb has carried out numerous reforms, especially in the area of the judicial system and public administration, and also concerning the fight against corruption and organised crime. Bringing Croatia into the family of Member States of the European Union is part of our strategy to build a continent of democracy and prosperity. The example of this Balkan country confirms that the process of European Union enlargement is a strong incentive to political and economic reform in countries which aspire to membership. Let us remember this, too, when we look at our eastern neighbour, Ukraine.\nNiki Tzavela\n(EL) Mr President, over the last year, Turkey's multifaceted foreign policy has caused confusion both within the international community and among the secular section of Turkish society. Where is Turkey heading? Is it heading towards a multicultural Europe or towards a pan-Islamic state?\nMay I briefly remind the House of its political conduct towards Iran, its unacceptable diplomatic language against Israel, the dispute with Egypt on the Gaza borders and the Turkish Government's recent decision to abolish entry visas for 7 Arabic countries. As we know, many of them harbour extremist Islamic associations whose members can now easily enter Europe and the West. The issue of the abolition of visas, in particular, has outraged the secular state in Turkey.\nIf we introduce new sanctions against Iran, Turkey's stand in the UN Security Council will be a starting point for clarifying the future of modern Turkey, at which point we shall speak differently about Turkey in this Chamber.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) For understandable reasons, public opinion in Europe is sharply against the accession of Turkey, a non-European and Islamic country. The previous Commission promised that negotiations with Turkey would be suspended if it came to light that Turkey was failing in its democratic obligations and that the negotiations would have to keep pace with the reform process in Turkey. Neither of these promises has been kept.\nOn the contrary, new chapters have been opened time after time, while Turkey is moving backwards rather than forwards. Political parties are being outlawed, Kurdish mayors arrested and Christians are subject to intimidation, violence and administrative prejudice. Christian writers and academics are having to go into hiding. I have not even got on to phenomena such as forced marriages and so-called honour killings.\nWhat deadline will the Commission issue Turkey with to recognise all the Member States of the European Union? When will Turkey have to comply with the Ankara Protocol? When will the illegal military occupation of Cyprus be brought to an end?\nJos\u00e9 Ignacio Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra\n(ES) Mr President, like my fellow Members, I also wish to congratulate Mr F\u00fcle on having taken office and I hope that the excellent impression he made in his Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing will be confirmed over the course of his mandate, particularly in the sensitive area of enlargement.\nI would like to say a few words about Turkey, firstly to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten for the excellent results obtained in the committee.\nHer report, which refers to 2008 and 2009, neither overstates nor underplays matters; it highlights the efforts Turkey is making to try to meet the Copenhagen conditions and criteria.\nIn my view, however, these efforts need to be considered within Turkey's current context and political situation: seven years of Mr Erdo\u011fan's moderate Islamic government, with elections expected in July 2011; a country that is seething from the Operation Sledgehammer cases; from the annulment of the Emasya Protocol, which handed major powers over to the military; and, in particular, from the ruling that has banned the activities of the Democratic Society Party in Turkey.\nThis context, Commissioner, means that the Turkish case needs to be handled with great caution. Turkey has to meet the conditions and requirements of the Copenhagen criteria and, obviously, it has to comply with the Ankara Protocol. However, in this particular context and situation, it goes without saying, Commissioner, that if any wrong signal is sent out, it could have very serious consequences for the security of the European Union, especially when the governing party does not have the three-fifths majority it needs in parliament in order to modify the constitution; such a signal could seriously give rise to alarming turmoil in an already unstable country that is a strategic partner for the West, in the context of the Atlantic Alliance.\nWe need to use the utmost caution in the negotiating process in order not to make any mistakes.\nRichard Howitt\nMr President, first, could I repeat in public my own congratulations to Commissioner F\u00fcle. We got you up early this morning on your first day in the job, and I think it will not be the only time that we do so.\nIn Turkey, there is significant public scepticism that the EU will keep its promise and, just as you confront scepticism amongst some of our publics within the EU, your challenge, Commissioner, is to be fair and objective - and, yes, that wins public trust. But also to put the positive case for enlargement, to win over sceptic publics, and our group will support you in doing so.\nOn Turkey, the Socialist and Democrat Group remains pro-accession, pro-reform. The Commission's progress report says that reform efforts have been resumed but should be intensified. We agree. So, on this first report during the five years of this Parliament, let me focus my opening remarks on how we as a Parliament should deal with Turkey. To the rapporteur, I respect your sincere commitment to pursuing consensus in this House and I thank you for your cooperation. I hope, in future years, that you will seek agreement of the political groups before submitting plenary amendments to agreed compromises at committee, as our differences are small.\nBut the real test of your rapporteurship and for this Parliament is to ensure that we use our influence to secure, year by year, steady progress in shepherding Turkey towards accession, and that requires leadership here as well as in the country.\nTo our Cypriot colleagues we understand the pain of injustice you feel. In our group, we have sought to include you fully in our consensus, but we are determined at this crucial time to seek to take positions which support reconciliation efforts to provide justice to both communities and not to prejudge their outcome on behalf of either side.\nTo others in this House, constructive criticism of Turkey is needed; we ourselves are critical friends. But to those who speak in this debate opposing Turkey, we say that you are a minority; too many of you are motivated by religious intolerance against Islam and seeking your own political advantage by deliberately creating false fears about immigration. These arguments are loathsome and repellent, and so are you.\nFinally, to the majority of this House who want Turkey's accession, we have to say so again and again. The shrill voice of the rejectionist must not be allowed to drown us out. We expect our Turkish counterparts to continue to make painful changes in their own society with difficult impact on their domestic politics.\nThese reforms are good in their own right, but, those of us who say in this Parliament we want accession: we have to make their pain worthwhile by ourselves doing what we say, opening and closing chapters on merit, delivering the promises of the Council, ourselves acting in good faith.\nNorica Nicolai\n(RO) I am only going to refer to Macedonia in my speech as I want to stress that the report records progress in Macedonia's situation and supports a political decision to launch negotiations with this country.\nI am not going to mention the report's balance and the way in which it describes in detail the positive and negative factors the country is contending with.\nI would like to emphasise two things. The exit polls and opinion polls in Macedonia highlight that this country is one of the most 'Euro-optimistic' in the region. I think that support from the population is a condition for success in the negotiation process. Secondly, I think that, as a Member State of the European Union, Greece must understand the European models for reconciling with history and make every effort to ensure that the dispute over the name of Macedonia does not present an obstacle to this country's progress towards Europe, because any other attitude is contrary to the spirit and destiny of Europe.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Flautre\n(FR) Mr President, firstly, I should like to welcome and congratulate Commissioner F\u00fcle.\nThe 12th hearing of the trial of the alleged assassins of Hrant Dink was held in Istanbul on Monday. For the first time, official observers at that trial felt that the court was sincerely trying to establish the truth and that the connections between this trial - that of the alleged assassins of Hrant Dink - and other trials under way - such as that of the Ergenekon network - had been highlighted by the prosecutor.\nThis fact is extremely significant because it is every political assassination, intolerance within society and the impunity that still prevails that are being put on trial here. Moreover, this is a view that the families of the victims of these political assassinations eloquently expressed when, referring to the Turkish 'Deep State', they declared themselves to be Hrant Dink's 'deep family'. I am telling you this because things are moving forward and because, within Turkish civil society, there is a desire and a movement for reform aimed at promoting democracy and rights, and this desire and this movement are exceptionally powerful.\nI should also like to cite another example which is making the headlines in the newspapers at the moment -family honour crimes have already been mentioned - and that is the young 16-year-old girl who was found buried in a chicken pen and who had been sentenced by the family council for having spoken to boys. This is terrifying and it is a crime. The members of that family will obviously have to be put in prison.\nThe fact is, a few years ago, these crimes did not make the headlines. It is therefore pleasing today to see that these so-called 'honour crimes', which are simply barbaric crimes, are no longer being tolerated in Turkish society. Turkish society is in a state of flux, it is in turmoil even, and I think that, when we discuss Turkey, we must be keenly aware that any reform in that country deeply affects relations between citizens, the establishment, Turkish history and democracy. These are absolutely crucial elements.\nI believe that our process must be totally sincere. Today, the sincerity of our process is acknowledged, and it matches our ability to support the complicated, critical and historic process in Cyprus. Today, the EU must say clearly to Cyprus that we are ready to support and to guarantee, using all the means at our disposal, economic and financial means included, any agreement reached between the north and the south and that we are also determined to ensure that nothing in the body of EU law can hinder the achievement of a consensus in Cyprus. We must forge ahead; the future of Turkey's membership of the EU is also riding on this issue.\nGeoffrey Van Orden\nMr President, it is not often that I agree with Mrs Flautre, but I do agree with many of the remarks she has just made. First of all, could I call for more honesty in our approach to Turkey. I am sure all of us want good relations with Turkey and many of us, probably the majority, wish to see Turkey one day as a member of the European Union, a different European Union to what is being developed today. It is because some recognise that Turkish accession would inevitably change the nature of the EU project, driving as it is towards unwanted political integration, that they are so resistant to it.\nI have one or two questions for the Commission. What has happened to the negotiations with Turkey? Why are so few chapters open? At a time when, in all our countries, we have serious concerns about energy security, and Turkey is in such a key geographical position in providing the routes for pipelines from the Caspian, why is the energy chapter not open? And, with presidential elections imminent in Cyprus, and unification talks in progress, Cyprus is very much on our minds. Turkey, of course, can hardly ever be discussed in this Chamber without reference to Cyprus, but perhaps it would be more helpful if instead of always criticising Turkey, the EU endeavoured to provide it with more support on this issue. Why do we just call on Turkey to use its influence when Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, both EU members, have a crucial role to play?\nI agree that the Turkish garrison in Northern Cyprus should be much reduced. In fact, I regularly propose to Turkish emissaries that a unilateral reduction in troops would be a bold confidence-building measure, but we all know that had the Annan Plan been put into effect, the Turkish troop presence would have been reduced to a mere 650 and the Greek presence to 950. It is scandalous that no real progress has been made in opening international trade with Northern Cyprus. Why has the European Union not kept its promise given in May 2004 to end the isolation of Northern Cyprus?\nOf all the places in the world where the EU might actually play a useful role and exert some benign influence, Cyprus stands out - yet we are absent. Let us not blame Turkey for the EU's internal difficulties.\nCharalampos Angourakis\n(EL) Mr President, our stand against the enlargement of the European Union is consistent with our stand against the integration of Greece, my country, into the European Union and with the fight to free it from this imperialist machine.\nThe entire enlargement process is in keeping with the strengthening of NATO and the NATO occupation of the Western Balkans, with the secession of Kosovo and with the destabilisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the European Union's contesting the borders and stability in the area, with coercion against the people of Serbia, with new frictions and oppositions in the Balkans.\nBecause the so-called bilateral issues are not bilateral issues at all; they are international issues, which is why they are being addressed by the UN. At the same time, there is an unbelievable crisis in the area of the Balkans, obviously caused by the reforms to which the people in these counties have been subjected in order to accede to the European Union.\nThis process is in keeping with Ankara's intransigence on the Cyprus question, with the casus belli in the Aegean, which is being backed by Frontex contesting the borders in the area, and by effectively banning trade unionism and other anti-democratic arrangements in Turkey.\nThis is yet another reason why we stand by the workers in these countries against integration, so that they can fight for their rights.\nLorenzo Fontana\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Swedish and Spanish Presidencies have made Turkey's membership of the European Union a priority topic, as though it were now a foregone conclusion.\nWe do not feel that Turkey's membership is either realistic or opportune for many reasons. Firstly, because Turkey is not geographically located within Europe; secondly, because Turkey is becoming more and more Islamic and Ankara is actually a leading member of the largest international pan-Islamic organisation, the OIC; thirdly, because religious minorities are persecuted and their inferiority is ingrained in society; fourthly, because Turkey continues to officially deny the genocide of one and a half million Armenian Christians and occupies Cyprus in both military and political terms in breach of international law.\nWe must also remember that with Turkey in the European Union, we will have countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria on our borders. Lastly, we must also remember that Turkey, with its 90 million inhabitants, will be the most populated country in the European Union by 2030. This means that it would have the highest number of MEPs and the most significant percentage vote in the European Council; the balance of Europe would certainly be destabilised.\nDiane Dodds\nMr President, like many other colleagues within this Chamber this morning, I would appeal for honesty and realism in the debate in relation in particular to Turkey. I welcome those colleagues who have asked for proactive support for Cyprus in reaching some sort of resolution with Turkey.\nI want to turn our attention very quickly to one aspect of this that has come to my attention, and that is the plight of many of the citizens whom I represent who are suffering grave financial loss as a result of property scams within Turkey. Since I became an MEP in July, I have been contacted by many constituents who have invested substantial sums of money in properties, ranging from EUR 50 000 to EUR 150 000, and who have subsequently lost out on that investment in what, in many cases, looks like blatant fraudulent activity. I would request that the Commission look into this and act proactively in relation to it.\nElmar Brok\n(DE) Mr President, Mr L\u00f3pez Garrido, Commissioner, until now, the enlargement policy has been successful, although as we have seen in the last round, we must focus more closely in particular on the internal developments in these countries with regard to the rule of law, corruption and similar issues. I believe that this is happening in the current negotiations. In my opinion, we have made very good progress with Croatia and we can complete the process quickly. However, it is, of course, important that the Copenhagen criteria are met in every case, including the integration capacity of the European Union, because we must be aware of the risk of overstretching ourselves.\nWe will meet our obligations to the Western Balkans, but in individual cases, the path may be a long one. We must be aware of this, so that we do not arouse false hopes. On the other hand, it is clear that the European perspective is a valuable tool and perhaps the only one available for maintaining a certain amount of pressure to ensure that the internal reform process in these countries continues, with regard both to the maturity of the market and the political system.\nI have problems with Turkey when I look at its behaviour towards Berlin and when I consider Cyprus, religious freedom, freedom of opinion, the ban on political parties and similar issues. I can only ask myself whether the last steps that are needed - from the point of view of the mentality and not of the form - will be taken to ensure that Turkey can become a member and whether we can be sure that the European Union has the capacity to integrate Turkey.\nMr F\u00fcle, you have an important opportunity, because you have a broader range of responsibilities, which include enlargement policy and neighbourhood policy. Both of these things relate to the European perspective, but they use different toolboxes. For this reason, you have an interesting job and I hope very much that you enjoy it.\nMichael Cashman\nMr President, I welcome the accession reports and I want to speak specifically on Macedonia and Croatia, and then Turkey. I am pleased to follow my distinguished friend, Mr Brok, who mentioned the Copenhagen criteria. Can I reinforce that the Copenhagen criteria are non-negotiable, especially when it comes to minority rights and human rights, and Macedonia and Croatia are therefore failing to reflect the Community acquis, especially as regards non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.\nI would say to both of those countries that the accession procedure is an opportunity to bring your laws into line and to explain to your citizens the need to do so, and that once you join this club you, do not join a club which is based on an \u00e0 la carte menu. We will enforce the acquis rigorously, and especially Article 19, which gives the Union the right to combat discrimination on the grounds of - and it is a very important list - race, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, disability and sexual orientation. Why is this important? Because one person could experience discrimination on each separate ground, and to do nothing on one is to make irrelevant all the good that you have done on the other. I therefore say that lesbian, gay and bisexual rights are non-negotiable. Bring in anti-discrimination legislation now. The litmus test of any civilisation is not how it treats its majority, but how it treats the minorities that make up that majority.\nOn Turkey, there has been progress, and I am pleased to quote Ban Ki-moon, who says that there has been progress on Cyprus. We in Parliament should welcome that. Mrs Dodds is right: if we are going to be a part of the resolution, we have to be absolutely honest and bring the sides together. But again, on anti-discrimination, I wish them to go further.\nNon-discrimination is in the Constitution, but it needs to be reflected in the laws, especially again in relation to lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgendered people who are often murdered for no other reason than they are transsexual. So, allow Turkey to proceed along this route, on the same terms, the same conditions. If we undermine the principles of accession, we have no principles left.\nAlexander Graf Lambsdorff\n(DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that I am rather surprised that, of all people, Mr Cashman from the United Kingdom, who I hold in great esteem, should remind us that a country which joins the European Union must become involved in every aspect of the Union and cannot take an \u00e0 la carte approach. That seems rather strange to me.\nHowever, I would like to discuss the subject of Turkey. Other speakers have said that Turkey is a society in motion and that is true. However, for the sake of honesty, we must explain that this is not a linear movement towards European values. Turkey is moving forwards and backwards. Let us take the example of the armed forces. We are, of course, pleased about the decree that prevents the armed forces from intervening without political authorisation. This is a good thing. However, the judgment of the constitutional court also makes up another part of the picture and this prevents members of the armed forces from being brought before civilian courts. That, of course, is not a good thing.\nIf we look at the example of freedom of speech and opinion, it is true that there is a lively debate taking place on a number of topics which were previously taboo, including the rights of minorities and sexual minorities, Mr Cashman. We think that is very good. However, at the same time, there is the ban on YouTube and there are legal provisions which create a framework that generates legal uncertainty about the question of freedom of speech and opinion, which is particularly important to the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. There is also the 'private war' against the Do\u011fan group. All of this is very unfortunate.\nAnother example is that of the role of women. Of course, it is good that so-called honour killings, which are a barbaric crime, are being discussed in the media, but do we really believe that Turkish society is moving in a linear fashion towards adopting European values on equality? I do not think that this is the case.\nI would also like to say something about what Mr Howitt has said. It is true that we have a process - the accession negotiations - which we must follow in good faith. However, this is not an automatic process. During this process, we are not only responsible for the accession candidate. Our primary responsibility is to the European Union. Our enlargement policy must be credible and we need to take an honest and credible approach to the accession candidates. I must say that I sometimes find it disturbing that there is an alliance between the Greens, who want a strong Europe and enlargement as soon as possible, and Members such as Mr van Orden, who want to bring in new countries as quickly as possible in order to weaken the European Union. This seems to me very strange.\nThere is an accession perspective, but accession will only come about when all the criteria have been met.\n(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))\nMichael Cashman\nMr President, Mr Lambsdorff made an accusation against the United Kingdom. I would ask him to point out to the House where the United Kingdom is in breach of its treaty obligations.\nAlexander Graf Lambsdorff\n(DE) Mr President, I did not say that the United Kingdom is in breach of its treaty obligations. I simply referred to the fact that the United Kingdom opted out of certain important areas of policy relating to European integration, such as Schengen, the Euro, the Social Charter and - if I have understood this correctly - the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These are all areas which are not exactly marginal.\nUlrike Lunacek\n(DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say to Mr Lambsdorff that I reject your accusation. You said that the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance wanted enlargement at any price. It is quite clear to us that we are in favour of enlargement, including Turkey and the Balkans, of course, but only if all the criteria are met. On the subject of Turkey, I would like to say that, despite all the problems that have been referred to today, I believe that the Turkish Government has the will to continue. For example, the Ministry of Interior has annulled the protocol which, until now, has allowed the armed forces to intervene independently in security issues. This is very important. I hope that a majority of this House will support our Amendment 10 which concerns keeping track of the goal of accession. This is the only way in which the EU can maintain its credibility with regard to the promises it has made - the goal of accession, with all the criteria being met.\nOn the question of Macedonia, there has been a great deal of progress in many areas. I recognise this and I am pleased about it. However, with reference to one point which Mr Cashman has already mentioned, it is not right for a government to introduce anti-discrimination legislation that does not include sexual orientation. That is European law. Human rights are not negotiable and I hope that a majority of this House will also vote in favour of these common European human rights in our amendment.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you, Mr F\u00fcle, and to say I hope you will be as good a Commissioner as you were a candidate. Your hearing was truly superb. I would like to assure Mr Lambsdorff that Mr Van Orden loves Europe very much. However, he does not want Euro-bureaucracy to come between that Europe and its citizens.\nWe are talking, today, about enlargement, and it is good that we are talking about it, because, and let us not hide this, the European Union is going through a certain institutional crisis, and so one way of moving out of it is to enlarge the European Union. This could give us a certain energy, a certain vigour, so it is worth taking this route. A Europe without that Balkan lung is not Europe. The accession of Croatia, a European country with a European culture and a European history, should be accomplished as quickly as possible. However, let us also think realistically about receiving into membership as quickly as possible countries such as Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is something which is, truly, very important. Turkey's membership is something which is much further away, and certainly will not happen within the next 10 years.\nNikolaos Chountis\n(EL) Mr President, the fact that, as the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, we are in favour of the enlargement of the European Union, especially as regards the Western Balkans, does not mean that we are not concerned about two things:\nThe first is that what is ultimately being fabricated is not a Europe of social cohesion and solidarity; it is marketplace Europe and, secondly, in certain instances, enlargement policy has problematic relations with international law. I refer to the report on FYROM in which, where the rapporteur does not unilaterally resolve the name issue, as in paragraph 17, he systematically avoids stating that the solution is being sought and must be sought within the UN. This reference makes the problem an international problem, as indeed it is, not a bilateral problem, and sends out a more accurate message than just generally hoping that the problem will resolve itself.\nAlso, o tempora o mores you may say, the fact that FYROM is participating - I repeat participating - in EU military missions in Afghanistan is considered to be an important attribute for FYROM, a country with poor economic and military resources, as is the fact that it unilaterally recognises Kosovo, contrary to UN Resolution 1244\/1999.\nPolitical enlargement with problematic relations with international law is, I would say, problematic in itself.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) I would like to begin by saying that I consider the reports on Croatia and Macedonia to be good and well-prepared reports and I think we should applaud the work of the rapporteurs and back the adoption of the reports.\nAs far as Turkey is concerned, I get the feeling that we are playing hide and seek in this area. The Turkish authorities outwardly declare efforts to change but in the real world, there is little change in society. Fathers still sell their daughters or swap them for cattle. The men who buy wives treat them like slaves.\nI firmly believe that the process of convergence of civilisations will be complicated and lengthy and it will be simple neither for us nor for Turkish society. I therefore think that in this case, we must arm ourselves with patience and we must be prepared for long negotiations but, in these negotiations, we must act correctly and honourably and speak openly about all of the problems. It is in our interests and also in the interests of the Turkish people, and when this problem is sorted out and brought to a successful conclusion, it will be an achievement both for Europe and for Turkey.\nIoannis Kasoulides\nMr President, in the EPP Group, everybody is in favour of following the Commission recommendations that FYROM should begin accession negotiations. We also know that FYROM and Greece need to reach an agreement on the name issue so that these negotiations can begin.\nThe name issue is a real political issue in Greece. No Greek Government can survive if negotiations are allowed to begin without an agreement on the name. This is a political reality. Irrespective of how colleagues judge this issue, if we want to be good advisers, we must give FYROM friendly, flexible advice. By dismissing the name issue, calling it 'comical' for instance, we become bad advisers to FYROM and we do not serve its cause.\nTurkey should know how large the Turkish dossier is for a country with its size of population. It regards the capacity of the EU to absorb such an enlargement, the budgetary constraints and so on, so Turkey should understand how much easier - and without obstacles and frozen chapters - her accession road would be without the weight of the problem of Cyprus. It needs to contribute on the issue of guarantees, the presence of troops and the right of unilateral military intervention that Cyprus does not need.\nVictor Bo\u015ftinaru\nMr President, I welcome all the efforts and the progress made by Croatia towards its accession to the European Union. This will certainly represent a major step forward in the direction of European integration for the entire Western Balkans region. I hope 2010 will be a very good year for Croatia and for the Western Balkans too, but I would also like to underline the necessity of considering and adequately addressing the issue of refugees and the internally displaced persons.\nSee the last report of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. As you know, in 2005, an agreement was signed in Sarajevo by Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro - the so-called Sarajevo Declaration. The agreement was aimed at sorting out the problem of the very large numbers of refugees and internally displaced people deriving from the conflict in the region. However, this is an issue that is still pending. I would very much like Croatia to finally affirm its readiness to relaunch the Sarajevo Declaration and to bring to an end a situation that I consider highly sensitive, and this at least before its accession.\nI welcome very much the commitment of the Commission to relaunch this spring the negotiations and I reiterate in front of you that this problem should be solved once and for all before Croatia joins the EU.\nA final remark on Turkey: when evaluating Turkey, I would invite you not to let our prejudgment based on religion, ethnicity and clich\u00e9s to speak.\nLena Ek\n(SV) Mr President, as Vice-Chair of Parliament's Delegation to Croatia, I am looking forward to the day when we have Croatian members sitting on the benches in this Parliament. Croatia has come a long way in its efforts to achieve membership and has taken many difficult decisions in order to deal with the European dimension. Important pieces of the jigsaw have yet to be put in place before membership can be accomplished.\nOne matter that is very close to my heart is decentralisation; in other words, political decisions being taken as close to the people as possible. When we add a fourth level of decision making, such as in the case of EU membership, it is incredibly important that people are aware of which decisions are to be taken at local, regional, national and EU level. On this matter, the progress report indicates that there is still much to do.\nOther outstanding weak points are legal certainty, the fight against corruption and the position of women in the labour market - areas in which Croatia must make greater efforts. However, I can see that a huge amount of progress is being made and that the new Croatian Government also attaches great importance to these issues. I really hope that it will not be long before we have our Croatian colleagues with us in this Parliament.\nMichail Tremopoulos\n(EL) Mr President, I should like to point out that the Balkans are trying today, as they did for the whole of the 20th century, to strike a balance between the difficult heritage of nationalism and the need for common European prospects in the immediate future.\nToday's motion for a resolution on FYROM tries to mirror this delicate balance. However, it does not succeed adequately. The pressure for negotiations to commence immediately is creating fears of sending the wrong signal to the talks on the name issue. Indefinite postponement, on the other hand, might encourage equally unproductive behaviour once again.\nSome of the amendments are positive. However, I would point out that any form of nationalism damages its own country first. Greece must strike its own balance. As a Greek Macedonian, I call for greater composure; what we need in the dispute over the name is for the two different self-determinations which both use the name Macedonia to coexist. This sort of compromise would be a catalyst for building the mutual trust which is vitally necessary in these times of ecological crisis, when immediate neighbours must be seen as necessary collaborators in combating it.\nEdvard Ko\u017eu\u0161n\u00edk\n(CS) I would like to begin by thanking all of my fellow Members for producing the entire report. At the same time, I would like to welcome the new Commissioner and to wish him every success with his highly interesting portfolio. I have only three comments, since much has been said here already in the debate. In my opinion, we should also emphasise the fact that expansion itself must be understood as one of the possible solutions for restoring economic growth in the European Union and we should not lose sight of that. My second comment relates to the word 'comprehensiveness'. In my opinion, we must take a comprehensive view of the Balkan issue and we cannot focus on just one specific country, be it Croatia or Macedonia, but we should be dealing with the issue of a comprehensive approach involving countries, for example, such as Serbia. In the case of Turkey, too, we must give a clear 'yes' or 'no' as it is not possible to pull the wool over Turkey's eyes and to promise possible future membership. We must give a clear 'yes' or 'no'.\nWilly Meyer\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, at the moment, the European Union should be closely following the negotiations that are taking place at the highest level with the leaders of the two main communities in Cyprus.\nTurkey is playing a very negative role in those negotiations. It is not backing a sensible solution and the European Union therefore has to send out a clear, unequivocal message: Turkey cannot keep the 40 000 soldiers who are occupying the northern part of Cyprus in contravention of international law. It cannot continue to occupy the city of Famagusta in breach of the United Nations Security Council Resolution. It cannot continue sending to the northern part of the island settlers who are stifling the Turkish Cypriot community. That is the path Turkey is taking at the moment.\nThe European Union, the Commission, the Council and Parliament need to send out an unambiguous message to Turkey: if Turkey maintains its position, it will never be able to join the European Union. That is the message that should be conveyed at this critical point in negotiations over the reunification of Cyprus, which is a Member State of the European Union.\nNikolaos Salavrakos\n(EL) Mr President, I do not overlook the fact that Turkey is a large country which, however, apart from the internal social problems noted in the report, acts - in my opinion - in a contradictory manner in its foreign policy.\nThus, while the Turkish Government is trying to present itself as moderate, the armed forces of the country appear to be aggressive both towards Greece, constantly violating Greek airspace in the Aegean, and constantly harassing Frontex. It should be noted that, despite the fact that Greece and Turkey are NATO countries, and so are allies, Turkey is threatening Greece with a casus belli in terms of extending its territorial waters and by refusing to recognise the state of Cyprus, which is a member of the European Union.\nFinally, the Turkish Government also appears to be unable at the moment to safeguard popular sovereignty in the country and is planning a new type of Ottoman commonwealth, as was clear from the meeting in Sarajevo at the beginning of November attended by Minister Davutoglu. I also find strange the moves by the Turkish Government in terms of its overtures to Iran, which conflict with the accepted views of the international community and the European Union.\nMoreover, we should not overlook the fact that, in contravention of the roadmap, Turkey is allowing and, perhaps, encouraging the movement of illegal immigrants through its territory to the countries of the European Union and is not complying with its obligations to grant docking and landing rights to Cypriot ships and aircraft.\nGunnar H\u00f6kmark\nMr President, I would like to thank Mr Swoboda for his report on Croatia; it recognises the efforts and achievements made by the Croatian Government. I think it is important to say that this country is now coming closer to membership, which underlines - and I say this to the Presidency of the Council - that there is a need to finalise the negotiations with Croatia during 2010.\nBut I think it is also worth underlining the message that the efforts made by Croatia have not been done for us. They are making Croatia a better country and a better society for its citizens and by that, Croatia is becoming a better neighbour and contributing to Europe, because fights against organised crime or corruption must be made across borders, and it is an advantage for us to see the achievements made in Croatia.\nThe same applies to other candidate countries. All the achievements we can see are of benefit to Europe and, I must say, given the experience we have on the enlargement process, we have very few regrets on the achievements we have made; we should have the same perspective when we talk about Turkey, Macedonia or the other countries of the Western Balkans. When they reform, they are becoming neighbours. When we close the door, we are running the risk of new problems and new threats to European values; we should underline the need to go forward together in order to achieve a better European enlargement based on the criteria we fully support.\nLuigi Berlinguer\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, concluding negotiations with Croatia during 2010 is a feasible aim and the Swoboda report is a balanced examination of our progress and the steps we still need to take.\nJustice is now the area in which hard-hitting reform is still required. It is not enough to complete the necessary system reforms, adopt new laws and cooperate as required with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.\nI stress the need to build a true legal culture and mentality in line with European standards. Crucial to this is the independence of the judiciary, which is a central issue, and also the training, recruitment and career of magistrates, in other words, the fact that the government must not impose conditions of any kind on judges. I call on the Commission to consider the need for hard-hitting measures that address these issues during the final stage of the negotiations.\nAndrew Duff\nMr President, greetings to Commissioner F\u00fcle. The talks between Mr Christofias and Mr Talat are, as we know, at a critical stage. For them to succeed, a settlement has to be carried by public opinion. Confidence-building is sorely required. Turkey should send signals. Unfortunately, the trade dossier appears to be completely blocked, so starting to pull out troops is a difficult, but clever, gesture to build up public support in the south and in the north, to show that the prospect of a permanent settlement is actually genuine.\nWe all appreciate that, if the Cypriot problem is not solved now, the prospects for progress with Turkey's accession are poor indeed. The time to act is now. I do hope that the Commission is going to respond to the several speakers who brought up the Cypriot question as part of its response to the debate.\nMario Mauro\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to back the membership of Croatia and this is why we call on the Croatian authorities to ensure that the assets nationalised to Italian citizens at the end of World War II, and still owned by state or municipal institutions, despite the requirements of European law, should be returned to their legitimate owners.\nWe wish to back the membership of the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and this is why we call for compliance with the method of consensus, part of the history of the European Union, and we call on the European institutions to offer their sympathetic support for the views of all of the Member States on the reasons that still block this path.\nWe wish to speak the language of truth with Turkey. The Oomen-Ruijten report has this merit: it does not deny that the path is strewn with difficulties and it is unprejudiced, taking the Copenhagen criteria as its fixed point of reference. Parliament therefore does well to forcefully denounce the human rights violations and the lack of democracy.\nBut those who make the path of this membership application almost paradoxical are not to be found in this Chamber. They can be found amongst the exponents of many governments who promise at every official meeting what it is in their interests to deny in the corridors outside. Based on the Oomen-Ruijten report, though, it is useful to keep strengthening the tools of privileged partnership as we await a development determined not by prejudice but by the full and responsible assimilation of the content of the Community acquis.\nKinga G\u00f6ncz\n(HU) I would like to comment on the report on Croatia and Macedonia. I think it is important to state that the advancement of the accession process for south-eastern European countries is prominently in the interests of the European Union, as stability, prosperity and the progress of reform in the region is important not only for the candidate countries but for the entire European Union. In the case of both countries, issues concerning neighbourly relations have stalled progress. I believe that it is extremely important to use appropriate political wisdom, courage and mutual good will to solve these issues, not only on the part of these candidate countries, but also on the part of the Member States of the European Union. This happened in the case of Croatia, and I truly hope that the commitment of the Spanish Presidency will also boost progress in the name issue affecting Macedonia and Greece. As the third member of the Trio Presidency, Hungary would like to continue and assist with this process.\nNadja Hirsch\n(DE) Madam President, firstly, congratulations to Mr F\u00fcle on his appointment as Commissioner. I would also like to congratulate Mr Swoboda, the rapporteur, on his report. It is a very balanced presentation of the progress made in Croatia. At the same time, it clearly indicates the areas where Croatia still has work to do in order to be able to complete the accession process.\nIt is also significant that statistics taken from a Eurobarometer survey carried out in the autumn of last year show that 84% of Croats are dissatisfied with democracy in their country. This means that not only are reforms to the judiciary required, but also an improvement in the situation of minorities. It is also important to ensure that the freedom of the press is guaranteed. These reforms must be initiated and implemented and, above all, they must be supported by the population. In formal terms, the criteria can certainly be met very quickly, but the entire population must be behind the process and must welcome Croatia's accession to the EU.\nJaros\u0142aw Leszek Wa\u0142\u0119sa\n(PL) Madam President, the accession of Turkey to the European Union is a cause of much controversy in some circles. For that process to take place with mutual understanding, it must be assured a high level of quality. Fulfilment of strict but clear conditions, which are understandable and accepted by both sides, is the basis for reception of new members, and this also applies to Turkey.\nI would now like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, for a comprehensive report on Turkey's progress in 2009. This year, the report is more critical, and, unfortunately, rightly draws attention to the small amount of progress made by Turkey, especially on questions of citizens' freedoms and the justice system. However, stagnation in the process of democratisation was not all that happened last year, so it is necessary to be critical where progress was not made or where the situation became worse, but also to show that we value the changes for the better. For, on the one hand, the need to strengthen the principles of the rule of law is being neglected, and the constitution is based on this law, so this should be made a priority. On the other hand, Turkey is putting great effort into the negotiations which have been started, and I welcome the changes and Turkey's desire to continue reforms in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria.\nHowever, good intentions are not everything. Ankara still has many challenges ahead on the road to membership of the European Union, and those challenges are not easy. I trust that Turkey will manage to overcome all the obstacles, and I wish the country success in reforming itself.\nDebora Serracchiani\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia's membership of the European Union accentuates the gelling of a European identity that is able to express the common values of our new Europe while incorporating, rather than glossing over, the individualities of its many occupants.\nThe Republic of Croatia has made appreciable efforts to come up to the required standards, particularly in combating organised crime through new anti-mafia measures, but it needs to make further efforts, particularly in the judicial field, before the 2010 negotiations can conclude.\nThe institutions of the Republic of Croatia can make further steps forward to come into line with the requirements of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Paris in 1952, by considering the return of nationalised assets to their rightful owners.\nSophia in 't Veld\nMadam President, first of all, I, too, would like to welcome Commissioner F\u00fcle to this House.\nThe rapporteur has submitted a very balanced draft resolution. Turkey has indeed made good progress, but many points of concern must be addressed urgently. The horrible phenomenon of honour killings must be stamped out as well as the killing of transgender persons. Just yesterday, we learned of the umpteenth killing of a transgender woman in Antalya. The Turkish Government must ensure, as a matter of urgency, that transgender killings no longer go unpunished.\nFurthermore, I appeal once again to the Turkish Government to ensure freedom of association and put an end to the systematic attempts to close down LGTB organisations. The resolution rightly urges freedom of religion and freedom of expression. For a liberal, these freedoms are at the heart of our democracy and are non-negotiable preconditions for EU membership.\nHowever, if we ask Turkey to comply with EU standards, we must make sure to meet these standards ourselves. That is a matter of credibility and moral authority. Homophobia, compulsory religious education and restrictions of freedom of the press must equally be fought in the current Member States.\nCristian Dan Preda\n(RO) As is also highlighted in the Oomen-Ruijten report, in 2009, Turkey made a clear commitment to the path of reform and good relations with its neighbours. Furthermore, the authorities have encouraged public debate on certain areas of key importance to the reform process such as: the role of the judiciary, the rights of ethnic minorities and the role of the army in this country's political life.\nOn the other hand, the signing of the Nabucco agreement has shown Turkey's involvement in creating a secure gas supply within Europe, as is also demonstrated by Turkey's negotiations to join the European Energy Community.\nTurkey has shown the key role it plays as an actor in the region by establishing normal relations with Armenia and improving relations with Iraq and the regional Kurdish Government. We certainly must not forget either its cooperation within the Black Sea Synergy launched three years ago with the aim of promoting stability and reforms in the countries around the Black Sea.\nFinally, I would not like us to forget some of the fundamental reasons which advocate this country's accession to the European Union. Turkey is clearly a member of the European family and is an important partner in the dialogue between civilisations. Bringing a secular, democratic and modern Turkey closer to the European Union is certainly an asset for our community.\nCsaba S\u00e1ndor Tabajdi\n(HU) I am very glad that the enlargement portfolio will be held by Commissioner F\u00fcle who, as a Central European politician, is best placed to understand the heavy burden that south-eastern Europe and the Western Balkans carry in terms of ethnic and interethnic conflicts and bilateral neighbourly disputes. The Western Balkans and the Balkans have never been stable except during the brief era of Tito's Yugoslavia. Accession to the Union is the only option to stabilise the region. This was proved by the 2004 and 2007 accessions, as illustrated, for instance, by the significant positive effect on relations between Hungary and Romania.\nAt the same time, I would like to draw Commissioner F\u00fcle's and Parliament's attention to the fact that all interethnic problems, all important issues and neighbourly relations need to be resolved prior to accession, as the European Union will be powerless in the face of such issues after accession. Just look at the unresolved problem of Russians in Latvia, or at Slovakia, where the policies of the Fico Government have led to a souring of relations between the Slovak majority and the Hungarian minority.\nTherefore, in the case of the Western Balkans, where such problems are even more complicated, it is particularly important to settle them in relation to each country. Croatia is a neighbour country of Hungary, so it is of the utmost importance that Croatia becomes a member of the European Union as soon as possible. It is very important for Croatia to face its responsibilities in terms of the war, and to allow the refugees to return. This is a very important issue. Negotiations should be started with Macedonia as soon as possible, as also mentioned by Mr Thaler in his excellent report. Finally, with regard to Turkey, as long as the Kurds are not granted autonomy in the broadest possible sense, as long as the rights of women and sexual minorities are not resolved and Turkey does not apologise for the Armenian genocide, Turkey cannot become a member of the European Union.\nMetin Kazak\n(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mrs Oomen-Ruijten on her painstaking work. However, there seems to me to be a difference between the text adopted last year and the one that is now being proposed to us on Turkey.\nParliament, in its 2009 resolution, highlighted the negotiations in Cyprus but did not set any preconditions associated with the colonies or the Famagusta situation. These issues are dealt with in the six negotiating chapters which are being handled under the auspices of the UN. I therefore think that Parliament's taking such a strong, one-sided position may harm these negotiations and render us partisan.\nAs the former commissioner emphasised on 16 November 2006, the restitution of Famagusta to its legitimate inhabitants is an issue which will have to be dealt with under the auspices of the UN, as part of an overall settlement of the Cyprus issue.\nI should like to quote another of the Council's conclusions. In 2004, the Turkish Cypriot community clearly expressed its desire to have a future within the EU. The Council resolved to put an end to the isolation of that community and to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community.\n(Applause)\nGy\u00f6rgy Sch\u00f6pflin\nMadam President, I should like to welcome Commissioner F\u00fcle and the Minister. Everybody will be pleased by the progress that Croatia is making in the completion of its accession process. Key areas of governance must be adapted to the requirements of the acquis, and some of these changes - let us be clear about this - are likely to go against the grain of tradition and expectations. So, negotiating the transformation demands a major act of political will.\nLet me add that the effort is well worthwhile, especially for a relatively small state like Croatia or, for that matter - and the same applies - for the other states of the Western Balkans. EU membership - I think we can take this for granted - provides a set of advantages in political, economic, cultural and security terms.\nThe greatest problem of adaptation, though, lies elsewhere. It is one thing to change the structures of governance but it is a very different matter to change the attitudes of society to something radically different to the forms and content that have been developed in the European Union. The two are frequently far from each other, and there will certainly be elements in society, some quite powerful ones at that, which will see only disadvantages for themselves in the new dispensation.\nLet there be no illusions about this. The Croatian authorities have not only to complete their negotiations with the European Union but, at the same time, they must also do what they can to change social attitudes. That may turn out to be the harder task.\nMaria Eleni Koppa\n(EL) Madam President, the three reports we are debating today express the European Parliament's firm position on the continuing enlargement process. However, there are important differences.\nMay I start by congratulating Hannes Swoboda on his report on Croatia. We are all delighted that this country will shortly be joining the European Union.\nAs far as Turkey is concerned, the message from the exceptionally balanced report by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten remains the same as in previous years. Turkey needs to honour all its contractual obligations, as all previous candidate countries have done. Accession is and must be the ultimate objective. However, we cannot have \u00e0 la carte accession tailored to Turkey. Turkey is a large country, which needs to accept that continuing reform, respect for human rights, proper help in resolving the Cyprus question, good neighbourly relations and removing the casus belli against a Member State are the steps that will bring it closer to the Union.\nAs far as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is concerned, the report by Mr Zoran Thaler sends the country a positive message. Greece, for its part, calls on the leaders of FYROM to come to the negotiating table in good faith, so that a jointly acceptable solution can be found within the framework of the UN. The Greek Government knows that the process requires new momentum and is genuinely determined that the issue be resolved. We expect an equally honest stand from the other side.\nAndrey Kovatchev\n(BG) Madam President, Commissioner F\u00fcle, welcome to the House. I wish you every success in your work. I wish to thank Mr Swoboda, Mr Thaler and Mrs Oomen-Ruijten for their balanced, objective reports.\nThe European Parliament has declared on numerous occasions its political desire for the countries of the Western Balkans to join the European Union and expressed its readiness to assist these states so that they can quickly meet the membership criteria. Croatia is in the home straight. I strongly hope that the Accession Treaty for this country will be signed by this year. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has made progress in meeting the criteria for initiating the pre-accession process. The European Council is expected to reaffirm the European Commission's decision made at the end of last year and launch the accession process. For this to happen, I believe that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia needs to make further efforts to resolve problems with its neighbours in a European spirit. If the authorities in Skopje have the political will not to use history, whether ancient or more recent, and to argue about current political or national intentions, a compromise can be reached. History must bring us together and not tear us apart. Let the historians come to their academic conclusions, but they must not stand in the way of the European destiny of any candidate country. So-called hate talk must not be tolerated. I want to mention in particular the schoolbooks which children use in school. They must not contain descriptions inciting a hostile attitude towards other Member States.\nThe way to increase trust in the Balkans is not only through the visa liberalisation scheme, which is up and running and something I am very pleased about, but also, in my view, through the joint commemoration of historical dates and heroes which are shared by certain Balkan countries. I hope that the recommendations made by the reports are taken into consideration by the relevant institutions in Member States. I wish Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey every success on their European journey.\nEvgeni Kirilov\nMadam President, we should continue to support the EU membership perspective for the countries of the Western Balkans. The whole process supports stability and we should keep up the momentum.\nAs the rapporteur for visa facilitation in the Delegation to the European Union-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Parliamentary Committee, I think that introducing the visa-free regime in the country was a very important encouragement for its people. The last Commission report points out that FYROM has achieved progress in many areas, and this is commendable.\nI come from a neighbouring country, Bulgaria, and we, as neighbouring countries, see some worrying trends. In my opinion, the name issue should not come first. Macedonian nation-building started after the Second World War and now a big part of the population identify themselves as Macedonians. However, we have to stick to our values: we cannot tolerate nation-building being confused with nationalistic rhetoric or with gross manipulation of history, going back to ancient times. Secondly, affirming national identity should not lead to xenophobic feelings towards citizens who declare themselves to be of Bulgarian origin. These people are subjected to verbal and physical abuse and even legally persecuted for fabricated reasons.\nMarietta Giannakou\n(EL) Madam President, I should like to congratulate the Commissioner and wish him every success in the very important sector which he has taken over.\nIt is a fact that Europe can and has the right to continue to enlarge. In the Western Balkans in particular, these people have a right to a better fate and a proper share of real European values.\nHowever, it should be noted that, for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in particular, it would be better if, in order to become a Member of the Union, a country did not use history, on a pick and mix basis, as a tool; it must get used to contributing towards the procedures of the United Nations and to resolving its problems with diplomacy, not propaganda. Thus, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia must be called upon to act, if it wants a future soon.\nI wish to congratulate Mrs Oomen-Ruijten on her excellent report on Turkey and also to congratulate Mr Swoboda and, of course, Mr Thaler, despite the fact that I disagree with certain aspects of his approach and his report.\nWe absolutely must understand that, with compromises which do not reflect the truth and reality, problems will reappear in future. On the other hand, as far as Turkey is concerned, I would like to say that efforts have been made, but no major move which would allow us to say that Turkey is resolving its problems diplomatically, in other words, by withdrawing or starting to withdraw its troops from a European country, Cyprus.\nWolfgang Kreissl-D\u00f6rfler\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to congratulate you, Mr F\u00fcle, on your new appointment and wish you luck in this very important task.\nYou have already made it clear to the committee that the negotiations with Turkey are about its accession and not about the crazy idea of a privileged partnership, which has never been adequately publicised by those in favour of it. However, you have also made it clear - and we welcomed this very much - that both sides, Turkey and the European Union, must meet their obligations and undertakings. In this case, Mr Posselt, the principle of pacta sunt servanda applies. You must be familiar with this phrase which was used by your former prestigious leader.\nOne further point is also very important to me. Of course, Turkey still has a great deal to do, but so does the European Union, whether it concerns the issue of Cyprus, the implementation of minority rights in Turkey or the political and military aspects. However, one thing is clear. The process will never be linear. We know this from the history of the European Union. You only need to look at the processes and procedures relating to the Treaty of Lisbon. There will always be progress and setbacks in the process in Turkey.\nSomething else that is obvious is that when Turkey has fulfilled all the requirements, when it can accept the acquis communautaire, Turkey will be a different country. However, the Treaty of Lisbon will also have brought about lasting changes to the European Union. We should be aware of this. As I have said, both sides must fulfil their undertakings.\nAlojz Peterle\n(SL) If the European Union genuinely wants to play a more powerful role on the international stage, it must ensure it strengthens its role within Europe as well. That means completing the project of a united Europe in the south-east. We need not only a European perspective, but dynamism and stimulation too.\nI am pleased that we are able to welcome the progress of all three countries discussed here and I congratulate rapporteurs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Zoran Thaler and Hannes Swoboda on a job well done. I am particularly pleased that all three countries have paid particular attention to developing relations with their neighbours.\nMention has also been made of the arbitration agreement between Slovenia and Croatia. It is a fact that the Croatian and Slovene Governments see the key issue of this agreement in a totally different light, which does not exactly inspire mutual confidence. I call on both governments to use bilateral opportunities to agree on a uniform interpretation of the agreement and to foster an atmosphere of good neighbourly relations, and one which could bring the accession process to its successful conclusion.\nI sincerely congratulate Commissioner F\u00fcle for taking on his responsible role and wish him every success in achieving these ambitious goals. Similarly, I wish good fortune and a great deal of wisdom to the Spanish Presidency.\nEmine Bozkurt\n(NL) Neighbours look after one another, they support each other. When things are good in the neighbourhood, they are also good for the people who live there. Turkey and Cyprus are neighbours. When they look over each others' fences, it is not each other they see, but the Turkish Cypriots, who find themselves caught between two stools.\nIn order to ensure that all the people who live on Cyprus are once again truly able to live together, a solution is needed that requires all the neighbours to play their part. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon last week indicated a belief that a solution for Cyprus is possibly within reach. This Parliament has an important job to do in making a positive contribution to the situation on Cyprus, searching constructively for solutions and clearing obstacles instead of erecting them. Yes, Turkey must be made to make efforts to bring that solution closer. That is what we are calling for in the report on which we are about to vote. It is not just Turkey that has to make an effort, however. All the affected parties must play their part in creating a positive atmosphere in which a reliable solution can be found. Ultimately, that is, of course, what we all want: a solution.\nWe must also be supportive in connection with the candidate country of Macedonia, when it comes to the issue of its name, so that negotiations can begin. As Member States, we must be careful to ensure that we are not part of the problem, but that we instead contribute to finding a solution.\nThe Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has made a great deal of progress, and can act as an example for the other countries of the Balkans, whilst also offering an opportunity to increase stability in the region. We need to make an effort, here, to see the EU's most important export products flourish: democracy, human rights, peace and security.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Croatia is demonstrating its determination to join the EU by taking clear steps towards fulfilling the criteria. Political will has been reflected in reforms of the public administration and judiciary and in the fight against corruption and organised crime. In the judiciary, there has been a growth in transparency, a reduction in the numbers of pending court proceedings and excessively long proceedings. One significant factor is the continuing exposure of war crimes, in which Croatia is fully cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal. Croatia is showing a good level of regulatory harmonisation with the acquis communautaire. It is undergoing significant legislative and institutional changes with the aim of combating organised crime and the mafia and strengthening cross-border cooperation with law-enforcement authorities in neighbouring countries.\nThe banking sector in Croatia is sound, investors have confidence in the state of the economy, and macro-economic stability has been maintained. There is still a need to complete the programme of small-scale privatisations and reduce state interference in the economy. In my opinion, the reconciliation between ethnic Croats and ethnic Serbs, the improved safeguarding of minority rights and the integration of refugees, including the rebuilding of homes, are particularly deserving of praise. I therefore urge Croatia to further the development of a culture of political responsibility and for a public debate on membership and the consequences of accession, since only a third of the population currently consider accession to the EU to be beneficial. I would also like to congratulate the new commissioner, Mr F\u00fcle, and welcome him to the role.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\nMadam President, I welcome Commissioner F\u00fcle and I would like to congratulate the authors for three well-balanced reports. There is no doubt that the prospect of EU membership has pushed Turkey to change for the better. After all, this Muslim country is unique in that it took the first steps to adapting European values almost 100 years ago and despite the various historical winds, it did not go off the road. Turkey is the most Western of Eastern states and the most Eastern of Western states, so its unique role is not only European but also global.\nAnkara must accelerate reforms, more determinedly seek compromise on the Cyprus problem and take further steps on reconciliation with Armenia. However, I strongly support the Socialist and Democrats Group's position that the prospect of Turkey's membership of the EU should not be changed by any Ersatzl\u00f6sung or ersatz variants.\nFrancisco Jos\u00e9 Mill\u00e1n Mon\n(ES) Madam President, may I welcome the Commissioner. In this decade, enlargement policy has been the European Union's greatest success, along with the euro. That policy should not be held back. Furthermore, we cannot break the commitments we have made with candidate countries, although we should also respect the well-known principles of consolidation and conditionality.\nWe also should not forget the European Union's integration capacity or the need to communicate with citizens on the subject of enlargement and its advantages and consequences.\nGiven the time restrictions, I shall just make a few brief comments. In principle, candidate countries should resolve beforehand any territorial disputes and similar issues they might have with each other and with Member States, so as not to later slow down the operation of the Union.\nIn the case of Turkey, I would particularly like to highlight how important it is for the rate of reforms - which are also necessary for Turkey itself - to be maintained and even increased.\nI also welcome the recent commitment Turkey has shown with regard to Nabucco, which is very important for energy diversification in Europe. However, I must admit that I was somewhat surprised by the gesture that the Turkish Government made last autumn in support of the Iranian authorities. Indeed, I believe that a candidate country's foreign policy should be in line with that of the Union.\nFinally, last week, I read an interview with the Turkish Minister for European Affairs which seemed to suggest that Turkey had abolished visas for countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Libya. I was somewhat surprised by this because a candidate country should also be bringing its visa policy closer to that of the European Union, not moving in the opposite direction.\nI would like confirmation of that information.\nAntigoni Papadopoulou\n(EL) Madam President, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has made a tremendous effort to present a balanced report and we thank her. Amendments 13 and 14 by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance upset this balance and I therefore urge you to vote against them.\nIn the talks being conducted on the Cyprus question, Turkey, via Mr Talat, has tabled unacceptable proposals and remains intransigent and maximalist. That is why it is wrong to call on all the parties to support the negotiations under way. The party on which pressure needs to be exerted is Turkey as the occupying power. Turkey must immediately withdraw all Turkish troops, end the occupation and stop holding the Turkish-Cypriot community hostage, because it, not the Greek Cypriots, is responsible for the so-called isolation of Turkish Cypriots. Turkey needs to return the besieged town of Varosha and to stop illegal settlements and the encroachment on to Greek Cypriot property.\nTurkey holds the key to the solution to the Cyprus problem and progress with its accession. The small country of Cyprus asks for nothing more and nothing less than a solution in keeping with the European acquis, without derogations, and with the UN resolutions. Cypriots are not second-class citizens of some sort of Ottoman or other colony. We are European citizens with European rights.\nDoris Pack\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is high time for the EU to begin negotiations with Macedonia at last. Macedonia has fulfilled the conditions and has been waiting for negotiations to start since 2005. Greece has had so much solidarity from the other 26 Member States that it should not now put a veto on starting negotiations with its neighbour Macedonia. The name issue is a purely bilateral question, even if the UN has given its help in this respect.\nOn the subject of Croatia, I would like to say that this country is combating corruption to such an extent that other countries, including some within the EU, should take an example from it. My second point is that the return of the refugees, which Mr Bo\u015ftinaru has just mentioned, has, in my opinion, been handled in an exemplary way. As Mr Swoboda said, many things cannot be resolved in the way that we imagine they will be.\nMy third point concerns the cooperation with the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Croatia handed over all its wanted war criminals years ago. The documents from the homeland war which have been called for are either no longer available or have never existed. Therefore, a common sense approach is needed to these questions. The government is searching for the documents and it has set up a task force, but it cannot do more than look. If it does not find anything, then it is important to take a step forward, in the light of the fact that Croatia has been cooperating with the tribunal for years and, therefore, has, to a large extent, met the conditions. I hope very much that the chapter will soon be opened, so that the negotiations with Croatia can be completed by the end of this year.\nIsmail Ertug\n(DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr F\u00fcle, I would like to wish you every success with your work in future. It is hard to ignore the ambivalence of the Cyprus issue. We in the European Union must not dismiss apparently unpleasant issues or try to pretend that they do not exist. We have not kept our promise. That is a fact and we must resolve these double standards.\nWe know that the Ankara Protocol must definitely be implemented with regard to the Cyprus question. However, it is also clear, as stated by the Council in 2004, that the isolation of Northern Cyprus must come to an end. I am pleased that Southern Cyprus is providing the north with the necessary support, but this was not the intention of the European Union. Its intention was that everyone, the entire EU, should bring an end to the isolation. In order to overcome the final obstacle in this area, we must take a step forwards and put a stop to this isolation.\nTunne Kelam\nMadam President, for the new Commission - and I warmly welcome Commissioner F\u00fcle - now is the time to renew the EU's commitment to enlargement by completing accession negotiations with Croatia by the end of this year and starting negotiations with Macedonia.\nThe latter has made impressive progress despite manifold difficulties and should be encouraged to continue. I would like to invite both parties to solve the name issue in an open and generous European style, as advocated yesterday by President Barroso.\nTurkey, too, has made significant progress. If we look at Ukraine, we can realise the difference that the very prospect of accession can make. Turkey is welcome to membership on the basis of meeting the Copenhagen criteria. With a new Commissioner, there is no time to be lost in making Turkey start pulling its troops out of Cyprus and implementing the Ankara Protocol. I think this could be seen as a condition for proceeding with negotiations. As for myself, I could feel comfortable with Turkish accession when it is as easy to build a Christian church in Ankara as it is to erect a mosque in Brussels.\nJ\u00fcrgen Klute\n(DE) Madam President, I would like to comment on two aspects of the Turkish issue. It is generally the ethnic conflicts that are discussed, and rightly so. There is still work to be done in this area and some difficulties remain. However, what people usually overlook is the fact that there are still significant problems in Turkey with regard to trade union and employee rights. The Turkish Government continues to oppose trade unions - in some circumstances even using the power of the police - which provide support for their members, in other words, for Turkish working people. This has happened recently in the dispute involving the Tekel workers. That is one of the comments that I would like to make. A democratic society must protect the rights of employees and trade unions and it is important to fight for these rights. The EU also supports these rights, in particular, in its role as a social European Union.\nThe second factor is privatisation. Turkey is adapting to the EU and this includes the area of privatisation. The Tekel employees, of whom 12 000 are currently on strike, are threatened with the loss of their jobs or have already lost them as a result of privatisation. However, it is not only the Tekel employees who work in the tobacco industry. Around 500 000 people employed in growing tobacco in south-eastern Turkey have lost their jobs in recent years, with the result that, having been one of the major producers and exporters of tobacco, Turkey has now become an importer. A week ago, I had the chance to go to Ankara and speak with the Tekel employees. If the process of cutting jobs and destroying whole sectors of industry continues as a result of privatisation, the people of Turkey will lose their enthusiasm for accession to the EU. Therefore, we must put the focus on the social aspect of the EU. I would like to emphasise that once again.\nKrzysztof Lisek\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I welcome you warmly, Mr F\u00fcle, as we all do, and I wish you much perseverance through the next few years of your work. I know we should not talk about the end of the new parliamentary term on the first day. I do, of course, wish you many other terms, Mr F\u00fcle, but it is my wish for you, that when you speak here at the end of this term, you will be able to meet us in a new, enlarged European Union consisting, perhaps, of even 30 Member States.\nMr F\u00fcle, apart from your work on the important countries we are talking about here today, I would like to ask you also to give attention to other countries which are dreaming of European Union membership. Just like myself, you come from a country which has just acceded to the European Union, and I think that you, I and all the fellow Members from all the new Member States understand how important it was to our societies when we acceded to the European Union. We also wish this for the countries we are talking about today.\nAs a Pole, I have a small dream, and with this I would like to end my speech. It is that Croatia, the country which has currently made most progress in negotiations, might manage to accede to the European Union during the not-too-distant Polish Presidency.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Madam President, once again, the report on Turkey is not a progress report, but a report on Turkey's failings. The EU is calling on Turkey to do more in the area of minority rights, but instead of resolving the issue of the Kurds as it had said it would, Turkey is planning to ban the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP). For the fourth year in a row, the government in Ankara has failed to implement the additional protocol to the association agreement, but, via its ambassadors, it is calling on the major EU Member States to resolve the Cyprus question. In my opinion, the long-awaited negotiations on the Mediterranean island are not a cause for celebration, because the most recent Turkish Cypriot proposal goes against the existing consensus on some points, which means that it actually represents a step backwards.\nSo much for the positive results which the Spanish Presidency announced that we could expect. Turkey is not a part of Europe either geopolitically or in spiritual or cultural terms. Human rights, the rights of minorities and international law remain concepts that are foreign to Turkey. In my view, the only honest response which is in line with the wishes of EU citizens would be to bring the accession negotiations to an end and to aim for a privileged partnership.\nGeorgios Koumoutsakos\n(EL) Commissioner, we welcome you and wish you every success in your job. Today, we are debating, among other things, Turkey's progress towards Europe. Yesterday we debated the difficult economic situation faced by certain countries in the euro area, especially the critical situation faced by Greece.\nThese two debates intersect at one point, they have one common ground. That common ground is massive, inflexible defence spending by Greece, with around 5% of its gross domestic product allocated to military expenditure - and not because it wants to. Of course, part of this is spent honouring its obligations as a member of NATO. However, most of it is spent because we have to address a specific policy by a neighbouring country and candidate country, namely Turkey.\nThere is an official Turkish policy of threatening Greece with war, known as the casus belli, and it is not simply a paper threat; Turkey is in the habit of violating the airspace of and overflying even inhabited Greek islands in the Eastern Aegean.\nThis has to stop and this must be a strong message sent to Ankara by the European Parliament. If there are improvements on this, its progress towards Europe will regain momentum, together, of course, with all the other commitments which it must honour.\nMonica Luisa Macovei\nMadam President, in its neighbourhood policy, the Union's objective has always been to export stability and not to import instability.\nThis is why I appeal to Member States and candidate countries not to promote bilateral conflicts to the level of the Union. Being a lawyer, I would like to recall that, through the interim accord between Greece and FYROM signed in September 1995, Greece agreed not to object to FYROM's application to international or regional organisations if made under the name referred by the United Nations, which is FYROM. The Union's institutions refer to this country as FYROM. These provisions are legally binding in terms of international law. Therefore, there is no legal basis for Greece to obstruct the country's accession process. Decisions must be taken on the performance of the applicant country.\nOn this note, I support the debates on the progress made and the areas in which improvement is still needed. We need to talk about the merits and closely monitor the implementation of the reforms. Based upon the progress made, the Commission proposed that the country be given a date to start negotiations. I join the Commission and call on the Council to provide a starting date for accession negotiations at its summit in March 2010.\nEleni Theocharous\n(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, even if the very strong resolution in Turkey's favour is adopted today, this country will not stop demonstrating an important democratic deficit, blatantly infringing the human rights of millions of people and occupying the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union.\nHowever, as far as Cyprus is concerned, there are many who insist on putting equal responsibility on the victim and the perpetrator. We cannot accept crime and armed violence and call on all the parties involved - call on them to do what? We cannot listen in the sanctuary of democracy, the European Parliament, to unseemly expressions such as Northern and Southern Cyprus and talk of elections for Northern Cyprus, where 70% of the so-called electoral body are illegal colonists.\nIt is clear that, if the solution does not respect the human rights of the citizens of Cyprus, then the entire system of values of the European Union is at risk. Of course, talks are continuing, but they have become bogged down by Turkey's maximalist claims. As it is Turkey rather than any other country that we are evaluating, we call on Turkey to facilitate the process of talks by taking two self-evident steps: firstly, to immediately start withdrawing the occupying army and, secondly, to return the occupied town of Famagusta to its legal residents.\nGiovanni Collino\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we acknowledge the efforts that Croatia has made in recent years to meet the requirements of European Union membership. We support the statement that Mr L\u00f3pez Garrido gave us this morning.\nThere nevertheless remains one unresolved matter that must be dealt with during the negotiations on bilateral matters between Croatia and Italy which risks casting a shadow over the accession process. I refer to the failure to provide financial and moral compensation for damage suffered and the failure to return goods confiscated from the Italians who were forced to leave those lands as exiles following World War II.\nNow that it is seeking to join the European Union, I call on Croatia to speed up the process of achieving a conciliatory, constructive and happy ending to this sad and still unresolved affair.\nWe call on Croatia to satisfy the rights of those people who have been waiting for this to happen for so long, in accordance with European law among other things.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nMadam President, I have a brief comment on Turkey.\nTurkey still has some very serious problems in the area of human rights. One of the outstanding issues is setting the rights of ethnic and religious minorities - Kurds, Christians, Alevists and others. These minorities are suffering from constant violations of their rights. Cyprus and Greece are, and will remain, of the utmost importance to the European Union.\nSo, Commissioner, we therefore have to make it clear to our Turkish partners that it is very difficult to speak about Turkey's European integration until problems related to Turkey's religious and ethnic minorities are solved.\nKyriakos Mavronikolas\n(EL) Madam President, in today's debate, we need to arrive at clear messages to Turkey, bearing in mind that it has not taken specific action to resolve various problems with neighbouring countries.\nAs regards the Cyprus question, in particular, given that we have heard proposals to include a reference to the problem of the isolation of Turkish Cypriots in the report, I think that the European Union should and must act within the framework of the UN resolutions. That means that the illegal occupied lands cannot be recognised; on the contrary, any aid must be granted via the legal state, as is presently the case.\nAt the same time, Turkey should withdraw the army, so as to remove this major obstacle to overall efforts being made to overcome the difficulty of contacting Turkish Cypriots.\nJelko Kacin\n(SL) I congratulate all the rapporteurs on their balanced reports, and to you, Commissioner, I wish every possible success in taking up your important role.\nI would like to point out that the Member States of the European Union are not communicating in the best possible way with the countries of the Western Balkans. Some of them are throwing around unrealistic dates. 2014, a date suggested by some of you today, generates false hope, unrealistic expectations and misleads the politicians and the public opinion of these countries. We will strengthen pro-European forces only if we adopt a realistic approach and behave appropriately. False promises are detrimental for both them and us. Let us be fair, let us be correct and let us be credible.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, I realise how very difficult it is, in Turkey's social circumstances, for the government in Ankara to do anything to improve democracy and human rights. I do appreciate this very well, but I would like to draw attention to a problem which has received too little emphasis in this debate. I am thinking of the problem of religious freedom, which is still restricted in Turkey, particularly towards Christians. In Turkey, we still have a problem with the obstacles faced by religious communities concerning their legal status. Christian communities, despite the introduction of the Law on Foundations, are having serious problems with regaining confiscated property. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has limited rights to train clergy and freely elect the Ecumenical Patriarch. I am very grateful to the rapporteur for emphasising all these aspects in the report. At the same time, I regret that this matter was completely ignored in Mr L\u00f3pez Garrido's speech. Mr L\u00f3pez Garrido, I have a personal comment: ideology and human rights do not mix.\nJohn Bufton\nMadam President, I would like to speak on the issue of Turkey.\nMy concern is that in 2003, the UK Independence Party, of which I am a member, stated in this Parliament that there would be dire consequences regarding migrants from new Member States coming to our country, the United Kingdom. My fear is that, if Turkey joins, 70 million people will be allowed to come into the UK. The United Kingdom is full. We have millions of people unemployed. The pressure on our public services is incredible. The thought of Turkey joining is not on at all.\nWe have been denied a choice. The people in our country have been denied a vote on Lisbon. We certainly need a discussion in our country about whether we should be in the European Parliament or not. I fear that Turkey joining will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I am convinced that we are now in a position where the whole European situation is about to crumble, with the euro and so forth. The addition of Turkey joining will just make matters far, far worse.\nCommissioner, it is your first day at work. I would like to mark your card. Take it from me, as a person from Wales in the United Kingdom: we just do not want Turkey to join.\nZolt\u00e1n Balcz\u00f3\n(HU) With regard to the accession of Turkey, there is a fundamental question to be clarified: what do we consider the European Union to be? Do we still consider the values, the shared European values, important? These values are based on the teachings of Christianity, irrespective of the proportion of actively religious people. Do we deem the cultural heritage of Europe important as a cohesive force? If the answer is 'yes', Turkey has no place in the European Union. Naturally, we should aim to establish the best possible partnership with them. Another important factor is that their accession would create a precedent. Israel's minister for foreign affairs has stated that they are being patient, yet they definitely want to become a member of the European Union. I would have to state that Israel does not have a place in the European Community, either.\nCsaba S\u00f3gor\n(HU) With regard to the protection of minorities, progress has been made by Croatia and Macedonia, but these countries are still far from being top performers in this respect. What can we do? The European Union could encourage these countries through its exemplary protection of minorities, but what is actually happening in the European Union? It would be a positive sign if France and others were to ratify the Charter of Minority and Regional Languages, if Slovakia were to retract its measures discriminating against minorities (see the language law) and if Greece were to admit that minorities do live in its territory and guarantee their rights as individuals and communities. In Romania, there will hopefully be a law on minorities, though we are still far from having members of minorities in the top command of the army, and autonomy is feared more than the 14th Transnistrian Russian army. Parliament could encourage the existing Member States to set a good example by establishing standards for the protection of minorities that are to be mandatory for the entire territory of the Union.\nDanuta Jaz\u0142owiecka\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, the year 2009, according to a report prepared by the International Crisis Group, was to have been decisive for Turkey's integration with the European Union. There was to have been either a breakthrough in accession negotiations or an end of the talks. Today, talks are still in progress on further areas related to accession. The Spanish Presidency, it is true, is saying it wants Ankara to join the Community as soon as possible, but indications are growing that Ankara is redefining its place in the global order, and that its membership in the Community is not a priority. Lifting of visas for Jordan, Libya, Iran and Syria, a worsening of relations with Israel, a strengthening of relations with Sudan, the signing of an agreement to commence diplomatic relations with Armenia and blocking an understanding with Cyprus - all this shows that Ankara is increasingly orienting itself towards cooperation with its neighbours, even at the expense of weakening its position in the accession negotiations.\nHowever, the question of energy security and Turkey's crucial geographical location mean that it is slowly becoming indispensable for securing European interests. It may, therefore, not be long before Turkey's accession to the European Union is more important to us than to Turkey itself. I appeal, therefore, to the Commission and the Council to redefine Turkey's perspectives for membership of the European Union.\nAlf Svensson\n(SV) Madam President, I believe that it is extremely important that the progress being made by the candidate countries that are involved in negotiations is also recognised and stressed. I believe that to be very important in purely psychological terms. Moreover, it cannot be denied that negotiations with the EU have created better conditions for the people of these countries. The negotiations in themselves are a positive thing.\nI am sure we all agree that Turkey needs to make considerable efforts and that freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of the press go without saying. However, I think it also needs to be stated that the negotiations with Turkey are not just negotiations with the state or nation of Turkey, but that Turkey also represents a kind of key or a bridge to the whole region. We therefore need to bear in mind that the EU's relations with the region will deteriorate considerably if the door were to be closed again.\nChrysoula Paliadeli\nMadam President, I wish I could be given the time to explain to the Members of this Parliament the reasons why the Greek people are so sensitive about the issue concerning the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Unfortunately, it needs more than a minute.\nThis story, going back to the late 1940s, is a sad story which ended in creating a false idea about them. I can assure you that Greeks are neither nationalists nor expansionists. All they do is resist the use of a name which is part of their own ancient historical and archaeological tradition.\nI understand that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as a new independent state, is undergoing a retarded ethnogenic phase. Serious academics in Skopje do not support the nationalistic trends of their Prime Minister. They prefer to remain silent rather than expose themselves against the trendy phrase, which the Thaler report rightly remarks, is liable to increase tensions.\nI would like this Parliament and the new Commission to try and contribute with a solution to the name issue, not by stimulating the nationalistic tendencies of the FYROM Government, but by supporting the Greek view, which fights for a gentle compromise that would, finally, seem to satisfy the people of FYROM more than the people of Greece.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\n(LT) Today's debates have shown that although MEPs have differing opinions on Turkey's progress, we probably all agree that the basic prerequisite for EU membership is the appropriate implementation of fundamental reforms. Today, I think it is too early to set concrete dates, but we must observe and demand progress from Turkey, as recent events, where the activities of political parties were banned, cause concern and do not show Turkey's commitment to respect civil and political freedoms and rights. However, we must give Turkey an opportunity to review its actions and hope that in the future, Turkey will be a democratic and free country.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) Croatia continues to be at the most advanced stage among the Western Balkan states on their path to EU accession. It may provide an example for states in the region with regard to their accession prospects in terms of meeting the accession criteria and conditions.\nI welcome the progress recorded on internal reform, as is also indicated in the 2009 progress report. The method for meeting the necessary accession criteria, especially those coming under Chapter 23, justice and fundamental rights, marks an important milestone in this country's progress in achieving European standards.\nWe support Croatia's accession to the European Union, provided that this is based on strict compliance with the accession criteria, including full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.\nCroatia will conclude accession negotiations this year. In fact, the report we are debating today is the last progress report produced by the European Parliament. We are confident that we will be in the position next year to vote on the treaty for Croatia's accession to the European Union, which will be a positive signal for the whole region.\nMilan Zver\n(SL) Commissioner, I congratulate you on your new post and I hope that you will be successful in this area.\nI am very pleased that the three reports are positive and that the rapporteurs have found these countries to have made progress in terms of modernisation, as we see it from the European perspective. The most important thing is that all three countries maintain high standards when it comes to respect for human rights. Europe must be strict about this and it must also be strict in urging these countries to resolve relations with their neighbours.\nI would also like to point out that I will not be giving my backing to the report on Croatia, primarily because it does not treat Slovenia fairly.\nIuliu Winkler\n(RO) The most effective external enlargement policy the European Union has with regard to the Western Balkans is to expand in this region. This will guarantee peace and bring democracy to an area which, unfortunately, has only had its reputation reinforced by recent history as the 'powder keg of the European Union'.\nAt the same time, the most effective foreign policy for the new Western Balkans states is to belong to the European Union's area of stability and prosperity. We need instruments in this process. I therefore welcome the progress reports for Croatia and Macedonia, which are valuable instruments.\nI also believe that economic instruments are needed, along with regional, economic and commercial cooperation, including with regard to investments, which have already proven to be effective. I think that these instruments must be considered by the European Commission and the governments of Croatia and Macedonia.\nBarry Madlener\n(NL) I actually wanted to ask the leader of the Turkish delegation, Mrs Flautre, a question. I do not know if I can do that now - that is what my blue card was based on. Can I ask Mrs Flautre a question?\nMrs Flautre, I would like to ask you, in the light of the horrific honour killing in Turkey, whether you agree that we should submit a request for a broad investigation to be carried out into honour killings in Turkey? In my home country, the Netherlands, we have a shockingly high prevalence of honour killings among Turks, as there is in Germany, and I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that there is an awful lot of honour killing in Turkey. Can we ask Mr F\u00fcle to carry out an investigation into honour killings in Turkey?\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Flautre\n(FR) Madam President, a question, yes, but which question? Addressed to whom and for what purpose? I believe that our delegation - of which you are a member, Mr Madlener - has committed itself and continues to firmly commit itself to human rights and gender equality and to every initiative taken to counter violence against women.\nI mentioned this just now in my speech. I believe that so-called honour crimes, which are crimes organised on a family or tribal basis, are utterly indefensible and that, today, it is very pleasing to see that no one in Turkey puts up with this type of archaic criminal practice any more.\nDiego L\u00f3pez Garrido\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this broad debate which has centred on some excellent resolutions tabled by the European Parliament, and may I congratulate the authors Mr Swoboda, Mr Thaler and Mrs Oomen-Ruijten.\nI think we can say that the large majority of you has spoken in favour of the enlargement process as an essential part of European integration. As Mr Brok has said, enlargement has been a success for the European Union, and other Members have mentioned some of the examples of success in the enlargement process. It is also a vital element of progress towards democratic reform and of democratic deepening in those countries that are moving closer to the European Union, those that have begun their entry into the European Union and those which have the prospect of joining. As Mr Mauro has stressed, this always implies a commitment to meet the Copenhagen conditions, which is another element of broad consensus, and therefore to show full respect for human rights.\nI entirely agree with Mr Cashman when he said that the treatment of minorities is what singles a country out, and not its treatment of the majority, although that is important as well. This, therefore, is how we should measure respect for human rights and, as a result, compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.\nAnother point of general agreement was that for the Western Balkans, the European perspective is a fundamental element in their progress - as Mrs Giannakou and Mr Winkler pointed out - and this is not only in the interest of those countries but also, as Mrs G\u00f6ncz has said, in the interest of the European Union.\nAs regards Croatia, we have also had general agreement on the need to open new chapters as soon possible, but it should be said that currently 28 out of 35 chapters have already been opened and that 17 of those have provisionally closed. The Spanish Presidency will continue to work to achieve new progress in the negotiations, together with the European Council and the Council, in order to bring them to their final phase soon. That is why I mentioned earlier that the accession meetings to be held with Croatia will begin immediately.\nOur expectation is that the membership negotiations roadmap will be completed this year, as the report's author, Mr Swoboda, has proposed, and as some Members have requested, including Mr H\u00f6kmark, Mr Berlinguer and Mr Lisek, who expressed the hope that the Polish Presidency might see Croatia's accession to the European Union.\nSo progress has been made with regard to Croatia, as Mr Por\u0119ba has emphasised. However, we still have work to do; there are shortcomings in the legal area, for example, as Mrs Serracchiani pointed out.\nAs a result, we think we have reached an important closing stage of Croatia's accession and we hope that the negotiations will be concluded and Croatia will join the Union as soon as possible, following the ratification process of the relevant European Union treaties.\nTurning now to Macedonia, the debate centred primarily on the question of its name. Obviously the name is not one of the Copenhagen requirements, but clearly good, neighbourly relations play a vital role in the process of shaping national policy in all the candidate countries.\nCandidate countries, like Member States, must therefore show the utmost sensitivity in matters such as this. We also have to remember that the starting point for negotiations is unanimity, in other words, a unanimous agreement between existing Member States.\nThe solution advocated earlier by Mr Posselt, Mr Kasoulides, Mrs Cornelissen, Mr Chatzimarkakis, Mrs G\u00f6ncz and Mrs Paliadeli is rooted both in negotiations under the aegis of the United Nations and in bilateral contact between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece. While this is, of course, a very important matter, the European Union itself does not actually take part in such discussions under the United Nations.\nAt the moment therefore, I do not think we can say precisely when this conflict will be resolved; nevertheless, I can certainly say that the Spanish Presidency joins in congratulating Prime Minister Gruevski and Prime Minister Papandreou on renewing a direct dialogue. This demonstrates leadership ability in both of them and will no doubt lead to an atmosphere and an attitude of openness, to which Mr Tremopoulos referred in his speech.\nWe believe that the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be able to carry these negotiations forward. The prospect of joining the EU has always been of great importance for the whole country, that is, for its ethnic groups as well, whether large or small.\nFinally, with regard to Turkey, a great many speeches have been made and I would like to begin by saying that negotiations are continuing at a reasonable pace - they have not been halted - and I say this in response to Mr Van Orden's comment concerning the speed of those negotiations.\nWe hope to open other negotiation chapters during the Spanish Presidency. I have mentioned some of them, but naturally we cannot predict the rate of these negotiations because they depend on the progress of Turkey's reforms and on whether Turkey meets the criteria. What is more, as you are all aware, in each case, at each stage and for each chapter of the process, there needs to be unanimous agreement.\nThe protection of human rights and the fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria is a subject that has been mentioned in many speeches and which is clearly referred to in Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report; and it has to be said that Turkey must make more effort in this area. It has to make more effort, and I say this in response to Mr Belder, Mr Salafranca, and others, and to Mr Angourakis and Mr Klute, who have spoken about promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.\nThey are right, but it is also true to say that the negotiation process continues to be the European Union's principal means of influencing the progress that is made and, while progress has indeed been made, it remains insufficient. This has also been mentioned in speeches by other Members, such as Mr Obiols, Mrs Flautre, Mrs Lunacek, Mr Preda and Mr Bal\u010dytis. I think we need to remain very aware of that when we make a balanced assessment of our negotiations with Turkey.\nCyprus has also been the subject of a great many speeches. Cyprus will, of course, be a decisive issue over coming months. It should be said that the negotiations currently under way between the leaders of the two communities on the island are positive and that a better atmosphere of trust has been established.\nIt goes without saying that resolving the Cyprus issue would eliminate this obstacle, or all of the obstacles, or at least some of the obstacles that might hinder Turkey's progress towards accession and, whatever happens, it would send out an important, positive signal to the region as a whole, with reconciliation as the basic objective, as Mr Howitt so rightly put it.\nWe all agree, of course, that Turkey has to comply with the additional protocol. There have been continuous calls for it to do so, and every time we have a dialogue with Turkey, the Council reminds it of that commitment, which must be honoured. On 8 December 2009, the Council adopted conclusions in which it was stated that if no progress were made on the issue, then the Council would maintain the measures adopted in 2006, which would have a permanent effect on the negotiations' overall progress.\nMrs Koppa and Mr Salavrakos have also referred to other incidents: violations of air space and incidents in the Aegean Sea. So I repeat, neighbourly relations are an indispensable requirement for measuring Turkey's progress in the negotiations. The Council's 8 December conclusions, which I have mentioned many times, sent Turkey a message on that matter. I assure you that the Presidency is going to following the issue very closely and pursue it at all levels when appropriate.\nIn any case, Madam President, the Presidency's position on negotiations with Turkey is absolutely clear. We are in agreement with the renewed consensus on enlargement, which the Council decided in December 2006, and this means that the objective of the negotiations is certainly Turkey's future accession to the European Union.\n\u0160tefan F\u00fcle\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very grateful that I had such an early chance to participate in this exchange of views with you on the accession countries. I promised during my hearing that I would come to listen and to take your advice, and today's debate was a clear proof of the richness, wisdom and insight that are assembled here in this House.\nLet me make two general observations. First, I take the promises I made during the hearings very seriously. I am interested not in having two monologues, but in having a dialogue with this House which would reflect the true spirit of the Lisbon Treaty.\nLet me also make another general observation, and I referred to this a couple of times during my hearing. In talking to the candidate countries and the prospective candidate countries, I always underlined the following four principles. The first is strict commitment to the Copenhagen criteria; they are non-negotiable. Secondly, a strict commitment to fundamental freedoms and rights, including religious and minority rights and, of course, women's rights. Thirdly, the process being honest and reflecting credibility on both sides and at all levels. Fourthly, I will never underestimate the issue of integration capacity.\nOn Croatia, both Parliament's resolution and the Commission's position underline that Croatia can count on Parliament and the Commission as reliable allies. If the country manages to deliver on all outstanding conditions, I remain confident that accession negotiations can be concluded this year. The Commission, and I trust the current and future presidencies as well as the European Parliament, will support Croatia in reaching its goal.\nOn the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, let me stress once again that the country earned a Commission recommendation to start accession negotiations on the basis of its own merits. Nonetheless, the country continues to face many pressing challenges, including the political criteria. As was pointed out during the debate, there is now a window of opportunity to resolve the name issue, and I am fully committed to supporting the ongoing talks.\nOn Turkey, we are all aware that we do not have an easy way ahead of us, either for Turkey or for the European Union, as was clearly stated by many during the debate. I know, however, that the Turkish Government is still committed to the democratic opening. Who would have imagined only five years ago Turkish society and politicians openly and intensively discussing the Kurdish issue, civil-military relations, the reopening of the Halki seminar or relations with Romania?\nNevertheless, I remain concerned about restrictions on press freedom and media pluralism. Further legal amendments are needed to protect journalists, human rights activists and politicians from prosecution and conviction for the expression of non-violent opinion.\nAs regards the accession negotiations, the opening of the important environment chapter last December is an encouraging development, bringing the number of open chapters to 12. I am hopeful that we will be able to open more chapters this year. However, Turkey will need to make additional efforts in order to be able to fulfil the demanding benchmarks. It is therefore important that the necessary preparations are being continued with rigour.\nThe Commission also welcomes the reinforced dialogue with Turkey on migration, which should lead to concrete achievements, in particular, as regards readmission and border controls. In response to a specific question from one of your colleagues, let me say that the Commission is aware of the recent developments concerning Turkish lifting of visa requirements for Lebanon and Syria. The Commission's Director-General responsible for these issues will be in Ankara next week for talks. This will be one of the issues he will discuss on that occasion and I will report on these discussions.\nLet me also add, having been requested, the following position of the Commission. All measures that the Commission has proposed and undertaken have always been aimed at ending the isolation of the Turkish-Cypriot community as a means of facilitating the reunification of Cyprus in line with the Council conclusions of April 2004. We are implementing the EUR 259 million aid package for the sustainable social and economic development of the Turkish-Cypriot community and its full participation in the European Union following a settlement and reunification. The Green Line Regulation is facilitating economic and personal contacts between Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots. The Trade Regulation, on special conditions for trade for the Turkish-Cypriot community, remains with the Council for consideration.\nComing back to Turkey, the reform process is to continue and the European Union should continue to encourage the process and progress. The Commission remains committed to the accession process with Turkey. Our leverage and influence in Turkey will become all the more credible and stronger if our commitments remain unambiguous.\nI am looking forward to a very fruitful and close cooperation over the next five years.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nI have received three motions to wind up the debate from the Committee on Foreign Affairs in accordance with Rule 100(2).\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place during today's vote.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves  \nin writing. - (PT) This report acknowledges certain positive steps that Turkey, a candidate country since 2005, has made towards joining the EU, although it is being urged to speed up the pace of reforms. I recall that in December 2006, negotiations were partially suspended due to the country's refusal to apply the Customs Union with the EU to Cyprus. The conflict with Cyprus must be resolved and the country must continue to make progress in terms of democracy and the protection of human rights, combating corruption, improving freedom of the press, the need for political transparency and swifter and more effective justice, consolidating anti-discrimination laws relating to gender, sexual orientation and ethnic and religious minorities, and reforming the civil service. The Turkish Government continues to demonstrate the political will to proceed with reforms, and it has substantially increased fundamental freedoms and democratic development within the country. We must therefore continue to make progress in negotiations aimed at securing the accession of Turkey as a country with a crucial role as a mediator in conflicts between Israel and Palestine and as a platform for Iraq and Iran to find common ground.\nMara Bizzotto  \nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report certainly contains some interesting points, even for those, like myself and many of you, who are against granting Turkey EU membership. The content of the report illustrates Turkey's sometimes serious failures to meet the basic conditions for joining the EU. Certain passages of the resolution proposed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs are also quite strict. These documents do not oppose Turkey's theoretical future entry into the EU; however, I am very happy to welcome the findings that Parliament intends to make known regarding Turkey's supposed lack of progress. Those who, like myself, are opposed to Ankara joining the EU find in them confirmation of their own traditional objections to the accession: in Turkey, there are still restrictions on fundamental freedoms, human rights violations, an aggressive attitude towards Cyprus and Greece, and discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities - all of which are problems that Europe clearly cannot ignore. And all this compounds the usual concerns about the cultural and geographical differences between Turkey and Europe, and about the problems that would be caused by the admission of a country that shares borders with over 80 million inhabitants: factors that will continue to reinforce my unshakable conviction that it is not right for Turkey to enter a Europe whose unity depends, above all else, on the spirit of Christianity.\nRobert Du\u0161ek  \nOn the one hand, the method and extent of the democratisation process in Turkey and the process of drawing closer to the EU is pivotal. On the other hand, discussion of Turkey's future membership of the EU cannot be left to one side. Every expansion involves budgetary considerations as to whether the accession of a given country to the EU will bring a contribution or whether financial losses will prevail. I am afraid that in the current crisis situation with the Common Agricultural Policy and, by implication, the European budget, we cannot permit an expansion involving a country in which 7 million of the inhabitants rely on agriculture for their livelihood (in the EU, the figure is 10.4 million). For the purposes of comparison: under current conditions, the expenditure for Turkey up to 2025 would be around EUR 10 billion, while for all 10 of the new Member States in the 'eastern expansion' it would be up to EUR 8 billion. Direct payments to Turkish farmers and payments for rural development and market support would, under the current legislative arrangements, spell doom for European agriculture and farmers. In view of the enormous size, number of inhabitants and economic situation of this candidate country, the accession of Turkey to the EU would impose an enormous burden on the budget together with a 9% decline in per capita GDP for the EU. For these reasons, we must discuss again and in greater detail Turkey's accession to the EU, together with related reforms to the CAP.\nMartin Kastler  \nIt is commendable that the new Macedonian democracy has made further progress in all areas of society and business. I very much welcome the fact that the presidential and local elections in March 2009 went smoothly. This is an indication of the growing democratisation throughout the entire region which was reflected in Macedonia. Macedonia has met all the criteria for liberalising the visa regulations and, therefore, from 19 December 2009 onwards, its citizens have visa-free status. This represents a major step forward. However, Macedonia still has a number of reforms to implement. I very much hope that we can use the experience which we gathered during the first phase of the eastern enlargement of the EU to help it in this process. In this context, I am thinking of the implementation of institutional reforms, where political foundations and a range of different NGOs have achieved so much. There are two areas where we should strengthen our cooperation with regard to transformation and EU standards. These are reform in the public administration, in the judiciary and in the police. Personally, I would like to see the name dispute between Macedonia and Greece put aside in the immediate future. It is important that progress towards the unification of Europe is not brought to a standstill because of bilateral disagreements.\nBogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz  \nCroatia, because of its geopolitical situation and historical relations, should unquestionably accede to the European Union as quickly as possible. Despite numerous tensions with neighbours and the ethnic conflicts which arose during the civil war, I cannot imagine a fully integrated and united Europe without Croatia. The negotiations, which began in 2004, were a promising development, and in the absence of disruptions, they should be completed this year, bearing in mind that there are 28 areas required for completion. Croatia's accession to NATO in April 2009 has definitely strengthened her claim for accession to the EU. Stabilisation in what is known historically as the Balkan Cauldron will be guaranteed only by Croatia's accession. I hope that, at the beginning of 2012, when I take my seat in the European Parliament, I will be able to shake hands with fellow Members from Croatia.\nFranz Obermayr  \nI welcome the progress made by Croatia, in particular, in combating corruption. Measures must be taken against corruption within the institutions. In addition, a change in basic attitude is needed and the population must be made more aware of corruption, which unfortunately is still part of everyday life in Croatia. With regard to Croatia's relationship with its neighbours, it is pleasing to see that a compromise on the border dispute with Slovenia is now in prospect. I hope also that Croatia's recognition of Kosovo will not cause an increase in tension in the Western Balkans, in particular, with Serbia, which is now, understandably, showing concern. Given the obvious progress that Croatia has made and my conviction that Croatia is culturally, politically and historically a part of Europe, I am voting in favour of the motion for a resolution. If Croatia meets all the conditions, I believe that it will be possible for it to join the European Union soon.\nKristiina Ojuland  \nMadam President, with reference to my speech on 20 January, I am interested in what kind of measures the Turkish Government has implemented, according to the records of the Council and the Commission, to involve the population in the implementation of the democratisation process and the reforms necessary for integration with the European Union. Turkey's 2009 development report points out shortcomings in the fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, with a particular emphasis on political criteria, which include the implementation of democracy and the rule of law, human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. In the development report, it was noted that, through the development aid instrument, EUR 567 million have been allocated to Turkey in the past year. The allocations were, for the most part, aimed at implementing outstanding reforms in the political and justice systems, as well as the development of civil society. At the same time, it was made clear that the use of these instruments had been decentralised, which means that the Turkish authorities administered the allocated aid, following the Commission's accreditation. Since they are interested in carrying out the membership negotiations for Turkey as quickly as possible, which means that the current shortcomings need to be resolved, the Council and the Commission should have an accurate synopsis of concrete actions by the Turkish Government carried out in order to achieve this objective. On its homepage, in visual form, the Commission has indeed put some projects for ending the use of child labour, acquiring a basic education, involving people with disabilities in society, and setting up a confidential line for women in Turkey suffering from domestic violence. However, are these actions enough to create the necessary grassroots public support for the immediate and successful implementation of the necessary reforms? In the light of the contents of the development report, what kind of additional urgent measures or projects have been planned to overcome the obstacles that have arisen in problematic areas?\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nWhen a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe acceded to the European Union on the day of its great enlargement on 1 May 2004, the division of Europe by the Iron Curtain was finally brought to an end. Not all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe came into the European family at that time. It also then became clear that the 'great enlargement' would have to be continued, with the accession of several more countries of the region. In 2007, Rumania and Bulgaria became Member States of the European Union. However, the accession of these countries cannot be thought of as the end of European Union enlargement.\nAt the moment, the country which is closest to acceding to the EU is Croatia. I fully support completion of negotiations by Croatia as quickly as possible in order to achieve the quickest possible accession of the country to the European Union. I appeal to both sides of the negotiations for maximum flexibility and the will to reach agreement. In addition, I appeal to the Croatian side to increase efforts at accommodating Community requirements in such areas as the organisation of public administration and the judiciary and for improvement of mechanisms concerned with the effective fight against organised crime and corruption. Furthermore, I would like to add my voice to appeals calling on Croatia to show a maximum of goodwill in cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.\nSiiri Oviir  \nAs a prerequisite for completing the negotiation process begun with Turkey in 2005, Turkey must fulfil all the Copenhagen criteria, and it must comply in all respects with EU integration capacity. Indeed, Turkey has begun to implement the reforms expected on that basis, develop good neighbourly relations and gradually bring itself into line with the EU membership criteria. I support these actions, and I support Turkey's accession to the EU, provided, of course, that the conditions for membership are met in full. Today, though, it worries me that recently, positive messages concerning the reforms implemented have begun to fall short, and there are still severe problems in Turkey with implementing legal norms, particularly sections that would establish women's rights, non-discrimination, freedom of speech and belief, a zero-tolerance approach to torture, and anti-corruption measures. I call on Turkey to continue and strengthen efforts to meet the Copenhagen criteria in full and to consolidate support in Turkish society for the necessary reforms, providing equality for all people, regardless of gender, race or ethnic origin, faith or creed, disability, age or sexual orientation.\nRovana Plumb  \nI believe that it is in the interest of both parties, the EU and Turkey, for the enlargement process to continue. This is why Turkey must step up the reform process in order to meet the commitments it has assumed.\nLet me give you a few examples on this point. Legislation on gender equality is harmonised, but greater effort needs to be made to implement it in order to reduce the differences between men and women in terms of their participation in the labour market, politics and the decision-making process, as well as with regard to access to education. Progress has been made on environmental protection, especially with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in this 'era of adapting to the effects of climate change'. However, a great deal still remains to be done in terms of water quality, nature conservation and GMOs (genetically modified organisms).\nI welcome the progress made by Turkey but, at the same time, I support the request made to Ankara to make more effort in the reform process so that it can join the European club.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik  \nOne of the crucial Copenhagen criteria, which should unquestionably be met to enable a country to become one of the Member States of the European Union, is respect for human rights. I would like to draw attention to notorious cases of violations of the rights of women.\nAlmost daily, the press informs us of further murders of women, which are known as 'honour killings'. The press is currently highlighting the case of 16-year-old Medine Memi, who was cruelly murdered by her own father and grandfather. It is shocking that these two took the girl's life because she had been talking to boys, but the way in which this atrocity was carried out is even more shocking. Autopsy results show that Medine, who was buried in a chicken pen, was still alive at the time of her burial and was conscious to the very end. The unimaginable suffering of the dying teenager was inflicted as satisfaction for 'bringing dishonour' on the family. It is horrifying that the case of Medine is not an isolated incident, but a widespread and barbaric phenomenon. The girl, fearing for her life, had reported her fears to the police several times - unsuccessfully, because she was sent home each time.\nMurder, which has been deeply rooted in Turkish tradition for generations, is often interpreted favourably for men, who are supposedly acting to clear the disgraced honour of their family. A country which has not yet managed to deal with this problem continues to be separated from Europe by a broad divide, because Europe stands in defence of fundamental values. This difference is a serious obstacle in building a common identity.\nTraian Ungureanu  \nI hope that this year's assessment report will encourage Turkey to improve the coordination of its foreign policy with that of the EU. The Black Sea region should be a priority area where Turkey, as a key partner of the EU, will help achieve the European objectives set as part of the Black Sea Synergy.\nTurkey's involvement in guaranteeing the EU's energy security is just as important. Last year, I welcomed Turkey's participation in the Nabucco project with the signing of the intergovernmental agreement. However, I also expressed deep concern about Turkey's intention to cooperate with Russia in the South Stream project. Consequently, I urge Turkey to make an explicit commitment to implementing the Nabucco project.\nI welcome the call made by the rapporteur to harmonise energy policies between Turkey and the EU, in particular, by opening accession negotiations on the energy chapter and by including Turkey in the European Energy Community.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":8}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Damages actions for breach of competition rules (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report, by Mr S\u00e1nchez Presedo, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Green Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo \nrapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner Kroes, ladies and gentlemen, the existence of economic freedom, the functioning of the internal market and the sustainability of European development are inextricably linked to the competition policy. Since the Treaty of Rome was signed 50 years ago, its importance has continued to grow. Competition is an indicator of European vitality and excellence, a key policy in terms of fulfilling the Lisbon Strategy and achieving the Union's objectives.\nAnti-competitive infringements make the game unfair, impact on flows of exchanges amongst Member States and damage confidence in the rules. They reduce the Union's dynamism and results. It is important that we have dissuasive and reactive mechanisms.\nInfringements have been dealt with principally by means of public actions of an administrative nature. The centralisation of the application of Article 81(3) - through a priori control by the Commission, toned down by means of the exemption regulations from the 1980s onwards - was a victim of its own success; the demand for more and better competition revealed its economic inefficiency and its legal shortcomings.\nThe role of private actions was stressed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities when the 2001 Courage v. Crehan judgment recognised that anybody could have recourse to national judicial bodies in order to claim damages resulting from the actions of the infringer.\nThe modernisation of Regulation (EC) No 1\/2003 of the Council put an end to the Commission's monopoly and recognised a more open system, applicable in a decentralised manner by the administrative authorities making up the network of Community competition authorities and also directly by the national judicial authorities.\nThe possibility of private actions is nothing exotic, but rather a return to the classic jurisprudence according to which Community law imposes obligations on the States and on private individuals, and has vertical and horizontal effects that require judicial protection. Their use in the Member States - according to a study ordered by the Commission - is extremely diverse and entirely underdeveloped - unlike in the United States, where nine out of every ten application procedures are judicial. The rapporteur takes a positive view of the Commission's publication of a Green Paper to identify the obstacles standing in the way of private actions and to find ways to remove them.\nIn an advanced system of competition, public action against the impunity of infringer undertakings should be backed with private actions against immunity and indemnity in relation to the damages suffered by the victims of their actions. Facilitating private actions will make the competition rules more effective. The arguments for it include both efficiency and justice. The imposition of fines is insufficient unless accompanied by private actions to prevent the infringer from gaining advantage compared to competitors as a result of the infringement and to compensate the victims of the damages caused. The report takes the view that public and private actions form two pillars with the complementary aim of safeguarding market discipline in the public interest and protecting the private interests of players on that market.\nThe application of Community competition law by administrative and judicial authorities must not lead to any lack of uniformity in its application. Judgments must not be allowed to vary according to the authority making it. This is a crucial point. The Community acquis and the effectiveness of leniency programmes must be maintained, public and private actions must be coordinated and cooperation amongst all of the competent authorities must be intensified.\nThe report proposes a Community model in line with the Union's legal culture, which takes account of the Member States' legal traditions. It opposes a slide towards the US model, since it is not in favour of introducing that model's peculiar characteristics, such as judicial bodies consisting of non-professionals, 'class actions', punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned, strict requirements on the disclosure of documents and the system of lawyer's fees and litigation costs.\nWe must compensate for imbalances and ensure that liabilities are met, without violating the principle of equality of arms or artificially stimulating litigiousness. The aim is to encourage the rational use of legal actions and not judicial activism, and above all to promote the amicable and early settlement of disputes.\nCommunity competition is an exclusive competence of the European Union. National administrative and judicial procedures do not alter that and they must not prevent the existence of common guidelines for penalties, in accordance with the principles of better legislation.\nI shall end by thanking the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Doorn, for his valuable cooperation, the shadow rapporteurs for their help and the Members who have tabled amendments for their contributions.\nI appreciate the constant and exemplary dialogue maintained with the Commission during the drawing up of the report and I would urge the Commissioner to carry on demonstrating her commitment in the next White Paper.\nNeelie Kroes\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, Honourable Members, we are here tonight to debate an issue of fundamental importance: rights.\nThe Court has been clear: the right to damages is necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of Community competition rules. But consumers and business customers do not use their rights. Injuries are left uncompensated, while society and the economy absorb the loss: that is just reality. That is clearly unjust, incompatible with our Community of law and at odds with our shared competitiveness objectives. The European Commission and, I believe, most Members of this House will not tolerate this situation.\nOur Green Paper set out the problems. Finding appropriate solutions requires a very careful, measured approach, grounded in European legal traditions and developed through dialogue with stakeholders and, in particular, with Parliament. That is why the Commission will present a White Paper, accompanied by an impact assessment, for further discussion around the New Year.\nMr S\u00e1nchez Presedo's report provides a wealth of pertinent input into this process. I congratulate the rapporteur wholeheartedly and thank the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for all their work. I also thank Mr Doorn and the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs for their contribution. We will give most careful consideration to all Parliament's recommendations in preparing the White Paper.\nI am aware that some are concerned that fostering private damage actions might lead to a US-style litigation culture. We will certainly take this into account in drafting the White Paper. But the scales are currently tipped against the victims. Carefully balanced European solutions need to be found. Common solutions that meet the strict tests of proportionality and subsidiarity should only be developed where national rules do not guarantee the right to damages effectively.\nI have also heard it said that more private actions will create additional costs for business. We heard similar arguments years ago as regards the 'polluter pays' principle for the environment. The fact is that today cartels and other abuses cause huge but hidden costs. Empirical research shows that international cartels raise prices by over 20%. Recent cartel decisions by the Commission covered synthetic rubber, gas-insulated switch gear and acrylic glass. All these cartels increased input costs for business and harmed European competitiveness. The time has come to introduce the 'competition-infringer pays' principle. Let us not forget that, whilst some industries have to create some pollution to do business, in the competition environment there is no need and no excuse for infringements. Infringers may not like having to repair the damage they cause, but they should simply not break the rules in the first place. It is their choice.\nI believe that making sure businesses and consumers do not lose out because of the illegal behaviour of some companies is worth fighting for. I sincerely hope that this week Parliament will send a strong message of support for this objective. We will discuss the detail together later, on the basis of a White Paper that will be balanced and measured and subject to the vigorous and very valuable scrutiny of this House.\nBert Doorn \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (NL) Mr President, I think it is now the third time that I am addressing this House on the topic of competition law around midnight. I am not sure what the reason for this could be, but it is uncanny that it should evidently be regarded as, in some sense, a nocturnal topic.\nAs draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I should like to make a few observations. The fundamental question is as to whether citizens and businesses that have sustained damage as a result of infringements of cartel law be entitled to damages I think they should, and so does the Committee on Legal Affairs. We think that in such cases, there should be a right to damages in the Member States, which should provide for procedures of this kind, although how they organise them is up to them. In some Member States, the government will need to establish first that an infringement has taken place. In other Member States, this will be done differently, but everything in accordance with the Member States' procedures. After all, there is also the question of whether procedures of this kind can be imposed from Brussels on Member States in the first place. You may be able to persuade them that these need to be introduced, but whether they can be imposed is, to our mind, a different matter altogether. This is not, after all, about cartel law, but civil law, which, like criminal law, is a preserve of Member States, something in which the European Union cannot intervene. This is why we have serious doubts as to the possible legal basis that should underlie European legal measures in order to introduce procedures of this kind.\nThe same applies, in fact, to all those other questions and observations in the Green Paper that pertain to the furnishing of proof, for example the hiring of experts or group activities. These are all examples that fall within the scope of national civil law, in respect of which the European Union cannot prescribe any legislation. These are the principal observations that we in the Committee on Legal Affairs have made.\nJonathan Evans\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner indicated during her address that she was looking for Parliament to give a strong measure of support to action in this area. I want to make it clear, on behalf of my group, that we welcome the publication of the Green Paper and we are looking forward to the publication of the White Paper. We think that people's rights in this area are not properly applied and, certainly, we want to ensure that more is done than is currently being done.\nHowever, as the Commissioner herself has indicated, that is going to require a delicate balance, not least for the reasons that Mr Doorn has outlined, and because of the hearing organised by Mr S\u00e1nchez Presedo, in which we devoted half a day to considering these difficult issues.\nFor my own part, I am very committed to regarding progress in this area as an integral part of the whole of the Commission's agenda in terms of modernisation of competition policy, so let nobody be in any doubt about our encouragement of further action by the Commission.\nHowever, as the Commissioner has made clear, both within Member State governments and amongst the business community, there is real concern to avoid the experiences of the United States. It is not good enough just to say 'we are not going to do what the United States did', especially when, it must be said, after giving a considerable amount of detailed consideration to the issue, Mr S\u00e1nchez Presedo's report goes into seeking to resolve, as it were, all these difficulties by changing the burden of proof, introducing punitive damages - at least in relation to cartels - and cost-free litigation, confusing EU and national competences, changing the rules in relation to disclosure, and cutting out of the assessment of the costs of this litigation any principles in relation to subsidiarity, proportionality or whether there is a proper legal base.\nTherefore, when people ask why we are concerned about this report, it is because it has become a Christmas tree with too many bells hanging on it. We are in favour of opening the door, we are certainly not in favour of encouraging a process which may lead us down the US route, against the wishes of the Commission and against the wishes of all of those who have worked on this report.\nIeke van den Burg\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is happy to embrace the initiative taken by the Commissioner in this Green Paper. This is the very reason why we would argue that it is wise not to specify at this stage that the scope of a number of points should not be looked into further. We want the Commission to be given ample opportunity to examine a number of things properly and to follow them up with impact assessments to study their effects. After all, I can imagine that with regard to the Green Paper, we too will reach the conclusion that that is not the most obvious route to take and that indeed, a number of things need not be further elaborated or fleshed out; we do not wish to take a decision on this at this moment though. This is why we are calling on the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to reconsider a number of those points or possibly to provide a formula which leaves slightly more room for what the conclusion should be, so as to in any event give the Commission the opportunity to look into this further. We will then also look at our own amendments in a critical light. I would hereby like to invite you to take another closer look at this tomorrow.\nAs for me, I should also like to address this point from a Dutch angle as we in the Netherlands are having a heated debate on this very topic at the moment; finally, people are experiencing what competition policy at European level means and how we fight these cartels, because in a recent Dutch case, the Commissioner has charged high fines to beer brewers. This is, of course, a topic on which the whole of the Netherlands assumes to be an authority. It was a very telling example, because this beer cartel involved price agreements among beer brewers, who also have enormous influence on the hotel and catering industry and as a result of which people, the eventual customers, paid over the odds for their beers, something which was already subject of discussion in the Netherlands ever since the introduction of the euro. This example, though, demonstrated once again that the fines that are then levied are first fed to the European Commission before they are channelled back to the Member States, and do not end up directly with these consumers. Hotel and catering entrepreneurs are likely to take legal action against these beer brewers to see if they can recover any of the damage, but this is of no use to the consumer, the end user. In that sense, it is very interesting as an example to see how headway can be made; after all, the eventual end user is being conned by cartels of this kind. This example also proves my point, and so I should like to call on this House to keep the door open and to find out how we can let the consumer, the end user, benefit more from this cartel policy.\nSharon Bowles\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, when we first discussed the Commission's Green Paper, I felt like a kind of latter-day Cassandra forecasting all kinds of woes. Perhaps I fared better than Cassandra in that you, Commissioner, and the rapporteur took some of my concerns seriously - I hesitate to call them 'predictions'. My concerns, though perhaps only gently - maybe too gently for some of my colleagues - are embedded in the report that we are debating. So I can support giving you scope to explore the options of both follow-on actions and stand-alone actions. I can share a vision of mutual recognition of decisions, but I make it clear that that lies in the future, not right now.\nMy main remaining reservations concern the question of how much of a carrot has to be offered to get the system to take off, particularly for stand-alone actions. And you may note the report on that subject that has just come out in the UK. If the carrot is too large, whether for the consumer, the lawyers or competing companies, I fear that, however we craft our rules, we are at risk of being pushed towards some of the worst aspects of damages actions that we hear about from the United States. I say 'pushed' because that is how it happens. Nobody goes there voluntarily. With the whole of the EU as the territory for the victor, a very fine balance has to be struck.\nAnother of my priorities would be to ensure that actions are well founded and that we do not end up with the kind of blackmail actions that happen in the United States. I agree it will be difficult to get it right and account will have to be taken of national differences in legal practice and tradition, but if we can succeed it will be a very useful tool and well worth having. I look forward to the White Paper too, but I warn you that I may not have put my Cassandra's robes away yet.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, you have a difficult task ahead of you because I can see that opinions will differ greatly on both sides. On the one side, you will have the support of a number of consumer associations, which will welcome your proposal. On the other side, you will have many interest groups, which will denounce the risks of such an approach in the field of competition law.\nNevertheless, since you are proposing an initiative in an area of yours relating to anti-trust, you are operating at a level at which the Commission's inaction will no doubt be challenged less than it would elsewhere. I am thinking in particular of the way in which the Commission assesses a given merger proposal.\nIn the area of anti-trust, there is, in a way, more scope for a broader agreement between the Member States and the public players. The basic idea, then, is to supplement public action with private action. We are still only at the preliminary stage, and we can clearly see that the path will be full of pitfalls. There are those, like Mr Doorn, who imagine that the Commission does not have to give its opinion on initiatives in this area, because all of that is meant to come under the civil law of the Member States. Then, there are those - I believe that all of this evening's speakers have voiced opinions along these lines - who are worried about the potential for such an initiative to be abused and, when we think about abuses in this area, everyone has in mind the abuse of the US system, where the victims whom the defence claims to help are in reality - if I dare say so - the cash cow of the legal professions. Clearly, no one in this Chamber wants to see European competition law engage in such a scheme.\nYou have announced to us a White Paper, and you have announced to us an impact study: once again, we shall examine your proposals with the aim of helping you, with the desire to make competition law better able, by way of these proposals, to address Europeans' concerns and to fulfil what they might normally expect from a just application of competition law.\nOnce again, however - and I am not the first person this evening to have said this - anything that is liable to involve us in an abuse of procedures that helps put money into professions which, incidentally, find many other ways of guaranteeing turnover, would not have our support. It is in this spirit of openness and with the concern, often demonstrated in this Chamber, to protect consumers' rights, that we shall support and examine your proposals.\nDiana Wallis\nMr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her initiative, and the rapporteur for his report. I want to concentrate on possible consumer actions, so-called collective or representative actions. These should not be the big bogeyman for business that they are often portrayed as. If we want informed and responsible consumers who do not need over-nannying by the state, then the companion of that approach of treating consumers like grown-ups is that we must allow them to take action together to get redress. After all, why should the state alone be the enforcer in anti-competitive matters? It is the consumer who loses as a result of anti-competitive behaviour, but often gets no redress or compensation.\nThere is nothing astounding in proposing this: the right to take action is already acknowledged by the ECJ. What we have to do is to facilitate this, make justice accessible to those who lose and ensure that compensation is distributed in an equitable manner, not just to the privileged few.\nThis has to be the complementary approach to having informed consumers, giving them real power through increasing justice and redress. Indeed, this should assist the better functioning of our internal market. Consumers are often the best judges of what is anti-competitive. We should have no fears about harnessing this force for the general good.\nEveryone is absolutely clear that we do not want US-style class actions, so now is our unique opportunity to design something European which respects European values of our society and justice.\nNeelie Kroes\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in van Gend [amp] Loos, the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament's vote on the report. So far, so good.\nI would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.\nI am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.\nIt is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.\nMr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.\nMany of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.\nMrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear - and I repeat - US-style opt-out class actions are not on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.\nIn opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Ber\u00e8s.\nYour involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail.\nI should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.\nSecond, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.\nThank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"18. Judicial training (vote) \n- After the vote\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, 15 seconds. In judicial training, the rights of parliamentarians must also be taken into account. I have just been the subject of an arbitrary arrest attempt carried out with complete disregard for my right to parliamentary immunity, which I nonetheless cited in my defence to the Lyon magistrates. Would you please kindly take note of this and ask the President of Parliament to demand that the French authorities provide the explanation that this incident requires?","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Green Paper on territorial cohesion and debate on the future reform of the cohesion policy - Regional policy best practice and obstacles to use of Structural Funds - Urban dimension of cohesion policy - Complementarities and coordination of cohesion policy with rural development measures - Implementation of the Structural Funds Regulation 2007-2013: results of negotiations on national cohesion strategies and operational programmes - A European initiative for the development of micro-credit in support of growth and employment (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the following reports:\nby Mr van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the Green Paper on territorial cohesion and debate on the future reform of the cohesion policy;\nby Mrs Krehl, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on regional policy best practice and obstacles to use of Structural Funds;\nby Mr Vlas\u00e1k, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the urban dimension of cohesion policy in the new programming period;\nby Mr Roszkowski, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on complementarities and coordination of cohesion policy with rural development measures;\nby Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the implementation of the Structural Funds Regulation 2007-2013: results of negotiations on national cohesion strategies and operational programmes; and\nby Mr Becsey, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on a European initiative for the development of micro-credit in support of growth and employment.\nLambert van Nistelrooij\nMadam President, it is the express wish of Parliament's Committee on Regional Development that there should be a single joint debate at the end of this term on the future of the cohesion policy, but today and tomorrow no less than five important reports by Members of this House are to be debated and also, so close to the European elections, voted on. We are talking about the European Community's biggest budget and the most visible part as far as the citizens are concerned. The cohesion policy has given Europe a face that shows its interconnectedness and solidarity. No other part of the world has generated so much mutual cohesion. Cohesion is once again also a central objective of the new Treaty of Lisbon. It also adds a third component, namely that of territorial cohesion.\nUnusual times call for new answers. The financial crisis, tougher competition as a result of globalisation, the climate crisis and the failure, as yet, to achieve the Lisbon objectives demand a more integrated approach, together with a strengthening of, and an improvement drive in, regional policy. We deal with these matters in this Green Paper. This Green Paper is in no way business as usual, but a call for better governance and territorial cohesion that also criticises developments where some regions fly high and there is progress in big-city areas, while other regions are left behind. That is not the Europe that this Parliament expects. In this joint debate today we are therefore also setting the course for the post-2013 period, after the review of the legislation with which we will be beginning the next parliamentary term, after the elections.\nI will briefly go over the most important points in this debate and in territorial cohesion. Back in 2005, Mr Guellec set out Parliament's wishes in his report. The new territorial dimension is now set as a permanent objective under Articles 13 and 174 of the new Treaty of Lisbon. As I say, it is an express opposition to an asymmetric Europe made up of some regions expanding at full throttle while more rural areas get left behind. It is the simultaneous unity and diversity of centres of excellence or p\u00f4les d'excellence and the specific position of other regions and places with their own qualities and multiformity. Territorial cohesion also complements the existing policy of economic and social cohesion. It is an integrated concept. It provides an insight into the effects of sector-based Community and decentralised activity such as research and development, the common agricultural policy, traffic and transport, the job situation and countering climate change.\nThe concept of territorial cohesion, the consultation of the past six months would seem to suggest, has been broadly subscribed to, and that is to be welcomed. The concept incorporates concentration and at the same time connectivity and cooperation, and it is a concept that we would like to elaborate on over the upcoming period.\nConstanze Angela Krehl\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, cohesion policy is important for Europe. It is an expression of solidarity. However, cohesion policy is not only needed by those in our society who are supposedly weaker. All our citizens need a policy of solidarity and European integration. This makes things all the more difficult when no use is made of Structural Funds in the regions, of which we have more than 260 in the European Union. This is not because no help is needed, but because the obstacles to obtaining the funds are too hard to overcome. Some of these obstacles are home-made. Of course, it is an important basic requirement that the rules are observed and that controls are put in place to ensure that the money provided by European taxpayers is used correctly. However, this must not result in the application forms and the explanations of how the funding can be obtained being so lengthy and incomprehensible that you need a PhD to understand them.\nTherefore, I call in my report for specific measures to reduce the amount of bureaucracy at European level, because we are responsible for this. For example, the system of controls should be simplified, the administrative burden on the projects should be reduced and the size of the projects should be modified. In addition, the project practices should be simplified, clarified and accelerated and made more result-oriented. However, I am convinced that something could also be done in this respect at national and regional level.\nThe second part of my report concerns best practices in cohesion policy. We must not reinvent the wheel, because this would be neither efficient nor clever. Therefore, we need to find a system for making good examples of projects available for use by others. As there are tens of thousands of cohesion policy projects every year, the trick is to identify, select and provide information about exemplary projects in the regions. In my opinion, the Commission has already made a good start in this area, for example with the RegioStars initiative, but this needs further development.\nIn some of what I believe are key areas, the report proposes criteria for selecting these projects. The key areas include research and innovation, creating high-quality jobs, support for SMEs, climate projects, integrated urban development and the development of private-public partnership projects, to name but a few. For example, the criteria for selecting best-practice projects could be the quality and sustainability of the projects, the driving force for the regions and for the European Union, the effective use of resources and, of course, transferability to other regions.\nThere are good examples to be found everywhere. In the appendix to the report I have listed some projects which I have been informed about as a result of the groundwork done in the regions. They come from all the Member States. I would like to mention a few of them here: a centre of excellence for environmental technologies in Slovenia, the Burgenland Mobility Centre in Austria, the 'brain hunt' competition in Estonia, the new building for the Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology in Germany, the science park in Granada in Spain and the development of the problem district of East Leipzig in Germany.\nFinally, as rapporteur and coordinator of my group, I would like to extend my very warm thanks to my colleagues for their cooperation, not only on this report but also over the last five years. I would also like to thank the Commission, the Committee on Regional Development and all the relevant employees for their cooperation. I hope that we can continue to work together in this way in future.\n(Applause)\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\nCommissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to present briefly the report on the urban dimension of cohesion policy. It is a report which examines options and the involvement of cities in the management and use of European money in the current programming period. It is a report which at the same time provides guidance and offers inspiration on how to adapt the Structural Funds rules so that they better suit the needs of European cities and metropolises. In drafting the report I have relied not only on scientific studies and expert opinions from interest groups such as the European Council of Municipalities and Regions and EUROCITIES, but above all on the direct experience and opinions of mayors, councillors, town hall officials, project managers and everyone else concerned with European funds. One of the inspiring meetings providing us with an opportunity for joint discussions on the urban dimension was an event entitled European Urban Day, which I organised together with partners at the beginning of February in Prague within the framework of the Czech Presidency of the EU. I would like at this point once again to thank Commissioner H\u00fcbner, Mr Svoboda and my colleagues Mr Olbrycht, Mr Beaupuy and Mrs Kallenbach for their participation and their active approach.\nIt is logical that our attention is focused on cities. Cities are home to 80% of the 500 million or so inhabitants of the EU. It is in cities that the great majority of jobs, companies and centres of education are located. Cities generate more than 70% of Europe's VAT. Cities therefore constitute a definite driving force for the economic growth of the whole of Europe, which makes them all the more important in a time of crisis. However, many cities are facing a range of serious problems. Cities and urban areas therefore need special attention within the framework of the cohesion policy.\nI would like to emphasise two main ideas from the text of the report. The first is the question of sub-delegation, which means transferring control of European resources to cities. Although European legislation already permits the sub-delegation of resources to cities so that they can allocate them when creating integrated development plans, Member States have made only marginal use of this option. One of the main aims of this report is to support the role of cities in the cohesion process. We must stop regarding cities merely as final recipients and instead view them as entities that administer territories. Just as regions and national civil service bodies hold their own budgets, cities must gain greater responsibility in the area of structural assistance for programming and distributing Structural Funds. The urban dimension must become mandatory.\nThe second fundamental idea is to really exploit the potential of the financial instrument JESSICA. Cohesion policy has hitherto been based exclusively on a system of subsidies, or in other words, non-returnable grants. The organisations and individuals submitting projects are therefore used to a situation where they receive European money and national budget resources earmarked for cofinancing 'free of charge'. The priority is often drawdown itself rather than an effective investment or an evaluation of available resources. Therefore the subsidy principle sometimes leads to a situation where some of the structural assistance is not used efficiently. In the current programming period we have seen JESSICA implemented to create space for a systematic amendment of the cohesion policy. However, the fact is that not much use has been made of the space. This must change in the next programming period. European policy should make more use of options relating to the use of financial engineering funds such as revolving funds. That is all for now. I would like to thank everyone who assisted me in drafting this report.\nWojciech Roszkowski\nrapporteur. - (PL) Madam President, the reform of the European Union's structural policy for the period 2007-2013 has brought with it changes to the structure of the Funds and the basis for the allocation of assistance. One important change was the creation of a new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development linked to the common agricultural policy. Whereas the 2000-2006 Financial Perspective tied rural development funding in with the Structural Funds and cohesion policy, separating it from CAP funding, under the new 2007-2013 Financial Framework they became part of the allocations linked to the CAP. As a consequence of these changes, however, the question arises as to whether this separation has actually led to more effective use of the available funding.\nLinking the CAP and rural development funding represents a simplification of the budgetary arrangements in appearance only. In reality, it means the separation of non-agricultural funding from the scope of the cohesion policy and as a result, either the duplication of some objectives, or their omission in both areas. There is a risk that the funding available under the regional policy will be used to a large extent to boost economic competitiveness in larger urban centres or the most dynamic regions, while the rural development fund will be focused on non-agricultural improvement, on improving agricultural competitiveness. In this situation, spending on support for non-agricultural activities and the development of SMEs in rural areas would be at the interface between the two funds and not be covered by either of them.\nThere could also be a shortage of funding to ensure basic public services and investment in infrastructure in rural areas, to which the Cohesion Fund is also meant to contribute. In this context it is becoming particularly important to come up with a transparent, long-term development strategy for rural areas at Member State and at regional level, in order to identify clearly rural development priorities and objectives and adapt to them the various sources of funding available. Linking the second pillar to cohesion policy measures would, however, require the close coordination of activities at national level.\nWhat constitutes a rural area has yet to be defined with any precision. Traditionally, rural areas could be differentiated from urban areas through their lower population density, different employment structure, lower level of income and poorer access to public roads. From the point of view of territorial cohesion, which, I repeat, has also not been adequately defined, lower population density should not be the decisive characteristic.\nOne of the European Union's development aims is to modernise social structures, including employment structures. It is possible to increase territorial cohesion, therefore, by aligning rural and urban employment structures. Level of income and access to public goods, however, remain the biggest challenge to territorial cohesion, and these objectives can be most effectively met by supporting non-agricultural activities in rural areas. Rural development should not, however, drain resources intended for direct payments to farmers.\nThe difficulty in implementing rural development policy stems from the fact that sectoral policies and territorial cohesion policies overlap, as do the economic and social dimensions, and therefore previous activities have focused on a separation of powers, rather than creating synergies. The aim of coordination should, however, be to create synergies in the use of funds. In the individual Member States, several models exist for the coordination of these activities, and it is currently difficult to claim that a particular country's solution should serve as a model for others. It does appear, though, that political will could be more decisive in terms of ensuring success than this or that organisational arrangement. A suitable solution could therefore be to apply the open method of coordination to this aspect of cooperation at Union level.\nHowever, it should be made clear that rural development policy has a huge impact on territorial cohesion. For this reason, it does not seem justifiable to separate measures under this policy from cohesion and regional development policy. This policy is better able than the CAP to assist with non-agricultural aspects of rural development, such as retraining people for work in other areas of the economy. Nevertheless, including rural development policy within cohesion policy is only possible on the condition that rural development receives adequate funding.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\nrapporteur. - Madam President, before we open the debate on the report on the implementation of the Structural Funds Regulation 2007-2013, allow me to seize this opportunity to thank the Commission for the concrete communication paper and the country fiches as a solid base on which to work. I would especially like to thank those who worked with me on the report, especially our EPP-ED adviser, Ms Stoian, and our committee administrator, Mr Chopin, who both devoted long hours to this report.\nLet me briefly recapitulate on the making of this report, which obtained, with just a few compromises, the full support of the Committee on Regional Development just last month. As you may already know, the aim of this report is to show the way in which the Member States understood and follow the 2006 Community strategic guidelines on cohesion when drawing up their 27 national strategic reference frameworks and 429 operational programmes adapted to meet their specific constraints and requirements.\nI have therefore decided to base this report on three main documents: firstly, the communication from the Commission; secondly, the 27 country fiches provided by the Commission and, thirdly, the Council decision of 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion, which represents an indicative framework for the Member States for the preparation of the national strategic reference frameworks and the operational programmes for the period 2007-2013.\nThe three leading priorities that were clearly set by the aforementioned Council decision are: firstly, making Europe and its regions more attractive places in which to invest and work; the second priority is to improve knowledge and innovation for growth; and the third priority is to attract more people into employment or entrepreneurial activity in order to create more and better jobs.\nBefore I share what I have observed while working on this report, it is important to underline that its scope is partly limited by the fact that the operational programmes were only approved in June 2008 and it will take at least a year before any real advances in their implementation can be assessed. Nevertheless, I can already assess that the general priorities have been adhered to by all Member States, with specific particularities imposed by their level of economic and territorial development.\nIt is also important to note that they might suffer certain changes in the sense of the increasing focus on investments in areas with immediate growth potential and urgency in the context of the European economic recovery plan, the Community response to the global financial crisis, and the current economic slowdown. In other words, it is important to remember that each Member State, and even more so the regions, have diverse needs arising from their geographical location and economic and institutional development. Therefore, the resulting tailor-made national cohesion strategies in the operational programme undoubtedly vary significantly according to these needs.\nIt is known that Member States were required by the general regulations of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund to earmark 60% of the total expenditure for the cohesion objective and 75% for the regional competitiveness and employment objective. However, I am pleased to see that the efforts made by the national authorities have ensured that the average allocation of expenditure for achievement of the Lisbon Agenda constitutes 65% - more than the available funds in the convergence regions - and 82% in the regional competitiveness and employment regions, which is also more than initially requested.\nI see my time is up. I had much more prepared. I will finish at the end of this debate.\nZsolt L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Becsey\nrapporteur. - (HU) After several postponements, we have finally reached a big day. I wish to express my gratitude that the Commission addressed the topic of micro-credit in a separate report back in November 2007, although it is also true that Parliament had already requested that summer that we work on this subject. I also approve of the fact that this debate is being coordinated by the member of the Commission responsible for cohesion, for as we know, previously it was mooted that the Commissioner for financial affairs should coordinate it; but the goal is that Community tools should truly reflect the perspectives of cohesion.\nI regret, however, that the Commission's materials did not extend to legislative tasks or include legislative proposals; therefore, the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs invoked the strongest possible measure, namely Article 39, and asked that concrete legal measures or organisational and financial steps be taken by the Commission in five different areas.\nI would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my shadow rapporteur, Mrs De Vits, to my colleague, Mrs Baeva, and to Mrs Ambruster of the Secretariat, for their enthusiastic work.\nWhy is micro-credit important? On the one hand, we would like to include in the national Lisbon action programmes the obligation of Member States to report regularly on their progress in this area. Only that which is obligatory yields results.\nOn the other hand, and this is the greatest merit of the Commissioner's approach, we wish to include new social segments in the sphere of economic activities. To this end, we need to launch a form of credit that helps persons with modest skills, who lack the collateral or real estate coverage required for traditional small business credit, to enter the labour market. Involving these new segments in the labour market will be indispensable for sustainable development and for attaining the 70% legal employment rate.\nBut how should we approach these layers of society? On the one hand, as my report also mentions, we need to move beyond the tendency to look at those in difficulty as a single group. We need to define disadvantaged groups more precisely: these include migrants in western countries, Roma in eastern areas, people living in rural areas or encampments and, generally speaking, women.\nYet these people cannot be reached in the tried and true manner, directly through the traditional networks of commercial banks, because these target groups are suspicious of the above instruments, and as already mentioned, they are not able to enter the free market. Therefore, inspired by the Asian example transposed to Europe, loans need to be made in small circles, having gained their confidence, basing the credit more on trust than on collateral. The intermediary organisation plays an important role in this system, of course, and this organisation must be able to carry on these activities even if it does not have a banking licence. We have succeeded in achieving this in certain Member States, but it is not yet the case everywhere, and therefore we need to involve non-bank organisations, including financial institutions that are close to the population and outside the securitisation market.\nThe question of an interest-rate cap has come up, and it is our opinion that although credit is expensive, the most important consideration is nonetheless a steady stream of liquidity for those using the system. For this reason I do not support introducing an interest-rate cap. Here we need to distinguish between consumer credit and micro-credit, for the two should not be confused.\nIt is important, moreover, to create incentives at national level, so that people should want to become micro-entrepreneurs with the help of micro-credit rather than collecting unemployment benefit. We need to show solidarity in the struggle against terrorism and the fight against money-laundering as well, for it is precisely by means of a mentorship system that we can somehow overcome the problems of a lack of permanent address or of a bank account, and the lack of start-up capital.\nDanuta H\u00fcbner\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, firstly I would like to thank wholeheartedly Lambert van Nistelrooij, Constanze Krehl, Old\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k, Wojciech Roszkowski, Miroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik and Zsolt L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Becsey for the opportunity generated for us to have this discussion today. It is a discussion that will certainly contribute to the debate on the future cohesion policy.\nWe are in the middle of that debate, as you know, and there are many very specific recommendations in your reports, which I will take as important inputs into this debate on the future cohesion policy, while there are also several major messages that cut across all the reports.\nThe first is that cohesion policy is, and should remain, a central pillar for achieving the European Union's sustainable development goals. That commitment will remain even more relevant in the post-crisis period, when generating green-collar jobs will be the European pass to sustainable employment.\nThere is also another clear message in all the reports, which is that cohesion policy should cover all the European territory, while the focus of cohesion policy should clearly remain on supporting the catch-up process of the poorest. I share your view on the importance of delivering European public goods in all regions. The crisis makes that message even more relevant. Many regions are looking these days at new ways and means of adapting to rapid global changes and avoiding the risk of falling behind. By mobilising under-utilised resources and exploiting comparative advantages, cohesion policy aims to ensure that all European regions, be they lagging behind or not, contribute to overall economic growth and change and to the creation of sustainable jobs, and that all citizens can benefit from the internal market.\nWe also share the conviction that geography matters in Europe, and this is one of the main reasons we launched the green paper on territorial cohesion. I am very pleased to see that you understand territorial cohesion in a way that is close to my heart, which is that territorial cohesion is first of all about mobilising the development potential of all the different territories. Regional policy is a development policy that helps citizens and enterprises unlock the inherent potentials of the places in which they live and work.\nI agree with you on the need to improve synergies and coordination between all European and national policies with a territorial impact. Here, the challenge is for territorial cohesion to be taken into account upfront when designing policies, and not to be seen as a tool to repair the damage once it has been done. This means, among other things, that we need to invest more in linking the regions that are lagging behind with the more prosperous ones.\nYour message is also clear on the need to strengthen the urban-rural relationship. Faced with the present fragmentation of funds, it also means that we need to understand better how to streamline the rules and procedures for all the funds with respect to eligible expenditure, management, monitoring, reporting and financial management obligations.\nThere is a need for greater flexibility when delineating the territories in which cohesion policy programmes are designed and implemented. In other words, we need to target the policy at functional areas. We need, for example, to look sometimes inside cities at neighbourhood level, and sometimes beyond the boundaries of the cities, at metropolitan level.\nThis functional or flexible geography does not stop at national borders, and cooperation across national borders is of clear European added value and importance for citizens. There are still barriers in the European internal market, and significant untapped potential in cross-border labour markets and transnational clusters. The Baltic Sea Strategy, which we are preparing now, is a good example of what we mean by a functional area. I see this as a test case for territorial cohesion, which could then be extended to other macro-regions. We are working on this.\nAll the reports underline the need for cohesion policy to respond to new challenges such as demography, energy, climate and globalisation. All European regions will be affected by those new challenges, but their impact will vary significantly across Europe, often resulting in losses of competitiveness, employment and social cohesion. This might consolidate existing disparities and create new ones, but these challenges can also be turned into opportunities. To achieve this we need to continue emphasising cohesion policy investment in research and development, and innovation in developing a knowledge-based economy and in promoting entrepreneurship and business support services. These are key factors for boosting the sustainable competitiveness of the European economy and for generating sustainable jobs and growth. They are at the heart of cohesion policy and have a strong territorial dimension, which requires tailor-made solutions and policy support.\nTo render the management of cohesion policy programmes more efficient - and this is our common concern - there is a need to reinforce inter-regional exchanges of experience and of good practice. Good governance practice must be disseminated rapidly across Europe. This may help also to overcome difficulties in implementing cohesion programmes. I share your view that we must continue to reform policy delivery.\nYou call for fostering the effort devoted to so-called 'financial engineering' as a means of tapping the potential of the private sector. As you well know, in an important cultural shift, we have decided to complement a traditional ground-based approach with new tools.\nYour support for our micro-credit initiative is good news, and I thank you very much for this. I am convinced that developing micro-credit schemes is crucial for the sustainable development and competitiveness of European regions and cities. It requires action to be taken at all levels. We will look into ways and means of reinforcing this instrument in the future.\nYou call also for a strengthening of the fundamental principles of cohesion policy, such as partnership, multi-level governance and transparency, and I fully endorse that call. By building on local knowledge, by involving all the relevant actors on the ground and by improving the visibility of the European cohesion policy, we will certainly enhance the impact and the quality of European cohesion investment.\nOnce again, my thanks for your continuous efforts to render cohesion policy more effective and more efficient in the future.\nGary Titley\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - Madam President, I would just like to focus on the microcredit issue, which the Committee on Budgets completely supports as it will help people without access to normal sources of funds - the very sort of people who need help in the current environment. We also welcome the Commission's JASMINE initiative.\nHowever, there are certain considerations that we want to state. Firstly, funds should only be used where other sources are not appropriate, owing either to high risk or low profitability. Secondly, they must also be used to bring in private finance. Thirdly, because of different approaches from different Member States, we would like to look at whether it is feasible to have an EU framework for non-bank microfinance institutions. We would also like to look at whether interest-rate caps, which are used in some countries, are appropriate in these circumstances.\nIn the longer term, we would like to get beyond the use of structural funds for this important initiative, because some of the people who need help are not in the areas that have support from the structural funds.\nNathalie Griesbeck\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs H\u00fcbner, today we are looking at five very important documents on cohesion policy, which, I would remind you, has for some months now been the main item in our budget. In this way we are of course already sending a strong signal to the future renewed institutions: to Parliament, naturally, but also to the Commission.\nIt goes without saying that cohesion tools, and above all the funds, must represent real European added value for our fellow citizens, but today, in the context of the severe crisis hitting Europe, they must be more responsive and more adapted to urban situations in particular. I especially welcome the work that has been done on the plan for housing assistance, since housing is the second priority for citizens, after jobs.\nIn fact, it is not always a question of money, as the funds are there, but of what I might call a 'structural' slow pace - sometimes in State management, sometimes in administrative inertia and sometimes, unfortunately, in both - which gets in the way of that impact we are always talking about, which is essential for our regions and our citizens. At its worst, this could even appear counterproductive.\nAs permanent rapporteur for the Structural Funds within the Committee on Budgets, I would insist now more than ever, in the current crisis, that we should simplify, clarify and give genuine political substance to this European money.\nAtanas Paparizov\nMadam President, as the draftsman representing the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the implementation of the Structural Funds Regulation, I would like to thank Mr \u041cikol\u00e1\u0161ik for reflecting the basic conclusions and suggestions made by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy in his report.\nFirst of all, this concerns the efforts of Member States to closely link the use of the funds with the Lisbon Strategy. It is also emphasised at the same time that the resources allocated for energy are extremely inadequate, especially with regard to the resources for renewable sources.\nWe urge the European Commission once again to increase the amount of resources earmarked for improving the energy efficiency of housing from 3% to at least 5%.\nAt the same time, the report does not reflect our proposal concerning the projects for capturing carbon dioxide, even though Member States agreed last week to support 12 projects in seven countries, with a value of EUR 1.05 billion.\nThis is not at all sufficient to resolve the problems in all the Member States which are interested in securing resources by 2012 for implementing such projects. This is why I urge this issue to be taken into account by the Commission in its quest for resources, including the use of funds from the European Investment Bank.\nNeena Gill\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Madam President, small enterprises play an essential part in creating cohesion in the EU, and the extension of microcredit will underpin SMEs' economic recovery.\nThe Committee on Legal Affairs recognises that establishing a firm can be a daunting process. The EU needs to do more by providing proper legal advice on setting up a business. One way to do this would be to establish a European network of lawyers prepared to give advice on micro-business start-ups, initially on a pro bono basis. Urgent efforts are needed to tackle the regulatory burden on micro-businesses and to make micro-finance institutions as accessible as possible.\nWe need this type of legislation more than ever, but legislation on its own is not enough. The Commission has to make sure this is transformed into real action that can be felt at the ground level immediately, because this report is not just about entrepreneurship: microcredit also delivers social cohesion, and it encourages people to take ownership of their lives and their potential. My congratulations to all the rapporteurs.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\nI would like to begin by thanking my colleague Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, who has incorporated into points 12, 16, 17, 18 and 23 of his report the points from my opinion, which I drew up on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. These points are based on my own experience as a councillor in the town of Chmelnice and on suggestions from voluntary organisations, and I consider them key to the more effective and more transparent drawdown of resources from EU funds.\nI firmly believe that the 2007-2013 programming period will not be a success if the Member States do not eliminate the excessive administrative hurdles which put voluntary organisations off requesting funding for projects, especially those that are focused on supporting women in difficult financial circumstances, refugee women, women from ethnic minorities, physically disabled women and women who have been victims of rape or torture.\nI would once again like to call on the Member States and especially those that joined the European Union after 1 May 2004, to avoid excessive delays in the reimbursement of costs for completed projects because the insolvency caused by such behaviour often prevents recipients, especially local authorities and voluntary organisations, from continuing with other activities in their areas of operation.\nThe economic crisis is having an impact even on drawdowns of money from EU funds. The current method of financing projects is particularly unsuitable for small local authorities who have no chance of obtaining project funding. It is therefore essential to discuss and adopt measures for simplifying the financing system. The representatives of local authorities in my own country, Slovakia, insist that if the current legislation is not amended they will be drawing down far less money from European Structural Funds than previously. The absence of effective, simple and straightforward support for small local authorities is a very serious matter and I therefore believe that this report will help in the drawdown of Structural Funds.\nEmmanouil Angelakas\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all six reports which we are debating are important in that they reflect the present situation in terms of regional policy and describe the model and priorities for the period after 2013.\nCongratulations to all the rapporteurs on their work. I should like to comment in particular on the report by Mrs Krehl on best practice in the field of regional policy, for which I was the rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and underline the very good work by my fellow Member.\nThis report presents the basic obstacles to the correct use of the Structural Funds and how they can be overcome, using a series of criteria to classify certain projects and actions as best practice and referring to the lack of a commonly acceptable definition of best practice.\nWhen talking of best practice, I consider it extremely important that amendments were included in the report such as:\nthe need to strengthen small and medium-sized enterprises and to link regional policy with industry and science;\nmeasures to retain the population, especially the young generation, in their regions and to provide care for working parents; and\nthe smooth integration of immigrants.\nAt the same time, when we talk of best practice in regional policy, we need to take account of:\nfirstly, the existence of geographical and demographic peculiarities in regions;\nsecondly, the lack of uniformity as regards the regional models of organisation of the Member States;\nthirdly, the need to divide best practice criteria into mandatory and optional criteria; and\nfourthly, the need to take account of successful methods already being applied so that they can be defined as best practice.\nTwo words on the report by Mr van Nistelrooij on the Green Paper, to highlight the good work he has done and to point out that the rapporteur rightly stresses the need for public consultation, so that we can find a commonly acceptable definition of territorial cohesion, and the need to approach areas with special characteristics in such a way that territorial cohesion also covers these areas in the best possible way.\nIratxe Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez\nMadam President, I want to start by thanking the various rapporteurs for their work, particularly Mrs Krehl and Mr van Nistelrooij. They enabled a broad consensus to be achieved within our committee. We must also welcome the European Commission's Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, which puts some important issues on the table.\nFirstly, cohesion policy is important as an instrument for ensuring the balanced development of the European Union, with any attempt to re-nationalise these policies being rejected. The new concept of territorial cohesion is included, which is why a consultation process was started - which is now about to end - that must be taken into account. It has been adapted to the new challenges, such as the effects of globalisation, climate change and demographic changes.\nThe figures from the latest cohesion report show us that, although the differences between regions are diminishing, thus fulfilling the principle of convergence, we must now tackle another issue, which is the persistence of intraregional differences. As a result, when determining the eligibility criteria for funding, we must consider the possibility of taking certain aspects into account other than purely per capita income.\nIn addition, with regard to including the 'territorial' concept, we must be aware of the need to take account of the specific features of certain regions, such as their geographical disadvantages, their outermost position or the depopulation processes in certain regions.\nCohesion is one of the most obvious successes of the European project. Spain has been a clear example of this, given the economic and social development that it has experienced. This is the path along which we must continue in order to guarantee equal opportunities for all Europeans, regardless of where they live.\nThe European Union is made up of a wide range of regions, with differences that enrich them and give meaning to this project. However, if we have to insist on something with regard to cohesion policy, it must be on the need to give our regions all the tools to ensure that they have equal opportunities to access development and growth.\nGra\u017cyna Staniszewska\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (PL) Madam President, I would like to comment on two reports in particular: the report on territorial cohesion and that on the exchange of good practice. My colleagues from the ALDE Group will deal with the other items.\nMr van Nistelrooij's report responds to the Green Paper on territorial cohesion published by the Commission. We all agree that the debate started on the future cohesion policy should be supplemented by the territorial dimension. However, we have a paradox: we are discussing territorial cohesion without defining what it means.\nWe want the territorial dimension to help achieve a more balanced development than it has done to date, so that all citizens of the European Union have the opportunity of equal access to services in particular. However, to date we lack a precise set of criteria to which we can refer. Yet this is of fundamental significance for the future. The discussion on territorial cohesion in the European Union no longer makes any sense if we do not draft a cohesive definition.\nAchieving territorial cohesion means ensuring the best possible development for the entire territory of the Community, and improving the lives of its inhabitants. As stated in the report, the aim of territorial cohesion should be above all to even out the disparities in the level of development of individual regions and Member States, and in particular to eliminate the growing disparities within regions and countries.\nThe more the gap between individual states is reduced, the greater the internal differentiation. Most investments and funding are accumulated in the national and regional capitals at the expense of the other territories, and Member States cannot or do not wish to counteract this. In this situation, it is necessary to create mechanisms at Community level that will effectively stimulate a more even and sustainable development.\nIn my view, we should scrutinise the statistical data for NUTS3, and not just NUTS2. The NUTS3 data show up the problem far more clearly. We should take this into account when allocating funding. The process of achieving territorial cohesion must be carried out at all levels: European, national and regional, taking into account the principle of subsidiarity.\nExchanging good practice is particularly important. The effectiveness of cohesion policy depends to a great extent on simplifying procedures, and in particular on becoming familiar with the opportunities provided by the most effective solutions used elsewhere.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, our debate concerns regional development and cohesion policy, which are important issues for the entire Community. That is because at present the disparity in wealth between the regions is huge, even exceeding a disparity of 10:1. It is therefore in the interests of the European Union's citizens that all opportunities should be used to show the actual solidarity of Europeans.\nThat does not in any way mean that everyone should get exactly the same. It should mean that everyone is given an equal opportunity. It should apply to the residents of urban agglomerations as well as those living in rural areas, people living in the centre of Europe as well as those on the peripheries, the younger generation as well as elderly people. We need to show innovation in doing this, with a view both to the present and to the future.\nToday we have six very good reports before us. It is a pity that we are discussing them all in one go. I congratulate the authors. I would very much like our activities to serve this true European Community, this unity, and every euro to be spent for a good purpose, not for the wealthy to become even wealthier ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nElisabeth Schroedter\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in your speech today, Commissioner, you mentioned the contribution made by the cohesion policy to climate protection. I welcome this change of heart, because there is no emphasis on this in the Green Paper on territorial cohesion. Why not, given the climate crisis that we are currently facing?\nThe contribution of the European Structural Funds to environmental transformation is a future issue for territorial cohesion. The 'Regions 2020' document produced by the Commission shows that climate change has had a massive impact on many of Europe's regions. As a result, we must change course. The Structural Funds should be used only to support sustainable projects. Projects and programmes which cause damage to the climate, and many of these have been approved in the past, should no longer be authorised. EU funds should not be used to promote programmes and projects which damage the climate. Why are you not taking this approach already?\nThe second question concerns the implementation of the partnership principle. Commissioner, you mentioned that local knowledge is an important foundation for successful development. Why have you nevertheless approved operational programmes where the partnership principle is clearly being completely disregarded and where the partners have reported that they were not involved? You have not answered this question. Local, grass-roots knowledge is an asset for us. If you continue to attempt to ignore the fact that Member States are completely disregarding the partnership principle and to provide them with subsidies despite this, you will be breaching the Structural Funds Regulation.\nYou completely fail to mention in your report, which forms the basis for the Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik report, that many Member States have not followed the partnership principle. You have not taken the partners' reports into account. Why do you remain silent on this subject?\nIt is clear at this point that we need a new dimension for the Structural Funds. They must be based on environmental and democratic principles, make use of local knowledge and follow the partnership principle.\nPedro Guerreiro\nLet us be clear: the Treaties state that, in order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion, by aiming to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas.\nAs a result, in this debate on the future of cohesion policy, to which the so-called territorial cohesion dimension is to be added, the following essential principles must be underlined.\nFirstly, the primary and principal objective of structural policy must be to promote real convergence, by acting as an instrument of redistribution with regard to the costs, inequalities and asymmetries caused by the internal market, by Economic and Monetary Union and by the liberalisation of world trade, for those countries and regions in the European Union which are economically less developed.\nSecondly, so-called competitiveness cannot be a substitute for convergence in those Member States and regions which are lagging behind in their socio-economic development. As a result, cohesion policy and its associated financial resources must not be subordinated to the competition and liberalisation advocated by the Lisbon Strategy.\nThirdly, so-called territorial cohesion must contribute to economic and social cohesion. In other words, its central objective must be to reduce disparities between the levels of economic development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions.\nFourthly, new objectives and priorities must be matched by new Community financial resources. In other words, so-called territorial cohesion must not be funded to the detriment of the Convergence objective.\nFifthly, the current Community financial resources for cohesion policy are insufficient to meet the needs of real convergence and to respond to the regional disparities, high levels of unemployment, income differences and poverty in the European Union.\nSixthly, boosting the Community budget in order to promote economic and social cohesion is absolutely essential.\nSeventhly, land management and planning are the responsibility of each Member State.\nLastly, in addition to other important aspects that we have not highlighted here, we would reaffirm that it is unacceptable for regions to be financially harmed by the so-called statistical effect, which is why measures cancelling out this effect must be adopted.\nPeter Baco\n- (SK) The discussion on coordinating cohesion policy and measures for developing rural areas is full of contradictions. The main cause is a fundamental reduction in the budget for rural development which makes it impossible to achieve the original aims of rural policy. This happened during the UK Presidency. The greatest price for this, however, will be paid by rural areas in the most backward regions of the new Member States. The common agricultural policy has thus become, along with discrimination in direct payments, an instrument for the two-speed development of rural areas and, indirectly, of the regions as well.\nActual development indeed clearly shows how absurd it is to believe that rural areas with declining agriculture can be developed. We will never achieve the revitalisation of backward regions in the EU if we fail to ensure the development of rural areas within the original budgetary framework. Rural development cannot be implemented through sudden ad hoc decisions, but must be based on a long-term plan. However, we are lacking such a plan. Reinstatement of the rural development budget is thus also becoming a key condition for the entire cohesion policy.\nJames Nicholson\nMadam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteurs for all these excellent reports and especially the one I shadowed. I thank the rapporteur for his good cooperation and hard work. It was not the easiest of reports to draft, but we managed to find good compromises on the key points. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate now.\nRural development is a very important issue and we must ensure that all available EU funding for rural development is being exploited and used in the most effective and efficient manner. In my opinion, rural development is about supporting active farming communities, especially young farmers and farmers who wish to diversify their businesses. Proper business projects in rural areas should be focusing on improving infrastructure and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises.\nThe central focus of this report is about ensuring that rural development projects, whether funded by the structural funds or the ERDF, do not overlap or, at worst, miss out on opportunities. What is clear from this report is that better coordination between regional development policy and the ERDF is needed.\nI do not feel, however, that I can support a situation where funds are raised via modulation for redistribution back through the regional development authority. If farmers are being asked to pay into the CAP then they must ensure that their monies come back into the rural communities. I believe this must be active through the second pillar of the CAP. However, the rapporteur has successfully opened up a debate on this relevant topical issue. I agree with him on the main focuses of this report, but this will be a problem for the next Parliament to decide.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg\n(PL) Madam President, the two most recent accessions to the European Union have resulted in a significant exacerbation of regional disproportions within the Community. The result is an increasingly distinct phenomenon of 'spatial segregation', resulting in isolated regional enclaves, particularly areas remote from the centres of development, which are mainly rural areas.\nEnvironmentally friendly sustainable economic development and reducing regional disparities are the overriding aim of European regional policy. In October 2006, the Council adopted strategic guidelines on cohesion to act as reference points for the Member States in drafting their national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes for 2007-2013.\nThe priorities set out in these documents make Europe and the regions more attractive in terms of investment and jobs, increase the level of knowledge and innovation for growth and create more jobs of better quality. Implementing these priorities in operational programmes should allow the regions to tackle the challenges of globalisation, structural, demographic and climate change, and boost the harmonious, long-term sustainable development of the regions.\nWe should acknowledge the fact that all Member States have already made efforts to include priorities conforming with the aims of the Lisbon Strategy in their operational programmes. However, the excessively slow absorption of funds from the new programming period which we have observed in many Member States may threaten their effective utilisation.\nIt is therefore extremely important, particularly for the new Member States, to consolidate actions to assist the capacity for the real take-up of available funds, both in the way these funds are utilised, and by exchanging best practice, information campaigns, exchange of new technology and the development of various types of partnership, in such a way as to allow the programme requirements to be transformed into actual, quality programmes for the effective elimination of delays in development, which are a particular problem in the poorest regions of the EU.\nElspeth Attwooll\nMadam President, I speak on the van Nistelrooij report and to emphasise three points.\nFirst, that territorial cohesion involves promoting polycentric development across the European Union. This means eliminating disparities within, as well as between, regions. There is consequently a need for improved spatial analysis and the development of indicators against which policies can be designed and their impact assessed.\nSecond, there must be an integrated approach, with measurement in advance of the effect that sectoral policies would have at regional levels and the achievement of greater synergy between them. Certainly, such impact assessment could pre-empt certain problems, such as those posed by the electronic identification of sheep in Scotland.\nThird, an integrated approach demands proper multilevel governance, involving all stakeholders in the design and implementation of strategies.\nWhat the Commissioner has said in these respects has been very welcome, and I hope for great support for this excellent report.\nGiovanni Robusti\n- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Roszkowski report highlights the disparities between the various rural areas and between these and urban areas in terms of management of the Structural Funds. The rapporteur rightly points to the need to re-establish some consistency between the ERDF and the EAFRD, even though he should perhaps have been clearer about the meaning of the term 'open coordination', which conflicts with the obvious disparities that exist and the areas of national competences.\nA higher degree of consistency requires transparency in relation to data and payments. Knowing how resources are distributed is an essential tool for highlighting and correcting distortions. However, we are lacking such transparency. In practice we are witnessing the most varied of activities being performed for the purposes of hiding data, denying access and concealing information, and all this is on the part of public bodies and our very own national governments. The Commission is saying that it does not have competence, and everything is becoming vague and unclear. We are saying that we are facing a wall of silence.\nIf we do not resolve this problem, then we will be even more detached from the real problems that the Structural Funds should be resolving.\nGisela Kallenbach\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I very much welcome the fact that we are having a timely political debate on the basis of initiative reports which will allow us to use our instrument of solidarity in a more targeted and efficient way by 2014 at the latest. It is also very important to me to inform the citizens of Europe about the European added value that this will offer.\nTherefore, it is logical for us to reject all attempts to renationalise the structural policy. More than ever we need a standard Community policy which is able to meet the challenges we are currently facing, such as globalisation, climate change and demographic change. Whether we have been successful or whether we are deluding ourselves with the budgetary commitment for the Lisbon Strategy will hopefully become clear at the latest when the required analysis has been carried out.\nWe have come to a fork in the road where we must decide whether or not territorial cohesion and true sustainable development are the symbols of European policy. In order to make this decision we need a large number of partners, in particular cities. For this reason, we also want to see global grants going directly to these partners, not only on paper, but also in practice. However much we value subsidiarity, European funds must be allocated on the basis of binding criteria. Alongside the importance of the urban dimension, these must include an integrated approach and the implementation of our climate objectives. We have already come to a consensus on this. Unfortunately, this was not the case in the vote of the Committee on Regional Development.\nOne other thought: according to the Commission's Economic Recovery Plan, the allocation of Structural Funds should be simplified and accelerated. It is not yet clear to me why we needed a crisis in order for this to happen, but it is a hopeful sign. If the comprehensive analysis of the best practice projects really forms part of the political discussion, there should be no further obstacles to Europe playing a pioneering role in the development of a truly sustainable policy.\nI would like to thank all the rapporteurs for their hard work.\nGeorgios Toussas\n(EL) Madam President, the myth of convergence and cohesion between the countries and regions of the European Union is being demolished by reality itself:\neconomic and social inequalities are constantly increasing;\nartificial statistical convergences caused by the accession of the new Member States cannot deceive the workers, farmers, young people and women, who see their standard of living constantly deteriorating;\nregional development within capitalist frameworks cannot remove class conflicts in the system;\nunequal development is inherent in the capitalist method of production, because the incentive for any development process is the maximisation of capital;\nnational cohesion tactics and the operational programmes of the NSRF 2007-2013, like previous programmes, have a specific class orientation: they obey the anti-grassroots approach of the Lisbon Strategy and are adapted to national reform programmes; in other words, they promote capitalist restructurings and more flexible contracts of employment.\nThus the European Union and the bourgeois governments are serving the needs of capital, both for the period of the capitalist crisis, by shifting the entire burden onto the working class, onto the workers, and with the obvious objective of making these anti-labour measures permanent, in order to safeguard and increase the profits of the monopolies in the future as well.\nThe new relevant factor which has been added to the scope of cohesion policy is the concept of territorial cohesion and, more importantly, the Green Paper on it. The reactionary character of the guidelines in the Commission proposal goes beyond the framework of the positions and competences of the European Union included in the Treaty of Lisbon, as the Euro-Constitution is now called, and this is an insult to the peoples in the Member States.\nThe Green Paper on territorial cohesion sets as immediate sectors the charge by the monopolies into health, education, energy and other services, the fundamental element being that of access to the transport networks above all.\nThe Greek Communist Party is categorically opposed to and rejects in its entirety the reactionary framework of the Commission's proposal on territorial cohesion.\nKathy Sinnott\nMadam President, cohesion policy in all its forms is meant to be the engine of equality, and it has had many successes. However, cohesion policy should be considered in the light of a long-term assessment of its overall effect. In such an assessment, the question is simple: are communities and the people who live in them better off because of EU cohesion policies and the structural funds that support them? With an honest look at the record, one would probably find that the immediate answer is 'yes', but that in the long term it is too often 'no'.\nWe are told that farmers in Ireland did well - and that is true. But why then, in the long term, are there so few farmers left and so many unemployed and under-employed in Irish rural areas? Was it that the structural funds and cohesion policy were no match for the CAP? Or that they could not mitigate the common fisheries policy, which, over three and a half decades, decimated Irish coastal communities and fish stocks in Irish waters? And why, with better roads and infrastructure - courtesy of EU funds - is Limerick in the south-west of Ireland becoming an employment black spot? Is it because cohesion policy has nothing to say in response to competition policy, which allows a new Member State to entice away Dell, a keystone industry in the area, with EUR 54 million in state aid?\nCohesion policy strives for equality, yet privatising directives, such as the Postal Directive, have had the effect of further eliminating services to poorly serviced areas. The problem may be that our cohesion policy has no cohesion with other EU policies, like competition, market liberalisation etc.\nThe secret is that cohesion does not come from policies: it comes from basic unifying principles that should run through every policy - principles of respect for the human person, real subsidiarity, priority of the vulnerable, respect for life, stewardship of creation, the importance of family, the dignity of work, solidarity and a central focus on the common good. Until all EU policies are guided by these principles, programmes will continue to conflict.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nCarl Lang\n(FR) Madam President, between 2007 and 2013, cohesion policy will be the main item of expenditure for the Europe of Brussels, but far from benefiting the French regions, this development actually penalises them. The increase in regional expenditure is in fact made at the expense of the common agricultural policy, and therefore at the expense of France. We can see that the share allocated to the French regions is continually shrinking. The vast majority of the EUR 347 billion in Structural Funds is to be given to Eastern Europe, destroyed by more than 40 years of communism.\nAlready in the year 2000, Brussels withdrew the Structural Funds granted under the former Objective I from the cantons of France's Hainaut region. Today France, which contributes 16% of European budget revenue, is giving more and more but receiving less and less.\nWhat is more, this regional aid has not protected those affected by the world economic crisis because it forms part of the ultra-liberal philosophy of the Lisbon Strategy. Now more than ever, we need to build a new Europe that will at last provide economic protection for our regions and our nations through an active policy of reassuming control of our internal market.\nMarkus Pieper\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to take this opportunity to consider the Roszkowski report in more detail.\nBoth policy areas covered by the report - the Structural Funds and the support for rural areas - seem to be working well. However, I have the impression that in some cases both of these policies have identical objectives. In the areas of demographics, energy and telecommunications, we find projects funded both by the Structural Funds and by the rural development policy, which are working towards the same goals, but are the responsibility of different ministries. We have a large number of European projects, but do we also have projects which provide European added value? My impression is that there is sometimes a failure to see the big picture.\nIf we were to link together projects across the different departments, we would be able to achieve much more for the rural areas, such as decentralised energy infrastructures, broadband cabling over a much larger area and cross-border water infrastructures. We need more projects which are supported by several ministries at once. If this happens, we will no longer be working on a small scale, but instead we will be able to introduce permanent improvements in the regions using European funding. We must make the European requirements for cross-departmental cooperation binding. Perhaps we should even seriously consider setting a minimum project amount.\nOne more comment on financing: in my opinion, modulation is not a nice word. It takes away the compensation payments which have been promised to farmers, without providing the rural development programmes with reliable funding. For this reason, agricultural policy must in future be a policy for farmers with clear financial commitments and no transfer of funds elsewhere. In the same way, regional policy must be a policy for the regions, with a particular focus on rural regions and their requirements. This will result in true European initiatives which will improve our regions in the long term.\nEvgeni Kirilov\n(BG) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, during today's debate it appears to be the general consensus again that the cohesion policy is a necessary and useful policy.\nThose of us who support it want it to continue to evolve and yield positive results. This is why I believe that it is important for us to abide by one fundamental requirement: the cohesion policy must be accessible to those whom it is intended for and who need it, specifically, the regions and territories which are lagging behind and encountering difficulties in their socio-economic development.\nMrs Krehl's report lists a number of obstacles facing potential users of the aid from the Structural Funds. These obstacles, which are due to bureaucratic difficulties and complex, vague procedures, lead to mistakes. This discourages the beneficiaries and fuels criticism from the inspection bodies.\nTo be able to tackle this two-pronged challenge, we need, on the one hand, to collaborate with all institutions and Member States and, on the other hand, I want to call for us to make use of the acquired experience and focus more attention on the positive results when we are looking for ideas on how to overcome the obstacles.\nIn this respect, the proposals which we are making in Mrs Krehl's report on best practices provide a solid basis for the subsequent measures and actions aimed at simplifying the rules and improving the exchange of information and communication when using the Structural Funds. The European Commission and the governing bodies are again called on to play a key role, but they obviously need to know that they have the European Parliament's support.\nMr van Nistelrooij stressed that the cohesion policy is an expression of solidarity. It remains for us to work hard to ensure that our citizens can tangibly feel that they are benefiting from the results of this solidarity. The ultimate aim of the cohesion policy must be to provide equal opportunities to all European citizens, no matter where they live.\nJean Marie Beaupuy\n(FR) Madam President, Mrs H\u00fcbner, over the last 30 years we have witnessed the benefits of the different cohesion policies we have pursued. We must emphasise these benefits during the upcoming elections, since they are of clear interest to citizens who have seen their quality of life triple in some cases, and for regions that, after having been in debt, are now making real headway. So then, the benefits cannot be denied.\nToday, moreover, cohesion policy has taken first place as the biggest item in our European budget. The issue posed by these six reports before us this morning, what we want to achieve as MEPs, is to improve the effectiveness of these funds and regulations that we are making available to our fellow citizens.\nMrs H\u00fcbner, the Commission holds the key to the effectiveness of these provisions and budgets. How so? Firstly, if I may, Commissioner, because we have a relationship and we know that you will listen to us and ensure that the Commission takes due account of the requests made in these six reports, and I would take this opportunity to congratulate the six Members who drafted them.\nMrs H\u00fcbner, these reports provide extremely detailed solutions, whether in terms of the urban environment, rural areas, best practices or future cohesion policy; as you know, they contain very specific examples that will facilitate the Commission's work.\nWe therefore await the Commission's proposals for specific, European-level solutions, but that is only half the work needed to achieve effectiveness. That is why, Commissioner, we are also asking you to use as much influence as you can at governmental, regional and local-authority level, since these bodies will put into practice our provisions, budgets and regulations, and we will not be effective unless they are.\nWe are counting on you, Mrs H\u00fcbner, both at European and national level, to make a success of the six reports we are presenting.\nAndrzej Tomasz Zapa\u0142owski\n(PL) Madam President, an important counterbalance to the growing trend towards national protectionism in Europe today is a rational cohesion and rural development policy. The present system of support from a variety of rural development funds has only served to entrench, rather than even out, development levels in various parts of the European Union.\nThe result is a huge disparity in agricultural subsidies between the new and the old Member States, and these disparities will persist after 2013. All farmers have similar production costs, and agricultural services in the new Member States are increasing, and are rapidly approaching the price levels of the old Member States. What chances, then, do rural areas have of equalising their level of development in the coming decades?\nOnly stable and long-term support for local communities in the poorer regions accompanied by maximum streamlining of procedures will make it possible to even out the disparities and allow us to speak of real competition within the European Union over the next decade or so.\nJim Allister\nMadam President, I wish to speak about urban and city funding. Commissioner, you have visited Belfast a number of times. You will have seen, I hope, as I have, the distinct benefit of the Urban Programme, particularly in North Belfast. Hence I regret the passing of that programme, particularly since nothing comparable has taken its place. The switch of focus to private-public partnerships is a poor substitute with access to JESSICA doing little to soften the blow, at least so far. In truth we moved away from Urban without a practical substitute in place.\nIn the present economic climate, the prospect of JESSICA producing the anticipated leverage effect is diminishing, leaving an unfilled gap in many cities where urban redevelopment and investment are still needed. The gap between lip-service in government strategies and delivery on the ground is widening with every tightening of the fiscal belt. Thus the absence of specific funding for urban spend in the 2007-2015 programme is increasingly being felt.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nJan Olbrycht\n(PL) Madam President, it needs to be pointed out that the reason this debate has turned out the way it has, and the fact that we are discussing several reports at once, is no accident. It is because neither the topics nor individual issues can be separated if we want a serious discussion about European policy over the coming years. Furthermore, if we take into consideration the current debate on the subject of the recovery package, the decisions we now have to make will of course significantly influence the shape of cohesion policy after 2013.\nTherefore, if we are going to talk about all the reports, rather than get bogged down in detail, it is important that cohesion policy becomes both an opportunity and a basis for real progress towards integrating different types of European policy, towards the complementarity of these policies, towards launching an integrated approach. It is no coincidence that the European Commission is tabling contemporary solutions that are capable of changing European policy as a whole.\nThe discussion on territorial cohesion is fundamentally a debate on integrated action. It is a debate about retreating from any kind of sector-by-sector treatment of European policy. This is also a direction which suggests that the entire territory of the European Union should be treated as one whole, instead of divided into richer and poorer parts, which means that we face important decisions regarding cohesion policy. I would like to thank you for making this debate a truly joint debate.\nMia De Vits\n(NL) Madam President, first of all, I would like to wholeheartedly congratulate Mr Becsey and also to thank him for the sound collaboration that we enjoyed in relation to the report on micro-credit. There is no need for us to stress the importance of this report, especially not in the current circumstances. I would also like to make the link between this report and the crisis that we are currently going through. We note that the Member States are trying to drag themselves out of the hole that is the economic crisis using a broad array of measures, and that they are often preoccupied with themselves and with restarting their own markets.\nThe solution, however, is not 'everyone for themselves' but a more European approach to the problems. President Obama's United States has gone in for government investment on a massive scale, and I think that that is the right way to go. Here in Europe we have 27 recovery plans, albeit coordinated with each other, but in each case funded by the Member State itself. These recovery plans are a necessity, but they are very much a limited step in the right direction.\nIn this connection, reports on micro-credit and also another report that is due on the agenda in the upcoming weeks, namely on the globalisation adjustment fund, represent very tangible steps for the people, right now in particular, when we have rising unemployment and banks are a lot slower to give credit. I therefore have very little to say in respect of Mr Becsey's report. Above all, I would like to emphasise once again what we found to be our most important points. We see that these points are back in this report, as a result of which the Commission's text has been improved upon in various areas.\nThe first of these areas is long-lasting public EU funding. This is important as we currently have too many initiatives running alongside one another. The EU budget must include a budget for these micro-credits.\nThe second point is the need for clarification that these micro-credits are definitely intended for the long-term unemployed, people from disadvantaged groups and everyone who is unable to get credit in the ordinary way. These micro-credits are primarily granted at the local level. For that reason it is very important that an activation policy be implemented at the local level. We therefore insist that people who receive social benefits do not lose their entitlements by receiving micro-credits.\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, setting up a European Agricultural Fund for the Development of Rural Areas is very important in terms of structural policy. However, in order to make proper use of the existing opportunities, we need to draw up a transparent, long-term development strategy for rural areas and the regions, and establish a system enabling activities to be coordinated permanently at national level.\nWe all know very well that the debate on cohesion policy conceals a variety of views on how funds for agricultural subsidies and rural development should be utilised. There is also the apprehension that after re-allocation, some of these funds will be used to develop urban areas and the most dynamic areas at the cost of the historically more backward and less actively managed areas. We cannot agree with solutions and results of this kind.\nAmbroise Guellec\n(FR) Madam President, I join all my fellow Members in expressing my satisfaction at today's debate and I would like to focus my speech on territorial cohesion. I would say that it is never too late to do the right thing, but nonetheless, a great deal of time has been lost in making territorial cohesion a key political objective for the European Union. There have of course been institutional problems, soon to be removed, I hope, as well as, if you will excuse me Mrs H\u00fcbner, the Commission's extreme caution in this area. We should note, however, that throughout this whole parliamentary term, since 2004-2005, Parliament has constantly tried to get up steam, because we consider the principle of equality in the treatment of all EU citizens, wherever they live, to be extremely important, and believe it is vital that we move forward together.\nThe Green Paper has arrived at last, and we are pleased. It suffers slightly from a lack of ambition, I feel: we would have liked the Commission to set out a definition and clear objectives rather than making very open remarks on the subject. We are nonetheless making progress even if, I believe, we will again be somewhat hampered by the disproportionate link made with the Lisbon Strategy, during implementation of the previous generation of Structural Funds.\nConsultation is now under way, and I hope it will come to the conclusion that we must increase resources, perfect our tools - these plans are for 2013 onwards: we have time, but it will soon fly by - strengthen financial means, develop cooperation at the different levels, have an integrated vision of development, in particular with regard to this issue of sectoral policies we are debating, and coordinate the common agricultural policy and regional development, and so on. We need the White Paper as soon as possible, Commissioner.\nTo conclude, I would like to emphasise the urgency of promoting territorial cohesion in all the regions of Europe, because spatial equality is essential to ending the crisis and achieving economic recovery, and above all to encouraging our fellow citizens to participate in European projects.\nPierre Pribetich\n(FR) Madam President, 'when words and actions go together, they create a beautiful harmony'. In saying this, Montaigne was undoubtedly thinking of the words and actions of politicians.\nHere, in cohesion policy, we must strive for this harmony. Inspired by our desire as Europeans to look on the European town as a key focus for the development of our societies, we have been given points to think about and promises to keep concerning general population decline, lack of jobs, urban pollution, reduced mobility within towns and housing that is unsuitable for sustainable development. These are all crucial challenges we must take up to make our European towns attractive, competitive and pleasant places to live. To mitigate the problems, our words must therefore be in harmony with our actions. That is the essence of the urban dimension of cohesion policy: coordinating performance and credit, harmonising them and making them effective for the new programming period.\nIn conclusion, we have two commitments: the need to provide substantial and clearly identified financial resources to meet the Leipzig goals and, lastly, the need to see our towns cooperate with one another in order to face world competition using the wealth and diversity of solutions within our European area.\nRolf Berend\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mr van Nistelrooij on the Green Paper and the future form of cohesion policy is certainly one of the most important reports produced by the Committee on Regional Development in recent years.\nWe agree with the fundamental concept of the Green Paper, which states that the purpose of territorial cohesion is to ensure the polycentric development of the EU as a whole, the sustainable development of the territories with their different features and characteristics and, at the same time, the preservation of their diversity. A more comprehensive system offering gradual help for transition regions which exceed the threshold of 75% of gross domestic product must be established in the next programming period, so that these regions have a clear status and can develop in greater security.\nMrs Krehl's report on the obstacles to the use of Structural Funds rightly lists the major problems faced by applicants in claiming Structural Funds, such as excessive bureaucracy, too many complex regulations or the slow and cumbersome centrally managed administration in the Member States. Many recommendations are made to the Commission about the effective measures which need to be taken to remove these obstacles. I would like to single out two of these measures and reinforce them.\nFirstly, project leaders must currently keep project documents for a period of 10 years in order to be able to produce them for inspection by the Commission. This regulation imposes an excessive bureaucratic burden on small projects in particular. It is right that this period should now be reduced to three years.\nSecondly, the evaluation criteria used by the Commission for innovative projects are causing significant problems. The same criteria should not be applied to innovative projects as to other projects. It is essential that a different process is used in this case.\nMilo\u0161 Koterec\n- (SK) Regional development policy makes a clear contribution to the general wellbeing of EU citizens. It is already a social policy in principle and as such we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament fully support it and are consistently developing it. I was recently asked by some people attending a public meeting why they should take the trouble to elect representatives to the European Parliament. After discussing how much and in what areas the EU contributes to the various European regions, along with concrete examples that affected millions of people, cohesion policy became for me one major argument as to why we should vote.\nIn addition to this I also mentioned what an important role the European Parliament plays in the process for approving both cohesion policy and budgetary resources and that this will increase enormously if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. I emphasised that, based on this Treaty, regional policy will also have a far greater direct effect on citizens and that there will be a greater role for local authorities and for all potential recipients in terms of managing regional policies, supporting their synergies and strengthening the development of territorial cohesion, including rural areas. Furthermore, I mentioned that regional development policy is one of the simplest and most flexible Community instruments for resolving crises such as the one we are currently experiencing. For example, regional policy is helping to solve unemployment, investment and also social problems. Provided it is implemented in a professional and transparent manner, regional policy easily proves itself to be a strong pillar of the EU. We will have to build much on this pillar in the future and increase its effectiveness, since it forms an important link between European citizens and European institutions.\nMariela Velichkova Baeva\n(BG) What are the basic objectives of the micro-credit initiative? To stimulate the development of this instrument and the creation of a positive institutional and business environment, to help non-bank, financial institutions to increase their capacity, to achieve growth and sustainable development, as well as ensure the confidence of the private capital market.\nMr Becsey's report focuses on the opportunities offered by micro-credit to integrate deprived groups into the labour market. By coordinating various measures and initiatives in this context, the European Commission should put forward a general European framework with specific parameters, including for non-bank, financial micro-credit institutions as well.\nEncouraging entrepreneurship results in greater competitiveness and a higher quality knowledge-based economy, in keeping with the revamped Lisbon Strategy.\nMargie Sudre\n(FR) Madam President, Mrs H\u00fcbner, I regret that the Council and Commission have not yet undertaken to clearly define territorial cohesion. The French Presidency made an attempt to do so, which I welcome. Our Parliament continues to insist that this objective should apply from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and that it should be spelt out as soon as possible.\nI hope, on the basis of Mr van Nistelrooij's excellent report, that territorial cohesion will become the legal basis underpinning harmonious development in all regions of the Union, allowing the best characteristics to be drawn from each European region. It is essential to improve coordination of Community policies in order to maximise their impact at local level.\nTerritorial cohesion is not meant to focus exclusively on regions suffering permanent handicaps. It must however follow the polycentric development of the European Union as a whole, taking account of the characteristics of each region while preserving their diversity. This new concept is, I believe, relevant to consideration of the outermost regions in order to guarantee them sustainable and balanced growth.\nIn this regard, I thank the rapporteur for including in the compromise amendments requests relating to the particular challenges facing the outermost regions in terms of accessibility and competitiveness, which are vital aspects of territorial cohesion.\nOn reading the Commission's recent communication entitled 'The outermost regions: an asset for Europe', I saw that the Commission wants to apply all the recommendations on improving governance in cohesion policy to the outermost regions, thus making them a pioneer example of the implementation of territorial cohesion.\nI hope that the overseas consultation, or \u00c9tats g\u00e9n\u00e9raux de l'Outre-Mer, that is soon to be launched in France, will do the same thing and largely integrate the major territorial impact of European policies for the outermost regions, whose added value is undeniable and undisputed.\nTo finish, I would of course like to thank all our rapporteurs.\nG\u00e1bor Harangoz\u00f3\n(HU) If we are to respond to the challenges facing the European Union, we must do everything possible to put a definitive end to the differences in the economies and standards of living within certain regions. In this regard, our cohesion policy must in the future focus on its original objective, namely, to bring about structural change in regions that are confronted by economic and social problems.\nIn order to be more effective in the future, we need to concentrate on territorial units that are appropriate to the challenges in question. We need to restructure forms of economic collaboration, a process in which macro-regions can play a significant role.\nAt the same time, we also need to face the poverty that is concentrated in certain areas. If we want to promote true change, we need to concentrate on the level at which the problem presents itself; in other words, what is needed is targeted, complex measures at the level below that of the regions as well. It is not enough to finance projects; we need an integrated approach that involves all the funds, offering true assistance to the most vulnerable citizens of the European Union.\nRumiana Jeleva\n(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the cohesion policy is one of the fundamental components of the European Union. It has reflected for decades the general desire of European citizens for a better future with a higher quality of living and working.\nThe results of the cohesion policy show that it is one of the EU's most successful policies. Nowadays, Member States which have been much less developed in the past in relation to the EU average are now among the most developed in the world. These principles help show the cohesion policy's effectiveness and motivate new states which have joined the EU, like my country, for example: Bulgaria.\nWe Bulgarians waited a long time for full membership of the European Union and rightly pin our hopes on the opportunities provided by the Structural and Cohesion Funds. I think that I am speaking on behalf of all of us when I thank Commissioner H\u00fcbner for her huge efforts in the area of regional development and her decisive support for the cohesion policy.\nThe five reports from the Committee on Regional Development underscore the European Parliament's long-term commitment as well to a strong, effective cohesion policy. Ladies and gentlemen, apart from facing the financial crisis, we also need nowadays to deal with the problems resulting from climate change, demographic changes, energy efficiency, excessive urbanisation, migration and other issues.\nAll these issues require a strong, consolidated response from the European Union. This is why the cohesion policy must be used as a driving force for the changes we need to make. Such a challenge facing the EU is, for example, the reduction in external dependency on oil and gas.\nLadies and gentlemen, the cohesion policy and Structural Funds have always been something more than a simple gesture of European solidarity. They are actually part of a mutually beneficial system which can be used to create new markets and new commercial relations. I will conclude by saying that every citizen has the right to benefit from the cohesion policy. This obviously applies to citizens in my country too, who deserve a higher quality of working and living conditions.\nJamila Madeira\n(PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should firstly like to thank everyone for their work.\nThe three key concepts defined in the Green Paper - concentration, connection and cooperation - may offer solutions to certain obstacles to the harmonious development of the Community, particularly the negative effects associated with the concentration of economic activity, the inequalities in terms of access to markets and services that result from distance, and the divisions that are imposed not only by boundaries between Member States - particularly the least favoured - but also between regions.\nWe must therefore try to improve the synergies between these policies, using methods for effectively measuring their territorial impact. That is exactly why I have always argued for the elaboration of additional qualitative indicators with the purpose of better designing and implementing the corresponding policies on the ground, taking into account the different territorial specificities.\nFor the time being, GDP remains the only criterion for determining eligibility to receive support through the Structural Funds.\nHowever, the elaboration of additional indicators and the conduct of territorial assessments should not lead to more bureaucracy or further delays, but rather to the simplified application of new policies and actions to support territorial cohesion.\nThe Fifth Progress Report - I am about to finish, Madam President - makes specific reference to transition regions, which are situated between convergence regions and competitiveness and employment regions. It must be borne in mind that these regions need a clearer status, with more security and stability in their development.\nIosif Matula\n(RO) I would like to thank all the rapporteurs for producing the regional development package. I would particularly like to congratulate Mr van Nistelrooij for his extraordinary efforts. He has very successfully included as part of the motion for a resolution the need for Member States to implement measures aimed at achieving territorial cohesion.\nIn addition, the Green Paper helps highlight that, apart from social and economic cohesion, the territorial cohesion policy is one of the European Union's main objectives. Europe's regions will develop in different ways unless they are coordinated via a single EU policy.\nTerritorial cohesion is a key element in the process of European integration and achieving convergence between regions. I believe that particular attention must be focused on the EU's convergence regions both now and in the future, so that the great differences between them can be significantly reduced as soon as possible.\nIn the case of my own country, Romania, significant progress has been made with regard to the development of its regions, but we are faced with disparities both between and within them, as well as between rural and urban environments.\nBalanced, sustainable regional development must take place in conditions where the specific resources are used effectively for each area separately. For example, one of the main features of western Romania is the presence of numerous geothermal water springs. Allocating sufficient funds in this region to generate an alternative source of electrical energy and use the geothermal water will create new jobs and result in numerous economic benefits.\nI consider the package discussed today to be of particular importance to Romania as well.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna\n(PL) Madam President, cohesion policy is the main pillar of the integration process. Having a properly functioning cohesion policy is a necessary condition for achieving social, economic and territorial cohesion in the European Union. Today our greatest challenge is to carry out a speedy reform of the basis on which our policy operates, and to simplify and make more flexible complex project implementation procedures and funding regulations.\nThe development of an interregional concept and the exchange of best practice are being included in the cohesion policy reform plans, and complement it excellently. For this reason the European Commission should, as soon as possible, put forward a concrete proposal regarding the possibility of exchanging experience between the bodies implementing the projects.\nIn my opinion there is no need to convince any of the States represented here that in the face of an economic and financial crisis, Structural Funds are a key tool for stimulating the economy at a regional level. It is therefore important to simplify the procedures and speed up the flow of funding to the economies of the Member States. European projects are a way of creating new and sustainable jobs and an opportunity for those in the greatest need, for the poorest regions of the European Union.\nCohesion policy should also be an instrument for facing new challenges, such as a common energy policy and climate change.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, cohesion policy has often been regarded as the best example of solidarity within the European Union. Levelling out the differences in development between individual countries and regions of the Community is in the interests of the entire EU. In my opinion, the Green Paper is a Commission document that has accurately diagnosed the present challenges facing EU cohesion policy.\nThe Commission also addresses the particular need to support regions of a specific geographical nature such as mountain areas and unfavourable agricultural areas, which deserve decisive support. It is particularly important that we coordinate and properly plan support for rural areas. These areas are characterised by a lower level of economic development, lower population densities, inadequate access to all kinds of public services and limited job opportunities outside agriculture. There is also a significant disparity among these areas in individual Member States. If we compare rural and urban areas, these disproportions are even greater.\nThe planned increases in funding for the development of rural areas have been subject to much criticism in the present Financial Perspective. I would like to remind everyone that rural development policy and funding for this policy help to keep these areas alive and make the lives of their inhabitants easier. In summary, the Commission document, the reports and today's debate are all a step in the right direction.\nEmanuel Jardim Fernandes\n(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must start by congratulating Mrs Krehl and Mr van Nistelrooij on their reports and on their readiness to accept contributions from their colleagues. Their reports recognise the importance of best practices, which are a synergy factor, particularly in the areas of the environment, energy and employment, and link the debate on territorial cohesion to the debate on the future of cohesion policy in the European Union.\nI agree with the assessment of the Green Paper and with the analysis of the concept of territorial cohesion, and I endorse the recommendations for the future of territorial cohesion that are contained in these reports, particularly the following: definition of territorial cohesion; publication of a White Paper on territorial cohesion; reinforcement of the European Territorial Cooperation Objective; integration of territorial cohesion in the future development of all Community policies; elaboration of additional qualitative indicators; measurement of the territorial impact of Community policies and proposal of ways to create synergies between territorial and sectoral policies; development of a comprehensive strategy for regions with specific geographical features, particularly the outermost regions; establishment of a more comprehensive system of gradual transitional assistance to the so-called transition regions; and development of multi-level (European, national, regional and local) territorial governance.\nFor this reason I urge my fellow Members to support these reports and the Member States - and the Commission as well - to duly follow them up.\nMaria Petre\n(RO) I would first of all like to welcome the idea of a substantial debate on the subject of cohesion. I would like to congratulate each of our fellow Members for their efforts and for the proposals which they have made.\nI am going to make a few comments about some of the topics, starting with territorial cohesion. The basic problem is how to guarantee the harmonious development of all the territories in the European Union and the partnership between urban and rural areas in order to stop losing territory and respond to the depopulation of rural areas. Without a definition of territorial cohesion, which Parliament is waiting for, the integrated concept of economic, social and territorial cohesion provides the future basis for EU regional policy and for the Structural Funds' format after 2009.\nAs regards the Krehl report, I support all the proposals in this report which support Europe's regions and mention removing obstacles and simplifying procedures, as well as their stability over time, along with the proposal to devise rigorous methods for exchanging good practice between regions.\nAs far as the cohesion policy's urban dimension is concerned, we know that we do not have a common definition for 'urban'. We also know that we have roughly 5 000 towns in Europe with fewer than 50 000 inhabitants. Romania has a considerable number of such populated settlements. I believe that we need a development model and sufficient resources for urban settlements of this kind because these are precisely areas which are lacking or missing out on the beneficial impact of the polycentric approach.\nAs part of territorial cohesion, integrated, sustainable urban development will be, according to the new Treaty, managed jointly by Member States and the EU. Local and regional authorities must be prepared for this approach, already established as multi-level governance. I support the idea of a mandatory minimum allocation of funds per inhabitant of EUR 1 000, as opposed to the previous figure of EUR 500.\nFrancisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar\n(ES) Madam President, with regard to the report on micro-credits, I want to congratulate all the rapporteurs, because they have done some great work. They have undoubtedly improved the Commission's initiative.\nI believe that the recommendations made in this report will enable us to establish the basis for developing a proper framework in the European Union for the micro-credit sector. This sector has been successful in many developing countries, including in some European countries, both as a means of generating economic activity and as a tool for increasing social inclusion and promoting job creation. However, this success has not to date been transferred to the Community context. I believe that we now have the opportunity to do so, particularly given the economic and financial crisis that we are facing.\nIn this respect, strengthening the initiatives put forward in this report must be a priority, but we must also take other steps. We must increase the funds available for these micro-credit support structures. We must ensure easier access for those individuals and businesses that cannot access loans. In this respect, Madam President, I want to highlight the example of the European guarantee for micro-loans, as this is a tool that could improve this access and that has been included in the report.\nI will end by saying that this report will undoubtedly lay the foundations so that we can create a harmonious framework in the European context in order to encourage the micro-credit sector.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) In 2010 the Commission and Member States are going to revise the method for using and the degree of absorption of the Structural Funds. I call on the Member States to redefine with great care the priorities which they have and for which they intend to use the Structural Funds.\nI feel that urban mobility, rural development, energy efficiency in buildings and the development of transport infrastructure must feature among Member States' priorities for using the Structural Funds during the 2011-2013 period.\nAs rapporteur for energy efficiency in buildings, I called for an increase in the ERDF rate which Member States can use to build social housing and boost energy efficiency in buildings from 3% to 15%. This would provide greater flexibility for Member States, as well as the opportunity to speed up the absorption of European funds for improving European citizens' quality of life.\nEspecially during the current crisis, public funds, and in particular Structural Funds, must be used by Member States to ensure economic development and increase the number of jobs.\nEoin Ryan\nMadam President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs who are involved in this very important report. I think the economic crisis has forced us to take a long, hard look at our past economic behaviour. That, in turn, offers us an opportunity to learn from our past mistakes. I suppose that, when our economies were powering ahead, we unfortunately left certain groupings behind.\nAddressing and improving access to microcredit offers us the opportunity to address these past mistakes. Reshaping the microcredit framework can help us reinforce and rebuild our economies from the community upwards. In Ireland some commendable work has been done in this regard. In my own constituency of Dublin there are four enterprise boards that have been set up since 1993 and they have been supplying local-level support to microenterprises all over Dublin City and County. The Association of County and City Boards in Ireland announced its own financial stimulus package earlier this year, aimed at supporting 3 000 enterprises around Ireland and creating 15 000 new jobs. The project also includes training for nearly 50 000 people.\nOn a European level these are small figures, but our microcredit enterprise in Dublin and Ireland is hugely significant. I sincerely hope that, following on from this excellent report, we see significant and coordinated action at Community level to support the invaluable work that is being done by and for microenterprise at local and national level around the European Union, as it is a very important part of our economy today and a very important part of our economy into the future.\nPresident\n- Thank you, Mr Ryan. I have not been particularly strict, because we actually have a little more time than is stated in the rules.\nHowever, I should like to say something before we move on to the 'catch-the-eye' procedure. This morning, a very important event was launched in this House. It was launched by Mr P\u00f6ttering and it concerns a European organisation called FLARE, in which more than 30 countries are involved and in which young people - and not only young people - are extremely committed to combating organised crime and to ensuring that the goods confiscated from organised crime are used for social works.\nA commitment has also been made in this House by the President of the European Parliament and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and here among us in this Chamber there are some of these young people who, I believe, are a credit to Europe since, together with ourselves, they are trying to ensure that Europe is a Europe free from racism, but also free from organised crime. I should therefore also like to welcome those who are here and who are in this Chamber.\nErna Hennicot-Schoepges\n(FR) Madam President, I should like to congratulate all the rapporteurs. These reports are a goldmine for new policies. I only regret that none of them refer to cultural policy.\nCultural policy is perhaps cohesion policy by definition. It is culture that gives cohesion to a region and it could have been mentioned, since trans-regional cultural policies have not yet been put in place. We always have great difficulty in funding trans-cultural projects because there is no trans-cultural society, no social security that could give artists the mobility needed to work outside the borders of their region. I earnestly call on all those who are working to implement this policy not to lose sight of this aspect; it is important in every European policy.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Mr President, territorial and social cohesion prevents conflicts by eliminating their causes. This is what makes measures to equalise the standard of living in urban and rural areas and to balance the infrastructure in the regions so important. Widespread use of micro-credits is a good instrument for cohesion policy. Today, at a time of financial and economic crisis, when we are all trying to find ways of protecting jobs, we must be aware of the threats to cohesion policy such as protectionism and discrimination against the poorer regions.\nDen Dover\nMr President, the Committee on Regional Development and the funds put into the whole of Europe are the most important programme in the whole of the European Community.\nI can speak for North-West England and say how very much these funds have benefited the city of Liverpool, in particular, over the last 10 years. Looking onward to the future, I can see that city continuing to expand on the basis of these well-allocated, well-controlled funds.\nI would call for more involvement of the private sector in the way that the funds are allocated, managed and controlled, because the private sector can always do a more efficient job than the public sector.\nI would also like to emphasise how very invaluable these monies have been to the rural areas of the North West, where there are a lot of agricultural areas, which are vital to the whole economy.\nFinally, let me say that I back Mr Becsey on his microcredit. This is a very interesting development and essential at this time in the economic situation.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n- (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, I consider today's coordinated debate on regional policy to be the most important debate not only in this plenary session, but also one of the most important debates in our election period. It is a chance to speak to European citizens about a topic they can easily relate to, especially with the June elections to the European Parliament looming. The absence of effective, simple and straightforward support for smaller authorities, particularly in the area of accessing investment resources, is alarming. Therefore I believe that, based on these reports, we will see a re-evaluation of cohesion policy and particularly some of the operational programmes which should be reopened and revised.\nI would like to end by stating my conviction that the recommendations of the European Parliament in these five reports will bring added value and will fulfil the expectations of citizens both in Europe's cities and rural areas, who believe that cohesion policy will ensure the development of their regions, the gradual levelling out of regional differences, new employment opportunities, energy security, improved energy efficiency in their homes, better transport and technical infrastructure and a higher standard of living.\nS\u00e9rgio Marques\n(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this important debate on territorial cohesion and the future of economic and social cohesion policy, I have to mention the very specific problem faced by the outermost regions. Due to the constant combination of a series of geographical factors, these regions are extremely vulnerable in economic and social terms, particularly during a serious international crisis such as the one that we are experiencing today.\nI should therefore like to call on the European Commission, and especially Commissioner H\u00fcbner, to pay very close attention to the effects of the current crisis on the outermost regions. An assessment of these effects in each of the outermost regions, particularly on tourism, construction and the rise in unemployment, would be very helpful to ensure a specific European response for these regions.\nI therefore challenge the European Commission to prepare a European response to the crisis for the outermost regions, which goes beyond the measures already announced under the economic and social cohesion policy for the European regions in general. A specific European response to the crisis for the outermost regions ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nPresident\nYou have run out of time.\nThe Rules laid down by the Bureau state that up to five Members can take the floor in this type of debate, and for strictly one minute per person.\nThere are a further six Members who have asked to speak, in addition to the five who have already taken their turns in accordance with the Rules. As we have some spare time - according to the sessional services - I am going to make an exception and give the floor to those Members who have asked to speak. However, I would urge them to keep strictly to the subject and to the minute allowed under this 'catch-the-eye' procedure.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n- (CS) Mr President, I am delighted to confirm that the Czech Presidency is promoting a clear definition of cohesion policy in a way that involves assistance for less developed regions. I would also like to call on the Commission to submit binding legislation harmonising the conditions for an effective micro-credit market. This is important not only in a time of crisis. We must facilitate access to funding for private individuals and for entrepreneurs who are unable to obtain loans from the traditional banking sector. The past history of consumer credit shows that the EU must act in a unified and effective way, particularly with regard to control instruments. Additionally, I think that micro-credit should be targeted mainly at projects in the less-developed European regions in the same way as cohesion policy, and also towards disadvantaged groups of citizens or highly innovative projects, in accordance with Lisbon strategy objectives. I would also like to alert the Commission to the risk of micro-credit being abused for money-laundering purposes. It is a pity that we still do not have a concrete legislative proposal on the table.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, as we are speaking about EU cohesion policy and regional development, perhaps we should take a look at the EU accession candidate countries. Last weekend I was in Turkey, more specifically in eastern Anatolia, and I saw the problems in Diyarbakir in the Kurdish area. I realised that there was a need to advise the accession candidates about the benefits and the necessity of regional development.\nThe problem in the Kurdish area is not only an ethnic problem and not only a question of the right of self-determination and similar issues. It is also not a problem of terrorism, but has much more to do with regional development and with balancing regional development across the towns and the countryside. I believe that we should explain to Turkey that it should apply European cohesion policy in this case, otherwise it will not be ready for accession to the European Union in this respect either.\nAlexandru Nazare\n(RO) Structural and Cohesion Funds are a hotly debated topic for us, as well as being a very praiseworthy but, unfortunately, inadequately exploited opportunity. There are numerous reasons for this, ranging from red tape, cumbersome regulations or regulations valid for too little time to information which is difficult to access and a lack of transparency.\nI can tell you that many Romanian applicants complain about problems related to eligibility for expenses, regulations valid for too little time, impenetrable documentation and, of course, long project evaluation periods.\nI am pleased that the European Commission too has started to realise these obstacles. The proposals to amend regulations include, particularly during the current economic crisis, such provisions for simplifying the regulations for using these funds. This is a first step and I would like to think that many of our proposals will be adopted by the Commission as well.\nOne solution to these problems is provided by the twinning and technical assistance programmes, but as I also supported through my amendments to Mrs Krehl's report, a programme is required at EU level ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nLjudmila Novak\n(SL) Quality of life has indeed been greatly improved by the monies from the Structural Funds which the European Union has used to strengthen social, economic and territorial cohesion and to develop a total of 268 regions.\nFrom this financial perspective, I am pleased to note that Parliament, in its present composition, has also played a role in helping to allocate more monies for the purposes discussed than initially proposed. At the same time, I regret the fact that, as my colleague has already pointed out, there are far too many bureaucratic hurdles and I sometimes wonder whether it is Europe or the national governments who is to blame for that.\nAt any rate, I think that we need to simplify such hurdles, in order to address the pressing needs of both local authorities and regions. However, if we want to keep young people and women in the rural areas, we have to invest far more resources in supporting rural development.\nJames Nicholson\nMr President, much of what we have discussed here this morning will go to the next Parliament to implement. There is no doubt about that. Rural development is central to the development of the rural economy, but when the second pillar was designed and brought about to support rural society some years ago, they did not provide sufficient funds to support that second pillar. We now have modulation, which is taking the extra funds from the farmers' single farm payment to develop rural society and the rural economy.\nI know there is going to be a battle here. There are those who want to take regional policy, or support for rural society, away from DG Agriculture and give it to DG Regio, which is unacceptable to those who live in the rural economy. We had that debate way back in the early 1990s under Ray MacSharry and we are not returning to it. I say 'no way'. Extra funding must be spent under agriculture and in the rural economy to support small farmers and people active in rural areas.\nFrancesco Ferrari\n- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his report. The subject-matter addressed is very sensitive in terms of the implications it may have for the economic systems of the various Member States. Linking the new Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to the CAP may have positive or negative aspects, depending on how such a fund is used.\nFrom a certain point of view, linking funds will mean that they can be used more effectively, and this is certainly a good thing. However, I agree with the rapporteur that there is a very fine dividing line and, among other things, there is the risk that the funds will be used only to make agriculture more competitive, to the detriment of other sectors in rural areas.\nRural areas do in fact need strong investment - structural and agri-food investment - to revive the economy, to train young farmers, who are the driving force behind the rural economy, and to train women who live in these areas. They also need investment in the information technology sector, to make young people more familiar with new technologies. The risk we run is that the funds will be misused.\nThat is why I remain convinced that common sense must prevail if we are to prevent the misappropriation of funds, because the rural economy could have a very heavy impact in Europe.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, the cohesion policy is all the more important from the perspective of the current economic crisis, as the Structural Funds it offers it can serve as effective instruments stimulating the economy at regional level. Concentrating on growth-stimulating activities, such as spending on research and development, innovation or active job-creating instruments, should give the European economy a stimulus and ensure a return to growth. I also approve of the allocation of additional funding for improved Internet access in rural areas.\nDanuta H\u00fcbner\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I saved two minutes from my introductory remarks in order to have more time to respond now to the questions. Whilst I regret that I cannot respond to all the questions, I very much appreciate all the bilateral exchanges we have had over the last years in Brussels or during my visits on the ground in your constituencies. You are welcome to continue this dialogue with us in the Commission. I should like to thank you for this really good and genuine debate today.\nWe need to fully and wisely exploit the potential of all European and national policies to ensure that the European Union as an economy and a society comes out of the crisis stronger economically, socially and politically, with solid foundations for long-term sustainable development. I feel that today's debate confirms that European cohesion policy must play its role in this process both today and tomorrow. It is our common task today to ensure that the potential of cohesion policy - its capacity to deliver sustainable development and jobs - will be used fully and wisely in this new global context. I am not only thinking of the crisis, but also of all those well-known challenges that we identified years ago as important challenges for European development.\nSupporting sustainable competitiveness is the most effective way to achieve cohesion in the European Union. In this context, we must use the cohesion policy to target factors such as access by small and medium-sized enterprises to finance. We must also address issues such as better access to public services that aim to improve employability and productivity and thus contribute to more equal opportunities.\nAs some of you have stressed, over the last years it has become common sense that addressing the new challenges clearly requires an integrated and place-based approach - an approach that optimises the use of resources and also mobilises all partners at regional and local level, as well as national and European level, so that we are active at all levels of European governance.\nConcerning the partnership principle, I would like to stress that this has been a very important objective from day one of my term in office, and the Commission has invested a lot in making the partnership principle and the cohesion policy a real one - one which is really used on the ground. Soon after the negotiations, we conducted a full assessment of how the partnership principle and the process of designing policy programmes were implemented by the Member States and the regions. We did not want just the formal presence of partnership principles, so we also worked with partners, helping them to build their capacity to be real partners in the policy management system, and we react quite efficiently to any signals we get from the ground that this principle is not being respected in the individual Member States. I have just had a meeting on this very issue with NGOs from one of the central European Member States.\nI also fully agree with all of you who say that cohesion policy does not, and must not, work in isolation; that we need to reinforce the synergies and coordination between the cohesion policy and all other sectoral, national or European policies. This is not just to avoid overlap or duplication, but is also about using the synergy that comes from good coordination between the policies. Certainly, the rural development and regional policies are an extreme example of the need to have very good coordination and the use of synergies between policies.\nAnother example could be competitiveness and the need to take into account the constraints coming from a low-carbon economy and climate change regarding infrastructure investment. I would like to underline very strongly that we have invested a lot in greening the European cohesion policy. We established the objectives relating to climate change, energy efficiency and renewable energy before the major debate exploded on climate change in the European Union. Today we have one third of cohesion policy funding going directly into green investment in all areas of our life. Recently added to the policy is the additional 4% to be used in the area of housing for energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy that allows us to put more emphasis on this challenge.\nWhat also clearly emerges from the debate is that we need both continuity and reform in policy delivery. On the continuity side, I would very strongly stress that this multiannual programming, financial additionality, shared management and partnership principles represent a great European value that we should continue to care about. But there is also this need for change to strike a better balance between the demands of financial management and control and the tasks of achieving good results and good implementation of the policy. There is no doubt that we need to put in place a simpler, more efficient and more effective implementing mechanism and reduce administrative complexity and the administrative burden.\nWe have been working with your great support over the last months on this challenge. We already had the first amendment of Article 55 back in December and we will be voting on the main chunk of simplification proposals a week from now. The task force that we set up with Member States for the simplification of the policies is continuing its work, and at the end of May we will have another proposal, hopefully still related to this period.\nI agree with you that for the policy to be more effective we also need a stronger focus on results, stronger monitoring and an evaluation culture. We are continuing to work on this. I very much appreciate your support for financial engineering. We are on track, but much more can certainly be done. Please also take note with respect to financial engineering, which is today one of the major instruments helping small and medium-sized companies access credit through JEREMIE and now also through JASMINE for micro-credit, that we started this process long before the crisis hit, so the policy has also been relatively well prepared for these difficult times.\nSome of you mentioned the question of transparency. I would just like to remind all of us here that we have new rules for this new period 2007-2013. We have the obligation to inform the public on all the beneficiaries, so we hope that with these transparency obligations we will also see major change with regard to public awareness and the integrity of the whole process.\nVery briefly, on culture, because it was raised as an important element, we are fully aware - and I also see it during my travels - that both regions and cities are major actors in the cultural field in Europe. Culture also plays an important economic role in the development of regional development. We have recognised this in the framework of the European cohesion policy. We have many regional and local urban strategies that have successfully integrated culture into our policy.\nLet me also inform you that the Commission will soon launch an independent study on the contribution of culture to local and regional development, hopefully to be finalised by the beginning of next year. Through this we will have a better-informed basis for the further inclusion of culture in European policies.\nFinally, I very much appreciate all your comments not just on the report, but also what you have presented here as your concerns and ideas for the future. I shall include most of those messages in my orientation paper which I will present to Council at the end of May. We are also completing the independent study by a group of researchers and experts chaired by Professor Fabrizio Barca. This will be presented publicly at the end of April. The final official assessment of the consultation on the green paper on territorial cohesion will be presented in our sixth interim cohesion report which will be adopted by the Commission towards the end of June.\nConstanze Angela Krehl\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, I would like to make two comments as this debate comes to a close.\nThe public has a very ambivalent view of European structural policy. Some people take it for granted that they will receive support, but simply find that the bureaucratic obstacles are too great. For other people, including some in this House, it seems merely to be a gateway to fraud. Neither of these views is correct.\nSolidarity is genuinely important for my group, but it must be well-founded and it must not be a one-way street. On the other hand, it is not the case that project promoters, communities and associations which apply for projects want to defraud the European Union. Complex processes often result in errors being made, but they do not give rise to fraud. This is why we must change how things are done.\nThe second point which I would like to consider is that cohesion policy is indisputably an important part of European policy. Faced with challenges such as climate change, the economic crisis and globalisation, together with demographic changes and developments on the labour market, we need this policy urgently. The European Parliament must redefine the cohesion policy for the future to meet the needs of the European regions. The reports which we have just discussed form a good foundation for this process. This will allow European added value to be created for the European Union. However, when we redesign the structural policy, we must not behave as if it could solve all the problems of the European Union. We really must concentrate on the tasks in hand. Thank you.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\nCommissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at this point I would like to summarise the challenges and polite requests that the European Parliament will address to its partners, the European Commission and the Member States, if this report is adopted. It is clear that the greatest need is to assess the usefulness of incorporating the URBAN initiative into the mainstream of cohesion policy. We must assess the options and verify levels of satisfaction among mayors, councillors and elected representatives in relation to the drawdown of European funds in urban areas. Integrated planning and the transfer of responsibility or so-called sub-delegation of resources or financial engineering instruments are clearly areas where a more active approach is needed from the Commission, at least through the presentation of recommendations or examples of proven approaches. At the same time, we must continue to simplify cohesion policy in its entirety and not just the urban aspect. Long-term options might include, for example, a merger of the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. Last but not least it is vitally important for the Commission to measure and regularly assess the impact of all policies on urban life and at the same time to discuss the effectiveness of these policies directly with urban authorities. This report therefore recommends that the Commission and the Member States establish an EU High Level Group on Urban Development and apply the open method of coordination to urban development policy at EU level in the same way that it is applied in other areas such as social integration for example. At the same time the report also calls for the position of urban areas in the Regions for Economic Change initiative to be strengthened and for the Urban Audit project to be further developed and regularly updated. In the absence of reliable comparative statistics we cannot base our decisions on relevant data. European funds are in fact one of the most visible and effective manifestations of European integration. We must therefore ensure, both in the current pre-election period and afterwards, that the actual recipients of structural assistance are more involved in the debate over what form cohesion policy should take. These people are our fellow citizens and our constituents.\nWojciech Roszkowski\nrapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the issue covered by my report was quite specific, but very important for optimising the utilisation of EU funds from the viewpoint of cohesion, whether it is understood in its traditional meaning, or in terms of territorial cohesion.\nSustainable growth is an extremely complex issue. We must therefore welcome all attempts to simplify the achievement of this objective. However, the concept of territorial cohesion has not yet been defined with any precision. The Green Paper is therefore the beginning, rather than the end of the debate on this matter.\nI am pleased that the Commissioner pointed out the need to reduce the disparities in development levels and the importance of synergies in implementing EU policies. Different regions have quite different problems in terms of income levels, geographical location, migration, etc. However, we need to remember what my Polish fellow Members, Mrs Staniszewska, Mr Podka\u0144ski and Mr Zapa\u0142owski said, about funds tending to accumulate in the centres of the regions. We should also remember that the aims of rural development policy are not necessarily a contradiction of the Lisbon goals if use is made of the relative competitiveness mechanism, or low-cost increases in productivity.\nThe Committee on Agriculture has not commented on my report, so I take their silence to mean agreement. In my view, Mr Baco's vote is more of a misunderstanding. In my report, I expressly stated that rural development resources cannot drain direct payments. On the other hand, it is a fact that rural development funds can help rural areas out of economic trouble by supporting non-agricultural activities. I am pleased by Mr Nicholson's support on this issue.\nFinally, I would like to express my thanks to the advisers from the Committee on Regional Development and my own political group for their help in drafting this report, and to all who participated in today's debate.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\nrapporteur. - Mr President, let me present in conclusion certain ideas which I did not have the time to include in my introductory speech.\nI am very pleased to see that over EUR 100 billion is to be invested in protecting the environment. At the same time, I would seriously welcome a much higher allocation for energy efficiency and renewable energies - currently EUR 9 million - as well as a higher allocation for measures to combat climate change, which, at EUR 48 billion, is less than required at the moment.\nI strongly believe that deciding on how we use these funds to protect our regions and combat the consequences of climate change, such as floods and droughts, will determine the future of our regions and their economic positioning. I also greatly appreciate the fact that all Member States have already devoted a significant amount of their total financial allocations to investments in research, development and innovation, but I have also noticed that, for most of the EU convergence regions, ensuring accessibility remains a significant problem as they face a lack of transport infrastructure.\nOn the other hand, I am glad to witness Member States' efforts to prioritise investments aimed at increasing labour participation and improving skills, as well as fighting against poverty and social exclusion in their programmes financed by the European social funds. Furthermore, I encourage new Member States to continue to build up effective partnerships and to consistently reinforce the partnership principle while implementing the operational programmes. I believe that the new Member States could truly benefit from further exchanges of best practices and knowledge about developments in technologies, for example, and from other common actions to speed up their potential as regards implementation.\nZsolt L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Becsey\nrapporteur. - (HU) During the introduction I was unable to address one or two questions relating specifically to micro-credit, but the most important thing here is the principle of additionality. I would like to reiterate that this, too, is an important fundamental principle of cohesion, in addition to those of partnership and an integrated approach.\nThus, in order to be able to provide something extra, we need to ensure that people without a permanent address are able to take part in the micro-credit programme by means of the mentorship programme. We can achieve that something extra by making sure that in the newly launched JASMINE programme, we are able to train and involve new micro-financing institutions that are close to the people. We need, in addition, to provide that something extra by taking a more flexible approach to competitiveness, both with regard to the de minimis programmes and in relation to public procurement, by placing the self-employed in a position of positive discrimination.\nAnother point I would like to address is the matter of financing. On the one hand, launching the experimental programme which Parliament has been encouraging for two years now with EUR 2 million per year. I hope that this will begin in the second half of the year. We concentrate all programmes explicitly dealing with micro-credit in one place, making them transparent - as several of my fellow Members have also noted.\nThe principle of additionality is also important in order to persuade Member States to encourage people to begin micro-enterprises and not sit at home collecting social benefits, something to which Mrs De Vits has also referred. I consider it important that we continue to encourage people in this regard. It is a very important point that additionality should mean that the micro-financing intermediaries should not lead people into usury. For instance, in the case of Roma, they should not be subjugated by their own aristocracy, but we should be able to foster an activity that is based on true partnership and a willingness to help.\nLambert van Nistelrooij\nMr President, this morning I was the first speaker in this joint debate and, looking back, I think that we have given our citizens, those who are engaged in implementing integrated policy in a decentralised way, a very strong signal that the European Parliament is choosing to go through with the cohesion policy and values the work that they perform on all the numerous projects, whether they relate to research and development trends, research infrastructure or projects relating to energy modernisation. That is of considerable importance. When we go to the voters over the coming months, there are thousands of projects in which Europe is close to the citizens. I think this, too, is of great importance. I also wish Commissioner H\u00fcbner every success in that campaign, as I see that you, too, are going to the voters in the coming months. That is a really good thing, including for everyone here. I would also like to thank you, in particular, for the changes in policy that you have brought about, namely greater consideration of the Lisbon objectives, the greening of our activities, and an emphasis on R&D, and today I have once again observed that you also specifically referred to cultural heritage as something with an economic and cultural value.\nI have a couple more comments to make, the first of which is about the emphasis that is being placed on cross-border cooperation, that third objective, which we need to strengthen in the forthcoming period, including financially.\nThe second point is that there must be no frittering away of our funds. We have excellent funds through which we are able to offer our partners the means, via the partnership framework, to push ahead with developments. We must not fritter that away in the subsequent period.\nFinally, there must be a White Paper on territorial cohesion. You have given a lot of indications, but the White Paper is the basis for future legislation and I would consider it highly regrettable if the European Commission were to fail to produce a White Paper. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for my report for their cooperation, as well, in particular, as the staff, who were terrific.\nPresident\nBefore suspending the sitting for a short while, I am going to give myself leave to very warmly welcome a group of visitors made up of pensioners from the province of Toledo, in my region of Castilla-La Mancha, because they are here to fulfil their duty as Europeans.\nThe joint debate is closed.\nWe shall now proceed to the vote.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nAdam Bielan  \nPeople from rural communities are in a particularly disadvantaged position when competing in the labour market. In the European Union, and especially in Poland, there are significant differences in the standard of living between urban and rural areas. This is especially true of access to services. Access to modern technologies like broadband Internet in rural areas in Poland is half that of urban areas.\nThe objective of cohesion policy should be to undertake specific initiatives to equalise standards of living in particular regions. Aid for small and medium-sized businesses in obtaining funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development is extremely important here.\nGovernments of particular countries should support small and medium-sized enterprises by eliminating administrative and legal barriers and by providing suitable infrastructure. These are fundamental conditions for the development of areas which are distant from large urban areas.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nMicro-credits and even credits granted to entrepreneurs from Community funds provide an institutional lever which can and must plug the gap left by commercial banks as a result of the financial crisis which is already hitting the real economy.\nA commercial bank is only beneficial to the economy for as long as it is granting credit, which is not happening at the moment, in spite of the massive injection of public money into various banks.\nIn these circumstances, I am proposing that Member States should no longer finance commercial banks with problems directly so that they can cover with money they have received the huge losses and\/or improve their financial coefficients using public money, satisfy their shareholders and provide a reason for even awarding themselves generous bonuses. On the other hand, they must not (all) be left to go bankrupt, either.\nMy proposal involves the use of commercial banks as simple intermediaries, agents for granting credit and micro-credits from public funds to economic agents and entrepreneurs who, without funding, are also vulnerable to the risk of bankruptcy.\nIn conclusion, credit and micro-credits should be given to those who need it via the banks, but without passing through the balance sheet of the latter, only using their expertise and network to facilitate the borrowing of such finances.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103  \nin writing. - (RO) Improving access to micro-credit enabling small entrepreneurs, the unemployed and the disadvantaged who are keen to start up their own business and do not have access to traditional banking credit instruments to develop a business, combined with the recent decision to reduce VAT for certain services, are solutions which the European Union is providing to Member States to help them overcome the crisis.\nThe latest analyses maintain that the services sector, agriculture and tourism may be areas which can absorb a significant proportion of the workforce available on the labour market, including the unemployed. This is the reason why Romania and the other EU countries must develop the instruments required to implement this idea, especially as part of the 'non-banking' market segment.\nI think that these micro-credits can be used successfully to develop services for companies, individuals or households, ranging from IT specialists to window-cleaners, from gardeners to people who provide care services for the elderly and children. They can also contribute to the use of personal qualifications and qualities in a successful business.\nA micro-credit can be accessed by companies with fewer than 10 employees. This is beneficial for people who want to work and for unemployed people who want to start a business. Micro-enterprises account for 91% of Europe's commercial companies.\nDrago\u015f Florin David  \nThe Green Paper on territorial cohesion entitled 'Turning territorial diversity into strength' launches a broad consultation with regional and local authorities, associations, NGOs and civil society with the aim of promoting a common understanding of this new concept, along with its implications for the EU's future regional policy, without however offering a definition of 'territorial cohesion'.\nThe objective of territorial cohesion is to ensure the harmonious development of all the EU's territories and to offer all citizens the opportunity to gain the most out of the inherent characteristics of these territories. The Green Paper proposes that diversity should be converted specifically into an asset and competitive advantage, which contributes to the sustainable development of the whole EU. It also refers specifically to the need for effective control over the cohesion policy to make it become more flexible.\nThe main challenge involves helping territories to use this asset and exchange good practices. Mr van Nistelrooij's report covers this vast area of territorial cohesion and expresses effective views on the Commission's communications in this area. As a result, the Green Paper on territorial cohesion remains open to new challenges, but is being transformed into an effective instrument for partnerships and exchanges of good practice.\nConstantin Dumitriu  \nin writing. - The Cohesion Policy and rural development measures come under the same principle of solidarity promoted by the European project and contribute to achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.\nOur analyses and the decisions which we are going to make must take into account the different levels of agricultural development across the European Union, this sector's weighting in Member States' economies, as well as different situations in terms of regional cohesion and development. I welcome that the final version of this report will also include my proposal to facilitate greater flexibility in the use of Structural Funds, so that they supplement rural development measures.\nIn order to ensure the proper coordination and complementarity of the Cohesion Policy with rural development measures, Member States will have to introduce mechanisms to encourage the consistent and fair use of European funds. At the same time, the European Union must use the instruments at its disposal to monitor better the use of European funds at regional level to ensure that there is no prejudice against rural areas.\nThis report is a first analysis of this subject, and it must be continued so that the future financial outlook ensures greater harmonisation between the EU's measures offering financial support.\nBogdan Golik  \nI would like to thank Mr Becsey for his report, which is so important to myself and my compatriots.\nMany people do not seem to realise how greatly the institution of micro-credits can influence a country's socio-economic development. Small, unsecured loans are not the preserve of the poorest in the developing countries. The idea can just as well be applied to the unemployed, business start-ups or existing micro-enterprises.\nOffering people without access to credit the opportunity to fund their initiatives is a major step towards implementing the principle 'think small first'. In proposing such loans, we are promoting entrepreneurship and increasing work activity, thereby averting and reducing social exclusion. Micro-credits have a very positive effect - which is particularly important in my country - on the level of unemployment.\nWhen introducing loans of this kind, however, a few important issues need to be borne in mind.\nFirstly, the institutional and legal frameworks of micro-credits need to be adapted to the level of development of the loan funds market.\nSecondly, the procedures relating to this service must be examined. Unfortunately, due to their complex nature, micro-entrepreneurs and persons starting out in business are more inclined to apply for consumer loans.\nThirdly, in order to popularise micro-credits, entrepreneurs need to be made aware of the fact that there are alternatives to bank loans for raising funding.\nDespite these reservations, I welcome the micro-credit service in Poland with open arms.\nL\u00edvia J\u00e1r\u00f3ka  \nI would like to congratulate my fellow Member, Mr Becsey, on his report advocating the development of the micro-credit system in support of economic growth and employment. The document rightly points out that disadvantaged groups, including the long-term unemployed, welfare dependants, and ethnic minorities such as the Roma, in particular, should be the focus of European initiatives regarding micro-credit.\nMicro-financing has proven highly successful in numerous countries in promoting social and economic integration by supporting self-employment. At a time of financial crisis, simple financial instruments that are able to fund business, especially in underdeveloped regions or the above-mentioned social groups, are of particular value. Those wishing to run small family businesses can face significant difficulties in tenders administered within the framework of cohesion policy, especially in the case of cofinancing. The creation, or restoration, of social cohesion must take precedence over profit-making, since support for self-employment is far less costly than unemployment benefits, and thus from the perspective of the national economy it is worth providing micro-credit even if from a strictly financial point of view it might not be profitable. The micro-credit system must be made accessible to those who are not 'bankable', that is, to people who cannot obtain credit from the traditional banking sector because of their high risk, low margins and danger of non-performance, and it should make possible the targeted involvement of disadvantaged groups.\nZbigniew Krzysztof Ku\u017amiuk  \nIn the cohesion policy debate, I should like to draw your attention to some issues raised by Mr Roszkowski's report on the matter.\n1. In the Financial Perspective 2007-2013, the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development was made the second pillar of the CAP and was thereby separated from cohesion policy. As a result of this development, particularly in view of the slender budget funds available, cohesion policy, particularly that of the European Regional Development Fund, has focused on economic competitiveness concentrated in the larger urban centres or the most active regions, while the EAFRD is concentrating its resources on improving agricultural competitiveness.\nThis approach may result either in the duplication of some objectives, for example environmental protection, education and culture, or their omission in both areas.\n2. Therefore, we need to assess whether the funding designated for rural development in 2007-2013 should be used more to support farmers, or whether it will be assigned more to non-farming rural beneficiaries, or even beneficiaries who remain in rural areas but will move from the farming sector to other areas of professional activity. If it turns out that support for farmers is the preferred objective of the second pillar, it appears that in the next perspective it would be favourable to tie these funds in to cohesion policy.\n3. It is also necessary to increase the funding pot for the second pillar of the CAP, albeit, as called for by the European Parliament, through a reduction in direct payments to large farmers, and a gradual increase in modulation rates.\nJanusz Lewandowski  \nRegional policy, which has materialised in the form of Structural and Cohesion Funds, is rightly regarded as the most visible and tangible Community policy for the citizens of Europe. No other policy provides as much visibility for the European Union or illustrates the benefits of integration better. That is why we attach such importance to the debate on the future of cohesion. Cohesion has never been needed as much as it is now, when the two halves of Europe, separated after the war by the iron curtain, have come together. This is extremely important to the countries that were relegated to the background under the Yalta Agreement. The crisis, and the potential value of the Structural Funds as anti-crisis packages, is a special aspect.\nWe cannot repeat the 2008 situation, when EUR 4.5 billion of unused funds were reimbursed. That was a joint failure by all of us. This alone makes it paramount that we let this part of the EU budget through today. In the short term, other matters can be postponed; in the longer term, we must defend cohesion policy as a Community policy that gives all regions a chance. As such, cohesion policy needs to defer to regional and local knowledge regarding the best way of managing funding. Additional criteria for evaluating projects will increase the level of discretion in their evaluation, and thereby complicate the process of using the funds. This makes sense neither today, in the face of the crisis, nor in the longer term.\nRamona Nicole M\u0103nescu  \nI would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur for all his efforts.\nAs is well known, the implementation of the strategies and operational programmes for the 2007-2013 period is still in its initial stages, which is why the scope of application of the report being debated is still restricted. However, I would like to mention the efforts made by all Member States to integrate, as part of the process of drafting and negotiating the operational programmes, the general priorities of the cohesion policy.\nThe successful implementation of the operational programmes depends to a huge extent on how quickly we manage to simplify the procedures and promote the measures intended to consolidate institutional capacity and, not least, on how we identify the specific professional training requirements for the staff working with European funds.\nIn order to ensure better financial management of Community expenditure, along with the relevant transparency with regard to the management of the funds, I believe that it is particularly important for Member States to have efficient monitoring systems.\nI also strongly believe that it is absolutely necessary to raise public awareness further in order to achieve a maximum absorption rate for the funds and the development of viable projects.\nAdrian Manole  \nAt European level, in the EU's future regional and cohesion policy, disparities are considered to be due to structural deficiencies in the regions in terms of key factors for competitiveness and especially due to a lack of innovative ability and enterprising spirit.\nThis situation could be remedied by adopting a strategic approach, namely, by boosting regional competitiveness throughout the entire EU, which is regarded as being vital to strengthening the economy as a whole and to limiting the risks entailed by congestion caused by the concentration of economic activities.\nWe must reiterate that eliminating these disparities would be possible only by launching a large-scale information campaign and establishing dialogue between citizens and civil society, or else the projects will continue not to be accessed.\nSimilarly, trouble-free implementation of programmes and projects with EU support requires high-quality management and control systems. Compliance with EU legislation, such as regulations governing the environment and equal opportunities, is a pre-condition for project funding. Before other payments are made, apart from fund advances, the Commission must ensure that the management and control systems fully comply with regulations.\nSiiri Oviir  \nin writing. - (ET) Territorial cohesion strengthens economic and social cohesion and is one of the essential components for the achievement of the objectives of the EU cohesion policy, as it helps effectively balance development differences both between and within Member States and regions.\nTerritorial cohesion also plays an important role in future developments in EU regional policy, as demonstrated by the addition of the principle of territorial cohesion to economic and social cohesion in the Lisbon Treaty.\nIn the context of the present economic crisis, the revival of the EU economy has become a very important topic, and this will be achieved through sensible investments, which are vital to economic success, scientific discoveries, technological innovation and jobs.\nI wholeheartedly support the rapporteur's idea that the EU should, under the banner of territorial cohesion, stimulate greater interoperability and the transfer of knowledge between research and innovation centres and their surrounding regions, in order to achieve the maximum impact for European citizens from the investments made.\nIn order to cope more effectively with the problems and difficulties experienced by Member States during this time of crisis, we need a common EU cohesion strategy, in which the territorial dimension of the cohesion policy should be emphasised, and the specific special needs of each Member State must be taken into consideration in the application of policy measures.\nWe must launch today a broader discussion of the possible future of the regional and cohesion policy in the EU after 2013, and the possible form of Structural Funds in the coming programming period, in order thereby to help consciously improve the competitive advantages of the EU economy in the world.\nRichard Seeber  \nin writing. - (DE) In line with the European Union's motto of 'united in diversity', we must do more to make our continent a 'Europe of the regions'. Territorial cohesion plays an important role in this respect. For this reason, we should put the emphasis on making it into a separate objective, alongside economic and social cohesion.\nDuring the process of strengthening the regions, we must pay particular attention to sensitive areas, as has been mentioned in the current cohesion debate. The increased costs must be taken into account, in particular in mountain regions, which are very time-consuming and costly to manage.\nProviding compensation for these difficult conditions represents an important step towards creating a Europe where all areas are worth living in. In this context, we should highlight the agricultural industry. Milk production in the mountains makes an important contribution to the preservation of rural areas and should therefore be given sufficient support. Small and medium-sized enterprises which create jobs outside the major European commercial centres should also be helped. Overall the current debate on cohesion is setting the direction for modern regional policy and will take the traditional structure of Europe into the future.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nIn the years 2007-2013 Poland will receive over EUR 67 billion from the European Union budget. As part of these financial transfers, in 2008 alone the European Commission sent a total of PLN 19.3 billion to Poland. Specific features of the implementation of these programmes mean, however, that most of the payments will be made in the final years of the programmes, that is 2013-2015. Unfortunately, fundamental restrictions have arisen which prevent effective realisation of Structural Funds in Poland. From the beginning of the programmes for 2007-2013 to the beginning of March 2009, nearly 8 400 agreements on financial support were signed, concerning total expenditure of PLN 15.4 billion. This includes a contribution from the EU of PLN 11.4 billion. Unfortunately, applications to receive payments from these funds amount to a total of PLN 1.75 billion. The excessively long procedures for awarding public procurement contracts can delay realisation of Structural Funds, and so contribute to the low level of absorption. Structural Funds are public funds which are subject to national public procurement legislation. This legislation must create a simple and effective procedure for selecting contactors. Excessively long tender procedures can delay realisation of Structural Funds. EU funds should be a means to mitigate one of the most serious effects of the financial crisis. Acceleration of expenditure will allow strengthening of the economy in 2009 by making investments in infrastructure, human capital and businesses to a value equivalent to at least around 1.3% of GDP. For this to happen the Government must facilitate access to EU funds and simplify procedures.\n(The sitting was suspended at 11.50 a.m. pending voting time and resumed at 12.05 p.m.)\nPresident\n- The next item is the vote.\n(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":7,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, the first duty of any assembly is to hold the executive to account. We are here as the people's tribunes. There should be a creative tension between us and the executive - that is, the Commission.\nBut when it comes to these budgetary questions, the European Parliament, uniquely among the elected assemblies of the world, sides with the executive against its own constituents, in the cause of deeper integration.\nEvery year the European budget grows; every year we have the report from the Court of Auditors that shows tens of billions of euros being lost or stolen. And yet we do not do the one thing which we are empowered to do, which is to withhold supply, in other words, to say that we will not hand over any more money until the accounting procedures have been put in order.\nYet again we are waving through this budget despite all the errors in it and thereby betraying those who put us here, who are our constituents and also our taxpayers, because the majority of people in this house take a 'Europe right or wrong attitude' and would rather see things being badly done by Brussels than competently done by the Member States.\nMiguel Portas\nMr President, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left voted in favour of the mobilisation of EUR 24 million to support workers made redundant in Belgium.\nWe voted in favour because we are on the side of those who are in need, those who devote their sweat and their brains to companies and who, ultimately, are victims of an unfair economic system and unchecked competition for profits, which have devastating social effects.\nThat being said, the role of this Adjustment Fund must be assessed.\nIn 2009, only EUR 37 million were mobilised, out of a possible EUR 500 million. The fund is not reflecting the reason for which it was set up.\nSecondly, instead of supporting the unemployed directly, this fund supports national employment security systems. As they are very different from each other, the fund ends up reproducing the obvious inequalities among our own distribution systems.\nIn Portugal, the fund provides an unemployed person with EUR 500 of support. In Ireland, it provides an unemployed person with EUR 6 000 of support.\nThirdly, the case of Dell shows how it is possible simultaneously to support workers who are made redundant in Ireland and the very multinational that made them redundant, which is currently receiving another kind of public funds in Poland.\nDell was given money to set up a new factory in Poland while it was gaining new positions in US markets and, in the third quarter of this year, announced profits in the region of USD 337 million.\nAll aspects of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund therefore need to be carefully assessed.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, I have said it many times before and I will no doubt say it again: whatever the motives of its founders, the European Union has long since ceased to be an ideological project and it has become a racket, a way of redistributing money from people outside the system to people within it. Hence, the thing we are talking about today - these bungs to selected favoured companies.\nLet us pass over the suspicious timing of the grant to Dell in Ireland that was announced with questionable procedural propriety in the run-up to the Irish referendum on the European Constitution or Lisbon Treaty. Let us just make the wider point that we have tried this before as a continent: in the 1970s, we went down the road towards propping up uncompetitive industries, with disastrous consequences. We know where that road leads. It ends in stagnation, inflation and ultimately in collective bankruptcy. Let us not go there a second time.\nSyed Kamall\nMr President, I was interested to read the first sentence, where it says that the fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns.\nBut have we not always had major changes in world trade patterns? In my constituency of London, we had textile companies that responded and prepared for globalisation by outsourcing some of their functions to poorer countries, thereby creating jobs in developing countries, but keeping high-value research and development and marketing jobs in London, in the constituency, in the European Union.\nWhy then, if these companies can respond, are we rewarding inefficient textile and IT companies who bury their heads in the sand and hope that globalisation will go away?\nSurely this money should be returned to taxpayers so they can spend it as they see fit. Surely it is time for governments to focus on creating the right conditions so that, when jobs are lost, entrepreneurs can come along and create new jobs.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, I return to this real abuse of authority that has very nearly been committed, precisely under the pretext of an amendment to the Rules of Procedure that is designed to adapt them to the conditions of the Treaty of Lisbon, this Amendment 86 by which the administration granted itself the right to appoint the representative of the non-attached Members to the Conference of Presidents.\nIt is completely scandalous that this appointment, which should have taken place, as in all of our Parliament's bodies, either by election or by consensus, by election failing consensus, has not yet taken place due to deliberate manoeuvring by officials who are opposed to it.\nFurthermore, it is alarming that these officials should have won over to their cause political groups which are hostile to us and which, clearly, ought not to give a de facto or de jure opinion on the appointment of our representative. We shall challenge this decision, if it is discussed again, before the Court of Justice.\nMarisa Matias\nMr President, in order to ensure that we have genuine and binding results in the fight against climate change, there are four principles that must be guaranteed, and I would like to highlight them. They have also been voted on here today.\nThe first is that we need to reach a legally binding agreement.\nThe second is that strict political targets need to be guaranteed, including targets for reducing emissions. We need to have ambitious targets in this regard. I believe that we could have gone further than we did today.\nThe third point is that the necessary public funding should be guaranteed to enable us to tackle this problem of climate change.\nThe fourth and final point - which I believe is very important to consider - is that it should be a global agreement, and not just an agreement among certain regions, and this has to happen by means of a process rooted in democratic participation involving all countries.\nI believe that the resolution we have adopted here today is not as good - shall we say - as the one that was previously adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.\nHowever, I believe that what should be safeguarded here is really the result achieved and the efforts made throughout this process and so we leave for Copenhagen with a rather good job done within Parliament. I sincerely hope that we fight hard and that we can fulfil what we have adopted here today.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nMr President, I supported this resolution. Climate change is a global political priority at the Copenhagen Summit. It should deliver not merely political commitments but binding agreements and sanctions for non-compliance.\nThe fight against climate change is a global action, and the active involvement of both developed and developing countries is necessary. However, the rich countries have to play the leading role. They must agree on mandatory targets to cut their emissions and, at the same time, find money to help developing countries deal with climate change.\nJan B\u0159ezina\n(CS) With today's adoption of the resolution on the Copenhagen Summit on climate protection, Parliament has given a clear signal that it attaches enormous importance to this issue. This is reflected in an authentic approach under which Parliament sets out the principle of shared but differing responsibilities. In accordance with this, the industrialised countries are to take a leading role while the developing countries and economies such as China, India and Brazil will be provided with adequate support through technology and the building up of capacity. On the other hand, I must say that the assumption that a deal in Copenhagen might provide the impulse for a green new deal initiative is, in my opinion, overly optimistic and ideological one-sided. We must not put blinkers on our eyes and walk over the corpses of industrial enterprises in an idealistic effort to reduce CO2 emissions. I would not consider such an unrealistic approach to be a sustainable alternative for the whole of Europe.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, the report that has just been adopted in our Chamber definitely toes the 'politically correct' line that reigns supreme here, unchallenged by established dogmas.\nHowever, just because something is said a thousand times does not mean that it is justified. There has always been global warming. There has been global warming since the last glaciations, for example, and, after all, it was not the cars used by Neanderthal Man that caused the previous instances of global warming.\nThere is no dispute, there is no question about what is repeated to us a hundred times, a thousand times, and for what reason? We can clearly see that there is at least one very important reason: to prepare for the advent of world government; and the second reason is once again to instil a sense of guilt in Europeans and in Westerners, who are considered, wrongly, as being responsible for all the world's ills.\nI shall stop there, Mr President, because I am not entitled to sixty-one seconds. Thank you for having taken notice of what I have said.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, at his first press conference as the new President or as the appointee, Mr Van Rompuy declared that the Copenhagen Process would be a step towards the global management of our planet. I cannot be alone in being alarmed at the way in which the environmental agenda is being piggybacked by those who have a different agenda about the shifting of power away from national democracies.\nEnvironmentalism is too important to be left to just one side of the political debate to apply its solutions. As a Conservative, I consider myself a natural conservationist. It was Marx who taught that nature was a resource to be exploited, a doctrine that found brutal realisation in the smokestack industries of the Comecon states, but we have never tried the free market solutions of extending property rights, of having clean air and clean water by allowing ownership, rather than the tragedy of the commons, where you expect state action and global technocracies to achieve these ends.\nEnvironmentalism is altogether too important to be left.\nClemente Mastella\n(IT) Mr President, the resolution on the Stockholm Programme on which our Parliament voted today is the outcome of a great cooperative effort and a brand new procedural formula, of which we do not have much experience as yet.\nThis formula in fact sets truly ambitious goals, but if we are to have a Europe that is open yet also safe, we must be able to strike the right balance between increasingly effective cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism, on the one hand, and a strong commitment to safeguarding public privacy rights, on the other.\nWe are committed to implementing a common policy on asylum, to respect for the safeguarding of fundamental human rights and to a common immigration policy through greater control of our borders.\nThe next task is to set up a European judicial area. To achieve this goal, we must promote all forms of cooperation with the aim of disseminating a common European judicial culture. Examples of this include the mutual recognition of common judgments and rules, abolition of the exequatur procedure and the implementation of measures aimed at facilitating access to justice and fostering exchanges between magistrates.\nThen, there is the multi-annual programme, which stresses the concept of European citizenship, which should be considered to complement, not limit, national citizenship.\nI believe that these are goals requiring a greater commitment by all ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nLena Ek\n(SV) Mr President, I have, today, voted in favour of the EU's strategy for freedom, security and justice, in other words, the Stockholm Programme, but when the Council's actual legislative proposal comes back to Parliament via the Commission, I intend to be very strict and tough when it comes to the question of openness and transparency in legislative work.\nThis is particularly important with regard to the asylum procedure. The option to apply for asylum is a fundamental right, and European cooperation is about tearing down walls, not about erecting them. The Member States must therefore respect the definition of a refugee and an asylum seeker in accordance with the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and I have now tabled an amendment to this effect. In its final form, the Stockholm Programme must stand for European values such as freedom and respect for human rights. These are worth fighting for, and that is exactly what I am going to do.\nDaniel Hannan\n(ES) Mr President, I would first like to thank you and your officials for your patience during these explanations of vote.\nMr President, a former British Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, once told a successor in that office that it was the best job in the Cabinet because one did not have to deal with any foreigners.\nNo Home Secretary in any Member State could say that today. There has been the most extraordinary harmonisation in the justice and home affairs field. On everything from immigration and asylum, visas, civil law, criminal justice and policing, we have effectively given the European Union that ultimate attribute of statehood: a monopoly of coercive legal force over its citizens, that is to say, a system of criminal justice.\nWhen did we ever decide to do this? When were our voters ever consulted? I accept it has not been done in secret. There was no conspiracy about it, or at least it was perhaps what H. G. Wells called an open conspiracy, but at no stage have we had the courtesy to ask people whether they want to be citizens of a state with its own legal system.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Like many European citizens who were not given a chance to have their say on the Treaty of Lisbon, I, too, have become quite concerned about developments in the areas of freedom, security and justice. More and more asylum and immigration powers are being siphoned away to the European Union, and these issues are increasingly being excluded from the ambit of citizens' democratic control. The outcome of this will be even more immigration and all the problems which that leads to.\nThe issue of conferring rights without imposing any obligations, which is another thing that emanates from this resolution, gives immigrants an excuse for not adapting to the norms of their host countries. An example of what annoys me is the passage which deals with what has been phrased as 'the multiple discrimination faced by Romani women', because it fails to mention that, in many cases, such discrimination is self-imposed. Just consider the fact that many Romani women and underage children are being required to go ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, I had asked to talk about Stockholm.\nMr President, as has been said, this report includes two objects of concern.\nThe first is its very distinct pro-immigration perspective. The second is not disclosed by the content of the report or by the conclusions. We came to know about it simply through the intentions of Commissioner Barrot: it is the criminalisation of freedom of expression, research and thought.\nIn many European countries today, there are people who are being prosecuted, arrested, severely punished and detained, simply because they want to express a critical point of view, on the history of the Second World War, for example, on contemporary history, or on the phenomenon of immigration. They are being denied this right and they are being hit with very heavy punishments. This is a major reason for concern since it is completely contrary to the European spirit.\nAldo Patriciello\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some months ago, we witnessed the sudden and unexpected collapse of some low-cost airlines, such as Myair and Sky Europe, with the consequent immediate cancellation of all their scheduled routes. This caused untold inconvenience for thousands of passengers who were denied the right to board duly booked flights. More serious still is the fact that the same consumers were also denied the possibility of obtaining a refund for flights that were cancelled due to the bankruptcy measures affecting these airlines.\nFor these reasons, it seems more necessary than ever for the Commission, which counts the prosperity and well-being of consumers among its principles and values, to urgently adopt appropriate measures so as to prevent similar situations from occurring to the detriment of European citizens.\nIn particular, we need to speed up the process of revising Directive 90\/314\/EEC on package travel, just as we need, on the one hand, to equip ourselves ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) Over the past nine years, 77 airlines have filed for bankruptcy. That is not just one, two or three, and not just yesterday: I repeat, this is over the past nine years. As a result of this, thousands of passengers have been staying in foreign airports without any protection. They have not obtained any compensation, or at least have not obtained the appropriate compensation in time. On account of this, I voted for this resolution, and I agree with the idea that in the airline sector, we must also regulate this gap in our legal system, something which has prevailed today.\nI also support the concrete deadline put forward in the resolution, which is 1 July 2010 - quite soon, therefore - when the European Commission must come forward with concrete, real proposals to solve this problem, and in future, air passengers' rights should also be protected ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nMr President, this is a very important issue and I voted for this resolution because I believe that we need to have a piece of legislation protecting our citizens in case of airline bankruptcies. Millions of our citizens use low-cost airlines every day. However, the high number of low-cost airline bankruptcies in the European Union since 2000, and the recent case of Sky Europe, have clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of the low-cost carriers to the changing oil prices and the current difficult economic conditions.\nWe must rectify this situation, and we ask the Commission to consider the most adequate compensation measures for our passengers.\nLara Comi\n(IT) Mr President, in the wake of recent cases involving the suspension and revocation of the licences of many airlines, a substantial number of passengers and holders of tickets that were neither honoured nor reimbursed have suffered considerable losses.\nI therefore believe it necessary to propose a specific regulation that defines the best solutions to problems arising out of the bankruptcies in terms of both financial loss and repatriation.\nIt is thus important to provide compensation for passengers in the event of bankruptcy and also to define the associated financial and administrative procedures. I refer to the principle of mutual liability to protect the passengers of all airlines that fly the same route and have available seats. This would allow the repatriation of passengers left stranded in foreign airports. In this sense, suggestions of a guarantee fund or a compulsory insurance for airlines could represent plausible solutions that would have to be weighed against the trade-off, which would be an increase in prices for consumers.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, it is very important to talk about the security of airline passengers and, above all, compensation in situations in which companies go bankrupt, as Mrs Oviir just mentioned. There have been 77 bankruptcies in the past nine years, and it is alleged that the airline industry is facing more turbulence than ever.\nFierce competition is a kind of playoff. A new phenomenon is the cheap airlines, which at the moment seem to be doing well and making huge profits. This has driven many other airlines into an unhealthily competitive situation. As has been said, it is very important to ensure that there is no repetition of the earlier unfortunate cases and that airlines take some sort of responsibility for their passengers and that they should be liable for compensation if a flight is cancelled due to bankruptcy. To ensure that...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) With the Lisbon Agenda, the European Union aimed to strengthen economic union. It is therefore important to improve the competitive strength of the economy as well. However, it is essential in this matter that fair competition should prevail in the market. This means that clear rules should operate for every manufacturer, exporter and importer. I supported the proposal in this resolution because imposing an obligation to identify the country of origin of goods imported from third countries in the European Union is an infallible way to obtain transparency, to give the consumer the appropriate information and also to secure compliance with international trading rules. Thank you.\nLara Comi\n(IT) Mr President, the debate on origin marking absolutely does not prioritise the interests of one or a few Member States, as is sometimes mistakenly believed. Instead, it embodies the fundamental economic principle of levelling the playing field.\nThis principle, in line with the Treaty of Lisbon, aims to implement European competitiveness at international level by promoting clear and balanced rules for our producing companies and companies that import products from third countries.\nWe are therefore discussing matters that concern Europe as a whole. For this reason, I believe it is essential to reach an agreement on origin marking that goes beyond individual national interests or those of political groups and leaves room for the will to implement a single market by promoting competitiveness and transparency.\nSubmitting to Parliament the proposal for a regulation on origin marking, as it was formulated by the European Commission in 2005, represents a step forward in this regard.\nIn line with the Treaty of Lisbon, the process of codecision between Parliament and the Council will therefore make it absolutely possible to speed up the approval of a regulation that is so important to the economy and European consumers.\nWritten explanations of vote\nRobert Atkins  \nin writing. - British Conservatives have been unable to approve discharge of the 2007 European budget, European Council section. For the 14th consecutive year, the European Court of Auditors has only been able to give a qualified statement of assurance for the accounts of the European Union.\nWe note the auditors' remarks that around 80% of the transactions of the EU are carried out by agencies working within the Member States under joint management agreements. The auditors consistently report that levels of control and scrutiny of the use of EU funds within the Member States are inadequate.\nIn order to address this ongoing problem, the Council entered into an Interinstitutional Agreement in 2006 which obliged them to produce certification for those transactions for which they are responsible. We are dismayed to note that, to date, the majority of the Member States have not satisfactorily delivered on their obligation and therefore, despite the traditional 'gentleman's agreement' between Parliament and Council, we will not grant discharge until such time as the Member States fulfil their obligations under the Interinstitutional Agreement.\nJean-Pierre Audy\nI voted in favour of granting financial discharge to the Council for the 2007 budget whilst emphasising the fact that I disagree with the way in which the Committee on Budgetary Control has managed this situation in which the rapporteur, Mr S\u00f8ndergaard, has produced two contradictory reports; the change in position between the proposals for postponing discharge in April 2009 and for granting discharge being justified by the assertions resulting from meetings without any audit work, whilst the European Court of Auditors has made no comment on the management of the Council. I regret that there has been no legal study to ascertain the powers held by the European Parliament and, consequently, those held by the Committee on Budgetary Control, in particular, concerning the Council's external and military activities. At a time when we will be negotiating political relations with the Council as part of the application of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is important for the work of the institutions to be based on rules of law.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nAt the end of the last legislative term, in April, Parliament decided to postpone discharge of the Council in respect of the implementation of the budget for 2007 due, essentially, to a lack of accounting transparency concerning the use of the Community budget. In particular, Parliament felt it was important for there to be greater transparency and tighter parliamentary scrutiny of the Council's spending on the Common Foreign and Security Policy\/European Security and Defence Policy (CFSP\/ESDP).\nThe report adopted today finally discharges the Council, since it considers that Parliament has obtained a satisfactory response from the Council to the requests made in the resolution of last April. However, it provides some warnings for the next discharge procedure. In particular, it will verify progress made by the Council with regard to the closing of all its extra-budgetary accounts, the publication of all administrative decisions (when they are used as the legal basis for budget items) and the transmission to Parliament of its annual activity report. Although the Council has taken a small step forwards in its presentation of accounts on the use of the Community budget, we believe that, in terms of CFSP\/ESDP expenditure, the available information is still very far from adequate, which is why we still have reservations.\nLiam Aylward  \nI voted for this regulation regarding the fuel efficiency labelling of tyres. Energy efficiency is vitally important as regards environmental sustainability and as regards conserving finite resources. Clear, informative labelling will help European consumers make better choices from now on. Not only will these choices be based on cost, but they will also be based on fuel efficiency. Another advantage of this type of labelling is that the labelling of wet-grip tyres will increase road safety.\nJan B\u0159ezina  \nI voted for Mr Belet's report on fuel efficiency labels for tyres, which endorses the common position of the Council. In view of the fact that 25% of overall CO2 emissions come from road transport and that 30% of the overall fuel consumed by vehicles is related to their tyres, the introduction of an obligation to label tyres represents a key instrument in the fight for a healthier environment.\nThe decision taken today by Parliament will result in a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of up to four million tonnes a year. For the purposes of illustration, this is equivalent to removing 1 million cars from EU roads. The unquestionable benefit of the approved legislation comes from improving the quality and therefore the safety of tyres. This should not lead to any increase in prices, which consumers will certainly appreciate, especially those who decide what to buy based on the price of a product. In my opinion, this confirms the results of market research showing that consumers are interested in buying more environmentally friendly products. In my opinion, the advantage of the approved regulation for producers is that, thanks to the unified standards for conveying information on the efficiency of tyres, there will be a better chance for customers to compete on the basis of factors other than product price alone.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nThe new regulation on the labelling of tyres is part of the Community strategy on CO2, which sets targets to be achieved through vehicle emission reductions. From November 2012, tyres will be labelled in the EU according to their fuel efficiency, wet grip and noise emissions. Tyres are responsible for 20 to 30% of the energy consumed by vehicles due to their rolling resistance. By regulating the use of energy efficient tyres that are safe and have low noise emissions, we are helping both to reduce environmental damage, by lowering fuel consumption, and to increase consumer protection, by means of market competition. I therefore welcome the creation of another instrument that represents one more step in the direction of a sustainable Europe in terms of energy.\nLara Comi  \nMr President, I approve Parliament's decision to finally adopt a regulation that increases safety as well as the environmental and economic efficiency of road transport. The aim is to promote the use of safe, quieter tyres. According to some studies, it is possible to significantly reduce (by up to 10%) the proportion of fuel consumed by a vehicle that is dependent upon tyre performance.\nIn line with my commitment to consumer protection, this regulation establishes an effective regulatory framework through clear and precise labelling and information. This makes it possible to safeguard transparency and makes consumers more aware of their buying options with the support of brochures, flyers and web marketing.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI welcome the fact that, instead of a directive, we have a regulation on the labelling of tyres, which is the result of a suggestion by Parliament.\nFrom November 2012, tyres will be labelled according to their fuel efficiency, wet grip and noise emissions. European citizens will have more information to select the right tyres so as to reduce fuel costs and to help reduce energy consumption. They can thus make a more environmentally friendly choice and reduce their carbon footprint.\nMoreover, labelling will lead to increased competition among manufacturers. This labelling is beneficial from an environmental point of view. It should be noted that road transport is responsible for 25% of carbon dioxide emissions in Europe.\nTyres can play an important role in reducing CO2 emissions because they are responsible for 20 to 30% of the total energy use of vehicles.\nFor passenger cars, more energy efficient tyres can save up to 10% on fuel costs.\nI therefore voted in favour.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the compromise package on tyre labelling. This Parliament deals with many issues which appear extremely technical and, at first glance, are not high on many people's political agenda; this is perhaps one such issue. However, closer examination reveals that almost a quarter of CO2 emissions come from road transport and that tyres play a significant role in determining fuel efficiency. This proposed legislation therefore plays an important part in wider EU efforts to tackle global warming.\nNuno Melo  \nI voted in favour of this report in particular because it contributes to two essential points: improving the information available, which facilitates a more environmentally friendly choice of tyres, and the fact that, by making such a choice, we will be contributing to greater energy efficiency, given that tyres are responsible for 20 to 30% of the total energy use of vehicles.\nAldo Patriciello  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a regulation on the labelling of tyres approved today by this House is a crucial step towards marketing safe and quiet products that also allow fuel consumption to be minimised. The fact that the legal form of the proposal has been amended from a directive to a regulation is particularly welcome.\nThis will allow us to achieve the equal and immediate application of all the provisions in all Member States, ensuring more effective harmonisation of the European tyre market. Moreover, the effort put into the negotiations by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy concerning flexibility in displaying the label will offer consumers adequate protection while simultaneously ensuring that manufacturers are not burdened with excessive bureaucracy.\nThe interim provision of exempting tyres manufactured before 2012 from the obligations of the regulation also constitutes a necessary measure for the purposes of ensuring a gradual phasing-in of the new European regulations in the market. For these reasons, we can therefore say we are satisfied with the common position achieved, in the certainty that it corresponds to the aims of the Commission's initial proposal.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nI voted for the regulation on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency. This regulation is part of the legislative package concerning energy efficiency and will help cut polluting emissions produced by the transport sector. According to this regulation, tyre suppliers must use labels and stickers to provide users with information about fuel consumption and running resistance, wet grip and external rolling noise. In practical terms, the label will indicate for these parameters the level from A to G which the tyre is classified as. Tyre suppliers also have the duty to provide explanations on their website about these indicators, as well as recommendations concerning driver behaviour. These recommendations include the need for eco-driving, checking the tyre pressure regularly and complying with the stopping distance. Member States will publish by 1 November 2011 all the provisions laid down by law and administrative actions required to transpose the regulation into national legislation. The provisions of this regulation will be enforced from 1 November 2012. The transport sector is responsible for approximately 25% of polluting emissions. This is why this regulation will help reduce these emissions.\nRegina Bastos  \nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) aims to support workers personally affected by redundancies resulting from major changes in world trade. More specifically, the EGAF finances job-search assistance, tailor-made retraining, entrepreneurship promotion, aid for self-employment and special temporary income supplements.\nIn the longer term, these measures aim to help these workers find and hold on to a new job.\nMy country, Portugal, has benefited from the EGAF twice: in 2008, following 1 549 redundancies in the car industry in the Lisbon region and in Alentejo, and in 2009, following 1 504 redundancies in 49 textile companies in the northern and central regions of the country.\nThe crucial role of this fund is clear. However, the question asked by Mrs Ber\u00e8s highlights that there is a situation that should be clarified by the European Commission. We must prevent the allocation of funds or State aid in a Member State resulting in job losses in other areas of the EU.\nI therefore agree with the need to guarantee effective coordination of European financial aid, preventing companies from seeking to profit by creating and cutting jobs.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - I support this allocation of \u20ac14.8 million of European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) support to the 2 840 workers of Dell in Limerick who have lost their jobs following the closure of their plant because, rather than Dell, it will benefit the redundant workers directly. Indeed, it appears that while Dell was closing its manufacturing plant in Ireland, it received \u20ac54.5 million in State aid from the Polish Government to open a new plant in Lodz. This State aid was approved by the European Commission. What consistency is there at the heart of this policy followed by the Commission? It effectively exempts Dell from facing the social consequences of its strategy and allows companies to engage in a race to the bottom supported by both Member State and EU funds. Clarity on the coordination of the European Commission's policy on State aid and social policy is urgently needed.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs I have had occasion to say before, even before the emergence of the current financial crisis, which has increased and exacerbated some of the earlier symptoms, the serious impact of globalisation and the resulting relocation of businesses on many people's lives was already clear to see. The unique challenge of the times in which we are living and the exceptional need to use mechanisms, themselves exceptional, to assist the unemployed and to promote their reintegration into the labour market become clear when we add to these problems the present lack of confidence in the markets and the shrinking of investment.\nIn this respect, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has already been used several times, always with the aim of mitigating the impact on European workers caused by their exposure to the global market. The cases described in Mr B\u00f6ge's report are once again worthy of consideration, although some doubts remain as regards knowing if everyone really will qualify. It would therefore be better if applications were submitted separately in future.\nI would restate my belief that the European Union must take steps to promote a more robust, free and creative European market that will generate investment and jobs.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI voted in favour of this report because, since the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) is an instrument to respond to a specific European crisis caused by globalisation, this applies to the current situation. This fund provides individual, one-off and time-limited support directly to workers made redundant. It is argued that, in allocating this fund to workers, there should be no disproportionality as has been seen.\nMoreover, the European Social Fund (ESF) supports the European Employment Strategy and the policies of Member States on full employment, quality and productivity at work, promotes social inclusion, particularly access to employment for disadvantaged people, and reduces employment inequalities at national, regional and local levels. This is a crucial fund for strengthening economic and social cohesion. The current situation calls for robust, proper and swift implementation of the ESF.\nIt is clear that the EGAF and the ESF have different, complementary objectives, and that neither one can replace the other. As the extraordinary measure it is, the EGAF should be financed autonomously, and it is a very serious mistake for the EGAF, a short-term measure, to be funded at the expense of the ESF or any other structural fund.\nPat the Cope Gallagher  \nin writing. - I welcome the decision of the European Parliament to approve aid for the Dell workers under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The redundancies at Dell have seriously affected the local Limerick economy and surrounding areas. We must put in place appropriate re-training measures to ensure that the people who lost their jobs at Dell can secure employment in the near future. The approval of the Irish application for aid under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will contribute to the re-training and up-skilling of the workers in question.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for the cases of Belgium and Ireland, as I consider that we should use all possible means to help employees who are victims of the damage caused by globalisation and the economic and financial crisis.\nI nevertheless wonder about the consistency of European policies when, alongside the mobilisation of this fund, the European Commission permits Poland to grant State aid to Dell to open a plant in its country, even though the company is closing one in Ireland. How can European citizens have faith in the 'benefits' of Europe when it authorises this kind of 'trick'?\nOne might doubt the legitimate use of public funds in this context and regret the lack of social responsibility of our companies, which are guided by an exclusive concern for profitability, regardless of the jobs destroyed.\nJacky H\u00e9nin  \nThe Dell group, yesterday number one, today number three in the world in the field of information technology, with an estimated stock market value of USD 18 billion, posting a USD 337 million profit for the third quarter of 2009, and predicting an even bigger profit for the fourth quarter ...\nYes, I am behind Dell's employees!\nYes, I hope they find a job and get back to living a dignified life as soon as possible!\nBut, no, I will not contribute to the plundering of European taxpayers. I will not, under any circumstances, join in showing any more contempt for employees who are in a state of utter disarray.\nIt is up to the guilty to pay and up to Europe to implement a strong industrial policy that meets the needs of the populations before dividends are allowed to be distributed!\nAlan Kelly  \nin writing. - Today the European Parliament endorsed a \u20ac14 million fund which is to go towards the training of 1 900 Dell workers who were made redundant by the decision to move the plant from Ireland to Poland. This fund can provide for those who have lost their jobs to retrain and acquire qualifications to get back into the workforce. The fund will act as a hand-up rather than a handout, as the money will be forwarded to third level colleges in the Munster region to pay the tuition fees of former Dell employees. The approval of this fund represents a key example of Europe's commitment to helping Ireland out of the recession. The fund should help slow the trend of increasing unemployment in Munster and will provide a major boost for the local economy as those affected by the closure of the Dell plant return to the workforce.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nIt is in thinking of the Irish and Belgian workers as victims of neo-liberal globalisation that we are voting for this report and for the granting of aid under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.\nHowever, we vigorously denounce the reasoning that the social and human tragedies experienced by European workers should be regarded simply as 'adjustments' necessary for the smooth running of neo-liberal globalisation. It is totally unacceptable for the EU to support the very parties who bear the responsibility for these tragedies by giving its political and financial backing to the relocation and transfer processes that they are carrying out for purely profit-making purposes.\nThe commercial appetites of capitalist predators such as the Texan company Dell, the world number two in telecommunications, cannot be indulged independently of the general interest of the citizens of Europe. At any rate, this is not our vision of Europe.\nNuno Melo  \nThe EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund falls within this concept. This support is fundamental for helping the unemployed and victims of the relocations that have occurred as a result of globalisation. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of the lower labour costs in a number of countries, particularly in China and India, with damaging effects for countries that respect workers' rights. The EGAF is intended to help workers that have fallen victim to company relocations and it is essential for helping them to have access to new jobs in the future. The EGAF has already been used in the past by other EU countries, in particular Portugal and Spain, and it is now time to provide such aid to Belgium and Ireland.\nMarit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikstr\u00f6m  \nThe EU has established a legislative and budgetary instrument to be able to provide support to those who have lost their jobs on account of 'major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market'.\nWe are convinced that free trade and the market economy benefit economic development and we are therefore, in principle, opposed to financial assistance for countries or regions. However, the financial crisis has hit the Member States' economies very hard and the economic downturn is deeper this time than any downturn that Europe has experienced since the 1930s.\nIf the EU does not take action, the unemployed will be very severely affected in those regions in Belgium and Ireland that have applied for assistance from the EU. The risk of social marginalisation and permanent exclusion is very great, which is something that, as Liberals, we cannot accept. We strongly sympathise with all those affected by the consequences of the economic downturn and would like to see measures such as training that will help individuals overcome this. We therefore support the assistance for the unemployed affected in the textiles sector in the Belgian regions of East and West Flanders and Limburg and in the computer manufacturing industry in the Irish counties of Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary, as well as in the city of Limerick.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nI endorsed mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, because mass redundancies are, without doubt, a negative consequence of the economic crisis, and despite popular opinion, the crisis is still with us. There is no doubt that those in the countries concerned who have lost their jobs should be helped. Losing their jobs is a huge tragedy in the lives of these people and their families. This is why I think the role of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is especially important in the difficult times of the crisis. In my opinion, the budget of the Fund should be significantly increased in the future, so that it will be able to meet social needs. The economic crisis continues to take its toll in the form of group redundancies, which often lead to human dramas, a growth in social problems and many other unhelpful phenomena. Therefore, I think we should do everything possible to help, in the most effective way, the people suffering the effects of the economic crisis.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI welcome the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure on account of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. I should like to emphasise one of the aspects that I consider to be of the utmost importance at the moment, as we witness the negotiations for the new agreement that will replace the Kyoto Protocol in January 2013. The Treaty of Lisbon makes the international fight against climate change a specific objective of EU environmental policy. The Treaty of Lisbon adds support for international action to fight climate change to the list of objectives that make up its environmental policy. The Treaty of Lisbon also gives Europe new powers in the fields of energy, scientific research and space policy. Energy is now a joint responsibility, paving the way for a common European policy.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of Mr Martin's report on the adaptation of Parliament's Rules of Procedure to the Treaty of Lisbon, because it is necessary to amend some of Parliament's internal rules, in view of the increased powers resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, particularly the increased legislative power, which will enable it to legislate on an equal footing with the Member States' governments on a greater number of issues.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe amendments on which we voted today will be incorporated into the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament because the Rules need to be brought into line with the heralded entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, scheduled for 1 December. I believe that the significant stepping up of Parliament's powers, which calls on all MEPs to tackle new challenges, is an important test of its ability to propose legislation and of its sense of responsibility.\nAs a result, I can only welcome a change in the Rules of Procedure that will bring the way the House works more into line with the provisions of the treaties.\nI am particularly pleased with the increasingly important role played by national parliaments and Member States' initiatives in terms of European integration.\nI hope that the subsidiarity principle, which is subject to special attention from the European legislator, is increasingly fulfilled and respected by all European decision makers.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted in favour of David Martin's report on the reform of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure insofar as it will allow our House to adhere to the new ground rules accompanying the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nThe reform involves, in particular: welcoming new 'observers' who should be able to become MEPs in their own right as soon as possible; introducing rules relating to the new role of national parliaments in the legislative procedure, by examining the respect shown for the principle of subsidiarity, a reform I gladly welcome insofar as it helps deepen the democratic debate; and, above all, granting the European Parliament an enhanced role in the drafting of European laws.\nFinally, this text clarifies the types of action to be taken by the European Parliament in the event of a 'breach by a Member State of fundamental principles', which is especially positive in its defence of fundamental rights.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - Under the old Rule 36 of this Parliament, we were required to 'pay particular attention to respect for fundamental rights'. In the new Rule 36, we must 'fully respect' those rights as laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is a subtle change but one which I consider to be important and which binds all MEPs to upholding the rights of all citizens.\nNuno Melo  \nThe entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009 means it is necessary to adapt the Rules of Procedure to bring them into line with Parliament's new rules and powers.\nWith these amendments to the Rules of Procedure, Parliament is preparing itself for the increased powers that it will have when the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, taking account of the arrival of 18 new MEPs, increased legislative powers and the new budget procedure. Future cooperation with national parliaments is also important here.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nThere is very little to be seen of the much-vaunted increase in democracy and stronger voice for parliaments which the Treaty of Lisbon was supposed to introduce. There are merely a few new procedures. The procedure for evaluating respect for fundamental rights must not, under any circumstances, be misused for the mandatory imposition of political correctness or for anti-discrimination mania.\nThe lack of democracy within the EU remains unchanged after the Treaty of Lisbon. Not much has changed when the European Parliament has to choose the Commission President from a pool of failed politicians who have lost elections. The fact that the Stockholm Programme is being pushed through so quickly that we cannot bring up our data protection concerns demonstrates how strong our voice really is. In reality, the changes to the Rules of Procedure brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon have not resulted in any increase in transparency or a stronger voice for parliaments. For this reason, I have voted no.\nNuno Teixeira  \nThe Treaty of Lisbon will bring more speed, legitimacy and democracy to the decision-making process in the European Union, which is responsible for measures that affect us as citizens every day.\nIn particular, Parliament will see its legislative power increased, as it will share responsibility equally with the European Council on most issues handled by the institutions. In fact, under the Treaty of Lisbon, so-called codecision will become the rule and the normal legislative procedure.\nFor my part, as an elected MEP, I am mindful of the challenge that this change brings.\nThis report, in particular, takes up the work undertaken and almost finished in the previous parliamentary term, to adapt the Rules of Procedure that govern Parliament's work in light of the new treaty, which should enter into force at the start of next month.\nSome amendments are purely technical in nature and others concern updates that Parliament has taken the opportunity to implement on this occasion. As a whole, the report represents a compromise that satisfies the political family to which I belong, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), by incorporating, in a balanced way, issues such as subsidiarity and proportionality, as well as strengthening cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments.\nFor those reasons, I voted in favour of this report.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe Greek Communist Party is opposed to and voted against the amendments to adapt the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. The amendments maintain and strengthen the reactionary and anti-democratic character of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure, which forms an asphyxiating framework for every voice which rises in opposition against the sovereignty of the political representatives of capital.\nIt is a lie that the Treaty of Lisbon 'gives the EU a more democratic dimension', because it allegedly upgrades the role of the European Parliament. The European Parliament is a component of the reactionary construct of the EU. It has proven its devotion to the reactionary policy of the EU, its support for the interests of the monopolies, its role as the body which gives allegedly legal credence to the anti-grassroots policy of the EU. The European Parliament does not represent the people; it represents the interests of capital. The people's interest lies in opposition, in breaking with the anti-grassroots policy of the EU and the European Parliament which supports it and in overturning the euro-unifying construct.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves  \nI voted in favour of this resolution, which seeks an ambitious and legally binding international agreement in Copenhagen, since I believe that concluding this agreement can lead to a new, sustainable model that stimulates social and economic growth, fosters the development of environmentally sustainable technologies, as well as renewable energy and energy efficiency, and reduces energy consumption and enables the creation of new jobs.\nI believe that approval of this resolution - which stresses that the international agreement should be based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, with the developed countries taking the lead in reducing their emissions and accepting responsibility for providing developing countries with financial and technical support - will contribute to a certain global balance.\nIt is therefore essential that the Union takes the lead on the issue so as to safeguard the well-being of future generations.\nDominique Baudis  \nI voted in favour of the resolution on the Copenhagen Summit, since it is our responsibility, as elected members, to protect the planet for future generations. The world is staking its future on the months to come. It is unthinkable that the international community should fail to reach an agreement that binds States to the path of reason. Heads of State or Government, you hold in your hands responsibility for tomorrow's Earth. Be capable of setting aside your national interests and short-term issues because humanity has no time to lose.\nFrieda Brepoels  \nin writing. - (NL) In the resolution adopted by the European Parliament today, a specific chapter stresses the great importance of regions and local authorities, especially in the consultation process and in disseminating information about and carrying out the implementation of climate policy. Up to 80% of adaptation and mitigation policies will be implemented at a regional or local level. Several regional governments are already leading the way and pursuing a radical approach in fighting climate change.\nAs a member of the European Free Alliance representing European nations and regions, I fully support the direct involvement of regional governments in the promotion of sustainable development and an efficient response to climate change. In this context, the work of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD) must be emphasised. This Network has already set up a close partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Members of the EFA therefore call for the explicit recognition of regional governments in the context of the Copenhagen agreement, recognising the role which they are playing in mitigation and adaptation policies.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nIt is crucial that the Copenhagen conference results in a politically binding agreement. This agreement must contain operational elements that can be implemented immediately and a schedule that will allow a legally binding agreement to be drawn up during the course of 2010. The agreement must involve all the countries that signed the Convention, and it is vital that any commitments, whether in terms of reducing emissions or in terms of funding, are clearly set out. While, on the one hand, industrialised countries should lead the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, economically more advanced developing countries also have a role to play, contributing in accordance with their responsibilities and respective abilities. Industrialised countries and emerging countries with more advanced economies should be subject to comparable efforts. Only then will it be possible to reduce distortions in international competition. It is also crucial that we define the structure of the funding so that this will be sustainable in the medium and long term. The funding must come from the private sector, carbon market and public sector of industrialised countries and economically more advanced developing countries.\nNessa Childers  \nin writing. - It is extremely important that the EU takes action and becomes a world leader in reducing carbon emissions approaching the Copenhagen Summit. The Parliament has already shown more ambition than the Member States in relation to a reduction in carbon emissions, and today's resolution is to be welcomed with calls for real financing, calls for strong targets in the high end from 25-40% in line with the science, and the insistence on a legally binding agreement.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nI abstained, firstly because Amendment 13, which considers nuclear energy to be an important factor in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, was approved and, secondly, because Amendment 3 by my group, calling for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 and 95% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, was rejected. There are numerous positive points in the resolution, such as the EU's commitment to granting EUR 30 billion a year up to 2020 to meet the requirements of developing countries in the field of moderating the impact of and adapting to climate change. However, I consider that a return to nuclear energy as an antidote to the greenhouse effect is not the solution in the fight against climate change; on the contrary, it is a dangerous choice. The three camps of developed, developing and underdeveloped countries and the three camps of governments, basic movements and people will clash in Copenhagen, given that climate change largely undermines efforts to reduce poverty and hunger in the world. The Copenhagen Summit is a real challenge to which we must rise and we must not allow the industrial and nuclear lobby to be the glorious victors.\nJ\u00fcrgen Creutzmann, Nadja Hirsch, Holger Krahmer, Britta Reimers and Alexandra Thein  \nThe German Free Democratic Party members of the European Parliament have abstained from voting on the Copenhagen resolution for the following reasons. The resolution contains statements about financing for climate protection measures in third countries without defining the specific criteria or purpose of the financing. We cannot justify this to taxpayers. In addition, we believe that blanket criticism of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is wrong.\nThe ICAO is the organisation which deals with aviation matters at an international level. Both the criticism and the statement about the alleged failure of ICAO negotiations are incorrect and inappropriate. The call for specific arrangements for a CO2 trading system for the aviation industry goes against current EU legislation and overburdens the EU's negotiating position in an international climate agreement with unrealistic demands.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - The effects of climate change are being felt now: temperatures are rising, icecaps and glaciers are melting and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more intense. The UN estimates that all but one of its emergency appeals for humanitarian aid in 2007 were climate related. We need a global energy revolution towards a sustainable economic model, which provides for environmental quality to go hand in hand with economic growth, wealth creation and technological advancement. Ireland's per capita carbon emission is 17.5 tonnes per annum. By 2050, this will need to be reduced to 1 or 2 tonnes of carbon. Clearly, this means radical change in the production and consumption of energy. The first step is a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen binding the international community to mandatory reductions and providing for sanctions at international level for non-compliance. Indeed, the international community should show commitment exceeding that shown to tackle the financial crisis. The response to climate change lies in strong international governance and financial commitment. Aid to the developing world must be in addition to Overseas Development Aid or risk not attaining the Millennium Development Goals. Indeed, climate change will require increased investment in the public sector.\nMarielle De Sarnez  \nThe joint resolution which has just been adopted by Parliament sends out a clear signal. The Union needs to speak with one voice and act jointly following Copenhagen, no matter what the scope of the outcome of the conference. We must aim for an actual 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. When I say 'actual', this means that it will eventually be necessary, one day, to raise the issue of derogations and emissions trading. Parliament hopes that the Copenhagen Summit will be an opportunity to present a European Union that is strong and that also makes a firm financial commitment to developing countries, because we owe them.\nAnne Delvaux  \nIn Copenhagen, from 7 to 18 December, nearly 200 nations will negotiate a new international treaty to combat climate change, a post-Kyoto treaty that will enter into force from 2013 ...\nThe resolution voted on will serve as a road map for negotiation for the European Union. As a current member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I made my contribution via amendments supporting, in particular, the legally binding nature of the agreement.\nMy requirements, when voting, are to reach a global political agreement that is ambitious and binding and that quickly paves the way for a genuine legal treaty; to achieve a 30% reduction in relation to the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, with an ambitious, quantifiable yet flexible commitment from other polluters such as the United States and China, and an 80% reduction by 2050, in compliance with what the experts are demanding; and to clarify the crucial collective commitment by industrialised countries in terms of finance and aid for developing countries. In a crisis context, it is difficult to determine the exact amount, but it will be necessary to ensure that it at least corresponds to the commitments undertaken!\nFailure in Copenhagen would be an environmental, political and moral disaster!\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the Copenhagen conference on climate change, since I believe that it sets out a good parliamentary compromise on the fundamental aspects that should guide negotiations on a future international agreement on this matter, especially with regard to the issues of adaptation, funding mechanisms and deforestation. I would reiterate that reaching a legally binding international agreement in Copenhagen that is ambitious, realistic and involves all parties is also a matter of social justice.\nJill Evans  \nin writing. - In the resolution adopted by the EP, a specific chapter stresses the great importance of regions and local authorities in the consultation, information and implementation of the climate policy. Up to 80% of mitigation and adaptation policies will happen at the regional and local level. Several regional or sub-State governments are leading the way on radical policies to fight climate change.\nAs Members of the European Free Alliance representing European nations and regions, we fully support the direct involvement of sub-State bodies and regional governments in the promotion of sustainable development and the efficient response to climate change. In this context, the work of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD) has to be underlined. This Network has already set up a partnership with the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme. We therefore call for the explicit recognition of regional governments in the context of the Copenhagen agreement, recognising the key role they are playing in mitigation and adaptation policies.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs I have said before, it is vital that a legally binding, global, political agreement on climate change is adopted so as not to put European industry in an anticompetitive situation. The European effort must be aimed at seeking an agreement that requires a joint effort, and not just an effort by the EU.\nIn my view, the idea of a tax on international financial transactions as a solution to fund adaptation to climate change and mitigation of its effects by developing countries is not appropriate, given that it will be at the expense of the economy (particularly in crisis situations such as the one we are currently experiencing), trade and wealth creation.\nThe cost that such a tax would have for society in general (increasing the tax burden, with consequences for all taxpayers and consumers) and its impact on the financial market (decreasing the necessary liquidity and flow of credit to businesses and households) cannot be ignored.\nI believe that this is not the way to regulate the market and that other alternatives that are less damaging to the global economy can be devised.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a resolution because I believe that the EU should continue to lead by example in the fight against climate change. It is worth noting that the EU has surpassed the goals drawn up in Kyoto.\nI believe that the Copenhagen agreement should be binding. In this regard, I have tabled an amendment to Parliament's resolution on this matter, requesting an international set of sanctions to be included in the final text.\nI believe that the agreement should be global, ambitious and with a clear timeline. If we are not ambitious, we will end up with a token instrument that will be even less effective than the Kyoto Protocol, which already provides for international sanctions. Let us therefore hope that there will be effective regulation and that the agreement will include a review clause so that it can be easily updated.\nI also believe that China and India cannot be exempted from all responsibility when they produce a large percentage of global emissions, while our industries are going to great lengths to reduce their emissions.\nThe US has a great responsibility for ensuring the success of this summit. I hope that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, will show that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, because combating climate change will contribute to peace and happiness for all nations.\nElisa Ferreira  \nThe adopted resolution contains positive aspects, such as: the importance of maintaining an international post-2012 commitment; the need to align reduction targets with the latest scientific data; the call on the US to make binding the targets promised (although not committed to) in the last election campaign; the emphasis on the historic responsibility of industrialised countries for greenhouse gas emissions; the promotion of energy efficiency and the enhancement of RD&D activities.\nHowever, the importance attributed to so-called market solutions, and to carbon trading in particular, is indisputable. This is fundamentally a political and ideological choice, which not only does not guarantee that we will meet the established reduction targets, but is itself the most serious threat to achieving the stated environmental goals. The experience of how the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System has functioned since 2005 is an illustration of this. Carbon trading aims to commercialise the Earth's capacity to recycle carbon and, thus, to regulate the climate. As a result, this capacity - which is what guarantees life on Earth as we know it - is at risk of ending up in the hands of the very corporations that are defiling the planet, its natural resources and the climate.\nRobert Goebbels  \nI abstained from the vote on the climate change resolution because the European Parliament, as is its wont, displays worthy sentiments without taking the realities into account. The European Union produces approximately 11% of worldwide CO2 emissions. It cannot set an example and pay for the rest of the world too.\nIt is illogical to restrict Member States in the use of clean development mechanisms (CDMs), albeit provided for by Kyoto, and, at the same time, ask for EUR 30 billion a year in aid for developing countries, without conditions or proper judgment, to mention only one incongruity in the resolution.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nOn the climate change issue, there is an urgent need to act and not to leave developing countries powerless. They are the ones that are affected in the first place, but they lack resources suitable for influencing the phenomena created by developed countries! Future generations will be powerless in the face of the effects of climate change if no global action is taken today. That is why it is essential for our governments to show political leadership so as to encourage other States, such as the United States and China, to reach an agreement. This commitment must also include the introduction of a tax on financial transactions that is used to finance not banking sector supervision, but rather developing countries and worldwide public goods, such as the climate.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - Next month, the eyes of the world will be on Denmark. Across the North Sea, in a country of similar size, the Scottish Government is making a vital contribution to climate change efforts. According to the official website of the Copenhagen Summit, Scotland has taken on 'world leadership on climate protection'. The efforts of the Scottish Government are to be fully supported and we must hope that other nations add their weight to global efforts next month.\nAstrid Lulling  \nI voted for this resolution on the European Union's strategy for the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change as I am convinced that a comprehensive international agreement can actually alter the trend of uncontrolled growth in greenhouse gas emissions.\nEnvironmental policy in general, and climate policy in particular, are also a driver of technological innovation and may generate new growth prospects for our companies.\nI am very glad that Europe is playing a leading role by providing for an energy and climate policy that aims to reduce emissions by 20% in 2020 compared with 1990. I am firmly opposed to additional restrictive targets without a comprehensive, international agreement. On the one hand, Europe, which is responsible for 11% of the world's emissions, does not carry enough weight to reverse the trend on its own and, on the other, I fear the relocation of energy- and CO2-intensive industries.\nOnly a comprehensive agreement focusing on the medium and long term will provide the predictability necessary to be able to embark on major research and development projects and to commit to the substantial investment required to dissociate economic growth from the growth in greenhouse gas emissions on a permanent basis.\nNuno Melo  \nIt is very important that an ambitious and legally binding agreement on climate change is reached at the Copenhagen conference.\nHowever, it is also important that everyone is involved, particularly China, India and Brazil, in view of their significant economic role and intense industrial activity. These countries must also commit to pursuing ambitious targets and goals, comparable to those of other countries, though with aid, as far as possible, from other richer, more industrialised countries. It is also essential that the United States plays its part in this extremely important matter.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) For far too long, the EU has been attempting to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases single-handedly while energy-hungry emerging economies and wasteful industrial countries were not even prepared to implement the Kyoto Protocol. We will have to wait and see to what extent the Copenhagen conference will change this. Against this background, rules are needed for the financing process, together with sanctions for non-compliance.\nIn order to bring about change, we need to restructure our environmental policy so that it does not merely involve millions being transferred to and fro as part of the certificate trading process, but also enables the promotion of real alternatives, such as renewable energy, and the reduction in the transport of goods all over Europe which is subsidised using EU money. This report does not deal with this problem in sufficient detail and, therefore, I have voted against it.\nRovana Plumb  \nI voted for this resolution as a mandatory, global legal agreement must be reached in Copenhagen, based on which developed countries or developing countries as well will commit to targets for reducing emission levels comparable to those of the EU. We can achieve the objective of maintaining global warming at a gradient of 2\u00b0 C and of cutting greenhouse gas emissions only if we invest in clean technologies and in research and innovation. Additional funds must also be allocated, taken from the contributions made by the states signing the global agreement, which reflect the economic development and solvency of these states.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nin writing. - This resolution represents a clear and realistic strategy for dealing with the key areas which must be addressed in order to achieve an effective agreement in Copenhagen next month. We have a text which balances ambition with realistic targets, and which deals with the difficult issues that the negotiators must resolve. The European Parliament has now called on the EU negotiating team and the Member States to press for action on the following: emissions trading; a global carbon market; a fair system of financing for adaptation and mitigation; forests; and aviation and maritime transport.\nThe Parliament has kept to its earlier commitments regarding emission reductions by 2020, and has now set out even more ambitious targets for 2050 in the light of new recommendations from the scientific community. The willingness of the EU to lead on this issue may well prove to be a key factor in establishing an internationally binding agreement to deal with climate change.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik  \nThe European Parliament resolution on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen conference on climate change is a significant legislative document and an important voice in the international debate and the negotiations preceding the climate summit, and is intended to supplement the European Union's position on this question. If the European Union wants to remain a leader in combating climate change, it should continue to set itself ambitious reduction goals and to meet previously made reduction commitments. In this way, it would give an example to other countries, despite the difficulties involved.\nThe voice of the European Parliament, as the only democratic institution of the EU, is crucial in this debate, which is also why our resolution should show the right direction to take, and should formulate priorities which are truly of importance. The text of the resolution itself must not be just a collection of demands and wishes without any basis, but should be the coherent and, above all, united voice of the citizens of the EU, based on the principle of joint, but differentiated, responsibility of Member States on the question of combating climate change.\nThe European Union, as a serious partner in negotiations, must take its seat in Copenhagen as a united body which gives consideration to the interests of all its Member States. The European Union should show a readiness to increase reduction goals to 30%, provided other countries also express a readiness to set themselves such high reduction targets. It should also be remembered that the EU has not accepted any unconditional obligations, only conditional ones.\nBart Staes  \nI voted in favour of the resolution because the European Parliament is calling on EU negotiators to make EUR 30 billion available to developing countries for their fight against climate change. Parliament is thereby sending out a clear signal to the negotiators who will be attending the climate summit in Copenhagen on Europe's behalf in a fortnight's time. Up until now, they have always been vague about what their financial input at the summit will be. Now, however, Parliament has called on them to be more explicit about actual amounts and percentages. And that puts the ball back in the United States' court. There are signals that the Americans are busy drafting a CO2 emissions target which they want to table. This resolution ramps up the pressure on President Obama to come up with specific proposals, because that will do little to increase the chances of success in Copenhagen.\nIt also increases the chances of countries like China, India and Brazil joining the global fight against climate change. Like my colleagues in the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, it was therefore with a great deal of enthusiasm that I voted in favour of this robust resolution. Its only drawback is that the production of nuclear energy has somehow crept in. However, what is important now is that the Commission and the Member States drive a hard bargain in Copenhagen.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski  \nIn today's vote on the EU strategy for the climate conference in Copenhagen, the European Parliament adopted a radical and unrealistic position. In demanding a doubling of restrictions on CO2 emissions in EU countries, Parliament is undermining the climate package which was recently negotiated with such difficulty (point 33 calls for a 40% reduction). While demanding an expenditure of EUR 30 billion annually for clean technologies in developing countries, Parliament expects countries with coal-based power generation, such as Poland, to pay double for CO2 emissions: once in the form of a fee under the system for emissions trading, and a second time in the form of a contribution to help developing countries in the area of combating climate change (point 18 talks about the contribution, which should not be less than EUR 30 billion annually). While demanding that calculation of Member States' contributions towards clean technologies in developing countries be based on CO2 emission levels and GDP, Parliament has overlooked the criterion of ability to bear these costs. This means a cost to Poland of EUR 40 billion over the next 10 years (this is a consequence of rejecting amendments 31 and 27). This is the reason why the Polish delegation alone voted against the whole resolution on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen conference on climate change (COP 15).\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe enhanced risks to the environment and health and particularly dangerous climate changes, with the overheating of the planet, are the result of industrial development based on capitalist profit and commercialisation of land, air, energy and water. These phenomena cannot be properly addressed by the leaders of capital, the very people responsible for creating them.\nThe road to the Copenhagen Summit is blocked by the escalation in imperialist infighting. With proposals for 'a viable green economy' and an economy of 'low carbon' growth, the EU is trying to pave the way for even more investments by the euro-unifying monopolies and, at the same time, to satisfy the speculative expectations of capital with a 'pollution exchange'.\nIn order to plan and implement a development course which will help to balance the relationship between man and nature and satisfy grassroots needs, we need, in the final analysis, to overturn capitalist relations of production. The Greek Communist Party voted against the European Parliament resolution. It proposes combined satisfaction of grassroots needs in accordance with the wealth produced in our country. The political preconditions to the implementation of this objective are socialisation of the basic means of production and central planning of economic life, with control by the grassroots and working classes, in other words, power of the people and an economy of the people.\nThomas Ulmer  \nI have voted against the motion for a resolution because it determines in advance that the EU will make large amounts of funding available from the start without waiting for the other partners. I cannot justify to my voters using their money in this way. Climate protection is an important objective, but the panic-mongering before the Copenhagen Climate Summit is outrageous and does not reflect the scientific facts.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves  \nI voted in favour of this resolution, since it addresses priorities in fundamental chapters such as freedom, security and justice, particularly with regard to the conditions for the reception and integration of immigrants, fighting discrimination, particularly on grounds of sexual orientation, access to justice, and combating corruption and violence.\nFighting discrimination is vital, whether on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious affiliation, colour, descent and national or ethnic origin, as is fighting racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, homophobia and violence.\nFreedom of movement should also be guaranteed for all EU citizens and their families.\nIn conclusion, the protection of citizens against terrorism and organised crime should also be guaranteed, and the regulatory framework should therefore be strengthened to deal with these highly topical threats, given that they have a global dimension.\nCharalampos Angourakis  \nThe Greek Communist Party is categorically opposed to the Stockholm Programme, just as it was opposed to previous programmes to implement the misleadingly entitled area of freedom, security and justice. Its objective, the demagogic pronouncements of the EU notwithstanding, is to harmonise or homogenise national laws in order to achieve the uniform application of the EU's anti-grassroots policy and to strengthen existing and create new mechanisms for prosecution and repression and EU level, on the pretext of terrorism and organised crime.\nThe top priorities of the Stockholm Programme include stepping up the anti-communist hysteria in the EU which is already proceeding full steam ahead, culminating in the historically inaccurate and unacceptable equation of communism with national socialism. The EU area of freedom, security and justice and the programmes to implement it are not in the people's interests; on the contrary, they form a set of measures which strangle individual and social rights and democratic freedoms, intensify authoritarianism and repression at the expense of workers, immigrants and refugees, safeguard the political system and the sovereignty of the monopolies and aim to strike at the working class and grassroots movement, this being prerequisite to the implementation of the savage attack by capital against the employment and social rights of the working classes and grass roots.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt \nI am convinced that the protection of children's rights is a very important aspect of the Stockholm Programme. I would like to draw attention to the fact that in recent years, violence against children, including the sexual exploitation of children, sex tourism involving children, trafficking of children and child labour have been of increasing concern. Given that the protection of children's rights is a social priority of the European Union (EU), I call on the Council and the Commission to dedicate more attention to protecting the rights of those who are most vulnerable.\nChildren's rights are part of human rights, which the EU and the Member States have pledged to honour in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child. The EU must increase its commitments to help the situation of children in Europe and the whole world, so that it can properly ensure the promotion of children's rights and their protection. I would like to underline that only a strategy based on coordinated and joint action can encourage the Member States to honour and adhere to the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child throughout the European Union and beyond its borders. In order to properly ensure children's rights, I would propose adopting standards of an obligatory nature in all EU Member States. Sadly, respect for children's rights has not yet been universally ensured. Therefore, by implementing the Stockholm Programme, I call on the Council and the Commission to take concrete measures to ensure that children's rights are properly protected.\nCarlo Casini  \nMr President, I voted in favour of the resolution because it indicates the right way to strengthen European unity around the fundamental values that constitute its very identity.\nWe cannot fool ourselves that it will be possible to achieve agreement on so-called common values. We may nevertheless hope that the application of reason can help the various political components to look more closely at what is right and fair where progressing along the road to European unity is concerned.\nThe clear distinction between the right to free movement and the principle of non-discrimination, on the one hand, and the value of the family as a natural society founded on marriage, on the other, has led to the formulation of the paragraph that upholds the independence of individual States in family law and the ban on discrimination against any human being.\nThose who, like me, fully promote the principle of equality, affirming equality between children who are born and those who are not yet born, can only support the principle of non-discrimination against people with different sexual tendencies, but cannot accept the destruction of the concept of marriage or of the family. The significance of this concept, as recognised by Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is fundamental to the succession of generations and the educational capacities of heterosexual couples.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nI voted against the motion for numerous reasons; my main reasons are outlined below. In essence, its basic dimension is the philosophy of 'security' and fear, at the expense of basic rights and freedoms. However, it is precisely by protecting and respecting these rights under the rule of law that security is safeguarded. It reinforces the perception of and the facility to implement fortress Europe, which treats immigrants as potential terrorists and criminals and, in the best case scenario, 'accepts' their presence not as people with equal rights, but depending on the needs of the EU labour market.\nIt promotes disgusting mass redundancies, it does not strengthen the right of access to asylum, it paves the way for the active participation of the EU in refugee camps outside its borders and for the imposition of leonine agreements with third countries, but is indifferent to the safeguarding of human rights. Finally, even though much more could be pointed out, the resolution introduces policies which multiply the various bodies which monitor, collect and exchange personal data on citizens, infringing their collective and personal dignity and trampling the right of freedom of speech underfoot. This resolution is addressed to a society which only has enemies and in which everyone is a suspect. That is not the society we want.\nAnna Maria Corazza Bildt  \nWe believe that it is vital that women are not subjected to violence or the sex trade. Similarly, it is self-evident that we should respect human rights and observe the international conventions that are in place for refugees. For us as EU citizens, having a stable legal system with everyone being equal before the law is a given, as is the fact that we can have confidence in the way authorities treat our privacy.\nMany of the 144 points in the motion for a resolution and the 78 amendments to Parliament's resolution that have been tabled were, of course, worthy of support. The resolution and the amendments also include a number of points, concerning human rights, discrimination and privacy for example, that are already covered by previous programmes as well as the Treaty of Lisbon. We have chosen to vote against a number of amendments in order to obtain a resolution that is even stronger on the issues that are not already covered by previous programmes and treaties. Even though there are points in the resolution that was voted through that should not have been included, we have chosen to vote in favour of the resolution, as the benefits far outweigh the negative aspects. It is more important to send a clear message of support for the Stockholm Programme from the European Parliament.\nMarije Cornelissen and Bas Eickhout  \nIn itself, the European Parliament resolution calling for an area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen is a progressive resolution and one which puts a check on the desire of the Council of Ministers to allow the free exchange of citizens' personal data. It is also a resolution which guarantees the protection of refugees and migrants.\nThis resolution is a step towards progressive European lawmaking on migration. Some of its crucial amendments, including those concerning the establishment of the principle of non-refoulement, the diminution of the role of Frontex, which will have no role to play in the resettlement of migrants in third countries, a positive attitude to 'en masse' regularisation of illegal immigrants and the assertion that security should serve the interests of freedom, are of decisive importance. The paragraphs about combating illegal migration are open to several interpretations, although, to my mind, they do not err on the repressive side. I deeply regret the fact that the resolution has been watered down as regards the anti-discrimination dossier.\nAnne Delvaux  \nSo far, progress has been slow with regard to some aspects of the area of freedom, security and justice, whereas the right to move and to reside freely within the EU is now granted to more than 500 million citizens! It is important to manage this, and the European Parliament resolution passed today helps in this respect.\nI welcome the resolution, as it primarily concerns the citizens and ties in with my priorities: a Europe of law and justice (protection of fundamental rights and the fight against all forms of discrimination); a Europe that protects everything whilst not acting like Big Brother (strengthening of Europol and of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters both operationally and administratively, improvement of inter-State cooperation between the police and information services, construction of a European criminal justice area based on the principle of mutual recognition, protection of personal data); and a Europe that is united, responsible and fair with regard to asylum and immigration through true solidarity between all the Member States, and the fight against the trafficking in, and the sexual and economic exploitation of, human beings.\nThe next stage: the European Council on 9 and 10 December 2009!\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the Stockholm Programme, since I believe that the proposals it contains clearly and precisely establish the priorities for the coming years in terms of European legislation in the areas of freedom, security and justice, in the light of application of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nIt is vital to strike a better balance between the security of citizens and the protection of their individual rights. Consequently, I would like to stress the importance of applying the principle of mutual recognition to same-sex couples in the EU, as well as setting up a European Court of Cyber Affairs and adopting measures that give prisoners new rights.\nDiogo Feio  \nIt has been common practice in this Parliament to promote divisive issues, which go far beyond the competences of the European Union, by including them in texts on broader issues that would normally warrant widespread support. I must condemn the application, once again, of this surreptitious method, which only goes to discredit this House and widen the gap between MEPs and voters.\nFortunately, matters concerning family law fall within the competence of the Member States, and it is therefore absolutely illegitimate and a blatant attack on the subsidiarity principle for Parliament to seek to coerce them towards a common understanding on these issues by seeking to promote radical agendas.\nRecognition by Parliament of same-sex unions - which are effective only in four Member States - cannot be imposed on the rest, and it represents a crude attempt to influence legislators and national public opinions, which deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms.\nWhen the Charter of Fundamental Rights was adopted, it was feared that it would be invoked abusively in the future and that it would clash with national law. The current situation confirms that these predictions were right.\nCarlo Fidanza  \nThis resolution ultimately affirms some important principles: common responsibility in the fight against illegal immigration, in the distribution of asylum seekers and in the repatriation of foreign detainees. On the other hand, I feel that the part that refers to respect for the rights of minorities, and particularly the Roma minority, is very inadequate and overly politically correct. The text completely overlooks the situation of degradation in which the Roma communities live, in certain states such as Italy, not due to lack of integration policies but, quite the contrary, due to a deliberate decision to reject any rule of civil living.\nThere is no condemnation of the illegal activities (thefts, bag-snatching, tiresome begging and underage prostitution) that are increasingly connected with illegal Roma settlements in the outskirts of major cities in Italy and elsewhere. There is no mention, even in the section on the protection of minors, of the need to safeguard those very children against the actions of enslavement perpetrated against them by some Roma heads of family. There is no mention even of how Directive 2004\/38\/EC on the removal of Community citizens who are unable to demonstrate a certain level of income after a three-month stay in an EU State should actually be applied. Integration cannot happen without respect for the rules, and the Roma minorities are not exempt from compliance with this principle.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThe majority in Parliament has approved the main thrust of the European Commission's proposal for the so-called Stockholm Programme, which is a powerful attack on such a key element of Member States' sovereignty as justice. Increasing joint actions in the area of political and judicial cooperation and cooperation between secret services, as well as introducing an internal security strategy and new measures for exchanging data within the EU, come at the expense of the rights, freedoms and guarantees of all those living in EU countries.\nDevelopment of a joint migration policy based on the classification of immigrants according to a scale of desirability, and in its most repressive form, the use of Frontex, violates migrants' rights and ignores the human tragedy taking place in many countries.\nThe growing use of surveillance and monitoring of people is worrying, as is the practice of profiling, based on data mining techniques and universal data gathering, irrespective of whether citizens are innocent or guilty, for the purposes of so-called prevention and control. Also worrying are the huge funds channelled to the military-industrial complex and its investigation activities in the area of internal security.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg  \nMr President, political strategy concerning the area of freedom, security and justice - the Stockholm Programme - will be adopted by the Council in December this year, straight after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. At this special moment, when the decision-making powers of the European Parliament will increase significantly, the role of national parliaments in the process of making Community law will also increase. The citizen's voice, strengthened in this way, will also have a stronger mandate to bring about realisation of the principles of the Stockholm Programme.\nParticularly significant and urgent, in my opinion, is the need to take action to ensure equal treatment of all citizens of the European Union, irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious association, world-view, skin colour, background or ethnic origin. To do this, it is essential that the Council adopt a comprehensive directive on non-discrimination, one which would encompass all the areas I have just mentioned. The EU does not have such a law, as we have often said in the European Parliament.\nI hope this loophole will be filled as part of realisation of the Stockholm Programme. However, just making a law is not enough. If the Stockholm Programme is to be successful, EU citizens have to know their rights. The job of the new European Commission will, therefore, also be to raise public awareness of antidiscrimination legislation and of gender equality.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted in favour of this resolution because it enables a better balance to be struck between respect for individual freedoms and a predominantly repressive outlook accompanied by security measures of which it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness today. Through this programme, we are reaffirming our attachment to a Europe of solidarity and values that has a duty to defend freedom of religion, equal opportunities, the rights of women, the rights of minorities and the rights of homosexuals.\nThat is why I strongly support the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Directive, which is currently being held up within the Council and which the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) did not want during the last parliamentary term. The PPE Group has restated its opposition to the text. I also welcome the adoption of amendments calling for a request to remove the obstacles to the exercising of the right to family reunification and demanding a ban on placing foreign minors and unaccompanied minors in detention.\nHowever, I regret that the objectives of the migration policies have been ignored again and have taken a back seat behind the issue of combating illegal immigration and strengthening the Frontex Agency. On the subject of asylum, the proposals on a common asylum system will be examined by the European Parliament in its capacity as colegislator, and it will closely monitor the genuine political will to make progress in this area.\nTimothy Kirkhope  \nin writing. - Whilst the ECR Group supports much of what is contained in the Stockholm Programme, such as cooperation and solidarity over issues of policing, fighting cross-border crime and corruption, protecting fundamental rights, and finding solutions for immigration by seeking to assist those countries in southern Europe that face serious immigration problems, we do not support proposals for a European Security Strategy, or measures which would hand over control of our criminal justice system and asylum policy to the EU, or calls for 'compulsory and irrevocable solidarity'. We believe in cooperation rather than compulsion; and therefore we voted against this report.\nNuno Melo  \nThe Stockholm Programme is concerned with strengthening security, particularly in the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism, while respecting citizens' rights. The effort, which is also a result of the new reality of the Treaty of Lisbon, would lead you to expect a responsible discussion about the essential points of an area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen.\nRegrettably, there were some who wanted to contaminate the discussion of such a fundamental issue as the Stockholm Programme with the issue of same-sex marriages, which is irrelevant and unrelated to the subject, with no regard even for the legitimate differences in the internal legal solutions of each country of the European Union. Those who acted in a such a way, merely for the sake of political manoeuvring, were not bothered about the fate of the Stockholm Programme.\nConversely, my vote reflected the importance of discussing the needs of this area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen. It was also an expression of condemnation of the strategy of those who wanted to contaminate this discussion with a divisive agenda which had nothing to do with it.\nJudith Sargentini  \nIn itself, the European Parliament resolution calling for an area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen is a progressive resolution and one which puts a check on the desire of the Council of Ministers to allow the free exchange of citizens' personal data. It is also a resolution which guarantees the protection of refugees and migrants.\nThis resolution is a step towards progressive European lawmaking on migration. Some of its crucial amendments, including those concerning the establishment of the principle of non-refoulement, the diminution of the role of Frontex, which will have no role to play in the resettlement of migrants in third countries, a positive attitude to 'en masse' regularisation of illegal immigrants and the assertion that security should serve the interests of freedom, are of decisive importance. The paragraphs about combating illegal migration are open to several interpretations, although, to my mind, they do not err on the repressive side. I deeply regret the fact that the resolution has been watered down as regards the anti-discrimination dossier.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nI would like to share a few comments on the multi-annual programme 2010-2014 regarding the area of freedom, security and justice (the Stockholm Programme). Ensuring the citizens of the European Union freedom, security and justice is one of the main responsibilities of Member States. The countries of the European Union must increase cooperation in judicial matters, without detriment to the traditions and fundamental laws of Member States. We need to increase mutual trust between Member States concerning the appropriateness of decisions made by the authorities of another Member State, especially in areas related to legal and illegal immigration, and also concerning the cooperation of police and courts in criminal matters. The EU must intensify efforts related to fighting transborder crime and terrorism. To this end, steps should be taken to improve the efficiency of information exchange while not forgetting the matter of the protection of privacy, personal data and fundamental freedoms. Security in Europe is our common affair, as is the common, single market, and we should do everything possible for every citizen to feel safe within the borders of the EU, because this is one of our fundamental values.\nRenate Sommer  \nI welcome the adoption of the motion for a resolution on the Stockholm Programme. It is important for this Parliament, as the representative of the citizens of Europe, to propose a route to be taken by the justice and home affairs policy. We have achieved a good result. In addition, the Treaty of Lisbon gives us security. In future, the European Parliament will not only be playing an advisory role in these policy areas, but will also be part of the decision-making process. We have found a good balance between security and citizens' rights.\nThe population needs increasing levels of security. However, we must repeatedly answer the question about whether and to what extent citizens' rights and freedoms can be restricted by the introduction of security measures. I think we have chosen a good middle way. However, to ensure that this middle way really does feed into the justice and home affairs policy, we are calling for more control rights for this Parliament and for the national parliaments in the EU as part of the implementation of the Stockholm Programme. Unfortunately, plenary did not support my call for police access to Eurodac.\nThis would have been another useful tool in the fight against terrorism and crime. However, my motion calling on the Commission to present proposals for combating the abuse of the asylum system throughout Europe was successful. Every abuse of the asylum system makes it more difficult to grant asylum to those who have a legitimate claim to it.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of this motion for a joint resolution on the state of play of the Euromed Free Trade Area.\nIn spite of some progress made, I regret that the main objectives of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership have not been reached, jeopardising their planned achievement by 2010. It is vital to ensure that the Euro-Mediterranean integration process is restored as a political priority of the EU, since the success of this process and of the free trade area could contribute to peace, prosperity and security throughout the region.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe Mediterranean is the cradle of civilisation as we know it. Along its shores, ideas and institutions that define the essence of European civilisation and form an integral part of its history and its future plans were born, have developed and have grown powerful.\nDeep divisions have also appeared along its shores, often resolved by force of arms, which have led to a painful political separation, a widening gap between its peoples and development divorced from, if not opposed to, what was previously the centre of the world.\nThe EU, which wants to open itself to the world and to promote dialogue between its members and third countries, must cherish the idea of a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area that makes it possible to build closer relations again between both sides of the Mediterranean and which also promotes greater South-South convergence.\nIt is essential to acknowledge that the results achieved up to now do not tally with the ambition behind this idea. There are many economic and financial obstacles, although it is clear that the more serious sticking points are distinctly political in nature. We must persist and help make it possible to recreate a market on a Mediterranean scale that brings with it increased contact between peoples and restoration of the ties that have, in the meantime, been broken.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI regret that there is still a striking economic, social and demographic imbalance between the two sides of the Mediterranean. That is why I have voted in favour of giving new impetus to the integration of the countries of the south and the east of the Mediterranean in international trade so that they can diversify their economies and share the associated benefits fairly.\nWe must reduce the gap separating the north and the south sides of the Mediterranean in development terms. Moreover, this free trade area should be supplemented by the gradual and conditional introduction of free movement for workers, with account being taken of the current discussions on the links between migration and development.\nWilly Meyer  \nI voted against the Euromed report because it is not possible to dissociate the issue of trade from that of political dialogue in the Union for the Mediterranean. This report focuses on the hard core of the European Union's interest in the Union for the Mediterranean. I refer to the establishment of a free trade area across both regions. I am against implementing such a free trade area.\nThe trade chapter must be based on the principles of fair trade, taking account of the imbalances between the countries of the European Union and the Mediterranean countries. As regards the political chapter, however, we cannot agree with the award of the Advanced Statute by the European Union to Morocco whilst the latter continues to violate human rights. As far as the European Union is concerned, the Sahara conflict must be a priority issue for the Union for the Mediterranean, with support for the process of conducting a referendum on self-determination pursuant to UN resolutions. It follows that we also cannot accept the so-called upgrade that the Union has granted Israel. This is because of Israel's continual violation of international law, and because of our political commitments to Palestine.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nI very much welcome the fact that multilateral contacts with the Mediterranean region and, in particular, with the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries (SEMC) will be improved and strengthened. I also support the European Union's efforts to start the process of modernising the economies of these countries and, therefore, to help the population. However, I doubt very much whether this can be achieved by means of the planned Euromed Free Trade Area.\nA sustainability impact assessment carried out by the University of Manchester warns of the negative social and environmental consequences for the SEMC involved. I fear that this agreement will bring new sales markets for the EU countries, but will seriously damage the economies of the SEMC. The parallel introduction of freedom of movement for employees called for in the motion for a resolution would also result in a huge wave of migration to Europe and lead to the drain of workers urgently needed in the SEMC. In order to help ensure a positive future for the SEMC, I have therefore voted against this resolution.\nCristiana Muscardini  \nMr President, following the Barcelona Conference in 1995, not all of the potential intrinsic to the natural relations between countries lining the Mediterranean basin has yet been developed.\nThe ambitious plan of forging new and closer political, social and cultural links between the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean must remain one of the priority goals of the European Union in order to achieve the desired and strategic implementation of a free trade area. This Euromed area may make a significant contribution to peace, prosperity and safety throughout the region.\nI support measures and efforts aimed at removing barriers and obstacles to trade and I realise that the success of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership does not depend only on the will of European countries. The implementation of a free trade area requires the determined, ongoing and synergetic contribution of all parties.\nThe UFM must also step up forms of cooperation existing within the Euromed framework to allow all partner countries to participate in European Union regional programmes and corresponding policies. On the subject, I note that the drawing up of plans within the framework established in Paris in July 2008 in strategic sectors such as new infrastructures, cooperation between SMEs, communications and exploitation of renewable energy sources may contribute positively to development and the facilitation of exchange and investments, because the countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean sorely need this. All these conditions promote the achievement of peace and the establishment of friendly relations.\nFor all these reasons, I approve the resolution and hope that the roadmap drawn up by the Commission can be respected and offer the benefits that we all expect.\nRichard Ashworth  \nin writing. - The ECR rejected the motion for a resolution tabled by other groups in the Transport Committee concerning passenger compensation in the event of airlines bankruptcy. We in the ECR tabled our own motion for a resolution which would have rectified a number of key weaknesses in the adopted text for the following reasons.\nAlthough supporting passenger rights is, of course, of vital importance, there are more efficient measures that can be taken without passengers being burdened with even higher costs.\n1. We should await the impact assessment that was proposed by Commissioner Tajani during the plenary session on 7 October.\n2. The text that has been supported calls for the establishment of a 'guarantee' fund that would be used to compensate passengers in case of airlines bankruptcy. However, the establishment of such a fund would inevitably have to be funded by the consumer, meaning passengers would be required to pay even more for their tickets. At this stage, this unnecessary step would add to the sizeable list of existing airport taxes, security charges and other duties that they are already forced to pay.\n(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170)\nLiam Aylward  \nI supported this motion which asks the Commission to review the current legislation, and also to draft new legislation to ensure that passengers will not be left in dire straits as a result of airline bankruptcy.\nAt the moment, there are no provisions under European legislation to protect European passengers in the case of the bankruptcy of an airline with which the passenger has made a reservation. I strongly support the position of the chairman of the transport committee who has said that many passengers do not have the resources to cope with losses of this sort. As such, a support mechanism or a compensation fund should be set up to help those left in a predicament as a result of this type of bankruptcy.\nRules regarding passengers' rights must be updated and strengthened to give protection and help in the case of airline bankruptcy or incidents of that type over which passengers have no control.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy, since I believe it is necessary to increase protection of European passengers in the event of airline bankruptcy by introducing new legislation or revising existing legislation, and by creating a reserve fund for compensation.\nDiogo Feio  \nCommercial airlines have been contending with a serious crisis since the attacks of 11 September 2001, which has been exacerbated by the current economic and financial crisis. Bankruptcies and unpleasant situations in which passengers, many of them in transit, find themselves truly stranded, are on the increase.\nThis lack of consumer protection is truly unacceptable, and it calls for a European response that provides for the assessment of airlines, promotes assistance for passengers caught in these situations and sets out compensation for damages.\nIn view of this, these measures must take account of the financial fragility of airlines and, therefore, should not be unnecessary obstacles to their operation. They must confine themselves to what is strictly necessary to ensure the protection of consumers\/passengers.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nSeventy-seven airlines have filed for bankruptcy in the European Union since 2000. Admittedly, European legislative provisions relating to price transparency and compensation in the event of denied boarding do exist, but the EU must close the loopholes regarding cases of insolvency, especially when tickets have been bought on the internet. There are still too many passengers who are finding themselves trapped in situations which they do not have the means to do anything about, having spent all their savings on a family holiday for themselves. I am in favour of rules to guarantee that passengers do not remain stranded at their destination, with no alternative means of travelling home or alternative accommodation.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nI am voting for the resolution, in particular, with regard to Regulation No 261\/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and repealing Regulation No 295\/91, which has already been adopted. The right steps have already been taken in this regulation and strengthening and protecting passengers' rights is simply a logical development of this.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nWe are voting in favour of this resolution in the hope of preserving as many of the interests of airline passengers as possible given the current state of affairs (liberalisation of transport services, increase in the number of airlines).\nWe would stress, however, that the compensation system proposed in this report is merely a stopgap that does nothing to change the fundamental problem.\nThe real solution lies in the creation of a European public air transport service. A public service that is concerned with the general interest and thus, with rationalising the journeys made, in order to reduce the impact on the environment. A public service that is concerned with the general interest and thus with the safety, freedom of movement and well-being of its users and employees alike.\nWe must, as a matter of urgency, put the Europe of exclusive interests behind us and build a Europe of the general interest.\nNuno Melo  \nThe growing number of bankruptcies that has been seen among airlines, affecting thousands of citizens in the Member States, has made it necessary for the EU to take measures to protect them. In fact, it is important to safeguard the rights of those who use air transport on a daily basis. I therefore voted in favour.\nRobert Rochefort  \nI voted in favour of the resolution on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy. Indeed, at present, the only passengers covered by European legislation in the event of airline bankruptcy are those who book a package holiday.\nHowever, it is clear that consumer habits have changed a great deal in recent years where booking holidays is concerned: there has been an increase in the use of low-cost European airlines, a sharp fall in the number of package holidays sold and an increase in the number of direct and individual on-line sales and seat-only sales.\nIf we add to that the crisis that the sector is currently going through, we can easily imagine the number of European passengers who find themselves stranded at their holiday destination, sometimes without any accommodation and desperately awaiting a return flight, following the collapse of the airline that they were meant to fly with.\nAfterwards, they will receive only a nominal amount of compensation for the inconvenience suffered, and even obtaining that will be a struggle ... The Commission must urgently take a legislative initiative to address this worrying situation. A compensation fund financed by the airlines should be put in place at the same time in order to finance these compensation payments.\nNuno Teixeira  \nEuropean regions that are distinguished as tourist destinations must provide users of services in this sector with the highest level of service and quality.\nMadeira is an example of this, having been classed last week as one of the best tourist destinations in the world by the World Tourism Organisation, which awarded the region the highest rating on 13 of its 15 assessment criteria. In order to maintain this position in a highly competitive market, it is necessary to continue the work done by public and private bodies with a view to environmental, economic and social sustainability. This objective also involves providing tourists that visit the island with the utmost guarantees regarding their air travel and accommodation conditions.\nThe motion for a resolution on which we voted today is a step in this direction, as it aims to protect passengers of bankrupt airlines by establishing compulsory insurance and guarantee funds for these airlines, as well as optional insurance for their customers.\nAlso positive is the call on the European Commission to present a proposal with the aim of compensating passengers of airlines that go bankrupt and ensuring their repatriation if they are stranded at an airport.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nI voted for the European Parliament resolution on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy. There are currently several European regulatory acts governing the following situations: compensation and repatriation of customers in the event of bankruptcy of travel companies which have provided package holidays; accountability of airline operators for accidents and arrangements for compensating passengers; compensation and provision of assistance to passengers who are denied boarding or whose flights are cancelled or subject to long delays.\nHowever, there are no legal provisions to protect consumers in the event of the airline operator going bankrupt. Over the last nine years, 77 European airline companies have gone bankrupt. This is why I believe that this directive is absolutely necessary. The European Parliament has therefore asked the Commission to strengthen the position of passengers in the event of airline bankruptcy. In fact, the European Parliament has asked the Commission to come up with a legislative proposal by July 2010, which should award compensation to passengers with airline companies that go bankrupt, introduce the principle of mutual responsibility for passengers of all airlines flying to the same destination with available seats, provide compulsory insurance for airlines, establish a guarantee fund and offer voluntary insurance services for passengers.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on origin marking since it is based on the principle that consumer protection requires transparent and consistent trade rules, including origin marking. In this respect, I support the intervention of the Commission, together with the Member States, to defend consumers' legitimate rights and expectations whenever there is evidence of use of fraudulent or misleading origin markings by non-EU importers and producers.\nDiogo Feio  \nIn view of the need to guarantee consumers appropriate information when making a choice to purchase certain products, particularly with regard to their country of origin and the respective safety, hygiene or environmental protection standards applicable to their production - information that is necessary to make a conscious and informed choice - I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, which calls on the Commission to resubmit its proposal to Parliament so that it can be debated in accordance with the legislative process established by the Treaty of Lisbon.\nHowever, I must mention that, during evaluation of the Commission proposal on origin marking, I shall pay close attention to the appropriate support given to traditional products, so that better consumer protection - which is both necessary and desirable - does not irreparably harm small producers of traditional products. I shall also pay special attention to the mechanisms used to establish origin, so that this does not become a competitive disadvantage for European producers against their competitors.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nWe believe that the adopted resolution falls well short of what, in our view, origin marking should be, which is to say, among other things, an instrument to protect industrial jobs in Europe, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, and an instrument to tackle social and environmental dumping. That is why we abstained.\nFurthermore, this resolution overlooks the consequences that liberalising world trade has for jobs and the industrial fabric in the various Member States. It overlooks countless relocations in search of easy profit and their consequences, such as the deindustrialisation of vast regions, rising unemployment and worsening of economic and social conditions. This resolution only goes as far as calling on the Commission and the Council 'to take all necessary steps to ensure a level playing field'.\nLastly, we regret that the majority in Parliament has rejected the proposals we tabled, which, among other things, sought to preserve jobs, respect workers' and consumers' rights, fight child labour or slavery and oppose the importing of products from occupied territories, and which insisted on the need to withdraw European aid from companies and investors that relocate their production.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nAgainst a backdrop of economic crisis that is hitting our European businesses, the European Union must now, more than ever, equip itself with a mandatory system of origin marking, if only for a limited number of imported goods, namely textiles, jewellery, clothing and footwear, leather goods and handbags, lamps and lights, and glassware, because this is precious information for final consumers. It would also enable European consumers to know exactly which country the goods they buy come from. They will thus be able to identify these goods by the social, environmental and safety standards commonly associated with that country. In other words, our citizens, as responsible consumers, will have as much transparency as they require.\nJacky H\u00e9nin  \nThe 'made in' concept must not simply be about marking, but must quickly become a powerful concept of respect for the most advanced rules in relation to knowledge, employee rights, sustainable development and environmental protection, and the expression of a responsible economic attitude.\nWith the introduction of a 'made in Europe' concept, we could enable consumers to make an informed choice, to take action to gain new rights.\nHowever, once again, we have limited ourselves to statements of good intentions, as though simply saying that we are the best and the strongest will make it come true.\nThat is a shame and that is why I will abstain.\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger  \nI understand the need for a discussion about the creation of a European legislative framework for origin marking of commercial end products, in particular, against the background of consumer information and transparency between trading partners. The use of a standardised marking system will result in improved and more accurate information for consumers and will indicate the social and environmental standards that the products comply with. In addition, origin marking is an important step towards producing coherent trading regulations with third countries.\nHowever, it is important to find the right balance from the perspective of producers and consumers. The transparency offered to consumers must not be created at the expense of the manufacturers. No additional costs must be involved for small and medium-sized businesses. As part of the ongoing discussions, it is important to establish clear guidelines and to defend them, including on behalf of Austria. One possible solution would be to create a voluntary European origin mark for commercial end products, taking into account existing national and regional quality labels.\nNuno Melo  \nI voted in favour because the 'made in' marking is essential for market transparency and for giving consumers the necessary information regarding the origin of the products they buy.\nIt is necessary to strengthen the Community economy by improving the competitiveness of EU industry in the global economy. We will only succeed in having fair competition if it operates with clear rules for producers and for exporters and importers, while also keeping sight of common social and environmental requirements.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nI very much welcome the introduction of origin marking by the European Union. From now on, the country of origin must be specified on certain products imported into the EU from third countries. The particular purpose of origin marking is to give EU consumers unrestricted information about the country of origin of the goods that they buy and to allow them to make a connection between the goods and the social, environmental and safety standards in the country in question.\nThis represents the first stage in a war against goods from the Far East, which are often produced by workers in exploitative conditions and which are then sold on the European market at dumping prices.\nCristiana Muscardini  \nMr President, today Parliament forcefully reiterated an opinion it had already expressed on several occasions during the previous Parliamentary term: Europe must introduce a regulation that establishes the origin marking of many products that enter its territory.\nThe decision arises out of a need to guarantee more information for, and therefore the protection of, consumers so as to enable them to make informed choices. The regulation on origin marking will finally enable European business to compete on an equal footing with companies in third countries where laws on the origin marking of products entering their territories have already existed for some time. The market is free only when rules are clear, mutual and applied.\nThe aim of the approved resolution is to call on the Commission, after the fruitless attempts at mediation with the Council, to reiterate the proposal in the light of the new responsibilities that Parliament has acquired with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. We are sure that agreement between the political groups of the European Parliament will be instrumental in establishing a definitive legal framework with the Council.\nI take this opportunity to emphasise that the commodity categories envisaged in the current proposed regulation must be respected and extended with regard to fastening products, in other words, products for which it is essential to ensure quality and compliance with European regulations in order to guarantee safety in the construction of bridges, cars, electric household appliances and any other item that involves the use of fastening products. Guaranteeing safety is a priority for us.\nToday's vote is an important success that we dedicate to European consumers and producers at a time of new political momentum for Parliament, due to the codecision procedure that has finally made up for the democratic shortfall that we have had to put up with for so long.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Commission Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union (short presentation) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Jos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Commission Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to salute and thank all those speaking about this report, which resulted in a large majority in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: 55 votes for, 3 against and no abstentions. I am grateful for the work and involvement that has made its content possible.\nBio-waste accounts for approximately 30% of urban solid waste. More than 100 000 tonnes are produced each year. We must not forget that waste is responsible for more than 109 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. It is the fourth most important source of greenhouse gas emissions, after energy, industry and agriculture.\nBio-waste should be viewed as a potential resource. Bio-waste should be used to its full potential. Unfortunately, up to now, large amounts of waste have been deposited in landfill and this has had environmental costs.\nThe legislation on this is non-cohesive. We have legislation that is in various legislative texts and which requires harmonisation, legislation that requires and imposes clarity - another type of clarity - and greater simplicity. That is why we are advocating a specific directive; a directive that brings with it certainty and legal security for public and private investors, whilst respecting local specificities and the principle of subsidiarity.\nHowever, this directive is essential. In this report, we obviously advocate the hierarchy of waste and, not least, prevention, which must be viewed in a broad way.\nThe best waste is waste that will never become waste. That is the reason why the public has options, for example, to ensure that gardens where there is a lot of greenery or which require a lot of maintenance and produce a lot of waste are viewed differently, in order to prevent this quantity of waste from being produced. The same applies to the food industry, where packets of food are often wasted and thrown out because their expiry dates have lapsed.\nRaising public awareness and moving towards a society that recycles is fundamental to increasing employment. For every 10 000 tonnes of recycled waste, 250 jobs can be created, while depositing the same amount in landfill only requires 10 jobs.\nWaste is important when combating climate change. It is important to combat soil degradation by creating high quality compost - we also advocate the regulation of this compost by the European Union - and such waste is important in producing bioenergy.\nWe advocate making the remedy fit the results. For example, scientific research into compost is encouraged in order to encourage innovation. In the end, we are advocating a strategy for 2020 of sustainable, intelligent and inclusive development.\nThis is a report that is ambitious, but also realistic, because we want, for example, selective waste collection to be compulsory, provided it is possible from a local, economic and environmental point of view. This is why I used the phrase 'we advocate ambition, but also realism'.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to express my thanks for this report, and also to say that bio-waste should not be treated as a problem or as something which pollutes the environment and has an adverse effect on the economy.\nHuge potential lies dormant in the appropriate use of these by-products. Proper management of bio-waste enables us to produce renewable energy, and this will contribute to economic growth, restrict climate change by an appropriately managed recycling process and help combat the process of soil degradation thanks to the use of bio-waste to produce high quality compost. Of course, to create a suitable infrastructure for this purpose and to encourage businesses to conduct research and introduce innovative measures, appropriate financial outlays are essential. The costs incurred will, nevertheless, contribute in the future to a strengthening of the economy and an improvement in citizens' quality of life, so the game is worth the proverbial candle.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, I should like to compliment Mr Fernandes on his report. It could not be more timely, because right across the European Union, the citizens at large are now getting to grips with what is happening to our world, the effect of climate change and especially how they individually can make a difference. It has taken a long time for that message to get through, but you can see it in schools: in my own country, more and more schools are now getting the green flag. The message from this is spreading out to their parents and the environment and there is much greater care as regards how they deal with issues, recycle waste and so forth. It can also be seen in agriculture: for example, farmers realise the damage that too much fertiliser causes, and they are now cutting back. I think now is the time to move and to help people ensure that they can make a contribution to the development of anaerobic digesters and so on, and, as other speakers have said, to the development of job creation for the new economy.\nCsaba S\u00e1ndor Tabajdi\n(HU) I would like to congratulate Mr Fernandes for his work as rapporteur for the report on biogas in 2007. Biological waste is a natural by-product of agricultural production and forest management. This is why I do not agree with the rapporteur, as manure is an organic element of livestock farming. I am asking Mr \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d to confirm what Parliament requested in 2007, namely, that the Commission should dedicate resources to biogas production. This would be very important. Composting, also mentioned by my fellow Member, Mr Kalinowski, is equally or even more important. Mr Fernandes' report states that the European Commission should provide funding for biological waste composting. As mentioned earlier, this is an essential endeavour for agricultural and environmental protection reasons, and it is equally important to acknowledge that new Member States face serious difficulties where biogas and composting are concerned. Please take into account the particular situation of each Member State.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak\n(PL) Mr President, I, too, would like to offer my congratulations on the report and to draw attention to several elements which are of importance throughout the European Union. Up to now, we have not solved the problem associated with waste separation, and although some municipalities have managed to deal with this, there are very many regions, not just in Poland but in the European Union, which are far behind. Without good separation, it is not possible to make good use of bio-waste, and in this regard - this has already been mentioned - there are many possibilities.\nI am thinking principally, here, of biogas plants. These are projects which should definitely be developed throughout the European Union and should be supported with funds - funds at regional level, but also biogas plants at a very local level - because production and distribution from the plant is so much more economical than from other outlets.\nSonia Alfano\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report is undoubtedly a good piece of work and I should like to compliment the rapporteur on it. One of the first phrases of the explanatory statement struck a very positive chord with me, and I would like to quote it directly: 'waste management policy must transform the EU into a recycling society'.\nHowever, I do detect some contradictions there. For example, the fact that separate collection is mandatory as long as it is the best option from both the environmental and economic standpoints. In other words, investments made by Member States in this area are not to be subject to discussion even if they are contrary to European guidelines.\nIn this way, as has already been seen with the framework directive on waste, the European Union will provide little more than a suggestion. Plus, we forget - by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, which the European institutions all too often hide behind - that it is our duty to provide ambitious and incisive responses to the problem of waste. Let us fix targets for separate collection and stipulate their fulfilment. Let us use best practices, like the 'zero waste' policies enacted in some parts of the USA and make them binding for all Member States.\nJulie Girling\nMr President, I, too, would like to give my congratulations to Mr Fernandes. Having read this report, we find it a comprehensive run-through of all of the issues associated with bio-waste: landfill, the loss of an energy resource and the need for quality control on compost. They are all covered.\nSo it is with great regret that I have to say that I do have an argument with one part of it. The rapporteur lost my support on the point where he talks about a mandatory - that means compulsory - separate collection regime across Europe. I object to this in principle on the grounds of subsidiarity and I object most particularly on the grounds that it seeks to lock in a method that, in many places, is being superseded by high-tech autoclave and other technology. In other words, it is becoming outmoded before we have even set it up, and this really puts EU regulation in its worst possible light. I object to the knee-jerk reaction to call for more regulation rather than create incentives and I urge the Commission to maintain its position and oppose the call for compulsion.\nPiotr Borys\n(PL) Mr President, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I would like to thank Mr Fernandes for his report, which sets out ways of coping with biodegradable waste. I would like to say that 30% of such waste can be used for making compost. Of course, the most important thing is to have a recycling system. Unfortunately, the directives in this area have not been implemented effectively in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We need to improve our performance at increasing recycling, including composting, which is the best and most natural way of managing this waste.\nHowever, it also seems very legitimate to look at the possibilities for energy recovery. I would like, here, to give the example of Denmark which, in the area of renewable energy, has been making the greatest use of biogas plants. This is an example for the whole of Europe as to how we can manage the use of renewable energy on such a large scale. It seems legitimate that the future financial agenda - the 2020 strategy - should provide resources which will help this type of development in the Member States.\nMaro\u0161 \u0160ef\u010dovi\u010d\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Fernandes, for his report on bio-waste. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for their valuable contributions on this very important subject.\nAs you know, on 18 May, the Commission adopted the communication on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union. This communication is accompanied by an annex with a detailed technical analysis of the measures that could be taken to improve the management of bio-waste in the EU as a whole and in each Member State individually. While preparing this communication, our departments have been paying close attention to the debates on bio-waste held in the European Parliament. I find it very encouraging that we have arrived at the same general conclusions: there is still room for improvement in bio-waste management in the EU, and this improvement can bring positive economic and environmental results. I also agree that the key to success lies in better enforcement of existing legislation, especially the Landfill Directive. However, as optimal bio-waste policies may differ from country to country or even between regions, further analysis on the grounds of subsidiarity is necessary.\nThe main difference between the Commission's approach and the rapporteur's approach revolves around the issue of a possible bio-waste directive. The Commission takes the view that a self-standing directive would bring limited added value. It is possible to improve the bio-waste management based on existing and already envisaged legislation. Therefore, the Commission plans to initiate a number of actions aimed at improving bio-waste management, including: setting criteria for the production of high quality compost using the 'end of waste' procedure envisaged in the Waste Framework Directive; analysing the viability of setting minimum standards for the use of bio-waste in agriculture within the revision of the Sewage Sludge Directive; and analysing the possibility of introducing targets for separate collection or recycling of bio-waste within the review of the recycling targets of the Waste Framework Directive by 2014 at the latest.\nI believe that we can meet the essence of the Parliamentary request through the package of measures proposed by the Commission and I am therefore grateful for your readiness to further cooperate on this important and challenging dossier.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, 6 July, at 12:00.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nPavel Poc  \nIn the European Union, 118-138 million tonnes of biological waste is produced annually, of which 88 million tonnes is biodegradable urban waste. Up to 40% of biological waste goes into landfills. A practice such as this poses a considerable pollution risk to underground water and soil, as well as contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. It also leads to the irreversible removal of sources of biological material from the business and natural cycle, instead of it being used to make high quality composts, increasing the productivity of the soil and its ability to retain water. In connection with the need for massive use of composts in agriculture, it would be appropriate for the Commission to exert pressure for unblocking the framework directive on soil in the European Council. A fundamental shortcoming in the area of handling biological waste is the varying levels of implementation of existing legislation in the Member States. I therefore welcome and fully support the request for the Commission to draw up a proposal for a separate directive on handling biological waste by the end of 2010. The Commission's position on this matter must change and must become very proactive and far more ambitious than has previously been the case. I also consider it essential to strengthen training establishments for waste handling. The best and most indispensable way of supporting recycling and preventing the creation of waste is to create the necessary public demand. The most direct way to achieve this is by educating young people and implementing sustainable waste handling among our social standards.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nin writing. - Effective management of bio-waste can bring many environmental benefits, such as improved soil quality and the production of renewable energy in the form of biogas. So I support measures which will increase and improve the collection and treatment of bio-waste. However, the nature of mandatory collection systems and how collection targets are calculated will be crucial. Many smallholdings in Romania already recycle bio-waste, even though this would not be officially recognised under a collection system because it never enters the official waste stream. So, any future directive and collection targets for bio-waste must be flexible enough to allow for significant national and regional differences.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nGerard Batten\nMr President, I want to give an explanation of vote on the calendar for 2012. Of course, what we were voting on was utter nonsense, because it does not address the problem of the three different parliaments: Strasbourg, Brussels and, of course, Luxembourg, which everybody forgets about. The total combined costs, I believe, are something in the region of EUR 250 million per month.\nWhat I would like to do is to offer a constructive suggestion. Instead of meeting on twelve different occasions in Strasbourg, why do we not meet on twelve different sessions in Strasbourg in one week: first day - three sessions; second day - three sessions; third day - three sessions; fourth day - three sessions. That way, we only need to spend one week a year here. We can spend the rest of the time in Brussels if we have to, and we can save an enormous amount of cost and an enormous amount of inconvenience.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, there is something extraordinary about the monthly peregrination of this Parliament between the two seats. We preach fiscal rectitude and yet we spend hundreds of millions of pounds a month on shifting our interpreters and our committee clerks and all the Members. We talk about global warming and yet we emit thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases as fleets of lorries transport the necessary documentation back and forth.\nI know there is an argument that Members of this House make for the symbolic significance of Strasbourg and the historic idea, and so on, and I am rather attracted to the idea that the EU, as a club of nations, should share the institutions around rather than concentrating everything in Brussels. But let us have one seat, one way or the other. Why do we not simply put it to this House that we should meet either permanently here in this handsome Alsatian town or we should meet permanently in Brussels?\nEither way, let us cut out the waste and let us, in this time of austerity, try and return some savings to our hard-pressed taxpayers.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, the vote that has been cast, although a majority one, is, in fact, a move to undermine the letter of the Treaties, which is very clear and which stipulates that 12 part-sessions must be held in Strasbourg. In order to get rid of one of them, it is being claimed that two different part-sessions could be held in the same week. This is also a way of bypassing the very clear interpreting judgment that was delivered by the Court of Justice precisely when this House wanted to go from having 12 part-sessions to only 11.\nFor 20 years, we have witnessed surreptitious moves to deprive Strasbourg of the seat of the European Union. It is true - and my fellow Members are right on this point - that the current situation is untenable, but we are not obliged to make Brussels the Washington DC of the European Union. We could have consolidated all of Parliament's activities in Strasbourg, but it would have taken something other than the French authorities' persistent negligence to do so.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, what happened today was not a victory for the Brussels camp over the Strasbourg camp, as we also reduced the number of Brussels sittings by one. The score is therefore Brussels 1 Strasbourg 1. However, ladies and gentlemen, we voted against the law - the decision to hold the August and October plenary sessions in one week each is illegal, as the Treaty states that there must be monthly plenary sessions.\nEqually, this cannot be justified as a cost saving, as the costs - which, by the way, amount to EUR 70 million, which is plenty - do not arise as a result of Strasbourg, but rather because activities are continually being rerouted, contrary to the Treaty, into the shadows of Brussels' bureaucracy.\nWere we to concentrate our work in Strasbourg, we would both save money and have an independent democratic face in Europe!\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, I asked to speak on the budget negotiations because I believe that the European Parliament does not always receive fair treatment in this connection. As MEPs, we, too, need to support economising, but it is also quite simply the case that we must fulfil our responsibilities properly. The proposed increase in the budget for the European Parliament, which is far below the rate of inflation, is thus not a reasonable one. It takes no account, for example, of the increase in the number of members of this House by 18, of the fact that we must fund the accession of Croatia, or of the other investments that we have to make.\nI assume that, ultimately, a sound compromise will be found on this issue.\nErminia Mazzoni\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we all know, Turkey is a strategic partner for the European Union. Its location is crucial for the economic and political interests of the Union and gives it an important role in promoting European activities in the Black Sea area, as well as promoting peaceful relations in the Middle East.\nThe 2010 report on the progress made in the negotiations for Turkey's accession to the European Union does, however, show the sluggishness of the process and the resistance of the political forces in Turkey to some of the fundamental provisions of the association agreement. Mr President, I do not believe that the Turkish authorities have made significant progress in terms of justice, fundamental rights, freedom of information, religious freedom and immigration, despite public pressure on these issues.\nThe economic interests in the region cannot allow us to make concessions on fundamental rights and freedoms. Parliament's resolution looks at this situation with a determined approach, urging the Commission and the Council not to waste the positive results achieved since 2005 and, above all, not to void the existing bilateral agreement with the idea of a privileged partnership.\nMy worry is that this partnership idea could compromise the acceleration of the accession process, which must remain our overall goal.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski\n(PL) Mr President, water covers the greater part of our globe. However, we do not very often appreciate the potential and significance of seas and oceans for economic development.\nThe Atlantic region is particularly important for fishing, transport and energy. It is the source of almost 50% of the world's catches, as well as a variety of mineral deposits such as metals, oil and gas. Powerful climatic phenomena also occur there, and these can have catastrophic effects for coastal regions. Therefore, it is essential to draw up the right strategy for the Atlantic region - one which will enhance good management and contribute to protection of the environment and a better life for the people of the region.\nErminia Mazzoni\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, discussion of this resolution must be built around Directive 2008\/56\/EC, the so-called Marine Strategy Framework Directive.\nAs my fellow Member who spoke earlier said, the context is the protection of the marine environment because the directive I mentioned sets out common principles on the basis of which the Member States must develop their own strategies together with third countries in order to achieve good environmental conditions in the marine waters for which they are responsible.\nThis is the framework, therefore, on which the strategy for the Atlantic region ought to have been built, as well as on the basis of the indications of the Council of 14 June 2010, as noted by the Commissioner when speaking in this House.\nInstead, the resolution submitted for Parliament's vote lies outside this framework and proposes - quite apart from what came out of the consultations carried out by the Commission - a strategy for a macro-region, as well as dealing with territorial issues instead of marine issues.\nThis direction brings forward a different decision. I hope that the communication from the Commission, in line with the advance statements in this House, bring the initiative back within the scope of the directive on the integrated maritime strategy which, as it stands, I support. That is why I abstained in the vote.\nJoanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska\n(PL) Mr President, I was pleased to hear the result of the vote on the report on Turkey. I am certain that every effort which aims to transform Turkey into a fully fledged pluralistic democracy with the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at its heart is deserving of support.\nRecent years have shown that Turkey's efforts to become one of the European Union's Member States are having positive effects. The Union's Member States should continue to support Turkey in the reforms it is undertaking. It is necessary to concentrate, in particular, on the most problematic issues, such as constitutional reform, freedom of the press, women's rights and the protection of national minorities. I would also like to draw attention to the problem of implementation of the Additional Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement.\nDebora Serracchiani\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the resolution on Turkey because the constitutional reform that took place 12 September last was unanimously recognised as an important step forward made by Turkey in relation to Europe.\nNaturally, there are still many more steps to be taken and in this vein, I would express my concern over the numerous arrests of journalists. I would like to underline that Turkey is the seventh largest commercial partner of the European Union, that the European Union is Turkey's main commercial partner, and that trade - which has been carried out correctly for centuries - has favoured interpenetration and the peaceful acquaintance of one people with another.\nI therefore applaud the notable progress made in terms of getting started on connections between the European Union and Turkey, in particular, through the motorways of the sea that cross the northern Adriatic and the northern Tyrrhenian seas, which now see a flow of more than 250 000 truckloads per year in both directions, together with an important heavy-goods railway freight link from ports to destinations within Europe. In this way, it was possible to get rid of a significant amount of heavy goods vehicles on the road and I hope that this continues.\nAndrzej Grzyb\n(PL) Mr President, Turkey is an important neighbour of the European Union, and the report which has been submitted for 2010 highlights significant changes which have taken place there. There is no doubt that the constitutional changes make a great impression, and they make a fundamental contribution to the democratisation of life in Turkey.\nThere are, however, areas in which we should like to see greater progress. A basic matter here is, of course, the fostering of relations with neighbours. Without a solution to the Cyprus issue, all other issues will be at a permanent impasse. The situation is similar when we look at civil liberties, including religious freedom. I hope the conclusions of the report will allow progress to be achieved in Turkey, and a recognition that the country is changing not only in economic terms but also in matters which are important from the point of view of civil rights and freedom.\nAdam Bielan\n(PL) Mr President, as a member of last year's parliamentary delegation to Turkey, I had the opportunity to see for myself the progress Turkey is making in the process of integration with the European Union. We should certainly take a positive view of the way the Turkish authorities have dealt with issues related to religious freedom, women's rights, trade union rights, judicial reform, revision of radio and TV legislation and improvements in civil-military relations. I agree, too, that it is essential to improve relations between the government and the opposition, to respect freedom of the media, including the Internet, to make improvements in the area of civil rights and the right of freedom of assembly and to carry out a thorough reform of the electoral system. Another disturbing matter is the increasing problem of domestic violence and so-called honour killings. Particular attention should be given to the questions of opening the border between Turkey and Armenia and support for negotiations on stabilising the situation in Cyprus. I support the resolution, because I think that enlargement of the EU to include Turkey is in the interest of particular EU Member States, including Poland.\nMarkus Pieper\n(DE) Mr President, I abstained from voting on the progress report on Turkey, but not because I do not agree with its analysis - despite some reforms, the criticism of press censorship, violations of human rights, the Turkish electoral system and the freedom of religion do speak for themselves. The reason I abstained from voting was that I believe that the European Parliament must be much clearer in its response.\nIf Turkey refuses to make crucial reforms, we must bring a halt to negotiations on membership. It is time that this House called for the cessation of accession negotiations.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, it is absolutely true that Turkey has made progress in recent years, but when we look at the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the European Union, Turkey still has a long way to go. We might predict that Turkey's accession to the European Union will not happen in our lifetime. Specifically, there is still a long way to go regarding the basic assumption that we make about human rights and the rights of women and children. These, however, lie very much at the heart of this European Union and community of values.\nIt is also very important to consider the situation in Cyprus. If Turkey wants to occupy half of Cyprus, which is a Member State of the European Union, we obviously have to be tough with them on that. We cannot accept a situation of this sort, where Turkey is at present playing two different games and following two agendas. In this matter, we should encourage them to develop democratically but say very clearly that the European Union will not give up its values, and ensure that that is the case.\nDaniel Hannan\nMr President, the EU's attitude to Turkey will one day be regarded as a generational error, as an ethical mistake. We could have reasonably pursued one of two policies. Either we could have worked with goodwill towards eventual accession, or we could have said at the outset 'look, accession is not going to happen, let us work out an alternative arrangement'. Instead, we have held out the promise of eventual accession with our fingers crossed behind our backs. We have made promises which we have no intention of fulfilling.\nNow, look at it from Ankara's point of view. Would they have made a series of difficult and painful concessions on broadcasting, on secularism, on Cyprus, above all, where Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of the EU plan and where isolated Greek Cypriots rejected it and were rewarded?\nWe have made them grovel about the Armenian massacres, we have imposed tens of thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire on them, and then at the end of this process, we are going to turn around and flick two fingers at them!\nWe risk creating the very thing we purport to fear: namely, an alienated and anti-Western state on our doorstep. Turks defended Europe's flank against Bolshevik expansionism for 50 years. We may one day ask them to do the same against Jihadi extremism. They deserve better than this.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, though I share Mr Pieper's concerns, I voted in favour of this report, as we have stated quite clearly once again - at the beginning of the report - that, for us, the negotiations are a long process with no predetermined result. We rejected the motion by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, which sought to specify accession, as we did similar motions by the Socialists in previous years. This House therefore found the right line.\nWe should take the next step soon, however, and tell Turkey quite honestly, as Mr Pieper said, that as far as we are concerned Turkish accession is simply out of the question as it would overburden Turkey and overstretch the European Union. A politically integrated Europe including Turkey as a member is not possible. It is a grand delusion that we must finally step away from.\nAs for the progress in question, it is in the interests of Turkey itself, a country that is a member of the Council of Europe and NATO and our closest ally.\nJanusz W\u0142adys\u0142aw Zemke\n(PL) Mr President, I would like to refer to the discussion which took place in this Chamber on the integration of Montenegro into the European Union. During the discussion, I asked the representative of the Commission and the Council for a timetable for this process and to say when Montenegro can become a fully fledged candidate for EU membership. Unfortunately, I did not receive an answer to that specific question. Despite this, I voted for Parliament to adopt the resolution, because I think there are important reasons why we should do so. Firstly, it is a resolution which is important for Croatia. Secondly, it is a signpost for other countries which are today part of the Balkans. However, I think there is a third, very important reason: it is a positive resolution and one which shows that the Union's values are still attractive.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, when it comes to enlargement policy, we need something along the lines of a regulatory framework. We must, therefore, complete the negotiations with Croatia by June, as planned, and then get the accession process for that country under way in the autumn with our vote. We want Croatia to be in the European Union by next year or, at the latest, the year after that.\nThings have to go on then, too, but how? We need to integrate the small but difficult remainder of South-Eastern Europe. First of all, there is Macedonia, and then Montenegro. This is a signal to all the other States in the region that, if they fulfil the criteria, they too have a place in our ranks. Unlike Turkey, these are European States to the core, and as such, they naturally have a future within our Community.\nMontenegro, in particular, is a small country with a major European tradition. I look forward already to the negotiations with Montenegro!\nClemente Mastella\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is still much to be done in the field of combating discrimination in Europe. I agree with the rapporteur, Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka, when she states that even if discrimination based on ethnicity could now be considered eliminated, the socio-economic exclusion of most Roma continues and remains one of the greatest challenges that we shall be called to deal with in the coming years.\nThis is down to a whole series of specific factors, such as geographical disadvantages, deficient education or the collapse of planned economies attracting a large and low-skilled labour force.\nA strategy to improve their socio-economic inclusion will not compromise anti-discrimination laws in any way, rather, it would complement them. A significant proportion of European Roma face such precarious and unfavourable conditions that measures aimed at fostering social inclusion must be thought of as bridging one of the largest gaps in the fulfilment of constitutional and human rights in Europe.\nJens Rohde\n(DA) Mr President, it is always an emotional debate when we discuss the Roma here in Parliament. There is one group that believes we should not actually do anything - it does not concern the European Union - and then there is another group that believes that we cannot pay out enough money, even if it is not well spent. None of the approaches to this problem are particularly serviceable and, in any case, we are simply not solving the Roma's problems. It is therefore good that we have this report. It is good because we have now taken a decision to look at the results that have been achieved as a result of the considerable funds that we have already allocated to the integration of the Roma. We need to see which projects have been beneficial for integration before we can set a proper strategy, thereby ensuring that the money is well spent. The Danish Liberal Party has therefore voted in favour of this report. It is moving in the right direction for the Roma. Thank you, Mr President.\nSalvatore Iacolino\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with today's adoption of the own-initiative report, Parliament has made real progress towards the proper inclusion of Roma in the communities that host them.\nOvercoming the marginalisation of Roma communities by fully recognising their fundamental rights to healthcare, education and the protection of vulnerable groups is absolutely incumbent upon us. We also welcome better coordination with local and regional bodies as well as the improvement of the part of the text providing for concrete checks on the consistency and effectiveness of financing compared to the expected result, together with the part that introduces award criteria for Member States that guarantee appropriate use of the resources granted.\nHowever, more could probably have been done with regard to the recognition of reciprocal rights and duties because it is essential to keep in mind the joint responsibility of Roma communities for their effective inclusion.\nCarlo Fidanza\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree on the need for a European strategy for the integration of Roma and, of course, possible discrimination against them should not be underestimated, but rights cannot exist without duties and integration cannot exist without legality.\nShockingly unhygienic illegal slums, a huge school dropout rate, illegal activities such as theft, receiving stolen goods, women and children being led into prostitution, begging, refusal of all offers of integration and job support proposed by local authorities: this is the reality of many Roma communities in my country and in other European countries. It is a bit hypocritical to say that responsibility always and only lies with institutions and never with those who have chosen to inflict this behaviour on society.\nLastly, I regret that this text fails to make reference to the correct implementation of Directive 2004\/38\/EC, which sets out stringent requirements for European citizens residing in another Member State and their expulsion for public safety reasons. For these reasons, I voted against the rest of my group.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka takes on particular importance at this time and - together with the communication that the Commission is on the brink of adopting - will constitute the basis for further discussions at the European Roma Platform, scheduled to take place in Budapest on 7 and 8 April\nI support the call for the introduction of binding minimum standards across the European Union in the education, employment, housing and health sectors. In particular, I think greater attention should be paid to primary education, which is crucial for the full integration of the Roma minority.\nThe firm appeal made by France, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland to the European Commission is certainly to be welcomed. The Commission does, however, need to take greater responsibility for an active, strategic and leading role in developing the implementation of an effective Roma inclusion strategy. The need to identify specific duties that the nomadic communities must assume is clear.\nPino Arlacchi\nMr President, my group supports this report because it is a move in the right direction, calling for an EU strategy and a road map for Roma inclusion.\nThe report is inspired by a keen perception of the extremely heterogeneous cultural aspects between different Roma communities in Europe. At the same time, it advocates the introduction of binding and minimum standards at EU level for starting a real policy of integration. The EU strategy addresses all forms of violation of the fundamental rights of the Roma people and calls for effective access for the Roma to the labour market by making micro-credit available for self-employment and entrepreneurship. My group particularly appreciates the stress on the education of Roma children, namely, the abolition of classroom segregation through the employment of Roma mediators and an increase in the number of Roma teachers.\nLara Comi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this important own-initiative report forcefully affirms the need to set out a European strategy for the social inclusion of Roma. Indeed, we need to fight economic and social discrimination against European Roma, which has increased as a result of the current economic crisis.\nThe European Union must develop a new legal framework and avoid continuing to deal with this problem through non-binding legislation, as this is insufficient and not suitable for achieving the goal in question. It is equally important to maintain the Roma task force as a permanent organisation and to start thinking about a mechanism for this issue which would be similar to the one used to assess the internal market.\nLastly, Europe must make every effort to guarantee its citizens - and particularly the most vulnerable groups - protection of all human rights related to human dignity. In the end, the overall inclusion of Roma is essentially a question of fundamental rights, even if we have to ask the Roma communities to try and integrate and not to close themselves in their own world where they do not respect European and national laws.\nAntonello Antinoro\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with today's vote, we have given a further boost to the - how should I put it - definitive solution to this problem, but we have not adopted the best possible solution.\nIndeed, I should like to point out that the more than 300 amendments presented on the reports have been transformed into 38 compromise amendments - all of which were adopted - that aim to better define the priority sectors of the strategy, which is to say, the objectives of this strategy. Through the permanent task force, the Commission will have to ensure the collection and circulation of statistical data and good practices, and the Member States will have to appoint a government official - hopefully a high-level one - who will act as a point of contact for the implementation of the strategy.\nHowever, we could have been even more incisive and less hypocritical if, in the report, we had looked at the obligations and duties that the Roma community ought in any case to respect in their host countries. That is what I am hoping for, namely, that we will soon find the solutions that will enable this community to coexist more easily in all Member States.\nRoberta Angelilli\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, no more children who do not go to school, no more children forced into begging or being exploited. These are just a couple of the aims of the report by Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka, which represents an important political response.\nBesides declarations of principle, we are awaiting the Commission's proposal - expected in April - so that there can be clearer and more shared responsibility and cooperation on Roma policies between the Member States and European institutions. The aim must be to use the resources available as efficiently as possible, beginning with European funds and avoiding local administrations having to take on all the problems and dealing with constant emergencies.\nLastly, I hope that a debate is opened up over Directive 2004\/38\/EC, which sets out specific conditions - i.e. work, sufficient economic resources and health insurance - to retain the right to reside, but which simultaneously leaves a number of gaps in terms of what happens if these requirements are not fulfilled. This inadequacy needs to be rectified as soon as possible.\nRaffaele Baldassarre\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this report and I should like to offer my congratulations to Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka for the work she has done. She managed to bring together the different positions and establish clear objectives and priorities for the strategy; namely, the provision of specific measures against nomadic lifestyles, guarantees on basic healthcare, equal access to primary, secondary and higher education, and the right to housing.\nThe strategy actually aims at inclusion and not merely integration. It is obvious that the role of the Commission and local authorities will be crucial, above all, in terms of controlling and managing European Union funds.\nThe only limitation of this report is the lack of instruments to check the actual desire for integration amongst some Roma communities and the consequences that are likely to stem from any unwillingness to remain on the territory of a Member State or participate in the treatments, and the aid and welfare programmes, which certainly cannot continue ad infinitum without producing results.\nMitro Repo\n(FI) Mr President, I gave my vote to Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka's report, but I want to explain my position in a little more detail. The Roma question is a paradoxical one for Europe in many senses. It challenges the fundamental values and ideals of the European Union in practice, but, on the other hand, it is born out of one basic right, freedom of movement, which is a traditional way of living for one nation. There are Roma in Finland too; there, the problem is mainly the low standard of education and consequent unemployment. That is why we need to invest in education in particular.\nSoft law is no longer enough, and soft measures are not either. We need consistent legislation and practical measures that are binding on everyone. All the Member States and EU institutions are responsible for this. Kali sarakosti: Happy Lent to you all.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Mr President, we are talking about Roma integration issues. The Roma live in many European countries - both Western and Eastern countries.\nIt is interesting to note that, although freedom and democracy have been established in Western European countries for longer than in Central and Eastern countries, among which is my own country as well as our neighbours in Hungary, we see similar problems both in the West and in the East. We have not yet overcome these differences.\nThere is talk of an integration of the Roma population aimed at making them successful on the labour market, and healthier as a population. According to the laws currently in force, access to education and healthcare is guaranteed everywhere, and it is just sad that the Roma population often do not send their children to school to be educated.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Mr President, efharisto, thank you. This report by Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka is an excellent one. I think that everyone in this House will share the view that it really is time to take action at European Union level to ensure that everybody enjoys equal human rights. For, unfortunately, they have not been implemented as far as the Roma are concerned.\nIt is not enough to have a good report: we also need action. Now is the time to ask a fundamental question. How do we move forward from here, to prevent this report from merely remaining a na\u00efve dream or a mixture of different opinions, and to allow it to work in practice so that we can see the status of the Roma improve significantly in the European Union?\nIt is also very important to organise followup for this report. Perhaps we need an ombudsman for Roma affairs at EU level, someone to report on the measures that we have decided on and ensure that they will indeed work in practice. This is the way to tackle this issue properly and successfully.\nClemente Mastella\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the recent and profound economic crisis that has hit European industry has simultaneously highlighted its importance for the European Union's economy.\nIndeed, the European economy has often been focused on the idea that the markets ought to regulate themselves and so far, this has mostly been achieved through individual measures with practically no coordination between Member States. However, the Europe 2020 strategy recognises for the first time the need for a new approach with a flagship initiative. It is time for the European Union to fully exploit the shared opportunities for the sustainable renewal and further development of the industrial base, with good quality jobs.\nEuropean industry ought to maintain its leadership in key sectors and not find itself bringing up the rear. It is time for the Union to choose its path for the industry of the future. We must make sure that our European market creates its own added value.\nFor this purpose, clear macro-economic coordination of economic, fiscal and budgetary policies is essential for growth and employment, for example, through the fiscal harmonisation of corporation tax.\nErminia Mazzoni\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mr Lange tackles a very topical problem: reacting to the economic and financial crisis that has seriously hit our productive system.\nI think the response contained in this resolution is extremely positive, because it manages to bring together the variables required to build a good economic revival plan. The idea of concentrating on research and innovation, bearing in mind the size of our entrepreneurial fabric is very important and I think it gives a useful shot in the arm to the perhaps slightly more conservative stance of the Commission.\nI appreciate the work of the rapporteur, Mr Lange, who has managed to integrate more than 500 amendments, bringing in a resolution that overall makes a huge contribution to our work. What emerges is a targeted industrial policy in European terms, which encompasses the various sectors and is participatory, given the use of monitoring models from both above and below.\nOne controversial point remains: the European patent. I maintain my complete opposition on this issue, but this has not prevented me from voting in favour of what is a very positive report.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report shines a light on many positive aspects and mirrors the considerations and requirements expressed by the various national associations. Therefore, I cannot but support the overall spirit of Mr Lange's report.\nHowever, some critical issues were not addressed or resolved, such as the request for new legislative measures on resource efficiency and, above all, the issue of enhanced cooperation on patents. It is now imperative to tackle the question of European provisions on origin marking, which, in my opinion, is an indispensable tool to strengthen and improve European industry and its competitiveness.\nI voted in favour of the report by Mr Lange because I hope that adopting this report will prompt all the institutions to work to implement the ambitious programme set out, translating it into practical policies.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski\n(PL) Mr President, industry is developing around the world at an extraordinary speed. In order not to fall behind China or India, we need immediate change. Europe, which is small by comparison, should, however, offer the world more than simply more toxic factories, so I think it is right to invest in new technologies, the development of medicine and pharmacology and innovative solutions in areas which we already know well, including agriculture. I am not thinking of huge livestock farms, but of the creation of new solutions which make it easier to grow crops, raise animals and produce healthy and ecological food, as well as to obtain energy from alternative sources. It is just such investments which today's economy needs. Innovative solutions are also an answer to the demographic changes taking place in an ageing Europe. Thank you.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Mr President, industrial policy must, as part of economic policy, aim for sustainable growth, higher employment and a decent quality of life for all Europeans.\nEuropean industry is facing powerful competitive pressure from developing countries. The Union must therefore maintain a proactive policy in order to sustain and strengthen European industry as the driving force of economic growth. A functional internal market must be adequately secured by negotiating favourable conditions in trade agreements with third countries, but also by means of protection against unfair competition and infringements of competition and intellectual and industrial property rights by third countries.\nThe EU has great potential for securing a competitive advantage in the area of highly qualified human resources and the creation of innovative technologies, which is necessarily linked to further investment in research and development.\nAdam Bielan\n(PL) Mr President, industrial products account for nearly three quarters of European exports and give work to 57 million citizens, not including extra jobs in related services. Industry therefore has enormous significance for our economy and affects all of the economy's other sectors. As we learn the lessons of the recent economic crisis and the growing competition in world markets, it is essential to take what action is necessary to maintain the strong position of European industry and also to continue its systematic development.\nHere, the Europe 2020 strategy seems to be an attempt at a new approach, one which makes full use of opportunities for sustainable modernisation and development of the industrial base of Member States while also ensuring a high quality of work. This creates an opportunity for Europe to maintain its position as a leader in key sectors of the economy. The integrated industrial policy, which is intended to bring about a gradual and sustainable transition from a mainly productive towards a knowledge-based industry, looks particularly promising. Therefore, I fully support the resolution.\nCristiana Muscardini\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it would be inconceivable for a sector that accounts for 57 million jobs across the European Union, three quarters of European exports of industrial goods, and roughly one third of gross value added in the European Union, to be left without support from appropriate sectoral policies targeted at growth and development.\nThere can be no competitive commercial policy without innovative, good quality industrial production. I would reiterate the suggestions made by the Committee on International Trade, and particularly those that emphasise the importance of an effective trade protection system, making use of the instruments provided where necessary.\nDefending the Union's interests in future negotiations, so as to protect industry and employment, is an unavoidable necessity to help overcome the crisis and ensure that, along with the manufacturing sector, the real economy takes precedence over the financial economy, avoiding those speculative bubbles that caused so much disaster.\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, I consider it to be very important that we should be able to debate this report and also to vote on it today. It would be best, of course, if crises simply did not occur, but it would be worse if no lessons were learnt from crises when they do occur. It is precisely because we learnt from the last crisis that we are getting involved in industrial policy in the European Union again, especially as, before the last crisis, there were quite a large number of people who believed that money could be easily earned with money. Economic and industrial policy, after all, is critical to our prosperity in the European Union. I therefore believe it is extraordinarily important that we have engaged on this issue.\nIt is a good thing, of course, to be involved in innovation and future-oriented industrial policy, but I think it is just as important that we have emphasised our traditional industry in this report. I am very pleased by this and I hope that we will continue to discuss this issue.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\n(GA) Mr President, I voted in favour of this excellent report and indeed it was time for us to focus on industrial policy for the European Union. There is no doubt that we have fallen behind in recent years compared to the major countries of the world, but I hope that we will forge ahead in the future.\nMr President, having indicated my support for the document, I want to express my concern at one item in the explanatory statement, where, on page 32, it calls for the harmonisation of company tax. Now that is something my country would not agree with. Company tax or corporation tax is very important to us and it is up to each country to set its own rate. Indeed, it is well known that some countries allegedly have a high corporation tax but, in reality, they pay far less.\n(GA) Be that as it may, this is a fine report and I am very happy to support it.\nAndrzej Grzyb\n(PL) Mr President, the resolution which is the product of the debate on the real economy is most deserving of support. The recent period has been characterised, above all, by the challenge which globalisation has presented to European industrial policy and real production in Europe. How the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy can be achieved, in particular, those of job creation and resisting delocalisation of industrial policy, is a fundamental question which was discussed during the debate on the subject of the resolution. In answer to the question as to whether Europe has to lose traditional industries, it can be answered that this does not have to happen, and this was also demonstrated by the debate on small and medium-sized enterprises which was held during the last part-session.\nThe availability of, among other things, raw materials, including raw materials for power generation, is a serious challenge. We have to devote much attention to innovations and to using the results of scientific research in industry. Another important task is to make use of the synergies which exist between different areas of European Union policy, including between industrial\/agricultural policy, for example, and commercial policy. Thank you.\nIzaskun Bilbao Barandica\n(ES) Mr President, I voted for this initiative because the European Union has to make a firm commitment to industrial policy and face up to the risks of the crisis, to competition from third countries, and to globalisation with increased public funding that is reflected in the future framework programme.\nWhy is that? For the purposes of research and development activity. To boost private investment and encourage the public and private sectors to work together. This will enable us to create skilled jobs.\nHowever, we need to make use of the scientific and technological skills of the regions, which have developed innovation networks and competitiveness clusters, and whose innovation and effectiveness exceeds those of their countries. That is the case with Euskadi, the Basque Country.\nMake use of the regions' knowledge. Do not live your lives blind to this European reality, because acknowledging it and taking it on board will enable us to consolidate our leading position in industrial policy in the face of the current threats.\nWritten explanations of vote\nDiane Dodds\nin writing. - I would ask fellow MEPs to imagine for a moment that they are in business. You currently have two factories, but by having only one factory, you could increase productivity while reducing costs by \u00a3150 million and protecting the environment. It is what your shareholders want. What businessman in his right mind would keep two factories? Yet, fellow MEPs, we are actually in business, the business of government and, crucially, of overseeing the spending of our constituents' - our shareholders' - money.\nWe waste \u00a3150 million each year by having 11 sessions here in Strasbourg. In a house that obsesses with green policy, some choose to needlessly pump 20 000 tonnes of carbon monoxide into the environment. I commend Mr Fox on his work to at least bring some modicum of common sense in 2012 and 2013.\nKrzysztof Lisek\nI voted for Amendment 1 to the draft of the European Parliament's calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013. Despite the fact that I understand the symbolic nature of plenary part-sessions held at the Strasbourg seat of Parliament, given the current critical financial situation in Europe, we need to look for savings, and this is what this amendment means. Holding two part-sessions in one week is, above all, a gesture to European citizens, because it is their taxes which are used to pay for the expensive and time-consuming journeys not only of Members, but also of officials and assistants.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I voted for Amendment 1, which deletes the part-session proposed for week 40 in 2012. I see this as a small step in cutting the waste involved in travelling from Brussels to Strasbourg.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - As one of the co-signatories of the key amendment, I am glad it has been adopted. The calendar of part-sessions for 2012 should now be amended as follows: delete the part-session proposed for week 40 (1 to 4 October); split the October II part-session (22 to 25 October) into two separate part-sessions: part-session 1: 22 and 23 October; part-session 2: 25 and 26 October.\nLicia Ronzulli\nThe outcome of this vote sets a fundamental precedent along the road which I hope will one day lead to the concentration of all of Parliament's activities in a single place.\nActually, I think we can no longer tolerate the waste of public resources and atmospheric pollution caused by the dual location of Parliament, which each month forces thousands of people to make long and difficult trips between Brussels and Strasbourg. Putting the two October plenary sessions together in the 2012 official calendar sends a very strong signal and I am optimistic that the path we have taken is more honest and in tune with citizens' wishes.\nThomas Ulmer\nI rejected these amendments and will be instituting infringement proceedings at the European Court of Justice along with my colleague, Mr Posselt.\nDerek Vaughan\nin writing. - According to European law, 12 plenary sessions must take place every year at the Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament. The vote on changing the calendar to allow two of these Strasbourg sessions to take place within the same week reflects our desire as MEPs to cut costs and CO2 emissions. Travelling to Strasbourg is expensive and the increased travel causes extra CO2 emissions. I therefore support this report, which will enable us to hold the required 12 plenary sessions in 11 weeks, thus cutting the cost and environmental impact of our work. As an MEP, I wish to represent the best interests, economically and environmentally, of my constituents. I also call on the UK Government to raise the issue with other Member States, as it is the Council's responsibility.\nJaros\u0142aw Leszek Wa\u0142\u0119sa\nI voted for Amendment 1, which proposed combining the two October part-sessions and holding them in the same week in the European Parliament's session for 2012. I am opposed to organising the work of Parliament by splitting it across three locations. The amendment means that both time and money will be saved, and thousands fewer tonnes of CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. Savings have to be made - the amendment means that not only MEPs, but also several thousand European Parliament officials who normally work in Brussels, as well as journalists, lobbyists and staff of the European Commission and of the administrations of different Member States, will travel to Strasbourg 11 times instead of 12. This will reduce the costs of transport, expense allowances, hotels, etc.\nJohn Attard-Montalto\nin writing. - Today, Parliament voted on its calendar for 2012 and 2013. For the first time in my experience as an MEP, the amendments were approved by the majority. This means that MEPs will not have to move to Strasbourg 12 times a year, but 11 times to incorporate 12 sessions in Strasbourg. The monthly 'travelling circus' from Brussels to Strasbourg has become synonymous with waste, both in terms of the EUR 200 million spent on it, and the 20 000 tonnes of CO2 emitted.\nMEPs cannot decide where they sit but they do have the power to decide how many times Parliament must relocate from one city to the other. Around 350 MEPs supported the amendment that would sandwich two of our sessions into one week, thus saving the costs, time and energy of the return journeys. It will also send a positive signal to our electorate. I also hope that this will serve for an eventual calendar in which 12 sessions will be held in 6 weeks. I disagree, however, that the calendar of 2013 was put to vote together in this plenary. It is clearly a manoeuvre not to further extend this procedure during this legislature.\nAlain Cadec\nDuring the vote on Parliament's calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013, 58% of MEPs approved an amendment abolishing one of the two October part-sessions held in Strasbourg. That amendment is quite simply a violation of the Treaties! The Treaties designate Strasbourg as the seat of Parliament and stipulate that 12 part-sessions must be held there annually. Two part-sessions are held in October to catch up on the work that is not carried out in August. Outside these part-sessions in Strasbourg, meetings of the parliamentary committees and additional part-sessions are held in Brussels. In 1997, the Court of Justice clearly established the principle that the European Parliament must meet every month in Strasbourg. The Treaties leave no room for doubt: Strasbourg is not the second seat of the European Parliament; it is the institution's only seat. The anti-Strasbourg group is becoming organised and flexing its muscles more and more, in an attempt to make people believe that Parliament is unanimously against Strasbourg. The supporters of the Alsace seat must speak out more. They have the legitimacy of the law and of 50 years' history of European integration on their side.\nNessa Childers\nin writing. - I voted to change the 2012 calendar to save taxpayers' money, to save CO2 emissions and to lessen the disruption to Parliament business by the monthly trip to Strasbourg.\nMarielle De Sarnez\nThe European Treaties explicitly state that Strasbourg shall be the only seat of the European Parliament, and that 12 part-sessions shall be held there annually. However, a vote was held this week with a view to merging two Strasbourg part-sessions in the same week, in October 2012 and October 2013. The democrat MEPs voted against that decision. France, for its part, has already announced that it will shortly refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Indeed, the decision taken is in flagrant breach of the spirit and the letter of the Treaties, since it should be remembered that the provisions of the texts may be amended only upon a unanimous decision by the Member States.\nNathalie Griesbeck\nWe voted this week on the European Parliament's calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013. To my great regret, a majority of MEPs voted in favour of an amendment (to which I was strongly opposed) merging the two October part-sessions into one, in the same week. As far as I am concerned, this vote completely contradicts the spirit of the EU Treaties, which explicitly state that Strasbourg shall be the seat of the European Parliament and that 12 part-sessions shall be held there annually. The debate on the location of the European Parliament's seat resurfaces all the time, and this is a fresh attack today on the European Parliament's seat in Strasbourg. However, the Strasbourg seat has historical references and is referred to in legal texts, and it should not be called into question by these multiple attacks. France recently announced that it was referring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, a move which I would like to applaud and which I will support.\nGiovanni La Via\nI voted in favour of the changes to Parliament's official calendar for 2012, because I think it is right to try and limit wastage of economic and other resources as we carry out our parliamentary duties. The decision to hold the two October plenary sessions in the same week actually means we can avoid a double journey to Strasbourg, with all that this entails in terms of resource saving. In the end, I think this decision is in line with what already happens, with the concentration of the two plenary sessions in September.\nAlfredo Pallone\nI voted in favour of the proposed changes to Parliament's calendar of plenary sessions for 2012 and 2013 because I think that, even fully respecting the Treaties, it is, in any case, possible to bring two part-sessions of Parliament together in a single week, avoiding going over to Strasbourg twice in the same month. This will allow us to cut down the costs of the European institutions and avoid wasting time and money. This will require greater effort in terms of organising proceedings, both by myself and my fellow Members, but it will show the public a greater commitment to avoiding the senseless waste of public money.\nCatherine Stihler\nin writing. - I believe that holding two separate plenary sessions in October is unnecessary. The EU Treaties require Parliament to hold 12 sessions in Strasbourg each year. However, they allow for two sessions to be held in the one week. By stopping the practice of travelling to Strasbourg twice in one month, the Parliament can set an example in reducing its CO2 emissions and saving public money.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I voted for Amendment 1 which deleted the part-session proposed for week 40 in 2013. As with the decision on the 2012 calendar, this is a contribution to cutting Parliament's costs.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - As one of the co-signatories of the key amendment, I am glad it has been adopted. The calendar of part-sessions for 2013 should now be amended as follows: delete the part-session proposed for week 40 (30 Sep to 3 Oct); split the October II part-session (21 to 24 October) into two separate part-sessions: part-session 1: 21 and 22 October; part-session 2: 24 and 25 October.\nLicia Ronzulli\nThe outcome of this vote sets a fundamental precedent along the road which I hope will one day lead to the concentration of all of Parliament's activities in a single place.\nActually, I think we can no longer tolerate the waste of public resources and atmospheric pollution caused by the dual location of Parliament, which each month forces thousands of people to make long and difficult trips between Brussels and Strasbourg. Putting the two October plenary sessions together in the 2013 official calendar sends a very strong signal and I am optimistic that the path we have taken is more just and in tune with citizens' wishes.\nThomas Ulmer\nI rejected these amendments and will be instituting infringement proceedings at the European Court of Justice. The Conference of Presidents should not have allowed this motion to go to a vote.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nI voted for this report, which respects the principle that the institutions should have sufficient resources to be managed rigorously and efficiently. At a time of economic and financial crisis in Europe, when the public are obliged to cut back on their personal expenditure, both the EU and national institutions should follow suit. This should not, however, prevent the necessary public investment which translates into medium- and long-term gain. I would stress that the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon's entry into force in heading 5 should become stable in 2012, although the accession of Croatia planned for 2013 will have an impact on the 2012 budget.\nFaced with the present situation, some institutions may have some difficulties in maintaining a balanced budget. For this to be successful, I agree with the good management measures relating to administrative resources and cost reduction plans, whilst adapting efficient and environmentally friendly technologies. Finally, Parliament cannot jeopardise the necessary conditions for giving all the Member States sound working conditions, on an equal footing.\nMarta Andreasen\nin writing. - I voted against the Fernandes report on budget priorities for 2012 because the European Parliament is still going to look for a 5% increase in its budget even though the rest of the European institutions will confine themselves to 1%. The cost of the EU is, in fact, unsustainable for the nations of Europe and needs to be reduced. I am appalled at the European House of History being approved as part of this report: it is a 70-million-euro-and-counting vanity project which is completely at odds with the supposed claims of austerity.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nI voted in favour of this resolution which sets out the general framework and priorities for the 2012 budget in the area of funding the EU institutions. Faced with the continuing economic crisis, it is very important to ensure good financial management in order to implement the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I agree with the rapporteur's opinion that as a result of the implementation of these principles, institutions should submit cost cutting plans. Furthermore, each expense incurred by the institutions should be clearly specified and justified. Parliament and the other institutions should submit biannual reports on the implementation of their own budgets, giving details of the implementation of each budget line. I therefore believe that the European Parliament and the other institutions should show budgetary responsibility and self-restraint. I welcome the establishment of a new Section X in the EU budget for the European External Action Service, with an allocation of EUR 464 million. However, I would like to call on this Service to use the funds earmarked for it to implement its activities and achieve concrete results.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nI voted in favour of this report. Next year's budget must be responsibly balanced, with priority being given to those areas that are inextricably linked with the EU 2020 strategy. In drawing up the budget, it is necessary to ensure the principle of sustainable governance in aspects of effectiveness and efficiency. It is necessary to ensure sufficient resources for the EU institutions so that they can perform their functions properly. At the same time, the institutions must also respond to the current financial, economic and social situation of the EU, apply stringent management procedures and manage resources with rigour and efficiency I agree that the EU institutions can make a significant contribution to reducing costs and generating economies of scale, such as centralised procurement, shared services between institutions, e-governance systems, etc.\nElena B\u0103sescu\nI voted for this document because I think that the Fernandes report on the budget priorities for 2012 appropriately identifies the directions to follow next year. I approve of and support the idea presented in the report about giving priority to the internal recruitment of staff. This will help increase efficiency through using the experience previously acquired, while also reducing training costs and the costs involved in adapting to a brand new organisational culture. At the same time, it is important to compare in detail the actual expenditure with that budgeted during 2011 and to pinpoint exactly the causes of significant variations. EU institutions should prepare and send the Commission plans for cutting their expenditure, with specific deadlines and measurable targets. We cannot ask only ordinary citizens and the private sector to make sacrifices. EU institutions need to as well. Indeed, Parliament must serve as a model, demonstrate solidarity and keep a very close watch on how resources are spent.\nRegina Bastos\nThe report on the priorities for the 2012 budget of Parliament and the other European institutions, for which I voted, goes some way toward taking account of the economic, financial and social situation that we are experiencing. In other words, it is a budget marked by restraint and austerity. This report advocates legislative excellence, cutting costs, reducing the impact on the environment, and a zero-based increase; that is, an increase in line with inflation. The proposal that coming budgets should be multiannual budgets is equally important, so that they can be in line with the multiannual financial framework. It also takes into account the possible accession of Croatia in 2013.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho\nI agree with the report on the guidelines for the 2012 budgetary process, which stresses the need to consolidate the resources required to address the new institutional framework resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. A responsible attitude towards budgetary matters is of paramount importance for both Parliament and the other institutions. The current crisis and the heavy burden of public debt lead to an urgent need for self-restraint, taking into account the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is worth highlighting the fact that certain investments, particularly in technology, could result in future savings in the long term, and therefore, these should not be prevented. I would also stress that proposals for reducing paper, energy and water consumption, along with emissions, should be tabled as part of the organisational culture of Parliament and the other institutions. It would also be desirable to reduce the amount of material for disseminating physical media, which should be replaced by digital media.\nNessa Childers\nin writing. - I voted to restrict the EP budget for 2012, given the economic, financial and social constraints on EU Member States. We undertook to seek to cut some spending and to justify the rest in detail. However, projects already under way, such as the House of European History, should not be jeopardised. This is an austerity budget which stays in line with inflation. At the same time, cuts must not have a negative impact on the quality of Parliament's legislative work.\nCarlos Coelho\nI support the excellent report by Mr Fernandes, because at a time when we are experiencing a severe financial, economic and social crisis in which so many sacrifices are required of the public, we must be the first to set an example by adopting guidelines for a budget marked by restraint and austerity. The resources needed for the EU institutions to be able to fulfil what is expected of them should, however, be made available, especially in view of the new institutional framework resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nI would also stress the importance of subjecting the management of these resources to higher standards of rigour and efficiency, under stricter and more transparent control. It is equally important to encourage the creation of synergies and avoid unnecessary duplications in terms of personnel and functions.\nDiane Dodds\nin writing. - When this House considers budget priorities, it does so in the context of massive public sector cuts in EU Member States, rising unemployment, increasing household bills and overall economic uncertainty, both nationally and in many families. In this extremely serious and challenging context, what does the EU consider to be a priority? Remarkably, one priority is a European House of History.\nI would hazard a guess that if my constituents were to be asked if this represents 100 million well spent at this time, few - if any - would say yes. It is time for this place - MEPs, the Commission and officials - to get real. Priorities must be in the best interests of our constituents and aimed at making their lives easier. EU money must not be wasted solely for the fulfilment of those obsessed with pushing their idealistic notions of a shared EU history or identity. Such self-indulgence must end.\nLena Ek, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikstr\u00f6m\nWe have chosen to support this budget report. This is partly because it so clearly emphasises the importance of economy and restraint in these difficult economic times and partly because it welcomes the allocation of EUR 464 million to the European External Action Service, the important activities of which are in the area that the EU ought to be focusing on.\nAt the same time, however, we are extremely critical of the investment of a total of EUR 549.6 million to extend the KAD building in Luxembourg, and we do not at all share the rapporteur's expectation that this will result in savings in the long term. Instead, the only reasonable option would be to establish the European Parliament and its work in a single location.\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and \u00c5sa Westlund\nWe Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report on the priorities for the 2012 budget for the European Parliament and other institutions.\nThe report adopts a critical and questioning stance towards a number of budgetary proposals involving high costs and recommends that Parliament's budget for next year increase by no more than the rate of inflation; in other words, it should not change at all in real terms compared with 2011. We would also like to emphasise that we agree with the report's extremely hesitant and critical position with regard to the project to establish a House of European History. At a time when there is severe pressure on national budgets, we consider it inappropriate to initiate such a project, which will probably be very expensive.\nHowever, we would like to point out that we would have preferred an even more restrictive approach to be taken to Parliament's budget for 2012 that also included proposals for savings and redistributions to finance new requirements. The Commission advocates a rate of increase of a maximum of 1% for the EU institutions' administrative budgets for next year - an initiative that we believe should be supported. Compared with inflation, an increase of a maximum of 1% would, in practice, entail a reduction in the overall size of Parliament's budget.\nDiogo Feio\nTaking the current financial, economic and social situation in the EU into due consideration, it is increasingly important that the institutions respond with the quality and efficiency that is required, and that they employ strict management procedures so that savings may be achieved. It is now necessary to make efforts to fully achieve the objectives enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy, focusing on growth and job creation. It is also necessary to strike a sustained balance and make an effort towards consolidation in all the categories of the budget. It is therefore important to maintain a prudent approach with regard to administrative expenditure. In conclusion, Parliament should maintain the principle of legislative excellence, respect the principle of good management and transparency, and ensure a spirit of budgetary responsibility in the general framework and priorities for the 2012 budget.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\nThe report 'sets the principle of legislative excellence as a priority'. Given that, despite the ambiguity of the concept, this will depend essentially on the political guidelines attached to the legislative process, we advocate that a fair allocation of resources - material and human - be made available to Parliament, to serve the requirements and scope of parliamentary work. The rapporteur does not hold back from longwinded rhetoric throughout his report, which is punctuated by concepts like 'good management', 'economies of scale', 'efficiency', 'effectiveness', 'cost-benefit analysis', 'redeployment of staff', 'mobility', and so on. Nevertheless, the European External Action Service appears to be excluded from this list when it comes to supporting 'the EU's ambitions in foreign policy'. We agree completely about the 'importance of equal treatment of Members of all nationalities and languages in terms of the possibility for them to carry out the duties and political activity incumbent upon them in their own language'. However, this involves much more than ensuring interpretation services in committee meetings, as the rapporteur suggests. It also involves the provision of interpretation services at meetings of coordinators, trialogues, delegations, parliamentary assemblies and others. It also involves all official and work-related documents being translated in a timely manner. At present, there are unacceptable omissions in both areas.\nIlda Figueiredo\nThis is another report on the continuity of EU budget policy, which is subordinate, above all, to the political guidelines introduced into the legislative process. However, we advocate the fair matching of work resources - both material and human - available to Parliament to the needs and scope of Parliament's work, without exaggerating the costs or possible savings, and without undermining Parliament's work.\nWe cannot, however, refrain from pointing out that, rather than concepts like 'good management', 'economies of scale', 'efficiency', 'effectiveness', 'cost-benefit analysis', 'redeployment of staff', 'mobility', and so on, what the European Union needs is other policies, including substantially reducing spending on the military and on the European External Action Service.\nWe support the protection of equal treatment of Members of all nationalities and languages in terms of the possibility for them to carry out the duties and political activity incumbent upon them in their own language, bearing in mind, however, that this means much more than ensuring interpretation in committee meetings, as the rapporteur states. It also involves the provision of interpretation services at meetings of coordinators, trialogues, delegations, parliamentary assemblies and others. It also involves all official and work-related documents being translated in a timely manner.\nLorenzo Fontana\nThe report by Mr Fernandes concerns the guidelines for the 2012 budget procedure for the European institutions. Amongst other things, the report provides for greater rigour -given this tough time of economic crisis - in terms of the bureaucratic management of the European organisational system. That is why I supported Mr Fernandes by voting in favour.\nNathalie Griesbeck\nI voted in favour of adopting this report, which lays down guidelines for the 2012 budget procedure: a general framework and budgetary priorities for the functioning of the European institutions (except the European Commission). Our report supports, in particular, the reduction in the European Parliament's budget in view of the Member States' economic, financial and social situation, and I welcome that. My final point is that I resolutely opposed the amendments attacking the European Parliament's seat in Strasbourg, and I am glad that they were rejected by the majority of the European Parliament.\nJuozas Imbrasas\nI agreed with this report, because it is very important to give priority to the principles of good management, namely, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In the implementation of the various policies, the results achieved must be taken into account and variable expenses should, whenever possible and when their scale so demands, be made subject to regular cost-benefit evaluations. As a result of implementation of these principles, institutions should submit cost cutting plans; thought should be given to the advantages of centralisation, so as to generate economies of scale (e.g. centralised procurement, shared services between institutions). Interinstitutional cooperation is essential in order to exchange best practices that favour effectiveness and allow for savings. I believe that interinstitutional cooperation should be improved as regards translation, interpretation, recruitment (EPSO) and EMAS and should be extended to other areas. In a context of economic crisis, the heavy burden of public debt and restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts, the European Parliament and the other institutions should show budgetary responsibility and self-restraint. Parliament's goal should be to develop legislative excellence and all the necessary resources should be available for this purpose, while respecting budgetary constraints.\nC\u0103t\u0103lin Sorin Ivan\nIn the current economic, financial and social climate, the budgetary procedure guidelines for 2012 present a real challenge, especially because the European Union's institutions are being forced to make considerable savings but, at the same time, they need to have sufficient resources to enable them to carry out their activities with the highest level of professionalism and efficiency. In this respect, I express my support for better interinstitutional support with a view to exchanging practices which will result in a strategy for strengthening ties between Europe and its citizens, while maintaining budget austerity and making savings so that the Europe 2020 agenda objectives can be implemented successfully.\nAlthough the 2012 budget for Parliament and the other institutions should be about consolidation, this should not create obstacles preventing investments, since investment projects ensure the smooth operation of Europe's economies.\nLast but not least, I support the rapporteur's point that it is unacceptable to have no interpretation services available during the meetings of the European Parliament's committees, as MEPs must be allowed to use their mother tongue. I, too, was in the situation where I could not use the interpretation services, even when I was presenting a report.\nBarbara Matera\nThe 2012 and 2013 budgets will be consolidation budgets aimed at reflecting the Member States' spending cutbacks and setting a benchmark for the levels that will be established in the next financial framework.\nThe aim of this budget must be excellence, which means pursuing the objectives of economy, efficiency and effectiveness using as little as possible of the available resources. During this consolidation phase, Parliament has to aim to increase the budget but not above the rate of inflation. This threshold means exercising great responsibility. The increased expenses deriving from enlargement to include Croatia and the 18 new Members of this House provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon will be integrated through an amending budget.\nIn order to respect the approach of containing expenses, I hope that all the institutions will send the necessary information in advance in order to set out a general framework of administrative expenses so that the Budget Authority can take decisions on the use of resources following a multiannual, sustainable approach that aims for the comparability of the information provided over time and across the institutions.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I welcome this report which makes clear that Parliament expects the Bureau to submit realistic requests when presenting the estimates, is ready to examine its proposals on a fully needs-based and prudent basis in order to ensure appropriate and efficient functioning of the institution, stresses that the purpose of the amending letter presented by the Bureau to the Committee on Budgets in September is to take into account needs unforeseen at the time the estimates were drawn up and stresses that it should not be seen as an opportunity to renew estimates previously agreed. Following the interinstitutional line, the enlargement-related needs shall be integrated either in an amending letter or amending budget, and the needs for the 18 new MEPs following the Lisbon Treaty will also be integrated by an amending letter or amending budget.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon\nThis report has the great merit of stressing the need for MEPs to carry out their duties in their own language. The lack of translations in a number of meetings, in communications that are addressed to us, and in joint resolutions that are under negotiation, is an unjustifiable obstacle to our work as MEPs and hence to democracy. I support this request. However, I refuse to support the waste of money and the democratic aberration that the establishment of Baroness Ashton's European External Action Service represents. Likewise, I refuse to endorse the use of private enterprises in preference to civil servants.\nNuno Melo\nThe Treaty of Lisbon has given Parliament new responsibilities. This situation means additional administrative work, with the result that Members need qualified staff to carry out advisory roles. This new situation leads to two problems: increased costs arising from the need for more assistants, and additional space required in order for them to carry out their duties in good working conditions. This situation leads to increased costs. That is difficult to explain during this time of crisis, but if Parliament's work is to be excellent, it needs to have the necessary financial and human resources. That is why I voted as I did.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - Although the report contains the main guidelines and priorities for the 2012 budget, including the standards of legislative work in the European Parliament, I do not think that the budget increase in terms of the rate of inflation is correct or justified. There are other mechanisms and ways of solving common problems and priorities. I voted in favour.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\nThe expenditure ceiling for the multiannual financial framework of the European Union budget for 2012 was increased once again. Particularly in times when citizens have to tighten their belts, the European Union, too, must make savings. There are plenty of opportunities to make savings, from abandoning one of the seats of Parliament, to reducing the morass of EU agencies, to improving the fight against fraud within the aid programmes.\nLabelling it as due to the economic and financial crisis, the European Union has simply put a few plans on hold but not made any real savings, despite selling these acts as major savings. This is more than unfair towards European citizens and it is just as unfair to justify all the additional costs on the basis of the greater demands under the Treaty of Lisbon. For these reasons, I voted against the budget report.\nFranz Obermayr\nThis report includes an increase in the expenditure ceiling for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the European Union's budget in 2012. As a result of the economic and financial crisis, the citizens in the Member States were urged to accept austerity measures and thus to bear the major part of the impact of the crisis. The EU, too, should reduce its expenditure. This begins with the uncontrolled growth of agencies, goes on to the pre-accession aid for Turkey and continues through to the expensive duplicate structures and administration costs as a result of the European External Action Service. I therefore voted against this report.\nAlfredo Pallone\nMr Fernandes's proposal for a resolution on the guidelines for the 2012 budget procedure offers an overview of the administration of Parliament's budget in view of a future optimisation of the management of the resources available to the European institutions, which is why I voted in favour. Parliament will have to adopt a budget to consolidate the future financial framework and the additional human resources needed to meet the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon, and to improve and complete the buildings available, information technology and interpreting services. The main objective is still to find a good way of managing resources so as to contain expenses while nevertheless improving services.\nMiguel Portas\nI chose to abstain because, although this text mentions identifying possible savings for next year's budget, these are not made specific within the text. If we want to be consistent, savings-related policies should begin with the very Members of this House.\nPaulo Rangel\nI voted in favour of this report as I believe that the current financial, economic and social situation in the EU cannot prevent the institutions from employing strict management procedures so that the necessary savings may be achieved. A real effort needs to be made towards consolidation. As regards sound management principles, the institutions should submit cost-reduction plans, and when presenting expenditure, it should be clearly specified and justified. In this vein, I would like to publicly express my appreciation for the excellent work that has been carried out by my colleague, Mr Fernandes.\nCrescenzio Rivellini\nI voted in favour of the report on the guidelines for the 2012 budget procedure because I think that the current economic crisis - which right now has repercussions on employment above anything else - requires a joint effort on cutting back from the Member States and the European institutions. I therefore agree with the statement that in the current circumstances, the general principle for European financing is to follow an ethos of budgetary austerity.\nIn any case, I feel that I must emphasise how, even in view of the economic situation, the Union's budget and, in particular, Parliament's budget - as the only European institution directly elected by citizens - should primarily take care to promote and bring citizens closer to the European Union, particularly at times like these when the future is so uncertain. In particular, I think it would be a particularly good idea to consider a better distribution of Parliament's information offices in the Member States and their more strategic location, partly in the light of the latest upheavals in neighbouring States.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - I voted in favour even if I would have preferred that some amendments concerning the need for the EP to reduce its number of places of work to one did not pass.\nNuno Teixeira\nThe guidelines for the 2012 budget are based on a balance between the need to give the European institutions sufficient and appropriate resources to carry out their activities, and the need to find a quality and efficient response in the face of the current financial, economic and social crisis. The submitted proposal points out that the institutions may have difficulties in maintaining the financial discipline and restraint needed to comply with the multiannual financial programme, particularly with regard to heading 5. The rapporteur therefore calls for sound management principles, such as economy, efficiency and effectiveness, so that it is possible to achieve greater rigour, simplicity, clarity and transparency.\nAs regards the Parliament, this document, for which I voted, includes the needs arising from Croatia's accession in 2013, the increase in the number of MEPs by 18 and the need for extra staff following the Treaty of Lisbon's entry into force. For the other institutions, it is worth pointing out the new Section X on the External Action Service which, with the new Treaty, will respond to the financial needs arising from the creation of an ambitious institutional framework to support EU foreign policy.\nPeter van Dalen\nAccording to the Fernandes report, the European Parliament must shine in the legislative field and all resources must serve that end. For me, there has to be a second priority here, too, namely, that Parliament must shine when it comes to budgetary discipline. Governments, businesses and citizens are currently having to evaluate their expenditure once again. The European Parliament must do the same - we must focus not on more money but on new priorities. We need a change of course because the European Union's administrative spending has risen faster than its total spending, and Parliament tops the list! Recital F of the report makes reference to the European External Action Service, which is likely to cost more money. That, too, must change. Why does the said service have many dozens of employees and luxury premises in exotic locations like Barbados and Madagascar? Take a close look at the service and you find that it does not need more money. This must be the number one budgetary priority for the European Union: not spending more money, but spending better.\nAngelika Werthmann\nThe guidelines for the 2012 budget procedure consist of assorted individual sections drawn together under the headings 'economy' and 'consolidation'. Many citizens in Europe, like their national governments, have been forced into economy and restricted spending by the consequences of the financial and economic crisis. In this situation, it is more than justified that the European Parliament should lead by example with its proposed budget for 2012. In 2012, the EU will be faced with new - and inevitable - expenditure. This is dependent on the potential accession of Croatia, the newly created European External Action Service and the three financial agencies. In order to stop the automatic process of increased budgetary demands equating to an increase in the budget, now is the time that potential savings in the EU budget must be identified. This should include, for example, a business analysis of the Union's agencies and an evaluation of EU bodies' human resources and buildings policies.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nI am voting for this resolution because a strategy for the Atlantic region is essential for EU territorial cohesion, especially in the context of the eastward enlargement of EU borders. It is worth noting that our approach to the Atlantic can only be less one toward a peripheral region and more one that affirms its geo-centrality in the world as part of a strategic orientation that puts the region at its centre. For the EU, it is the border area with North America, South America and all of western Africa. A strategy for the Atlantic region in which the Member States and their regions participate should also prioritise new areas of innovation in the economy and science, in particular, new products and services linked to the environment, to renewable and marine energy, to food-related marine biotechnology, to health and smart technology-intensive products and services.\nThe Atlantic strategy should not be isolated, but rather enshrined within the set of the EU's overall objectives, given the lessons of the Baltic strategy, adapted after the start of the period of budgetary planning for 2007-2013, which has undoubtedly limited the scope of the initiative.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nI voted in favour of this resolution on the European strategy for the Atlantic region. Five EU Member States are situated along the Atlantic coast - France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is a need for a strategy to coordinate the actions of these countries in the region. I agree with the rapporteur that the major added value of EU regional strategies is seen in multi-level cooperation, coordination and better strategic investment of available funding, not in additional allocation of resources. I believe that this strategy would address the following issues of common interest: environment and climate change, including preventing and combating marine pollution by ships, transport and accessibility, research, innovation, culture, leisure and tourism, marine services and training, as well as fisheries and the seafood sector. I would like to recall that one of the first strategies of this kind is the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region approved by the European Council, covering 8 EU Member States, including my own country, Lithuania. This strategy is aimed at making the Baltic Sea region environmentally sustainable, prosperous, easily accessible, safe and secure. This strategy has already been successfully initiated, and I therefore feel that the European strategy for the Atlantic region would be beneficial not just for this region, but for the whole of the EU.\nSophie Auconie\nCooperation on problems extending beyond national borders is one of the great added values of the work carried out by the European Union. My colleague, Mr Cadec, has been working for months to strengthen cooperation between the regions of the Atlantic Arc, so that it enables them to make the most of any possible synergies. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution, which 'asks the Commission to shape as soon as possible the EU strategy for the Atlantic region as an integrated strategy dealing with maritime and territorial issues'.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nI supported this resolution. Territorial cohesion is one of the EU's most important objectives and a precondition for an effective, economically strong and competitive internal market. The Atlantic region has its own specific characteristics, namely, a dynamic maritime area whose fragile environment must be preserved and which is subject to the consequences of climate change. It is an outlying area within the European Union, with major accessibility and connectivity problems. I feel that there is an urgent need to adopt this strategy, which will help address this region's fundamental problems as regards opening up, the interconnection of transport and energy networks and the development of marine energy, the development of urban and rural areas, and the intensification of land-sea ties and of sea-interior waters ties.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho\nI agree with Parliament's resolution on the European strategy for the Atlantic region, which I believe is of great importance, as five Member States have an Atlantic coast: France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK. This strategy is being proposed to address significant issues, such as maritime energy, the environment and climate change, transport and access, security and surveillance, research, innovation, the creative industries, culture, leisure and tourism, marine services and training, fisheries and the seafood sector. European territorial cooperation, which is consolidated in this strategy through the aforementioned aspects, can contribute widely to the intensification of the integration process within the Atlantic region through greater participation by civil society in the decision-making process and the implementation of concrete measures. I would also like to stress that this initiative can, and should, lead to the better use of EU funds, not an increase in expenditure.\nCarlos Coelho\nAs a Member elected by a country in the Atlantic region, I must highlight the importance and the need to create a European strategy which takes the geographic, demographic and economic characteristics of this region into account. An integrated and joined-up strategy needs to be created to ensure a synergy and consistency between sectoral policies in this area, creating the added value necessary to address the challenges of sustainable development and competitiveness of this region in particular, and of Europe in general. I have no doubts as to the need for an approach at European level, based on strengthening cooperation between the Member States with an Atlantic coast, coastal communities, the private sector and civil society, and in which this common strategy will benefit all the stakeholders.\nThis should enable the identification of common problems and challenges, and of shared priorities, and the creation of the synergies needed to promote more efficient resource use. It is important not only to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of the traditional sectors, but also to exploit the full potential of the Atlantic area, with new markets, products and services, guided by two main priorities: protection of the environment and ecosystems, and job creation.\nEdite Estrela\nI voted in favour of this resolution as I support the need for the Commission to establish, as rapidly as possible, a European strategy for the Atlantic region which addresses maritime and territorial issues. This strategy should address issues of common interest, such as the environment and climate change, marine energy, maritime transport, maritime security and surveillance, fisheries, tourism, research and innovation. The Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde should also be included and have a prominent role in this strategy.\nDiogo Feio\nToday, the Atlantic is one of Europe's borders and has been one of the European continent's most important means of contact with the world. It was across this ocean that European peoples, particularly the Portuguese, came into contact with peoples, economies and cultures previously unknown to one another, and forged what is today a truly globalised world. Today, the Atlantic region suffers marginalisation compared with Europe's centre, and this can and must be remedied through the understanding that the Atlantic and relationships with the more important partners bordering it, such as Brazil and the United States, can bring about the reaffirmation of a geostrategic centrality that has, however, been displaced by the emergence of the Asian countries. The importance of the region fully justifies the establishment of a European strategy which, true to the role historically reserved for the ocean that gives it its name, does not confine itself to the Member States, but rather is able to provide a link to those other coasts. In this regard, I would stress the extremely important and irreplaceable role of the outermost regions in the strategy's success. These continue to merit special support from the Union, which can overcome the costs of insularity and boost foreign contacts.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nOn 14 June 2010, the Council asked the Commission to draw up a European strategy for the Atlantic region within one year, as it is a peripheral territory with special characteristics in terms of both its potential and its environmental fragility. Therefore, given its importance at global level, a strategy is required that is ambitious and takes into account its maritime and territorial aspects. This resolution represents a fundamental contribution to drawing up the strategy as it draws attention to crucial aspects such as the need to seek out synergies with other policies on the environment, energy, transport, tourism, marine resources, and others, to adopt a macro-regional policy and move towards the international approach that is needed for good relations with countries that have Atlantic coasts. I welcome Parliament's adoption of this resolution, as I am convinced that this EU strategy for the Atlantic region will speed up sustainable growth in this area and put maritime issues at the top of the European agenda.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\nWe are in favour of developing strategies aimed at the economic, social and territorial cohesion of certain macro-regions, which should obviously be given the appropriate means to allow this to be achieved fully and effectively. Every phase of these strategies - preparation, formulation and implementation - should actively involve the countries and regions that are within their geographic scope, and should be based on cooperation between those countries and regions. These strategies can and should address issues of common interest, such as, in the case of this specific proposal of the European strategy for the Atlantic region: marine energy, environmental preservation, including the prevention and fight against marine pollution, transport and access, research and innovation, among others. However, we have major doubts about, and other strong disagreements with, some of the points in the resolution. We therefore did not vote in favour. The resolution does not safeguard the principle that new resources, especially financial resources, should match the new objectives in the area of cohesion policy, in order to make them effective. The resolution also proposes the subordination of the strategy to EU foreign policy, to international trade policy objectives, to the Europe 2020 strategy and to the achievement of 'the aims of the internal market'.\nIlda Figueiredo\nIt is important to continue developing strategies aimed at the economic, social and territorial cohesion of certain macro-regions, which should obviously be given the appropriate means to allow this to be achieved fully and effectively. Every phase of these strategies - preparation, formulation and implementation - should actively involve the countries and regions that are within their geographic scope, and should be based on cooperation between those countries and regions. These strategies can and should address issues of common interest. This case concerns the European strategy for the Atlantic region: marine energy, environmental preservation, including the prevention and fight against marine pollution, transport and access, research and innovation, among others. However, we have major doubts about, and other strong disagreements with, some of the points in the resolution. We therefore did not vote in favour.\nThe resolution does not safeguard the principle that new resources, especially financial resources, should match the new objectives in the area of cohesion policy, in order to make them effective, which means that we will have a lot of promises but few actions, in addition to being subordinated to international trade policy objectives, to the Europe 2020 strategy and to the achievement of 'the aims of the internal market'.\nPat the Cope Gallagher\nI strongly support what is being done at EU level to establish an integrated strategy for the Atlantic region. The Atlantic strategy must focus on stimulating economic development of the Atlantic islands and the Atlantic coastal region.\nThe Atlantic region is one of the richest areas for wind, wave and tidal energy, but not enough benefit is being reaped from that energy potential. Atlantic coastal region leisure and tourism activities also constitute valuable economic resources. There is true growth potential there; for example, developing strategic marinas in each country.\nThe maritime transport, ports and seafood sectors - including aquaculture - in particular would benefit from the establishment of closer collaboration among the Member States bordering the Atlantic. Any strategy for the Atlantic must comply with the provisions of the common fisheries policy. Over the years, there has been an improvement in cooperation between Member States on issues of safety, security and maritime surveillance.\nSince the Atlantic Arc area is so extensive, however, an integrated strategy must be put in place to ensure better and more effective activities coordinated by Member States.\nEstelle Grelier\nThe adoption of a parliamentary resolution on the draft strategy for the Atlantic region is an opportunity for me to point out the urgent need to work at European level on a common approach regarding the use of our maritime areas and to find a joint solution to the problems that exist. The Channel is a particularly illuminating example in this respect: a strategic maritime gateway to the European Union, it is both an essential link between the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea (it contains 20% of the world's fleet and more than 500 vessels over 300 tonnes sail through it every day) and an area dedicated to fishing, leisure activities, aggregate extraction and soon - much to my satisfaction - energy production from offshore wind farms. This concentration of activities calls for serious thought to be given to the issue of managing maritime safety in that area at European level, as part of a joint strategy. That is why, during the debate on the strategy for the Atlantic region, I once again called on Mrs Damanaki, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, to include the Channel in the proposal that she is due to submit in June.\nJuozas Imbrasas\nI voted in favour of this document, because as we know, the Atlantic region has its own specific characteristics; namely, it is a dynamic maritime area (thanks to maritime transport, fishing, marine energy, etc.), an area whose fragile environment must be preserved and which is subject to the consequences of climate change, and it is also an outlying area within the European Union, with accessibility and connectivity problems and with a low number of major city centres. We need to shape as soon as possible the EU strategy for the Atlantic region as an integrated strategy dealing with maritime and territorial issues. This strategy should implement a better coordination of goals and means, with strong links to the EU 2020 strategy and EU policies post-2013. This strategy aims at better spending of EU money, not increasing expenditure. This strategy needs to be well-connected to EU regional policy and integrated maritime policy. I feel that it should also facilitate synergies with other EU policies such as trans-European transport networks, the common fisheries policy, climate and environment actions, the research and development framework programme, energy policy, etc. It is important to improve accessibility in Atlantic maritime regions and increase movement of persons, goods and services in these regions in order to achieve the aims of the internal market and the objective of cohesion policy, especially by the development of short sea shipping and the highways of the sea.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I voted for this report on the EU strategy for the Atlantic region which is of the opinion that this strategy should be set within the cohesion policy objective of territorial cooperation (Objective 3), and be based on an integrated, cross-domain and territorial approach, aiming at better coordinating policies between the various levels of governance on a given territory, with a focus on relevant issues, and is convinced that European territorial cooperation can contribute widely to the intensification of the integration process within the Atlantic region through a greater participation by civil society in the decision-making process and the implementation of concrete actions.\nNuno Melo\nThe Atlantic region has specific characteristics of its very own as it is a dynamic maritime area, in which I would stress its maritime transport, fisheries and marine energy. It is an area with a fragile environment that has to be preserved, but which is subject to coastal erosion and extreme weather events, and it is a peripheral area. Therefore, an integrated EU strategy is required which covers maritime and territorial issues. That is why I voted as I did.\nWilly Meyer\nI voted for this resolution which calls for the EU to create a European strategy for the Atlantic region. European territorial cooperation can contribute widely to the intensification of the integration process within the Atlantic region through a greater participation by civil society in the decision-making process and the implementation of concrete actions. The text includes a call on the EU for the strategy to deal with maritime and territorial issues. It also insists that cooperation within the framework of this strategy should, first and foremost, be based on the needs of the stakeholders concerned and is thus of the opinion that the political priorities addressed have to be decided through a consensus.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - Taking into account the specificities of the Atlantic region, Parliament asks the Commission to act as soon as possible to establish the EU strategy for the Atlantic region as an integrated strategy dealing with maritime and territorial issues. Though Parliament believes that this strategy must develop synergies between relevant EU, national, regional and local policies, it calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up simplified rules to facilitate the implementation of this strategy and reduce the inherent administrative burden. In my view, this is not possible, because efficient measures of influence on the Commission have not been found so far. I am getting the impression that the Commission has still not started to change its priorities under the Lisbon Treaty and is conducting unjustified and long-lasting rhetoric with Parliament to further its own opportunities. This is not being done in the general interest and is actually detrimental to the whole situation. I supported the report, but nevertheless remain of the same mind.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\nFive Member States of the European Union border the Atlantic. France, Portugal and Spain, in particular, certainly do not see only benefits from this geographical fact, as the Atlantic plays a not insignificant role when it comes to the streams of refugees that now threaten to increase as a result of the crises in the countries of North Africa. People-smugglers are all too keen to use the Atlantic route, since Spain's border fence was erected in 2005. In order to prevent a flood of predominantly economic migrants, the EU would be well advised to quickly develop an effective Atlantic strategy that also covers this aspect, even though the remaining two Atlantic States - the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland - bear little to no impact in this regard. As the resolution hardly, if at all, covers this area, I abstained from the vote.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak\nAt today's vote, the European Parliament adopted the resolution on the European strategy for the Atlantic region. The strategy is a further European initiative which will not concentrate on solving the problems of a single country but of the entire Atlantic region, which includes as many as five Member States.\nIt is important to draw attention to the fact that the strategy should be characterised by a bottom-up approach. The geostrategic position of the region allows development of cooperation in the fields of maritime safety, international trade and fishing, as well as protection of the marine environment and preservation of biodiversity.\nI think it is necessary to ask the European Commission what resources will be given in pursuit of the strategy, because this is particularly important in relation to establishing the new financial framework. In my opinion, another important matter is the process of putting the strategy into effect and the possibility that it may be necessary to create additional financial instruments.\nRolandas Paksas\nI agree with the resolution on the European strategy for the Atlantic region, which will contribute to the region's sustainable development. Moreover, a further step will be taken towards the implementation of one of the European Union's objectives - territorial cohesion. Given the geostrategic position of the Atlantic region, the Commission must take immediate action and develop an integrated strategy for this region, strengthening international cooperation and triangular cooperation initiatives, and addressing maritime and territorial issues. Attention is drawn to the fact that effective territorial cooperation will promote the development of marine energy and will create a favourable environment to use transport and energy networks and interconnections. For this strategy to achieve the objectives set, it must be well-connected to EU regional policy and integrated maritime policy. Only this can guarantee synergies with other EU policies and create the conditions for more targeted and more effective absorption and use of funds allocated by the EU, without increasing expenditure. Furthermore, the adoption of this strategy will improve accessibility to Atlantic maritime regions, and increase the movement of persons, goods and services.\nAlfredo Pallone\nThe motion for a resolution on the European Union strategy for the Atlantic region follows the request made by the European Council to the Commission to develop an integrated strategy dealing with maritime and territorial issues in the Atlantic. I voted in favour of the resolution to ask the European Commission to prepare and report on the negotiations on the planned strategy no later than June. The aim is to implement better coordination in the region on issues such as the integrated maritime policy, the trans-European transport networks, fisheries, climate and environment actions, research and development, increasing movement of persons, goods and services in the regions in order to achieve the cohesion policy objective, ensuring that everything ties in with the EU 2020 strategy and with the European Union's policies post-2013.\nMiguel Portas\nI voted in favour of this resolution because given that Portugal is an Atlantic country, with a dynamic maritime area and great potential, although it has a fragile environment that needs to be preserved, I consider it positive that the EU is recognising the potential of its Atlantic region. I also believe that many of the problems of this vast area should meet with a response at European level through an integrated EU strategy for the region, and through the prospect of a territorial cohesion policy that should be a fundamental framework for Union choices. However, Union decisions have been totally absent and completely sacrificed because of unacceptable budgetary constraints resulting from political choices of austerity that do not encourage development.\nPaulo Rangel\nGiven Portugal's particular geostrategic position, this matter is of great importance, especially as regards the areas of maritime security and surveillance. I therefore believe that the establishment of the European Union strategy for the Atlantic is very pertinent.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - As was the case in the resolution on an EU strategy for the Danube region adopted by the EP last month, the present draft resolution stresses that the major added value of EU macro-regional strategies is seen in multi-level cooperation, coordination and better strategic investment of available funding, and not in the additional allocation of resources. The draft resolution underlines the conclusions of the Swedish Presidency regarding no new institutions, no new legislation and no new budgets.\nFurthermore, REGI wanted this strategy to work according to a bottom-up approach and to involve all stakeholders (regional and local public authorities, Member States, the EU, private stakeholders and civil society organisations, including the interregional networks and organisations concerned) in its design and implementation. From the Greens\/EFA point of view, we proposed amendments on the development of marine energy, the prevention and fighting of marine pollution by ships, and the development of short sea shipping and highways of the sea, that were all adopted.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\nAs a Galician and co-signatory to this initiative, I support an ambitious strategy for the Atlantic region. I call on the Commission to table a proposal prior to June 2011 with the priority of growing and creating sustainable jobs in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. The macro-region's area is maritime, fragile and peripheral, so the strategy requires an integrated, cross-cutting and territorial focus, all of whose dimensions should protect the environment, encourage accessibility, mobility and connectivity, and promote cohesion.\nThe strategy should also facilitate synergies between the EU's various policies - for example, as regards: tourism; highways of the sea and trans-European transport networks; common fisheries policy; energy policy, and marine energy in particular; climate change measures; the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development; multilingualism; and, in general, any policies that will be implemented from 2014 onwards - and between any relevant policies developed in the field by the various responsible authorities. The plan must be drawn up, adopted and implemented in a transparent and trustworthy way, through cooperation between all the public institutions, and the involvement of the private sector and civil society organisations.\nNuno Teixeira\nOwing to its vast area, the European Atlantic coast has great potential and several specific characteristics. The Atlantic region offers significant and dynamic maritime activity and has at its core regions that are very different from one another, but which have the common characteristic of depending on activities in the maritime basins of this ocean. There are remote regions of the Atlantic that are difficult to access, being at a great physical distance from continental Europe. I am talking, specifically, about the outermost regions of the EU, where problems of connectivity and accessibility are reflected in their economic and social development. However, it is also important to mention that these regions have unique advantages compared with other European regions. Apart from their permanent constraints, their own characteristics offer potential that should be taken into account as part of an integrated view of the Atlantic region.\nThe objective of territorial cohesion allows, or rather obligates, harmonious development for all EU regions, bearing in mind the specific characteristics of each one. I therefore hope that the outermost regions of Macaronesia, including my home region of Madeira, are properly taken into account in any future strategy for the Atlantic, and that an integrated approach can overcome the main difficulties and challenges that these regions experience.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nI am voting for this resolution, as I believe that the accession of Turkey to the EU is in the strategic interests of both the country and the EU, but this will require Turkey to make a firmer commitment to the processes of reform in order to meet the accession criteria. This is the case particularly in the areas of freedom of the press, association and assembly, of commitment to creating a faster, more independent and fairer judicial system which cooperates effectively in the fight against terrorism, and in the struggle for women's rights and human rights in general. Moreover, the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Cyprus is an essential condition for building a climate of good neighbourliness.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nI voted in favour of this resolution on Turkey's 2010 progress report. When it began negotiations on EU accession, Turkey committed itself to reforms, good neighbourly relations and progressive alignment with the EU. However, it is clear that Turkey's progress is too slow, demonstrating the unwillingness of this country's government representatives to implement reforms and democratise the country. The European Parliament has serious concerns about the deterioration in freedom of the press, about certain acts of censorship and about growing self-censorship within the Turkish media, including on the Internet. We condemn the restrictions on freedom of assembly and, in particular, the violent police crackdown on student demonstrations at Ankara University in December 2010. The European Parliament is also concerned that human rights defenders are being persecuted in Turkey. This represents just a portion of the human rights violations in a country that aims to become an EU Member State. It is clear that the current human rights situation in Turkey is complicated, one might even say contrary to the EU's values and policies. Against such a backdrop, negotiations on EU accession are leading to a dead end. I therefore believe that the Turkish authorities must adopt immediate rigorous reforms in all branches of government or consider the possibility of becoming not an EU Member, but a strategic partner.\nCharalampos Angourakis\nThe European Parliament report and the corresponding motion for a resolution adopted by plenary illustrate the imperialistic infighting within the EU and the conflict surrounding economic and political relations and the objectives processed in cooperation with the bourgeoisie in Turkey. These issues relate to the exploitation of the people in this country, the servicing of broader imperialistic interests in controlling wealth-producing resources and the exploitation of the people in the Middle East, in North Africa and in the area as a whole. As the capitalist crisis and imperialistic aggression escalate, the European Parliament has concealed the anti-grassroots policy of the Turkish Government and the attack on the social rights and grassroots freedoms of the workers in that country. The Turkish Government continues to view grassroots forces protesting against violations of the rights of the Kurds as terrorists. The European Parliament tolerates Turkey's intransigence and aggression against the Republic of Cyprus. It has voted against the proposals and amendments concerning the Republic of Cyprus and its legal rights in the area. The Greek Communist Party is radically against the accession of Turkey to the EU, because it is fighting against this imperialistic organisation. The MEPs of the Greek Communist Party voted against the report on Turkey because its accession to the EU can only bring hardship for the workers.\nPino Arlacchi\nin writing. - My statement aims to justify my abstention on the resolution on Turkey. I abstained because I did not agree with its lack of positive inspiration and its lack of a clear appreciation of some key features of the Turkish Government's recent action. In this resolution, there is too much of a paternalistic attitude towards a great country that does not deserve this treatment.\nThere are too many demands on Turkey, with too many details and too many unrealistic standards to be met. If these standards were applied to the EU Member States, several of them would not qualify for EU accession. I hope this attitude towards Turkey will change over time, and I hope this Parliament will show a stronger commitment to the goal of having Turkey in the EU soon.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nI voted in favour of this resolution. Turkey committed itself to reforms, good neighbourly relations and progressive alignment with the EU. These commitments and efforts by Turkey should be viewed as an opportunity for Turkey itself to modernise, given the support from Turkish citizens and civil society for Turkey's further democratisation and their commitment to an open and pluralistic society. Despite the progress made in some areas, the situation in Turkey remains rather complicated. Hitherto, Turkey has made rather slow progress with regard to reforms. Ongoing confrontation between the political parties and the lack of readiness on the part of the government and the opposition to work towards consensus on key reforms mean there is no visible impact, and in some areas, the situation is worsening, particularly as regards freedom of the press. The Turkish Government has committed itself to undertaking comprehensive reforms in order to modernise its country, and it must therefore increase its efforts to establish a democratic state, based on the principle of separation of powers with a balance between the executive, legislative and judicial functions and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.\nMara Bizzotto\nFor the fifth consecutive year, Turkey has failed to comply with Europe's requests. There has been a growth in fundamentalist movements, which the government does not combat due to its nationalist and Islamist political views.\nThe status of religious Christian minorities and of women has been deteriorating for years. Turkey does not therefore wish to come into line with Western democratic standards; it has chosen a pathway of re-Islamification, which will lead it ever further away from accession. A country that aims to take a leading role in the Arab-Muslim world with an aggressive foreign policy towards the West and Israel is a country that demonstrates for itself the reasons why my group has long opposed those who would like to see Turkey become a Member State.\nWhilst, on the one hand, the report sheds light on many problematic aspects that have emerged in recent years, it also applauds the 'progress' that the Turkish Government has made in some areas. Essentially, the report holds the doors to Europe wide open for Ankara, which is why I voted against it. Turkey is not Europe and never will be, either in cultural or political terms. The backward steps made by Turkey ought to convince even its most enthusiastic supporters to give up on the idea that this country should join the European project.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu\nThe European Parliament must continue to give encouragement to states wishing to become members of the European Union because it is only by encouraging democratic change and punishing swiftly abuses or ineptitude that will enable these countries to become aligned with Member States' common democratic and economic standards. This is why it is natural to welcome the first steps which have been taken towards constitutional reform in Turkey, which highlights, however, the need for global system reforms. Turkey's political problems, its relations with Greece, which are still tense and even in stalemate, the precarious dialogue between the political parties and the undermining of press freedom are all reasons for slowing down the pace of the accession negotiations. Turkey's immediate aim is likely to be the waiver of the visa scheme imposed by Member States on Turkish citizens. Indeed, concluding the negotiations on the readmission agreement will result in better management of migration.\nThe Commission must launch the dialogue with Turkey about visas as soon as the agreement comes into force. Europe cannot afford to have a state the size of Turkey feeling frustrated about the way in which its citizens are treated. Turkey is likely to expect Parliament's resolution to benefit it more. However, the fact that Parliament is saying that the negotiation process with the EU is lengthy and open-ended does not reflect the reality on the ground.\nPhilippe de Villiers\nThe Member States clearly have everything to gain from maintaining good relations with Turkey, but once again, the European Union has discredited itself with this report on Turkey's progress towards accession.\nFirstly, it is still not listening to the people of Europe, who are worried about this prospect, the upshot of which is that hundreds of millions of euro are being spent indiscriminately each year (in pre-accession assistance), and nothing is being given in return.\nSecondly, the Union recognises, although it has not learnt from it, that Turkey flouts international law in Cyprus and fundamental rights in its own country, scorns its Armenian and Greek neighbours, oppresses the minorities living on its territory and does not even deign to honour the commitments it makes to the Union.\nWhen will we have the courage to get out of this trap? Will our leaders get back to reality and propose a partnership to Turkey instead of accession?\nEdite Estrela\nI voted in favour of this report because I believe that the reforms in Turkey, although important, have been taking place slowly. It is worth stressing the recent amendment to the legal framework reinforcing women's rights and contributing to greater gender equality, but there is still much to be done to reverse the low rates of female employment.\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and \u00c5sa Westlund\nWe Swedish Social Democrats support the demand for Turkey to recognise the genocide. However, we believe that it is important that the criticism of Turkey for not recognising the genocide is not used as a weapon by the - regrettably - xenophobic forces which want to keep Turkey out of the EU at any price. We think it is important to continue the membership negotiations with Turkey and to put pressure on this country to comply with the Copenhagen criteria, because that will force it to comply with the human rights requirements and adopt a more progressive attitude to minorities like the Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians and Syrians, who we believe would perhaps be the ones to benefit most from Turkey joining the EU - an EU that is genuinely democratic and prepared to accept diversity. We therefore abstained from voting on Amendment 38.\nDiogo Feio\nGiven the maelstrom of instability afflicting the southern Mediterranean and the whole Muslim world, it is clear that, for all its flaws, the Turkish regime has been able to evolve in a more peaceful and orderly way, and that it has sought to converge and integrate with the European Union by adopting its standards and best practices. Today, Turkey is a regional power to which the EU must pay particular attention, as the link between the two is crucial. Having said that, it has to be acknowledged that Turkey still does not fulfil all the objective criteria that would enable it to aspire to be a full member of the Union, and that the reforms that it has recently been making will take time to have the expected results. I hope that Turkey will be successful in its efforts at democratisation and that, whatever form its future relationship with the Union takes, it will become closer and deepen, for their mutual benefit.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nNegotiations concerning Turkey's accession to the EU began in October 2005, and that process is still ongoing and a long way from reaching an outcome in the near future. The European Union, which is interested in pursuing a policy of good neighbourliness, welcomes this integration, as it regards Turkey as a strategic partner. Nonetheless, there are certain problems hampering the advancement of this process. The first of these is the disrespect for fundamental rights as regards freedom of speech, respect for minorities and the rule of law. The EU sees this as an unacceptable situation, which is only exacerbated by the occupation of a large part of the territory of Cyprus. Turkey must therefore provide evidence that it is in the process of changing, particularly by implementing the legislation amended in 2007 and complying in full with the undertakings that it has made to the EU. I am voting in favour of this report in the hope that the Turkish Government will adopt the approved recommendations as soon as possible, as the people of Turkey will reap the benefits.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\nTurkey is militarily occupying part of an EU Member State: the Republic of Cyprus. Despite efforts by the Cypriot Government to resolve the problem and repeated demonstrations of goodwill to come to a fair solution, the Turkish authorities show no signs of wanting to match these efforts. Instead, they are pursuing a policy of non-compliance with United Nations resolutions, and of the occupation and colonisation of the northern part of the island. That should be a central point in this resolution. However, the resolution is complacent as regards the continuation of this situation. In addition, it is silent about the repression of workers, trade unionists and leftist forces in Turkey, as well as of the Kurdish minority. Those who have voted for this resolution are concerned rather to urge Turkey to 'support and actively contribute to the implementation of EU policies and measures in the region', particularly in the area of energy, highlighting its 'constructive engagement' in NATO operations in Afghanistan and the Balkans, along with the renewal of 'close ties with Israel'. These considerations are illustrative of the deeper meaning and significance of EU enlargement processes which, in the specific case of Turkey, is the imposition of the wishes of the EU powers and the interest that they serve.\nCarlo Fidanza\nI welcome the report by my Dutch colleague in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. The text is very balanced. It highlights some of the critical issues still to be resolved in the process of bringing Turkey closer to the European Union and also notes how, as well as the unresolved issue of the Armenian genocide, it is also up to the Turkish authorities to take responsibility for the occupation of part of the island of Cyprus and the dispute with the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State since 2004.\nAnother fundamental point is inter-religious dialogue with the various communities, including the Christian community, and, in particular, the possibility for these communities to obtain legal personality in order to open and operate houses of worship. I think the time has come to leave hypocrisy behind and stop constantly boxing in the Turkish people, since we knew from the start that the obstacles would be difficult to overcome. Turkey is not Europe, either in cultural or geographic terms, though it has extremely strong commercial ties to Europe. For these reasons, I think it would be more useful and worthwhile to set up a privileged commercial partnership, instead of insisting on the long and winding road to accession.\nIlda Figueiredo\nAs we have been stressing, many questions are raised by the negotiations on Turkey's accession to the EU. This is a process promoted by the major powers in the EU, and it is not lacking in contradictions, as its objectives include the integration of this large country into the EU single market, control of its economy and the use of its geostrategic location in relation to the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia, particularly for access to and control of the energy sources and markets of these regions.\nMoreover, the resolution is instructive on this point, urging Turkey to 'support and actively contribute to the implementation of EU policies and measures in the region', particularly in the area of energy, highlighting its 'constructive engagement' in NATO operations in Afghanistan and the Balkans, along with the renewal of 'close ties with Israel'.\nThe resolution ignores the repression of workers, trade unionists and leftist forces in Turkey, and of the Turkish people. As for Cyprus, the majority of Parliament maintains the usual ambiguity, although it is not clear why, given that Turkey has not taken any step towards recognising Cyprus, an EU Member State, but is continuing its military occupation of the north of that island, installing Turkish citizens to change its demographic balance, and in breach of UN resolutions.\nBruno Gollnisch\nThe large groups have not had the courage, in committee, to defend their own political choices regarding Turkey's accession to the European Union. In order to avoid talking about full membership of the Union, in the case of the left, or of a privileged partnership, in the case of the so-called right, they have struck a deal. They have decided on the usual meaningless option of the 'open-ended' process - in other words, a process with an uncertain end. Who, though, wants to pursue negotiations that have no clearly defined aims? The people of Europe, who are overwhelmingly opposed to this accession, and whose governments, like this Parliament, refuse to listen to them, are being made fools of. Parliament, which, every year, deplores the fact that Turkey does not honour its commitments, that reforms there are slow, that the conditions of women and Christian minorities there are deteriorating, that it is in conflict with a Member State ...\nAnd which completely fails to learn from this! Turkey and its people are also being made fools of - with disastrous diplomatic consequences, as we saw recently with Mr Erdo\u011fan's visit to Germany and Mr Sarkozy's visit to Turkey. Neither does Nicolas Sarkozy have the courage of his alleged convictions: is he in favour of a partnership and not of accession? Then he should say so clearly and act accordingly.\nCatherine Gr\u00e8ze\nI am in favour of the negotiations and Turkey's accession to the European Union, but only on condition that human rights and democracy are respected. That is why I voted for the amendment, which proposed the recognition of the Armenian genocide, a crucial historical act and prerequisite for Turkey's accession to the Union.\nJuozas Imbrasas\nI voted in favour of this document because accession negotiations with Turkey were opened on 3 October 2005 after the Council had approved the Negotiating Framework, and because the opening of those negotiations was the starting point for a long-lasting and open-ended process. Turkey has committed itself to reforms, good neighbourly relations and progressive alignment with the EU, and these efforts should be viewed as an opportunity for Turkey itself to modernise. Full compliance with all the Copenhagen criteria, in accordance with the conclusions of the December 2006 European Council meeting, remains the basis for accession to the EU, which is a community based on shared values. I would single out the main aspects and priorities of this integration as building good neighbourly relations, advancing EU-Turkey cooperation, enhancing social cohesion and prosperity and fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria.\nAnneli J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki\nTurkey has aspired to membership of the EU since the 1960s, but now the membership talks have, in practice, come to a halt. Turkey needs to look in the mirror: it has not implemented the Ankara Protocol or recognised Cyprus. Furthermore, the country must introduce civil and human rights reforms before it can join the Union. These include freedom of religion and acknowledging the rights of women. These are the facts. The Union, however, should also take a look in the mirror. There is strong opposition to Turkey in the EU, based on prejudices and fear of difference. The big Member States, such as Germany and France, are afraid of Turkey, which is a large, influential country. The situation in North Africa has once again shown that Turkey is a skilful foreign policy actor. In fact, Turkey is more skilful than the EU or its individual Member States.\nSince the 1990s, Turkey has built good neighbourly relations and stability in its region - on its borders with Europe, the South Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East. The young people in North Africa who are so keen to see reform are looking to Turkey. Turkey is a strong economic actor. Unlike the European economy, Turkey's economy is dynamic and is growing, in spite of the economic crisis and recession that has hit Europe and the rest of the world. This cannot be ignored.\nSandra Kalniete\nToday, when with bated breath and hope, we observe the revolutions that have overwhelmed some of the Arab countries, my conviction that Turkey's membership of the European Union is a geopolitically strategic necessity simply becomes stronger. Turkey is a democratic Islamic state, which can serve as an inspiring example to other Arab countries that wish to establish a democratic system of government founded on the rule of law and respect for human rights, while preserving their religious values. It worries me that we are sending the wrong signal to the citizens of Turkey and reinforcing the influence of anti-European and Islamic fundamentalist forces. We must recognise that by so doing, we are also doing a service to those who do not wish to see the European Union as the most important player on the world stage. We must face up to the truth and admit that Europe cannot currently compete in terms of economic development with such countries as China, India and Brazil. Admitting Turkey to our Union would make us larger and economically more powerful.\nWe must also recognise Turkey's stabilising geopolitical significance. From the experience of Latvia, I know that adhesion negotiations are an important instrument for encouraging reform, which is why it is important for the EU to open negotiations on new chapters with Turkey. Turkey's wish to commence negotiations with the EU on the introduction of a visa-free regime is justified. Turkey's government has made significant strides, which is why I should like to emphasise that criticism in EU reports on Turkey's progress should be commensurate with an objective assessment of the country's achievements.\nRamona Nicole M\u0103nescu\nTurkey has achieved remarkable economic growth, enabling it to progress in 10 years from the 27th to the 16th biggest economy in the world. It is the European Union's 7th biggest trade partner and the EU is Turkey's main trade partner. Roughly 88% of direct foreign investments in Turkey come from EU states, which indicates how solid our ties are. On the political front, it is a model of stability and democracy for Muslim states. Negotiations with Turkey should be given a boost. For example, I think that opening Negotiation Chapter 15, which is on energy, is important, including for EU Member States. Turkey's strategic importance to the Union's energy security must not be ignored at a time when we want to diversify supply sources, with the Nabucco gas pipeline project being a significant example of this. Therefore, I think that Turkey must be considerably involved, even prior to accession, in EU energy projects or in regional cooperation in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea region.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I voted for this report, which commends Turkish citizens and civil society for supporting Turkey's further democratisation and for their commitment to an open and pluralistic society, but notes Turkey's slow progress with regard to reforms and recalls that the Turkish Government has committed itself to undertaking comprehensive reforms, both with a view to fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria and for the sake of Turkey's own modernisation, and calls on the government to increase its efforts in that respect.\nKyriakos Mavronikolas\nThere has been no change over the past year in Turkey's attitude towards either the European Union or Cyprus. Turkish colonisers and occupying troops are still on the island. It is important to note that the Turkish Cypriots in occupied Cyprus are demonstrating against Turkey, protesting about their financial hardship due to the presence of the Turkish occupying army. Referring in a statement to the Turkish Cypriot demonstrations, Turkish Prime Minister Erdo\u011fan accepted that Turkey invaded Cyprus in order to serve its strategic interests.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon\nThis resolution lectures Turkey on democracy. Such lectures are inappropriate. Barely two months ago, Parliament was welcoming the negotiations between the Commission and the dictator Colonel Gaddafi. And what about integration between the Union and Turkey?\nAs for its claim to draw a partner country's attention to the need for a separation of powers when this House demands no such thing within the Union, it is, in fact, unbearable. There is worse, however: this text threatens Turkey with the cessation of its EU accession negotiations if it fails to comply immediately with the Union's neoliberal dogma, and reminds it of the Copenhagen criteria. Anyone who has the general interest of the people at heart knows that this Europe needs to be changed before it is enlarged. I am opposed to any further accessions taking place until social dumping has been stopped, but I shall vote against this arrogant text.\nNuno Melo\nThe possible accession of Turkey to the EU continues to be cause for major reservations. Its continuing occupation of part of Cyprus, its refusal to open ports and airports in the region, the violation of rights of political, religious and ethnic minorities, discrimination against women, the exclusion of political parties and the revocation of laws limiting the jurisdiction of military courts are some examples that demonstrate this. There are other fundamental issues. Most of Turkey is not geographically part of Europe. Turkey has an Islamic identity that is very different from the Judaeo-Christian identity of most EU countries; the secularity of the country is only held in place by military force. The movement of people from what would become the country with the largest population in the EU would create great imbalances in the labour market. None of this precludes acknowledgement of the efforts made by Turkey over recent years to meet certain criteria required by the EU, and it recognises the invaluable role that this country plays within NATO. A relevant consideration would be whether it would be better to guarantee Turkey privileged and preferential partnership status with the EU, rather than creating false expectations and hopes for membership, something that it would be difficult for the facts and circumstances to accommodate.\nWilly Meyer\nI am in favour of Turkey's accession to the EU and welcome the progress the country has made to its citizens' benefit. However, at the same time, it should be mentioned that in order for Turkey to be able to accede as a Member State of the EU, it has to comply with the Copenhagen criteria and the obligations to the EU itself and to its Member States, like any other candidate country. It is necessary for Turkey to respect international law, and it must do much more in relation to the Kurdish problem, to acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide and to normalisation with its neighbouring countries. As such, Turkey must withdraw its occupying troops from the Republic of Cyprus.\nLouis Michel\nI believe that Turkey's eventual accession is of vital importance if the Union wishes to increase its political, strategic and economic influence at international level. Integrating that country into Europe will benefit Europeans at least as much as it benefits the Turks.\nWe should not forget that Turkey is a traditionally secular country; it is powerful and has a wealth of human resources. It is a gateway to the markets and the energy routes of Asia and the Middle East. It is also totally reliable within NATO. Certain efforts made by the Turkish authorities with regard to respect for human rights deserve to be mentioned. Thus, the adoption of amendments to the constitution is a step in the direction of the democratic standards necessary for accession.\nNevertheless, although the new radio and television laws are welcome advances, freedom of expression and, more specifically, freedom of the press, remain a cause for concern. Similarly, the resolution of the Cyprus issue is a prerequisite for any progress in the accession process.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - Turkey's accession to EU is not within the strategic interest of EU until Turkey admits to the genocide of Armenians and withdraws its troops from Cyprus. I voted against the resolutions as a whole and against many separate odious points.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\nThe progress report on the accession negotiations with Turkey was, once again, more than sobering. Given the circumstances, however, what else could be expected? Turkey is not a European country - geographically, culturally or historically - and it has a different approach to many issues for these reasons. All of this being the case, it always astounds me how this House manages to produce such politically correct and positive resolutions on this subject. The truth is never allowed to be stated and clear words are to be avoided if at all possible. It is really time to come clean with Turkey. It must be made clear to the Turks that they are our friends and partners in many areas but that accession to the EU is just not possible.\nRational forces in Turkey have long since recognised that accession to the European Union is not the most worthwhile goal for them. In light of its location and the manifold connections with the Turkic peoples of the Caucasus and with the Arabs, Turkey is assuming an important strategic position in the Middle East. The EU should take account of this and recognise Turkey as an important strategic partner beyond its borders.\nClaudio Morganti\nI wonder how it is possible that this report does not mention a number of fundamental issues regarding Turkey, above all, the disastrous situation in Cyprus. In the northern, Turkish-controlled part of the island, systematic violations of basic rights are a common occurrence and Turkey is trying to bring in more settlements, which definitely will not help the peace process that we are hoping for.\nAnother fundamental issue that astonishes me and that has not been adequately stressed is Turkey's obstinate refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide that took place last century. For these and other reasons, I voted against the report, just as I remain strongly and staunchly against Turkey's possible future accession to the European Union.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\nThe European Union needs Turkey and Turkey needs the EU. It is important not simply in terms of trade and economic ties and investments. Almost 100 years ago, Turkey turned to face Europe and it can and must become a bridge linking our continent with the Muslim world. Unfortunately, it has to be acknowledged that negotiations on Turkey's accession to the EU have slowed. The EU is waiting for progress, particularly as regards protecting human rights, gender equality and safeguarding freedom of expression, freedom of the press and religious freedoms. Normalisation of relations with Cyprus is another important issue. This conflict must be resolved in a manner that is favourable for both Turkey and Cyprus. It is important to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict.\nEvents in North Africa demonstrate the important contribution Turkey has to make, spreading stability and democratic values. The people of Libya, Egypt and other Arab nations view Turkey and the EU as an example that they need to follow. I voted in favour of the report, because it is well balanced. It reflects well the state of Turkey's EU integration in 2010. I have always agreed with Turkish membership. However, this country would have to implement the Ankara Protocol and do more, particularly as regards minorities, women, press freedoms and the rule of law.\nAlfredo Pallone\nI voted in favour of Parliament's resolution on Turkey's 2010 progress report. The Commission's annual report shows that the modernisation of Turkey towards a democratic and pluralist system is a slow and painful process but that the Turkish Government, citizens and civil society are working towards it. The domestic political squabbling over reforms does not ease the way to reaching European standards, but does, however, show a commitment to change and modernisation. Recent events in the Mediterranean show how important it is to assess the reforms and the situation step-by-step, avoiding taking simplistic stances on the issue.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou\nI voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the 2010 progress report on Turkey. Apart from anything else, it contains an important call on the Turkish Government to apply the bilateral readmission agreements entered into, pending the application of the readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey. This call is even more valuable in light of recent events in North Africa, which put Greece at the centre of the wave of immigration. This is a time when, wherever we are and wherever we stand, we need to highlight the immigration dangers that we may have to face; we cannot simply stand by and watch something that is already happening. As a candidate country, Turkey should cooperate with the EU so that, together with Greece and the other Member States, we can stem the flood of immigrants trying to enter the EU illegally.\nRovana Plumb\nThe motion for a resolution on Turkey draws attention to the situation on human rights. The constant stalemate between Turkey and Cyprus, the precarious dialogue between the political parties, the undermining of press freedom, women's rights and other fundamental rights are some of the factors which have resulted in slowing down the pace of the accession negotiations, according to the draft report. The negotiations are regarded as 'a long-lasting and open-ended process'. I think that Turkey's accession to the European Union must be seen as a strategic benefit for both parties: the EU and Turkey. This is why I call on the Turkish Government to step up the reform process in order to fulfil the accession criteria completely.\nPaulo Rangel\nThe process of bringing Turkey closer to the objectives of the European Union has been, and will be, a long one. I have therefore always advocated the deepening of relations between the EU and Turkey through the gradual implementation of partnerships in various areas. I think that creating a long-term expectation of integration is not positive either for the EU or for Turkey.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - Notwithstanding the progress mentioned during the debate, and the 'opening', problems remain in relation to women, minorities, freedom of opinion and the press, social imbalances, poverty, rights of the child, education, an independent judiciary and army intervention in politics.\nThe EU Commission notes that despite legislative advances, 'however, senior members of the armed forces have made a number of statements going beyond their remit, in particular, on judicial issues'. It reached the following conclusion regarding the judiciary: 'Investigations in some high-profile cases continued to raise concerns. This points to the need to improve the work of the police and the gendarmerie but, also, the working relationship between the police and the gendarmerie, on the one hand, and the judiciary, on the other'.\nLicia Ronzulli\nThere are still many unresolved questions over Turkey's progress in the EU accession negotiations.\nFirst of all, the ongoing issue with Cyprus needs to be concluded between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities, during which the withdrawal of Turkish troops will also be negotiated. These negotiations are currently going through a particularly delicate phase. In addition, major doubts must once again be raised over the cultural background of the country itself, which is closely tied to Islamic traditions - a long way from Europe's Catholic Christian roots.\nOreste Rossi\nAlthough the report offers strong criticisms of the positions held by Turkey, the clear intention to have it join the European Union remains. We cannot support this for many reasons that show that this country has nothing in common with the rest of Europe: geographic position, religious belief, the militaristic decision to continue to occupy part of the European Union in northern Cyprus, the decline of the freedom of the press, limits on the freedom of expression, religious discrimination and the violation of women's rights take Turkey ever further away from Europe.\nTo this day, religions other than Islam cannot open and operate places of worship, proselytise, form a clergy or have a legal personality. The Turkish Government does not wish to comply with the important European Union Treaties and protocols and it does not cooperate sufficiently in terms of controls on illegal immigration. For these reasons, I voted against the report.\nBart Staes\nI have always supported Turkey's accession to the European Union, subject to adherence to the Copenhagen criteria and Turkey adopting the acquis communautaire in the proper manner. Today, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the progress report on Turkey. The resolution gives expression to a clear and balanced political message on the eve of the parliamentary elections. Turkey has delivered major efforts on the road to its membership, including the partial revision of its constitution, civilian control of the military and the partial reform of the judiciary. Further steps are necessary, however. The pace certainly needs to be stepped up, too. The European Parliament points out that better guaranteeing of human rights, including those of women and minorities, is crucial, as is an independent judiciary. In addition, emphasis must also be placed on guaranteeing the freedom of expression and, in particular, the freedom of the press, as this was recently put under pressure again as a result of the arrest of journalists. It is necessary, however, that Turkey be encouraged to fulfil the exemplary role that it can play in the democratisation process for the Arab world. I therefore find it regrettable that there are still crucial chapters in the accession negotiations that are being blocked by various Member States.\nCatherine Stihler\nin writing. - I supported this report which recognises the constitutional changes which have taken place in Turkey but also addresses areas which remain problematic, such as their failure to implement the Ankara Protocol. By encouraging Turkey to continue carrying out reforms, the European Parliament hopes to see improvements in human rights and equality laws which will benefit Turkish citizens.\nThomas Ulmer\nThe progress report on Turkey very clearly shows up the weaknesses in the process in place hitherto. Turkey clearly lags behind expectations. There must also be no accession discounts, as the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance have been calling for. In this context, also, Mr Erdo\u011fan's appearances in Germany, where he called on the Turks in Germany to un-integrate, must be viewed in a critical light. Such speeches are not helpful for good cooperation and represent a snub to the efforts of both Germany and the Union. Furthermore, there is still much to be desired in relation to the freedom of the press and the resolution of the Cyprus issue.\nGeoffrey Van Orden\nin writing. - I have been consistently supportive of Turkey's accession process while fully aware of serious concerns that have to be addressed. The Progress Report 2010 is a reasonably balanced document and I have voted in favour of it in spite of a number of reservations - not least over the Cyprus issue, where I much regret that the amendments calling for fulfilment of the EU Council's promise to end the isolation of Northern Cyprus were voted down. Turkey has a pivotal role to play as a gateway between West and East and we should be sending positive and welcoming signals.\nAngelika Werthmann\nI voted in favour of the 2010 progress report on Turkey, which turned out to be clearly negative. According to the report, over the past 5 years, Turkey has made hardly any progress worth mentioning in its process of reform or in meeting the EU's accession criteria. There are still considerable failings in the fields of human rights, freedom of the press and of opinion, and women's rights. As a member of the High-Level Contact Group for Relations with the Turkish Cypriot Community in the Northern Part of the Island of Cyprus, I am well aware that the same applies to the unresolved problem of Cyprus.\nJoachim Zeller\nI voted in favour of this report, but I did so only because it very specifically makes clear that there is no progress in the accession negotiations with Turkey. On the contrary, indeed, essentially what we have is a standstill or even steps backwards in relation to the observance of civil and human rights, freedom of religion, of assembly and of the press, and on the Cyprus issue. In fact, Turkey's new foreign policy direction, for example, as relates to Iran and Syria, gives rise to doubts about whether Turkey's Prime Minister Erdo\u011fan is really serious when he talks about moving closer to Europe. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the billions of euro of pre-accession aid paid to Turkey are being spent. There is only one conclusion from all of this, and that is that the accession negotiations must be halted. Turkey remains one of the EU's most important partners. The idea of its full membership, however, is becoming increasingly illusory.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nI am in favour of this resolution as I am convinced that Montenegro should become an example of success for the EU in the Balkans, as it meets all the conditions established by the Commission to begin the accession process. However, I am concerned about the prevailing corruption, particularly in construction, privatisation and public procurement sectors, and, more seriously, discrimination against minorities and the most vulnerable groups. The independence of the media should also be a concern.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nI voted in favour of this resolution on the European integration process of Montenegro. The European Parliament approves of the reforms being made by Montenegro and welcomes the progress made in the European integration process. On 17 December 2010, the European Council took the decision to grant Montenegro the status of candidate country for accession to the European Union. I share the regret expressed in the resolution over the decoupling of candidate status from the right to open negotiations. It is important that the decision to start these negotiations should not be unduly or unreasonably postponed. I expect the negotiations to start at the latest after the publication of the 2011 Commission Progress Report, provided Montenegro makes good progress in fulfilling the benchmarks set by the Commission.\nSophie Auconie\nThe European Union strongly supports the progress made in the enlargement process but notes that major challenges remain in most of the countries concerned. This resolution concerns the case of Montenegro. I supported it as I believe it is balanced: it emphasises the fact that Montenegro has made real progress, not only in economic terms, but also in terms of the fight against corruption. While Montenegro must, of course, continue its efforts, I feel it is only right for it to be granted the official status of candidate country for accession to the European Union.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nI voted in favour of this resolution. The European Council reaffirmed that the future of the Western Balkans lies with the European Union and that the growth and stability of this region is particularly important. Judging by the progress made by Montenegro in various areas, it is clear that the country is taking preparations for European integration seriously. The government and opposition parties in Montenegro have reached a general consensus as regards European integration and have made it a high priority. The report also shows that Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) assistance works well in Montenegro and that there has been significant judicial and administrative reform. Montenegro is successfully engaging in regional cooperation, is a constructive regional partner, and is playing a stabilising role in the Western Balkans region.\nMara Bizzotto\nThe report sets out the reasons why Europe should not want Montenegro to join the European Union. Rampant corruption, ongoing serious social discrimination against women and several ethnic minorities, media pluralism standards that fall far short of European levels and the entrenched presence of organised crime in the economic and political life of the country.\nFurthermore, I cannot even support the Council's basic position regarding the accession of Balkan countries to the EU. It is a political and strategic absurdity to think of Europe as the inevitable destiny of the countries of the former Yugoslavia. It seems that recent experience does not count at the top levels of our institutions. Trying at all costs to speed up enlargement, including economically weak and politically unstable countries, certainly has not helped the consolidation of the European project. Indeed, it has weakened its structure, slowed down decision-making processes and complicated the development of shared policies in crucial areas for the life of our continent.\nI therefore voted against this report which, although it emphasises the multiple problems underlying the process of Montenegro's accession, retains the basic idea of giving this country the opportunity of joining the EU.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho\nI welcome the concern and commitment shown by the government and opposition parties of Montenegro in relation to European integration. The results of this process are the institution of the country's legal and constitutional framework, which has almost been finalised, along with the economic reforms that have been undertaken. However, there are a number of aspects to improve, including corruption, organised crime, discrimination and the freedom of the press. I would like to call upon this state to continue along this route, which I hope will soon end in processes of negotiation being opened.\nDiogo Feio\nMontenegro has shown that it wants to continue with its European choice. I welcome the determination of its leaders and the changes which have been taking place in the country to bring it up to European standards, particularly with regard to democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law.\nDespite the progress which has been seen, it is still clear that the country still has some way to go before being fit to join the European Union. I hope that the determination of Montenegro will continue to be felt and that, rather than nominally or formally converging with the EU, Montenegro will improve living conditions for its people and improve the functioning of its institutions so that it can become a prosperous state.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nThe European institutions have recognised the strategic interest of EU enlargement to the Balkans on a number of occasions. The accession of new states depends on various factors. The first of these is the interest expressed by the state, followed by a pledge to comply with a set of fundamental rights for citizens. As the Republic of Montenegro has expressed its interest in acceding to the EU, the Council decided to confer candidate country status on this state on 17 December 2010. In fact, as stated in this report, Montenegro has been making a number of reforms, particularly the creation of a new legal and constitutional framework, and in the fight against corruption. Nevertheless, there are areas in which more progress is needed, such as the freedom of the press and respect for the work of non-governmental organisations. I am voting for this Parliament resolution on the process of integration for the Republic of Montenegro, which recommends that the process of integration be speeded up. I would like to call upon the Montenegrin authorities to continue to make an effort to fulfil the established objectives, as this country is an important neighbour for the EU, and one with which we would like to collaborate.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\nIn the case of Montenegro, it is becoming clear that the direction and meaning of the processes of EU enlargement are intended to satisfy the designs of the major EU powers and their interests, which serve their large corporations: namely, the extension of markets, access to and control of geostrategic locations, and manual labour that can be exploited and used to further devalue the workforce in the EU countries as a whole. As the peripheral regions created as a result of successive processes of enlargement are exhausted, it is necessary to create others. Many promises are being made today to the people of Montenegro, as they have been to others in the past and present. However, the price is high, and it has only partially been divulged. In this particular case, it is important not to forget that the process of breaking up Yugoslavia was carried out by NATO and the EU powers, which are today seeking to attract Montenegro into an accession to the EU that is the successor to that process.\nIlda Figueiredo\nWe are facing yet another episode in the process of the total disintegration of Yugoslavia, and what remains of it. This time, it is Montenegro's turn. The major powers of NATO and the EU, having imposed strangulatory economic and financial measures on Yugoslavia, with the support of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, supported ethnic divisions which ended in war and the hasty creation of new 'sovereign states'.\nThe future integration of Montenegro into the EU is the successor of that process and the attack on the achievements of socialism, with a view to satisfying the interests of economic and financial interest groups by exploiting the workforce, through the market, and through the geostrategic locations and natural resources of these countries.\nNow the promises are huge. The EU beckons with millions of euro in so-called 'aid' and development. However, how much will this cost and when will it arrive, if indeed it does?\nOur experience is that 25 years of Portugal's capitalist integration in the EU demonstrate that the promised progress is never achieved. What is achieved is the destruction of manufacturing and employment, the exploitation of workers, the destruction of public services, debt and foreign dependence. This is why we have out doubts about this process.\nLorenzo Fontana\nThe enlargement process of the European Union continues on exclusively geographical premises and, as I have already stated in this House, the Council is being hasty in granting the status of candidate country for accession before the countries in question reach democratic quality standards that at least approach a basically adequate level. Corruption, smuggling, organised crime and violations of the freedom of the press are just some of the factors that lead me to think that Montenegro is still a long way from Europe. These reasons really seem sufficient to not support this resolution, which traces the guidelines for the European future of the Balkans irrespective of the area's tangible problems.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Havel\nThe decision to grant candidate status to Montenegro was primarily political. Montenegro would probably have had to wait longer for it, if not for the fact that this issue was being considered at the same time in relation to Albania. However, the comparison works to the advantage of Montenegro, of course. Nevertheless, many of the reservations applying to Montenegro 'carry over' from one annual report to the next, and we see from the Commission statement that politicisation of the state bureaucracy, independence of the judiciary, organised crime and the environment are now 'regular features'. There is no fundamental progress in sight regarding the fight against all-pervasive corruption. We must not underestimate this. In the given circumstances, it is therefore a good solution to grant Montenegro candidate status without setting a deadline for the start of accession talks. The EU has already adopted a similar approach towards the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2005. The difference is that overcoming the barrier which confronts the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia requires the agreement of two states. Montenegro's fate, meanwhile, is entirely in its own hands. I presume that all of this was made very clear in the recent talks between Herman van Rompuy, Jos\u00e9 Manuel Barroso and Jerzy Buzek and the new leader of Montenegro, Igor Luk\u0161i\u0107, the world's youngest premier. Nobody likes to be led by the nose for too long. This also applies to a country which, despite the fact that it is not in the EU, has been using the euro as its national currency for many years now.\nJuozas Imbrasas\nI voted in favour of this document because a general consensus and high priority has been given to European integration by the government and opposition parties in Montenegro, which has resulted in good progress in the reform process since the independence of the country. I welcome the fact that Montenegro was granted the status of candidate country for accession to the European Union and Montenegrin citizens have been granted the possibility to travel without visas (full visa liberalisation) to the EU Schengen area. I welcome the fact that the process of establishing the legal and constitutional framework of the country has almost been finalised and there has been good progress in adopting important legislation in the field of fighting corruption, as well as progress in reform of the judiciary. However, there is still a need to continue to reform public administration, strengthen human resources at the local level of administration and combat organised crime, particularly money laundering and smuggling. The media sector must be able to operate without political interference and it is necessary to guarantee the independence of regulatory bodies.\nGiovanni La Via\nI voted in favour of the resolution, which promotes the integration of Montenegro into the European system, because we have all witnessed that this country has made notable progress towards adopting proper processes and instruments.\nThese are necessary steps not only for joining the EU but also to give a judicial, civil and social structure to a country that must develop in compliance with the regulations and in view of shared growth at the various levels of administration.\nMontenegro has already launched important reforms that are therefore heading in the right direction, which also involves creating an administrative structure capable of making effective future use of Structural Funds, which will benefit this country greatly.\nAhead of the start of the much anticipated negotiations, many fellow Members and I hope to create a suitable environment for the citizens of Montenegro, free from corruption and bursting with initiatives for democratic growth.\nMonica Luisa Macovei\nin writing. - I voted in favour of the resolution in order to acknowledge Montenegro's progress towards European integration and highlight the remaining goals to be achieved for the benefit of its people. When the resolution was in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I contributed amendments concerning the efficiency and predictability of the justice system. The publication of all judgments and the unification of jurisprudence should be priorities in order to ensure public trust and a predictable judicial system. Increased funding for courts to work fast and efficiently and consistent measures for training judges are also necessary. The efficiency of the EU funds spent in the area of justice reform and the combating of corruption must be assessed. The consistency of the rule of law throughout a nation is vital to its ability to progress politically and democratically.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I voted for this report, which welcomes the general consensus and high priority given to European integration by the government and opposition parties in Montenegro, which has resulted in good progress in the reform process since the independence of the country, and which welcomes the new political leadership in Podgorica and encourages the new government to continue Montenegro's European integration process and speed up the reforms leading to fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria. It also welcomes the European Council decision of 17 December 2010 to grant Montenegro the status of candidate country for accession to the European Union, but regrets, however, the decoupling of candidate status from the right to open negotiations, stressing that the decision to start them should not be unduly or unreasonably postponed, and expects the negotiations to start at the latest after the publication of the 2011 Commission Progress Report, provided Montenegro makes good progress in fulfilling the benchmarks set by the Commission.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon\nThis resolution supports the obligation for the people of Montenegro to submit to the Copenhagen criteria and accelerated privatisations. The Union has been reduced to an aggressive and pretentious liberal doctrine. I want no part of it. I shall vote against.\nNuno Melo\nAs a candidate for future accession to the EU, Montenegro has demonstrated its willingness to pursue its choice of Europe through the determination of its leaders and the changes which have been taking place in the country in order to bring it closer to European requirements, particularly with regard to democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law. However, despite the progress that has been made, this is not yet enough, and Montenegro has to continue to make efforts before it is fit to join the European Union. I hope that this determination will continue to bear fruit and that joining the EU will become a reality, so that Montenegro can give its people better living conditions and improve the functioning of its authorities in order to become an increasingly better state.\nWilly Meyer\nI am in favour of starting discussions on the accession of Montenegro to the EU, inasmuch as I am in favour of expansion on principle. Nevertheless, I have been unable to vote for this resolution as the Commission is demanding a series of reforms from Montenegro that are in line with the EU's neoliberal policies, such as the privatisation of the public sector and the adaptation of the education system to the Bologna Process. For all the above reasons, I did not vote for the report, but rather abstained.\nLouis Michel\nEver since it gained independence in 2006, Montenegro has clearly demonstrated its desire to join the European Union: the euro was officially adopted in 2006, and a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) has been in force since 1 May 2010. Montenegro's accession to the Union will bring greater political, economic and social stability to the country and will increase the stability of the Balkan region. Indeed, I welcome Montenegro's efforts to become a constructive partner in the field of regional cooperation, notably as a result of the various regional agreements it has concluded with its neighbours in the areas of readmission and extradition and in judicial and police matters. The consolidation of peace and stability benefits not only the region but also Europe as a whole.\nI therefore call for accession negotiations to begin as soon as possible, particularly since the European Council granted Montenegro the status of candidate country at the end of December 2010. Montenegro's efforts to meet the accession criteria are going well, even though substantial progress still needs to be made, in particular, regarding corruption and organised crime, freedom of information and gender equality.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - Although the Committee on Foreign Affairs welcomes the European Council's decision to grant Montenegro candidate status, serious problems remain as regards corruption, especially where the building industry, privatisation and the state procurement sector are concerned. There are still problems as regards minorities and unprotected groups as well. It would be correct to supervise the implementation of Parliament's recommendations to Montenegro, and if these recommendations are implemented, I believe that the accession of a country like Montenegro can only be a benefit to the EU.\nFranz Obermayr\nThere is constantly a tension that is not always easily reconcilable between respect for human rights and other national interests (perhaps of a military or economic nature). Even the United States and the European Union step over this fine line from time to time, as can be seen from the infringement of civil liberties and data protection in the context of the fight against terrorism. The EU must therefore stand up more strongly and consistently for human rights within and outside the Union. Outside the Union, I have in mind especially the protection of Christian minorities in Islamic countries and in Asia. I therefore voted for this motion for a resolution.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak\nToday, the European Parliament adopted the resolution on the European integration process of Montenegro. Enlargement of the EU to include the Western Balkans was confirmed as long ago as 2003 in Athens, which is why Parliament has expressed the hope that accession negotiations will begin before the end of this year. In the resolution, attention is drawn to the significant improvement in the political and social situation in Montenegro, and also to Montenegro's positive approach to European integration.\nUnfortunately, Montenegro has still not overcome the problem of corruption and organised crime. In my opinion, a very important and so far also unresolved problem is the question of discrimination against ethnic groups and also against women, who are under-represented in decision-making processes and in public administration. Another positive feature is the country's fight against censorship and its attempts to guarantee freedom of expression. However, attacks on journalists and activists are still being reported.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\nEU integration is the main driving force behind Montenegro's progress. This country has achieved a lot in the last 12 months, successfully implementing structural and economic reforms, and effectively combating corruption and organised crime. Ethnic minorities live together peacefully in Montenegro and the country successfully promotes good neighbourhood relations. The EU and Montenegro therefore signed a Stabilisation and Association Agreement. I voted in favour of this resolution, because it rightly indicates further steps to reform Montenegro. It is necessary to make progress in the establishment of the rule of law, to continue to implement administrative reforms, improve the capacities of civil servants, amend electoral law, and strengthen civil society and the independent media. It is important for the country to maintain the momentum and to continue the work it has begun.\nAlfredo Pallone\nMontenegro became one of the official candidate countries for accession to the European Union last December 2010, but no date has yet been established for the start of proper negotiations. I support the spirit of the resolution where it compliments the government of Montenegro in light of the priority being given to reforms linked to the integration process and, despite the problems still to be resolved, it expresses hope for official negotiations to begin within the year. In terms of bringing the Balkans closer to the European Union, Montenegro is the country that offers the best socio-political situation. This is why I voted in favour of the resolution, since I think that the accession to the EU of Montenegro and the other Balkan countries is of fundamental strategic importance for Europe in terms of the stability of the region itself, for its own development, and for the resources that it offers.\nPaulo Rangel\nI acknowledge the effort that has been made by Montenegro, particularly with regard to legal reforms, the struggle against corruption and the fight against different types of discrimination, but I would like to stress that this work needs to be continued and intensified. However, there is still a wide range of matters that require particular attention. I am referring to economic issues in particular, and the need to apply new structural changes, despite the success of the economic reforms, which has been exposed by the financial crisis. I would like to add one final remark on an issue that I hold dear: the need for improvement in the quality of legislation drafted in Parliament.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - In general, this report is good and well balanced. The report addresses all relevant policy fields. Montenegro, which became a candidate country in December 2010, is still waiting for negotiations to start. The report criticises this fact in paragraph 2: 'regrets the decoupling of candidate status from the right to open negotiations and stresses that the decision to start them should not be unduly or unreasonably postponed'. The rapporteur expects negotiations to start after the 2011 progress report. Some interesting points are on IPA (paragraph 5), corruption (paragraph 8), freedom of information (paragraph 10), organised crime (paragraph 14) and anti-discrimination (paragraphs 17-22). Many paragraphs are devoted to the issue of anti-discrimination and touch on all relevant aspects such as Roma, Ashkali, Egyptians (paragraphs 17 and 22), LGBT (paragraph 17), women and domestic violence (paragraphs 17-19), ethnic issues (paragraph 21) and civil society (paragraphs 5, 10, 23, 24 and 32). In general, the report is very positive on the role of CSO and devotes many paragraphs to the issue. The most important are paragraphs 23, 24 and 32.\nIn these paragraphs, the report 'reiterates the importance of active and independent civil society organisations for democracy' and 'encourages the Montenegrin Government to have close collaboration and regular dialogue with NGOs'.\nLicia Ronzulli\nEver since Montenegro officially became a candidate country for accession to the European Union on 17 December 2010, the country's government has immediately given priority to reforms that can accelerate the European integration process.\nThere are still some problems to resolve, such as electoral reform, and reform of the public administration and the legal system, but the report makes it clear that Montenegro is making progress. Italy fully supports the European aspirations of this country, since it believes that the accession of Montenegro and the Western Balkans meets a basic interest of the EU in that it promotes stability, regional cooperation and development in a crucial geographical area for our continent.\nCatherine Stihler\nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution which would see Montenegro achieve candidate status for the European Union. It also highlights the issues of equality and corruption which need to be tackled within Montenegro and calls for measures to be taken to tackle these problems.\nAngelika Werthmann\nI voted for the motion for a resolution, because the report states quite clearly that since gaining its independence in 2006, Montenegro has made significant progress in internal reforms. However, we must not be blind to the fact that there are, as always, serious problems with corruption and organised crime, freedom of expression and discrimination. Nevertheless, at the same time, the report explains that the government of Montenegro is prepared to tackle these problem areas effectively, and has introduced a package of suitable and appropriate measures.\nIva Zanicchi\nI voted in favour because I think the process of European integration in Montenegro can meet a fundamental strategic interest of the European Union, namely, promoting and seeking to guarantee stability and development in a crucial geographic area for our continent. At the same time, this accession may strengthen the fight against organised crime originating from the Balkan area. It also needs to be highlighted that during the process of bringing the Balkan countries closer to the Union, Montenegro has long expressed strong domestic consensus on the European outlook and shown a mature and conciliatory attitude to neighbouring States.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nI voted for this report because the values of European integration require that the EU be free of prejudice and discrimination in order for human rights to be respected. This discrimination is exacerbated by the current economic crisis, and the integration of the Roma population should be seen as the joint responsibility of the European institutions, the Member States and the regions, making use of all the resources available to the EU to address this situation.\nThe Commission should play a leading role in this process, paying particular attention to requests for technical assistance and, above all, presenting a strategy that includes the defence of human rights, the right to education and training, culture, employment, sports, adequate housing, healthcare and better sanitation for the Roma population as priority areas. Moreover, efforts should be made to increase political and civic participation by the Roma, starting with the youngest.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nI voted in favour of this resolution on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion. Roma are Europe's largest ethnic minority, but they are also very isolated and, therefore, almost completely disconnected from national economies. I agree with the rapporteur's opinion that the inclusion of Roma is a necessary investment, because it is cheaper to integrate Roma than to sustain their substandard socio-economic conditions. Another important dimension that I would like to underline is the fact that the overall inclusion of Roma is essentially an issue of human rights. A significant proportion of European Roma face such substandard conditions - almost totally disconnected from the economy, resulting in their exclusion from basic human rights - that fostering social inclusion cannot be viewed within the framework of general policy rectifications, but must be handled as bridging one of the largest gaps in the fulfilment of constitutional and human rights in Europe. By approving this strategy, the European Parliament has taken the first step towards promoting the social and economic inclusion of Roma, and now the Council and the Commission must take the necessary action to ensure that this strategy is successfully implemented.\nSophie Auconie\nApproximately 10-12 million Roma reside in the European Union. Many suffer discrimination and social exclusion. They are, for the most part, European citizens, and the EU must establish a strategy for integrating them. That is why I voted in favour of this text. It provides for an action plan based on the fundamental values of equality, access to rights, non-discrimination and gender equality, drawing on the Structural Funds already available.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nThe Roma situation in the EU is rather complicated. A large proportion of Europe's 10-12 million Roma have suffered systematic discrimination and are therefore struggling against an intolerable degree of social, cultural and economic exclusion as well as human rights violations. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the Roma community live in regions which are among the least economically and socially advanced in the Union, and therefore Roma children often do not have access to education and training systems, which later leads to them being discriminated against in the labour market and prevented from integrating into society. The EU has developed a range of useful tools, mechanisms and funds to foster the inclusion of Roma, but these are scattered across policy areas and, therefore, their effect and benefit remain limited. I agree that the Member States must improve the implementation of the EU strategy on Roma inclusion and ensure the full transposition and application of all related directives and EU law, thereby preventing Roma segregation and discrimination.\nRegina Bastos\nThe European Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, race, colour or ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, political or other opinions, membership of a national minority, wealth, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation, as well as on grounds of nationality. There are approximately 10-12 million Roma in Europe, most of them European citizens, who suffer from systematic discrimination and who are victims of intolerance. The integration of the Roma population is the responsibility of all the Member States and European institutions.\nThis report urges the Member States to cooperate with the European Union and the representatives of the Roma community to develop integrated policies, using the resources available within the European Union, under existing Structural Funds, to support the integration of the Roma community, as it is less costly to integrate the Roma than to sustain their insecure socio-economic conditions. The harmonious integration of Roma communities involves the participation of everyone: the Roma themselves, and their host community. For this reason, I supported this report.\nJean-Luc Bennahmias\nThe adoption by a very large majority of Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka's report is an additional political signal confirming that the European Union is aware of its responsibility towards this ethnic minority, which is the largest one in Europe, as well as the most persecuted one. The report highlights priority areas that must feature in the strategy, such as the fight to have the Roma people's fundamental rights respected. The strategy must focus on education, but it must also prevent extreme marginalisation and avoid the reproduction of inequalities. Finally, the strategy must establish innovative ways of providing genuine access to the labour market and to affordable, healthy housing.\nThe current challenge, as mentioned in the report, is to ensure that EU funds are fully absorbed and are used in a way that will benefit the Roma people. Indeed, the instruments are there but they are utilised particularly badly.\nRoma inclusion is a matter for Europe. It is now up to the European Commission to draft final proposals on the basis of our vote today. While respecting the principle of subsidiarity, the Union must fully perform its role as a driving force and unite the actors involved at all levels so as to increase the beneficial effect of EU funds and make the Roma fully fledged European citizens at last.\nMara Bizzotto\nBasically, the report on Roma inclusion does not bear in mind the difficulties faced in the social integration of Roma if one considers the fact that often, it is the Roma community itself that does not want to integrate in the social fabric of our countries.\nThis is a cultural factor that cannot be denied or ignored: Roma have their own traditions and customary ways of life which makes it difficult to integrate them in social environments characterised by processes, lifestyles and habits very different from their own. It therefore remains a fact that any Roma integration policy will have to deal with this obstacle: their actual desire or willingness to integrate.\nQuite aside from sociological considerations, I must recall that given these and other difficulties, the policies proposed in the reports on Roma communities will require an enormous disbursement of funds by the EU and the Member States, without achieving the desired result in the end. Without mincing words, that is what has happened so far and there are no reasons to believe that the situation will change from here on in. I have therefore voted against the report.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt\nI voted in favour of this report, because Roma living in Europe need the support of the European Union (EU). The EU strategy on Roma inclusion proposes setting compulsory minimum standards of education, employment, housing and healthcare. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of European Roma face such substandard conditions, being almost totally disconnected from the economy, resulting in their exclusion from basic human rights. Therefore, the strategy proposed by the European Parliament gives priority to Roma employment and improving education, housing and social security. It is important to ensure the abolition of the segregation of Roma children in schools and classrooms. It is also very important to encourage Roma to become involved in all areas of public and political life and to participate in the work of non-governmental organisations. In order to implement the strategy on Roma inclusion, it is indispensable that the strategy must, above all, be an internal EU strategy, and the general oversight of priority areas and objectives must be within the Community structures, with an annual report on the progress of the strategy and the evaluation of results.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu\nThe 10-12 million Roma should enjoy minimum standards at EU level so that they can have access to jobs and education. The European Parliament resolution, which endeavours to influence the future strategy on the inclusion of the Roma, offers better protection for fundamental rights, as well as increased EU funding. Romania understands perfectly well the difficulties, but also the indolence of this minority. The European Union ought to be aware that there is a very high level of resistance to change within this ethnic group, including social inclusion. The Roma have been victims of discrimination down the centuries but, at the same time, of self-exclusion as well. This assessment is very fair, but it needs to be realised that, very often, the solutions which we come up with are inadequate or not understood by the Roma.\nThe future EU strategy on the Roma minority must obviously emphasise compliance with, and the promotion of, the fundamental rights to work, housing, health and, in particular, to education, even in spite of resistance from parents. However, no one must expect change to occur quickly. Several generation changes will probably be required for this minority to assume certain rules of social coexistence.\nJan B\u0159ezina\nA basic precondition for drawing up any kind of sensible strategy on Roma inclusion is to collect and provide data on the socio-economic situation of the Roma (chiefly education, health, housing and employment). Both Member States and international organisations (the International Organisation for Migration and the OECD) should therefore focus on these issues in greater detail, and help to set concrete objectives relating to, for example, the percentage of the Roma community completing secondary and tertiary education or employed in the civil service or represented in various areas of social and political life. It is then up to the Commission to set out a clear and manageable EU strategy for Roma inclusion on the basis of this data. We might consider establishing performance bonuses for the EU strategy on the Roma minority, within the framework of the cohesion policy. In any case, there is a need to draw up more effective methods for monitoring the spending of EU resources specifically designated for marginal groups of citizens.\nIn the interests of Roma inclusion, it is also perhaps necessary to make use of the funding options provided by the PROGRESS programme, the lifelong learning programme, the cultural programme (2007-2013) and the public health programme (2008-2013). In this context, the Commission should provide the European Parliament with a list of projects benefiting the Roma which it has funded since 2000, and set out the results achieved by these projects.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho\nI am pleased with the commitment that the EU has demonstrated in establishing binding standards that guarantee the Roma community access to education, employment, housing and healthcare. This initiative addresses not only the human values inherent in the social inclusion of ethnic minorities, but also the economic progress stimulated by the fall in unemployment. I agree with the measures proposed under this integration strategy, in particular, the fight against undeclared work and the increase in Roma teachers. It is important that the community itself be included in the integration process, so as to ensure sustainable development from the inside out, encouraging a desire for a positive role in society, instead of imposing it. This process should also focus on all forms of the violation of fundamental rights, with particular attention to social exclusion and discrimination in public life.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex\nThe issue of Roma inclusion is a major challenge that the European Union must take up. This report is along the right lines, as it shows the European Parliament's will to fully contribute to this end.\nNessa Childers\nin writing. - I voted for this report as Europe's 10-12 million Roma should benefit from binding minimum standards at EU level to improve their access to employment, education, housing and healthcare. The resolution, which seeks to influence the Commission's upcoming strategy for Roma inclusion, also calls for better protection of fundamental rights and use of EU funding. I hope EU governments now respond to this strong message from Parliament.\nCarlos Coelho\nI support the rapporteur, Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka, when she advocates a coordinated EU policy, complementing existing legislation, to promote the integration of European citizens belonging to the Roma ethnic group - estimated by the Council as numbering between 10 and 16 million - that provides for the adoption of anti-racist and anti-discriminatory measures. The implementation and correct application of this policy should also be ensured. Measures should also be adopted, however, to respond to the specific needs of the Roma and to promote their socio-economic inclusion, such as the right to work, housing, education, healthcare and others.\nIn addition to the humanitarian aspect of Roma integration, this should also enable an increase in the workforce to support the social security system, and reduce the social and healthcare benefits guaranteed by the state to those living in poverty, not to mention the possibility that crime rates may be reduced. Integration should take into account the protection of children and should respect the law. A common European solution is needed to a common European problem, taking an integrated and cross-sectoral approach that enables aid for and specific intervention in the most underdeveloped areas, and in those with severe structural disadvantages.\nMarielle De Sarnez\nWe have just adopted by a large majority the EU strategy on Roma inclusion. This is a strong political signal confirming that the European Union is aware of its responsibility towards this minority, which is the largest one in Europe, as well as the most persecuted one. The European Union and the Member States must tackle the disgraceful segregation suffered by the Roma head-on. This report stresses the importance of respecting the fundamental rights of the Roma and, in particular, access to education. To avoid any risk of marginalisation, it is also important to implement innovative policies on genuine access to employment, and to enable these people, the vast majority of whom are permanently settled, to access decent and affordable housing. The EU funds are there. They must be used in a way that will benefit the Roma. It is now up to the European Commission to draft final provisions based on the proposals in this report in a coherent manner with the principle of subsidiarity and with one aim: to ensure that the Roma become fully fledged European citizens.\nKarima Delli\nParliament has adopted a good text. It emphasises Europe's important role in ensuring the social inclusion of the Roma within the European Union, with the application of this strategy at local level. The report points out that a strategy for the Roma is possible only with the cooperation of members of the community - in short, we must work 'with' before we work 'for'. The Roma should therefore be involved in any decision making.\nThe text points out the difficult living conditions, discrimination and difficulties in accessing essential services that the Roma suffer. It points out the need to ensure respect for the freedom of movement of European citizens. It also mentions the importance, in social inclusion terms, of social protection, vocational training, education and public service provision. It denounces the insufficient allocation of funds, when the money could be put to good use. However, the real drawback of this report is the insistence by the conservatives in the European Parliament on mentioning the need to combat the Roma people's so-called 'prolonged dependence' on the social welfare system. This is a scandalous prejudice aimed once again at marginalising the Roma community.\nAnne Delvaux\nI am delighted that the European Parliament has adopted the J\u00e1r\u00f3ka report by an overwhelming majority. The report states the need to combat the exclusion of, and discrimination against, the Roma, to promote their social, cultural and economic integration, to better protect their fundamental rights and to make better use of European funds. Parliament has defined its priorities, on which there is a consensus. Parliament calls for an EU action plan in this area, wants EU funds to be harnessed, and proposes the adoption of a crisis map, to show where Roma populations are concentrated. As far as specific measures are concerned, one can mention access to education, which is as much a priority for the Roma people as it is for anyone else. Furthermore, we must monitor the use of EU funds to ensure that the money actually reaches the intended recipients.\nParliament has also made strong calls for EU bodies to be set up under the supervision of the current Roma Task Force, with the aim of providing EU financial assistance to relevant local initiatives and of identifying and reporting in good time any misuse of funds. Furthermore, the scope of the funding should be extended to projects aimed at improving public services as well.\nIoan Enciu\nI voted for this report because I think that an EU-level strategy for integrating the Roma minority is a positive and welcome step. This community needs special attention at European level, given the persistent problems with social and economic integration, along with the particular level of mobility among its members. However, I think that the biggest effort is still to be made. Strategies and actions plans for Roma integration have been and are available at every level, but it is their proper implementation that is lacking. To ensure its success, this new strategy must be implemented in the most appropriate manner. With this in mind, I think that a structured dialogue between the Roma communities, non-governmental sector and local authorities must provide the basis for the future strategy's implementation.\nEdite Estrela\nI voted in favour of this report because I believe that the inclusion of the Roma does not just have to do with moral imperatives or the European Union's human rights obligations. A number of studies prove that the exclusion of these European citizens has socio-economic costs for the Member States. The social inclusion of the Roma is a necessary investment, and will be of financial benefit in the long term.\nDiogo Feio\nHistorically, the Roma have been the target of discrimination and hostility from the majority populations of the Member States. Much discrimination also still persists within Roma communities themselves, and the strategy urgently needs to seek to remedy this, rather than simply not hiding it. I believe that an EU strategy in favour of the integration of the Roma, as for any other disadvantaged ethnic minority group, is to be welcomed.\nI also believe that it is likely to succeed if it is supported by the active involvement of the very people whom it aims to integrate. Without the participation, interaction and commitment of all players in this common effort, the strategy will run the risk of being nothing more than a statement of good intentions. Much remains to be done to reverse the trend of discrimination towards the Roma. I hope that the strategy's success will eventually justify the slowness of its elimination.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nThis report covers the development of an EU strategy on Roma inclusion. It is a very useful and encouraging document which was compiled jointly by the Commission and Parliament, and its recommendations address the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy as regards reducing poverty and combating social exclusion, so as to foster inclusive growth throughout the EU. The Roma population has highly dynamic demographics, unlike other ethnic groups, and it is thought that in some countries, such as Hungary, they will make up more than 50% of the economically active population by 2050. Their integration is therefore imperative, not only in ethical terms, as it is a human rights issue, but also for the sustainability of social security systems, It has been shown that this does not represent a cost, but rather a 'necessary and financially profitable investment in the long run'. Sometimes, the costs of exclusion are greater than those of inclusion, when we take account of the benefits that this brings. I welcome the adoption of this report, and I welcome the recommendation that the Commission take on the role of overseeing and monitoring Member States' compliance with this strategy.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\nThe resolution adopted advocates the adoption of an EU strategy for Roma integration, along with the development of an inclusive action plan based on the fundamental values of equality, the exercising of rights, non-discrimination and equality. The aim is to ensure that the Roma community has real access to education, jobs, housing, healthcare and culture. The mention of European programmes and funding that can be used for the social and economic integration of the Roma is opportune, given that these are underused. This resolution is all the more important given that it is common knowledge that the Roma have been the target of unfortunate and unacceptable discrimination in a number of EU countries, such as France and other Member States.\nIlda Figueiredo\nThe discrimination that takes place against the Roma in various EU countries is common knowledge. Just recently, there have been problems in France and other EU states, which could worsen under the pretext of the economic and social crisis. The rapporteur, who is a Member of Roma origin, has therefore tried to make Parliament aware of this situation.\nWithin this context, the resolution that has been adopted today advocates that the Commission propose and the Council adopt an EU strategy encouraging Roma integration as an action plan at European level, and which will be significant and inclusive at various different levels, based on the fundamental values of equality, the exercising of rights, non-discrimination, and equality between men and women.\nIn the same way, it is worth remembering that there are European programmes and funding which can be used for the social and economic integration of the Roma, but that communication needs to be improved at all levels if these are to be properly employed. The objective is to ensure that the Roma community has real access to education, jobs, housing, healthcare and culture.\nLorenzo Fontana\nManaging the problems of the largest ethnic minority in Europe requires pragmatism, rather than some kind of fake bleeding-heart liberalism. We are talking about giving the Roma minority a whole series of rights, which a very great many citizens can only enjoy thanks to daily sacrifices. I do not think it is a European strategy or a decision that deserves support given that this phenomenon also implies vast differences between one Member State and another. Some countries are in an objectively difficult situation, whilst others are barely affected by the phenomenon. That is why I think it would be more effective to apply the principle of subsidiarity. Hence, I do not intend to lend my support to the text that has been tabled.\nBruno Gollnisch\nRarely has a European Parliament report come so close to madness. For the strategy on Roma inclusion read the systematic promotion of a small population in everything and everywhere, mandatory quotas in all areas, including in decision-making bodies and businesses, and the systematic public funding of its alleged needs, including housing. This minority is, of course, supposed to be the frequent victim of malicious discrimination, and never does one question one's own responsibilities. It should be said that the rapporteur is herself part of this minority, which proves that it is not as oppressed as all that. Frankly, it is a bit like entrusting a Chinese person with the task of defining Europe's trade protection policy.\nTo return to the subject at hand, though, which other European citizens, albeit victims of poverty and insecurity, and excluded, in their own country, from the social benefits already allocated as a priority to others, are the object of such deep concern on your part? It is in this systematic discrimination against European citizens and at their expense that the reasons for their growing rejection of the Brussels set-up are to be found.\nNathalie Griesbeck\nThis week, the European Parliament, by a large majority, adopted a report on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion: this is an additional political signal confirming that the European Union is aware of its responsibility towards this ethnic minority, which is the largest one in Europe, as well as the most persecuted one. The report emphasises the priority areas of this strategy: fundamental rights, inequalities, the fight against discrimination, education, access to employment, the labour market, access to housing, and so on. These are all areas in which action is needed. For my part, I stressed the need, within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, to pay special attention to children and minors when drafting such a strategy. The report also highlights the misuse of the European funds available for Roma inclusion: administrative delays and burdens, insufficient awareness, a lack of involvement on the part of local authorities, and so on, are all difficulties to which the Member States, local authorities, interested parties and others must respond in order to ensure the full absorption of these European funds. This strategy will have to be shaped later on by each Member State and will thus be assessed at local level.\nSylvie Guillaume\nThe issue of Roma inclusion is a genuinely European problem, which is why the European Union must go to the very root of the discrimination suffered by the Roma community by combating stereotypes, in order to ensure equal access to employment, housing, healthcare and education. I am therefore delighted that the European Parliament has taken up the issue and adopted this report, which aims to provide food for thought for the Commission. This report denounces the misuse by the Member States of the European funds that should be devoted to Roma inclusion projects, but it is my hope that the Commission will go further by forcing the Member States to account publicly for their use of these funds.\nJuozas Imbrasas\nI voted in favour of this document, although I believe that this report should have been rejected. At the moment, it is not necessary to strengthen a strategy that is devoted to just one group. Rather, we need an effective emergency strategy aimed at solving the issue of legal and illegal migration in order to ensure, above all, economic stability, employment, security, public order and justice for all European citizens who make up part of a Member State from demographic, cultural, traditional, historical and economic viewpoints.\nC\u0103t\u0103lin Sorin Ivan\nin writing. - (RO) The European approach to the Roma problem has been, and still is, inadequate. The report drafted by L\u00edvia J\u00e1r\u00f3ka in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, along with the contributions from the other associated committees, should provide new impetus for a proper Roma integration strategy, which we expect from the Commission next month.\nI strongly believe that we are all eager to bring about real change for the Roma community and offer them all the prerequisites for social inclusion. This is why we need to focus on the political and financial instruments we have available and take direct action in key areas such as education and health.\nCooperation at every level, from European to local, is also essential because, without concerted action, all the resources are wasted. The Roma need to be involved in making policies. This is why solutions must be found to bring us into contact with those who form the link between the decision-making and implementation levels.\nLastly, we must acknowledge the importance of the message we are sending out with this report. However, we should not forget that numerous messages have been given and the time has now come for concrete actions.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski\nThe Roma are culturally one of the richest nations in the world. Their presence lends variety to the landscape of many different countries. However, stereotypes and discrimination are injurious to the Roma, and unfortunately do not help in establishing dialogue - and dialogue is needed. We live alongside one another, and we must at least accept each other in order to put an end to the phenomenon of exclusion. To this end, it is necessary to support education so that there will not be obstacles to Roma children learning alongside other children in European schools. It is also necessary to support initiatives which will allow Roma to undertake legal employment and more easily acclimatise in the country in which they are currently living. We are afraid of what we do not know. If we know more about the riches of Roma culture and customs, integration will certainly take place more quickly.\nTimothy Kirkhope\nin writing. - The ECR Group is wholeheartedly supportive of the inclusion and integration of the Roma people within Member States and the European Union. Equal access to the public service sector and the labour market and freedom from discrimination are essential for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, or heritage. We also strongly support the report's aims regarding EU funds being better spent and better allocated in order to fully support the Roma people. However, some sections of the report which discuss health, education and employment are areas which we believe should be legislated by Member States.\nGiovanni La Via\nVoting in favour today on the resolution on the European Union strategy for Roma inclusion could represent a useful boost to the promotion of non-discrimination in the Member States, as well as an incentive to bring in instruments to protect the Roma. What I have said is valid, in particular, for the most vulnerable groups, in line with the provisions of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. I think that defining effective economic instruments is a further aim to be reached in order to implement a serious and substantial Roma inclusion policy. The resolution in question tackles a particularly significant issue - including for my own country - and aims at proper integration of the Roma so as to enable their real participation in the economic, social and cultural life of the countries in which they are located, on condition (I would add) of the total respect of the principles and laws of the host State. Lastly, I support the request made to the Commission regarding the adoption of a leading role in the establishment of unitary strategic coordination, in partnership with the Member States, by setting up a task force to act as a permanent organism responsible for supervising and coordinating the issue.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\nI voted for this report as I welcome its extremely close look at the complexity of the issue of the Roma community in the EU. I would even dare say that when most of these problems are resolved, it will mean that a large number of the problems we are faced with now as a European society will be resolved. I would just like to mention the way in which the Structural Funds could be used to support the priorities of the EU Roma inclusion strategy. I believe that substantial funds need to be allocated to the economic and social development of these communities. In cases where inadequate support is given to interventions in terms of finances or an appropriate period of time for the envisaged impact to be made, the effects achieved will not be those we currently expect. What is required is prioritisation, smart spending of funds and political commitment. Otherwise, the financial resources will be wasted. Following this report, I await with interest the next steps which the Commission is going to take. I hope that this strategy will generate the value added required from implementing a European measure supporting Roma inclusion.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I welcome this report on the plight of the Roma - the most marginalised group in the European Union. The resolution sets out practical steps for improving the health, education and welfare of the Roma. It includes measures to improve their access to the labour market and to decent housing. This resolution offers an opportunity for the Roma to be better integrated into society.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon\nThis resolution is pure talk, yet again. I am pleased that this text denounces racial hate speech, ethnic profiling, unlawful fingerprinting and unlawful eviction and expulsion. However, I object to the bitter pills we are made to swallow along the way: full powers for the Commission in this matter, stigmatisation of the Roma in a text that claims to defend them, competition on the job market and competitive clusters. This confused approach is unacceptable.\nNuno Melo\nThe EU is an area of solidarity and inclusion, so it must do what is necessary to prevent discrimination against the Roma and to gain them the same rights as regards education, employment, healthcare and housing in all Member States, as well as states intending to join the Union. The Roma should be attending to children who are generally prevented from attending school; with children and women who are used in begging; with begging adopted as a life choice; and with the rejection of work and recourse in its stead to the social security systems of third countries. Decisive steps must be taken to bring discrimination to an end. However, if this is to be achieved, the Roma cannot exclude themselves and must help with their own integration into a European area in which inclusion is desirable.\nWilly Meyer\nI voted for the report on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion. The text points out the need to prepare an EU-level strategy for the protection and integration of this population. It also calls on the Member States to adopt and strengthen effective legislation against discrimination - including multiple discrimination - in all areas of life that guarantees, protects and promotes fundamental rights, equality and non-discrimination, and the right to freedom of movement, including actions to raise public awareness directed both at Roma people and at others, so as to eradicate discriminatory obstacles.\nLouis Michel\nToday, some 10-12 million Roma are in need of European measures to promote their social, cultural and economic integration. The Roma have suffered and continue to suffer systematic discrimination, exclusion, human rights violations and stigmatisation. The report we have just adopted is an important step towards measures aimed at reducing marginalisation, poverty and social exclusion.\nHowever, much remains to be done to prevent discrimination. Even if discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin can be eliminated, the socio-economic exclusion of the majority of the Roma population remains a harsh reality. Many Roma in Europe are completely cut off from the economy and live in conditions so poor that they cannot enjoy their fundamental rights.\nI believe, furthermore, that Roma inclusion should begin in early childhood, with the inclusion of children in the population register, access to quality education, and job assistance for parents. The Commission must set binding minimum standards at EU level that require the involvement of local, national and European authorities alike.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - Areas in which more effort from the EU is required in the Roma inclusion process are priorities for the EU. Unfortunately, there are problems involving education, medical care and the extreme isolation of these people. The report calls for the Commission to present a strategic plan for introducing binding minimum standards at EU level for these priorities, including penalties for Member States that do not comply with the objectives. Although I am not confident that this will be successful, as a whole, I voted in favour.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\nThe Roma and Sinti - that is the politically correct term, although some members of these ethnic groups take this to be pejorative, and ask to be designated 'Gypsies' - do, of course, live to some extent in miserable circumstances. We must, at the same time, not overlook the fact that the lack of progress towards a better way of life is also connected to the traditions of these groups, to which they continue to cling. In a typical do-gooding way, over many years now, attempts at socialising these groups have been begun but they have all failed, because they have not been accepted by the great majority of this nomadic people. The European Union has set aside EUR 12 billion up to 2013 for integration of minorities, and it is already quite clear that the money will be wasted where most Roma and Sinti are concerned.\nBoth the clan structure and lack of the right to intervene on the part of the authorities prevent this vicious circle from ever being broken. The strategy that has been planned is not only incapable of changing anything significant; it could, in some areas, such as 'non-discrimination', even turn into an own goal. Moreover, there is a lack of the concept that there is no such thing as a right to be included in the social security system. That is why I strongly reject the report.\nClaudio Morganti\nI decided to vote against this report because I cannot see any need for the European Union to commit huge resources to the inclusion of the Roma. At a time of economic crisis and general difficulty, it aims to press ahead even more quickly to ensure specific funding and favourable conditions in a number of areas for the Roma population.\nThis ethnic group has historically remained isolated in Europe, often not as a result of the will of others but by their own nature; they have willingly remained at the margins in order to carry on living according to their own customs, which are a long way from the common values and sentiments of Europe. Rather than a specific European strategy for the inclusion of the Roma, I would like it if we worked at a European level for a real and effective common immigration strategy, which seems increasingly essential and can no longer be postponed.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu\nA European Roma strategy is undoubtedly an absolute necessity, as this is a European minority which is typified, at the same time, by a very large degree of cross-border mobility, given their way of life. I voted for this resolution, especially because it emphasises the role played by good quality education and training as a factor influencing people's personal and professional life and because, as a result, education is the most reliable solution for ensuring Roma integration into society.\nFranz Obermayr\nWhile the majority society in the EU is rapidly ageing, the Roma are recording a rapid increase in population. In Hungary, where the Roma currently make up between 6% and 8% of the population, they will exceed 50% of the working population by 2050. All the worse, therefore, that Roma life in the EU is characterised, as it always has been, by unemployment, a level of education that is greatly below average, organised crime and prostitution, as well as retreat into a parallel society. The situation of women in often archaic Roma society is particularly dramatic, and their lack of education and, hence, their exclusion from the labour market is so much the greater. The report before us admittedly addresses some of the problems, however one-sidedly. Integration is not a one-way street. The Roma must make their contribution, send their children to school, integrate themselves better into the labour market and put an end to criminal tendencies. I therefore voted against the report.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\nI voted in favour of this report, because we urgently need to change a situation where, even in the 21st century, a significant portion of the 10-12 million Roma living in Europe suffer discrimination, and economic and social isolation. The road to integration is a long and complicated process which is adapted to the conditions of individual countries and local regions. The European Union strategy should ensure clear objectives and means of funding programmes. However, the greatest responsibility lies with national governments and local authorities, which know best the situation in the region. Education, healthcare, housing policy and the more rapid inclusion of Roma in the labour market - this is the key to solving a long-standing problem. If Roma EU citizens are unable to integrate properly into the societies of European Union Member States, then this would send out a poor signal on EU integration policy in general.\nAlfredo Pallone\nThe European Union has now been working for years on problems relating to the social integration and protection of minorities. The report by Mrs J\u00e1r\u00f3ka on the Roma inclusion strategy sets out an action plan for their socio-economic integration in view of a European project that defines national strategies to deal with the problem, partly on the basis of the costs that each Member State will have to bear. I voted in favour of the report precisely because we need a new European legal framework that includes measures to combat discrimination and protect human rights, to integrate Roma in the various Member States with a plan that guarantees their education and health coverage.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou\nI voted today in favour of the European Parliament report on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion. Their inclusion in society is a very important issue which concerns all the Member States in general and Greece in particular where, according to studies (by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency), 35% of Roma are illiterate and just 4% have attended school for at least ten years. The key point in inclusion is education and the abolition of segregation in schools. Alongside adequate healthcare and equal opportunities in employment, the Member States need to keep a closer eye on the extent to which EU funds for the Roma are actually used for the benefit of the recipients.\nRovana Plumb\nin writing. - We know that 10-12 million European Roma continue to suffer serious systematic discrimination in education (where they are victims particularly of segregation), housing (particularly with forced evictions and sub-standard living conditions, often in ghettos), employment (their particularly low employment rate) and equal access to healthcare systems and other public services, as well as an astoundingly low level of political participation. The EU strategy on Roma inclusion should embrace measures to ensure the monitoring of the situation of the Roma in relation to the respect and promotion of their fundamental social rights, equality, non-discrimination and free movement in the EU, and also to provide education, training opportunities and job assistance for adults, which are crucial in order to support the recruitment and continued employment of the Roma with the aim of avoiding the perpetuation of social exclusion.\nThe Commission and Member States should address the particular needs of Roma women by applying a gender perspective in all policies for Roma inclusion and providing protection for especially vulnerable subgroups. Therefore, I ask the Commission to present annually to the European Parliament a follow up of the EU strategy on Roma inclusion in order to monitor the progress made at national level.\nPaulo Rangel\nI voted in favour of this report, which focuses on the need to effectively address the problems and challenges related to this sensitive issue of integrating Roma communities.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - Parliament's J\u00e1r\u00f3ka report on the EU strategy for Roma inclusion was voted on in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 14 February, with the majority of the Greens\/EFA amendments accepted by the rapporteur or included in the compromise amendments, and many of the Group's red lines to the issue included: namely, the Roma inclusion strategy should be guided by an insider's approach: designed by Roma for Roma, which means empowerment of Roma, inclusion in the decision-making process, hiring of Roma staff\/mediators in key positions at local, national, EU level; stop unlawful practices that continue with EU Member State impunity: violence against Roma, violations of the right to free movement, increasing activity of extremist political parties, politicians, and policies, systemic segregation of Romany children in education, widespread residential segregation of Roma, trafficking in human beings, denial of access to healthcare and social services, coercive sterilisation of Romany women.\nLicia Ronzulli\nOn 6 April, the European Commission will present its Communication on Roma inclusion. This issue is also listed among the priorities of the Hungarian Government, which currently holds the European rotating Presidency. Parliament's resolution points out the need for the greater integration of Roma populations in modern society.\nPersonally, I think that it is up to these populations to adapt to our society and not to force us to adopt favourable policies that often produce results that are quite opposite to expectations. Ignorance, a lack of education and illiteracy often mean a lack of future prospects. Without education, it is impossible to take an active role in society. The difficulties that the Roma face in finding a job are often the result of their low level of education and this shows that the educational sector is the foundation on which to build a future of their own.\nOreste Rossi\nThis report is absolutely unacceptable since it reiterates on a number of occasions that the inclusion of the Roma is an economic necessity and that it would bring financial advantages for the Member States. It also proposes a task force for the Roma as a permanent organ of the Commission and denounces systematic discrimination and an intolerable level of exclusion and human rights violations.\nThe report also emphasises the need for a common European strategy to combat all forms of violation of the rights of the Roma, including fingerprinting and expulsion. It sets out fines for national governments that do not respect obligatory European standards towards the Roma population, promoting the hiring of Roma in the public administration, and hiring Roma teachers in schools so as to protect their culture by using their language. As a final insult to the freedom of speech, it also sets out to condemn the rejection of and discrimination against Roma in political meetings. It is clear that I cannot but vote against a report that is absolutely offensive and harmful to the rights of people to be the lords of their own manor.\nOlga Sehnalov\u00e1\nAny European strategy for Roma inclusion must be based, first and foremost, on a knowledge of local conditions. The strategy is therefore inconceivable without close cooperation with the local authorities and the communities where the declaration must be translated into everyday coexistence between the majority of society and the Roma community. The report does not overlook this aspect and I have therefore voted in favour of it.\nBart Staes\nThe Roma struggle with discrimination in Europe on a systematic basis and have to fight exclusion, violations of their human rights and stigmatisation. By voting for binding EU minimum standards today, I hope that the 10-12 million Roma will have better access to jobs, education, housing and healthcare. It is a positive that the report calls for the best measures to be sought in collaboration with the stakeholders. The report further highlights the primordial role of regional policy. The Member States, after all, do have access to funds to assist the Roma with integration, but barely use that money. It is thus up to the Member States to face up to their responsibility.\nAnother positive in this report is the idea that the Commission will have to introduce award criteria in favour of compliant Member States and penalties for non-compliance. The only minus point is the reference to the Roma's 'prolonged dependence' on the social welfare system. This is a very conservative, preconceived opinion that marginalises the Roma community once again. I hope that the Commission integrates this report into its own proposal, which is likely to be presented on 5 April. It is scheduled to be adopted by the Council before the summer. The integration of the Roma is one of the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency.\nCatherine Stihler\nin writing. - I supported this report which aims to combat discrimination against the Roma people and calls on Member States to produce policies for their integration into the labour market. The Roma people is one of the most marginalised groups in the EU, which is why we need to ensure that action is taken to tackle the social exclusion that they face.\nAlexander Alvaro\nIn the vote on the Lange report, I am abstaining on paragraph 31 because of the ambiguous wording, which refers to Eurobonds as well as project bonds. However, taking it as a whole, I am voting for the report, as I have nothing against project bonds in themselves. Project bonds serve as finance for extensive innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation projects. This is not a question of instruments for the communitarisation of debts, as would be the case with Eurobonds.\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nI voted for this report, as industrial policy is a priority for the Europe 2020 strategy and the main driving force behind the European economy. The focus on this sector is due to the fact that it is responsible for three quarters of European exports, providing jobs for 57 million people and representing 80% of investment in research and development. I believe that if Europe is to be competitive in this area, there must be a focus on advocating green and innovative knowledge-based projects.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nI voted in favour of this important resolution on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era. The global economic crisis has affected European industry and therefore, to be able to overcome the effect of the crisis and face those challenges, the EU needs an industrial policy approach that combines competitiveness, sustainability and decent work that can, at the same time, stimulate the economy, boost employment, reduce environmental degradation and improve quality of life. I agree with the resolution's call for the Commission and the Member States to develop an ambitious, eco-efficient and green EU industrial strategy in order to recreate manufacturing capacity across the EU territory and to generate highly qualified and well paid jobs within the EU. The European Parliament stresses the great importance of SMEs in the industrial landscape, in particular, when it comes to providing long-term jobs at regional level, and in preserving economic and creative vitality and a high level of growth. There is, therefore, a need to continue working on better access to financing opportunities for SMEs and, in particular, to develop viable venture capital possibilities; to strengthen, in the context of the new architecture of the financial market, short- and long-term financing possibilities for SMEs and their preferred sources of finance; to open up markets and create fair conditions for competition, enabling more entrepreneurs and small companies to grow and develop into companies operating all over Europe.\nElena Oana Antonescu\nThe global economic crisis has affected European industry, making it more difficult for it to adapt to the challenges posed by the transition to an industry based on knowledge and efficiency, which has a strong impact on industrial development and the labour market. To be able to face these challenges, I think an industrial policy approach is required which combines competitiveness, sustainability and decent work which can, at the same time, stimulate the economy, boost employment, reduce environmental degradation and improve the quality of life in the European Union. This report supports industrial progress through smart and forward-looking regulation and market stimulation, based on accurate expectations for market developments, and supporting the global trends towards clean, sustainable and innovative forms of production, distribution and consumption. I voted for this report because I believe that the success of the European Union's industrial policy depends on it being firmly rooted both in a new financial sector architecture that promotes investment and prevents speculation, and also in a macro-economic policy that steers fiscal, economic and budgetary policies in the EU towards sustainable growth and job creation.\nSophie Auconie\nDeindustrialisation is an established fact in Europe. Europe's technological and economic position is being put at risk by increased globalisation and intense competition from rapidly developing countries. The European Union must therefore adopt an industrial policy that combines competitiveness, sustainability and decent work. The aims are as follows: to stimulate the economy, boost employment, reduce environmental degradation and improve quality of life. This is the thrust of this resolution, which I endorsed. In particular, I am in favour of issuing EU bonds with a view to enabling the European Union to fund innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation.\nLiam Aylward\nThere are 57 million people employed in the industrial sector in the EU, and 75% of European exports involve the same sector. That sector will be central to the future competitiveness of the EU. I welcome what the EU's 2020 strategy contains about encouraging high quality jobs and training to help and support the development of the industrial base, and therefore I voted in favour of the report.\nSince it is SMEs which create two thirds of the jobs in the sector, I welcome what the report contains on small business access to public procurement opportunities and the role of small businesses in improving industrial policy.\nSMEs must have better access to the Framework Programme, and assistance and support must be given for technology transfer and innovation. I agree with the rapporteur that the EU should develop and encourage innovative clusters in regional areas. The major advantages of these clusters are their ability to transfer knowledge, to develop research activities, qualifications and infrastructure, and to stimulate employment opportunities in regional areas.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis\nI voted in favour of this report. The European Union is the world's largest market, but we are not exploiting our huge potential. We are a very open market, but face enormous obstacles to accessing foreign markets. The incomplete single market in areas such as energy forces us to bow to the conditions dictated by external parties, which has a direct impact on our competitiveness. The viability of industry depends on the viability of our small and medium-sized business sector, which, despite the measures approved, is going through a difficult period. I agree that innovation is at the core of industry today, but in this area we cannot exactly boast of our ability to react in a timely manner to changing global market conditions. I believe that today, we have a well balanced and comprehensive vision of industry, and now the Member States and the European Commission will have to do their bit to ensure that our ambitious goals enable the creation of a modern and competitive industry.\nJan B\u0159ezina\nEuropean industry is still facing the consequences of the economic crisis, and requires a coordinated approach at EU level in order to handle them successfully. An industrial strategy must be drawn up for the EU setting out strategic areas for investment, and then taking account of these priorities in the future financial perspective, annual budgets and policies of the EU. The development of European industry will not happen without ambitious funding, especially in the areas of research and energy, telecommunications and transport networks (TEN), and therefore in the public services which sustain the business environment. In my opinion, however, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to start issuing EU bonds for this purpose (Eurobonds or project bonds). The EU is not a sovereign political entity, and therefore its revenues should basically be made up of the contributions of Member States. Not to mention the fact that the idea of Eurobonds involves debt and might clash with the principle of a balanced European budget. Financial support for innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation should be based primarily on boosting the resources for the Eighth Framework Programme for Research and Development and for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, with the aim of ensuring that European industry remains competitive at the global level, and thereby also making effective use of private investments.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho\nEurope is currently finding that it has become less competitive in global markets. As such, Europe needs to find ways of strengthening its industrial base to face up to new challenges. This report, 'An integrated industrial policy for the globalisation era', aims to table proposals to relaunch European industry. An integrated and sustainable industrial policy must be based on scientific research, on innovation, on increased resource efficiency, on a commodities strategy, on reinforcing small and medium-sized enterprises, and on developing regional networks. In particular, it is essential for energy efficiency and the introduction of information and communication technologies to constitute the basis of the industrial revolution, so as to increase competitiveness, economic growth and employment. I particularly welcome the emphasis given to traditional European industry, which is essential to our economy. Measures such as the introduction of new technologies and increased efforts in scientific research and innovation in sectors such as the manufacturing industry are of crucial importance. This is the only way that we will be able to return European industry to a leading position in the world.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex\nIndustrial policy is essential for the European Union, and this report is an opportunity for the European Commission: the initial communication was disappointing. Parliament's work provides the Commission with concrete proposals that it must take up. This report should be linked to our proposals, which the European Parliament as a whole adopted this week, including, in particular, the principle of a 'tax on financial transactions' at European level and of issuing EU bonds (Eurobonds). Our policies must show that social innovation and technological innovation are compatible.\nJorgo Chatzimarkakis\nIn the vote on the Lange report, I am abstaining on paragraph 31 because of the ambiguous wording, which refers to Eurobonds as well as project bonds. However, taking it as a whole, I am voting for the report, as I have nothing against project bonds in themselves. Project bonds serve as finance for extensive innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation projects. This is not a question of instruments for the communitarisation of debts, as would be the case with Eurobonds.\nMarielle De Sarnez\nClearly, Europe must develop a long-term European industrial strategy. We cannot be the only economic area in the world to unilaterally apply free trade principles while having no idea of what our main competitors are doing. The European Commission has to realise that, with the crisis, the rules put in place are no longer suitable for today's economy, and that it is time to seriously strengthen the European Union's anti-dumping arsenal and the application of the general principle of reciprocity in trade. The European Union needs a European strategy that serves as a vehicle for major industrial projects such as Galileo and ITER. It must also support its production sectors and its SME base. It must promote and increase its research and development investments so as to try to maintain its lead in the area of high technology. Similarly, it must step up the fight against counterfeiting, and put forward an offensive European patent policy.\nKarima Delli\nThis text does not stand out for its quality, since it is the result of a very broad compromise between the MEPs. It contains both elements that are very positive in the eyes of the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance and certain ideas that we have sought in vain to denounce. However, the main thing is that it enables MEPs to express a rather progressive opinion on the EU 2020 strategy's flagship programme dedicated to industry.\nHence, the text calls for transport systems to be made more sustainable through the use of more efficient technologies, interoperability and innovative mobility solutions. It points out the need to place energy and resource savings at the heart of European industrial policy. In this respect, it recalls the huge job potential and cost reduction benefits that energy efficiency improvements are expected to yield.\nThe adoption of measures that ensure energy efficiency improvement must therefore underpin initiatives in all industrial sectors. MEPs also sought to encourage all the efforts made to redress skills shortages in order to promote the qualifications of the workforce and interest young graduates more in industry.\nRobert Du\u0161ek\nIndustry creates almost one third of EU GDP, industrial products account for three quarters of exports, and industry employs 57 million European citizens. European industry was already going through a restructuring process before the crisis stated. At present it is influenced especially by the rapid and changing development of the global economy, as well as growing competition. A new form of globalisation is developing, leading towards a global society based on knowledge, research and innovation. The need to mitigate climate change and maintain maximum biodiversity levels is leading industry towards production that involves 'zero' CO2 emissions and an efficient use of resources. European industry should continue to maintain a strategic position in key sectors, and to exploit the opportunities for sustainable recovery aimed at securing the greatest possible number of jobs for qualified workers. The rapporteur proposes a whole raft of measures to make this possible. I agree with and support the creation of an innovation supply chain, greater efficiency in the use of resources, the more effective use of public contracts, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), greater production of so-called clean energy and the generally broader inclusion of SMEs in the concept of European industry. The report is of benefit to European industry, the rapporteur genuinely understands the issue, and I am therefore voting for the adoption of the report.\nIoan Enciu\nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it represents the way forward for a robust, cohesive and employment-based industrial policy for the European workforce. R&D is a key driver for innovation and trade and will remain one of the cornerstones for industrial policy in the EU. I believe that industry plays a key role in keeping jobs in Europe and this is why we must enhance efforts to maintain a strong industrial base, become the most competitive economy in the world and ensure close-knit networks between companies in different Member States in order to achieve shared industrial priorities. Some of my amendments included in the report concern shortening the time to market for new products, ensuring that European manufacturing strengthens the foundations of the European economy and the simplification of funding programmes for industry.\nEdite Estrela\nI voted in favour of this report as I support the idea that only an industrial strategy that is ambitious and efficient from an environmental standpoint can renew and stimulate Europe's productive capacity, and gain a central role in the creation of highly skilled and well paid jobs in the EU.\nDiogo Feio\nAt a time when Europe is experiencing an unprecedented crisis, which is due, albeit not solely, to the budget, we cannot forget the leading role of industry, which represents 37% of Europe's gross domestic product, and the challenges that it is facing in a globalised world in which emerging economies - and also the US - are committing to aggressive industrial policies based on massive investment in research and development in key sectors, competing with Europe, with the advantage that they do not have the same environmental, social and labour constraints. There is no miracle solution to this. Despite its many virtues, the Europe 2020 strategy is not a magic wand for European industry in a world where competition is global and fierce.\nI therefore believe that the only route for European industry is to specialise and definitively commit to quality and the latest technology, along with rationalising costs and ensuring greater efficiency in management. European products must be preferred, not because they are cheaper - that will never happen - but because they are better and more innovative. Only the excellence of European industry can make this happen. We hope that we are capable of rising to the challenge.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nThe importance of European industry is indisputable. It represents three quarters of exports, a third of the EU's gross value added and a third of employment. Although dynamic, it has not escaped the economic crisis and needs to be at the forefront of the European policy agenda advocated by this report. Indeed, industrial policy should be central to our concerns, as it relates to the future, by creating employment and promoting investment in production. However, it also presents us with challenges: how can we guarantee the sustainability of resources when faced with climate change? The EU needs a coherent industrial policy that conveys confidence to companies and helps them to overcome the crisis. It needs to promote modern industry that is effective, reduces energy costs and CO2 production, and is ecologically responsible, and which is competitive, engaging in research, innovation and the recycling of raw materials. This is because we cannot forget that an industrial policy is also a social policy, and I am therefore voting in favour of this report. However, I would like to draw attention to the need to strengthen support for small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ the majority of workers in the EU's business sector, and to implement origin marking.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\nThis is another report that is full of contradictions. On the one hand, it has some positive aspects, which we appreciate, defending industry and small and medium-sized enterprises. The presence of modern and efficient industry which creates jobs and is environmentally sustainable is an important tool for development in every country and region. However, the current framework of EU policies, in which the most negative aspects have been worsening over the years, is markedly unfavourable to this endeavour. Rather, it has been promoting the dismantling of important productive centres, deindustrialisation, the elimination of jobs, and growing dependence in innumerable countries and regions. Liberalisation and international trade deregulation policies are a central tenet of this policy framework, and are contributing decisively to the current situation. However, the report insists on advocating these policies. It endorses them, while ignoring their effects. It also insists on the sacrosanct principle of 'free competition' and the deepening of the internal market, both offshoots of the aforementioned framework, on public-private partnerships, and even on synergies between civilian and military investment. The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left sought to eliminate these most negative aspects from the report, while keeping the aspects that are good. Unfortunately, all the proposals were rejected by the majority in Parliament. That is why we voted against.\nIlda Figueiredo\nUnfortunately, none of our amendments, which were aimed at removing the most negative aspects from the report, were passed. We therefore voted against in the final vote on the resolution by Parliament.\nAlthough, as I mentioned in the debate in plenary, there are positive aspects in the report, there are many contradictory positions. While, on the one hand, it claims to defend industry and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), on the other hand, it contains proposals that insist on the liberalisation of free trade and free competition, on the deepening of the internal market, on public-private partnerships, and even on synergies between civilian and military investment.\nWe would like industries that are efficient in terms of resource use, that are less dependent on carbon, that value jobs with rights, and that guarantee equal rights for women in terms of access to jobs, to promotion, to wages, and to participation in management and administrative bodies.\nWe advocate other policies, particularly in terms of industrial policy, foreign trade, financial, research, science and innovation policies, which support SMEs, as well as a commitment to training and skilling workers, and to the dignity of those who work.\nLorenzo Fontana\nMr Lange's report on the Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era looks at extremely important issues, such as access to credit for enterprises, and, above all, for small and medium-sized enterprises. I particularly appreciate the idea of linking the industrial world with universities in order to boost European universities, thereby harking back to the EU 2020 objectives. I therefore voted in favour.\nElisabetta Gardini\nThe Europe 2020 strategy has acknowledged the need to set out a new industrial policy in order to maintain a solid and sustainable industrial base in Europe.\nStrong and prosperous industry is indeed a key factor for growth in the European Union and therefore, in the current context of globalisation and intense international competition, it is essential to create a framework that is even more favourable for its development. This report should certainly be applauded for having provided a detailed survey of industrial policy in the light of the economic crisis, which seriously damaged the sector, and also for providing various cues for properly reviving European industry.\nFor this reason, I think it is important that the political aims set out in the flagship initiative tabled last 28 October by Mr Tajani are translated into tangible actions such as, by way of example, strengthening and internationalising small and medium-sized enterprises, providing easier access to credit, and the definition of a new industrial innovation model. Other than that, Europe must take the risk of increasing productivity with new ideas by investing increasingly in research, which must represent the new engine to restore European excellence.\nAdam Gierek\nThe global market is reacting to the need to meet the demands of the model of consumption which has already been formed in highly developed and developing societies. However, competitiveness 'at any price' is appearing, by which I mean competitiveness which is influenced by more than just the innovativeness of industry and changes in the model of consumption.\nWe can include the following in the catalogue of unfavourable phenomena which accompany competitiveness: a model of consumption, imposed by industry, which squanders energy and raw materials; competition which is based not on the superiority of the methods used but on the financial supremacy of wealthy monopolistic corporations; a fragmentary competitiveness which is concerned only with the final phase of processing and not gross competitiveness, by which I mean competitiveness which takes account of the preparation of raw materials and materials for production; the taking over of raw materials and energy markets by supranational, often non-European, corporations; increases in energy prices and, as a result, of raw materials too, by regulations which impose a system of emissions trading on the EU Member States; unfair competition imposed mainly by large, supranational corporations, including financial corporations.\nI treat this report as a good beginning to a very important discussion about the future of competitive industry in Europe, and so of Europe itself, so I voted in favour of its adoption.\nBruno Gollnisch\nI regret that this report was not tabled earlier, for example, when Brussels was denouncing the creation of industrial champions, or when Mittal was carrying out its hostile takeover of Arcelor, depriving Europe of the only bit of its iron and steel industry it had left. For decades, the European Union has worked hard at destroying our industrial fabric and our industrial jobs, through European sectoral policies, European competition policy and European free trade policy, which all of you here have systematically praised, supported and promoted. In the face of disaster, you are now tentatively coming round to what the Front national has been proposing for a very long time: recognising the crucial nature of an industrial base, developing strategic sectors, protecting against unfair competition and helping to penetrate external markets, guaranteeing and safeguarding raw material supplies, regulating takeover bids, making competition policy subject to strategic, socio-economic and public service requirements, providing public support to emerging or innovative sectors, and so on.\nHowever, it is rather late in the day, and Europe, which has hung on to its ultraliberal ideological foundations, is definitely not the best level at which to make decisions and implement such policies.\nJuozas Imbrasas\nI agreed with this report, because EU industry accounts for roughly a third of gross value added in the EU, with almost three quarters of European exports being made up of industrial goods, and a third of employment, providing subsistence to some 57 million people. The recent profound economic crisis has hit European industry. However, the crisis has also highlighted the importance of industry to the EU economy and made it evident that not enough has been done to comprehensively address its needs in the current challenging climate. Manufacturing growth has fallen to its lowest level in the last two decades, and certain European industries are in permanent crisis as a result of unfair competition from third countries, particularly in the areas of labour relations, the environment and intellectual and industrial property protection. As the USA, Japan and China are pursuing a strong and active industrial policy supported by leading edge products and services, there is a danger that European industry may be left behind. An integrated and sustainable industrial policy in the EU should be based on the following key aspects: the need to establish an innovation chain linking scientific research and practical adaptation, to use resources more effectively, and to enhance clean energy production.\nWe must call on the EU to launch strategies providing for long-term changes and to pursue an education policy that satisfies the needs of the labour market. It is necessary to combat the spread of the shadow economy and undeclared casual work during the crisis which distorts competition, and there are also proposals to facilitate SME participation in public procurement.\nSilvana Koch-Mehrin\nIn the vote on the Lange report, I am abstaining on paragraph 31 because of the ambiguous wording of the vote, which refers to Eurobonds as well as project bonds. However, taking it as a whole, I am voting for the report, as I have nothing against project bonds in themselves. Project bonds serve as finance for extensive innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation projects. This is not a question of instruments for the communitarisation of debts, as would be the case with Eurobonds.\nGiovanni La Via\nIn my opinion, today's vote is an important step forward towards emerging on the other side of the economic and financial crisis that has struck Europe and its industries. Indeed, the resolution looks at a key sector that needs support in order to allow the European Union to implement an industrial policy that needs to marry the achievement of high levels of production with a commitment to competitive and sustainable renewal. For this reason, I applaud the reference to the EU 2020 strategy, which must function as the guiding light for the complete implementation of Europe's priority actions through huge investment in innovation and research, which is necessary for growth and development in Europe. Overall, I think the rapporteur, Mr Lange, has done a good job, managing to bring together the ideas and suggestions garnered from more than 500 amendments and putting together a report that I agree with and support, with the exception of the European patent. Indeed, I think that the decision to start enhanced cooperation in a sector of strategic importance - namely, intellectual property - is not a correct decision or one that will bring positive consequences for European industry.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki\nIndustrial policy for the globalised era is becoming a great problem for the Union and for individual Member States. The quest to minimise production costs and prices is becoming the reason for closing down industrial production in the Union, moving factories to locations outside the EU and then importing production. This is having adverse effects: a loss of the capacity for industrial development, technical education and innovativeness, and, as a consequence, a dependence on other countries. Entire sectors of industry are going under, such as the shipbuilding industry in Poland. Stricter environmental requirements introduced only in the EU and toleration of dumping by Asian producers are accelerating the deindustrialisation of Europe. What is needed is a judicious policy which will allow Europe to retain its industrial character.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\nThe recent economic crisis has confirmed that small and medium-sized enterprises are still the driving force of economic and social development, playing a key role in promoting economic competitiveness and creating jobs. I welcome this report and I think that the EU instruments supporting competitiveness need to be reviewed and strengthened with the aim of streamlining administrative procedures and facilitating access to funding for SMEs. It is also absolutely essential to introduce innovative incentive mechanisms, based on achieving the targets linked to smart, sustainable growth with an integration aspect, and to promote closer cooperation with the financial institutions. One important method for funding innovation for SMEs which is available via the European Investment Bank is the Risk Sharing Financial Facility. However, to ensure its success, the European Commission needs to make significantly more funds available, including through innovation funds from ERDF sources, and to promote direct private investments and innovative financing mechanisms for high-risk innovative projects and those in which SMEs participate.\nDavid Martin\nin writing. - I agree with this report that an EU strategy to promote strong and skilled human resources with a strong creative potential and active involvement in innovation and development, new and innovative technologies\/processes\/solutions which generate added value, R&D geared to the needs of sustainable development, an efficient supply chain for the production of high quality goods and services, more efficiently organised production and management systems, overall greater resources efficiency that leads to a reduced carbon footprint, cost-efficient and sustainable modes of transport, smart and efficient logistics and high quality infrastructure, a consolidated and fully operational single internal market, and a level playing field in trade relations with third countries, is the only means of increasing the sustainability and competitiveness of European industry and thus maintaining its global leadership.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Ma\u0161t\u00e1lka\nThe report on an industrial policy for the era of globalisation is an important document in the crisis that has affected the European economy and industrial production in particular. However, it does not include the main issue - the real cause of the enormous economic problems. This is the global capitalism of free competition and unbridled neoliberalism, on which the EU is unfortunately based. The EU does not need more strategic documents literally churned out by the Commission, but there is a pressing need for a change to its underpinnings, and particularly a move towards a social and peaceful union with a regulated financial sector. Since we are debating a 'strategic' document as such, experience shows that it is not as difficult to produce such documents as it is to develop them subsequently in the individual areas, and to monitor and evaluate the effects of the proposed measures flexibly. The area of intellectual property rights, for example, including industrial rights, is proof of this.\nGesine Meissner\nIn the vote on the Lange report, I am abstaining on paragraph 31 because of the ambiguous wording of the vote, which refers to Eurobonds as well as project bonds. However, taking it as a whole, I am voting for the report, as I have nothing against project bonds in themselves. Project bonds serve as finance for extensive innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation projects. This is not a question of instruments for the communitarisation of debts, as would be the case with Eurobonds.\nNuno Melo\nEuropean industry represents approximately a third of the EU's gross value added, as almost three quarters of European exports relate to industrial goods, and a third of employment. Moreover, it has a multiplying effect, which means that approximately two additional jobs are created in associated services for every job in industry. In view of this, no one is disputing the importance of the industrial sector to the economies of the Member States, but the economic crisis has cast doubt on the importance of this sector, to the detriment of the financial and service sectors, and it is time for us to review this situation and go back to investing heavily in this sector. European industry is heading in the direction of specialisation and commitment to the quality of its products and to the latest technology. What is produced by our industry needs to distinguish itself by innovation and quality, never by price.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\nIn order to remain competitive amidst worldwide economic change, the significant economic sector that is industry must not be neglected. Sustainability as well as humane working conditions should be both encouraged and demanded, for it is the case that competition from the emerging nations such as China, India and Brazil grows ever stronger and consequently, the pressure on the European internal market grows ever greater. Sustainability and growth are two buzzwords often heard, above all, in industrial policy, but their implementation is seriously in doubt, due, primarily, to the lack of available resources. I am abstaining because I am of the view that the measures proposed will not be in any way sufficient to secure Europe first place in the world in the industrial sector.\nRolandas Paksas\nI voted in favour of this resolution because EU industry has been badly hit by the current economic crisis. In today's world, there is huge competition in industry and, therefore, the industrial sector must remain competitive and innovative, supporting innovative ideas, and quality and technological leadership. We must enhance facilities, transfer high technologies and facilitate their transposition among companies. We must make every effort to ensure that existing resources (minerals) are used appropriately within the European Union, avoiding their export outside the EU's borders, and that we stop oligopolies from forming in trade. European aid should go not towards a quick fix, but towards investments in the future that are focused on the creation of new jobs, so that every citizen has work in their own country. Particular attention must be paid to so-called problem regions with a low level of industrial development or a high level of unemployment. Consequently, there is a need to promote the establishment of technology, industrial and science parks and company centres. These organisations are particularly important for actively creating and developing modern technologies and ensuring economic development and modernisation, while, at the same time, creating new jobs. Small and medium-sized enterprises must be encouraged to invest in clusters. A favourable business environment should be created for them and the administrative burden should be reduced. Deep-rooted bureaucracy is preventing industrial development and is damaging the competitiveness of products created.\nAlfredo Pallone\nI voted in favour of the report by Mr Lange because alongside the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union must work for vigorous development and better use of resources in order to ensure innovation. The report on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era lists precisely these objectives: industrial innovation and simplification of existing legislation with the interests of citizens at its heart, and the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) - the beating heart of the European economy. SMEs need to be guaranteed favourable conditions and easier access to financing. It is important to emphasise that the means through which a dynamic and cutting-edge industrial policy will be realised is Structural Funds, which, if used correctly, will lay the foundations for growth in Europe.\nRovana Plumb\nEU industry accounts for roughly a third of gross value added in the EU, with almost three quarters of European exports being made up of industrial goods, and a third of employment, providing subsistence to some 57 million citizens (plus its multiplying effect whereby each job in industry creates approximately two extra jobs in related services). There are 15 key elements: building an innovation chain; increasing resource efficiency; clear targets for sustainable products; using public tenders; enhancing clean energy production; a convincing raw materials strategy; reshaping trade for fair coexistence and sustainable production; outlining an obligatory sectoral industrial policy; involving SMEs; developing regional areas for action; ensuring anticipation of industrial change; restructuring; enhancing qualifications; enlarging workers' participation in decision making; and long-term policies.\nEU industrial policy must be orientated towards both a sustainable, eco-efficient and globally competitive renewal of the industrial base and a sustainable transition from a mainly production-based towards a knowledge-based industry, while being definitely committed to investing in the EU and establishing strategic partnerships between companies in the Union.\nFiorello Provera\nThrough this report, Parliament has highlighted important issues that deserve to be emphasised in terms of the growth of European industry. I am referring to the recognition of the strategic role of small and medium-sized enterprises and to the need to make it easier to access credit with simplified funding procedures, as well as the importance of internationalisation as a key factor for competitiveness.\nThe link between innovation and the industrial world through continuous relations between enterprises and universities is also crucial and includes the sale of results and encouraging their use. For this reason, I support the contents and the proposals of the report by Mr Lange.\nPaulo Rangel\nThe recent economic and financial crisis has highlighted the importance of industry to the EU economy, which means that it is important to recognise the need for an integrated approach to industrial policy, combining competitiveness, innovation and sustainability, whilst, at the same time, showing itself capable of stimulating growth, creating jobs and ensuring environmental preservation. Indeed, European industry is facing numerous challenges, so it is vital that there be commitment to investing in new technologies and solutions, in training of staff, in the efficiency of production systems and management models, and in strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises.\nEvelyn Regner\nI voted for the report because I am convinced that an integrated industrial policy for Europe is indispensable, especially in the face of the new challenges brought about by globalisation, and a further development of industrial policy is therefore necessary. Industrial policy serves as a driver for sustainable employment and the prosperity of society. A single job in industry creates at least two more jobs. Europe's position in industrial policy is increasingly being put in doubt as a result of increasing industrialisation in the emerging countries and the growing strength of our largest competitors, like the US and China. We must therefore develop more ourselves; for that to be the case, we need to make sure to renew our industrial base by taking steps in specific sectors, but also by guaranteeing, in broad terms, the competitiveness of Europe on a global level and the sustainable growth of European industry. The report also calls for an integrated industrial policy to serve as the foundation for environmental, competition and trade policy, in order to improve resource efficiency. In addition, the report highlights the importance of a constructive partnership with workers and trade union organisations. The need to improve coordination between the EU and the Member States is also emphasised in the report. I consider these measures to be absolutely necessary. This report makes provision for the further development of industrial policy to be approached with the necessary ambition and prudence.\nBritta Reimers\nIn the vote on the Lange report, I am abstaining on paragraph 31 because of the ambiguous wording, which refers to Eurobonds as well as project bonds. However, taking it as a whole, I am voting for the report, as I have nothing against project bonds in themselves. Project bonds serve as finance for extensive innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation projects. This is not a question of instruments for the communitarisation of debts, as would be the case with Eurobonds.\nCrescenzio Rivellini\nIn today's plenary session, we voted on Mr Lange's report, entitled Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era. European industry accounts for roughly a third of gross value added in the EU, with almost three quarters of European exports being made up of industrial goods, and a third of employment, providing subsistence to some 57 million people. If its multiplying effect is accounted for, whereby each job in industry creates approximately two extra jobs in related services, its impact on employment is even more substantial.\nFurthermore, EU industrial policy should be oriented both towards a sustainable, eco-efficient and globally competitive renewal of the industrial base and towards a sustainable transition from a mainly productive towards a knowledge-based industry. The integration of all EU policies so as to combine all aspects that have an impact on industry is crucial. The own-initiative report on industrial policy by Mr Lange restates the position expressed in the Communication by the Commissioner for Industry, Mr Tajani, with some new ideas aimed at the important renewal of the industrial sector following the economic crisis.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nin writing. - Parliament has today supported a set of actions to promote the competitiveness of European industry. I welcome the recognition that, to face the crisis and globalisation challenges, energy and resource efficiency must be the basis for European industrial renewal. Sustainability has to be recognised as a central aspect of the so-called 'competitiveness proofing' and 'fitness checks' to be implemented by the Commission as part of its better regulation initiatives. The report rightfully calls for closed-loop industrial systems, greater resource productivity, durability and re-use, recycling and remanufacturing.\nThe report also calls for instruments to foster the development and growth of eco-innovative SMEs, as well as the development of eco-industrial parks. It is important to bring the EU's industrial policy in line with its climate and energy policy objectives. The Greens expect the Commission to deliver on that challenge in its upcoming strategic initiatives, such as the resource efficiency strategy, the raw materials strategy and the Small Business Act.\nOreste Rossi\nAt last, the European Union has recognised the fundamental role of industry, calling for simplification of access to credit and a reduction in red tape. In recent years, we have witnessed the adoption of measures which cause heavy burdens for European industry and which favour the unfair competition of products imported from third countries. I would note the costs resulting from combating climate change and the measures aimed at reducing or eliminating duties.\nThe report highlights the importance of research as an instrument to fend off competition and notes the professional training of workers and the information that must be given to consumers. Let us not forget, however, that aside from all the fine words, the EU is at risk of a rupture between Member States, which results in a minimal desire to create an industrial future together. I am referring to what has happened with the European patent, which has seen the Union exclude Italy and Spain, and the use of enhanced cooperation amongst other Member States. I voted in favour of this report since the principles it brings up are worthy of support.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\nIndustry in Europe is facing not only the effects of the economic crisis, but also the new challenges of the globalised era. Businesses must react appropriately to ever faster changes in economic trends. The economies of rising countries are altering the balance of forces in international markets. With the development of a knowledge-based society, the role of scientific research and innovation is also being enhanced, these leading to economic growth and competitiveness. The problems which the EU economy is having to face up to include demographic change and the downturn in productivity. The main objectives for EU industry are a growth in competitiveness and innovativeness. To achieve them, it is necessary to take a number of measures at the same time. It is essential to continue work on the single market and harmonisation of customs and tax legislation. The bureaucratic burden on businesses should be reduced and the legal framework simplified. Cooperation between businesses should be strengthened through business clusters, networks and centres of excellence, and efforts should be made to promote synergies between universities and business.\nIt may also prove helpful to use alternative mechanisms such as public-private partnerships that share the risks between private and public investors, and to use leverage and the knock-on effect. It will be crucial to support small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the basis of European industry, by financial assistance in the area of innovation and technology transfer and by involving innovative and sustainable criteria in tenders for public procurement. It should not be forgotten to ensure a rise in spending on research based on cooperation between the public and private sector.\nCatherine Stihler\nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report which highlights ways in which the EU's industrial base may be strengthened. Industry provides roughly a third of employment in the EU, which is why it is so vital that we ensure its ongoing viability.\nNuno Teixeira\nEuropean industry and its multiplier effect account for approximately a third of the EU's gross value added, and it provides a livelihood for 57 million people. It is necessary to create an industrial policy which fosters coordination between the Member States and their competitive potential, as expressed in the Europe 2020 strategy. The relevance of this report at a time of economic recession shows that, despite its importance, this sector is relegated to the background. This evidence requires a closer look at the challenges which European industry will have to face, particularly the restructuring and reorientation of its makeup, based on a global knowledge society through innovation and research, in order to address the competitiveness of emerging economies. Aside from this, new dynamics, climate change, demographic shifts and the process of urbanisation\/depopulation are developing. Of the 15 points tabled by the rapporteur, I would like to highlight the measures that have an effect on small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), which are the real driving force of the EU growth. The simplification of European procedures for obtaining funding, more and better information given to the SMEs about operational programmes, the creation of innovation clusters and networks, as well as greater support on the part of the European Central Bank, are key initiatives for the success of European industrial policy.\nAlexandra Thein\nIn the vote on the Lange report, I am abstaining on paragraph 31 because of the ambiguous wording of the vote, which refers to Eurobonds as well as project bonds. However, taking it as a whole, I am voting for the report, as I have nothing against project bonds in themselves. Project bonds serve as finance for extensive innovation, infrastructure and reindustrialisation projects. This is not a question of instruments for the communitarisation of debts, as would be the case with Eurobonds.\nDerek Vaughan\nin writing. - I supported this report as it sets out the need for a coherent policy on the future of industry across the EU. With over 60 million jobs in the EU generated by industrial manufacturing, a robust policy will help the EU overcome some of the challenges faced by manufacturers. Making up part of the EU's 2020 strategy, this report outlines 15 'cornerstones' of a strong policy which will ensure that the EU can keep up with competitors from the US, China and Japan, who invest heavily in research and development into cutting-edge technology, and countries that are able to cut costs through cheap labour and have less stringent intellectual property rules. Some of the most useful recommendations in the report include the need for an innovation chain which links industry-related research to innovation and application of the technology, and an increased emphasis on resource efficiency and sustainability which ties in with the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy.\nIva Zanicchi\nI decided to vote in favour of the own-initiative report by Mr Lange since it represents Parliament's contribution to the debate on an issue of utmost importance for the business world: European industrial policy.\nThe report has a number of positive aspects, such as the broad appeal to European enterprises to meet environmental standards, but only on a voluntary basis and without rigid impositions. The central role of industry - and not just industrial policy - for the growth of the European Union is also correctly reiterated. Now, taking our lead from the report that has been voted on today, I think it is important that all the institutions and interested parties strive to realise the objectives defined therein, translating them into real action. Particularly important are: the adoption of measures for the protection of intellectual property; the affirmation of an industrial innovation model that aims for excellence; the modernisation of industries, particularly with regard to environmental protection and the careful use of energy resources; and support for the creation of circumstances that assist in the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":7,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"13. Active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (\nPresident\nExceptionally, colleagues, and those who are waiting to give explanations of vote, you will appreciate that it is now very late. We have all been here some time, as, particularly, have our interpreters. There are a very large number of explanations of vote, and I suspect we would not get through them by 15.00. That being the case, I am taking the decision, as we have done before, that they will be dealt with at the end of business tonight.\nDaniel Hannan\nMadam President, the rules are very clear that, after the vote, every Member has the right to make an explanation of vote for up to 60 seconds. I am conscious that our interpreters have been here for a long time. I am conscious that we are keeping a lot of people from their lunch. May I suggest a compromise that was used by your fellow Vice-President, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, the last time that this happened, which is to allow people to make explanations of vote one person after another, which speeded up proceedings very considerably.\nPresident\nThank you, Mr Hannan. We did consider that formula. There are so many that I do not think it would work. You will be able to make your explanations of vote after the vote, in the sense that it will be tonight. I am sorry for that, but it really is too late - and you know how I enjoy your contributions!\nWritten explanations of vote\nJos\u00e9 Ribeiro e Castro  \nThe European Commission's Communication COM(2007) 281 set all the European institutions a challenge: 'The time has come to look at Brazil as a strategic partner as well as a major Latin American economic actor and regional leader'. This partnership was established on 4 July 2007 in Lisbon during the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union. On 12 March 2009 the European Parliament adopted a recommendation to the Council which stated that 'the Strategic Partnership should provide for the establishment of a regular structured dialogue between the Members of the Brazilian National Congress and Members of the European Parliament'.\nDespite this statement of principle and my calls to the President of this House, I note with sadness that Parliament is sticking with the anachronistic option of making Brazil the only BRIC economy without an independent parliamentary delegation. This contradicts Parliament's own decision and demonstrates a deplorable inertia and short-term attitude, given Brazil's real importance in the world. I hope that future Members of this Parliament, particularly Portuguese Members, will help to change this regrettable state of affairs and establish direct and productive communication with the Brazilian National Congress.\nI voted against.\nFrancis Wurtz  \nin writing. - The GUE\/NGL Group has abstained in the vote on the number of interparliamentary delegations, due to the reference to 'Kosovo' in the formation of a 'Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo'.\nThe formation of a delegation for relations with a self-proclaimed state that is a result of violation of international law constitutes in itself a de facto violation of international law.\nThis abstention does not concern all other delegations referred to in the same decision, which we support.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I am delighted to vote here today on this report to repeal a directive and 11 obsolete decisions and note that our next report from Mr Morillon will repeal a further 14 obsolete regulations.\nI congratulate my colleague on a move that we would do well to replicate across all our committees and all our spheres of competence. I would certainly favour some regulations and directives having a fixed lifetime that would stop the continued acceptance of laws and regulations and the burdens that consequently fall on us all.\nKaterina Batzeli\nin writing. - (EL) The PASOK parliamentary group voted in favour of the Stavreva report, because it gives Member States the facility to choose support measures for rural development at a particularly crucial time for the countryside and for farmers. The original text of the Commission proposal was also improved on the basis of the amendments which I tabled in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.\nHowever, under no circumstances can opportunistic reductions in the financial limits of the common agricultural policy be accepted on the pretext that it has unused resources. The Community budget cannot be recycled using the flexibility mechanism. Instead of this practice, it would be politically and materially expedient to debate an increase in the Community budget, so as not to affect existing Community policies, including the CAP, which will be called on to cover the financing of new policies to deal with the crisis and improve the competitiveness of the EU.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698\/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).\nI support this document as it is allocating an additional EUR 250 million to supplement the funds earmarked for 2009 and it offers greater flexibility in terms of allocating and using the financial resources for developing broadband Internet in rural areas and for tackling the new challenges in the agricultural sector.\nThis top-up to the EAFRD is necessary, especially at a time of crisis. Romania must access this fund through the implementation of viable projects, with the aim of developing our villages and raising the standard of living of those inhabiting our rural areas.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nThe report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698\/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).\nZdzis\u0142aw Zbigniew Podka\u0144ski  \nThe European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development represents a great opportunity for historically underdeveloped regions. The fund is also an opportunity to reduce the disproportion between old and new European Union Member States.\nWhen administering the fund we must remember that the common agricultural policy is full of injustices and inequalities. Differences in subsidies, and so in the incomes of farmers, lead to the maintenance of these disproportions, and even to their increase. These disproportions concern not only the economic situation of residents of rural areas, but also the entire infrastructure, including access to the Internet. We must, therefore, remember that German farmers, for example, receive subsidies which are twice as much as Polish farmers receive, and three times more than Romanian farmers.\nWe must also remember that the regions which most need help are found in Romania, Bulgaria and the Eastern Wall of Poland.\nGuy Bono  \nI voted in favour of this report, presented by my British fellow Member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Mr Corbett, on the general revision of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.\nI support the initiative by the Socialist Group President, Mr Schulz, who sought to use this revision to prevent the French leader of an extreme-right party from having the honour of chairing the inaugural session of the new parliament.\nUnder the new provisions, Parliament's inaugural session, to be held on 14 July, will be chaired by the outgoing president, if he is re-elected, or by one of the 14 vice-presidents in order of precedence if re-elected.\nEuropean democracy in fact holds principles of respect and tolerance among peoples that Mr Le Pen wilfully disregards through his determination to make revisionist remarks.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report, and in particular Amendments 51 and 52, which replace the oldest Member taking the chair at the opening of the new Parliament by a 'provisional choice'. I do not understand why we have ever had this bizarre rule. Maybe the 'father or mother' of the House has a logic. The longest serving Member at least has experience to fall back on, rather than merely age.\nWe have already had this system abused by Mr Le Pen and his Front National when in 1989 Claude Autant-Lara was parachuted into this Parliament and made a farce of the opening of the institution with a lengthy and highly offensive intervention. Within months he had stood down, having performed his function of bringing ridicule upon the European Parliament. We cannot, 20 years on, allow Mr Le Pen a second opportunity to bring Europe into disrepute.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nMr Corbett's report aims at bringing Parliament's Rules of Procedure into line with the current practice of general consensus and prior bargaining in small groups, which turns the plenary into nothing more than a meeting that records texts cooked up previously by a handful of experts. As a result, the institutionalisation of a final public vote on each text is merely the minimum level of transparency that the citizens can expect of the work of this House.\nHowever, this report is above all an unexpected opportunity to adopt in extremis a mind-boggling amendment, despite it having been rejected in committee, and drafted exclusively to prevent a single individual from performing a duty that is, moreover, recognised in all the world's parliaments: that of the oldest Member chairing the election of the President at the inaugural session. A real exceptional act, the crime of a real political scoundrel! Unheard of in a democracy!\nThe signatories are none other than Mr Daul and Mr Schulz, who should definitely try to become known and recognised in Germany, rather than in France. This is extra proof, if such were needed, of the ongoing collusion between the soft right and the sectarian left, which vote together on almost all of the texts adopted in this House.\nJean-Marie Le Pen  \nAfter the amendment on the oldest Member was rejected by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Mr Schulz and Mr Daul, those two liberal-social-democrat cronies, reintroduce the same amendment in plenary.\nThe Classics used to teach that to err is human; to persist in error is diabolical.\nThe lesson has clearly not been learned. Focusing the work of the European Parliament on my humble self borders on the pathetic. In fact, flouting our own Rules of Procedure to such an extent is to sow the seeds of latent totalitarianism.\nWhen will the minority groups be eliminated? When will recalcitrant Members be eliminated?\nFrom Claude Autant-Lara to Jean-Marie Le Pen, we have come full circle. In 1989, after the great filmmaker's remarkable speech, the oldest Member's speech was abolished. Twenty years later, the oldest Member is to be got rid of to prevent that devil Le Pen from presiding over the election of the President of the European Parliament.\nSuch democratic progress, ladies and gentlemen!\nMr Schulz and Mr Daul are unwittingly giving me remarkable free publicity, which I will not fail to exploit. Alone against the world, I will take up the gauntlet and take as witness the true democrats and sincere Europeans: this masquerade and this denial of democracy serves not Europe but the hidden, partisan interests of a small coterie of politicians.\nPatrick Louis  \nAs a French Member of the European Parliament and a member of the Independence and Democracy Group, I chose not to support Amendments 51 and 52 to Mr Corbett's report.\nIt is, in fact, unreasonable to change a general rule to suit a specific case.\nMoreover, these manoeuvres will undoubtedly have the opposite effect to that intended, in other words, they will highlight the disrespect in which many Members hold some of their fellow Members and candidates.\nMoreover, there is nothing to prevent a political party unhappy with the current oldest Member from presenting an older candidate.\nAstrid Lulling  \nI did not vote for the general revision of Parliament's Rules of Procedure because, in seeking to avoid having an oldest Member by the name of Le Pen in the chair, an inelegant, indeed counter-productive solution has been found, despite there being a solution that would have been acceptable to all those here who are in favour of the policy of gender mainstreaming.\nWe could therefore have replaced Article 11 with the following text: 'Alternately, the oldest male Member or the oldest female Member from amongst the Members present will, as oldest Member, take on the role of President until the proclamation of Parliament's choice. The alternating order will begin with the oldest female Member.'\nIn this way, we could have avoided having a Le Pen as the presiding oldest Member without this House murdering the Rules of Procedure and adopting a procedure that exists in no other parliament of a democratic country.\nThat is a shame. Personally, I have more confidence in the French electorate. I hope it will prevent the election of Mr Le Pen and that this exercise will thus prove pointless.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) The European Union in particular, which takes up the cause of democracy, tolerance and freedom of opinion, would itself appear not to take them so precisely. Whether it is in terms of the right of peoples to self-determination, accession criteria or solutions to present-day problems, two different EU standards are applied depending on what is convenient.\nAnyone who does not meet the requirements of political correctness, who is an inconvenience to the EU establishment, who depicts uncomfortable realities in the EU establishment, is excluded and all of a sudden subject to other rules. The principle of idem ius omnibus- equal justice for all - must be strictly applied if the EU does not want to slide into politically correct hypocrisy. Personal animosities must not be cited as backing for quasi 'knee-jerk legislation'.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nThe amendments proposed by the rapporteur make the rules on the register of European Parliament documents more flexible, and they simplify the Rules of Procedure. In addition, some of them aim to adapt the Rules of Procedure to new rules and to present practice.\nOne of the most important changes is to give the President of the European Parliament the authority to invite national parliaments (of States which have signed a Treaty on the accession of a State to the European Union) to designate from among their own members a number of observers equal to the number of future seats in the European Parliament allocated to that State. Those observers shall take part in the proceedings of Parliament pending the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession, and shall have the right to speak in committees and political groups. They shall not have the right to vote or to stand for election to positions within Parliament.\nAnother change to the Rules of Procedure regulates the procedure for joint committee meetings and joint votes. The respective rapporteurs shall draw up a single draft report, which shall be examined and voted upon by the committees involved at joint meetings held under the joint chairmanship of the committee chairs concerned.\nImportant changes from the point of view of the progress of parliamentary proceedings concern allocation of speaking time and drawing up the list of speakers, and also amendments concerning taking the final vote on a piece of legislation. Roll call votes increase MEPs' accountability towards citizens.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) In the European Parliament's first reading of the telecoms package, a majority of Members voted in favour of Amendments 138 and 166, which have been under discussion. By doing so, the European Parliament made it clear that a court ruling should be required in order for someone to be excluded from the Internet, and that users have the right to free expression and to privacy. However, the Council chose to ignore the wishes of the European Parliament and deleted Amendments 138 and 166. The European Parliament and the Council have now agreed on a compromise. This compromise does not contain Amendments 138 and 166 in their original form. We therefore voted against the compromise in today's vote.\nThe June List and the Danish June Movement are keen for Amendments 138 and 166 to be included in the telecoms package and have therefore tabled a number of amendments which have been referred to as 'Citizens' Rights Amendments' by Internet activists and which have received the support of a couple of other political groups within the European Parliament. If our proposals had won the support of MEPs there would have been a good chance of the European Parliament and the Council finally agreeing on a telecoms package that seriously protects the rights and privacy of Internet users.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) We are trying today to support economic interests by hook or by crook. A flurry of copyright laws is suddenly to be introduced in a framework law for the provision of telecommunications. It is sufficient for the EU to introduce a duty to warn customers of the dangers of violating 'intellectual copyrights'; the sanctions could then be regulated at national level. Afterwards, each can then lay the blame on the other person. In this report, major software developers have also tried to incorporate a stumbling block for smaller developers.\nThere may well be rights violations on the Internet, such as child pornography, which we must oppose, but this must not get out of hand to the extent that data protection is sacrificed at the altar of the economic interests of a few large companies and multinational corporations. The original idea behind the telecommunications package was perfectly sensible, but with the huge number of amendments, one or more amendments criticising the package could have slipped through.\nGuy Bono  \nI voted in favour of Amendment 138, which I tabled in September last year and which was adopted by 88% of MEPs.\nI am pleased that it has again been upheld by an overwhelming majority of Members, who have thus reaffirmed their commitment to defending the rights of Internet users.\nOne month from the European elections, that is a strong sign. Contrary to what the UMP and its minister of culture seem to think, the European Parliament's opinion does matter.\nThis is another blow to Sarkozy and the French Government: Parliament has said 'no' to Sarkozy on both form and content. MEPs have said 'no' to the flexible response and 'no' to the inadmissible pressure exerted by France on the primary democratic body of the European continent!\nIlda Figueiredo  \nMillions of Europeans rely on the Internet, whether directly or indirectly, in their daily lives. Limiting, restricting or conditioning the Internet would have a direct and negative impact on the day-to-day lives of the general public and many of the micro-enterprises and SMEs which depend directly on this resource to carry out their business.\nIt was therefore important that our group's proposal be adopted, through our vote in favour, as this will maintain the freedom of exchanges between users, without these being controlled or sponsored by intermediaries.\nHowever, it seems that the Council is not ready to accept this amendment, which is supported by a majority in Parliament who are against the limitation agreement reached in negotiations with the Council. However, this is a small victory, given that it has prevented the adoption of a bad proposal.\nAll those who defend freedom of movement on the Internet and free software are to be congratulated. This is a struggle with which we will continue in order to ensure the protection of citizens' rights and unrestricted access by end-users to services.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nFirstly, the amendments that best protect citizens' rights and freedoms have not been adopted by this House in the Harbour report, which complements this report.\nNext, an issue with the voting order, which fortunately has been resolved, has put a question mark over the way in which a major political problem can be settled here: by sly, petty political manoeuvring, and then laying the blame on an administration that can do nothing about it.\nFinally, because the displeasure of Mr Toubon, a visibly ardent defender of the Hadopi law, when Amendment 1, known to Internet users as the 'Bono' amendment, was adopted, was succeeded by his joy and approval when Mrs Trautmann made it known that this text would go to third reading, the overall compromise having been amended, the clearly demonstrated will of the majority of this Parliament risks being trampled over, as were the results of the referendums in France, the Netherlands, Ireland ...\nMr Sarkozy and his friends in the 'majors' have some respite. The citizens, for their part, will have to remain alert. It will be the Parliament elected on 7 June that will negotiate for the third reading. It is not certain whether, once their seats have been secured, the socialists will remain on the side of freedom.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis  \nin writing. - (EL) The 'telecommunications package' requested by the Commission and the Council constitutes a potential threat to civil rights. The amendments which we tabled called for the safeguarding of civil rights, universal access and transparency and freedom on the Internet as an area in which ideas are exchanged and not as a resource controlled by politicians and businessmen. Internet users are customers, but they are also citizens. We shall continue to fight for the protection of the individual freedoms of all European citizens.\nVladimir Urutchev  \nToday during the vote on the electronic communications package, this parliament showed that the protection of consumer rights really is its number one priority.\nRegardless of the fact that a relatively acceptable compromise in positions was reached at second reading, a majority in Parliament was not afraid to go against the arrangements and persuasively insist on its initial position against the possible introduction of restrictions on Internet access, unless they are imposed by a court judgment or public security is under threat.\nIn fact, the whole package has been reduced to a conciliation procedure and its introduction has been delayed. However, after today's parliamentary vote, we cannot fail to send a powerful signal to the Council and Commission.\nHowever, let us acknowledge that what has happened today is down to the active involvement of people representing the Internet, who used every means available to express their position to MEPs and demand that they protect their rights.\nThis type of behaviour can only be encouraged.\nThis is why we should also come to the conclusion that we must always listen closely to what people are saying so that EU legislation focuses on their needs too, while ensuring the maximum possible protection for the interests of European citizens.\nCarl Schlyter  \nin writing. - (SV) I am voting against this report, as guarantees should be given that parts of the available spectra will be used for nonprofit-making purposes and not go to the large telecoms companies.\nRobert Atkins  \nin writing. - British Conservatives support ending the pay gap and other forms of discrimination between men and women. Equal treatment in all forms of employment is crucial for a fair and equal society. However, Conservatives believe that national governments and parliaments are generally best placed to act in ways that are most effective for their own societies and economies.\nConservatives support the sentiment that spouses of self-employed workers should have access to sickness pay and pensions and maternity rights. However, we believe these decisions are best determined by the Member States.\nAs the request for a new legislative proposal on equal pay based on Article 141(3) of the EC Treaty is covered by the Conservative Party's pledge to opt-out of the social chapter, which we are not supportive of, we have chosen to abstain.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - This report improves the way the principle of equal treatment applies to self-employed workers and assisting spouses in the EU. However, Ireland already provides that the spouses of self-employed persons may become self-employed PRSI contributors in their own right if a commercial partnership between the spouses is demonstrated. A person may, for example, choose to pay voluntary contributions which allow them to remain insured once they leave the compulsory PRSI system. Social insurance is a matter of national competence and for this reason I voted against Amendment 14. Since this Amendment to Article 6 of the report was passed, I along with the rest of my Irish colleagues in the EPP-ED decided to abstain on the final vote.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for Astrid Lulling's report on equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, although I feel that it should have gone much further in reinforcing the rights of women and the protection of motherhood. Self-employment remains a minority form of employment in Europe, accounting for 16% of the working population. Only one-third of selfemployed workers are women.\nThis proposal should have removed the obstacles to women's access to self-employment, by providing for measures or specific advantages designed to make it easier to engage in self-employed activities.\nI believe that assisting spouses should have a very clearly defined professional status and social security protection equivalent to that of self-employed workers.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) Social security systems differ depending on where you are in Europe. This is not a problem, as many seem to think. Instead, it is a natural result of the fact that the countries are different and public democratic elections have resulted in different political systems being voted through. As advocates of intergovernmental EU cooperation, it is therefore natural for us to reject the wordings in both the Commission's proposal for a directive and the report from the European Parliament which seek to give the EU more power over the national social security systems.\nHowever, it is worth pointing out that the stringent proposals made seek primarily to ensure minimum levels. Thus, the wordings do not prevent the Member States from going further if they so wish. This is a positive thing, not least from a Swedish perspective. This flexibility and the fact that the equal treatment of women and men is so clearly emphasised as a fundamental principle of a well-functioning democratic society have led us to vote in favour of the report as a whole.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nSelfemployed people currently make up only 16% of the working population. Barely one third of the 32.5 million self-employed are women.\nThe proposal to tackle the obstacles to women's access to self-employment, among others by adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to engage in selfemployed activities should be supported.\nDirective 86\/613\/EEC has led to little progress for assisting spouses of self-employed workers in terms of recognition of their work and adequate social protection.\nThe new directive should, above all, provide for compulsory registration of assisting spouses so that they are no longer invisible workers, and place an obligation on Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that assisting spouses are able to take out insurance cover for health care and retirement pensions.\nDespite the fact that the Member States are far from unanimous about the need to improve the legal framework in this area, I hope that it will be possible to reach a reasonable consensus quickly, so that this directive can be adopted at first reading, before the European elections in June 2009.\nLet us support initiatives for equality. By putting people first we can build a fairer society.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted in favour of Gabriele Stauner's report as I feel it is necessary to extend the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund's remit to also cover redundancies caused by the economic and financial crisis.\nThe purpose of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is to offer effective support to workers made redundant as a result of globalisation. After adopting this piece of legislation, the money from this fund can also be used for redundancies resulting from the economic and financial crisis.\nThe cofinancing rate for this fund is 50% and this figure may be raised to 65% by 2011.\nThe maximum annual financial package available to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is EUR 500 million, which is intended to be used to help people look for work or to finance professional training courses or mobility allowances.\nI hope that Romania too will access the money from this fund to help people who are losing their jobs.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis partial improvement of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund falls short of what is needed in this serious crisis that we are experiencing. It takes no account of the proposals that we made to increase the Community contribution to 85% of the amount to be allocated to the unemployed, or even to double the amount of said Fund in order to cover more people who may fall victim to company closures. That is why we decided to abstain.\nThe amended rules of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, adopted today, are intended to allow this Fund to intervene more effectively in terms of cofinancing the training and job placement of workers made redundant as a result of the economic crisis. The new rules extend the scope of the Fund and provide for a temporary increase in the cofinancing rate from 50% to 65%, in order to provide additional support from the Fund during the financial and economic crisis. However, countries facing financial difficulties will have little recourse to the Fund, given that they will still have to support a high rate of cofinancing.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nWe are currently facing an unprecedented crisis. It has affected not only financial affairs, but also economic and social affairs, and has hit not just several Member States, but the entire European Union and the world.\nLeaders of the Party of European Socialists have adopted a joint declaration calling on States 'For an ambitious recovery plan to safeguard employment and prevent mass unemployment'. The only way to have a real effect on the economy is to give it a budgetary stimulus which is adequate to the problem being faced and is coordinated across the whole of Europe. Our priority, which guides everything we say or do, is to make jobs secure and to fight unemployment, while also promoting sound ecological development.\nIf we do not make fresh efforts to combat the crisis in Europe, unemployment will rise to 25 million at the beginning of 2010, and the condition of public finance will worsen considerably.\nThe European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established in 2006 and will function until 2013. The purpose of the EGF is to provide support for workers made redundant as a result of globalisation. The Fund's maximum annual budget is EUR 500 million and it is used to support active labour market measures, such as assistance for people seeking work, in the form of further training grants and mobility allowances.\nI support the idea of a reduction in the number of redundancies (to 500) required to trigger intervention.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien \nin writing. - (LT) I voted for Eugenijus Maldeikis' report on the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on EU financial support to projects in the field of energy.\nI am delighted that a huge majority of Parliament (526 votes) voted in favour; they supported this document.\nI would once more like to underline the importance of our decision.\nLike Latvia, Estonia and Poland, my country, Lithuania, has already been part of the European Union in a political and economic sense for five years. However, in terms of energy it was and still is like an island, with no bridges linking it to the Community's energy market.\nWith today's decision the European Parliament allocated EUR 175 million towards the construction of an energy bridge, which will link Lithuania and Sweden.\nOnce this project has been realised, the countries in our region, which became EU Member States in 2004, will finally connect their energy markets to the Scandinavian states, and so to the EU market.\nThis is a fantastic project, a good beginning, and I would like to thank all of my colleagues who voted for it.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy.\nThe European Economic Recovery Plan provides investments amounting to EUR 5 billion for energy projects, broadband Internet and rural development measures. EUR 3.98 billion will be invested in infrastructure for electricity, natural gas, wind power and for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. The European Parliament supports the allocation of EUR 1.02 billion for rural development projects.\nThe economic recovery plan is allocating EUR 200 million to the construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline which will transport natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the EU. Romania supports this project. The key items of interest to Romania include funding in this recovery plan for gas interconnection projects between Romania and Hungary (EUR 30 million) and Romania and Bulgaria (EUR 10 million), as well as for developing the equipment infrastructure enabling the gas flow to be reversed in the event of short-term disruption to the supply (EUR 80 million).\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the programme granting financial assistance to projects in the field of energy. The European Parliament's proposal for investment, based on an agreement reached with the Council, is built on three pillars, namely: interconnection of gas and electricity networks; carbon capture and storage; and offshore wind projects. As such, the proposal sets out procedures and methods of providing financial assistance to stimulate investment in the creation of a European integrated energy network, whilst enhancing the European Union's policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.\nThere is a need for immediate action to stimulate the European economy and it is therefore vital to have measures ensuring an adequate geographical balance and speedy implementation. In Portugal, gas network interconnection projects (infrastructures and equipment) are eligible, as too are projects to improve the electricity network interconnection with Spain.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nThe Commission's ambition to increase investments in energy infrastructure is the latest in a long line of examples of the arrogance that has infected the officials in Berlaymont. The proposed investments are both extensive and costly, and it has yet to be demonstrated that all of these investments should be dealt with at EU level. In total, investments amounting to EUR 3.5 billion are proposed for 2009 and 2010 - money that is to be provided from the Member States' budgets. As far as Sweden is concerned, this will mean a significant increase in the membership fees by an additional SEK 1.4 billion. The fact that the Commission does not believe it has had time to carry out a thorough impact assessment of such a comprehensive proposal is utterly appalling.\nThe rapporteur for the European Parliament's report does not seem to be particularly concerned by these objections. Instead, an increase in assistance from EUR 3.5 billion to nearly EUR 4 billion is proposed!\nOur mandate to work towards less costly EU cooperation leads us to reject this frivolous treatment of taxpayers' money. However, it should be pointed out that there are very good reasons for continuing to look for ways to improve and develop techniques for separating and storing carbon dioxide. We have voted against the report as a whole.\nAnders Wijkman  \nin writing. - (SV) The proposal to set aside around EUR 4 billion for projects in the field of energy within the European energy programme for recovery is a good one. However, the content has become far too focussed on fossil fuels. In addition, there is a complete lack of support for projects for improving the efficiency of energy use. At an early stage, the Commission proposed that EUR 500 million be set aside for 'sustainable cities' - a proposal that was, however, withdrawn.\nThe assistance for 'sustainable cities' would have enabled wide-ranging projects to develop district heating and combined heat and power as well as improvements in housing. Such projects would be cost-effective and would reduce emissions and create new jobs. It is deeply regrettable that the opportunity is not being taken, in connection with the economic crisis, to breathe new life into this type of measure.\nUdo Bullmann  \nin writing. - (DE) The SPD Members of the European Parliament have rejected the report for two reasons:\nFirst, the retention for the securitisation of loans is an important and correct instrument for involving financial institutions in the business risk of the loans in question. However, this requires a significantly large retention. The 5% retention agreed in the trialogue does not meet this requirement. The European Commission originally called for a 15% retention in the consultation process but then bowed to pressure from industry and proposed 5%. Conservatives and liberals in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs wanted to declare even this low-level participation in the business risk unnecessary through the submission of a guarantee by the financial institutions. The SPD Members of the European Parliament support a much higher retention and will also emphasise this demand in future reforms of the Capital Requirements Directive.\nSecond, the definition of core capital given in the Karas report violates the competitive neutrality of the regulation. It provides that, in future, silent capital contributions will no longer fully count as core capital, although they can be fully absorbed in the event of liquidity. This opens the floodgates to unfair competition against public banks in Germany. We note that silent capital contributions are a proven refinancing instrument, which is compatible with EU law. As the outcome of the trialogue does take account of the explanatory amendments we have proposed, we reject the report.\nAstrid Lulling  \nI congratulate the rapporteur for his diligent work, both on the substance of the text and in the subsequent negotiations. The exceptional circumstances require us to take fast, appropriate action.\nI can accept the result proposed to us in the area of securitisation. The systematic introduction of standardised Colleges of Supervisors is a major advance.\nSince the autumn, the draft report has opened the way with its idea of a decentralised European supervisory system. The de Larosi\u00e8re group's report and the Commission communication of 4 March have usefully developed this idea. I am delighted that these ideas meet with general approval.\nAs for the scope, one thing must be said. Instead of taking the somewhat simplistic criterion of cross-border banks, it might be wiser to target the banks that have a systemic importance.\nThe latter would be directly subject to the new banking authority. The other banks would be supervised by a college or, in the case of purely national banks, by their national supervisor. For crisis management purposes, the systemic banks should also be subject to financial stability arrangements at European level.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I congratulate Mr Karas. This vote is an excellent outcome for many reasons.\nFirst, among them is the fact this is a package which Parliament recommended and negotiated. I have been in such negotiations and I know how difficult such talks can be.\nSecond, is the substance, which is to say this legislation delivers better protection for British and other citizens across the EU.\nSecuritisation was the method by which the so-called 'toxic assets' were spread between banks, leaving huge debts in many private and public banks.\nThe idea of retention of the originator asset by as much as 5%, subject to a review after impact assessments and international changes, is vital.\nReducing the 'leveraging' and ensuring the proper capital adequacy of banks is the guard against behaviour by banks which has brought us to the very edge of financial disaster.\nMr Karas can be satisfied with his work in the negotiations. I know how difficult it is for Parliament to get improvements to texts, but this first reading deal is a sensible one.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nIf anyone had any doubts about the real objective of this proposal, you would only have to quote the words in the text adopted today with regard to ensuring 'the dismantling of remaining barriers to the smooth functioning of the internal market'. Furthermore, Article 2 clarifies that 'the general objective ... is to improve the conditions for the functioning of the internal market'.\nOnce again it must at the very least be paradigmatic that, following the failure of the so-called 'European economic recovery plan' and the proclaimed 'European solidarity', the first and, up to now, only proposal to create a Community support programme is aimed at the financial services! It almost seems like we are not facing one of the biggest crises in capitalism, with worsening unemployment, destruction of productive capacity, increasing inequalities and growing difficulties for workers and the general population.\nThe proposals that we tabled - such as increasing the Community budget, creating Community support programmes for the manufacturing sector and protecting jobs with rights and public services - were rejected. Yet when it comes to supporting the financial market and the 'smooth functioning of the internal market', there is no lack of Community funding. This is unacceptable. That is why we voted against.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We Eurosceptics are always seeking to make EU cooperation less costly. Taxpayers' money must be used wisely. It is important, particularly during these turbulent times, for us to be careful with our common resources. Budget restrictiveness must remain a guiding principle for us as elected representatives.\nHowever, the present report leads us in a completely different direction. The Commission's original proposal for financing was deemed to be inadequate and in no time at all the large political groups within the European Parliament proposed that the appropriations for the financial supervisory bodies be doubled. On what grounds, we might ask ourselves. We are dealing with a full-scale global financial meltdown in which international efforts need to be made at a global level.\nSupervision of the financial institutions within the EU is not a task for the EU at the present time. It is important to bear this in mind. However, the present proposal gives an indication of the ambitions of the powerful political elite. With vague references to the financial crisis and its conceivable consequences for supervision and scrutiny, this is nothing more than a brazen attempt to advance the EU's position. We, of course, have no choice but to vote against the report and the alternative motion for a resolution.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - Although I am a strong proponent of animal welfare I am hesitant to ban practices such as the import of seal products provided it can be shown that the suffering of animals is kept to a minimum when they are killed.\nNevertheless, there are some practices which give great cause for concern, not least ritual slaughter traditions for certain religious purposes. Given Europe's cultural diversity, some of these practices, which are alien to the EU's respect for animal welfare, have begun to take root. As a result, animals are suffering needlessly.\nI accept that some religions attach fundamental importance to the way in which an animal is slaughtered in order for its meat to be consumed. However, the development of a culture of animal rights and animal welfare has been hard-won in Europe over the past 30 years, and we should not sacrifice it on the altar of political correctness. Animals killed by ritual slaughter methods must first be stunned in order to minimise suffering and further promote the values of animal welfare that we hold dear.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Every year in the European Union, millions of animals are killed. Many animals are subject to treatment which involves unnecessary suffering, not only during their rearing and transport, but also at the time of slaughter or killing and related operations. The suffering of animals at slaughterhouses must be avoided, including animals reared for the production of food and other products.\nIn my opinion, the proposal is balanced and consistent with the Community objectives of ensuring the protection and welfare of animals. I agree that the largescale slaughter of animals should be carried out with due regard for humanitarian standards, limiting the suffering experienced by animals.\nAs a result, I did not vote for the amendment removing the ban on using systems for restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position because, in my opinion, this practice compromises the welfare of animals.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nLadies and gentlemen, I voted for the Wojciechowski report on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Many people wonder how it is possible to protect animals while they are being killed. This may sound paradoxical, but it is possible. Everyone who has experienced the killing of an animal or observed such an act is aware of how painful the death of an animal may be. Introduction of new legislation in this area will limit the unnecessary suffering of animals, and this is why the legislation is needed.\nCarl Lang  \nBy affirming that animals must be slaughtered without unnecessary suffering, except in the case of religious rites, the majority of our House has demonstrated both its hypocrisy and its cowardice. 'Religious rites' mainly refer to the ritual slaughter practised in particular during the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Adha, when hundreds of thousands of sheep have their throats cut.\nLegal recognition of such a practice is part of a much wider phenomenon, that of the Islamisation of our societies. Our laws and customs are changing progressively to accommodate Islamic Sharia law. In France, more and more local authorities are indirectly funding the construction of mosques. School menus are drawn up to meet Islamic dietary requirements. In some cities, such as Lille, the swimming pools have womenonly sessions. By creating the Conseil fran\u00e7ais du culte musulman in 2003, Mr Sarkozy, then Minister of the Interior, introduced Islam into France's institutions.\nTo put an end to these developments, we have to reject the Islamically correct, reverse the flow of nonEuropean migration and create a new Europe, a Europe of sovereign nations, without Turkey, affirming the Christian and humanist values of its civilisation.\nCristiana Muscardini  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is regrettable that the European Parliament should have chosen a schizophrenic approach at the end of its term and on such a sensitive issue, because it really is schizophrenic, on the one hand, to project oneself into the future even when the latter introduces technologies used to teach violence and rape and, on the other, to plunge back into the past in order to return to tribal rites and to placate those who need to see blood spilt and more pointless suffering in the eyes of the victim.\nWe firmly oppose tribal butchery that does not take into account the consensus and the free choice of individual Member States.\nLydia Schenardi  \nWe approve of the desire to replace the 1993 directive in a way that improves and standardises conditions of slaughter throughout the European Union.\nWe also approve of the principle according to which animals should only be slaughtered using methods which ensure instant death or death after stunning, but we are totally against the idea of permitting exemptions in the framework of religious rites.\nPublic opinion is very sensitive and completely opposed to unnecessary, painful practices. Why tolerate them, then, in the name of religion, irrespective of whether or not the animals are immobilised prior to being killed?\nStrict legislation that provides for verification of the procedures must be introduced to ensure that animals are stunned and cannot regain consciousness before dying, but it would be even better to prohibit such practices completely. They are from another age and can be rightly termed barbaric.\nKathy Sinnott  \nin writing. - Protecting animals from cruelty is a very important responsibility. However, some of the proposals put forward in order to prevent cruelty, I believe, will actually cause more cruelty.\nI particularly refer to the proposal to have all slaughter at slaughter facilities. Famers would be forced to load and transport animals, even if they are sick or old, and such action would cause them pain and distress.\nThis proposal also carries risks in terms of contagious disease and infection. Sometimes it is better to contain sickness by slaughtering an animal on its own farm, as long as this is done in a humane manner. I did not make my oral explanation.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have chosen to vote in favour of the report on the renewed social agenda. It is a good report, which, among other things, stipulates that economic freedoms and competition rules should never prevail over fundamental social rights.\nHowever, the report also contains requirements for minimum wage systems. We Social Democrats believe that it is important for everyone to be guaranteed a decent wage that it is possible to live on, and we think that the EU should encourage this. This is particularly important to enable us to deal with the problem of the 'working poor'. How Member States then choose to guarantee their citizens a decent wage and whether they do this by means of legislation or by leaving it to the social partners to regulate via collective agreements must continue to be decided by the Member States themselves.\nRobert Atkins  \nin writing. - Conservatives support the principle of a minimum wage in the United Kingdom. However, we believe that social security schemes and the minimum wage should be determined at a national level.\nTherefore, Conservatives have abstained on this report.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the Silva Peneda report on the Renewed Social Agenda. In the framework of the current economic crisis, it is crucial that social policy goes hand in hand with economic policy, aiming at a recovery of the European economy. The European social models are facing several challenges, namely demographic change and globalisation, to which they cannot stay immune. Therefore, they need to be modernised with a long-term perspective, while also preserving their original values.\nEurope must be ambitious with regard to social policy, all the more so now that we are facing a serious crisis. However, I believe that the Commission's Renewed Social Agenda is very unambitious, has come too late and is not really up to the challenges posed by the financial and economic crisis. Social and employment policies must be strengthened to reduce or avoid job losses and to protect Europeans against social exclusion and the risk of poverty.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThis report contains many contradictions. However, in essence, it insists on the existing guidelines of neoliberal capitalism, albeit mitigated here and there, but without altering the basic policies which are at the root of the current economic and social crisis. The guiding principle is the same as always. The 'crisis' is now being used to once again 'sell' the recipe of 'more of the same': flexibility, internal market, public-private partnerships, and so on, ignoring the fact that the EU's policies are also at the root of the crisis and have made it worse.\nThe correct 'concerns' included in the report do not tackle or respond to the main causes of the problems identified, particularly with regard to economic policies, job insecurity, liberalisation and privatisation of public services, and so on.\nThere are no alternative answers, particularly with regard to reinforcing the role of the State in the economy, in strategic sectors and in the expansion of high-quality public services, or even in the defence of higher wages and pensions. However, the report does consider the need for a fairer distribution of wealth, but without indicating the ways to achieve this or calling for a break with those policies that have worsened social inequalities.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nThe social record of your Europe is a resounding failure. In France, dreadful figures have just come out: poverty has risen by 15% in two years, the number of poor workers has increased dramatically, and the number of highly indebted households, whose resources have for a long time been insufficient to cover day-to-day living costs, has grown exponentially as a result. Furthermore, we are just at the start of this profound crisis.\nYou urge citizens to be 'open to change' when, for workers, change equals losing their jobs and the certainty that they will not find new ones, thanks to your policies. You speak of 'social' whilst the Court of Justice tramples over workers' rights in the name of competition and the freedom to provide services. You add in flexibility, when this is merely Eurospeak for 'insecurity'. You even pretend to pay special attention to women and mothers, when your idiotic 'gender' policy results in the loss of their specific social rights, such as the ones they used to have in France in the areas of retirement and night work.\nIt is not a renewal of the social agenda that is needed, but a thorough change of your perverse system.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) This report insists that Member States need to modernise and reform their national social security systems, introduce minimum wages and review the curricula in schools. Moreover, there is to be higher financial participation of employees in companies' proceeds, and a European year of volunteering is to be introduced. These are unusually extreme examples of how the EU intends to take over national selfdetermination.\nIn addition, the report contains two references to the Treaty of Lisbon, which has still not entered into force. This is a brazen expression of the arrogance of power! The implication is that the democratic debate on the Treaty is seen as merely playing to the gallery and is not considered to have any significance for the outcome.\nWe therefore voted against the report in the final vote.\nCarl Schlyter  \nIn general, this is a very good report with many good aspects, but on account of repeated demands for growth and for Member States to introduce minimum wages in conjunction with legally binding social conditions, which would involve a huge transfer of power to the EU, I am abstaining from voting.\nAnja Weisgerber  \nin writing. - (DE) The European social models are facing major challenges during the current financial crisis.\nThe German conservative group (CDU\/CSU) is therefore speaking out in favour of a social Europe.\nFor this reason, we endorse Mr Silva Peneda's report on the Renewed Social Agenda.\nWe also welcome both the fact that job creation and promotion are being accorded priority in this time of crisis and our willingness to press ahead with measures relating to education and training.\nEurope must create a social framework and establish standards at a European level.\nWe must certainly take into account the competences of Member States in that regard.\nFor this reason, we oppose the blanket call for the introduction of a minimum wage in all the Member States, as originally expressed in paragraph 14 of the report.\nThe introduction of a minimum wage is a decision which should be left to the sole discretion of Member States.\nWe are, therefore, pleased that the oral amendment to this paragraph has been adopted.\nSufficient benefits must be ensured to enable every person to lead a dignified life, but different options are available to Member States in this regard.\nWe have made it clear in our oral amendment that, in addition to the minimum wage, consideration should also be given to collective agreements and generally binding regulations, or a state-guaranteed minimum income.\nIn this way, we pay due regard to the principle of subsidiarity.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have chosen to vote in favour of the report on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market. It is a good report, which is particularly important in the current economic crisis, where active labour market measures are needed to ensure that the weakest in society do not permanently remain outside the labour market.\nHowever, the report also contains requirements for minimum wage systems. We Social Democrats believe that it is important for everyone to be guaranteed a decent wage that it is possible to live on, and we think that the EU should encourage this. This is particularly important to enable us to deal with the problem of the 'working poor'. How Member States then choose to guarantee their citizens a decent wage and whether they do this by means of legislation or by leaving it to the social partners to regulate via collective agreements must continue to be decided by the Member States themselves.\nRobert Atkins  \nin writing. - British Conservatives support much of the report and the provisions made for adequate income support, inclusive labour markets, and access to quality services. We also encourage a positive and inclusive approach to mental health, disabilities, and older people's rights to work, as well as a tough stance on the fight against human trafficking.\nHowever, Conservatives do not support the concept of an EU Discrimination Directive. Furthermore, Conservatives cannot support the call to establish a legal framework for equal treatment in employment to combat discrimination in employment and occupation and for an EU target for minimum income schemes and contributory replacement income schemes providing income support of at least 60% of national median equalised income. For these reasons we have abstained. These issues should be matters of national competence.\nPhilip Bushill-Matthews  \nin writing. - The EPP-ED Group is generally supportive of the thrust of the original report by Jean Lambert. However, in committee another political group injected extraneous points into the report which were not only outside the intended scope of the report but which were known to be unacceptable to our group. They did this deliberately, for shabby party-political reasons, to make it impossible for us to support the report as presented to plenary. We have therefore tabled an alternative resolution which contains all the elements of her report which we do support.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - This report poses the question: how do we include people in labour markets who are currently excluded from them? The answer is patently obvious. We need to create more jobs and more capacity in our labour markets.\nThe fact that the EU even needs to ask itself this question demonstrates one of the fundamental problems with Brussels. Far too much attention is given to job protection and not nearly enough to job creation. The European social model is primarily responsible for the fact that so many Europeans are unemployed. The European social model does exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to: it creates a two-tier labour market economy, bringing benefits for those in work and limiting the possibility of those without a job to get one. The social cost of endless EU regulation is also huge, dissuading employers from taking on new workers. So much for the EU's vaunted plan to be the world's most competitive economy by 2010.\nIn order to create jobs for unemployed people, the European economy needs the EU needs to go in a fundamentally different direction. British Conservatives are committed to accelerating that change of direction.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) This report addresses a number of important issues which in principle should be dealt with by the Member States and not by the EU. For example, the European Parliament insists that there is a need to introduce EU targets on minimum income guarantees and minimum wages. The report also contains a reference to the Treaty of Lisbon (which has still not entered into force). We have therefore voted against this report.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Dangerous substances and preparations (dichloromethane) (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76\/769\/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Dichloromethane) - C6-0068\/2008 -.\nCarl Schlyter\nMadam President, I actually wish that the French Presidency were here tonight, as I have to say that the cooperation that we had was extraordinarily good. Without its commitment and its willingness to find ways forward we would never have been able to reach an agreement. During the process, there was always a blocking minority on some issue or other. It is thus thanks to very good collaboration with the French Presidency that this legislation is now being realised, which is a very good thing.\nWhat we are discussing is dichloromethane (DCM), a paint stripper. It is also an industrial chemical that is actually used a lot in the pharmaceutical industry. In its industrial application, however, it is entirely possible to protect workers and the environment when using this chemical. It is predominantly when it is sold to consumers that there are problems. DCM is a noxious chemical in that it is carcinogenic, has a narcotic effect and has harmful effects on health. It is easy to be affected by it. By the time you smell DCM, you have already exceeded the safety limit by a factor of three, which makes it extremely difficult to protect yourself against. A proper protective set-up consists of very high-spec gloves that have to be changed every three hours. You have to have equipment that usually costs around EUR 2 700 with an independent ventilation system.\nThe fact that this chemical is used today is very much dependent on the fact that it is used illegally. This meant that it was also important to restrict and prohibit use by professional users. It is often the self-employed and companies consisting of just a few staff who are out there cleaning up graffiti or stripping paint. The protective equipment is very often left at home or just not available at all. Banning this chemical is therefore, to a very large extent, a worker-protection issue. We know that, in those countries where it is used - which means 24 of the 27 Member States at present - DCM is hardly ever used properly in accordance with national and European legislation. I think it will suffice to quote the German Chemical Industry Association's own text, which states that even if there is good ventilation, paints are stripped in restricted areas, the paint residues removed are collected and the DCM pots closed immediately, the exposure limit is still exceeded on a regular basis. That is why self-contained breathing equipment is needed.\nI think that it is very positive that the Commission put forward a proposal and that we have now reached a compromise that will, in practice, also prohibit professional use, with countries having the ability to obtain national derogations. However, those who obtain such derogations must guarantee that those who work with this chemical have suitable protective equipment, adequate training and awareness of the alternatives and they must be able to justify why they are unable to make use of these alternatives. It is, in fact, the case that there are functional alternatives available in all the areas in which dichloromethane is currently used. We are talking about the 5% that is used in the dangerous way, which is to say for paint stripping. The other 95% of the volume of DCM used is used within industry. It is a good thing that we are tightening up the protection of workers and the environment there, too.\nAll in all, I am, in fact, very satisfied with the agreement. It will improve people's ability to strip paint safely without being exposed to dangerous, carcinogenic chemicals. My fellow Members of this House have helped to make it possible to achieve this agreement so quickly, and I thank you all for that and for all the shadow rapporteurs and myself being able to reach agreement with the Council. This bodes well. This was, in fact, the last chance before REACH to ban chemicals in the old-fashioned way. It was therefore a type of grand finale for the old style of chemicals policy and it was certainly a good finale for us to reach agreement so efficiently.\nIn respect of DCM, there are those who argue that the alternatives may possibly be at least as dangerous, if not more so, but the assessments by the Commission and others have clearly shown that the alternatives are significantly less dangerous. We are now creating a market for the alternatives. The reality is that those companies that are currently grumbling will, in many cases, also manufacture the alternatives, while there are also smaller companies that manufacture alternatives. It is a good thing that they will now get the chance to exploit their competitive advantage of greater environmental protection in the internal market. We are heading for a safer future, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the process.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Schlyter, for his hard work on this proposal. We have now come to a good compromise with the Council, which can be accepted after the first reading.\nIt is question here of restricting the marketing of dichloromethane and its use in paint stripping products, in order to reduce the risks identified in several major studies carried out on behalf of the Commission. There is no doubt that dichloromethane is hazardous to human health because it is highly volatile. This volatility causes highly concentrated vapours to form in the ambient air which can easily be inhaled by users of paint strippers and which then have a direct toxic effect on the central nervous system.\nIn poor working or operating conditions, this has led to or contributed to fatal accidents in several Member States. The majority of accidents and fatalities have taken place in a commercial and professional environment, in particular as a result of inadequate ventilation and failure to use personal protective equipment. However, consumers have also been involved in accidents, although the number of accidents reported in this case is much smaller.\nThe Commission's proposal is intended to reduce as far as possible and as far as technically feasible the risks involved in the use of this hazardous chemical. In the version amended by Parliament and the Council, the sale of paint strippers containing dichloromethane to consumers will be banned completely. There should also be a ban on consumers using this substance, because they do not generally have the necessary personal protective equipment and cannot be trained or supervised to ensure that they use the substance safely.\nThe marketing and use of dichloromethane by professionals will be subject to a general ban. However, as some Member States believe that it is essential for professionals to continue using this substance in future, these Member States will be given the option of permitting its use under specific strict conditions. These Member States must impose specific rules and regulations for authorising professionals which fit into their existing national systems. Professional users will only be granted authorisation after they have completed a training course. The training course must, among other things, provide information about the risks of dichloromethane and the availability of alternative substances. Employers and self-employed people should preferably replace dichloromethane with other substances or procedures, taking into account the relevant workplace safety legislation.\nThe use of paint strippers containing dichloromethane will continue to be permitted on commercial premises, provided that all the necessary measures have been taken to keep the exposure of the people working there to a minimum. For example, it is essential to ensure that there is adequate ventilation in order to remain as far as possible within workplace limits. Measures to minimise evaporation from containers of paint stripper must also be put in place. In addition, protective respiratory equipment must be worn when the workplace limits are exceeded.\nMr Schlyter recommends that you support the compromise text negotiated with the Council. I also believe that this compromise represents a good balance. I am therefore in a position to give my full support to the compromise on behalf of the Commission.\nErna Hennicot-Schoepges\nMadam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur and reiterate that we have worked very well together to reach this compromise, which has the support of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Attention must be drawn to the fact that this is a highly toxic product and that viable and safe alternative solutions do exist. Indeed, we cannot deny the hazards - as you mentioned, Mr Verheugen - associated with the use of dichloromethane, particularly if the conditions do not guarantee user safety. Often dichloromethane is used by individuals carrying out restoration work in their own homes. They find it to be an excellent and effective product, but do not realise that by using it in an enclosed space they risk losing consciousness very quickly, and that there is even a risk of death if due care is not taken.\nContrary to the extreme position of a total ban, as first proposed by the rapporteur, the compromise we have reached now leaves Member States the option of providing an exception for professional and industrial use, but under clearly defined conditions. This is a valid compromise and it is important to recognise that dichloromethane is responsible for many accidents. I regret, moreover, that we have very little information on the accidents at work that have happened. I would also point out that an impact assessment was performed before the Commission's work began and that its findings shaped the text. We must nonetheless ensure that very specific information is available to those individuals who may still be tempted to use this product, even though it is the Member States that are now responsible for drawing up clear rules and enforcing the general marketing ban on this product that is hazardous to health.\nGraham Watson\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Carl Schlyter, and the shadow rapporteurs, on the very thorough and professional work that they have done on this dossier. It is a rare pleasure for me these days to be able to participate in debates arising from committee work and particularly at this time of day, or should I say at this time of night.\nI have not had the privilege to participate in the debates in committee other than on one occasion when I wished to ensure that my colleagues understood the importance of voting to support the rapporteur's proposals. But this is an important issue, indeed an issue of life or death, and one that for me is doubly important because I have a particular constituency interest in it.\nDichloromethanes, as we have heard, are substances with a uniquely hazardous profile. They are so volatile that inhalation, even just the casual smell of them, is above all recognised health limits. They are carcinogenic and they cause neurotic effects with nerve damage. Under normal temperatures their use causes them to evaporate to dangerous levels. To work safely with dichloromethanes one needs an air-proof suit at a cost of about EUR 2 000, and to protect one's skin, gloves at a cost of EUR 25 or EUR 30, which need to be replaced every two or three hours.\nOf course nobody does this, even if they know of the harmful nature of the substance. There is no effective way to ensure the safe use of dichloromethanes for the public. And, because they are so toxic, the rapporteur and the committee wanted to ban them, even for professional use, in order to prevent fatalities. Over the last eight years the Commission has on record some 18 fatalities from the use of these products and some 56 non-fatal injuries. I am sure that in reality there have been more. But there has been an industrial lobby which has created a blocking minority in Council, and for that reason the rapporteur and the committee reluctantly agreed to allow the Member States a derogation for professional use.\nHowever, we have achieved not only strict protection for workers using them professionally, but also a commitment to control and inspection by the Member States. A complete ban on these products already exists in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and I hope no Member State will ask for such a derogation. Industrial use is a different matter. These products can be used safely industrially in the right conditions.\nSome Members have argued that they should be allowed to be used for the protection of cultural heritage, for the removal of paint from old monuments without damaging. But experts have suggested this would not be a good idea, and therefore my group will not be supporting any amendments tabled in that direction.\nI mentioned that I have a constituency interest in this. I have been in correspondence with Commissioner Verheugen for seven years now on this issue. Why? Because I have in my constituency a company called Eco Solutions, which has developed a perfectly safe alternative to dichloromethanes. It is a water-based alternative. It has the same effect even if the process takes a little longer. I am sorry to say that the only Member State lobbying hard for the retention of dichloromethane use was the United Kingdom, which also produces in industrial quantities many such substances.\nIt took me four years' work with Commissioner Verheugen to get the Commission's expert committee even to look at the existence of this safer water-based alternative, and it has taken three years to get that water-based alternative recognised as an effective and useable technology. But I am pleased to say that, as with all the best stories, this one has a happy ending. Dichloromethanes will come off the market for non-industrial use. My constituents will become richer with their new technology, and everybody will live happily ever after thanks to the excellent work of Carl Schlyter and his colleagues on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.\nJens Holm\nMadam President, dichloromethane or DCM is a dangerous chemical that can cause cancer, eye damage and acute damage to organs such as the heart, liver and kidneys. DCM is used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and as a paint stripper and degreaser, amongst other uses. Some Member States, such as Sweden, Denmark and Austria, have already introduced a ban on DCM.\nIt is a great thing that the issue of DCM is now on the agenda. It is even better that this agreement will mean a total ban on DCM when it comes to ordinary consumers. For this, I can but give high praise to our rapporteur, Mr Schlyter. Well done, Carl!\nUnfortunately, workers in the pharmaceutical industry and those working on cleaning up walls and fa\u00e7ades will continue to run the risk of suffering the effects of dichloromethane. This agreement will not, I am sad to say, mean a total ban on the professional use of DCM. This is a serious failing, and one that I hold the Commission entirely responsible for. This derogation, however, has been framed in such a way that what I hope is the small number of Member States that want to use DCM must guarantee that their workers do not suffer as a result. The burden of proof is thus on those countries that want to engage in the limited use of DCM, which must prove that the substance will be used in the safest possible manner and guarantee the protection of workers. In the end, this is quite acceptable.\nBy and large, this is a good agreement. I would like to urge the Commission to draw inspiration from this decision. Yes, we can! Let us now go further. I urge the Commission, please, is it not possible for you to give us an indication that, in the future, there will be more bans on hazardous substances such as carcinogenic azo dyes, bisphenol A and the flame retardant deca-BDE? If the EU cannot do this, why can you not permit individual Member States to go further and introduce their own bans? You, in the Commission, even go so far as to force the Member States to lift restrictions that they sometimes already have. My own country, Sweden, for example, was forced to allow azo dyes after joining the EU in 1995. Following threats from the Commission about legal action in the European Court of Justice, Sweden has now begun to permit deca-BDE. That is unacceptable and, more than anything, it is not environmentally friendly. That is not the way to conduct a progressive programme of environmental legislation. Commission, Commissioner Verheugen, please do convince me otherwise! Prove that environmental considerations take priority over the demands of the market in more cases than this single example.\nUrszula Krupa\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, dichloromethane, which is available on the market and is authorised for common use in the shape of various commercial products, is also widely used in the chemical industry, as well as the textile and pharmaceutical industries. Dichloromethane is easily absorbed by the human body, it is highly toxic and carcinogenic, and is responsible for many cases of poisoning, including fatal accidents. In Poland alone, the number of people exposed to this chemical agent in the workplace is estimated to stand at several thousand. While industrial use of the chemical can be effectively controlled, the use of dichloromethane by individual consumers, or even by professional companies, is inevitably associated with a risk to human health and life, not only due to the fact that there is no way of implementing proper controls, but also due to the high cost of implementing protective measures.\nAll warnings and measures to regulate the use of dichloromethane have proved to be ineffective, in view of the high toxicity and the volatility of this chemical compound, which is why it is necessary to completely withdraw dichloromethane from widespread consumer use. Economic factors should not be used as a reason for maintaining this poison in common use. We must also avoid using the interests of industries which manufacture products containing DCM as an argument to support restricted consumer use of dichloromethane. As far as the common usage of this compound is concerned, the cost to society far outweighs any material benefits.\nJohn Bowis\nMadam President, I agree with the very last phrase that the Commissioner used, that we can welcome this compromise and, on that basis, I congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs on bringing this together.\nIt has been a hard road to get to this. Originally the Commission came forward with a proposal to ban this substance for individual use - not for professional use - and the rapporteur brought forward these proposals to extend this to professional use. And so we listened to the evidence of our constituents, as Graham Watson has done. He has talked about industrial lobbies. He has also referred to an industrial lobby in his constituency, which successfully persuaded him of the alternative. We know that 90% of paint strippers use DCM, so we had to look at the balance of this.\nNone of us wants to go over the top in our descriptions of the dangers. Sometimes when I was listening this evening to the hazards of this substance, I wondered why we are satisfied that industrial workers should be subjected to it but not allow professionals to use the substance, within the rules and under strict guidance; and all the clothing that Graham Watson is going to issue to people in the future - these white suits, or whatever they are, a space-age parliamentary benefit - will be coming.\nI think that this, among many other substances, poses a high risk. It is potentially hazardous. There is evidence that there have been accidents and people have been hurt. It is probably right that we take stronger action than has been taken in the past. That is why I accept and genuinely welcome the compromise that is being sought. It leaves the door open to Member States that wish to, and believe it is right to, continue under the tight rules that have been laid down to allow professionals - and only professionals - to use this in addition to industrial use.\nBut, Commissioner, you now have a responsibility to go back and do the research on the alternatives. Look at the alternatives that are available: NMP has been available for 11 years, but only now is found to be reprotoxic; there are flammable solvents that can cause glue-sniffing problems; there are date-rape drug substances that are seen as safe alternatives; there is DBE, about which not much is known; and there are the more basic blowlamps and sanding methods that can be used, although dust and other problems arise there. So let us now go back and thoroughly investigate the alternatives so that we really can be sure that we are providing a safer alternative for our constituents. If we find that some of the alternatives are no less dangerous, then I am sure the Commissioner or his successors will be back to tell us so and to bring forward a proposal - and if they do not I am sure Carl Schlyter will.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Madam President, dichloromethane has narcotic effects causing damage to the central nervous system and loss of consciousness, as well as cardiotoxic effects. If it is misused there is a direct risk of death and this factor has implications for terrorism. I therefore support a ban on its use by ordinary consumers and strict restrictions on professional use. As alternative and possibly less toxic bleaching substances exist, then in my opinion it is unnecessary to permit exceptions. However, the proposal we will vote on tomorrow will allow Member States to apply to the Commission for exceptions in justifiable cases, although under very strict conditions. I would like to know how the Commission or anyone else will assess the validity of applications for exceptions and how they will monitor compliance with the restrictions.\nG\u00fcnter Verheugen\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying a few words to Mr Watson. You have played an important role in bringing about this proposal. At the time when you told me in person about the problem which you had had for several years with the Commission, I realised that there were alternatives to this substance and I am sure you will agree that from then on things moved very quickly. I personally instructed my Directorate-General to present the proposal because it was clear to me as a result of my dealings with you that there were alternatives. I have stated on another occasion in this Parliament, and I would ask Mr Holm in particular to listen to this, that although I am the Commissioner with responsibility for enterprise and industry, I do not believe that an industrial product which is hazardous should remain on the market simply so that it can be used to earn money. I am of the opinion that, when there is an alternative which can replace a hazardous industrial product, it should be replaced. This is the principle which I have adhered to when we discussed and adopted REACH in this Parliament. All the substances which you referred to, Mr Holm, are now governed by REACH.\nDichloromethane would normally also be covered under the terms of REACH, but because the health risks are so evident and because there have been so many cases, we have given priority to this substance. It is possible that we will have to act in the same way in the case of other substances if the health risks are equally obvious and if we cannot wait until the very comprehensive and demanding REACH procedure has been completed.\nI would also like to make it clear, Mr Holm, that I would also have voted in favour of a more far-reaching compromise. If Parliament had been able to agree with the Council on banning the commercial use of dichloromethane, I would have voted in favour this evening. Please do not hold the Commission responsible for the fact that there are several Member States who did not want to take this further for reasons which I am not familiar with. This is the reason why the Commission presented its proposal in the way that it did, because we wanted to produce a proposal which had a chance of being accepted and this is now what has happened.\nMy last remark concerns the comments made by Mr Bowis in relation to the toxic effects of the alternatives. With chemicals it is always a question of weighing up the degree of risk involved. Our thorough and comprehensive studies have shown that none of the alternative substances currently on sale have the properties of dichloromethane which are so dangerous, in other words the direct toxic effect on the central nervous system. This occurs only with dichloromethane and not with the other substances.\nWe are aware of very few accidents involving the alternative substances. This also applies to countries where the use of dichloromethane has already been banned, such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden. If the situation should change, the Commission will, of course, investigate and, if necessary, propose measures governing other substances.\nFinally, I would like to comment on the remarks made by Mr Holm, which I temporarily forgot, concerning the question of whether the Commission will force Member States to abolish progressive environmental or health regulations, because they conflict with internal market regulations. The Commission will not do this. Current legislation states explicitly that Member States have the right to enact national regulations which differ from those of the internal market if they believe that this is necessary for health or environmental reasons.\nAs I am responsible for monitoring the notification of these differing regulations, I can tell you that the Commission acts on the basis of a clear and unambiguous principle in this case. We take the healthcare-related and environmental arguments of the Member States seriously. If they enact different regulations for these reasons, we do not force them to revoke their environmental and health regulations. If you have any information from recent years to back up your accusation, I would like to find out more specific details, so that I can refute your claim. The case that you mentioned dates back to 1995, which means that I had nothing to do with it.\nCarl Schlyter\nMadam President, I would like to come back on what Mr Watson said. He, too, has played his part. Though you are not a member of our committee, you have still had an impact on our committee and helped us to reach a compromise. Of course, the staff who have helped me to reach this agreement have also played an important role.\nI can only reiterate what Commissioner Verheugen said. The Commission has been clear throughout the process, at least with me, that if the Council and Parliament had reached a more far-reaching compromise involving a total ban, the Commission would have accepted it. There has been no lack of clarity between the Commission and me in relation to this issue.\nI would just like to illustrate this chemical to you all. If I were to open a single one-kilo pot here and now, spread it over the benches and paint it out, we would, in fact, somewhat exceed the safe limit throughout this exceedingly large chamber. That is how very toxic this particular chemical is.\nI can only conclude this debate by appealing to the Commission to ensure, now, that those Member States which apply for a derogation for professional use have that derogation revoked if these new, stricter rules are regularly broken. We know, everybody knows, and all the studies show that, if dichloromethane is used correctly in such a way that the health of the workers involved is protected, this substance is both uneconomical and unecological. If DCM is allowed to behave according to proper market conditions, which is to say if the legislation is complied with, its own uncompetitiveness will very quickly mean that DCM will be completely abandoned to be replaced by the alternatives. I will take this opportunity to appeal to the Commission to ensure that the regulations are complied with. If this is done, DCM will phase itself out sufficiently quickly.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nGyula Hegyi  \nWith today's decision, the European Parliament is significantly restricting the use of the paint stripper known as dichloromethane. As the shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I welcome the decision, into which we have put a lot of work. In recent years there have been many fatalities as a consequence of dichloromethane use. This extremely volatile substance is damaging to the nervous system, and for the same reason is also carcinogenic. The victims were primarily individual users, those decorating their own homes and house decorators, since in industrial use certain safety regulations are observed. The concentrations measured in certain European industrial plants were so high that - in case of prolonged exposure - they would cause cancer in 10% of the workers.\nAccording to the compromise text that has now been adopted, dichloromethane can in future be used as a paint stripper only in industry and under strict safety regulations. Consumers and professionals will have to strip unwanted paint using one of the many equally effective but non-harmful alternative chemicals or, for instance, by pyrolitic\/thermal stripping.\nThe most important point is that this carcinogenic substance should not be permitted to be used in enclosed public areas such as shopping centres and underpasses, since the vapour produced by volatile substances is heavier than air, and therefore measurements have shown that it sinks downwards and endangers children in particular. In making its decision, our political group took ample account of the opinion of the trade unions concerned, since in the case of industrial use, our main concern is the health of the workers.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski  \nMadam President, as we know, many dangerous chemical substances are authorised for general use, in spite of the dangerous ingredients they contain. One of these substances is dichloromethane (DCM), which is generally used for manufacturing pharmaceuticals, solvents and other products.\nIt is a substance that is particularly harmful to human health, as it is classified as a carcinogen. It damages the nervous system and causes serious damage to internal organs, which can directly lead to death.\nIn view of their higher respiratory rate, children are more susceptible to dichloromethane poisoning, as are people with cardiovascular diseases. It also alarming that there have been deaths linked to dichloromethane poisoning.\nIn view of the fact that we know that there are products on the market which could provide an alternative to products containing dichloromethane, as well as the fact that certain Member States have banned the use of this substance, introducing a total ban on its usage seems essential.\nA further argument in favour of banning DCM should be the fact that, as experts have pointed out, we cannot ensure that consumers will use DCM safely.\nThe Commission's proposal to introduce training on the use of products containing DCM for professional purposes will cost approximately EUR 1.9 billion in its first year of implementation.\nWithdrawing DCM from general circulation therefore seems to be the most sensible and responsible solution.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Implementation of the first railway package directives (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Brian Simpson, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the implementation of the first railway package (Directives 2001\/12\/EC, 2001\/13\/EC and 2001\/14\/EC) - B7-0204\/2010)\nBrian Simpson\nauthor. - Mr President, I do not think I will pull my punches here tonight in regard to this particular oral question on the implementation of the first railway package. You will be aware, Commissioner, that the three directives that make up the first railway package were adopted in 2001, with a deadline of March 2006 for their transposition into national law. It is my obligation, as Chair of the Transport Committee, to raise this issue with you now by way of this oral question.\nHere we are, nine years later, debating the fact that 21 Member States had, by October 2009, failed to enact these directives and have now been sent reasoned opinions because of this failure. It beggars belief that, as we approach the revision of the first railway package, a number of states - including so-called influential states, including states that like to inform us of their pro-European credentials - have failed to enact this significant piece of European legislation. Those Member States should hang their heads in shame and remember and honour the obligations they gave to this Parliament in 2001.\nIt is one of politics' most bewildering facts that we can deliver throughout the European Union the single market in numerous areas, but we cannot deliver it in the railway sector. That is not a failure of this Parliament. That is a failure of the Member States, often supported by sections of the railway industry and, frankly, Parliament's patience is beginning to run out.\nThis oral question is born out of a frustration, a frustration that the law is being deliberately flouted and that as yet, the Commission has failed to bring Member States to book. We are now demanding to know what aspects in each failing Member State of each directive have not been enacted. We need to know why certain Member States have not correctly implemented these directives. We want to know which Member States are still resisting the concept of fair competition in the railway sector and deliberately protecting their own national companies.\nWe have concerns regarding the powers and independence of regulators and infrastructure managers in some of these Member States. We believe the lack of transparency and lack of harmonisation on infrastructure charges is leading to a protectionist practice and is acting as a break on delivering the single market to the railway sector, as well as stifling cross-border activity. If you add to this various national measures such as rolling stock taxes, then you have to question whether certain Member States ever intended to implement these directives in the first place.\nToday, we need to know many things. We need to know how the Commission, via the recast, will facilitate the full implementation of the full railway package. Today, we need to know what the Commission is doing to enforce European law on this issue. Today, we need to know why it has taken so long for action to be taken against those Member States who have failed.\nWe on the Transport Committee often highlight the need for effective interoperability in the rail sector. Without that, and without the opening of national infrastructure, European rail freight is doomed. Transborder European passenger trains will be stifled. The single market will never be delivered, and the ERTMS will never happen.\nThe time has come to develop a true European perspective for our railway network, and the first step for that development is the first railway package. Without that first step being taken, then others cannot follow. We need direct action and we need it now. Let us name and shame those Member States that are failing, and let us take action against them now.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Simpson and the Committee on Transport and Tourism for initiating this discussion and for promoting competitiveness and openness in the railway sector. I have always had strong support in Parliament and I hope this will continue.\nThe report on rail market monitoring which the Commission published at the end of 2009 shows that the progressive decline of the railways since the 1970s has been stopped in all market segments after the opening of the market and adoption of the first package. So there are some positive notes as well.\nHowever, the economic crisis has had a serious impact on rail, with rail freight operators losing up to 30% of their business; this crisis has highlighted and increased existing structural problems of the railways.\nThese problems are, on the one hand, linked to the economics of rail and the persisting financial weakness of some actors. A number of Member States still fail to ensure sufficient budget for the infrastructure managers. This not only results in underinvestment which undermines the quality and performance of the rail network; it also builds up indebtedness levels.\nOn the other hand, there are still economic and technical barriers to market entry. Very often, new entrants find themselves discriminated against, in particular, where incumbent rail operators also have indirect control over the provision and use of rail infrastructure.\nThe newly established regulatory bodies do not all have the necessary powers and independence to ensure fair and transparent market conditions. The Commission adopted a two-tier approach to tackle these problems: infringement procedures to address incorrect implementation of the rules, and changes to the rules when they were not clear or precise enough.\nThe first line of approach - infringement procedures - required a detailed analysis of the legal situation in all the 25 Member States that have railway systems and resulted in the reasoned opinions that were sent out in 2009. The main problems are, first, insufficient implementation of the provisions of the directive on track access charging; second, lack of independence of the infrastructure manager in relation to railway operators and the failure to ensure sufficient independence, resources and powers for the regulatory body.\nThe second line of approach was to take advantage of the announced process of recasting the existing rail packages to propose improvements to the existing rules on rail market access.\nIn parallel, we will pursue our holistic approach with a view to achieving a genuine internal market for rail. We will continue to promote the technical harmonisation of rail in conjunction with the European Railway Agency.\nMathieu Grosch\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if the Belgian painter Magritte had painted the first railway package directives, he would have written underneath 'These are not directives'. In fact, the whole debate that we have been having for some time seems, to me, almost surreal. In 2003, we decided that the transposition should be completed in 2006 and now, in 2010, we are asking why 21 countries are not doing what they themselves have put their signature to.\nLiberalisation was intended to allow new players onto the market. That was the theory. In practice, things look rather different in this regard, too. Today, we are in a position in which - whether we are for or against liberalisation in this area - we have to assess this liberalisation and we are faced with the problem that it has largely not been transposed. The companies themselves - as we have seen in various countries - have made decisions in the name of liberalisation relating to staffing and technology that were not always pleasant, even though this liberalisation had not been transposed.\nIn the light of this, we have to conclude that, seen in this way, historical beneficiaries of the railways still hold the keys to the opening of the market in their hands - access to the tracks, technical interoperability, training and certification, to give just a few examples. With these keys, they can open the door to an open market, but they can also close it. That has been the case in most countries and it is still the case today.\nTherefore, the proposals that you have made here and that we have briefly looked at represent an initial step. For me, in order to correctly assess liberalisation, it is important that we quickly carry out implementation or enforce it using the means available to the Commission or means that it still needs to grant itself.\nSa\u00efd El Khadraoui\nMr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by noting that rail freight's share of the market first decreased, from approximately 13% in 1995 to 10.5% in 2002, and then stabilised, whereas in the case of passenger transport, where liberalisation has also been unsuccessful or has not been implemented, we have actually seen an increase over recent years.\nMy main point in saying this is that market opening is just one instrument, and that a successful single European railway market actually requires a combination of measures. These include measures relating to market forces, of course, but also social ground rules, human resources aspects, more advanced interoperability - on which I believe we have a great deal more work to do - and indeed, sufficient instruments for financing infrastructure projects. Only if we tackle this in a consistent, coherent manner can we achieve our objective.\nI have one more question for the Commissioner. We hear that a revision of the first railway package is indeed on the way. My question is: when can we expect this revision, and what does the Commissioner see as the main objective to be achieved by this means?\nGesine Meissner\nMr President, Commissioner, in the hearing in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I was very pleased to hear you say that the greatest thing that we have been able to achieve in Europe is mobility and freedom of movement for the people. With regard to the freedom of movement as well as the internal market, you also mentioned that it is essential not only for people to be able to move from A to B, but for goods to be able to do so too. In 1992, we adopted the internal market de facto in the European Parliament and, with the first railway package in 2001, we also created the conditions for the free internal market in the railway sector. It has already been said that it is now 2010 and we still do not have this in place. It is, in fact, shameful that 21 states are still setting up obstacles. This is protectionism - that has already been mentioned as well - and it is most regrettable that this is the case.\nOf course, we now need to consider why this is the case. You mentioned the different rail systems, Commissioner, but that cannot be the only reason. In fact, there are still many countries that think they can escape this if they try to return to old times by saying that anything to do with the separation of infrastructures and services should not be taken so seriously. That is completely the wrong way to go.\nI am also eager to see when you might be able to carry out this revision of the directive. I would also like to urge you specifically - and this has already been said by previous speakers - to be strict with the Member States. We of course come from different Member States, but within the transport sector, we are all agreed that it is very important finally to bring some order here. You are a new Commissioner so you are not to blame for what has - or has not - been done in the past. You therefore have a unique opportunity now to make progress relatively quickly in the railway sector and really take the internal market forward, and with it all European citizens, too. I am counting on this and I am already looking forward to seeing what you are going to do in the near future.\nIsabelle Durant\nMr President, Commissioner, the inspiration for the first railway package came almost 15 years ago. At the time, the priority objective, which of course I share, was for rail transport to increase its market share. Liberalisation, which was one of the ways to achieve this, is showing mixed and not always very conclusive results. It has already been said that rail transport's share of the freight market is stagnating whilst road transport is gaining market share.\nAt the same time, the number of travellers has increased considerably, even without any liberalisation process, and the high-speed rail network, which is built on the basis of cooperation rather than of competition, is quite a success.\nIn addition, you have mentioned newcomers. There are far too few of these newcomers, and many of them have been absorbed by large companies. Put another way, I am not sure that monopoly by large companies was the intended aim.\nAs regards application, if we consider the number of infringement procedures, there is, objectively speaking, a well-known problem, in other words, a lack of independence of the regulatory and appeals bodies, even where there is functional or institutional separation, and this separation may also entail other issues and costs relating to internal coordination.\nWhilst awaiting your answers, Commissioner, I can only urge you to adopt a prudent attitude, which does not force the matter, which takes the holistic approach that you mentioned, which fully and objectively assesses the previous packages, but which makes a full assessment before taking the next step. This assessment must therefore be thorough and must include the issues of working conditions, security and safety, public service obligations and the lack of internalisation of external costs, before any further progress is made in the liberalisation process.\nI should therefore be interested to hear what your priorities are in relation to this matter, given that some progress has been made - it has to be recognised and others have spoken about it - namely, improved transparency in accounts reporting, progress on interoperability, harmonisation of training and licences, and improved signalling and safety. Much remains to be done, however, and I shall insist on a prudent, thorough assessment that is free from taboos so that we do not progress too quickly to the following stages.\nOld\u0159ich Vlas\u00e1k\nLadies and gentlemen, when the European regulatory framework for railways was approved, we all hoped that it would lead to greater transparency in the financing of this sector of the economy and that new opportunities would be created for the involvement of new players. It seemed that the European rail transport sector was standing on the threshold of a new era. However, the hoped-for market liberalisation failed to materialise. As we all know, in 21 Member States, including the Czech Republic, there has been no proper implementation of the first railway package, while questions remain unresolved relating, in particular, to the opening of railway markets to economic competition.\nThe situation in the Czech Republic provides evidence of the fact that there is a real problem. Although the state has now taken the first steps, which allow the entry of other rail transport operators onto the market, in reality, the political will for allowing real competition on the railways is lacking. This is confirmed by the behaviour of the socialist leaders of various regions who, at the end of last year, concluded ten-year agreements with Czech rail company, \u010cesk\u00e9 dr\u00e1hy, with the option of a further five years for the provision of regional rail services, and all this without any form of public tender. Local leaders, who won four-year mandates in the elections, have therefore actually closed the railway market for 15 years. The monopoly holder, \u010cesk\u00e9 dr\u00e1hy, will not now be forced to improve its services in any way whatsoever, and this will have fatal consequences for the railways.\nIn this context, there is therefore a question as to whether the current debate on taxing employment benefits, which trade unionists have opened up in the Czech Republic, and the related threat of strikes, only serves in reality to distract attention from the real issues. The result of these issues is that rail transport is increasingly being relegated to the periphery of social and economic concern, while, on the contrary, road transport, so heavily criticised by the Greens, is logically growing in popularity. I would therefore like to urge the European Commission to increase its efforts to promote genuine liberalisation of the rail sector and to monitor closely whether the non-market behaviour of various actors is in accordance with European law.\nJarom\u00edr Kohl\u00ed\u010dek\nI would like to begin by saying that I completely disagree with Mr Vlas\u00e1k, whose government has also participated in what he himself is criticising. Now to the matter in hand. As the objective of this railway package was to open up the rail transport market by separating infrastructure, passenger transport and freight transport, it is possible to find out relatively easily whether the Member States, following transition periods of varying lengths, have fulfilled the formal requirements of the directive. What is not so easy to find out, and what the directive does not focus on, are the varying safety regulations of the individual states, the minimal conformity of work conditions for the crews that are manning the trains and the workers securing the operation of the infrastructure and the many differences in technical regulations. The ERTMS is supposed to be a magic formula that should technically unify both infrastructure and rolling stock. I am therefore looking forward to a clear answer concerning the compatibility of the EU rail network with the ERTMS standard. I have not heard one yet.\nPerhaps this question has a bearing on the logically connected question of how the opening of the rail transport markets is being exploited at present by foreign and national entities in the various countries. I am not interested, of course, in the entities with interlinked ownership which provide regional transport services on a formally independent basis in countries such as Germany, for example, but in independent operators on the market.\nI would like to end by emphasising that neither the first nor the subsequent railway packages will resolve the social conditions of employees. This may soon become a major problem for the opening up of the railway market. It is not acceptable to adopt the lowest possible standard as a solution.\nMike Nattrass\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom, the UK Government has implemented the EU rail package. This is mainly because, these days, the Lib-Lab-Con sit at Westminster and like to be told what to do, having given away control to the EU.\nThe separation of train operators and separation of the rail network is leading to major problems, courtesy of the EU. No wonder 21 countries are too wise to get caught in an EU rail web leading to mayhem on all stations to Brussels.\nI am not a Socialist, but if you need an integrated transport system, then state ownership is best - and not separation into multiple private hands. Having six different companies on the network between Birmingham and Berlin will create a complete 'dog's breakfast', or should I say a 'Dachshunds Fr\u00fchst\u00fcck'.\nWhen Eurorail is broken up to allow the surplus capacity to be run by different companies, we will no longer have rolling stock, just laughing stock.\nBrian Simpson, who is responsible for this debate, is a member of the Labour Party. Labour was once Socialist, and he was elected by people who still think Labour is Socialist. Yet here he is, hiding in the EU, away from his faithful supporters. What is he calling for? He is calling for privatisation. More than that; he is calling for an EU model which does not work and is against the wishes of his own voters.\nHe is, in fact, the 'Fat Controller', creating fat pay packets for fat cats. The one thing that we can be sure of is that there is fat chance that this EU directive will be accepted, as it will derail the EU rail network.\nGeorges Bach\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the review of the transposition of the first railway package and the planned recast. I believe that this review is long overdue. However, I regret the fact that the Commission is receiving no, or only insufficient, information from the Member States. That makes an efficient and honest assessment extremely difficult. However, it is not only necessary to make an assessment. We also need to urge the Member States to actually implement the necessary steps.\nIn any assessment, it is essential that importance be attached to the subject of safety. Have we learned from the recent negative experiences and will these be taken into account? That is my question. On this issue, the Commission is far too reticent towards the public, who are extremely concerned. This applies to quality, too. I would like to ask the Commission to consider how generally binding quality criteria can be set. A great deal has been said about inadequate quality, but it is not possible to measure this reliably. The lack of investment, which you have already mentioned, Commissioner, is also regrettable. Despite Cohesion Fund cofinancing, in most countries, investment in roads is still significantly higher than in the rail system. I would like, in this context, to mention ERTMS - this system categorically must be introduced across Europe for the network, but also for the rolling stock, in order to improve route safety.\nI would warn against further steps in the direction of the planned liberalisation of national passenger transport. The initiatives already taken in this connection have shown that there are still many hurdles to be overcome and that the Commission would do well to first of all carry out a complete technical harmonisation and ensure the thorough transposition of the directives adopted.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) Rail transport must be a priority in the EU's transport policy up to 2020, supporting such objectives as opening up competition, improving the national networks' interoperability and safety and developing the rail transport infrastructure.\nHowever, competition must not be increased to the detriment of the safety or quality of rail services. I believe that the review of the first railway package must identify the problems facing the Member States that have received reasoned opinions from the Commission, along with a method for resolving them.\nI wish to draw your attention to the fact that, due to the crisis, thousands of redundancies have been made in the rail transport sector, which may have an adverse impact on European rail transport. The ERTMS was implemented at the end of last year along approximately 2 700 km of railway lines in the European Union and it will be implemented along 24 000 km of railway lines by 2020. This means huge investment is required, and we are expecting, Commissioner, new solutions and financial instruments that are capable of providing the necessary funding, as well as investment in the appropriate modernisation of the rolling stock.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) In my country, we have a saying, a proverb, which says that if one person tells you that you are drunk, you do not have to worry about it, but when five people tell you that you are drunk, you had better go to bed, lie down and go to sleep.\nIf only one or two Member States had not introduced this first package, we would be able to impose sanctions today and fulminate in this Chamber, but if twenty-something Member States have not introduced this package, then perhaps the package - to put it mildly - is not the best. Perhaps the cause lies here, or the problem is this. If I hear substantial criticism a moment ago from my fellow Member from the United Kingdom, and in fact, that country has introduced the package, one might wonder if use of the package is, in fact, completely appropriate.\nThere is, of course, the other side of the coin - in the context of accidents, which we also spoke about, here, two hours ago, during Question Time with the Commission. I am thinking of the matter of safety. From this point of view, safety is, indeed, increased. The Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Kallas, drew attention to a significant problem when he said that a number of Member States are not investing in railways and that the possibilities for investment in infrastructure are not being realised. One such country is my country of Poland where, in the last two years, there has been a kind of collapse in terms of financing of the railways, with all the results that this brings.\nFinally, I think that very easy definitions and very easy recipes are, by definition, suspect.\nJacky H\u00e9nin\n(FR) Mr President, some people here are bemoaning the difficulties and the slow progress in implementing the first railway package directives. As for me, I am pleased about this. In my country, in my region, we are fighting with the railway unions and with the users' committees to ensure that these wicked directives are not applied and are thus consigned to the dustbin of history.\nIn France, one of the challenges of the regional elections is precisely the fact that the regional councils are blocking implementation of the Public Service Obligation (PSO) regulation on the opening up to competition of regional rail transport. We do not want a twospeed railway whereby private companies have the market in fast, comfortable business trains with reserved seats whose fares only the wealthy can afford, whilst the public has unsafe, uncomfortable, antiquated second class trains for the poor.\nEach passing day proves this: the separation of the infrastructure from the business of transport imposed by the directives so as to enable the system to be opened up to brutal competition is a technical and organisational nonsense that is costly both to taxpayers and to users. Whilst it is useful to the big corporations, it is dislocating public transport and is responsible for the declining state of the network and of safety. The directives mentioned also destroy jobs and constitute a theft of public property for the benefit of private interests.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) With the adoption of three sets of directives governing traffic on railway lines, the European Commission has taken over joint responsibility for the organisation of railway transport in the European Union.\nThere is no doubt that implementation of new railway rules into the various national laws may bring certain problems and price rises. However, it is definitely in our common interest to have well-organised transport and a well-operating rail transport structure as a meaningful alternative, in particular, to road transport, which undoubtedly places a very significant burden on our environment. Therefore, it is certainly correct to speak openly about the problems that have been hampering more rapid development of rail transport. Not just rules though, but also an insight into the future may be in our interest.\nEuropean railways from three points of the compass end in coastal ports, while in the eastern direction, the railway lines run as far as the Pacific. Good links between European railways on the EU's eastern border would open new opportunities for European carriers to transport goods. And therefore, if high-speed rail lines could be successfully extended from Paris to Vienna and Bratislava in the near future and, at the same time, a wide-gauge line could be extended from \u010cierna and Tisou at the Ukrainian border to Bratislava and Vienna, then three different railway systems - classic rail, high-speed and wide-gauge - would meet at a section between Bratislava and Vienna. In conjunction with two airports - Vienna and Bratislava, two ports on the Danube River - Vienna and Bratislava again, and motorway junctions, a new and important logistics and transportation hub is being created right in the centre of Europe.\nThere is no dispute that, in addition to maintaining and specifying the rules, we still have significant reserves to effectively increase the dynamics of rail transport. We only need to look at the investment opportunities and possibly toward making the rules more precise, as well as investing in new projects to support rail transport so that it will become more profitable and better able to serve the citizens of Europe.\nAntonio Cancian  (PPE\n). - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this period, we have been talking a great deal about transport planning and we will be talking about it in the next period as well. I believe that it is discouraging to begin with the revision of the first package in light of what has happened up to now. We therefore need to be bolder in order to try and turn things around. I believe that everything rests on and revolves around three main points.\nThe first point, in my opinion, is the liberalisation of railway transport to create competition and stimulate competitiveness, obviously with clear and transparent rules for all, as has already been mentioned. The second key point is interoperability between the Member States and between the various internal modes of railway transport. The third point is, of course, safety, and safety certification has to be a prerequisite for obtaining a licence to operate. Still on the subject of safety, and in view of the common market, it is not enough to penalise the inefficiency of the States relative to the regulatory bodies: the powers of the European Railway Agency need to be broadened so as to give it greater authority over inspections and controls.\nI believe that these are the efforts we have to make in the forthcoming period as we work towards the sustainable future of transport, the revision of the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) and freight transport, which is already under way in our committee and, not least, this revision that we must take control of and carry out in order to change the path that has been taken up to this point.\nIn\u00e9s Ayala Sender\n(ES) Mr President, my country was one of the 20 issued with a warning in October 2009, and I can assure you that we have since got moving on this issue.\nIt is not for nothing that Spain heads the list of European Union countries whose passenger rail transportation increased the most in 2007-2008. Goods transportation, however, is another matter.\nYet I would ask you this, Commissioner: when an outlying country is separated from Europe by a mountain range more than 500 kilometres in length - the Pyrenees - which railways can only cross at either end and which requires the axles to be changed on every train that crosses the border, on account of the different track width passed on to us by a long history of autarchies, what can possibly be the incentive for other operators to cross the border with France when there are so many obstacles? Even though Deutsche Bahn has bought Transfesa, it is still having a difficult time.\nFor that reason, I sincerely believe that, as well as the stick of warnings and sanctions my fellow Members are requesting, we need the carrot of European-level infrastructures. Trans-European networks are urgently required.\nThis is why we urgently need to give a definitive push to ambitious cross-border railway projects such as the central Pyrenees crossing, with a low-level tunnel devoted to goods transportation. That will oblige the more protectionist, reticent Member States to join the north-south, east-west railway network that Europe needs for its 2020 strategy.\nBrian Simpson\nauthor. - Mr President, I was named by one of the Members opposite. Mr Nattrass made some very personal remarks against me before sneaking out of the Chamber without listening to the debate. Of course, this is a man who would not know one end of a railway locomotive from the other and whose expertise is restricted to Thomas the Tank Engine.\nI do appreciate that UKIP have no idea with regard to manners and parliamentary procedure; this was evident recently in Brussels. However, as a democrat adhering to democratic principles and procedures, I presented this oral question on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism as its Chair, which it is my proud duty to do. That is why I delivered it as such, so I really do not think I should be subjected to abuse from the other side of the Chamber from that group of rogues.\nAs an aside, I just thought I would mention in passing that, under the Labour Government in the United Kingdom, railway patronage has increased 20% over recent years - even on the route from London to Birmingham!\nHerbert Dorfmann\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me simply tell you about a personal experience. I live on an important rail route - the route via the Brenner Pass to Verona. The Italian national railways have been neglecting both goods and passenger transport here for years. Austrian railways now travel this route five times a day. However, no timetables for this are provided at Italian railway stations, nor do they issue tickets. Now, the reconstruction of this route at a cost of around EUR 20 billion is currently being considered and the European Union has also invested a lot of money in this. So we can see how absurd things sometimes are in this area. It is not always the very big things that make the issue complicated; sometimes it is the small things.\nFor this reason, Commissioner, I urge you to take decisive action here, to impose sanctions and to actively ensure that the Commission's directives are complied with.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\n(PT) Mr President, it is now apparent what has been the true objective of the so-called railway package, which was launched with the stated aim, a laudable one, of setting up connection points which would secure interoperability. The real intention, which we denounced at the time, was to open up rail transport, particularly that of merchandise, to competition and private interests, as a first step towards the complete liberalisation of the sector at Community level.\nAs in other instances of liberalisation, the process begins by making the most out of the fact that something does not operate well at a particular time, neglecting the real causes of such situations, particularly the years of persistent policies of dismantling and neglecting the public sector, in order to justify liberalising measures and to promote the aforementioned competition, without any real reflection on how or why it will improve matters. Experience, as we have already heard here today, shows us quite the opposite: liberalisation is the cause of, and not the solution to, the principal problems of the sector, most obviously of all those relating to the quality and accessibility of the services and the rights of workers.\nThere can be no doubt that public investment in the railway sector is of a strategic nature for energy and environmental reasons, but it must not take place to serve the profit seeking of those large private interests which are intent on taking control of this vital public sector in every country through its liberalisation at the level of the EU internal market.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) I would like to mention again the situation which faces trained and accredited rail sector staff during a time of crisis.\nIn Romania, more than 6 000 redundancies will be made in the rail transport sector during this period. The European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will certainly be mobilised to support those affected, but these are only temporary solutions. This is why, Commissioner, I hope that we will manage to devise together a strategy promoting the sustainable development of rail transport so that we can offer safe, good-quality services and jobs for qualified staff in the rail transport sector.\nSiim Kallas\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for their remarks. We will have ample opportunity to discuss the recasting of the first railway package. I just want to reply to some remarks.\nFirst, information about the 21 Member States and the concrete reasons why the reasoned opinion was sent is public information, so anybody who wants can get that information.\nThis first railway package has very good intentions: to remove barriers and to improve the conditions for better functioning of transport. We will pursue the same goal with the recasting of the package. The problem is not that the package was bad, but that implementation was insufficient. Barriers still exist and resistance to removing barriers is still very strong. We must change the old system of state-owned monopolies with great privileges and no interoperability. We must change that system and improve interoperability. That is the purpose of developing this railway reform.\nThe problem is precisely that this has not been completed. We must, of course, always balance all the steps taken with quality control. That is also where the railway package has ideas, such as on how to strengthen the role of regulatory agencies. The problem is that the regulatory agencies remain very mixed in with the interests of state-owned companies. You cannot then expect a high level of quality control.\nThese issues must and will be addressed in the recasting of the railway package, and perhaps in other strategic documents as well. Adequate financing remains a very big problem, and we need to find innovative ways to finance the bottlenecks. Many Members mentioned the need for investment. We must combine all possible tools and find new tools to pinpoint resources for investment in railways, including modern traffic management systems, booking systems for buying tickets in the same way as for air transport, and also better connect eastern Europe to western Europe, which is another substantial problem.\nThe detailed list of all the elements in the process of preparing this recast railway package is very long. I would be very happy to come back to you with concrete proposals once we have the concrete legislative documents.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\n\u00c1d\u00e1m K\u00f3sa  \nI welcome the fact that by announcing the first railway package, the European Commission started a process which can be considered as the first step in harmonising railway services within Europe. However, the fact that the transposition of the three directives included in the package caused serious problems for 21 Member States created a serious difficulty which could hinder the proper transposition of any further packages. I draw the European Commission's attention to a contradiction between the high level of economic and efficiency requirements laid down in connection with railway systems in Europe, on the one hand, and the positive effect of the railway on regional development, improving the mobility of rural populations and people with disabilities, and the environment, on the other. I suggest that the Commission resolves this contradiction by finding an appropriate balance and compromise, bearing in mind the clarification of the principle of cost sharing between Member States and the European Union, and the importance of establishing harmonised transport within the EU. A healthy competition involving all participants of the industry should be developed, where the actual competition is between individual and public transportation rather than between the different modes of public transport.\nArtur Zasada  \nA problem for the proper functioning of the railway market in the new Member States and, in turn, a factor which restricts liberalisation of the market, is the incorrect financing of the railways, in other words, a lack of sufficient means to maintain the railway infrastructure. This results in high access prices and, as a consequence, restricts the competitiveness of this branch of the transportation industry because of the high costs of transport. A further problem is the underfunding of services which are a public service, a result of which is the debts of companies operating in the passenger sector. This then limits the possibilities for investment, for example, in new rolling stock. In the context of appropriate regulation of the European railway market, it is essential to strengthen the national market regulators. By strengthening, I mean increasing their independence and effectiveness, improving the quality of staff, etc. It would also appear to be legitimate to establish a European market regulator, which will monitor correct performance of functions assigned to national regulators and report directly to the European Commission on any irregularities found.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"5. Impact of aviation security measures and body scanners on human rights, privacy, personal dignity and data protection (\n- Before the vote\nManfred Weber\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group I would like to introduce a motion. In Parliament, we quite clearly agree on two points. On the one hand, we want to be involved in the procedure for these new technical variants and this cannot be decided without Parliament. I would like to thank Commissioner Tajani, who has ensured that this is the case.\nSecondly, it is clear to all of us that this new technical measure must be considered with a great deal of sensitivity. We have a number of concerns about it. The criteria for the possible application must be carefully controlled and everyone in the House agrees on this. I would like to move on behalf of the PPE-DE Group that we give ourselves an extra four weeks and postpone the vote until November, because Commissioner Tajani has stated that there will be a major hearing on the subject in November. The PPE-DE Group is of the opinion that we should hear all the facts before we come to a decision. I hope that we will have a majority in favour of this. This is why we are moving that the vote be adjourned until November.\nMartin Schulz\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to oppose this motion for the following reason. It is true that Mr Tajani's hearing will give us the opportunity to acquire additional information and to define our position. However, what we are doing with this decision is to tell the Council, which has already reached a resolution during the last Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs, that in our view, and this applies at least to my group, security and security measures are absolutely essential. However, the use of scanners or display devices which show people completely naked is totally unacceptable. This is a violation of human dignity and it is not accompanied by any increase in security.\n(Applause from the left and from the centre)\nThis is the perfect example of the mania for security which is going on here. With our decision we want to send a clear signal that we are opposed to measures of this kind, which are also extremely controversial on medical grounds. We therefore ask you to reject Mr Weber's motion.\n(Applause)\nPresident\nThank you very much. The ALDE group has requested a roll-call vote on this motion.\n(Parliament rejected the motion to adjourn the vote)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":7,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) The harmonisation and reliability of data and information collected on marine activities is of critical importance for the fisheries sector and all efforts undertaken to improve their quality should be supported.\nGiven the sector's current needs and ecosystem concerns, the European Commission has proposed that Council Regulation (EC) No 1543\/2000 be amended while the European Parliament assesses a proposal for a Council regulation on a new Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector.\nIt is therefore necessary to amend the existing Council Regulation (EC) No 1543\/2000 in order to prevent an overlap between the old and the new regulations.\nThe current Commission proposal makes these necessary and logical changes and was unanimously approved by the Committee on Fisheries. It also now merits my vote in favour in plenary.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this report, which approves a Commission proposal amending (and preparing for the repeal of) Regulation 1543\/2000 (a Community framework for the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy). The Commission aims to bring in a new, more comprehensive data collection regulation in 2008; this amendment allows for a better transition by removing current requirements to submit six-year national programmes for the collection and management of data from 2007 to 2012. Instead, transitional programmes covering the years 2007 and 2008 are to be drawn up.\nGerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom, Derek Roland Clark, Roger Knapman, Michael Henry Nattrass  \nin writing. - UKIP wish to see the common agricultural policy abolished. Therefore, under no circumstances can we vote for a report that gives even more power to a Commission whose legitimacy we do not recognise.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the Chatzimarkakis report, which seeks to improve the CAP's budgetary execution and transparency, in other words to identify the beneficiaries of aid for agriculture.\nI feel the legitimacy of the CAP, one of the largest items of EU expenditure, is all too often called into question by the opacity with which agricultural aid is managed. The merit of this report is that it clarifies the situation.\nI am most satisfied by the Internet postings of all the national lists of direct beneficiaries of EU aid, and the links to be set up between the web pages of the Commission and the Member State payment bodies.\nMonitoring of CAP financing, however, must be carried out in strict compliance with the regulations governing data protection. That is why I voted against the amendments requiring the registration or recording of users consulting the data, since transparency must be guaranteed on both sides.\nI also believe that the data on the payments of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development ought to be broken down in order to identify the major beneficiaries.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We regard as essential the need expressed in the Commission proposal, and highlighted in the parliamentary report, to increase transparency, both in the financing of the common agricultural policy and in the provision of accounts in respect of the expenditure practices of the EU institutions. It is also essential to improve budgetary control. However, we are disappointed at the proposal's limited scope and the fact that the European Parliament has not been ambitious enough in either its report or its amendments.\nIn our opinion, there are still some proposals of no practical use which in fact limit the freedoms and guarantees of citizens, such as the requirement for 'those using, or looking at, the data [on the Internet to] sign on or register'. In addition, there is some ambiguity, both in the Commission's proposal and in the EP's report, with regard to the continued publication of information. It is proposed, from the start, to carry out 'an assessment of the advantages or otherwise of the publication of this data' in the future. Another debatable issue is the reinforcement of the Commission's power of control over the Member States.\nFinally, we consider that the best way of enhancing 'transparency and public understanding of the common agricultural policy' - an objective expressed in the proposal - is through its complete overhaul.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) The Commission's proposal to make certain amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290\/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is necessary in order to make this process more transparent.\nI believe that improved transparency, together with better use of the agricultural funds, would help to eliminate the European population's distrust of the CAP and the European institutions.\nI am therefore voting in favour of Mr Chatzimarkakis's report, which reiterates the Commission's position and adds certain amendments that I regard as important.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this report, which proposes a range of improvements to the transparency of the CAP. It calls on national lists of recipients of EU direct farm aid to be published on the internet. The UK already does this, and I would like to see other states doing the same. The report also calls for better procedures to take when publication requirements are not followed, and for data protection to be included in the Commission regulation itself.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Across the board, our small farmers, who are the salt of the earth, are being submerged in a sea of irrelevant bureaucracy and subjected to satellite surveillance, and woe betide them if their fence is standing a little too far to the right or the left. It is time for some humanity again, instead of beating our hardworking small farmers senseless with bureaucratic cudgels. The black sheep who fabricate entire fields and business activities and who cause BSE and other scandals should be named and shamed.\nIt is a mockery, however, to say that prices are rising so this could justify cutting subsidies. Austrian organic farmers were getting around seven schillings - equivalent to around 95 cent - per litre of milk before accession. Today, they get just 30 cent, which means that they are losing thousands of euros, and at the same time they are having to contend with ever-changing bureaucratic regulations that make their lives even more difficult!\nThe 'health check' envisaged must therefore serve only one purpose: to create a better, more reliable and longer-lasting framework, not to bring about reform by brute force and cause our last remaining farmers to throw in the towel. In view of the massive exodus from farming in Europe, the idea that unspent agricultural funding could be used for prestige projects such as Galileo must be vigorously rejected. We must retain our self-sufficiency capacity at all costs, and should not offer ourselves as hostages to fortune to the genetic engineering companies.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) Jorgo Chatzimarkaki's report further reinforces the Commission's initiative to increase the legitimacy of EU policies through disclosure of full details of expenditure practices and improved accounting and budgetary control in the agricultural sector, among other things as a result of a number of changes.\nI supported the parts of the report that sought to enhance public transparency regarding the use of Community funds and the publication of information on beneficiaries. I likewise supported the need for Member States to ensure annual ex-post publication, via the Internet, of the beneficiaries of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the amounts received per beneficiary under each of these Funds.\nHowever, I opposed the provisions under which those using or looking at information are required to sign on or register because this runs counter to the Swedish principle of the right to anonymity in connection with the use of such public information.\nMy intentions to vote against Amendment 20 in view of the strong Swedish principle of public access to official documents have been entered in the minutes, after a vote on my behalf was cast incorrectly.\nJeffrey Titford  \nin writing. - UKIP abstained on this report as we do not recognise the legitimacy of Parliament. This in no way reflects our views on the content of the report.\nUKIP wish to see the common agricultural policy abolished. Therefore, under no circumstances can we vote for a report that gives even more power to a Commission whose legitimacy we do not recognise.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The negotiations conducted by the European Commission under a mandate received from the Council have the central objective of establishing an Open Aviation Area (OAA) between the EU and the US, going beyond the bilateral agreements that currently exist between individual Member States and the US. The aim is to create a single liberalised market for air transport between the EU and the US, 'in which investment could flow freely and in which European and US airlines would be able to provide air services without any restriction, including in the domestic markets of both parties'.\nThe EU's aim is to ensure reciprocity by the US in the liberalisation of air transport, in particular with regard to removing 'the existing legal restrictions on foreign ownership and control of US airlines and on cabotage' and also with regard to the 'right of establishment' and 'State aid'.\nThis is why we reiterate that it should be the Member States and not the Community concluding this type of agreement, all the more so as this issue is of such strategic importance and 'could serve as a model for further liberalisation and regulatory convergence worldwide'. We therefore restate our opposition to the pursuit of the liberalisation of this important public service in each country.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a decision of the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, on the conclusion and temporary implementation of the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other hand (8044\/3\/2007 - - C6-0210\/2007 -.\nMr El Khadraoui rightly pointed out the importance of creating an Open Aviation Area between the EU and the US, thus allowing the emergence of a single market for air transport between the EU and the US. I support the view that this would enable investment to flow freely and EU and US airlines to provide air services without any restriction, including in the domestic markets of both parties. That represents a mayor step forward.\nIt was entirely appropriate to raise the issue of environmental protection in this context. The aviation sector has several negative environmental effects, in particular as a source of noise and as a contributor to climate change. I therefore agree with the provision calling on both the EU and the US to take effective measures to reduce the negative environmental impact of aviation.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report, which endorses plans to liberalise air transport arrangements between the EU and the United States of America. This levels the playing field for European airlines flying to the US, and should allow more rational construction of routes, leading to better services and more efficient routing of flights. In increasing the number of possible transatlantic routes it may even lead to lower fares for passengers.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The conclusion of this agreement is intended to meet long-standing needs on both sides of the Atlantic, with obvious benefits for consumers resulting from further liberalisation and regulatory convergence worldwide. For the EU, it will also serve to guarantee compliance with Community legislation.\nThe work carried out to conclude this agreement must therefore be applauded as the new legal framework ensures wide-ranging agreement on the creation of an integrated transatlantic aviation market that will be to the benefit of both consumers and companies.\nHowever, on reading this agreement, it is apparent that the removal of restrictions on foreign control of US airlines is somewhat disproportionate and, in addition, cabotage has not been included. The European Parliament's suggestion to include subsequent stages, deadlines for conclusion and consequences of any non-compliance in this phased approach to the agreement is therefore crucial and should be applauded. Furthermore, conditions have been laid down for re-establishing full reciprocity in the EU-US aviation market if the negotiations do not achieve the balance desired by both parties.\nTo sum up, this is a good start towards objectives not yet achieved.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I am convinced that there is a need for such an agreement but it has to be one which can be delivered on both sides. Airports in south-east England have had to open 'aircraft slots' for USA partner airlines and potentially many others. The reverse is not true in the USA. 'Freedom rights' are not granted to EU airlines for intra-USA flights. This means that flights emanating from Gatwick to New York cannot fly to Los Angeles, but USA flights to Gatwick can fly to anywhere they want in the EU. Similarly, there is no relaxation of the foreign ownership rules of USA airlines.\nThere is a clear lack of balance in the first stage agreement; this lack of balance against the EU has to be addressed urgently in the second stage negotiations. I will be looking to reinforce this effort within the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Madam President, I am not going to go over yesterday's debate again. I explained then that for us the Lamassoure report is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse, as we still do not have a valid transitional treaty, we still do not have a new treaty. The problem with this report it that it lets loose the typical Loch Ness monster of the Eurofederalists again, that is the spectre of transnational lists, on the basis of which some Members of the European Parliament would be elected. Well then, I still proceed from the assumption that we here are representatives of our electorates in the Member States, of our populations in the Member States, and not just abstract citizens of the European Union.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, I believe a house should be built upwards from its foundations, not the other way round, which is effectively what the report by Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin is doing. The Treaty on European Union constitutes the foundations. The Treaty must first be ratified, and I believe ratification is to take place within the next few weeks. That is one reason why I voted against this report, even though it contains many good points. Another reason why I voted against it is that I do not agree with my country being represented by as many as three fewer Members than it currently is. The number of Polish Members would be reduced from 54 to 51. These are my reasons for voting against the report.\nMikel Irujo Amezaga\n(ES) Actually, yesterday I submitted my explanation of vote in writing and I received a response to the effect that it was still being dealt with, and so on. That is one thing. However, my name is Irujo Amezaga. 'Amenaza' means something completely different in Spanish: it means 'threat' and I am do not think I am that just yet.\nIn any case, my explanation of vote was on the Lamassoure report. I voted against this report and I acknowledge that the composition of the European Parliament is a difficult issue. My amendment on supra-state constituencies that recognised political and cultural realities and went beyond the borders of the current Member States was rejected in committee. If we really want a Union of the European people, as stated in the EC Treaty, this Parliament should be open to other types of realities.\nPresident\nI am sorry for my pronunciation - my Spanish lessons are continuing.\nJim Allister  \nin writing. - In regard to the future composition of the European Parliament, I voted against the unwarranted attempt (Amendment 26) to inflate the representation of the Republic of Ireland to 13 MEPs. Northern Ireland has a population of 1.7 million and three MEPs; the Republic of Ireland's population is 4.3 million, yet under Amendment 26 it would have 13 MEPs, meaning a representative for every 330 000 citizens, whereas in Northern Ireland the ratio is one MEP to every 630 000 citizens. Clearly, the Republic of Ireland already is very generously provided for and should count itself lucky to hold 12 seats.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report. We believe that the principle of degressive proportionality is reasonable and has good chances of being supported by the EU's Heads of State and Government. The other proposals that have been put forward have no realistic chance of being accepted at the summit. The report gives Sweden 20 seats rather than the 18 we would get if the Treaty of Nice were to apply. It is therefore important for the treaty to be adopted. Otherwise the Treaty of Nice will apply, which would mean that all the Member States except Germany would lose seats.\nThe questions of how to define the concept of citizen and how to work out the population base governing the distribution of seats must be investigated.\nWe are very doubtful about trans-national lists for European Parliament elections. If the matter is investigated, however, we may accept it.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the report by my colleagues Alain Lamassoure and Adrian Severin on the composition of the European Parliament. They both knew that the current EP composition, established by the 2005 Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, was to be modified, even if that meant going back to the provisions of the Treaty of Nice.\nI applaud Alain Lamassoure's bid to rally his political family and regret that a number of national attitudes in disagreement with the Council decisions required some awkward debate, and eventually arbitration in plenary. This debate has highlighted the extent of national selfishness in some cases.\nAlthough I have my reservations about the idea of examining the possibility of electing some Members on transnational lists, I am happy with Annex 2 of the resolution, which requires the IGC to ask Parliament for a draft providing for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage that provides a more accurate definition of the notion of 'citizens' in Article 9(a)(2) of the Treaty on the EU. The concept of a European citizen must certainly be defined.\nGerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom, Derek Roland Clark, Michael Henry Nattrass, Jeffrey Titford  \nin writing. - I voted against Amendment 25 because, while the UK is still a member of the EU, the number of MEPs representing the UK should not be reduced at all. Therefore, to vote in favour of 74 MEPs would have been to vote for a reduction of four. Under the proposed principle of 'degressive proportionality', which is yet to be defined, small countries and microstates would be disproportionately represented while larger states, such as the UK, would be under-represented. Considering that large numbers of the population of Eastern Europe have migrated to the UK since 2004, and that they are currently entitled to vote in European Parliament elections, the number of UK MEPs should at least remain at its current 78, if not be increased.\nColm Burke, Avril Doyle, Jim Higgins, Mairead McGuinness and Gay Mitchell  \nin writing. - During the vote on the Lamassoure report we have voted consistently for a fair distribution of seats between the Member States and in particular for 13 seats for Ireland. We campaigned throughout this process for 13 seats for our country.\nThe arguments in favour are well known. We have a rapidly growing population in Ireland - it is the fastest-growing population in Europe, both in terms of natural increase in population as well as overall growth. We were also one of the biggest losers proportionally under the Nice Treaty in terms of seats in the European Parliament.\nUnfortunately the Irish Government did little to support the campaign to retain our current allocation of 13 seats.\nOur vote today will at least ensure that Ireland's allocation of seats will not fall below 12 for the next mandate, with provision for a full review before 2014 including on the vexed question of the use of a 'population vs. citizen' statistical basis for assessing the MEP allocation in Member States.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the Lamassoure report on the distribution of EP seats after the legislative elections in 2009. The new distribution balances out the number of seats in accordance with population trends in the Member States. I am glad that France has two more MEPs than those envisaged by the revised Treaty of Nice.\nI also support the idea that the new distribution ought to be reviewed well in advance of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term in order to ensure a fair and objective system for the distribution of seats in Parliament, taking account of population changes, which would prevent the usual log-rolling between Member States.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) The Members elected by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), although they consider that this is not a perfect solution and that it fails to impose a requirement for further negotiations in the context of future enlargements, support Mr Lamassoure's report on the composition of the European Parliament for three reasons:\n1. Some Member States do not agree with simply defining the general principles and require, as a condition of approval, the strict definition of the EP's composition before they will accept the Reform Treaty. This could compromise the main priority of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council.\n2. Mr Lamassoure has proposed a balanced compromise solution, which provides for a minimum limit guaranteeing the plurality of the representation of the smaller states and which takes account of the demographic size of the other states through a principle of degressive proportionality, ensuring a fair relationship between the states.\n3. It therefore blocks the unacceptable attempts of the German, Polish, Spanish and Italian Members to reinforce the weight of the more populous states by reducing the representation of the medium-sized states such as Portugal.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I have to express my disquiet about the principle embodied in the very notion of presenting this report to plenary. Having a Parliament determine the basis of its own composition seems to me to be fundamentally flawed. As one of my Irish colleagues said in the debate, 'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas'.\nI have been a Member of this House since 1984, when we had 434 Members, and now we have 785 Members. With each successive growth in numbers of parliamentarians, working groups, committees and plenaries have become unwieldy and increasingly ineffective. This is to be institutionalised here with a supposed 'reduction' to 750 Members, a size 30-40% too large to be effective, unless we want to model ourselves on China's largely ornamental 3 000-strong National People's Congress.\nThe other anomaly that strikes me is that, while we are allowed to select our composition, a vitally important institutional decision for the whole of the European institutions and the Union itself, we are not allowed to choose our own meeting place because of the recalcitrance of one Member State and instead are 'sold a pup' by the City of Strasbourg that is riddled with asbestos.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg  \nin writing. - (PL) I am sorry it has not proved possible to find a new and permanent solution for the distribution of seats in the European Parliament between the various Member States of the Union. The current method of distribution is temporary, and only applies to the next parliamentary term.\nThe method applied for distribution of seats is not clear and comprehensible to EU citizens. In addition to application of the principle of degressive proportionality, political criteria also had a significant bearing on the distribution of seats in Parliament. This was detrimental to representation of the citizens, which should actually be the governing principle. Furthermore, the proposed distribution of seats is based on the number of inhabitants of a given Member State, rather than on the number of citizens of the state concerned. My country, Poland, for example, would therefore lose out due to the temporary economic migration of some two million of its citizens who are currently employed in other Member States of the Union. Incidentally, it should also be pointed out that this is illogical, since the EU encourages worker mobility.\nWe would like to reiterate our warning that the principles by which the Union is governed appear overly complicated to its citizens. The latter are therefore feeling more and more misgivings about the Union's institutions.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We are firmly opposed to the idea of one constituency across the entire EU with perhaps 10% of the European Parliament's seats. Creating a separate EU constituency is an artificial way to try to create a European demos. There is no common political arena in Europe with media or debate covering all the Member States. Each country has its own political agenda. An attempt to break barriers of language and tradition by creating EU parties, entirely dependent on EU contributions, is doomed to failure.\nWe recall that 54.4% of voters stayed at home in the 2004 European Parliament elections. The 'stay-at-home party' is the biggest party in the European Parliament elections. There is no enthusiasm for European Parliament elections in the new Member States either. In Slovakia the turn-out was 16.96% in 2004.\nWith any enlargement of the EU to countries such as Ukraine and Turkey the present Member States will have their delegations cut back. This affects the smaller groups and reduces political diversity. There will be no place for regional parties or minority parties in the European Parliament.\nBoth the Christian Democrats\/Conservatives (PPE-DE) and the Socialists (PSE) would seem to have a hidden agenda of trying to create a two-party system in the European Parliament.\nWe are voting in favour of the report, not because it is excellent, but because it represents an improvement.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) We must be clear on this as there are many numbers:\n1. This proposal means that, since 1999, Portugal has firstly gone from 25 to 24 Members and will now be reduced to 22, whereas Germany kept its 99 Members, which will now be reduced to 96. In other words, Portugal has lost 12% and Germany has lost 3%.\n2. The six most populous countries currently hold around 56% of the seats in the European Parliament. With this proposal their control is fully maintained at 56%. In other words, they have given nothing.\nTherefore, through the current reform of the Treaties, the major powers are reasserting their control over the Council, by applying the demographic criterion without any weighting, and are maintaining their full control over the EP. Portugal is losing out! If some are in control, others must be...\nIn order to conceal their connivance with such an unacceptable situation, some are saying that it could be worse. Others think that it is natural that only some countries should be able to defend their interests..., at the expense of the interests of others.\nFinally, but without forgetting other important aspects - such as the rejection of the creation of a supranational electoral body or the fact that the fewer Members Portugal has, the less they will represent the political plurality existing in our country - we reiterate that a fair solution at institutional level must without question respect the principle of cooperation between sovereign states with equal rights.\nMarian Harkin  \nin writing. - I am voting for Amendment 26, which argues that Ireland should retain the 13 seats it currently has. Under the Nice Treaty, Ireland was allocated 12 seats; however, since the Nice Treaty, Ireland's population has increased by 12%. It is the fastest-growing population in the EU, in terms of national increase and overall growth. This report gives Ireland an allocation of 12 seats - three less than the 15 that Ireland had for the 1999-2004 term, which means we will lose 20% of our quota from 2004.\nTimothy Kirkhope  \nin writing. - British Conservatives are opposed to the EU Constitution and to the draft EU Reform Treaty. We do not agree with the terms of the draft IGC mandate delivered by the European Council or the text of the draft Treaty published on 5 October.\nIn the context of the request by the Council for an opinion by the European Parliament on the future composition of the European Parliament, British Conservatives have abstained on the Lamassoure-Severin Report. We have done so because we disagree with the model and methodology proposed by the co-rapporteurs, which we believe is unsustainable in the long term. We also disagree with the call for the election of MEPs on transnational lists.\nWe also deeply regret the fact that the important historical parity on this issue that existed between the UK, France and Italy has been abandoned. We are nonetheless determined to pursue the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom who we believe are currently numerically under-represented in the European Parliament. These factors have determined our position in voting on this report.\nCarl Lang  \nin writing. - (FR) How can a report be submitted to the representatives of Member States using legal and institutional notions that are simultaneously hazy, new, dangerous and utopian?\nDegressive proportionality, the main feature of the report, means nothing beyond the fact that larger states will again lose seats to smaller states. It is true that at the European Council meeting in Nice Mr Chirac originally initiated the process by agreeing for the first time to uncouple France with respect to Germany, contrary to the spirit of the Treaties.\nAs for electing Members from transnational lists, it is obvious what the aim is here: to get rid of politically incorrect parties that do not accept the languid social-democrat consensus, and to remove any reference to anything that is still the regal domain of the nation states. We obviously cannot accept this.\nThe notion of European citizen put forward by the rapporteurs is both dangerous and utopian, and in fact it is totalitarian. It implies that nationality is a thing of the past and that the brave new world consists of a new 'denationalised' man, bereft of his roots, his history and his culture.\nFor all these reasons, we feel that the Lamassoure report is an unacceptable legal, political and institutional regression.\nKartika Tamara Liotard and Erik Meijer  \nThe distribution of seats in Parliament between the Member States is not based on objective population figures but on promises made in the past and on negotiations that have been won or lost. That is why the large countries - France, Italy and the United Kingdom - always have the same number of seats despite having different populations, as do Spain and Poland. The same applies to Greece, Portugal, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Some countries are underrepresented, such as the Netherlands, which was foolish enough in 2000 to settle for fewer seats in Parliament in exchange for more votes in the Council. We support the rapporteurs' proposal because it is closer to a fair distribution than previous proposals. We reject all the amendments that want a less fair distribution, no matter who they favour, or that make a distinction between 'citizens' and other inhabitants when calculating the population of each country. We support the amendments that automatically couple the future distribution of seats to the populations of the Member States. We reject future reductions in the number of seats per Member State if they do not result from population decrease, but from the maximum of 750 seats or from the search for scope to elect a proportion of Members from transnational lists. With that proviso we vote in favour.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for and welcome the Lamassoure-Severin Report on the composition of the European Parliament. However, I find it rather strange that Parliament has the right to decide on the distribution of its seats but not on where it sits. It is clear that the Council is incapable of sorting out the mess of Parliament having three locations and I call on it to follow the logic of giving Parliament the right to allocate its seats by giving it the right to decide where it meets.\nThis report recommends a new, fairer composition for the European Parliament to apply to the 2009-2014 Parliament. The report's operating principle of degressive proportionality, which calls for bigger Member States to accept fewer MEPs than a strict proportional distribution would allow, is one I agree with. It will ensure that smaller Member States have viable parliamentary delegations, and that Parliament can return to a slightly more reasonable size of 750.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) Given the need to alter the composition of the European Parliament due to past and future enlargements, I believe that the solution adopted in this report has the virtues of being consistent with what has already been agreed (Nice), of not increasing the control of the most populous states over the others, by maintaining a model of balance between states which is quite understandable, and of helping to reduce the difficulties associated with the adoption of the Reform Treaty.\nTherefore, despite having preferred, as apparent from the voting, a model based on the concept of citizenship and not residence - given that the link between citizens and the European Union must be one of citizenship and not residence - I voted in favour of this report.\nMarek Siwiec  \nin writing. - Today's vote was crucial for the future working of the EP. It was necessary to have, on such a sensitive issue, a firm political indication from the EP towards the European Council, showing that national interests can be overcome to agree on a better system than the one laid down by the Nice Treaty. Even if the proposal made today is far from being perfect, it is fairer than the distribution of seats laid down by the Nice Treaty. After the EP unanimously called on the Council to define the term 'citizens' as provided in Article 9a(2) in good time before the next elections in 2014, I decided, in the interest of my country and the working of the EP, to vote in favour of the report, as this shows some progress in relation to what had been agreed upon before.\nEva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - (SV) The importance of the issue should not be overestimated. A new distribution of Members among the Member States will not change the current developments in the EU. The majority will continue to remain with the economic liberals and federalists in Parliament. However, the report clearly expresses principles governing a distribution that by its nature will be approximate in the final analysis. The distribution will be even better than the current situation, as the biggest country gets fewer members whilst the smallest ones get more. I therefore voted in favour of the report, even though there are individual paragraphs that I do not support, in particular the provisions on trans-national lists and European parties.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe Greek Communist Party in the European Parliament voted against the Lamassoure-Severin report because it further strengthens the confrontational nature of the European Parliament.\nThomas Wise  \nin writing. - I voted against Amendment 25 because, while the UK is still a member of the EU, the number of MEPs representing the UK should not be reduced at all. Therefore, to vote in favour of 74 MEPs would have been to vote for a reduction of four. Under the proposed principle of 'degressive proportionality', which is yet to be defined, small countries and microstates would be disproportionately represented while larger states, such as the UK, would be under-represented. Considering that large numbers of the population of Eastern Europe have migrated to the UK since 2004, and that they are currently entitled to vote in European Parliamentary elections, the number of UK MEPs should at least remain at its current 78, if not be increased.\nLars Wohlin  \nin writing. - (SV) Sweden should hold a referendum on the new constitution in order to obtain exceptions and an 'opt-in' clause (like the United Kingdom). With such an opt-in clause, for example, Sweden gets the right to decide itself whether, and if so when, to introduce the euro and to sign up to the Social Charter. However, this does not mean that I do not want a clear document as the basis for the EU which plainly defines the EU's field of competence. Such a document must contain, among other things, rules on the distribution of seats in Parliament. I am therefore prepared to support this part of the proposal for a new EU constitution specifically relating to the distribution of seats.\nThe fact is that unless the proposal on the distribution of seats comes into being in accordance with the proposal for a new EU constitution, there is a great risk that we will have to go back to the Treaty of Nice. The consequence of the Treaty of Nice is that Sweden gets only 18 seats, two fewer than Sweden gets under the proposal for a new EU constitution, and two fewer than Sweden is entitled to given the relative sizes of the EU Member States.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the resolution on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. I am concerned by the deterioration of health indicators in Palestine and aware of the difficulties posed by closure of border control posts, thereby curtailing economic activity and free circulation of goods, and I request that emergency and humanitarian aid be allowed to continue unhindered.\nI condemn the increasingly difficult living conditions that are rife in Gaza: the blockade preventing the movement of people and goods, partial privatisation of access to water, food and electricity, destruction of agricultural land, and basic services such as refuse collection that no longer operate properly and are on the point of collapse.\nI feel it is urgent for human rights to be fully respected in Gaza, and I wish to call for an international peace conference to be organised to usher in a fair and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians; a peace based on the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the Israelis' right to live within secure recognised borders and the Palestinians' right to a viable state.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I support this resolution. The current humanitarian situation in Gaza can only cause deep concern. The Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip must be lifted and electricity and fuel must be supplied. Also, Israel must guarantee the flow of financial assets to the Gaza Strip suspended since September 2007, the lack of which has seriously impacted the economic, social and daily life of the Palestinian people.\nThe Council and the Commission must use all the pressure they can exert to persuade the Israeli Government to move and to guarantee future essential humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Given the terrible situation in which the Palestinian people have been put, the European Parliament has adopted a resolution which, while recognising the extremely serious situation not only in the Gaza Strip but also in the other Palestinian occupied territories, does not hold Israel liable or condemn it for its deep-rooted responsibility, particularly for the destruction of the Palestinian National Authority and its supporting institutions and infrastructures, including those meeting the most basic needs of the population, and for seeking to prevent the creation of a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian State.\nIsrael has imposed a brutal blockade on the Gaza Strip, thus creating, as denounced a long time ago by UN officials, a gigantic prison for the Palestinian people, depriving them of the most fundamental human rights and preventing the provision of humanitarian aid by UN organisations.\nIt is imperative that this inhumane blockade be lifted, with Israel being ordered to end its aggression towards the Palestinian people and to fully respect and comply with international law and UN resolutions. It is also vital for urgent humanitarian aid to be provided to the Palestinian people.\nA fair and lasting solution for the Middle East will only be achievable through respect for the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to their own independent and sovereign state, respecting the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution, which draws attention to the plight of people in the Gaza Strip. It calls on Israel to fulfil its international obligations under the Geneva Conventions to guarantee the flow of humanitarian aid, humanitarian assistance and essential services, such as electricity and fuel, to the Gaza Strip. In calling for an international peace conference, an end to the blockade, and in asking for the Commission and the Council to work towards this, I join most other MEPs in advancing ideas that can make the situation on the ground better for those suffering the consequences of the status quo.\nPierre Schapira  \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the EP resolution on the Gaza Strip. The measure taken by the Israeli Government to declare the Gaza Strip a 'hostile entity' paves the way for economic sanctions. This measure comes at a time when the Gaza Strip is plunged into a humanitarian crisis, aggravated by the suspension of direct international aid to the Palestinian Authority and Israel's failure to pay back taxes outstanding to the Palestinian Authority since March 2006.\nEven if the Israeli authorities have allowed food trucks into Gaza, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East reports shortages of basic foodstuffs caused by frequent closures of the Karni border crossing.\nWe would not be faced with a humanitarian crisis of such proportions if we had not cut off our aid to the Palestinian people in the first place. Many other organisations maintained their cooperation with Palestine, particularly a large number of European local authorities. Is it not time we reviewed our policy of sanctions against Palestine so that this does not hinder supplies of the most essential humanitarian aid to the local population?\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I wish to stress the importance of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.\nWhilst I accept that the political situation is one that is dictating the plight of the people of Gaza, nevertheless it is the people - men, women and children - who are suffering, and heaven knows what long-term effects this will have.\nI agree that Israel must feel secure in its own borders, but there are also obligations on Israel to ensure that humanitarian aid and assistance are given to the Gaza Strip.\nIn Gaza there is a responsibility to end attacks on Israel, and we all have a responsibility to support a viable state for Palestinians, so that the Palestinian people can live securely in peace.\nI support this report because it is absolutely essential at this time that we in the EU make our voice heard on behalf of the people of Gaza. They need help and we should deliver.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I wish to support the endeavours of those in this House who have brought to our attention the crucial problems particularly facing those in the Gaza Strip and in the State of Israel and Palestinian areas.\nThe only way ahead is to move within the United Nations Security Council resolutions and to convene an international peace conference along these lines.\nBernadette Vergnaud\n(FR) Madam President, they are killed because they are women. These murders known as feminicides are caused by a social context influenced by a patriarch mindset that prevents women from becoming socially independent.\nThe extremely well balanced report by Mr Romeva, although it refers more specifically to feminicides in Latin America and Mexico, forms part of a global strategy to eradicate and prevent violent deaths of women all over the world. That is why I voted in favour: the EU must promote and defend the values of gender equality.\nMy amendments, which were in fact taken over by the rapporteur, had focused on support for the victims' families, who are often completely helpless and, to make matters worse, they endure the pain of seeing these murders go unpunished. I therefore wish to call for awareness and training programmes dealing with gender problems and for measures to promote the creation of effective protection systems for witnesses, victims and their families, psychological support, and free legal aid.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the report by our Spanish colleague Ra\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda on the murder of women, or feminicides, in Central America and Mexico and the role of the EU.\nI am sorry we are focusing here on Central America and Mexico, for there are many places all over the world where the matter of female murders has not been solved. I support any global strategy striving to bring about the worldwide eradication of violence against women. The suffering of women cannot be treated with indifference, and we must support them because their revolt will be at the root of many geopolitical trends in favour of the ideals promoted by the European Union, notably gender equality.\nGerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom, Derek Roland Clark, Michael Henry Nattrass, Jeffrey Titford  \nin writing. - UKIP abstained on this report because we do not recognise the legitimacy of Parliament. This in no way reflects our views on the content of the report.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted in favour of this report, which expresses the European Parliament's solidarity with women suffering violence throughout the world, including in our own countries of the European Union, but with particular emphasis on the serious situation in Mexico and certain Central American countries, where there is a real culture of feminicide, with thousands of violent deaths of women in recent years, which cannot simply be attributed to a widespread climate of violence.\nThis situation stems from cultural causes and socioeconomic contexts that are unfavourable to women and is worse in the case of indigenous women who suffer from high levels of economic dependency. However, it is also aggravated by the actions of criminal gangs.\nWe hope that this report will turn the spotlight on this serious situation and therefore help to ensure that, in the various countries concerned, the necessary steps are taken to end feminicide and violence against women.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List believes that human rights must be upheld in all societies throughout the world, both in the EU Member States and in other countries.\nThe report is a motion for a resolution which calls on the Member States and the states concerned to work to uphold women's rights. This is a deserving cause, but this is not the right forum in which to discuss the matter. As usual, paragraphs are included where the EU seeks to act with a single voice in foreign policy. With the report's proposals for new budget headings, campaigns and increased responsibilities the EU is seeking to appropriate more power and to use issues like these as means in that quest.\nCrimes against women are unacceptable and a dialogue between sovereign states to put an end to this is to be welcomed because it is important to improve the vulnerable position of women in much of the world. However, the EU must not pursue a single foreign policy and for that reason we chose to vote against this report.\nJean Lambert  \nin writing. - I fully support the report. Sustainable development is impossible without taking account of gender equality and the right to dignity and peaceful existence. Such crimes should not be viewed as simply an expression of culture; nor should they be dismissed if they are committed against women who may earn their living as sex workers. If no serious and consistent efforts are made to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators, this indicates that violence is acceptable and then no one is safe. The proposals outlined in the report deserve our support and I trust that Parliament will monitor their progress. The human rights dimension of our external policies is extremely important: we have to work for the rights of people to live safely and securely in order to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms at all levels of society and whatever their occupation and status.\nErika Mann  \nin writing. - The report by Mr Ra\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda on the murder of women in Central America and Mexico and the European Union's role in preventing this is a well balanced report. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and his engagement. He led the negotiations in a very sensitive and positive political style. I would also like to thank him for the attention he devoted to this topic.\nHuman rights enjoy a high-ranking importance in the European Union. Luckily, between the EU and Mexico, human rights topics play an important role; as part of the Free Trade Agreement they even have a kind of formal character and they also play a crucial role in our Joint Parliamentary Delegation, which I have the pleasure to chair and which is now chaired on the Mexican side by Senator Jos\u00e9 Guadarrama M\u00e1rquez.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this report, which I strongly support, and which is part of a global strategy for the eradication and prevention of feminicide and proposes EU actions in the framework of partnership agreements. I hope to see this issue taken up by the national governments in the framework of their bilateral relations with the countries of Latin America, and European institutions within their strategic partnership, to support the prevention and protection policies relating to violence.\nTobias Pfl\u00fcger  \nin writing. - (DE) I have supported the report by Mr Ra\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda because he clearly identifies, in a few points, the main causes of the murders of women in Mexico and Central America: the murders are occurring unhindered in a social and economic context which is geared solely towards economic interests. A high percentage of them have happened in the so-called free trade zones with their maquiladora industry (sub-contractor companies which produce for the export market), in which the absence of a social infrastructure and high poverty rates are accompanied by impunity for semi-legal security forces.\nThese structures are reinforced, too, by the EU's relations with Mexico and Central America, with their focus on trade facilitation. The EU's Association Agreement with Central America, which is due to be concluded before the end of this year, already shows, in its present form, that the EU is mainly interested in market liberalisation and deregulation. However, the 'creation of a climate favourable to trade and investment', as championed by the Commission, leads to precisely the structures which the report rightly identifies as constituting the unfavourable social and economic context that is conducive to the high rate of murders of women.\nThe report also sends out an important signal that the human rights clause agreed in the so-called 'Global Agreement' between the EU and Mexico must finally be acted upon. The work of the relatives' and victims' associations must also be strengthened.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this report recommending that, in order to prevent fraud, transit movements be computerised, the legal framework be revised and the Commission and the Member States improve physical checks based on common risk analysis. The UK is affected by this issue: up to 4% of potential VAT revenue is being lost to fraud in this area.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) The removal of borders very quickly and demonstrably makes itself felt in a massive decrease in turnover from cigarettes, not only in the border region but in the interior as well. Desolate labour market conditions tempt numerous private individuals to smuggle small quantities of tobacco products across the border on foot as a way of boosting their incomes.\nFantastic profit margins, despite the high transport costs, have also contributed to the massive increase in tobacco smuggling in recent years. A practice which is written off as a minor crime in some quarters is providing a livelihood for criminal gangs, and a very good one at that: after all, it is easy to bring these black market products to smokers in the EU. The traffickers know that information campaigns are hardly likely to change the situation, for studies have shown that most buyers are well aware of the higher concentration of harmful substances in these products and the risk of penalties being imposed.\nMontenegro's role is especially inglorious, for it has become Europe's main hub for tobacco smuggling, with the State taking a generous cut. More pressure will have to be brought to bear here through the talks currently under way, and of course the penalties need to be much stiffer and a uniform labelling system introduced to put an end to a state of affairs in which the tobacco producers' lucrative export business ends in illegal re-imports.\nGlenis Willmott  \nin writing. - The EPLP supports the aims of the Philip Morris agreement to combat fraud and illicit cigarette trade in the EU. However, the UK Government has not signed up to the agreement since it could conflict with existing UK legislation on tobacco smuggling. Existing legislation applies to all tobacco manufacturers, which is important in ensuring that smuggling activity is not simply displaced into products manufactured by companies that have chosen not to sign an agreement, or who might at some point choose to withdraw from one. This legislation also contains no significant exclusions, which better allows the UK to address the particular types of tobacco smuggling problems that it encounters.\nNina \u0160kottov\u00e1\n(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the enterprising report by the rapporteur, Mrs Jensen, because the decreasing quality of ground handling services has, over the last while, become an increasingly urgent issue and the true Achilles' heel of the aviation industry.\nThere are many causes of this. I would like to address those related to the increased security measures practised in some airports throughout the EU. Such measures often border on degrading human dignity and increase the risk of spreading infectious diseases, without any tangible impact on security. I am referring, for example, to the requirement for female passengers to remove publicly any jacket-type items clothing, even when worn over undergarments only. Similarly, standing barefoot on freezing floors often follows the removal of footwear before going through the security detector. In addition, when going through passengers' personal items staff often have no respect for basic hygienic rules.\nIt is evident that if we do not take notice of these issues and demand a better travelling culture as well as respect and politeness during security controls from ground handling personnel, civil aviation will become, as far as ground handling is concerned, a sometimes appalling and unpleasant experience.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Pointing to a rapid rise in goods and passenger air transport, the Commission has decided to produce an 'action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe' in which it puts forward a series of measures.\nThis European Parliament resolution, despite containing aspects with which we agree - for example, its references to the need for respect for social laws and collective agreements, training or the needs of the most remote regions - subscribes to a concept of liberalisation of the sector and creation of the so-called 'Single European Sky'.\nAlthough it highlights that responsibility for planning airport infrastructures must lie with the Member States, it advocates a 'global EU approach as regards the need for extra capacity, the constraints on future investments in additional capacity and the strategic axes'.\nThe resolution confirms the primacy of the 'Community competition rules', particularly with regard to the provision of ground handling services whose further liberalisation is not excluded. It therefore advocates increasing the minimum number of service providers admitted at airports, not setting an artificial limit on the number of third-party handlers and removing constraints preventing ground handling service providers from entering the market.\nThis is our critical position.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Jensen on 'Airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy'.\nThe report gives appropriate consideration to the issue of ensuring that airports have the required capacity. Air transport movements are increasing by 5.2% annually. It has been calculated that by 2025 more than 60 airports will be unable to cope with the demand for flights. The report provides for the growth in air transport to be accompanied by technical and regulatory programmes to limit its external impact.\nThe rapporteur rightly points out that the European Union can only meet its requirements in this area by providing different types of airports and responding to the specific needs of each country.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this report, which calls on the Commission to present before 2009 a master plan for enhanced airport capacity in Europe, in order to promote and better coordinate European initiatives for building new airport capacities dedicated to international traffic and to make better use of existing capacities. Only the cohabitation of various airport models according to national specificities will enable the EU to fulfil its need in this field.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) I voted in favour of the Jensen report on 'Airport capacity and ground handling: towards a more efficient policy' because I regard it as fundamental for ensuring sustainable regional development. Transport infrastructure is often the decisive factor for the location of regional investment, tourism development and rapid transportation of goods. Air transport offers important value added, especially for less developed, peripheral and island regions.\nGlobalisation and rapid economic development are giving rise a rise in the demand for flights in the EU. The current and future development of air transport in Europe urgently require the foresight to anticipate the necessary steps to be adopted at EU level for the benefit of EU citizens and its economy as a whole.\nIn my opinion, the image of all European regions can be improved by the construction of new airports, the modernisation of existing ones and the conversion of former military airfields into civil airports. Building and expanding airport and logistical infrastructure requires appropriate assistance from national and regional authorities. Airports must be included in regional spatial development plans; they must also be part of regional development strategies and be subject to territorial impact assessment with a rigorous environmental impact assessment.\nI regard as paramount the financing of airport infrastructure from national and regional funds with the inevitable financial support of the trans-European transport network, the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) By identifying 'the construction of relief airports in the vicinity of their congested counterparts' as one of the solutions to situations of airport congestion, as seen in Lisbon, and by noting that 'traditional airlines, low-cost airlines, charter companies, freight companies and business aircraft have different requirements in terms of airport services and slot allocation', the European Parliament is promoting those options presented as being less costly and, at the same time, able to respond to the growth in air traffic, bearing in mind the particular characteristics of that growth.\nI therefore voted in favour of this report as I consider that its ratio is contrary to the position defended by the Democratic and Social Centre\/People's Party (CDS-PP) for Lisbon which involves the 'Portela +1' option.\nOlle Schmidt  \nin writing. - (SV) Anne Jenssen's report deals with a problem that is trans-national to the highest possible degree. In other words it was not the lack of EU relevance that made me finally vote against most of the amendments and, in the end, abstain on the report as a whole. The biggest problem with the report was that in its final version it became too detailed. I find it hard to see the need for a master plan at EU level governing the way ground-handling services at airports are organised, less still why Brussels should create extra rules and charges in connection with employee training or the location of airports. Without getting into the issue of the location of Bromma airport, for example, I conclude that it must reasonably be a decision for Stockholm and Sweden, and not for the European Parliament.\nLars Wohlin  \nin writing. - (SV) The own-initiative report on airport capacity contains high-flying plans for what can be achieved through central planning on the part of the EU. According to the report, Europe is facing a substantial increase in airport use and there is a need to 'optimise' existing resources. It is claimed that future developments highlight the need to intervene at EU level 'for the benefit of Union citizens and of the EU economy as a whole'. It even goes into the infrastructure for connections to airports.\nIn the vast majority of cases there is national competition, between countries and airports, and strategic decisions must be taken at national level. In some countries airports are private, and investment decisions are guided by profitability assessments, whilst other countries have public ownership. The idea of EU planning in this area is therefore entirely unrealistic. We do not know future demand; and it is changing all the time and shifting between different areas and countries all the time. Nor can we prophesy how technical developments may affect growth. We do not know the costs entailed either. In addition, normally all cost forecasts for infrastructure tend to be two to three times higher than estimated. Likewise the question of ground-handling services should be a matter for each specific airport and not be regulated at EU level.\nThe report is inspired by planned-economy thinking. I cannot support this report, which most recalls the systems to be found in the old socialist countries, and I have therefore voted against it.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Community strategy on health and safety at work 2007-2012 (debate) \nPresident\n(EL) On the agenda for discussion, we have the report by Glenis Willmott, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, concerning the Community strategy for 2007-2012 on health and safety at work (2007\/2146(\u0399\u039d\u0399)).\nGlenis Willmott\nrapporteur. - Madam President, health and safety at work encompasses a vast array of issues. At a simple level, it is about reducing accidents at work and work-related illness. For the individual, it is about his or her physical integrity, dignity and well-being. For businesses, it is about reducing the costs of absenteeism, sick pay and loss of productivity. For society as a whole, the costs of poor health and safety at work have been put at an astronomical 3.8% of gross national product.\nThe Charter of Fundamental Rights, signed last month in this very Chamber - despite the disgraceful outburst of certain UKIP and Conservative MEPs - provides in its Article 31 that everyone has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity. It also provides that every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours.\nThe European Agency for Safety and Health at Work estimates that every year over 140 000 people in the EU die from occupational diseases and nearly 9 000 die from work-related accidents. These figures mean that every three and a half minutes somebody in the European Union dies from a work-related cause. That means that, in the short time I have been speaking already, it is possible that somebody has died and, by the time this debate is finished, it is probable that 20 people will have died.\nSome of our colleagues may contest the fundamental right to good health and safety at work, but I am sure none of them would question the right to life. A health and safety at work strategy for the EU should be strong on properly implementing and enforcing the existing regulatory framework. What we already have in place is largely very good, but it does need to be consistently enforced throughout the Union. However, this does not mean that, where existing legislation is clearly inadequate, we should not update it in order to make it work properly and provide the best levels of protection possible. It also does not mean that we should react to suggestions for legislative instruments like a vampire does to garlic, as some would do in this House.\nOf course, no one would argue that the legislative route is always the best. However, there are cases when binding rules are necessary in order to ensure that a new or emerging risk is properly and consistently addressed in all Member States. The Commission communication is to be welcomed and applauded for its target to reduce work-related accidents and its strong focus on SMEs. However, we also need to focus on occupational illnesses which have a huge cost in terms of workers' health, the cost to businesses and their productivity and to society as a whole through associated social security and health care costs.\nThe report reflects this and urges the Commission to ensure that occupational diseases are correctly identified and remedied, with a particular focus on occupational cancers, with a view to setting targets for their reduction. We also need detailed action plans with financial and timing commitments. Besides the targets for a 25% reduction in accidents, there appear to be few ways in which progress can be monitored and measured. Priorities for action identified in my report include a carrot-and-stick approach to enforcement of existing legislation. I would like to see the Member States reward business for good health and safety with tax rebates and a preference in calls for tenders and the introduction of a bonus-malus system in insurance policies, as well as other financial incentives. However, I would also like to see tougher sanctions for those rogue employers who neglect the health and safety of their workforce, as well as more infringement proceedings against Member States who do not adequately implement and enforce the existing health and safety legislation.\nAny health and safety strategy should naturally focus on those who are most at risk. Such vulnerable groups include migrant workers, who are often exploited, as well as young and ageing workers, who need special attention, and those with disabilities. It is essential that the 1989 Framework Directive be rigorously applied to these groups and other workers who are often ignored, such as agricultural and health care workers, when drawing up and implementing their strategies. The Member States need to take full account of these groups. We need a framework directive on musculoskeletal disorders to address a problem such as lower back pain - repetitive strain injuries, effectively - and lower back disorders.\nThere are lots of other issues I would like to raise but we are running out of time, so I look forward to hearing other colleagues and what the Commission has to say.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Willmott for the excellent report which she has prepared on the Community strategy on health and safety at work.\nThe Commission places a high policy priority on health and safety at work, and shares your views on a large number of your recommendations.\nIndeed, I would like to emphasise that it must be a Community strategy and not merely a Commission strategy. This is truly the only way to achieve the fundamental and ambitious aim, which is a continuous and sustainable reduction in occupational accidents and diseases. One of our foremost concerns, therefore, will be the participation of as many sides as possible at political, operational and institutional level.\nThe Commission's strategic aim of achieving a 25% reduction in work accidents in the European Union in the years 2007-2012 does indeed require the active participation and commitment, not only of the public administrations, but also of the social partners with their responsibility, at workplace level, for preventing accidents.\nIt is very important to stress the commitment which the Member States entered into with the Council resolution of 25 June 2007: to develop and apply strategies for public health and safety at work, geared to national conditions, in cooperation with the social partners, and also to set national, measurable targets for reducing accidents at work and the incidence of occupational illnesses, especially in those sectors of activity in which the rates are above average.\nThe Commission is particularly pleased with the European Parliament's response to its communication, and with the support for the general priorities and lines of action set out in that communication.\nI have noted Parliament's concerns regarding the need for adequate planning and distribution of resources, and regarding the assessment of progress, and submission of progress reports, in respect of the strategy targets.\nThe Commission will provide details and the exact plan of the special measures to be taken at Community level, on the Community Agenda scoreboard. We will also secure the participation of the Advisory Committee on Health and Safety at Work, within the framework of a three-way exchange of information on the content of the national strategies, the targets, the actions undertaken, and monitoring of progress made. Parliament will be promptly informed of the results of this procedure.\nAs regards your request for a review of Council Directive 91\/383, I would like to inform the honourable members of the European Parliament that the departments of the Commission are at present analysing the situation in various Member States on the basis of a study prepared by an external consultant. In 2008, a relevant report will be drawn up, and the Commission will decide what further action to take in this area, taking account of the conclusions of the report.\nAs regards the request for review of Council Directive 92\/85, I would also like to inform you that the departments of the Commission, after consulting the European social partners on possible amendments to that Directive, are now carrying out an impact assessment to determine the consequences of certain amendments to the Directive. If, on completion of the impact assessment, the Commission decides to submit a relevant proposal, there is little doubt that this proposal will be approved by the Commission in 2008.\nI share your view on the need, within the coming period, to improve the enforcement of Community legislation on health and safety, especially for SMEs, with a combination of measures which will give balanced emphasis to employer responsibility and worker participation.\nAs regards occupational health, I expect the new strategy to be a further step towards creating a healthier work environment throughout the EU, where the needs of an ageing employee population will be met and the more vulnerable groups will be fully protected. The Commission will intensify its efforts in the direction of adequate definition of health indices and other statistical measures, to ensure that occupational health hazards are properly monitored.\nWe are confident that the priorities set out in the Community strategy 2007-2012, and those set out in the report which you will approve today, will open the way to safer and healthier workplaces in the European Union.\nEdit Bauer\nDraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - Madam President, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality stresses in its opinion that the most significant health problems presented by women and caused by their working conditions are musculoskeletal disorders and psychological problems, on the one hand. On the other hand, it stresses that the need to analyse the risks that women and men face and take appropriate measures does not mean the reintroduction of protective policies of exclusion, nor does it mean developing different jobs for women and men.\nEven though the framework of Community occupational safety and health (OSH) directives is neutral in its approach to gender, it is not a sufficient reason for work-related risks to women's health and safety to be underestimated and neglected compared to the risk to men's health and safety, both in terms of prevention and research.\nWorkers, male and female, across the European Union are exposed to different risks in their workplaces: chemical, biological and physical agents, adverse ergonomic conditions, a complex mix of accident hazards and safety risks, together with various psycho-social factors. Therefore, women and men do not constitute a homogeneous group. Consequently, strategies and measures to improve OSH must be specifically adapted to particular workplaces, taking into account the fact that some factors might affect women and men differently.\nThe opinion also stresses new risk factors such as harassment, violence and bullying by clients at the workplace, mainly in public service sectors that employ mostly women. Finally, it emphasises the need to consider the introduction of hazard, risk and prevention concepts in school curricula and the educational systems in general as an effective means of building a strong and sustained preventative safety and health culture.\nThomas Ulmer\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I express my thanks to Mrs Willmott for the fair and constructive nature of our cooperation in committee. The report reflects the high priority attached to health and safety at work in the 27 Member States of the European Union. The key safeguards are emphasised and weighted. The cost of accident prevention and safety is high, but let me stress unequivocally that good health is priceless. The important points are that the provisions should be transposed and applied in all Member States and that the European Union should help Member States to transpose the rules and should offer them advice rather than meting out punishments.\nI believe that particular attention should be focused on small and medium-sized enterprises, which need assistance in this field if they are to remain competitive. In this respect we call on the Commission to create the appropriate basic conditions for SMEs in cases where these conditions do not yet exist and to improve them where they do exist. The protection afforded to employees must not depend on the country in which they work or the size of their company.\nIn the brief time at my disposal I only wish to list a few points of particular importance, such as better protection against hepatitis and AIDS and the continued systematic removal of asbestos from workplaces, however complex and expensive that may be. I believe we must focus on hepatitis B and especially on those people who run a high occupational risk of infection by hepatitis viruses, in other words medics, paramedics, carers and first aiders.\nIn the realm of first aid, efforts must also cover those people in many Member States who, in addition to their daytime jobs, perform unpaid voluntary work with the emergency services. I believe it was very important that the report stuck rigidly to the subject and avoided citing examples, which might well have engendered prejudgement of many issues.\nThank you for our fruitful cooperation. The EPP-ED Group endorses the report.\nPier Antonio Panzeri\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 6 December 2007 an accident at a ThyssenKrupp factory in Turin caused the death of seven workers. That extremely serious incident shows that the safety problem has certainly not yet been resolved.\nThe tragedy in Turin also raises another matter for consideration in this Chamber. We would have expected this multinational to conduct itself properly, but that was not the case. Italian newspapers reported yesterday that in a confidential document drafted by a senior manager of ThyssenKrupp following the tragic steelworks fire, and seized by the magistrates' court, the survivors interviewed after the accident were described as workers setting themselves up as heroes and stars on television. There are no words to describe that allegation other than as a disgrace.\nIt would be very important if this Parliament, as also the Commissioner, aside from all formalities, could and would express their indignation towards ThyssenKrupp. What happened in Turin happens to some extent everywhere and, on the basis also of the very good Willmott report, underlines the need for a commitment to a very real reduction of accidents and deaths at the workplace.\nElizabeth Lynne\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, this is a very good report and I wish to thank the rapporteur for her cooperation.\nI am pleased that the report talks about better implementation of the current directives. I also welcome calls for better inspection. There is no point in Member States paying lip-service to implementation, as many do in the field of health and safety, and then, quite often, calling for more legislation, even if the scientific and medical evidence does not establish a risk.\nOne area which does require legislation - and we called for this in 2005 - is prevention of the more than one million needlestick injuries that affect healthcare workers each year across the EU. Imagine the horror of being accidentally pricked by a needle and then having a horrendous wait to see whether you have contracted a serious infection, such as HIV or hepatitis B!\nThe Commission must heed our call and bring forward an amendment to the 2000 Biological Agents Directive. In some areas, exchange of best practice is probably enough, which is why I am pleased that my amendments on health care-acquired infections were adopted in committee. Infections like MRSA are serious not only for hospital patients, but also for hospital workers. Rates of infection vary considerably between Member States. For example, the rate of infection in the UK is 10 times higher than in the Netherlands. We need to know why, and how we can learn from best practice. That is why, in one of my amendments adopted in committee, I called for an EU code of good practice on health care-acquired infections, and for the screening of all health care workers to be encouraged across the EU.\nSepp Kusstatscher\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Willmott, for her excellent work and especially for having been so willing to compromise. More than 160 000 people are killed and some 300 000 incapacitated every year in the EU because of industrial accidents and occupational diseases. That is too many. In this society of ours in which the individual is often regarded as a mere production factor, too little emphasis is placed on the human aspect of this problem. The state, by which I mean legislatures and governments, must ensure that purely profit-driven business operators bear the social cost of exploitation. That is the only way to ensure that the necessary priority is attached to health and safety at work.\nPublic opinion tends to take more notice of industrial accidents than of the wide diversity of occupational diseases. More extensive and vigorous efforts are needed to redress the balance. Improvements cannot be achieved without close scrutiny, in other words inspections and analyses and the setting of precise targets for reductions in the incidence of occupational diseases, including new illnesses affecting those who work in fields such as nanotechnology.\nDerek Roland Clark\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, adopting this report on health and safety at work would add yet more bureaucracy and red tape, just when I thought the Commission were intending to reduce that!\nWorkers losing time through illness and injury put up the cost to the enterprise concerned and hence their prices. In an EU of free movement of goods and services there is more competition, so those who do not look after their workforce lose business. People off work through illness also raise the cost of social benefits, contributing further to a rise in prices. It is therefore in a company's best interests to keep its workforce in good health.\nGood ideas always spread, so that should not be too difficult. This depends, of course, on there being a free market, but of course, if like some members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs you think this leads to the law of the jungle, then you have another serious illness to contend with. Apparently, Member States which promote a free market are psychiatric cases.\nJean-Claude Martinez\n(FR) Madame President, the suicides of Renault and Peugeot workers in France and the thousands of cases of lung cancer among people whose jobs involve contact with asbestos are clear evidence that health at work is a problem.\nIn response, the European Commission has produced a communication elevated to the status of a 'health strategy', which in fact reads like something from Walt Disney - a resolution drafted by Snow White for the Seven Dwarfs. And it really is quite touching. In paragraph 35, for example, we are told that we need healthy lifestyles at the workplace; paragraph 29 is about encouraging medical examinations; paragraph 54 urges the installation of fire sprinklers; in paragraph 49 we read that stress is a threat to health; and recital D suggests, low and behold, that fatal accidents are more common among construction workers than among senior European civil servants.\nLuckily, the rapporteur for the Committee on Industry has solutions to offer, including the employment of a psychologist and a chaplain for every 500 employees.\nWe are actually told nothing, however, about the causes of occupational illness - of which there are three. The first is the ideology of dismantling protection at our borders, thus placing our workers in unfair competition with Asian slave labour. The only way our industries can survive is by going all out for higher productivity, at the expense of health.\nThe second problem is the daft policy of the strong euro, making us uncompetitive in terms of exchange rates. The only variable left to adjust is productivity, which is forced up once again, and once again health is compromised.\nThe third cause of our troubles is the neurotic philosophy of competitiveness - in effect an economic war between Europe and Asia or Europe and Latin America. But wars result in casualties and deaths, and the victims in this case are the people afflicted by occupational illness and accidents. In other words, the European worker is out there like a bull in the global economic arena, stressed and bloody and giving his all, until his health has gone. The solution is to take our workers out of that global arena with its unfair rules, and that will require new customs technology for deductible customs duties.\nRomano Maria La Russa\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to give an overview of the key points of this strategy and discuss the recommendations contained in my opinion. Guaranteeing equal social coverage of all workers regardless of the form of contract, speeding up bureaucratic procedures for small and medium-sized undertakings, and providing incentives, including financial incentives, for training are aspects of primary importance.\nTo discuss only those aspects would, however, be less than generous towards those who rightly call for explanations and justice in face of dreadful tragedies such as the one that occurred a few days ago in Turin, to which Mr Panzeri referred a moment ago. During the night of 6\/7 December, a fire that spread through the ThyssenKrupp factory killed seven workers; the fire extinguishers were not working. It was only later that it emerged that the factory did not comply with safety regulations! The European Parliament and I myself cannot fail to record that disgrace.\nI certainly do not intend totally to condemn the conduct of the German multinational or even imagine that the factory, however guilty, maliciously and deliberately failed to comply with the safety requirements in order to save money. I will not espouse the ideological arguments put forward by some Italian left-wing union members who, on learning last June of the closure of the factory, set themselves up as champions of safety and declared that they were responsible for and took care of safety at the factory. However, the moment has not yet come to make judgments, especially hasty ones.\nWhile respecting national competences in the matter, I do consider it urgently necessary for the European Union to guarantee that laws are implemented in full, first and foremost by reinforcing the inspection activities of the Agency for Health and Safety at Work, and to strengthen the coordination between the various national agencies by improving the functioning of the European Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee.\nMarie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou\n(EL) Madam President, there is no doubt that health and safety at work contribute to quality management, economic performance and competitiveness, and that they help in the development of the economy, and in the achievement of budget targets, including the budgets for the social security schemes. Of course, beyond all these technical matters, there are humanitarian reasons which make it not only necessary, but also a matter of priority, to protect the health of employees and ensure that workplaces are safe.\nThe strategy for 2002-2006 has given positive results, and the prospects for 2007 onwards are positive if we all play a part - not only in terms of European planning, but also at the corresponding national level - in monitoring and planning for health and safety, especially in the vulnerable categories, which means young people, older employees - whom we are calling on to participate in production for a longer period of their lives - and also women, who are likewise called on to participate in working life. A working life with new demands, fragmented into many different kinds of contract, self-employment, and small and medium-sized enterprises which lack the capability of large enterprises to impose proper working and safety conditions. It must therefore be the concern of all of us to manage national and Community resources correctly, as the Willmott report proposes, so that the desired results can be achieved.\nMaria Matsouka\n(EL) Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating our colleague Mrs Willmott, because her report has to a large extent covered the serious gaps in the Commission's communication.\nDignity at work means health and safety at work. It means carrying out studies on the prevention of occupational risks, and it means employers providing preventive medical check-ups. It means lifelong learning, vocational education and training. It means health and safety as key criteria for commercial agreements with third countries. But if these proposals are to carry any weight, a basic requirement is, of course, continuous social dialogue, but above all, we need to confront the fundamental threats overshadowing the area of labour relations.\nI am referring specifically to the spread of poverty among employees, the rapid growth of unofficial forms of employment, and the increase in working hours. If there are no fully human-centred policies capable of reversing this new employment \"dark ages\", social clashes are inevitable.\nAdamos Adamou\n(EL) Madam President, the measures proposed by the European Commission for strategy until the year 2012, are mostly superficial and concentrate on ensuring that competitiveness is not affected.\nThe target of reducing accidents by 25% by the end of the strategy period may look impressive, but in reality it is completely inadequate. The target should be to lay the groundwork and reinforce the institutional interventions by the state, so that the tragic death toll of thousands annually - and similar numbers with serious health problems due to the quality of their working environment - comes closer to being eliminated. The rapporteur focuses rather on the exploitation to which employees are subject, such as those working in hazardous jobs, women, temporary workers, immigrants, the elderly, and proposes stricter measures against employers, and guaranteed supervision.\nOne of the most significant contributions of the report is perhaps the finding that permanent employment is a requirement for combating accidents and work-related illnesses.\nIn addition, apart from accidents, more attention should be given to the causes behind the onset of mental illnesses, addiction, and the psychological hazards of the workplace.\nWhat is needed, then, is a many-sided approach to all the factors affecting health and safety in the workplace.\nJi\u0159\u00ed Ma\u0161t\u00e1lka\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I must admit that when I read the Community strategy for health and safety at work 2007-2012, which was presented last February by the European Commission, I was in many ways disappointed. Even though the Commission set out in this strategy a relatively ambitious target to reduce the number of industrial accidents by 25%, the strategy contains only a very small number of concrete initiatives and recommendations as to how to achieve this target. In addition, it focuses again mainly on industrial accidents, which are of course only one aspect of work-related health problems. Occupational diseases are somewhat neglected. This is, in my opinion, a step backwards.\nOn the other hand, I must thank and congratulate Mrs Willmott on her report on this strategy. The report, unlike the Commission's document, contains many concrete proposals and recommendations as to how to achieve better results in the field of health and safety at work. I am pleased that the rapporteur is also stressing the need to define cancer correctly and to express cancer numerically as an occupational disease, to specify the targets for the reduction of this severe disease. Up to now only 5% of cancer cases caused by work were classified as an occupational disease.\nI have greatly welcomed the incorporation in the report of my amendment, which I tabled in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the need to secure for the general public free access to technical norms. This is a problem employees of many Member States are constantly struggling with and one that should be rectified.\nKathy Sinnott\nMadam President, if we are going to reduce workplace accidents, we need to know how they happen. We cannot study all accidents and all near misses but, let me tell you, a 19-year-old Irish lad died on a construction site because his lighter Japanese bulldozer had heavy European shovels. His death was registered as a construction death and the Irish Health and Safety Authority never looked any further. So how can we save the next person that drives a tractor with mismatched equipment? Because we do not know.\nWe cannot investigate everything, but we can look at all fatal and debilitating accidents, especially those in the most dangerous sectors like agriculture, fishing, construction and transport. We need to break it down to make practical measures. Also, aside from risk jobs, we have very vulnerable sections of the workforce - elderly, disabled and workers who do not speak the language of their present workplace.\nLuca Romagnoli\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first I too want to express my sympathy following the tragedy that struck the workers in the Turin factory; I believe it is indisputable fact that there are too many deaths from occupational accidents in Italy because not enough is being done to prevent them and comply with the rules.\nResponsibility for this is shared equally between undertakings, unions and inspection agencies. We find undertakings that resort to illegal workers, especially from non-EU countries, or factories such as ThyssenKrupp, with their old-style industrial arrogance; those who should be defending the interests of the workers often consent to, if not connive in such situations, instead of being vigilant and quick to point out failings in the safety system to those in charge; finally, the works inspectorate and other bodies in charge of control and monitoring often fail to show much initiative.\nWe must promote safety at the workplace in the EU and in that respect the Willmott report is more satisfactory than the Commission proposal. I believe that when we speak of work and industry, we must not confine ourselves merely to ensuring freedom of competition and competitiveness.\nIles Braghetto\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, people are still dying at the workplace. In an area where man should be able to demonstrate his ability to manipulate matter with force and creativity, to develop his knowledge and earn his living, we all too often find instances of death and threats to life and limb.\nThat is why there is such anger and bewilderment in Italian public opinion about the seven workers who died in the fire at the ThyssenKrupp factory in Turin last December and why we must ask ourselves what was not working properly in that factory, so that we can avoid these disasters. We are responsible for such inadequacies in every place of work.\nToday we have highly-advanced legislation designed to support an appropriate preventive policy, define the obligations incumbent on undertakings and deal with new occupational diseases in Europe. What we lack, however, is adequate controls, inspections to ensure the laws are observed, staff and financial resources. We still do not have a culture that values the importance of rigorous preventive services, that regards prevention as a continuous process rather than as a one-off obligation, that establishes a continuous dialogue between the parties concerned with a view effectively to developing high safety standards, and that can spot the emergence of new psychosocial occupational diseases.\nIn conclusion I also believe we must come back to the subject matter of the Green Paper on corporate social responsibility, which is a cohesive and innovative aspect, in relation to the commitment to reduce occupational accidents and diseases.\nRichard Falbr\n(CS) To start with I would like to thank Mrs Willmott for her very carefully prepared report. It is stated that the Commission's objective is to reduce industrial accidents by 25%. I do not believe this will be possible. There is an insufficient number of work inspectors and they have insufficient tools at their disposal to make changes. The influence of the trade unions is being permanently reduced; in many countries they no longer take part in investigations into the causes of industrial accidents and eradication of their consequences. Further, there is the jungle that is the employment of workers by agencies, and there is also the pressure for constant expansion of so-called flexibility in the working time of employees. This leads to employees working many hours and the accident risks are increasing .\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Madam President, the draft resolution emphasises the social responsibility of companies for health and safety at work, while paying attention to the issue of honest competition. It takes into account the great importance of dialogue between social partners, particularly the role of trades unions in improving safety in the work environment.\nIt also draws attention to the need for special treatment of small and medium sized enterprises in the strategy for improving health and safety as well as the need to provide ongoing training to employees. The majority of accidents involve persons who are just starting work, who are lacking experience, as well as persons who have too little time for rest after work.\nIt contains important comments concerning the rehabilitation and integration in the workplace of persons returning to work after an accident, as well as requirements concerning non-discrimination as regards access to work for persons with cancer. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur.\nJacek Protasiewicz\n(PL) Madam President, we have been debating the European labour market strategy in this house for some years. We have many opinions as regards the direction our activities should take. There are those who favour a profound harmonisation of employment legislation, others who defend the view that the natural diversity in European labour markets is advantageous for the EU economy.\nAs you know, my views on this matter favour the second view, with one important exception. This exception concerns the regulation of health and safety at work. I believe that, in this area, the active involvement of EU institutions is both justified and necessary.\nFollowing the most recent extension to the EU we can see an even greater diversity of work conditions. This diversity is both territorial and environmental in nature, as, whatever the country, the majority of work accidents and work-related illnesses affect such groups as migrant workers, young employees or older persons. I do not want to imply that these are groups that are subject to targeted and conscious discrimination. It is rather a consequence of insufficient education and lack of experience. All the more reason for providing appropriate work and safety conditions for just these workers.\nI would also like to point out that, in any Member State, we can see greater problems in complying with the highest safety standards at work in such sectors as construction, agriculture and transport. It is in these sectors above all that small and medium sized enterprises are found and their financial, organisational and legal capabilities make it difficult for them to comply with high health and safety standards. It is just these companies that require support from the European Union, from EU institutions and from the governments of Member States, and this support is needed urgently. It is not just a question of sanctions and increased monitoring. These instruments, which are of course essential, should be accompanied by investment in the education both of employees and employers as well as financial support for improved and safer workplace equipment.\nGabriela Cre\u0163u\n(RO) We welcome the good intentions of the Commission; however, we are in doubt as to their effectiveness.\nAccurate statistics concerning occupational diseases are required in order to maximize policy impact and to protect workers. Existing data are incomplete, either misjudging phenomena or ignoring reality. Women are the main victims of this shortcoming, primarily because they are more involved in informal, or \"grey\", economy.\nIn this sector, the effects of working conditions on health are not recorded at all. The existing legal framework maintains an approach which lays emphasis on accidents and hazards in the so-called \"heavy\", male-dominated branches of economy.\nWe call on the Commission for a more careful consideration of the specific differences between male and female employees and for an assessment of the availability of data broken down by gender and data concerning the long-term effects and psychological consequences of employment.\nTo substantiate our request, we would like to invite you to take a tour of a textile factory. Sight and hearing can be significantly impaired, and the prevalence of circulatory disease is high. Statistics ignore the situation. This is so-called \"light\" industry, where most of the workers are women, and wages are also low because there are supposedly no risks involved. Thus, current statistics preserve the historical inequality between men and women, including the gender gap in payment.\nHarald Ettl\n(DE) Madam President, a Community strategy for health and safety at work is absolutely essential. While technical health and safety measures are effecting rapid improvements, the meteoric pace of change in the working world poses new risks. The problems and hazards involved in working with new chemical substances are self-evident.\nFirst and foremost, however, the increasing pressure to perform which characterises the contemporary workplace creates not only physical problems but psychological problems too. Insecure jobs and people's fear of losing their livelihood lead to psychosocial problems. New potential for aggression builds up, new stress factors lead to mental abuse, and bullying becomes a common occurrence.\nSMEs are particularly susceptible to such contemporary phenomena unless these are curbed by means of countermeasures, information, supervision and training. Accordingly, this resolution is more important than is probably recognised. I congratulate the rapporteur.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Madam President, health in the workplace must be given priority. Our Parliament buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg are among the places where more action is needed. Just take the ambient temperature in this chamber, which borders on a health risk. I also believe in the power of good example.\nA few months ago I was stranded in a hotel in Greece as a forest fire raged all around, and I must say that the hotel, a typical SME, had prepared for that eventuality in the most exemplary fashion. Had not all the safety precautions been perfectly devised, well organised and properly drilled, many of the people there could probably not have survived. That is why I believe that great importance attaches to this learning process to which Mr Ettl referred, this training and preparing for emergencies. Incentive systems would also be useful in this respect; insurers, for example, could allow appropriate discounts on premiums to companies with trained staff, and social-insurance schemes could also offer relevant training courses.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n- (SK) As a Member of the European Parliament and a physician, I welcome the Commission's plan to reduce industrial accidents within the European Union on average by 25% and I am aware of the need to implement more effective measures in all the Member States, among which there are huge disparities.\nBesides sectors such as metalwork, the construction industry, electrical work or forestry, I would also like to highlight the high-risk jobs of doctors and healthcare staff, who in their jobs are exposed to huge risks of infection and AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis and many other infections. I also regret that the reduction in the number of industrial injuries and occupational diseases in particular did not include, for example, migrant workers, workers with temporary contracts, workers with low qualifications, and women in certain companies, such as small and medium-sized companies.\nI would highlight the provisions in some countries that successfully implement comprehensive rehabilitation after an accident as a condition for successful return to the labour market.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  -\n(RO) As ITRE rapporteur for this document, I have asked for the active promotion of involvement in European trade unions and I have called on the Commission to propose a legal framework that would encourage social partners to engage in cross-border bargaining.\nThe European Commission and the Member States could provide funding for training labour representatives which would defend and promote workers' rights to safety and health at the workplace.\nWe also asked all Member States to sign and ratify the UN Convention on the protection of migrant workers and their families and to coordinate the improvement of access to training, particularly for part-time workers and contract workers, to enable them to secure more stable employment.\nI believe that Member States should enforce the measure required for difficult or dangerous work to be recognised as such and reflected in the social protection of a person both during employment and after retirement.\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi\n(RO) A European strategy on health and safety at work is a welcome initiative on the part of the European Commission. However, I believe that further aspects should also come under scrutiny. As one of the previous speakers very aptly pointed out, we should take into account that there is a special situation concerning immigrants on the European labour market.\nA recent study of the European Commission shows that migrants are exposed to much higher degrees of risk concerning health and safety at the work place. This is due both to the prevalence of illegal work, and to other factors such as: lack of awareness of social benefit and pension entitlements in Member States, and problems in the cross-border use of health insurance.\nSuch matters fall within the Community remit, and the Commission should be closely monitoring the application of European laws, so as to improve the precarious circumstances of migrants.\nMoreover, European funding could be used for training additional labour protection inspectors who would identify failures to comply with health and safety regulations at the work place.\nStephen Hughes\nMadam President, I would like to speak about needlestick injuries, because I was responsible for the 2006 report on this issue. I wonder whether the Commissioner would agree with me that, where a risk is identified that needs to be tackled at European level, then there is a need for the Commission to ask expeditiously.\nIf he does agree, I wonder whether he can explain why it took a full year for the Commission to manage and assess the first round of consultation with the social partners on needlestick injuries, even though there were only 10 responses in that consultation.\nI wonder whether he can also assure us that work on this issue will proceed faster in the year ahead. One million workers a year are affected by needlestick injuries. That means around one and half million will have been affected since the report was completed by Parliament. Could the Commission please act a little faster in future?\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, I thank all the speakers for their very positive contributions.\nIndeed, every accident, every injury, every death at work, such as those which occurred last December in Turin in Italy, reminds us that more needs to be done to protect the working men and women of Europe. It reminds us that more has to be done to achieve our ultimate aim: to make Europe a safer place to work.\nThe new strategy is aimed precisely at reducing today's unacceptable level of work accidents and occupational illnesses.\nI would like to emphasise that, taking account of the available human resources, one can say that the current allocation of personnel will allow the Commission's departments to perform their duties properly in this area. Within the framework of the overall deployment of human resources allocated to the field of employment and social affairs, the Commission will be constantly assessing the workload in the various specialised areas, and will allocate staff accordingly.\nI would also like to mention, on the issue of needleprick injuries, that we are preparing a relevant proposal for an amendment to the Directive, which we shall submit in 2008.\nAgain, I would like to thank this House for this discussion and for approving Mrs Willmott's report.\nWe have seen proof, once again, of the European Parliament's strong policy support for the principle of keeping health and safety at work high on the agenda - for the benefit of the economy, and also as a guarantee that employees will return safe and sound to their loved ones after work.\nGlenis Willmott\nrapporteur. - Madam President, I should like to thank my colleagues for their comments and to make just a couple of points.\nFirstly, on the issue of cancers, it is necessary to revise the Carcinogens Directive to reflect technical progress and changes in scientific knowledge in the world of work. It is important that we have effective binding limits for carcinogens, mutagens and substances toxic for reproduction. Limit values should be based on scientific evidence, and I would urge the EU Scientific Committee to examine crystalline silica as a matter of priority. I would urge colleagues not to delete reference to this and oppose Amendment 6.\nSecondly, the report calls for nanotechnologies to be monitored and potential risks to health assessed, and I would urge colleagues to oppose Amendment 5, which seeks to delete this. I fully recognise the potential benefits of nanotechnologies. Nevertheless, the rapid growth of such technologies is outstripping our understanding of the potential occupational health risks: workers can be exposed to nanoparticles through inhalation, dermal contact and ingestion, and we cannot bury our heads in the sand and refuse to carry out research and assess whether there are any risks.\nThirdly, I would just like to reiterate the call for the Commission to bring forward a legislative amendment to the Directive on risks from biological agents at work in order to address the problem of needlestick injuries. This needs to be done as a matter of urgency.\nAs I mentioned earlier, health and safety is a fundamental right included in the Charter. We need a strong EU strategy to ensure that this fundamental right is upheld and that workers throughout the EU are adequately protected. Each single accident and each work-related illness constitutes a breach of a worker's fundamental rights.\nWe all know there is a strong economic case, as well as good business reasons, for good health and safety in the workplace but, more importantly, the strongest argument has to be the cost to human health and the lives that can be saved. One life every three and a half minutes - who can argue with that?\n(Applause)\nPresident\n- (EL) The debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today, Tuesday 15 January 2008, at 12 p.m.\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I should like to begin by congratulating the European Commission on its Community strategy on health and safety at work 2007-2012, and on the work achieved by our Parliamentary Committee. Every year, almost 500 000 people die or suffer permanent disability for work-related reasons, and we must applaud the European Commission's goal of achieving an average 25% reduction in work-related accidents in the EU. I support the idea of increased activity by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in Bilbao (Spain). In this matter and, more generally, in the development of social Europe, I regret the fact that neither the report nor, moreover, the Communication from the European Commission stresses that it is essential to support the social partners; we must always remember that under the existing Treaties, with Articles 137 ff. of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) (and this has been confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty that is in the process of being ratified), legislative instruments are available to the latter to facilitate the development of European social law.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on:\nthe oral question to the Commission on the protection of consumer interests in competition rules for the motor vehicle sector in the internal market, by Malcolm Harbour, Andreas Schwab, Evelyne Gebhardt, Cristian Silviu Bu\u015foi, Adam Bielan, Heide R\u00fchle and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (O-0044\/201 - B7-0209\/2010); and\nthe oral question to the Commission on the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, by Sharon Bowles, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - B7-0210\/2010).\nTheodor Dumitru Stolojan\ndeputising for the author. - Mr President, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has put forward this question because it has followed with interest the review procedure of the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, and some careful thinking has to be done.\nAs you know, block exemption regulations are very important instruments to the business community. This Regulation was adopted in 2002. At that time the Commission considered that there was an oligopolistic situation in the European car market, the six largest manufacturers in Europe having together a market share of 75%. Against this background, the Commission considers that the motor vehicle sector should not be brought within the General Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, and therefore adopted a specific regulation.\nThis Regulation will expire on 31 May 2010. The Commission now considers that the markets for new vehicles sales are highly competitive and that concentration levels have been declining. As a consequence of this assessment, the Commission proposes that a specific block exemption is no longer needed for the sale of new cars and commercial vehicles. It proposes to adopt a special block exemption regulation only for repair and maintenance services, as well as for the spare-parts distribution.\nParliament is concerned about this reform. As you know, the EU is currently facing an exceptional financial and economic crisis, and unemployment rates are high. The European automotive industry is a key sector of the European economy, contributing to employment, innovation and the competitiveness of the whole economy. We believe that it is necessary to establish general conditions to make this sector sustainable and enable it to remain economically efficient and green.\nThere is also a need to ensure that the small and medium-sized players in this market enjoy favourable conditions. We cannot forget the importance of SMEs as job providers and as suppliers of proximity. However, several motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses have expressed serious concerns about the new regulatory framework, arguing that it will lead to a further deterioration of the power balance between manufacturers and the rest of the automotive value chain.\nTherefore, Commissioner Almunia, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would like to ask you, firstly: which results of market analysis led the Commission to conclude that the primary market is currently competitive and the after-sales market is still problematic?\nSecondly, how does the Commission evaluate the balance of power between car manufacturers and car dealers under the current Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, and under the proposed legislative framework? Are there players with a simple or collective dominant position?\nThirdly, how does the Commission intend to monitor the evolution of market power in the primary and after-sales markets? Which measure does the Commission envisage, should it appear that the competitive conditions, in particular in the primary market, have significantly worsened?\nFourthly, what is the expected impact of the new legislative framework on consumers, in particular as regards prices and conditions offered?\nFifthly, which comments received from stakeholders, namely during the consultation, does the Commission intend to incorporate in the final legislative framework?\nFinally, does the Commission agree to consider proposing harmonising legislation in the area of distribution, for instance by amending the Commercial Agency Directive, in order to ensure that all dealers benefit from the same high level of contractual protection in every EU Member State?\nMalcolm Harbour\nauthor. - Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am very pleased to be here this evening to present our aspect of the question, and I particularly want to thank our colleagues on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who of course have leadership on competition issues, for working closely with us, because clearly this is an element of competition policy which also has fundamental interests for consumers, and we have been ensuring from our side that some of those consumer elements are very well represented.\nFirst of all, I think that the elements of the Commission's proposal relating to the sales, service and repair market are very much aligned with the consumer interests which we have raised in our committee - not specifically on issues related to DG Competition, but for example particularly in the areas related to information on service and repair where we worked, in this instance, with the Environment Committee on the provisions concerning technical information linked to environmental standards for motor vehicles. I think that those elements, which have been reinforced in the new proposal, are extremely welcome as regards sustaining competition between independent repairers and market access for spare parts with equivalent quality markings: the opening up of that market is very welcome.\nI think the one reservation which we would draw to your attention, which is contained in the resolution on which we will vote tomorrow, concerns the issues about the availability of information. We are not convinced - you may wish to convince us, but we are not convinced - that the guidelines you published are necessarily sufficiently strong or enforceable to ensure that this technical information is available, particularly because it will be possible for car manufacturers to make that information available in an electronic format, which, without appropriate software and searching capability, may not be so valuable to the service repairer as we would expect it to be.\nHaving said that, I now want to turn to the issue of sales, which we just heard eloquently addressed by the Vice-Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. I think on sales we are much less convinced that the Commission has really taken on board the concerns of consumers. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee held a very important hearing where we heard from both dealers and consumer representatives about their very real concerns that the safeguards which have been put in place to ensure competition in the sales market, which were put there clearly in 2002 - many of them, I have to say, in response to concerns raised by this Parliament - have simply been swept away by what seems to us to be rather excessive zeal on your part to simplify issues and make life rather easier for you, as an administration, to deal with it.\nThere may be problems with that, but I would suggest to you - and I would like you to look at the evidence which was placed before us in our hearing - that dealers and consumers do have serious concerns about bringing automotive distribution straight away into the general block exemption. There were clear safeguards built in back in 2002 - not that long ago in the cycle of car distribution - to redress the balance of power between independent dealers and manufacturers. I think the dealers would say that this has actually worked rather well over that time. Indeed, if you look at what has happened in the marketplace, they would feel that that was the case.\nPerhaps I might also remind you, Commissioner, because I think you were not around at the time, that there was a lot of lobbying by the car manufacturers that these provisions were excessive, but the dealers were in favour of them. What do we have now? We have the dealers saying to us: these provisions are too weak and the manufacturers saying: we like them very much.\nI think you need to look at this. I am not saying that we should stop this process - I think it is the right thing to do now, given that we are now only a few days away from implementing these - but what we are saying to you in the resolution tomorrow is: please look at the up-to-date data, look at the information. I would also say that, within the Commission, Commissioner Barnier is about to produce a report about competition in the retail supply chain. The automotive sector should be part of that, and you need to look at that because we need some consistent policy from the Commission.\nSecondly, the papers which I have seen from your services say: do you think this is a preparation for the new generation of green cars, electric vehicles, and low-emission vehicles? There is nothing in your analysis whatsoever that has picked up any of that.\nWe now have Mr Tajani's paper. Can I ask you, within the next year, to look at Mr Tajani's paper, look at Mr Barnier's paper and assure us that this is the right thing to do? I think that if you do that you will restore some credibility here, because I think that we remain unconvinced on that side about what you are planning to do.\nJoaqu\u00edn Almunia\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the current Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation expires on 1 June this year, and we need to adopt a new regulation before that date. The College of Commissioners has placed this issue on the agenda of our meeting of 26 May.\nThe proposal that is now being discussed within our services and, in a few days, with our cabinets - preparing the collegial discussions - is the result of an in-depth analysis of the sector. The public consultation process started in June 2006. Three and a half years later, in December last year, the Commission published the draft block exemption and guidelines. Throughout this process, stakeholders, the European Parliament and the Member States have all been closely involved, and a lot of arguments have been taken into consideration. A number of debates, workshops and initiatives have also taken place, including here in Parliament. The latest took place on 12 April this year at the ECON Committee. What are the main conclusions of this long consultation process?\nFirst, we learned something positive: that consumers in Europe enjoy vigorous competition in the car sales market. In our annual car price reports we have been reporting on 80 car models from around 25 manufacturers - and prices are not the only factor which tells us that competition is healthy. There is also more choice than there was 10 years ago, with more brands available for each type of car. In these circumstances it would be difficult to suggest that any carmaker would be able to exercise a dominant position, be it individually or collectively.\nThe current regimes contain sector-specific rules that made sense at that time (in 2002) when a wave of consolidation was expected in the vehicle sector. This consolidation period did not materialise, and instead what we have today is a very competitive market. By allowing more flexibility for the distribution of vehicles, the proposed changes will restore manufacturers' incentives to reduce the cost of selling cars. Allow me to recall that distribution costs make up, on average, 30% of the price of a new car. By reducing those costs, manufacturers will improve their competitive position, with resulting benefits for consumers.\nI am perfectly aware that there are some concerns about proposed changes relating to multi-brand sales and contractual protection for dealers, and both of you have mentioned these concerns. Let me stress that multi-branding exists - and will continue to exist - where market reality calls for it. This is the case in countries with very large dealers that have the capacity to distribute several brands - for example in the UK - and it is also the case in sparsely-populated areas, where it makes economic sense for the dealers to sell different brands from the same site.\nThis was the reality before the current block exemption was adopted in 2002, and it remains the reality eight years later, but then, as now, single branding was the most common distribution model. What we have observed is that carmakers have increasingly resorted to other forms of distribution, including manufacturer-owned outlets.\nThe evolution of distribution in Germany, for instance, is symptomatic of this trend, with 67% of cars sold through dealer networks, as opposed to 90% before the Regulation came into effect in 2002. Nonetheless, we have responded to concerns expressed during the consultations, including the consultations that took place here in the Parliament, and a number of safeguards have been introduced with regard to multi-brand dealerships.\nLet me also underline that we propose a transitional phase, during which the current regulation will be in force until the end of 2013 for the car distribution market, to allow sufficient time for dealers who invested in multi-branding to amortise their investments.\nConcerning the reason why we are proposing to do away with clauses granting contractual protection to dealers, it is simply because competition law is not the appropriate instrument to address eventual imbalances between contractual parties. These issues, as was discussed when we were preparing Regulation (EC) No 1\/2003, belong to the sphere of commercial law.\nIn a competitive market such as the car market, competition law should not interfere with the balance of powers between the different contracting parties. To do so would be intrusive. We have to be proportionate when we interfere in how markets work.\nIn the process of consultation we also learned some other, maybe less positive things: unlike car prices, the cost of the average repair job has actually risen over the past years. Repair and maintenance is very important for consumers: not only for reasons of safety and reliability, but also because repair bills account for 40% of the total cost of owning a car. Unfortunately, the ability of independent garages to compete with authorised repairers is still impaired by a number of restrictions, including limited access to spare parts and to technical information. Therefore, our reform intends to allow independent garages better access to spare parts and technical information and to prevent them from being shut out of the market by other, newer practices. This will result in better-quality repair services and lower prices.\nTo conclude, I strongly believe the new framework will be more favourable to consumers. Our main priority is to increase competition in the after-sales market - in repairs and servicing - where it is most lacking. Although vehicle manufacturers may be in a strong commercial position vis-\u00e0-vis dealers, they compete fiercely with each other, and today there is no need to deviate, to preserve competition on these kind of agreements, from the Block Exemption Regulation for Vertical Agreements, which was adopted recently by the Commission and will also come into force at the end of this month. Indeed, the Commission, and in particular my services, DG Competition, will monitor the sector very carefully, and there should be no doubt about the Commission's determination to enforce competition rules and take necessary steps if any serious breaches or shortcomings are identified.\nOthmar Karas\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have now heard a great deal. With this oral question and resolution we wanted to give car dealers and the small and medium-sized enterprises a voice, because the Commission has not paid sufficient attention to this voice in recent years. During the hearing, concerns and anxieties were expressed above all on the part of car dealers on account of unequal treatment in relation to manufacturers. Legal uncertainty was brought up, as was a reduction in competition as a result of problems experienced by small car dealers. However, we have not received a response.\nI appeal to you - at one minute to 12 - to utilise the 21 days up to 26 May to incorporate the resolution to be adopted tomorrow by Parliament into your Regulation in order to meet car dealers half way without jeopardising the direction the Commission wishes to take. Please take Parliament and the concerns of the car dealers seriously and incorporate their concerns and those of the small and medium-sized enterprises into the Regulation.\nOlle Ludvigsson\non behalf of the S&D Group. - (SV) Mr President, I should like to highlight four issues in this debate. Firstly, there is an unfortunate tendency to put small and large companies in the automobile industry up against each other. To a certain extent they have different interests, but what we primarily need to focus on is creating a system of regulations that enables them to work effectively together.\nSecondly, it is a very positive sign that competition on the new-car market has improved over the last year. This is a good example of the fact that no market is impossible and that, in the long term, it is possible to achieve a great deal by means of measures to strengthen competition. Hopefully, we shall in future see an equally positive development on the after-sales market.\nThirdly, it is important for the Commission to very actively follow developments with regard to competition on the new-car market. This should be continually monitored. All interested parties should receive definitive information as early as possible regarding the rules that will apply from June 2013.\nFourthly, we ought to intensify our discussions on how we are going to go about switching to green, more environmentally friendly cars. It is an absolutely essential process. On one hand, competition rules will need to be flexible in relation to the subsidies needed to enable electric cars and other environmentally friendly alternatives to get established on the market and, on the other hand, the rules must ensure that environmentally friendly cars are not placed at a disadvantage in the retail sector or on the after-sales market.\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the purchase and maintenance of a car is considered to be one of the most important costs for households. The very aim of competition policy is to ensure consumers' freedom of choice and access to products at lower and more affordable prices.\nAs a Member of this House, and consequently a representative of EU citizens who are also consumers in the car market, I am deeply concerned about the review of the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation and its impact on consumers. The Commission - and I listened very carefully and attentively to the arguments from the Commissioner - argues that this sector's specific regulation is no longer needed for the sales market, since there is evidence that the competition objectives have been achieved and a proper level of competition has been reached.\nIn principle I would not be against the removal of the specific sector block exemption if there were no risk for consumers. We should use the three-year transitional period to assess the impact of the decision to exclude sales from the motor vehicle block exemption regulation. There is an undeniable phenomenon of predominance of large car manufacturers. I would like to hear the views of the Commission on the ways to ensure that they will not take advantage of their market share, and limit the choice that consumers should have on their market.\nI would also like to express my support for the proposal to maintain the specific block exemption for repair and maintenance, which proved to be less competitive than the sales market. My concern regarding the after-market is particularly related to those cases where consumers are unnecessarily tied to a specific operator for repairing their car. This can either be because independent repairers do not have proper access to the necessary technical information or because car manufacturers interpret warranty terms in an abusive way.\nThis is an unacceptable limitation of the choice consumers ought to have, and I expect the Commission to bring solutions to change this type of situation. I therefore invite the Commission to bring some clarification concerning the measures it intends to take in order to avoid this situation, which is detrimental to consumers.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\nMr President, Mr Almunia, 80% of the components of every new car are manufactured by independent producers. On the other hand, the producers of the cars themselves have an enormous commercial advantage over the producers of components and independent service stations.\nWe must do everything, today, so that the European motor market does not start to resemble an oligopoly again. Our citizens must be guaranteed the right to choose both car parts and independent service stations. Guarantees of access to technical information are needed. We must take action to counter the abuse of guarantees by producers. Authorised service stations, too, must have the right to buy parts from independent producers, as well as the tools and equipment used in their workshops. Without a clearly defined guarantee in the new regulation, the right of choice for European clients, which is fundamental for the market, will continue to be a fiction.\nBernd Lange\n(DE) Mr President, in the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, it is, of course, also important to protect small and medium-sized enterprises. Commissioner, competition is not an end in itself.\nIf we look at the situation of small dealerships and small workshops, we need to increase their economic ability to act, otherwise one day we will only have large dealerships and large workshop chains. This includes, firstly, genuine authorisation for multi-branding. It includes allowing workshops and dealerships to have unrestricted access to information on vehicles and repair options. Thirdly, it includes providing the necessary opportunities for gaining qualifications. We talked earlier about electromobility. They also need to be in a position to maintain electric cars. Fourthly, they need investment security, in other words contractual protection and no more revisions. They need to be able to make safe investments over a long period.\nFrank Engel\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, let us talk about the reality of car dealers. Car dealers, in my country as in others, are worried about the glaring discrepancy between their scope for action and that of manufacturers. Regulation (EC) No 1400\/2002 reduced this discrepancy. Without it, the car distribution sector, which has already suffered as a result of the crisis, would face growing uncertainty as regards its investments and its commercial objectives.\nThe demands made on dealers by manufacturers will become quite simply unbearable and unmanageable for a large number of modest garage owners. In any case, Commissioner, it is not competition that is at stake here. Competition would increase between car manufacturers and not between dealers or between dealers and manufacturers. Local garage owners cannot pose a threat to free competition in Europe.\nYou talk about market domination, potential domination. Let us talk about it, then! This domination does not exist in the case of competing manufacturers. It does not exist in respect of other producers. It exists between car manufacturers and distributors, and that is a reality that has been proven throughout the European Union.\nThe Commission is adopting a scientific position based on large companies to deal with a huge number of minor players, who want only one thing: a bit of freedom and a bit of security in their dealings with car manufacturers, whose practices with regard to their dealers are becoming frankly appalling in some cases. It is David versus Goliath, except that, this time, the Commission seems to want to ensure that it is definitely Goliath who wins.\nThe position and the reasoning behind the abolition of the exemption regulation are misguided. They are wrong; they are aimed at the wrong people. Reducing the scope for action, legal certainty and willingness to invest of garage owners will not further the internal market, and it certainly will not further consumers' interests.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) The automotive industry in the European Union, including both car manufacturers and car part manufacturers, must remain economically efficient and innovative.\nGiven that road safety is influenced by the competitive conditions in the automotive sector's spare parts market, we urge the Commission to promote efficient competition on the spare parts market so that prices for any type of spare part are affordable. Customers should be able to purchase a vehicle at competitive prices and choose the supplier they want to carry out the repair and maintenance services, no matter which distribution system is chosen by the supplier.\nThe forthcoming legislative framework should guarantee that SMEs in the automotive sector supply chain are able to enjoy favourable conditions and prevent any growing dependency on major manufacturers. In addition, the new provisions of the regulations concerning the general block exemption regime in the automotive sector should be extended and include the definition of end users in order to take into account leasing as well.\nSari Essayah\n(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, it is very clear from previous speeches that Parliament is very worried specifically about the balance between car dealers and car manufacturers, which is also inevitably reflected in the services that consumers receive.\nThis balance needs to be evident in particular in small markets and sparsely populated areas, such as Finland and elsewhere in Scandinavia. For us, permitting the sales and purchases of multibrand dealerships takes priority and is the main prerequisite for guaranteeing that consumers have adequate access to the services of the automobile sector.\nThe population of Finland is five million, and around 100 000 cars will be sold this year. That probably sounds a ridiculously tiny number, and that is why it is extremely important that these changes do not in any way jeopardise multibranding.\nThe previous regulation that guaranteed multibranding in the car trade was an excellent one, and so we are bound to ask why it is being amended at this stage. Another major impact will be that dealers' hopes of catering for consumers in sparsely populated areas will possibly be dashed and it will probably make it hard for consumers to acquire vehicles locally. It might also mean that smaller brands will not be represented at all in areas other than large population centres, and, consequently, consumers will have significantly less choice among makes of vehicle.\nOthmar Karas\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, you have now listened to us and you could almost think of it as the difference between theory and practice. I can only repeat the plea that I made to the President of the Commission back in spring 2009.\nWe have unresolved issues for vehicle dealers, for the small and medium-sized enterprises, a financial and economic crisis and an uncertain growth and employment market. The best thing to do would be to extend the existing regulation rather than creating a new one that will just compound all of these problems. We have the problem of different national regulations if only single branding remains. We are opposed to a non-mandatory code of conduct and in favour of an efficient enforcement mechanism. We want the 30% limit for the purchase of replacement parts to be left as it is, because it allows authorised car dealers greater freedom of choice.\nThe guidelines are not clear enough to ensure that there is access to technical information as there was before. There are important contractual clauses that you have simply left out, namely those concerning the notice provisions and notice periods, multi-branding, the transfer of businesses and the settlement of disputes. Please stand up for small and medium-sized enterprises, too. Multi-branding is part of competition and helps to protect consumers. We want more competition. Restricting the options of small and medium-sized enterprises and car dealers will reduce competition. Please give serious consideration to the market, the enterprises and Parliament's resolution and use the 21 days that remain available to you.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, all of the speakers in Parliament have actually now spoken out in favour of an SME-friendly regulation. We need a strong distribution system. Small distributors employ a lot of people. It is important for them that competition within the system remains, just as it is for the dealers - regardless of whether they are large or small. Competition must work. I believe that, in the car sector in particular, consumers also have a right to competition that works, so that they are not faced with very one-sided systems in which there is no longer freedom of choice. It is precisely this freedom of choice that will be important in the future, particularly for rural areas, and we need to ensure that rural areas are comprehensively provided for. I therefore believe that Mr Karas was absolutely right when he said that we have very little time left and we should therefore use it efficiently.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, firstly I just want to say that everybody would agree at this stage that the car is no longer a luxury: it is a necessity. This was brought home very clearly to me two weeks ago when the volcanic ash struck. I had to go across Europe, across England, by car and train and ferry, and I never felt so independent and happy as when I sat in my own car.\nSo anything you can do to help the consumer to have choice etc. is very important, but not at the expense of the small to medium-sized car dealer. Most of these are family-owned enterprises in local towns and local villages. They are doing a good deal for everybody, trying to satisfy the market and compete, obviously, in very difficult circumstances, so I agree totally with Mr Karas and other speakers that these people have to be taken into consideration to ensure their viability as we go forward.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n- (SK) Firstly, I would like to say that I understand the efforts to secure freedom of choice for consumers over the selection of the garage they would like to use.\nOn the other hand, however, I can see the objective limits to absolute freedom in this area. Just as it would not occur to any of you to send a European Airbus to a Tupolev workshop for servicing, so the owner of a given make of vehicle is dependent on the technology and work procedures of the producer of the vehicle when it comes to servicing.\nIf a vehicle producer provides the customer with a guarantee for the vehicle, he has the right to demand of the customer that servicing is performed in accordance with his specified instructions. If a consumer takes a vehicle for maintenance to a garage where the employees do not have the necessary expertise and skills, there is a risk that they will not do the job well, and even that the vehicle may be damaged. If we want to protect the consumer, therefore, we cannot expect that all garages will be equally capable of providing services for all makes of vehicle. As a consumer I would prefer to see well equipped garages with well-trained staff for a specific make of vehicle. Specialisation and a balanced relationship with the producer are also the best way forward for the customer.\nJoaqu\u00edn Almunia\nMr President, I first want to thank you for your superb chairmanship of this sitting and also all the Members who have spoken in this debate.\nI would like to extend my very sincere thanks to all of you not only for your speeches here today, but for all your extraordinarily interesting and valuable contributions throughout what has, as I said in my speech, been a lengthy consultation process, in all directions, if I may say so. There has not just been consultation with Parliament, its Members and its committees responsible for car-related issues, competition amongst dealers and consumers, but also consultation with the Member States and consultation with all stakeholders and anyone else who has wished to express their opinion.\nThe aim of any regulation or decision regarding competition is to benefit the consumer. That is the objective, our central concern and principal aim of our regulation.\nWhen consumers are preparing for the important decision of going to a dealer - because, as one of you said, it is a major expense for all consumers and households - they want to find out about prices and quality, to be able to make comparisons, and they can do that. They can probably do it more easily now than at any time in the past. They want to be able to make their choice without hindrance and without any obstacles arising from a lack of competition. We believe that, with the new regulation, this opportunity for choice will be extended; it will not be reduced, rather it will be extended. They can and must be able to choose - as many of you have said - after-sales services, the repair garage for their vehicle and the service garage for their vehicle; they want these garages, whether or not they belong or are linked to the vehicle manufacturer, to have the correct technical information and the spare parts and specifications they need.\nThe current proposal by the Commission improves all of that. All that is improved. Please look at what it says in the text that you have seen, the draft and the guidelines that accompany it. In all these respects, the future regulation will give consumers more benefits than the current one.\nSmall and medium-sized enterprises: what has happened there? It is important to listen to people's opinions and we listen to them with a great deal of attention and interest. I mean everybody's opinions, including yours, of course.\nWhat has happened to small dealers in recent years? Have they increased or declined in number? Have they benefited and found it easier to enter the distribution circuit, the distribution market, or have they found themselves adversely affected or come up against obstacles? It has been mostly the latter. That is the truth of it. That was not, of course, the intention of those who drew up and decided on the Regulation in 2002 but that is what experience has taught us in recent years. That is what we wish to rectify.\nWhat has been happening up until now or is still happening with certain garages and certain spare parts manufacturers? They have problems which will disappear under the new regulation and the new guidelines.\nWe are therefore proposing a regulation and guidelines which will increase the range of choice and opportunities for small enterprises throughout the whole chain, from the manufacture of spare parts to vehicle repair.\nThe dealers, whom many of you have mentioned and whom I have listened to directly, and not just through the texts of written consultations or of meetings in which I have not taken part; I have spent time with them and I have spent time talking with them, in an extraordinarily constructive meeting. Not all dealers share the same interests. There are large dealers, who have a strong presence in the market in some of the Member States, and there are also many small dealers who are happier with what we are currently proposing than with what has been in place since 2002, because they have seen that certain aspects, not intended by the legislator in 2002, have not been in their interest, but rather have made it difficult for them to withstand competition from the major dealers.\nFinally, the deadlines for cancellation. We establish protection; we even create exceptions for each instance when we consider that competition is suffering under the current regulations, both the regulation on vehicles and the General Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, in spite of our intentions as legislators; and we can waive application of the Regulation if we see that it is not protecting competition. We can do so in the General Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and we shall be able to do so with the specific regulation on vehicles.\nI therefore share your concerns. The fact is that I believe that they are addressed better under the proposed regulation than they have been until now, not because we are any more intelligent than eight years ago, but simply because we all learn from experience. It is important to listen to people's views, but it is also important to learn from experience.\nPresident\nTo conclude the debate, I have received one motion for a resolutionpursuant to Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f  \nBuying a car is often the biggest expenditure households in the European Union have, after buying a house. The European Commission is proposing through the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation to remove the current exemption in the automotive sector and introduce general competition rules.\nI believe that, once certain clauses in the current regulation in the sector have been removed, specifically those concerning the freedom to make up to 70% of sales through intermediaries selling several brands of car, the risk arises of increasing the dependency of the manufacturer intermediaries, restricting competition and limiting the options available to consumers on the European car market.\nWe are in a situation where a large number of intermediaries in the automotive sector, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector, which are more vulnerable, could disappear from the European market, thereby undermining the whole European automotive market.\nConsequently, I call on the Commission to assess the consequences of its proposals, by taking into consideration the structure of the European automotive sector in which small and medium-sized enterprises play a fundamental role, as well as to submit, if this becomes necessary, a new regulation at the end of the three-year extension to the current regulation.\nBogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz  \nin writing. - (PL) In contributing to today's debate about the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, I would like to recall that in 2009 the European Commission published its communication on the future competition law framework applicable to the motor vehicle sector, in which it specifies the legal strategy concerning the distribution of motor vehicles and after-sales services after the expiry of Regulation (EC) No 1400\/2002. Therefore, the problem now arises of an appropriate reaction from competition protection agencies concerning access to technical information, spare parts and authorised service stations, and also concerning the abuse of guarantees. I ask, therefore, whether the Commission is sure the solution it has applied will ensure comprehensive protection of competition in the sector?\nR\u00f3\u017ca Gr\u00e4fin Von Thun Und Hohenstein  \nThe Motor Vehicles Block Exemption Regulation is an extremely important document for the European Union, because it directly affects over 3.5 million people employed in the automotive sector in Europe in both the primary and secondary markets. This regulation brought in advantageous operating conditions which strengthened competition in the automotive market. It caused the creation of new jobs and enabled effective and stable development of the market, which lies in the interests of consumers, large automotive concerns and independent businesses. Also very significant is the fact that it ensures European consumers extensive access to services and goods in the automotive market. The document is of special significance to independent car service stations, which require access to technical information to be able to compete effectively with authorised service stations, as well as to independent producers of car parts. I was all the more pleased to hear that the European Commission has decided to prolong this regulation. In resolution B7 0245\/2010, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to clarify the matters which I raised in a written question to the Commission of 16 April this year, such as access to technical information for independent producers, and to explain precisely the concepts 'parts of comparable quality', 'original parts' and 'technical information'. Those to whom the MVBER is addressed, in view of their not insignificant role in the economy, need clear and precisely worded legislation.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Nicaragua\nPresident\nThe next point is the three draft resolutions on Nicaragua.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\nMr President, the policy of the current President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, proves the continued relevance of the old communist maxim: 'once we have gained power we will never give it up'. In the 1980s, the Sandinistas were unable to maintain an armed dictatorship and, forced by international opinion, had to accept democratic rules of play.\nOrtega was elected President in elections in 2006. The Sandinistas returned to power. From the very outset, he began to use the tried and tested methods of intimidation and elimination, under a variety of pseudo-legal pretexts, of any kind of political competition. The Sandinista apparatus began to duplicate state apparatus, following the example of the Cuban Committees for the Defence of the Revolution. In December 2008, the European Parliament drew attention to the campaign of harassment being perpetrated by state authorities, parties and people associated with the Sandinistas against human rights organisations and their members, journalists and representatives of the media. Amnesty International wrote of the violence which followed local authority elections. Attacks and beatings of journalists multiplied.\nNow, by manipulating the Supreme Court, Ortega is trying to bring about changes to the Constitution which would allow him to stand for re-election. We can foresee, with a high degree of certainty, that the next step will be proclaiming himself President for life, for Fidel Castro is the model for the populists of Managua and Caracas, and there have never been free elections under Castro.\nI call on the European Commission to draw conclusions from this situation and to check, in a situation of the violation of international human rights standards, if there is not a need to reconsider existing cooperation agreements with this country, so that the human rights clauses do not turn out to be merely empty words.\nAdam Bielan\nMr President, last Saturday, in response to an appeal from opposition politicians, tens of thousands of Nicaraguan citizens demonstrated against the policy of President Daniel Ortega, a policy which is leading directly to the introduction of a dictatorship in Nicaragua.\nI will remind you that on 19 October, the Supreme Court decided to remove constitutional obstacles which prevented President Ortega from standing for a further term of office. The fact of this change itself is not outrageous, because, of course, there is no such law in many European countries, but what is outrageous is the way in which this decision was made. As we all know, President Ortega does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament, and so he had to turn to violating the constitution in order to remove the ban on his re-election. If we allow Daniel Ortega to run for President again in 2011, we may wake up in a situation in which Nicaragua is controlled by a real dictatorship.\nTherefore, I would ask the European Commission to draw attention to this problem during further negotiations on the EU-Central America Association Agreement and to use every possible means to turn President Ortega back from this road.\nJohannes Cornelis van Baalen\nauthor. - Mr President, I am very thankful for the support in this House for the delegation of Liberal International which I led to Managua. We came in peace on the invitation of a parliamentary majority to speak about the Constitution, the election, the election campaign and human rights and civil liberties. We were cursed, we were called pirates and that kind of thing. We were threatened with expulsion from the country, threatened with being persona non grata, and it was said that we were staging a golpe - a coup d'\u00e9tat.\nBut, more importantly than that, they cursed my country and they oppress their own people. I think that the European Union should monitor what happens in Nicaragua and should send observers to the elections in 2011 and support the democratic opposition. I also hope that we will do the same and will be objective regarding the result of the election in Honduras. Let us see whether the elections on Sunday are free and fair, and let us make a decision then. It could be that, if we recognise the result of the elections, it will put an end to the constitutional crisis in that country.\nTunne Kelam\non behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, there is an alarming trend in today's Latin America to consolidate populist regimes by extending the mandate of current presidents - preferably for eternity. This was Hitler's way to power. Lenin's was that of indifference, but the results were just the same.\nThese presidents with extended powers have not been able or willing to improve the quality of life of their subjects. Cuba is a murky and painful example of how lives of normal people have been mutilated and spoiled for decades. In Nicaragua, we can see a warning example that such kinds of rulers do not change. They return to power only to misuse it once again.\nIt is, therefore, our task now to condemn strongly these violations of the Nicaraguan Constitution and to link this issue with much more efficient control over the use of funds given to Nicaragua for development. It is very disappointing that the Organisation of American States has not reacted to these flagrant violations of the constitution by one of its member states.\nV\u00e9ronique De Keyser\nMr President, I am pleased to see that Mr van Baalen has returned to Europe safely and that he was only expelled when he was already on the plane.\nHaving said this and on a more serious note, I would like to say on behalf of my group that we are not getting involved in this game. What I mean is that, while the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) refused us an urgent debate on Uganda about the laws against homosexuals and another urgent debate on Iran about the executions being carried out there, they would now like us to get involved in the game of being for or against Ortega, with the demonstrations going on over there.\nThat is just not on! I think that the urgent debates held in this House, with the aim of actually providing assistance to people or causes experiencing difficulties, must not be used to serve our MEPs' personal political interests. Therefore, my group has decided not only not to sign this resolution, but not to vote and to oppose what is going on here. This brings discredit upon the European Parliament.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\nMr President, along the same lines, I think that it is not only sad but clearly shameful that a sitting as important as this, on urgent matters, is being manipulated in this way, and I am therefore surprised not only that the subject today is Nicaragua, but also that on other occasions when we were supposed to have discussed much more serious matters, that did not happen. Today, moreover, we have the added factor that other subjects that were on the agenda have been dropped precisely because this one has been included. This is entirely inappropriate from the point of view of the content of debates on urgent matters.\nFor example, we could and should have discussed the Western Sahara. We should have discussed the current situation of people such as Aminatou Haidar, who is at present suffering as a result of a clear violation and deprival of her most fundamental rights. We should also be discussing the situation of the very many people who are in refugee camps, or in the occupied areas of Morocco, a context on which a clear position is really needed.\nAll of this could have been debated today, and this is not the case because the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is making us talk about a subject that I do not think deserves the consideration or has the significance appropriate to this type of sitting.\nIlda Figueiredo\nMr President, this is a regrettable debate about a false state of urgency that does nothing but discredit the European Parliament.\nThe urgent thing would have been to debate the recent tragedy caused by Hurricane Ida when it hit El Salvador at the beginning of November. This hurricane caused more than 200 deaths and missing persons, destroyed infrastructures and essential equipment, particularly in the areas of health, education, water and sanitation, exacerbating poverty in the country.\nThe urgent thing would have been to discuss the availability of extraordinary funds and the redirection of available EU funds to the emergency situation, launch a plan for reconstruction and risk reduction, and support the people of El Salvador.\nThe urgent thing would have been for this Parliament to condemn the military coup in Honduras and demand the return to power of President Zelaya, who was legally elected by the Honduran people.\nThe urgent thing would have been to demand respect for the fundamental rights of the people of the Western Sahara.\nUnfortunately, none of this was possible due to opposition by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). Therefore, as my colleagues have already stated, we refuse to collaborate with this false state of urgency, which is a disgrace to the European Parliament.\nJ\u00fcrgen Klute\n(DE) Mr President, I agree wholeheartedly with the previous speakers. I would like to remind everyone that the Colombian President also attempted to extend his term of office in breach of current Colombian law and, therefore, this matter should also be taken up.\nMost importantly, however, I would like to highlight the fact that the Friedrich-Naumann foundation in Germany, a foundation which has close links with the German Free Democratic Party, was involved in the coup in Honduras. There was a debate about this at least in Germany. The foundation's scholarship holders distanced themselves from this policy in an open letter. We must not forget that Mr van Baalen is the president of Liberal International and on the website of the Friedrich-Naumann foundation, it states that he discussed the possibility of a coup with the armed forces in Nicaragua. I think it is appropriate that in these circumstances - and this has not been contradicted - a country such as Nicaragua is bold enough to expel a politician of this kind. In all honesty, we must admit that the situation would be just the same in Europe.\nWhat is happening here is nothing more than a transparent attempt to discredit and publicly shame those countries, states and governments in Latin America which are trying to introduce more social policies. On behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, I would like to say clearly once again that we will not support this.\nIoannis Kasoulides\nMr President, I do not understand the reaction from our esteemed colleagues on my right-hand side in this hemicycle on the choice of subjects that we are debating today.\nI do not understand why it is not urgent to take the floor, discussing the issue of the treatment of one of the Members of this Parliament who has visited a country exercising his right as President of Liberal International. I do not understand why we cannot take the floor and speak about this issue and also speak about this new tendency in Latin America to try to change arbitrarily the constitution of the country and stop a tradition that has always existed concerning one or two terms of office of the Head of State in that country.\nAlready, our esteemed friends here have talked about four other subjects, and I would like to know when we are going to discuss the matter at hand, given that there are only three subjects on the agenda.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\n(LT) I wholeheartedly support the opinion of my group that this matter should not be included on the agenda, as there are much more relevant and much more pressing problems throughout the world. If we are to discuss Nicaragua, we should firstly talk about the fact that this is a country with the highest debt in the world and that it is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. The communist experiment was not the answer there, but neither was the neo-liberal experiment. It is a country where there was too much interference by the superpowers, America and the Soviet Union, and that is why that country is constantly on the verge of civil war. It is understandable that there are strong-arm tendencies there and those must be condemned. However, let us not forget that we also have strong-arm tendencies in Europe. Therefore, let us concentrate on far more important matters.\nGesine Meissner\n(DE) Mr President, various things have already been said on this matter. One speaker explained that this is the wrong subject for debate, because there are more urgent issues that involve more significant violations of human rights. That may be the case, but I believe that we Europeans, who work to ensure that values such as human rights and freedoms - for example, the freedom of the press - are respected everywhere, must defend this freedom whenever we become aware that it is under threat.\nIt was also said, for example, that the Friedrich-Naumann foundation was involved in the coup. As a member of the FDP, I explicitly reject this claim. These are rumours which have been spread around and which are completely without foundation.\nMy third point is that it was said that Mr van Baalen was accused of discussing a coup and this is why he was expelled from the country. If you cannot openly discuss all kinds of subjects - for us this is part of the freedom of the press and of speech, two freedoms which we have here and which we value highly - is this really a reason for expelling someone from the country, simply because a subject of whatever kind was discussed? The fact that this happens in public is no justification for expelling someone from the country, simply because a discussion took place. This is totally the wrong approach.\nCharles Tannock\nMr President, Nicaragua remains one of the poorest countries in the Americas. The fact that President Daniel Ortega has failed to improve his country's situation, despite myriad Socialist utopian promises upon taking office, would suggest that Nicaragua needs a change of leadership now.\nThe country's constitution permits Heads of State to serve only one term, sometimes a wise policy in a region prone to instability, but Ortega is once again showing his contempt for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law by abusing the Constitutional Court's powers.\nIn this respect, he is no different from his fellow leftist Hugo Ch\u00e1vez of Venezuela. Both men have made their names denouncing caudillos, but they themselves are turning into caudillos of the Left and, as such, represent a genuine threat to regional democratic stability, especially given the chaos in nearby Honduras. Daniel Ortega has failed his people and his country many times over. If we truly believe in democracy and freedom, we cannot ignore the plight of the citizens of Nicaragua.\nReinhard B\u00fctikofer\n(DE) Mr President, one thing has come out of this rather difficult debate. The Member from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has indirectly confirmed that the question of a coup really was the subject of these discussions. She has defended what took place by using the argument that it must be possible to talk about anything, even a coup. That is one remarkable result of this debate which helps to clarify the situation and I am grateful for this.\nKarel De Gucht\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, honourable colleagues, as you know, the European Union is engaged in a difficult dialogue with this country aimed at preserving democracy and restoring its citizens' trust in the country's democratic institutions.\nAt the same time, the EU is trying to maintain a balance with our long-standing commitment to support the development and stability of this developing country and the Central American region more generally.\nSince the municipal elections held in November 2008, which were tainted with allegations of widespread fraud, international donors' confidence in the current government has fallen to an all-time low. Failure to respect fundamental democratic principles, including free and fair elections, led the donor community to systematically review their cooperation portfolios and, in certain instances, reorient or suspend cooperation activities until conditions improved.\nCommissioner Ferrero-Waldner took the decision to suspend all budgetary support payments to Nicaragua as of 1 January 2009. This decision had been preceded by a discussion with Member States in the Council.\nFollowing numerous contacts with the Nicaraguan authorities which gave credible commitments that corrective steps would be taken, the Commission proceeded at the beginning of October with a single payment of EUR 10 million of our budget support programme to the education sector. This represents a small part of the funds that have been suspended, which amount to an additional EUR 46 million.\nThere was criticism last week in the Development Council that there were no previous discussions on this with the Member States. Without going into the details of this, I think it is very important that, when we take that kind of decision, we have a kind of a procedure whereby we at least try to make sure that the European Commission and the Member States are taking the same line with respect to individual states. If, in the end, it is not possible, then of course everybody is allowed to do what he or she thinks to be necessary.\nThe government of Nicaragua has announced that the next regional elections in 2010 and the general election in 2011 will have national and international observation teams. The government has already officially invited the EU to carry out an observation mission. The government has also committed, inter alia, to improving its civil registry and electoral role with the support of an EC project and to appoint credible and professional electoral authorities next year.\nOn the other hand, recent developments, such as the ruling by the Constitutional Chamber, certainly cast a shadow on the seriousness of the Nicaraguan Government to live up to its commitments. The EU has, on a number of occasions, most recently by means of a local troika d\u00e9marche on Monday 21 November, expressed concern on this development.\nAt the end of the day, implementation of these commitments will be crucial for the progressive resumption of our budgetary support programmes. We continue to work in close cooperation with the Member Sates as well as with the European Parliament, as this debate shows. Whether it is timely or not is, of course, a matter that should be looked at by Parliament itself.\nPresident\nThe item is hereby closed.\nThe vote will take place at the end of the debate.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":3,"2013-20":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Consumer rights (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Schwab, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights - C7-0349\/2008 -.\nAndreas Schwab\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by offering my thanks to all my fellow Members who worked on this directive and on the compromise under debate today. I say this not out of politeness, but out of sincere gratitude. They were Mrs Wallis from the Committee on Legal Affairs as the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee, Mrs Gebhardt, Mrs Turunen and Mr Rochefort, as well as Mr Triantaphyllides and Mr Bielan. Reaching a decision was not always an easy process, with more than 2 000 amendments tabled over the course of two years, but the discussions were always constructive and I thank you all sincerely for that.\nDespite all the technical differences on individual issues, which are given expression in the various compromises, there is general cross-group agreement on today's signal from the European Parliament that we wish to develop the internal market in the interests of consumers and businesses. After all, even twenty years after the internal market was established through the Single European Act, we still find that, despite a host of directives and regulations, true standardisation has not been achieved. The Member States have exploited their room for manoeuvre, sometimes justly, but sometimes unjustly.\nThe directive before us today establishes a good middle way that regulates the issues relating to the internal market, while leaving legislative decisions on all other matters to the Member States themselves. We can go far with this mixed approach and will garner support from all sides of the House. This has involved supporting the Commission's proposal, while also improving it considerably at many points. We have ensured that consumer protection is given appropriate importance in this Directive by establishing a uniform fourteen-day right of withdrawal for all online contracts on an EU-wide basis; by giving consumers dealing with door-to-door sales the choice of whether to receive a printed copy or an electronic copy of the contract document; by providing a 'button solution' to bring greater transparency to Internet business and at the same time to really step up the fight against Internet scams; and, by finally establishing uniform obligations to provide information, in particular in relation to pricing, in other words full pricing information for all Internet and door-to-door transactions.\nHowever, we have also made the directive practicable for small and medium-sized enterprises and small contractors by providing greater flexibility and exclusions for services, in particular, in many areas; by permitting consumers to withdraw from agreements by telephone; by removing some opportunities for businesses to implement unfair contract terms, while at the same time setting down clear conditions for consumers for the return of ordered goods when a purchase is cancelled; and, by finally establishing a uniform withdrawal form that will make it easier for many people throughout Europe to access and exercise their right of withdrawal.\nIn the end, thanks also to the process of consultation between the Member States, we will succeed in making further legal developments in this important area of consumer protection much less complicated at Council level than has been the case in the past. The Commission will have a clear right to be heard at Council level because there can be no doubt that a common market requires common rules. We saw this more clearly than ever during the Euro crisis. It is not enough to espouse common principles only to allow the Member States full freedom in the end - common principles must be adhered to through common rules. That is why this Directive aims to protect consumers. After all, consumers will be aware of their rights if they are the same throughout Europe and will be able to pursue these rights more effectively against businesses who break the rules. The directive also protects small and medium-sized enterprises, above all, because a uniform set of regulations engenders legal certainty, enabling the cultural and commercial diversity we so often hear about to flourish. Thank you for your cooperation. I look forward to the forthcoming debate.\nEnik\u0151 Gy\u0151ri\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Schwab, honourable Members, it is a great pleasure for me that we were finally able to include the debate on this proposal in the agenda.\nAs you know, the Council came to an agreement on the subject in December last year, and on 24 January 2011, already during the Hungarian Presidency, the Council officially adopted its preliminary position, that is, the general approach.\nIn order to reach an agreement, we had to negotiate for over two years in the Council about what the ideal balance between EU and Member State legislation granting consumers' rights would be, and which aspects of consumer rights could be harmonised accordingly. Nothing illustrates the difficulties surrounding this proposal better than the fact that the Council working party needed more than sixty meetings to create a text that the qualified majority of the Member States could support. Additionally, it has proven impossible to reach an agreement on chapters four and five of the Commission proposal, which concern the sale of goods and unfair contract terms, respectively. Due to the prevailing difficulties, the Council finally decided to omit these two chapters from the text and to focus instead on off-premises and distance contracts. This approach was also supported by the Commission, since the Council's text creates added value with regard to such contracts at EU level.\nThe Presidency believes that the European Parliament could give further impetus to the debate. This is why tomorrow's vote on the proposed draft amendments will be so important. If the European Parliament decides in tomorrow's plenary sitting to refer the dossier back to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Hungarian Presidency will endeavour to ensure with great commitment that an agreement is reached at first reading. We are prepared to make every effort necessary to this end. Naturally, a very great deal will depend on what kind of amendments Parliament proposes.\nAs I have already mentioned, there is a significant difference of opinion between Member States concerning the contents of chapters four and five, that is, the issue of whether certain aspects of sales terms and warranties, as well as unfair contract terms, need to be fully harmonised. The Presidency believes that the reason why it would be necessary for us to focus on other provisions of the directive, that is, chapters one and three, is that this is where we can create true European added value. As regards these points, the Council's general approach does not differ significantly from Parliament's draft amendments, which were carried by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the IMCO on 20 January and 1 February, respectively.\nMr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are ready to cooperate fully with Parliament and the Commission in order to achieve success. I would also like to use this opportunity to thank the rapporteur and Chair of the IMCO Committee, Mr Harbour, and all members of the IMCO Committee for their full cooperation which they have so far provided to the Hungarian Presidency. I do not know what the final outcome will be, and whether we will be entirely satisfied with the results of our negotiations, but I am convinced that we must not waste the opportunity to grant EU citizens consumer rights that have a far broader scope than before.\nViviane Reding\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, next year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the single market. We have to ensure that the single market brings benefits to consumers and to businesses. Over two years of negotiations have shown that it is politically very difficult to reach an agreement on the whole directive on the basis of what was proposed by the Commission. Many of you do not want to see - and rightly so - a decrease in the level of national consumer protection.\nWe are now well into the third year of discussion on this piece of legislation. I believe it is high time for the co-legislators to find a solution. In this regard, I am particularly grateful to your committees, to the rapporteurs, to Mr Schwab and Ms Wallis and to the shadow rapporteurs for their hard work in search of a compromise. The Council agreed on a general approach at the beginning of the year. It has decided to considerably narrow the scope of the proposal and to specifically target distant and off-premises contracts.\nThe Commission believes that the Council's general approach is a good starting point in our search for a good compromise. In broad terms, it is consistent with the aim of improving the functioning of the internal market while creating added value for consumers. I know that, by your amendments, you seek additional improvements. I can see many reasonable suggestions for further increases in consumer protection and, as I have said before, the Consumer Rights Directive should be a rights directive. It should be worthy of that name.\nTo give you some examples: I could easily except your Amendment 122, which ensures that consumers will not be charged for sending back goods after a withdrawal if they are worth more than EUR 40. I am also not opposed to the extension of the withdrawal period to one year if the consumer was not informed of his right of withdrawal (Amendment 116). I could also support a harmonised solution for fighting so-called internet cost traps (Paragraph 1(a) and (b) of Amendment 107).\nIt will not come as a surprise to you when I say that I cannot accept all your amendments which are now on the table. For example, Amendment 141. Even if my goal is also to serve the internal market, it is going a step too far to oblige distance traders to supply goods or deliver services in any other Member State.\nAfter all this time, and notwithstanding the differences which do remain, I see light at the end of the tunnel. I am confident that an acceptable and balanced compromise is now within our reach. I will do what I can to help you reach such a compromise.\nDiana Wallis\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Mr President, we have all been on a very long journey together and we are still travelling, hoping that we will reach our destination soon. I would like to thank Mr Schwab for his work on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs. Over the years, we have clearly seen the difficulties posed by differing legal concepts, which form a barrier to real consumer possibilities and SME possibilities within the internal market.\nWe have made some progress with the agreement that we now have in Parliament. Sadly, I think that the Legal Affairs Committee would have liked to have done more, for example in Chapter 5 on unfair terms, and particularly in the area of transparency. Our committee would really like to make progress in that area. I know that the Council feels that it is perhaps a step too far. For us, however, it is a step that could be very important in terms of the internal market and, indeed, in terms of consumer rights, as you put it so well, Commissioner.\nWe have come a long way. We have reviewed the consumer acquis. We have not gone through all the directives that the Commissioner's predecessor wanted us to review. We may make some small steps forward. I hope we will keep talking, that we will keep discussing. Maybe we will produce something of worth.\nSirpa Pietik\u00e4inen\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank my colleagues for their excellent cooperation, especially Mr Schwab from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for his endless and very cooperative efforts to bring this report forward. The Commission's proposal left quite a lot of room for improvement.\nFrom the ECON Committee's perspective there are three issues which I would like to raise. It is good that digital goods are included in the proposal. It is good that there is a clear signal for the development of alternative dispute resolution methods in the future. Small and\/or innovative financial products should be dealt with either in specific financial sector directives or in a future consumer protection directive.\nLast but not least, I would hope that the next steps taken by the Commission ensure a high level of consumer protection which could ultimately lead to full harmonisation of consumer protection regulation in the European Union.\nRaffaele Baldassarre\non behalf of the PPE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate Mr Schwab on the work he has done so far and the excellent cooperation between the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.\nProviding for varying degrees of harmonisation of standards will allow us to achieve important results, which will provide real added value for European citizens. Significant among these are the fourteen-day right of withdrawal and the new rules on information requirements, not only on price but also on the identity and address of the seller. These improvements will increase consumer confidence, especially in cross-border shopping by providing the legal certainties essential for the development of e-commerce.\nThis directive will also lay the foundation for other complementary measures, from the reform of European contract law to the process of reviewing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. This fundamental harmonisation action is an essential condition for the development of an internal market focused on the rights of its consumers and serving the citizens of the European Union.\nAbout a year ago, Professor Monti said in his report to President Barroso: 'Consumers and consumer welfare should be at the centre of the next stage of the single market'. First, the law-maker should reach early agreement on the draft directive on consumer rights, to ensure a high level of protection in an integrated retail market. This provision fully meets the demands, and I am convinced that Mr Schwab will maintain the necessary determination in the complex negotiations that will follow before the final adoption of the text.\nEvelyne Gebhardt\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, we did indeed experience some very tough negotiations, Mr Schwab, as opinions were very divided at the start of discussions. Likewise, it was not easy to decide on a reasonable course of action.\nHowever, these negotiations did succeed in achieving significant improvements, even after the vote at committee level, which finally made it possible for my group to vote in favour of this compromise package tomorrow. After all the discussions we have held, you will be aware of how much this means.\nWe have indeed made a number of improvements. Accordingly, the fundamental principle followed in the directive is now, once again, minimum harmonisation - with the exception of the areas that are to be fully harmonised, which was an important concern for us. We excluded social services, healthcare services and games of chance from the scope of this directive because these are the areas that require special regulation. You cannot apply the same principles to them as to commercial services, commodities or retailing and so this was an important consideration. We have significantly strengthened the obligations to provide information to our citizens, the consumers. For this reason I would like to make it clear to the President-in-Office of the Council that the idea of dropping Chapter 2, in other words removing exactly the areas where this obligation to provide information is to apply, is something that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament will not tolerate.\nWe have included electronic products in the scope of the directive, something not envisaged in the Commission's original proposal. However, distance selling via the Internet is one of the key areas that has been included. As we reached the home straight, we also succeeded in improving the provisions on door-to-door selling. These are positive improvements that have enabled us to lend our support.\nI cannot deny that a few problems still exist, in particular the clauses relating to unfair contract terms in Chapter 5. We are very dissatisfied with these provisions and will either have to do some more work here or, if necessary, omit this section entirely. However, something that causes even more difficulty is the fact that financial services have been completely excluded from the obligations to provide information. I think we have a serious problem here. We will have to discuss this further, Commissioner, because financial services were included in your proposals and this should remain the case.\nTo summarise: we will vote in favour of the compromise package and will also vote to refer the directive back to committee, but this does not mean that we agree to adopt the directive at first reading.\nRobert Rochefort\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, this text is important. It is not a revolution: we cannot say that everything before was bad and now everything is perfect. Nevertheless it does offer a number of major advances at this provisional stage in our work.\nTo my mind, the main advances concern better regulation for distance selling, especially over the Internet (chapter III), for consumer rights in this area need to be enhanced. E-commerce is very useful: it widens consumers' choice, allows them to find the lowest prices and also enables small and medium-sized enterprises and craftspeople to find new outlets.\nTo move forward in this area, we needed to do it in a genuinely European way, namely by carrying out, for a few very specific points, a complete harmonisation of everyone's rights and duties. In very specific terms, an Italian customer buying something on a Belgian or German website will know that from now on, he or she will enjoy the same rights and the same protection. This is what this directive will enable.\nIt means that the consumer's cooling off period will be extended to 14 days throughout the Union. It means that he or she will know straight away the total amount to be paid, without fearing a nasty surprise later on. It means that with the double-click, he or she will review the order correctly.\nObviously, all this is going to upset a few habits. In many Member States, national law contains subtleties that are regarded by everyone as fundamental, when often these are nowhere to be found in neighbouring countries. Living together in Europe is about learning to change one's habits slightly for the benefit of Community and general interest.\nLet us be clear: this text still needs to be improved and we will have to do so in the coming weeks, with the Council and with the Commission. I welcomed the openness that has just been shown in this respect. We have already done a substantial amount of work thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Schwab, whom I wish to thank wholeheartedly. Yet the real achievement of this work is above all the fact that the amendments will be adopted tomorrow by all political groups. Consumers' confidence in the Union's internal market is very fragile. We needed this unanimous political support in order to preserve this confidence and to hope to strengthen it.\nAdam Bielan\nMr President, I would like, firstly, to express my thanks to Mr Schwab, the rapporteur for the report under discussion, for showing such great commitment to the work on the draft of this directive.\nTwo and a half years of intensive work on this document have led to the achievement of a compromise, which in its final form - I hope - will guarantee greater legal certainty to the consumers of the 27 Member States in the area of distance selling, and in particular when making Internet transactions. I hope, too, that thanks to this directive consumers will have greater confidence in cross-border trade and online purchases as a result of improvements to and harmonisation of some new rights and the greater clarity given to those which already exist. Moreover, by standardisation of information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts, for example, the directive is also intended to encourage a greater number of traders to enter the new markets in the European Union, which should in turn improve the performance of the internal market. I hope this will be a favourable stimulus, in particular for the popularisation of online selling. I hope, too, that it will benefit consumers by increasing competition for them in the internal market.\nI would like to highlight some of the most important matters. Firstly, we endeavoured to draft a text which would be balanced and which would work to the advantage of consumers throughout the Union, but also one which would not have an adverse effect on traders, and in particular on the operations of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Union.\nSecondly, I am pleased that we were able to negotiate a pragmatic text, with the adoption of a mixed approach of minimum and maximum harmonisation, which means, therefore, that those Member States which already have a very high level of consumer protection on some matters have not suffered. We also managed to introduce uniform and clear provisions in specific cases, which means that transactions made over the Internet, for example, will be easier.\nI am pleased, too, that in the Committee on Legal Affairs we managed to negotiate Chapter 5 on unfair contractual terms in a constructive form. This chapter regulates contracts which are not usually individually negotiated by consumers and are often a source of many abuses on the part of dishonest traders.\nI regret, however, that despite the fact that we have reached agreement, the text of the directive still contains certain shortcomings. However, I am certain that with commitment we will be able to correct them at the next stage of negotiations and achieve specific benefits for consumers and for European traders because, after all, they must not be forgotten either.\nEmilie Turunen\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Schwab, the EU's internal market is a cornerstone of our European cooperation and, as the Commission quite rightly wrote in its draft of the Single Market Act last year, citizens - we Europeans - must be at the centre of the work to develop the single market. It is important to remember that when we vote on the Directive on consumer rights in Parliament tomorrow - a directive that we have now been working on for many years. As we all know, the text that we are to vote on tomorrow has been comprehensively revised in relation to the draft that we received from the Commission in the autumn of 2008, as here in Parliament our focus has been on those areas where common EU rules will be of real benefit to both consumers and businesses. In turn, we wanted to allow the Member States to produce additional legislation where that makes sense.\nIn specific terms, this means that European consumers will notice changes first and foremost when they shop on the Internet in foreign online shops. The new directive will mean that there are uniform rules for Internet trading in Europe, and that brings a number of advantages for consumers. Allow me to mention just three examples. Firstly, all consumers in Europe will have a 14-day withdrawal period when they buy something in an online shop in an EU Member State. Secondly, the overall price of the product must be specified before a consumer agrees to purchase a product. Thirdly, it has to be possible to contact the seller easily if problems arise. A fourth aspect that was very important to us in the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance was to future-proof this Directive. A product is not only something that we can physically touch - these days it also includes intellectual goods. This could be an item of software or a piece of music that we download. I am therefore very pleased that digital products have now been included in the text.\nThe proposal that will be voted on tomorrow, and which the Group of the Greens is able to support, is not a perfect piece of legislation. We wanted a broader, more ambitious directive, and we wanted to see progress in all areas. However, politics is also about the art of the possible, and this is what is possible right now. Overall, I believe that Parliament has achieved a reasonable result that will benefit consumers in Europe.\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\nMr President, as a political group, we established the principle of preventing any reduction in consumer rights in the European Union from the outset. Although very ambitious, the Commission's initial proposal was unable to meet the needs of all consumers in the European Union. That is why a red line was drawn through the proposal for a fully harmonised directive, when it became clear that it would equate to a lower level of protection for EU consumers.\nThere are two especially important elements in Parliament's proposal for the directive. We have before us a completely new proposal by Parliament, very different from that proposed by the Commission and with a different outlook from the Council. The nucleus of this proposal is a mixed approach in terms of harmonisation, leaving the Member States free, if they so choose, to set a higher level of consumer protection.\nThe second point has to do with exemptions from the scope of the directive. We insisted from the outset that social services, health services and gambling should be exempted from the scope of this directive, as they have nothing to do with the relationship between trader and consumer and take a different approach. We are satisfied that this was taken into account.\nSupport for Parliament's proposal does not under any circumstances signal unconditional support for the Commission proposal. On the contrary, we are seeking a strong cohesive position and we call on the Commission and the Council to take very serious account of the nucleus of Parliament's proposal, especially as regards the degree of harmonisation and other provisions for sales contracts.\nOreste Rossi\non behalf of the EFD Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, customer rights is only one of many examples of how European institutions have enormous difficulty in performing acts of great legal and political importance at this historic moment.\nWe do not want to waste all the work done and the positive things achieved, for example, the contribution of our amendment on the right of recourse, aiming to introduce a distinct improvement in the activity of small traders without harming consumer rights. If the outcome of negotiations with the Council will be to cancel out the good things that the rapporteur and the groups introduced in a proposal that was bad from the outset, or whether the outcome will be to raise the general level of harmonisation of the Directive, we will have no option but to vote against it.\nIn any case, the responsibility for this situation lies not with Parliament but with the European Commission. Over certain issues, we eurosceptics in the Northern League are ready to say yes to a high degree of harmonisation, but only when it coincides with common sense, the public interest, the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, and why not, the prerogatives of Member States.\nAn approach that takes account of all this was needed from the outset for an issue as complex as consumer protection. We welcome the withdrawal of many amendments that called into question issues that had been resolved. It is essential that the Council should accept the text that leaves the Chamber in full if it is compliant with the agreed amendments.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Mr President, sometimes it is made more difficult for consumers to understand the consequences of their actions, for example, when they download digital content. Everyone is used to downloading content from the net free of charge. However, in some cases the charges are concealed from consumers and, therefore, they download a subscription without realising it, despite the fact that they only wanted a one-off service. What is needed here is a legal right of withdrawal.\nAnother area which is open to criticism is the combination of distance and door-to-door sales, because it is much easier for people to be taken unawares on their own front doorstep. On the other hand, we must not impose unnecessary burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises with regard to off-premises contracts. For example, when consumers invite a tradesman or a hairdresser into their house of their own accord, they have no need of increased protection, because there is no question of them being taken by surprise. Therefore, we need sensible, wide-ranging protection for consumers, but it is also important for us to take the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises into consideration.\nAnna Maria Corazza Bildt\nMr President, the compromise we have in front of us is a very good step in the right direction. I welcome the consensus we have reached on the right to withdraw and on an information requirement for distance and off-premises contracts. However, we must have the courage to go further, in particular on remedies for lack of conformity, guarantees and unfair clauses.\nI have listened carefully to the arguments for years, but my vision has been and remains full harmonisation. I am convinced that common rules are win-win for consumers and business. Transparency, legal certainty and competition increase free choice for the consumer and decrease red tape for business. The challenge is to strike the right balance.\nFor high consumer protection and low costs for business the Consumer Rights Directive should not become a tug of war between market and people. Nor should we live under a false assumption that national rules protect consumers, while common European rules benefit business. That picture is wrong. There is no way round the fact that extra costs for SMEs will become extra costs for consumers.\nThroughout the process the PPE Group has been flexible and constructive. The left has been rigid and obstructive, reducing the debate to a nitpicking exercise of comparative law, bargaining between national rules. I believe instead that the common interest of the European people should prevail. Minimum harmonisation and national exceptions, as advocated by the Social Democrats, simply hinder citizens from taking full advantage of a common market. At a time of crisis, faced with rising protectionism, it is as easy as it is irresponsible to be populist. I fully support Andreas Schwab in his wonderful job and I wish him well in the negotiations ahead.\nI conclude by saying that the Consumer Rights Direcive is a milestone in the relaunch of the single market to inject confidence, to boost growth, competitiveness and the jobs that the European people are looking forward to.\nAntonio Masip Hidalgo\n(ES) Mr President, there are fundamental points that still require improvement, so we have to send the report back to committee.\nThe parliamentary passage of this report is not over, therefore.\nThe initial draft was a bad one. That is what consumers' associations at national and European level told us. In particular, I have a high opinion of the Asturias Consumers' Union and its President, the tireless Dacio Alonso.\nWe have managed to have the old Article 4's general principle of the maximum possible harmonisation reconsidered. We must state very loudly that establishing the maximum possible harmonisation across the Member States would reduce the protection of many consumers, since in many countries there is a greater tradition of protecting consumer rights.\nIn any case, I should like to stress that it is essential to ensure that the list of unfair contract terms not be exhaustive, meaning that each Member State could increase the number of clauses that it considers unacceptable and invalid in contracts with consumers; that the burden of proof be reversed so that it becomes the trader that has to demonstrate that terms outside the norm have been negotiated individually; and that contract terms be expressed in a clear and comprehensible way.\nWe remain opposed to the establishment of the maximum possible harmonisation as regards unfair terms.\nEurobarometer indicates that 79% of traders believe that full harmonisation in this field will have little or no effect on their foreign activities.\nMalcolm Harbour\nMr President, I think you will find that I have two and a half minutes, because not all my colleagues are here. As Chair of the committee, I first of all want to pay tribute to all the Members who have worked on this. I am pleased that they are all here this evening, led by Andreas Schwab, with a very strong team of shadow members who displayed really intense interest and expertise in this whole complicated area.\nI think that it is right, as Viviane Reding says, that the co-legislators now have to move forward and make some decisions. The time this has taken is an indication of the political difficulties, both on the Council's side and on Parliament's side. I think that Parliament, as in many dossiers in the past, has shown that it has the ability to broker a compromise. I think that Parliament should vote on the amendments tomorrow, send a clear political signal about what we want, and then refer this back to committee.\nI want to thank the Presidency and Ms Gy\u0151ri, who has been a most active advocate for the Presidency, for being open to our position as a result of that change. That does not mean that we are in any way committed to moving forward and closing those negotiations. However, we owe it to citizens and consumers to hold, at the very least, an open meeting to see if there is some basis for agreement. I think all colleagues are in tune with that.\nLooking at what we have here, I would say, first of all, that I admire Ms Corazza Bildt's enthusiasm, but I do not really see this Consumer Rights Directive as a milestone. Frankly I think it is more a stepping stone, because there are still plenty of difficult waters around where we are treading at the moment. I think it is a first cautious step towards dealing with harmonisation on issues that cause great emotion and a lot of political agitation. Understandably, consumers and consumer organisations in different countries do not like to see rights taken away. I think that has been one of the biggest problems we have faced.\nI think we have a compromise that adds real value for consumers and for businesses, particularly in the areas of internet and cross-border trade. We must sustain those and also certain other areas, but my final word to the Commissioner is this: we desperately need a framework within which to make progress towards more harmonisation. We have a whole series of fragmented initiatives, including your work on consumer contracts, and other revisions. We desperately need that long-term strategic approach that will complete the stepping stones towards the milestone.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik\n(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by thanking Mr Schwab for the work he has put into this draft. He probably knows better than anyone that it was not an easy task. During our work on the directive we have often emphasised how important it is for consumers, but it is also important for trade, and in particular for e-commerce and cross-border purchases.\nWhat consumers making online purchases want above all is a guarantee that the goods or services they have ordered will be supplied to them, and that they will correspond to the stated quality. We should therefore guarantee that regulations protecting consumers are clear and transparent. During this debate, however, we should not forget about traders, who expect regulations which do not place an excessive burden on them. Have we managed to reconcile the interests of consumers with the interests of traders during our work on this directive?\nThe discussions which have being going on for nearly two years have in my opinion brought us closer to this goal, but we have not yet achieved it. I believe that European consumers would benefit much more from a maximum level of regulatory harmonisation. It would make life much easier for companies operating in the field of e-commerce. I am however pleased that in respect of several key issues we have managed to find solutions which ideally meet consumers' needs, while at the same time making allowances for the realities of doing business. As an example, I would like to mention the provisions stipulating a 14-day deadline for consumers to withdraw from a contract, and I also welcome the amendment giving traders the opportunity to make refunds dependent on the consumer supplying proof of postage. This is an essential feature of the directive, indicating that in certain cases there are also obligations incumbent upon consumers, as well as upon traders.\nFinally, I would like to encourage the Council and the European Commission to try to find an ambitious agreement.\nBernadette Vergnaud\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, as well as all the shadow rapporteurs, in particular Mrs Gebhardt, for their work.\nThe Commission's initial proposal was indeed absurd, as it endangered the level of consumer protection by wanting to harmonise it completely. This is only justifiable so long as harmonisation is upwards and not downwards, as proposed.\nTherefore I welcome most of the compromises reached, which leave the possibility for Member States to apply stricter rules if they so wish, while guaranteeing a high minimum level for all consumers in the Union. Thus, maximum contract duration is limited to 12 months, information on distance contracts or telesales contracts is improved, with payment being required only when the cooling-off period, set at 14 days, has expired.\nOn the other hand, it is unacceptable to keep full harmonisation regarding chapter V, relating to unfair terms. Not only is the chosen level of protection unsatisfactory, it is also tantamount to ignoring the reality of fraudulent practices, since these require a level of responsiveness that European legislation cannot offer.\nThat being the case, taking away all room for manoeuvre from Member States in this area seems like an irresponsible move. Consequently I hope that the colegislators manage to come up with a balanced text which guarantees a genuine and common core of high-level protection.\nEdvard Ko\u017eu\u0161n\u00edk\n- (CS) Mr President, I would first like to express my thanks and to applaud the work of Andreas Schwab, who has handled the 1 600 amendments so skilfully, achieving sensible compromise forms for the report. I am pleased that he has managed to retain the two fundamental principles of the original Commission proposal: the principle of 'better regulation' by simplifying and updating the rules so as to eliminate the barriers on the internal market encountered every day by entrepreneurs doing business in EU countries, and the second principle of achieving the greatest possible harmonisation in consumer law, eliminating the many exemptions applied by individual states.\nDespite the fact that we failed in the end to agree on full harmonisation in all chapters of the directive, this new arrangement will be a very significant step forwards, involving the elimination of barriers to cross-border trade and, in the final analysis, greater competition on the internal market.\nKurt Lechner\n(DE) Mr President, I am afraid that I am going to be the person to pour cold water on this. Despite the many improvements to the Commission proposal that were introduced during the consultation with the committees, for which we mainly have the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, to thank, in my opinion the current package contains an excessive number of regulations and will result in over-complex legislation. This will be very difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to cope with. In addition, it will not really benefit consumers, it will have very little effect in terms of harmonisation and it will not allow us to make progress with the internal market and with Europe as a business location.\nGiven the small amount of time available, I can unfortunately only look at one point. The Commission proposal has massively extended the scope of two definitions and in this case it has gone much too far, which is clear from the fact that 1 600 amendments have been tabled. It has been difficult to discuss this sensibly in Parliament. In addition, the Commission has not given any justification for extending these definitions. Nowhere in the annexes or in the documents submitted to Parliament is there any form of justification for this. One of the two cases concerns distance sales contracts. Thankfully, this extension has been returned to the consultation process and has been amended, which is a very welcome move. However, the second case relates to off-premises contracts, which I would like to look at here.\nIn future, any contract which is concluded outside a company's business premises will be subject to a whole raft of regulations and rights of withdrawal, even if the consumer, as Mr Obermayr has just mentioned, has asked an electrician, decorator, painter or carpenter and so on to come into his house. I am aware that there is a whole series of exceptions to this which you, Mr Schwab, and the committee have improved, both in terms of their content and their wording. Nevertheless, this still leaves a huge number of legal pitfalls in place, which could prove disastrous for micro-businesses and small tradesmen and could even put their very existence at risk.\nIn my opinion, this part of the proposal is superfluous. It could be deleted without causing any problems, together with chapter 4 and chapter 5. In that case, the rest of the proposal and the consultations would not be bad at all.\nSylvana Rapti\n(EL) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, and the shadow socialist rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt. I wish to thank them and, at the same time, to praise them, because they demonstrated a great deal of persistence and a great deal of patience in bringing us to the point that we have reached in the debate today and which, I think, provides a very good working basis for Commissioner Reding, whose words, in my opinion, give us reason to be optimistic.\nI personally consider than minimum harmonisation is a very good and, at the same time, a very pragmatic working basis. I come from a State, Greece, which has achieved a very high level of protection for consumer rights. As you will understand, I would not want this high level of consumer protection to be compromised.\nI admit that I was very concerned when Mr Schwab spoke - and this was the first I had heard of it - of maximum harmonisation. I remembered something I had read in a magazine: someone tried to make the most beautiful woman using an actress's eyes, a singer's nose and another actress's mouth. The result was monstrous.\nI make this analogy in order to demonstrate that we can start with the best intentions and fail to achieve the desired result. That is why I consider that minimum harmonisation is the right working basis.\nDamien Abad\n(FR) Mr President, I should first like to pay tribute to the work by our rapporteur, Mr Schwab, which enables us today to reach a broad consensus across all political groups on this text, despite it getting off to a bad start.\nYes, Europe should be synonymous with progress and practical achievements, and we see this with these proposals concerning consumers. Europeans, from now on, will be entitled to the right to withdraw from the contract when they purchase items on online auction platforms such as eBay.\nWe have succeeded in presenting a text that will, on the one hand, strengthen the framework conditions for increasing cross-border trade within the European Union, and, on the other, save us from having to lower the level of consumer protection in Member States; on the contrary, the latter will be increased.\nFirst of all, I subscribe to the view that in order to consolidate our exit from the recession, we have to create new sources of growth, and that thanks to the simplification and rationalisation of European law, our businesses will be able to benefit more fully from the potential of the single market. Did you know that only 22% of purchases in Europe are cross-border ones? Providing a better regulatory framework for businesses is therefore also about contributing to economic recovery.\nWhen negotiating this text, we wanted to take an ambitious yet pragmatic approach. The principle was simple: no harmonisation without an equivalent level of protection. This is the reason why I am delighted that we have been able to keep certain aspects of national laws which the consumers of one or other Member State are very keen on. As far as we are concerned in France, our consumers can continue to take advantage of the protection offered by the 'latent defect' guarantee or the preservation of our very protective legislation for door-to-door selling.\nFurthermore, we are showing today that the European Parliament, right-wing and left-wing parties together, is capable of responding to people's day-to-day concerns, and I welcome that. The solution is of course more Europe, but not any kind. We need a Europe that protects, a Europe that reassures and a Europe that provides opportunities to Europeans, to citizens, to consumers and to businesses.\nOlga Sehnalov\u00e1\n- (CS) Mr President, in times gone by, the slogan that the 'customer is king' held true, lifetime guarantees were not the exception, and quality was a matter of honour. Today's world is evidently different. Today we must think about the rights of consumer, protection for consumers, and the legislation that will secure this. Customer satisfaction, it seems, is no longer always the best commercial policy, and there are almost too many examples from everyday life suggesting rather the opposite.\nThat is why it is so important to have a thorough debate on this legislation, which must not bring about a deterioration in consumer rights, but will have to respond to new challenges. We need to realise how different the starting points of the various EU countries are in respect of consumer rights. Our aim should be to enhance consumer protection in those places where legal chaos and uncertainty have prevailed so far, attracting a variety of crooks and undermining confidence in the internal market. On the other hand, we must retain a high level of consumer protection in those places where it already exists in an effective form. This is the basic approach taken by the Consumer Rights Directive, and I therefore fully support the position of my group. I would also like to thank all the rapporteurs, of course, for the extensive work they have carried out. Consumer protection is really not against the interests of honest businessmen. Quite the opposite is true.\nRegina Bastos\n(PT) Madam President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Schwab on the persistence in negotiations that he has brought to this important compromise, and I would also pay tribute to all those who worked alongside him on this report.\nWe not only wish to ensure a higher level of protection for European consumers, but also that European companies, whatever their size, should be able to provide consumers in all 27 Member States with goods and services without unnecessary legal obstacles.\nThis new directive will put an end to the legislative fragmentation that has been damaging the participation in the cross-border market and will give the internal market a significant boost. I stress the new provisions relating to the supply of information to the consumer: this information needs to be clear, intelligible and provided in good time.\nIt is also important that the burden of proving compliance with information requirements falls on the trader. The rules regarding distance contracts, especially those concluded over the telephone or the Internet, will have to be set out and the consumer protected using simple, effective mechanisms. We are sure that, when the institutional negotiations have finished, the new directive will contribute to making the European Union more competitive and dynamic, as can be expected in a global economy.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\n(ES) Mr President, achieving a Consumer Rights Direcive, so establishing a horizontal instrument that will simplify, summarise and complement the four already-existing directives, is positive.\nAn internal market characterised by a high level of consumer protection is key to sustainable growth and employment.\nTo achieve it in accordance with the Treaty, the Member States must not be prevented from adopting measures that increase consumer protection. Therefore, full harmonisation should only be used on those aspects necessary to achieve a consistent framework for cross-border transactions, in order to add value.\nThere is a broad consensus in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that financial services must form an integral part of this regulation in order to make it truly horizontal, that it should be coordinated with sectoral legislation at EU and national level so that there are no gaps, and that specialist advice should be sought.\nThis guideline is not satisfactorily reflected in the text so it needs to be fine-tuned before the final vote.\nWe still also have yet to make progress toward a European Consumers' Charter in the field of financial services.\nAlajos M\u00e9sz\u00e1ros\n(HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us thank Mr Schwab for the valuable work he has put forward. Uniform consumer protection rules, and concepts that mean the same everywhere, give citizens confidence and at the same time guarantee increased legal certainty. All this matters most to those citizens and enterprises who wish to freely exercise their rights in commerce in the internal market. The rapporteur's proposal that the minimum level of harmonisation in consumer protection should be accompanied by the full harmonisation of technical rules is the only acceptable regulatory solution in the present situation. The combination of minimum and full harmonisation can become an option that is acceptable for everyone.\nThe currently existing barriers to cross-border transactions hinder traders' and customers' activities across Member State borders. Statistics show that many are still averse to EU purchases over the Internet, and it would be welcome if we could change this, too. Furthermore, I would like to say, and here I am thinking mainly of Central and Eastern European Member States, that there is a great need for a comprehensive and constructive regulatory framework. A system founded on more transparent, common rules enhances consumer awareness, which is not yet fully mature in this region, but has been known in Western Europe for a long time. A developed consumer protection policy is also a means of supporting SMEs. We must therefore be cautious not to complicate their situation through legislation that is too strict.\nA more precise definition of traders' information obligations is a key aspect, which would contribute to increasing the number of market transactions that comply with the law and are fair from a commercial perspective. It is no coincidence that the Hungarian Presidency, too, considers this proposal for a directive as one of the priorities for its six-month term. It is symbolic and a signal that Parliament put this report on its agenda a couple of days after World Consumer Rights Day. By making the right decision, we can make life easier for nearly 500 million consumers and 22 million enterprises on the internal market of the European Union.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\n(GA) Mr President, firstly may I congratulate Mr Schwab and his colleagues for the good work they have done for over two years now. Undoubtedly it has been a great achievement on their part. May I also commend Mrs Gy\u0151ri from the Hungarian Presidency: she is very enthusiastic, is here all day and is always in Strasbourg as well. I do not think that I have seen anyone else as enthusiastic as her so far.\nThis is about the internal market, harmonisation, adding value: all very important. It is not the final product, but it is a work in progress: particularly noteworthy are things such as the right of withdrawal, unfair contract terms and particularly the flexibility clauses which give flexibility to national governments. If we had the same in other directives such as the EGAF, they would work better. Finally, I just want to say that it complements work such as the Services Directive and the Data Protection Directive which I am working on. Therefore it is good progress.\n(GA) I commend Mr Schwab for bringing the work to completion.\nMar\u00eda Irigoyen P\u00e9rez\n(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, please allow me to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, and Mrs Gebhardt on the work they have done.\nI have a general thought. It is not that protectionism is increasing, but rather that it is a case of not removing rights that already exist in some of the Member States.\nThis is because if we want to set up a genuine internal market for relationships between companies and consumers and are pursuing that, we must establish, at the same time, a balance between a high level of protection for consumer rights and defence of companies' competitiveness.\nThis balance involves agreeing on a minimum level of harmonisation, as well as the possibility of allowing the Member States to keep or adopt any additional regulations that improve consumer protection.\nWe cannot allow the adoption of EU legislation to mean that many consumers and users end up with less protection.\nI welcome the fact that negotiations in the European Parliament have improved, but I should like to insist that already-established rights not be removed.\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi\nMr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Schwab and his team of rapporteurs for opinions and shadow rapporteurs for their very good work on this report. It took a long time to choose a line that would be balanced enough for both consumers and businesses. I welcome the overall compromise that has been agreed by all political groups and I believe that this is an important step forward for all consumers in the European Union.\nThere are significant improvements such as the provision of clear information requirements in contracts, and the harmonisation of the provisions on the right of withdrawal. Of course it is a compromise, it is not perfect. An example is Article 22a which obliges the trader to deliver in other Member States. There are products and services which due to their nature should not be covered here, namely perishable goods. Problems might also arise with digital products. The initial intention of promoting cross-border business is very important and is very good, and I really hope that during the forthcoming negotiations with the Council we will manage to make these adjustments to achieve an optimal result.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) Mr President, I think that every consumer should have the right to receive information prior to signing the contract. Retailers should inform consumers and obtain their consent, including in any circumstance where an amount is stopped on their credit or debit card.\nIt is also important for us to protect consumers against unfair contractual terms. Unfortunately, in the case of banking services, insurance, electronic communication services or tourist services, the contractual clauses are very often written overleaf in tiny letters. However, customers very frequently sign the registration form or invoice without even reading the contractual clauses overleaf.\nEven in cases where customers read all the contractual clauses and state that they disagree with one of them, they do not have any negotiating power. In this instance, the first response the consumer receives is that there is a standard company contract and it cannot be amended.\nNational consumer protection authorities should check these standard contracts to protect consumers against unfair terms.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n- (CS) Mr President, I would like to thank Andreas Schwab for an excellent piece of work, and for supporting my proposals. The fact that consumers are acquiring the right, under certain conditions, to the supply of goods and services ordered via the Internet to every Member State, marks a significant change in online shopping. One third of sellers refuse to supply goods across borders, particularly to the new Member States.\nI also believe that the Council will adopt our compromise version, including my proposals regarding an obligation to indicate the interoperability of computer equipment and electronics, the readability of contractual terms, the rights of consumers in organised sales tours and the option for Member States to extend consumer rights, including guarantees, to voluntary organisations and small businesses. The significance of this directive is clear. Equipping the European consumer with unequivocal rights is the best way to bring about fair internal trade in the EU.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103\n(RO) Mr President, according to the EU 2020 Strategy, a high level of consumer protection guarantees high-quality products, but it also guarantees consumer confidence, thereby making the internal markets more effective.\nWith regard to consumer rights, the current minimum regulation offers all Member States the freedom to adapt EU regulations to national principles, and I think that this approach must be maintained.\nThe European Union can facilitate better harmonisation of the internal market with a high level of consumer protection by raising the current minimum level of harmonisation up to the level of the best existing national practices.\nI believe that the European system of liability for lack of conformity must be fair so that consumer protection and confidence in the markets are improved, thereby increasing the service life of products.\nIldik\u00f3 G\u00e1ll-Pelcz\n(HU) Mr President, the European consumer rules currently in force follow a principle of minimum harmonisation. They give Member States the option for derogations, while all this also represents a competitive disadvantage for the EU. It is to my satisfaction that Mr Schwab prepared such an excellent report. After several years of negotiating, the moment has come to reach an agreement on this matter, and, as Minister Gy\u0151ri has said, the Hungarian Presidency will also strive for this. In order to reduce the fragmentation of the EU internal market we need a stronger enforcement of consumer rights, and to enable consumers to take better decisions without putting enterprises at a disadvantage due to the new legislation. The single internal market requires single European consumer rules. It is therefore important that we reach an agreement at first reading.\nViviane Reding\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, that was a very constructive debate in this Chamber, I must say, with all benches agreeing that we need to have a better, more constructive, more efficient Consumer Rights Directive than we have today - and also agreeing that while we might not have the perfect one, at least it is better than the existing one which is far from perfect, as everybody agrees.\nI have also rarely seen such unanimity as there has been today in the House in praising the rapporteur Andreas Schwab and his co-rapporteurs. I hope that this unanimity will continue, because we are now entering into a very original process, and there is a very short timespan during which we can try to achieve this better legislation that all the Members who have taken the floor from all the political parties want to have. Accordingly I encourage you to give your rapporteurs this report as the starting-point for negotiations. I know the Hungarian Presidency will do everything in its power to bring this original proceeding to a positive conclusion.\nEnik\u0151 Gy\u0151ri\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to join those who said that this has been an excellent debate. It has been a very constructive debate and, on behalf of the Hungarian Presidency and our experts, we would like to thank you for your support, and I hope that we will be able to continue further consultations in the same atmosphere. Let me address some specific questions that were raised in the debate. Many have urged for the regulation of the lists of unfair contract terms. We agree with the European Parliament in that there would be added value in having a list at European level. However, although the legislation in force contains an indicative list of examples, added value would in fact be in the creation of a single European list. There is not yet sufficient support for this in the Council, however, and this is one of the reasons why the Council decided to omit the issue.\nThere were some who asked, although Mrs G\u00e1ll-Pelcz answered this one for me, why it would be necessary for us to reach an agreement at first reading. As it has been said, we began negotiations in October 2008, during the French Presidency. Over the course of two and a half years we held more than sixty working party meetings, and we therefore consider that there are no more possibilities for adjustment in order to resolve the blocking minorities, and that is why we had to decide on a significant narrowing of the scope of the directive to distance and off-premises contracts. The narrowed scope and thus the targeted harmonisation will, I am convinced, lead to a more rapid agreement, and I do not see what added value could come forth from continuing and having a second reading.\nThe preliminary position of the European Parliament is in several respects close to the general approach of the Council, and I therefore believe that we should not, and urge us all not to waste this opportunity to have an agreement at first reading.\nI liked Mr Harbour's comment on whether the current situation is a stepping stone or a milestone. If we want to be realistic - and I am not a person who likes to exaggerate - I think it is a stepping stone, not a milestone. It could have been a milestone, but the conditions were simply not right. We can see it as a stepping stone when we consider the interests of our citizens and our consumers.\nWe all know that there are very different legal conditions in the Member States. Fuller harmonisation at this stage would not have been possible. It is much better to have a smaller scope and be able to have an agreement. This will really help increase consumers' rights and therefore also help us move towards completion of the single market.\nAndreas Schwab\nMr President, the question of whether or not this is a milestone is one which could be discussed at great length. It is clear, for example, that the founders of the European Community, such as Altiero Spinelli, whom we have named our group meeting room after today, were able to deal with more fundamental questions in Europe. However, I am convinced that nowadays progress in Europe takes the form of small, constructive steps. For this reason, I would like to thank all the Members who have taken part in the discussion and who have made this compromise possible as a result of their contributions to the amendments. A compromise is always an opportunity to achieve a balance between different interests. No one will be completely happy, but everyone will be prepared to improve the approach that has been taken even further. This is why I believe that we are on the right track.\nI would like to take this opportunity to thank the Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs Reding, for her ongoing commitment and for her support and encouragement both today in this debate and in many other meetings. I hope that we can continue to count on her during the consultations with the Council. I would like to thank the committee chair, Mr Harbour, for his patience with the rapporteur and the other members of the committee, together with Mr Lehne, the chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs. In the case of the Council, I would like Mrs Gy\u0151ri, a former Member of this House, to understand in her role as President-in-Office of the Council that the European Parliament may be obliged to amend the proposal which has thankfully been adopted by the Council on 24 January. In some areas we would like to go further and, therefore, in the next few weeks we will be holding constructive discussions in order to find a positive solution. Thank you very much.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30.\nWritten Statements (Rule 149)\nLiam Aylward\nI welcome what is being done to strengthen consumer rights in the EU. I also support the proposed measures for facilitating cross-border trade, and the measures for clarifying EU rules on consumer protection in order to eliminate the current uncertainty.\nTransparency and better information for businesses and consumers would greatly contribute to consumer confidence in the market, and this would encourage economic growth. That said, however, I am quite worried about some of the measures and their impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. While these businesses are certainly in favour of measures that would create a clearer legal framework and complement existing consumer protection mechanisms, some of them are worried that some of the new provisions could impact on the day-to-day running of enterprises. Such measures can greatly increase red tape and the unnecessary administrative burden.\nIn protecting consumers, we must be sure that we do not finish off the enterprises and services that cater to those consumers.\nZuzana Brzobohat\u00e1\nin writing. - (CS) The proposed Consumer Rights Directive harmonises into one legal document a total of four directives dealing with off-premises contracts, unreasonable terms in consumer contracts, consumer protection in distance contracts and certain aspects of the selling of consumer goods and guarantees. The aim of merging these four directives is to enhance the internal market and promote cross-border trade. A high level of consumer protection will enhance product quality and increase consumer confidence, thereby boosting the efficiency of the internal market. We must reject the attempt to stipulate a strict two-year guarantee period, because this provision would weaken consumer protection in many states, as these Member States would have to reduce the guarantee period in their national law, thereby weakening the position of the consumer. The objective of boosting consumer confidence in cross-border purchases, where consumers feel the greatest barriers in terms of language problems, lack of confidence in the payment system and the unwillingness of business to trade across borders, is correct. The criticism from the rapporteur of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who regrets the fact that the bill fails to take account of new products emerging through changes in product development and innovation, for example digital products, is quite correct. In the area of entertainment and consumer electronics, products which include software and other intangible services are becoming increasingly common.\nMonika Fla\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1 Be\u0148ov\u00e1\nin writing. - (SK) The lack of unity between existing laws and standards is often a disincentive for consumers and businesses who are considering participating in cross-border trade. Consumers and businesses encounter obstacles in relation to the differences in market conditions.\nThere is a need for extensive harmonisation of the contract in question, with a view to retaining a high level of consumer rights protection in particular. In addition to sectoral variations, the scope of the directive would be limited mainly to off-premises contracts. It is these contracts that account for the greatest number of cross-border transactions.\nAlso the issue as to whether a given contract is subject to the harmonised rules depends mainly on the wording of the defined terms. Some of these are often deficient and unsatisfactory from a legal perspective.\nThere is a real need to ensure that consumers in all EU Member States are guaranteed a high level of consumer protection and for them to be able to have goods supplied and provided without unnecessary legal obstacles. This would help to boost consumer confidence, and also to make businesses more interested in cross-border transactions.\nLiem Hoang Ngoc\nin writing. - (FR) I am anxious to thank Mr Schwab and the shadow rapporteurs for their work. The Commission's initial proposal was unacceptable because it intended to harmonise fully the rules concerning consumer rights, without systematically bringing them into line with the most favourable national legislation.\nIn other words, many Member States would have had to remove from their national legislation provisions that in fact granted better protection to consumers. In France, two major acquis would have to be abandoned as a result: the 'latent defect' rule and the ruling that a doorstep seller is prohibited from collecting payment before the end of the cooling-off period.\nHowever my socialist colleagues and I succeeded in getting this approach altered and in making minimum harmonisation the norm. We also managed to enhance consumer rights on a whole range of points, in particular concerning information that has to be provided by the seller and provisions pertaining to the cooling-off period.\nOne problem remains however: chapter V. We cannot accept that the rules on unfair terms be fully harmonised, because that would deprive Member States of their ability to react when faced with commercial practices that change daily and sometimes involve serious risks for consumers.\nTunne Kelam\nin writing. - Studies from the Commission show that one in three EU citizens purchase goods online, but only 7% do cross-border online shopping. Thirty-three per cent would be interested in buying cross-border. The field is still unregulated and it is complicated to purchase goods online, especially with regard to delivery and transaction costs. The proposal for a directive on consumer rights aims to reduce the complications for online actions. I very much welcome improved rights for consumers purchasing online. We need to have full information on the traders, with their names, addresses and contact details. The rules across the EU need to be harmonised, so that we do not face unpleasant surprises and extra costs. I welcome the harmonisation of the right of withdrawal within 14 days. We have to protect the consumers, but we also have to boost the economy. I fully support the rapporteur's efforts to balance this. Implementing the consumers' rights directive is one aspect of the problem, with full integration and implementation of single digital market, the EU's internal market and the services directive being another issue. The EU and its Member States have to focus on both.\nSiiri Oviir\nThe adoption of the new harmonised European Consumer Rights Directive is certainly one of the more important pillars for a better functioning internal market. The harmonised directive, which brings together a number of directives relating to consumer rights, will considerably simplify the legal framework, help increase consumer confidence and encourage cross-border trade. In order to make trade, or the supply chain, more transparent, especially in e-commerce, we need to ensure that traders' contact details are available so that the consumer is able to contact them directly if necessary. I therefore support the rapporteur's proposals to this effect. The directive is quite a balanced one from the point of view of consumers and entrepreneurs, and it is flexible enough to accommodate differences between the Member States. Full consumer protection legislation is still not a reality in the European Union. Nevertheless, this is a big step towards better consumer protection and trade.\nMarianne Thyssen\nin writing. - (NL) The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has for many years been consistently emphasising that consumer protection and the completion of the internal market are not conflicting objectives and that they, in fact, go hand in hand. This horizontal instrument codifies and clarifies the rights and obligations of consumers and traders throughout the EU. It also indicates that the EU is serious about meeting the needs of the most vulnerable consumers. Existing shortcomings in the field of online or cross-border purchases will largely be eliminated. This will create opportunities, not only for consumers, but also for our SMEs, which will, from now on, find it easier to benefit from the scale advantages of the internal market. However, if we want the best for our SMEs, we should not impose any unnecessary burdens on them. We therefore need to make SME-friendly amendments to the Commission proposal. Europe should not settle for anything less than 'cum laude' in the SME exam.\nGiovanni Collino\nin writing. - (IT) Our supermarkets are located further and further away from home and we are less and less likely to wander around the shelves, with a product in our hands, surrounded by the smells of fresh food and people's comments. Our purchases are increasingly remote and the Internet has now completely changed our habits, partly because our lives have become increasingly frenetic. This is a specific, tangible manifestation of something that textbooks refer to as the 'global economy'. What is the difference between the Internet and the supermarket? On the Internet you cannot stop to ask the shopkeeper for advice about what there is to choose between one product and another or even go back to the supermarket if there is something wrong with your product and pick up another from the shelf, after showing your receipt to the cashier. That is why the European Consumer Rights Directive is fundamental due to the obligations it imposes over product information and due to the rules it imposes over defective products, which must be replaced, repaired or reduced in price, to ensure that protection for online sales no less strong than that for on-the-spot sales throughout Europe.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg\nIn my opinion, the Consumer Rights Directive is one of the most important legislative texts we will debate in the first half of this year. Better access to information and greater consumer protection are particularly important issues, for example for the development of the online market and for economic growth throughout the EU. The online market is still developing relatively slowly in Europe in comparison with the United States, for example, and my home country - Poland - takes only 17th place among the EU Member States in this regard. Only 23% of Polish consumers make purchases over the Internet, and a lack of confidence appears to be one of the main reasons for this. One of the most controversial points in the proposal for a directive is the extent to which regulations should be harmonised. I am pleased that the rapporteur from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection agreed with the arguments put forward by my group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, criticising the European Commission's goal of full harmonisation, which would make it impossible in reality for Member States to adopt higher standards than those provided for in the directive. I believe that countries wishing to maintain higher standards should have the opportunity to do so.\nAlexander Mirsky\nin writing. - Unfortunately the rights of consumers purchasing industrial or food products are better protected than those of users of transport, medical care or education services. This is because it is difficult to prove that the service rendered was of poor quality.\nFor example, the Latvian airline Air Baltic, 51% of which belongs to the state, currently enjoys a monopoly. This leads to abuses in terms of passenger service and service supply. The director of the company, Mr Flick, has not seen fit to respond to questions from MEPs and simply ignores complaints from the general public. Air Baltic, with its machinations, is trying to make a fool of the European Parliament. It is selling business-class tickets for aircraft on which business-class service is not provided. In parallel, Air Baltic is concealing frequent cases of aircraft malfunctions and thus continues to risk the lives of thousands of passengers. It is necessary to establish an enquiry committee to look into the practices of Air Baltic, otherwise the results could be tragic.\nVille It\u00e4l\u00e4\nin writing. - (FI) The Commission's original basic proposal was fairly problematic from the point of view of both consumers and companies. The rapporteur has done an excellent job, though, as a result of which important steps can be taken towards more consistent consumer protection in the development of the internal market without compromising on a high level of consumer protection. Hopefully, this will promote crossborder distance sales. We have to remember, however, that there are many other factors that are still hindering the growth in ecommerce in Europe. In the future, we will have to work, for example, to speed up payments traffic and make the collection of crossborder payments a more effective exercise, allowing small and mediumsized enterprises to venture more readily into the European emarket.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu\nI would like to express my gratitude that, after tomorrow's vote, we will be able to have a legislative framework guaranteeing better harmonisation of consumer rights in the EU. On the other hand, I would like to congratulate the European Commission for initiating this draft directive, which combines four existing directives into a single legislative instrument. I also want to stress that once this directive has been implemented, we can finally guarantee citizens in the European Union's 27 Member States that they can be confident of a high level of consumer protection. At the same time, I want to congratulate the rapporteur for his fine work and because he added vital articles to this report which will regulate the rights of those who purchase goods and services on line.\nZbigniew Ziobro\nI would like to thank Mr Schwab and the other Members for the work they have put into this draft. I welcome the efforts that have been undertaken with the aim of EU-wide harmonisation of distance selling regulations, which are aimed at protecting consumers and making it easier for traders to operate. What is undoubtedly needed is a compromise which will both guarantee a high level of protection for consumers and make it easier for traders to provide services throughout the EU. I believe that it is right to guarantee a high minimum level of consumer protection throughout the European Union, provided that the Member States will also be able to impose more stringent regulations on their territory if they believe that the level of protection guaranteed by the EU is insufficient. However, we must not ignore the needs of traders, whose lives should genuinely be made easier by the EU-wide harmonisation of regulations, in both operational and cost-reduction terms. It is therefore advisable to formulate a position which will safeguard the interests of both consumers and traders. There can be no question that making transactions safer and harmonising regulations will increase confidence in distance selling, and act as an incentive for consumers to make distance purchases more frequently.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Public Finances in the EMU 2006 (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Lauk, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on Public Finances in EMU 2006.\nI would point out that Mr Schwab is standing in for the rapporteur.\nAndreas Schwab \ndeputy rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, at this late hour, I am pleased that we are speaking about the economic and monetary union of the EU. The European Parliament, in this report presented on its own initiative, expresses itself for the first time on the revised version of the Stability and Growth Pact, adopted by the Heads of State or Government in March 2005. The revision concerned both the preventive and the remedial elements of the Pact.\nThe aim of the Pact was and remains the avoidance of an excessive deficit and the achievement in the medium and long term of a balanced budget and sound public finances. The present report is an appraisal based on one year. The reference period, in other words, is very short - too short, in fact; moreover, it covers the year 2006, a year characterised by very favourable economic trends. These trends had a beneficial impact on the fiscal policies of the Member States. It goes without saying that an assessment based entirely on this brief period cannot be the last word. The real endurance test for the revised Pact awaits us in the coming years.\nThe report is an appraisal of the current situation. The rapporteur, Kurt Joachim Lauk, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening, has deliberately avoided naming the various Member States and assessing their individual levels of performance. The point of this report was not to award exam marks; the rapporteur saw no value in that approach. What the report can usefully do is to make a general assessment of achievements to date.\nThe Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has dealt in great depth with this report, and our exchanges were highly constructive and fruitful. On behalf of Mr Lauk, may I offer a special word of thanks to Mr Rosati, shadow rapporteur for the Socialists, and to his Liberal counterpart, Mrs in 't Veld, for their close and constructive cooperation. The report was adopted by an overwhelming majority in committee.\nI only intend to deal briefly with the main points. The statistical surveys show that the spread in deficit and growth levels is too wide as well as demonstrating a correlation between high deficits and low growth rates. The figures for 2006 show that the 21 Member States with low deficits or even slight surpluses also had high growth rates. This substantiates the view that reducing deficits stimulates activity and improves economic output, thereby cutting unemployment.\nAgainst this backdrop, the report highlighted three key points. Firstly, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs argues strenuously in this report that the economic good times should be used to put public budgets on a sound structural footing. The Member States must take advantage of the economic upturn, and particularly of increases in tax revenue, to reduce their public debts. We must keep reminding ourselves that a stimulation of growth leads to higher demand and higher employment levels. On a critical note, it must be said that the Member States are not making sufficient use of the favourable cyclical climate to consolidate their budgets.\nSecondly, we call on the Member States to declare new public debt unconstitutional or unlawful by 2015, as has already been done by certain states and regions in the European Union. The amendment to paragraph 20 tabled by the rapporteur, Kurt Joachim Lauk, is designed to clarify the scope of this call. It states that what is being proposed is a binding obligation on the Member States within the euro zone alone, not on all 27 Member States of the European Union. This seems logical, and may I ask you on behalf of the rapporteur to approve this amendment, tabled on behalf of the PPE_DE Group.\nThirdly, the report calls for the Member States' debts and deficits to be calculated in such a way as to make the figures comparable. This is an important point, because a common basis for assessing the actual level of debt is essential in the context of increasing convergence within the framework of European economic and monetary union.\nAllow me, in these last twenty seconds, to make two final remarks. By and large, the revised Stability and Growth Pact worked well in 2006. It remains a rule-based framework. Since it was revised, all deficits equivalent to more than 3% of GDP have been regarded as excessive. Nevertheless, the slow pace at which the level of public debt is being reduced in all Member States is a source of concern.\nIn the short term, then, the Stability and Growth Pact has worked. Whether it will work in the long term remains to be seen. The real test of its resilience will come in the next few years. We expect the Member States to do whatever it takes to make the Pact succeed.\nJoe Borg\nMr President, the Commission warmly welcomes Mr Lauk's report and is grateful for the high-quality work of Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. With a strong economic recovery currently under way in Europe and in the euro area, Member States have an outstanding opportunity to improve their public finances and to prepare for future challenges, such as the ageing population. In this context, Mr Lauk's report is a very timely one.\nThe Commission clearly agrees with the report's statement that the revised Stability and Growth Pact is so far working as it should. In particular, many Member States have made considerable efforts to meet their obligations under the Pact. Since the reform of the Pact, both the corrective and preventative arms have been fully applied in accordance with the reform's provisions. In addition, it is clear that there has been no leniency in the enforcement of the reformed Pact.\nLast year, a significant improvement in the general government deficit in the euro area, and in the individual Member States, was accomplished. For the euro area, the improvement was 0.9%, in nominal terms, and hence also appears likely to be higher in structural terms than the 0.3% expected by the Commission last autumn.\nThe overall economic prospects for 2007 are equally encouraging. The ongoing presence of cyclically favourable conditions in the euro area calls for further fiscal consolidation efforts in 2007 and beyond. Adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary objectives should be stepped up and pro-cyclical budgetary policies ought to be avoided.\nEuro-area Finance Ministers confirmed last week their commitment to make full use of current economic growth and better-than-expected tax revenues to pursue sound fiscal policies, as well as to use unexpected extra revenues for deficit and debt reduction.\nThe Commission also shares Parliament's concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of public finances and is putting increased emphasis on its assessment. In this respect, a new report on the long-term sustainability of public finances in the European Union was issued by the Commission in October 2006. That report is based on EU common ageing-related expenditure projections. It confirms the importance of addressing the sustainability challenge with a combination of fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.\nThe Commission has continued its work on incorporating sustainability considerations in setting the medium-term budgetary objectives. Indeed, the improvement of fiscal balances in the medium term contributes to meeting the long-term sustainability implications.\nAnother key development is the emphasis on improving the quality of public spending, in line with the Lisbon Strategy. That policy guideline is indeed part of the integrated guidelines adopted by the European Council in March this year. The Commission is also grateful for the report's recognition of the efforts made to improve statistical governance. The Commission recently reported to Parliament and to the Council on the quality of the data submitted by Member States.\nFinally, while the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact has delivered the expected results, the picture is more mixed regarding the preventative arm. National fiscal rules and institutions can play an important role in this respect. Progress was made last year in this field, and the Commission is currently working on further improving the effectiveness of the Pact's preventative arm. In this context, I fully appreciate Parliament's support for this approach.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Schwab's defence of Mr Lauk's report was so brilliant and so accurate that I am going to continue broadly in the same vein as him.\nI share Mr Schwab's concern with regard to the progress of public debt. We grew much more last year than in previous years, we have come closer to our growth potential, but public debt remains below the limits that we ourselves set in the Treaty of Maastricht.\nAccording to all of the indicators, we will have good growth next year, but we will grow less than last year, and that means that public debt will continue to cause concern.\nI would once again agree with the rapporteur and the Commissioner in saying that this concern is all the more urgent if we take account of the projections on the development of the population, what is known as the ageing of the population, which may be one of the great challenges of the century we have just begun.\nLife expectancy is increasing, birth rates are still extremely low, and that means that the working-age population will be smaller and that, therefore, sooner or later, the labour market will contract and, as a result, we will have far more beneficiaries of the system and far fewer people contributing to the social security coffers.\nNeither I nor Mr Schwab, who is a Christian Democrat like me, believe that the viability of the social protection system can be called into question. We need to seek foundations to strengthen it, which make it possible for us to fulfil our social obligations.\nThere are certain recommendations in Mr Lauk's report that I would like to stress, and I shall add a few of my own.\nI agree that we should establish comparable bases for the budgets so that we can make comparisons homogeneous, but I would like us to borrow an accounting technique from the private sector, a form of budget forecasting, in order to take account of the obligations of which we are aware.\nIt seems to me to be obvious that we should take advantage of good times to reduce public debt further, but we are not doing so, or we are not doing so sufficiently.\nThirdly, I believe that we must rethink our entire system of public spending and revenue in order to make our economies more productive, so that we have more resources, amongst other things in order to meet social welfare spending needs. I believe that we should stop looking at the retirement age as something that represents an obligation and think in terms of a right that opens up the possibility of retiring and orient public finances, since we are talking about public finances, in a way that encourages people to remain in work for longer.\nFinally, I believe that we should consider replacing social security contributions, as a fundamental core - practically the only one - of social protection systems, with a system of taxes, essentially value-added tax, which the presidential candidate Sarkozy has brilliantly described as 'social VAT' in the debate that is taking place in that country.\nI would like once again to congratulate the rapporteur, who is not here today, the person representing him and the Commissioner on having taken up the majority of our positions.\nDariusz Rosati\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, healthy public finances are the mainstay of sustainable economic development. I am pleased to see that in the past year there has been a significant improvement in the European Union in this regard. However, the current positive economic situation is an opportunity to reduce debts and deficits even further. That is why in this year's report by Mr Lauk, the European Parliament encourages Member States to make use of the favourable market situation to adjust their public finances as necessary and to speed up structural reforms such as labour market and service sector reforms, or reducing red tape for business.\nI congratulate Mr Lauk on his excellent report and also thank him for his cooperation. There are four matters to which I would like to draw your attention.\nFirstly, in point 26, this year's report encourages the European Commission to explore the advantages of establishing independent national bodies in charge of determining the annual level of deficit consistently with the medium-term objective of a balanced budget. However, through the intercession of Mr Borg, I appeal to Commissioner Alumnia to investigate whether fiscal policy councils, independent of political pressure, would be an effective instrument in fighting for a lower deficit. This relates in particular to the better use of periods of economic boom to improve the situation in public finances. I believe that on this matter I agree with my colleagues who have just taken the floor. As numerous studies have shown, governments have a tendency to excessive deficits, and only implement reforms when there is a crisis.\nSecondly, I should like to point out that we cannot agree with point 20, rendering a new public debt as unconstitutional. Every government has the right to act within the framework set out by the Maastricht Treaty, which allows a public debt level of up to sixty percent. Obviously any debt which exceeds this level can be deemed unconstitutional, which is why I would support the amendment put forward by the ALDE Group, to define the limit in this way.\nThirdly, the report stresses that the revised Stability and Growth Pact is a key instrument for maintaining budgetary discipline in the Member States. I agree with the rapporteur that reforming the pact increased both its flexibility and its effectiveness. For this reason we appeal to the Commission to exercise close control of the way Member States observe the Pact.\nFourthly and finally, this House recommends a study on the feasibility of introducing a uniform budgetary procedure for all Member States. Such a procedure would incorporate both a uniform calendar for budgetary procedures and uniform assumptions regarding basic macroeconomic parameters, to be assessed in a standard way across the European Union. In my view these changes would not only make it possible to strengthen budgetary discipline in the Member States, but would also improve the coordination of fiscal policy at EU level.\nWojciech Roszkowski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Mr Lauk's report is an accurate description of the current situation, and is undoubtedly a lesson for the countries that have not yet joined the EMU. Mr Lauk rightly underlined the main threats to the European Union, which are persistently high budget deficits and uncontrolled growth in budgetary expenditure because of the ageing populations in the EU. It also says that increasing growth rates will make it possible to avoid disaster. However, the report fails to answer the fundamental question of how this growth is to be achieved when the economies of the Member States are less competitive than world leaders, and there is no active policy to encourage families in any EU country. Mr Lauk's report clearly shows that the EMU, which is in effect a private members' club for the EU, lacks any prescription as to how the impending threat could be avoided. I have given two examples of how to avoid the main challenge facing the EU countries. In EU debates, for example, delocalisation is not regarded as an opportunity, but a threat to jobs in countries where production costs are higher than in countries where they are lower. These debates very frequently mention the 'demographic challenges', as if nobody realises that they are the result of a dramatic fall in the birth rate. A great deal is said about avoiding pregnancy, the right to abortion, and numerous debates have been held on homophobia - today we have just had the third such debate in two years. But what I would like to know is where is the debate on an active policy of encouraging childbirth in the EU? Only by increasing the birth rate can we avoid the deterioration of the mysterious 'demographic challenge'. The representatives of the Member States may debate on the maturity or otherwise of other countries, but for the countries that have adopted the euro, this is undoubtedly an important lesson.\nSahra Wagenknecht\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in our opinion, this report takes us in quite the wrong direction. It squanders the opportunity to support an urgently essential change of course. It levels not a word of criticism at the policy of the European Central Bank, which is geared exclusively to price stability and thereby curbs and strangles the growth potential of the EU. The report merely recommends to the authors of the Member States' budgetary policies that they make spending cuts in order to lower their deficits. Not a word does it say about the ruinous tax competition in the European Union that has been further fuelled by more cuts in business taxes. In Germany we are currently experiencing another round in these dumping stakes.\nIt is perfectly obvious that public finances in the Member States would be far healthier if people of wealth and property, and above all the multinational corporations with their huge profits, were finally required to pay their fair share instead of receiving more and more tax breaks.\nThere is no shortage, on the other hand, of proposals in the report for a neo-liberal approach to regulatory policy. For example, it calls for a restructuring of public expenditure with the aid of new public-private partnerships, even in the education sector. Come hell or high water, another key area of our services of public interest is to be sacrificed to the profit motive.\nThe report calls on Member States to declare new public debt unconstitutional or unlawful by 2015; this, too, is downright foolhardy. If such a ban were enforced, it would strangle any attempt to pursue a budgetary policy.\nThis report represents a wasted opportunity to support a European policy for development based on social justice and solidarity. For this reason, my group will be voting against it.\nJohn Whittaker\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Mr President, the rapporteur accepts that government finances in several euro zone countries are still not in good shape. Sovereign debts in Italy and Greece have not fallen significantly, and although deficits have been falling, this is a result of some higher economic growth helped by global recovery. It is not evidence that the Stability Pact is working.\nHowever, this week's news from Spain has shown that weak government finances are not the only threat to the functioning of the euro. Spain has an awful trade deficit of 9.5% of GDP, and its construction asset price boom, which has driven domestic demand, is now definitely over. The boom was driven by euro interest rates which had been far too low but are now too high. Spain can now look forward to serious economic difficulties, with rising unemployment and deteriorating government finances. The normal solution to this dilemma would be for Spain to lower its interest rates and devalue, but neither of these options is available as it shares the single currency.\nThere are therefore three possible outcomes. The first: to forestall a crisis, the European Central Bank reduces the euro interest rate. Germany would not like this, as it would lead to rising inflation; it would also mean the European Central Bank losing its hard-won reputation for holding down inflation expectations.\nThe second possible outcome is that Spain leaves the euro zone and re-establishes its own currency, enabling it to devalue and have suitably low interest rates. Yes, we have come to the point when this may no longer be unthinkable. It would lead to serious problems of private and public sector debt default that would spill over across the whole euro zone.\nOther countries would not want this, which makes the third possible outcome maybe the most likely, and that is large-scale bailout by other countries, despite Maastricht rules against this, and this would be accompanied by centralisation of control over Spanish public finances.\nI do not know which of these outcomes will take place, but it is time we faced up to the circumstances: Spain is a large country and the European Union would not find it easy to stand idle while it suffers in recession.\nZsolt L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Becsey\n(HU) I would like personally to congratulate Mr Lauk for the excellent report, which takes a clear position regarding the lack of sustainability in public finances within the euro zone. For my part, I consider it important to have similar analyses not only of deficits in public finances but also, for instance, of the performance of Member States as regards compliance with the criteria on inflation. Moreover, there is room here, too, for implementing an excessive procedure.\nI would like to stress five points. First: it is impossible to analyse the annual and cumulative deficits in static fashion, independently of economic growth, since the most important task of the new Member States striving to join the euro zone is to catch up to the others. Stimulating this is the aim of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, and as a result, higher growth can temporarily be accompanied by an annual deficit in excess of 3%. Examples of this are the 2005 performance of the Czech Republic and the 2006 performance of Slovakia. If the cumulative debt can be reduced, this may be considered the sign of a healthy trend.\nSecond: we must be especially careful that individual Member States do not attempt to conceal one-off privatised or PPP constructions and count these in the reduction of the deficit. This practice and its danger have been clearly outlined by the rapporteur. For those Member States that do so encourage undertakings with economically dubious results and reduce transparency. With regard to this matter, the instruments available to the European Commission for detecting such tricks must be strengthened. Let us see how each Member really stands; assessment considerations should only come into the picture in the event of excessive deficit procedures. This is important not only for the stability of the euro zone, but also because deficits that are identified only afterwards, or that have been covered up, reduce the credibility of EU institutions in the Member State concerned. This is what happened most recently in Hungary, where, with the Commission looking on, a Member State that had been performing well ended up on the brink of national bankruptcy. This question - the political role of the Commission - should be the subject of a separate debate.\nThird: in my view, the fact that the criteria for entering the euro zone are higher than those that apply to the behaviour of its existing members is a political double standard, and therefore must be changed. This practice has never been sanctioned, yet refusing a country entry into the euro zone is itself clearly a sanction. One could point to the French, German or Italian performance by way of an example, for in fact not a hair on anyone's head was harmed as a result, nor did even a single euro have to be paid by way of a deposit.\nFourth: from the perspective of the stability of the euro zone, I am in favour of building into national legislation a ban on further indebtedness. Although every Member State has to resolve this problem for itself, and the situation of each is different, a minimum requirement of those in the euro area ought to be a positive primary balance.\nFifth: the main goal is to achieve the Lisbon Strategy and to improve fiscal policy, for instance with an appropriate response to the challenges presented by our aging population. In this regard, the most important indicator is the rate of employment, which is more revealing, and gives a better measure of the sustainability of public finances, than the unemployment rate. Therefore we should ask for this figure more frequently from the Member States that are at risk. In addition, reducing the tax burden is also an important objective, since a good number of Member States boasts a redistribution rate in excess of 50%, while their traditions do not suggest the Scandinavian model.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like simply to say to the previous speaker that this report clearly does not relate to the issue of enlargement of the euro zone but indeed to the state of public finances within the European Union.\nAs such, I should like to warn this House against a temptation introduced by the rapporteur and unfortunately validated by our committee, which is to totally throw out of kilter the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact in the form in which it has been carried out, for the report proposes nothing less than for us to regard the public deficit as unconstitutional. I hope that this House will have the wisdom to censure or put right this assessment, which I feel is completely at odds with the optimal use of public finances, which must obviously contribute to financial stability and make it possible for future generations not to have to fund our debt. However, I also feel that, if we want to be consistent with our strategy - which requires long-term investment - the idea of regarding any public deficit as unconstitutional is a narrow-minded way of thinking, to say the least.\nI should also like to emphasise that the contribution of this report to the greater coordination of economic policies and the dynamic vision of Mr Juncker and of Commissioner Almunia will enable us to progress slowly - too slowly, but safely, I hope - on the path to coordinating budgetary timetables and to taking better account of consistent macroeconomic data for the euro zone as a whole. I have great hopes that what has just taken place at the Eurogroup, namely a dynamic discussion before each Member State launches into the definition of its own budgetary strategies, will become the rule, at the very least within the euro zone.\nAllow me, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to state that, if this were to become the rule, it would obviously be important for the parliamentary dimension of such an anticipation of national budgetary strategies to be strengthened, and that would depend on constructive cooperation being established or enhanced between the European Parliament and the national parliaments.\nDariusz Maciej Grabowski\n(PL) Mr President, the rapporteur deserves our thanks for raising such an important issue and drawing attention to the challenge Member States face in the form of their ageing populations. These words of thanks go to the rapporteur for his diagnosis and his prognosis for the disease.\nHowever, what does arouse total opposition is the suggested cure, which is to restrict the budget deficits of the Member States, and to standardise their financial policies. It is paradoxical that the cure is suggested by a Member representing Germany, a country that has not kept within the budget deficit limits, and which is increasing taxation, such as VAT.\nThe rapporteur's proposed cure arouses disagreement on many points. Because of the time restrictions, I will only mention the two I regard as being the most important. Firstly, only an active strategy of supporting business, reducing red tape and a radical increase in infrastructure investments, abandoning the costly policy of farming subsidies and re-allocating the money to research and development and regional development can solve the dilemma of funding pensions.\nSecondly, a uniform budget and tax policy is an attempt to strait-jacket the finances of the new Member States, ignoring their specific development needs, and thereby preventing them from eliminating any development gaps.\nWe therefore disagree with the rapporteur's findings and take the opposite position. The European Union needs greater freedom of budgetary and fiscal policy for its members, and only this would make it possible to eliminate the dilemma of a poor society.\nOthmar Karas\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report and the debate show clearly that the Stability and Growth Pact has been a success. It is a success because this type of public debate about government finances would never have been conducted in either the Member States or the European framework if there were no Stability and Growth Pact. It is a success because it creates clarity and certainty and defines the same objectives for everyone. It is a success because it establishes a regulatory structure for national budgetary policies. The Stability and Growth Pact is the European political complement to the single currency, and the single currency is our most important and successful response to globalisation.\nThe success of the Stability and Growth Pact is also reflected in the percentage decrease in total indebtedness and in the annual amount of new debt. We are still far from the finishing line, however, and we now have an opportunity to speed up the process. The economic climate provides a tailwind that can help us to remove structural defects, to step up the liberalisation drive and to rise boldly to the challenges posed by demographic trends. Incurring debt to service debt rather than to invest in the future saddles the young people of our nations with a heavy burden. Incurring debt to service debt means selling our future down the river. We need the annual surplus to reduce the government deficit in every Member State and to increase our scope for future action. May the report give us fresh impetus for the pursuit of these goals.\nDonata Gottardi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having sustainable public finances in the countries of the Union is of vital importance not as an aim in itself, but as a means to implement the European social model, which is characterised by research, investment, innovation and competitiveness, social cohesion, and environmental and energy sustainability.\nThe new, revised Stability and Growth Pact should not be seen as the only instrument for coordinating economic policies in the European Union, but it must be used in conjunction with the integrated growth and employment guidelines and with the goal of political and economic coordination of the euro zone.\nThe more the text we approve results in uniform procedures, common shared parameters and a joint debate on budget projections, the more significant it will be. That does not mean, however, that we want a purely accountancy-based approach. Ensuring that the deficit and public debt are reduced will require the implementation of strict measures, but proactive measures aiming at sustainable economic and social development are also needed.\nI too should like to point out the fact that calling for the Member States to declare an excessive deficit as being nationally unconstitutional is highly debatable, not least from the legal standpoint of the formulation of relations of subsidiarity between the Union and the Member States.\nTo conclude, I think it is important to emphasise what role we want to play, that is to say, to lay the foundations for a sustainable European public finance system aimed at growth.\nZbigniew Krzysztof Ku\u017amiuk\n(PL) Mr President, in my contribution to the debate on the report on public finances in the EMU countries for 2006, I would like to make a few observations.\nFirstly, while it is true that the public finances of the majority of EU countries improved significantly in 2006, I have serious doubts as to whether this is a result of the reform of the Stability and Development Pact as the Commission makes out. In my view it is more likely the result of a good economic climate.\nSecondly, despite these improvements I do not regard the public finance situation in individual Member States as satisfactory. In spite of the good economic climate, only three of the countries in the euro zone returned budget surpluses. Over half of the countries in the zone have a public deficit in excess of 60% of GDP.\nThirdly, I should point out that the state of public finances in the new Member States is better than in the old members, for example, the average public debt in the euro zone was over 63% in the old fifteen, while it does not exceed the 60% threshold in the new twelve.\nAnd fourthly, I would like to state that despite the revision of the Pact, the Commission's favouritism towards the largest Member States has not changed. It continues to tolerate significant deficits, and even public debt among these countries, which contrasts with its strict attitude to the smaller Member States, and in particular the newly accepted members.\nJoe Borg\nMr President, on behalf of Commissioner Almunia, I would like to thank you for this very constructive debate. He sends his apologies for not being here today owing to other unavoidable work engagements.\nAs mentioned by Members, the strong economic recovery currently under way in Europe and in the euro area presents Member States with an opportunity to improve public finances to prepare for future challenges such as the ageing population. As a result of this, the Commission published its report on the long-term sustainability of public finances in October 2006 and emphasises the importance of addressing the sustainability challenge in the context of ageing-related expenditure.\nThe Commission considers the idea of setting a uniform calendar for budgetary procedures across the EU an interesting one. We need, however, to be prudent, since it would need the support of the Member States. Furthermore, its practical implementation would be somewhat complicated. Having said that, last Friday the Ecofin informal meeting dealt with the medium-term review of stability objectives ahead of the Member States' preparation of national budgets. This is an important step towards a more consistent and coordinated way of establishing national budgets.\nPresident\nThank you very much, Commissioner.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote on this item will take place tomorrow, at 12 noon.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nG\u00e1bor Harangoz\u00f3 \nin writing. - The worsening budget deficit in some of the new Member States calls for determined and sustained action to implement, through adjusted convergence programmes, a viable fiscal consolidation strategy. Nevertheless, arbitrariness in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact is likely to reduce incentives for fiscal adjustment in these Member States. This report on Public Finances in EMU 2006 is therefore an opportunity to raise concerns about too rigid an approach when it comes to deal with the management of excessive public deficits. To avoid the regular infringements by Member States facing difficulties in balancing their public finances, the SGP should remain an incentive to induce fiscal adjustment in EU members and thus the revision should avoid the emergence of an increased arbitrariness in the implementation of the SGP.\nOf course, fiscal discipline is a key element in the convergence of the income levels of new Member States with the EU-15. However, increased implementation transparency avoiding rigid and arbitrary procedures, as well as better comparability and reliability of data are necessary not only to facilitate new Member States' entry into the single currency, but also for the prospect of genuinely enhancing growth and competitiveness in these countries.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Future of Professional Football in Europe - Security at Football Matches (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on the reports:\nby Mr Belet on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education on the future of professional football in Europe, and\nBy Mr Catania on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the initiative by the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council decision amending Decision 2002\/348\/JHA concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension [10543\/2006 C6-0240\/2006.\nJ\u00e1n Fige\u013e\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, dear friends of football and sport, I am very pleased to represent the Commission here tonight for the debate on football. I think this constitutes further proof that Parliament is committed to sport. The support you give to our initiatives for sport is of course both welcome and needed.\nI would like to start by congratulating both rapporteurs, Mr Belet and Mr Catania, on the quality of their work. The two reports treat football from different angles, but they both illustrate the nature of sport, its values, its potential for education, for society and for the economy.\nBefore speaking on the more detailed aspects of the reports, let me say a few words on the White Paper. This is going to be an essential piece of work for the future of European sport. The White Paper on Sport is due to be adopted in July this year. This will be the culmination of a long process and should be seen in the light of wider political considerations.\nPlans for a White Paper are driven by the expectations of sport stakeholders. They wish to see their concerns addressed by EU policymakers, including the need to better promote sport and to achieve more legal certainty. The White Paper will cover all sports, and there will be no football-specific approach. The ultimate goal of this initiative is first to mainstream sport into other active policies of the Union in order to improve its use as a tool for EU policy. Secondly, we are aiming to set conditions for improved governance in European sport. The main topics of the White Paper will be the social and economic role of sport, the organisation of sport and governance issues.\nWe will pay great attention to Parliament's reports when preparing the White Paper. The Commission has been following the committee's work very closely and this has already given us very useful input.\nOn Mr Belet's report, the Commission welcomes Parliament's initiative on the future of professional football. We share many of the concerns expressed in the report. The White Paper will address many of the issues which Mr Belet raises, such as social cohesion, protection of young workers, social dialogue and the free movement of workers. As your draft report acknowledges, it is extremely difficult to establish a comprehensive European legal framework recognising the specificity of sport, but EU case law does recognise the specificity of sport and the social and educational role played by football in Europe.\nConcerning the free movement of workers, for example, the Court held that sport is only subject to Community law when it constitutes an economic activity. This covers both professional and amateur athletes, and the Court made an exception to the general rule of non-discrimination for matches which are of purely sporting rather than economic interest, for example, games between national teams.\nOn the issue of home-grown players, the Commission is very sensitive to the measures proposed by UEFA. We could share the idea of promoting the training of young people, as well as sending a signal to the clubs that they should invest in the training of young people and not only in transfers of players. However, we are still considering the question of quotas of locally-trained players, including from the angle of proportionality.\nThe Commission welcomes Parliament's call for intensified social dialogue in the football sector. This is a good mechanism for addressing issues such as mobility, work contracts and working conditions. We have supported the social partners' efforts to develop a more structured dialogue where football has taken the lead at European level.\nThe Commission will continue to support employers' and employees' organisations in the whole sport sector and it will continue its open dialogue with all sport organisations on this issue.\nIn conclusion, the Commission will give due and realistic consideration to your recommendations in line with current EU areas of responsibility. The request for the Commission to draw up an action plan to define the issues to be tackled deserves careful consideration.\nOn Mr Catania's report, I want to underline first that sport can be a positive force for education, culture and social integration. But in recent years we have seen unfortunate and growing signs of violence and hooliganism during sporting events. Two weeks ago sport ministers discussed the issue in Stuttgart. They underlined the need for improved prevention measures, in particular encouraging cooperation between all those involved, including the supporters.\nThe Commission has concentrated on promoting exchanges of experience and good practice among Member States so as to develop better police and judicial cooperation. We have established good working contacts with UEFA and other sporting authorities. In terms of public order and police control, I think everyone was pleased with the excellent results of football matches during the World Cup in Germany last year. It shows that good preparation and coordination with other Member States are very effective in preventing crime and especially hooliganism. The first statistics show that the crime rate did not increase at all during that period.\nCouncil Decision 2002\/348\/EC obliges Member States to establish national football information points. This is a positive step in improving cooperation between police forces and other bodies that combat football-related violence. The Austrian initiative that Mr Catania's report addresses aims at replacing the existing network of information points with a specific network of national football information points. These would have access to the personal data of hooligans or 'risk supporters' identified by the different Member States. The Commission welcomes the report's support for this initiative and takes due note of the concerns expressed on human rights and data protection, to which, as you know, the Commission attaches great importance.\nIn conclusion, it is a positive result that sport is now truly on the agenda at European level. The 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaties is colouring many of our objectives this year, and what a good way it was to celebrate the anniversary with a football match in Manchester two weeks ago. There could be no stronger signal that sport and sporting values are truly appreciated at the highest political level.\nIvo Belet \nrapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the very idea that Europe, the European Union, should have any say in matters relating to sport makes some people's hair stand on end. Their predictable response will always be that the EU has no say in the matter and should, as such, not attempt to do anything in that area either.\nAs we all realise, and as those involved know only too well, this position is wrong. As the Commissioner already mentioned, sport, and certainly professional sport, not least the economic aspects of professional football -which is what this report is about - is affected by European legislation in all kinds of ways. There is interference from the Commission and from the European Court of Justice, and we have, in recent years, had adequate proof of that fact.\nNeedless to say, professional football is big business. This is beyond dispute. It is, however, so much more. It meets important social and educational needs, and this is why we underline in this report the specificity that we simply cannot get round. Specificity of sport is enshrined in the declaration to the Treaty of Nice and in the protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. There is no two ways about it. It is therefore our duty to take this into account when applying EU rules and regulations.\nNobody is asking for exemption measures or so-called group exemptions. What we do ask for, though, is Commission guidelines - not directives, but guidelines, particularly to lift the legal uncertainty that is around at the moment. We want the autonomy of the professional sport to be fully respected. Self-regulation is the central concept in this report, but that does not deny us the right to nudge the trend in a certain direction.\nThe reputation of professional football has in recent months taken a battering in very many EU countries due to all kinds of scandals, something to which there is only one answer: good governance. This is why we demand determination from the administrative bodies of the UEFA, of the football leagues, and of the clubs, in their selection in favour of transparent management.\nA huge number of Members of this House also want more solidarity and a redistribution of resources in football. I do not think it is up to us to redistribute the resources in professional football. It is in the interest of the professional clubs, of the leagues and the federations to take measures to this effect.\nFootball requires competitive even-handedness, for this is something that is now more than ever in the balance. The gap between the big, ever richer clubs and the smaller clubs is widening all the time. This is blindingly obvious. This trend is threatening the future of the sport that is so close to our hearts and I have to say, it also threatens the social and integrating role that sport has.\nThis is why we, as the Commissioner already referred to, and I should like to underline this point once again, remain fully committed to the home-grown rule which the UEFA introduced for locally trained players. Not we, but football bodies themselves should make it compulsory for professional clubs to invest in the training of their own young people as an essential element of the social component. This is why it deserves our unqualified support.\nThe sale of TV rights is a delicate issue, as it involves the key source of income for the professional clubs, but also because it is a national matter, of course. The only thing we ask in this report is for the competent authorities and competent bodies in football to sit round the table to look for a solution that guarantees more solidarity between the large and small clubs. This strikes me as a reasonable and justified request.\nCommissioner, Madam President, we are counting on the Commission, when outlining its White Paper on sport, to very much take into consideration what is in this report and what will hopefully meet with approval tomorrow. We have taken maximum account of the EU's competences in this area, as there is little point in pulling the wool over our own eyes, certainly not when a complex sector such as professional football is involved, in which millions of young people take a direct interest.\nWe are looking forward to an ambitious document from the Commission and I think - indeed, I assume, and you can rest assured - that you, in turn, can count on our loyal support.\nGiusto Catania \nrapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his support for our reports, and would also like to stress the importance of this joint debate, since I believe that the future of football is fundamentally linked to stadium security. For this reason, placing the future of professional football together with security in stadiums is a practical way of developing a debate on the future of sport and football.\nThe Commissioner is right to say that in recent years we have seen constantly recurring displays of violence in the stands, and these have transformed the very nature of the sport: the huge number of incidents of violence, displays of intolerance, and acts of xenophobia and racism are signs of a fundamental change in a sport that is one of the best loved and most supported by Europe's people. Unfortunately, these are not isolated cases but the result of an overall transformation of football, which has now become big business, with clubs quoted on the stock exchange and an astronomical capital turnover. I believe that this factor has significantly contributed to the gradual transformation of sporting events.\nFootball today is very popular and is at the same time a major event, leading telecommunications companies to invest in the acquisition of television rights. I endorse the proposal made by Mr Belet concerning the collective selling of TV rights, which seems to me to be a practical way of preventing the major teams 'filling up' on money at the expense of the small companies.\nThere is another factor which is fundamental to football, represented not only by sporting prowess but above all by the presence of the public. It would be unthinkable to have football games without spectators: in some cases extreme measures have been taken which, in my view, have damaged the spectator nature of the sport. Since the presence of spectators in the stadiums is vital, we must insist that football games are always played in front of a crowd, and this means that appropriate measures need to be taken to ensure that the games are played in perfect calm, without displays of violence or racism.\nThe recent tragic events at the Italian football championship premier league match between Catania and Palermo, which resulted in the death of a policeman, are in my opinion the most serious example of what can happen inside stadiums and of how a fringe group of violent fans often clashes not only with opposing fans but also with the forces of law and order. In recent times we have also witnessed deplorable events involving not only fans but also footballers: often the fights between the players themselves have been the very worst form of education and culture to be seen in European stadiums. Preventive action must therefore be taken to avoid the repetition of similar acts of violence in stadiums. Priority should be given to preventive action when football games are being played, as against repression and the militarisation of stadiums.\nThe Council adopted this decision in 2002, establishing a national information point on football, which functions as a point of contact for the exchange of police information in relation to international football games. The results of this measure have been very positive, as can also be seen from experience in the stadiums and relations between police forces.\nIn recent years the number of supporters going abroad to see games has constantly been on the increase and therefore the Council believes it is necessary for the bodies responsible to step up their cooperation. I think this is an important point: the agencies responsible for monitoring the presence of supporters in the stadiums and obtaining data on the nature of organised supporters groups are undoubtedly a useful tool but they must operate exclusively in accordance with national laws and in compliance with European directives and international agreements on the protection of personal data.\nWe must make sure that the large amount of data collected is not used for investigations by the legal system or for other investigations not connected with football, and certainly not as a method of criminalising all fans. Care must thus be taken when the data is being obtained: I think that otherwise the national agencies might change from being tools for preventing acts of violence in stadiums into tools for social control, liable to act in an indiscriminate manner. I therefore endorse the proposal made by the Council to amend the decision we are discussing.\nWe are anxious to ensure that this decision is implemented in full compliance with the law, to ensure that stadiums are not considered to be a territory outside the law, a sort of free zone. National and international laws must apply in stadiums too, precisely in order to ensure that acts of indiscriminate violence and displays of racism and xenophobia are not repeated.\nJean-Luc Bennahmias \nMr President, we are nonetheless in a rather surprising situation. We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the creation of the European Union, and, if we explained to our fellow citizens that the European Union is no longer concerned for one second with sport, they would be surprised. It was therefore time for the European Union to take up this issue, and to do so as we have done, I believe, in the European Parliament. I should like to thank the main rapporteur, Mr Belet, for the way in which he has worked for six months on this report, a joint piece of work between various committees and between various democratic political groups of this Parliament.\nWe have therefore taken up this issue with the aim, which I believe is shared by this Parliament, to respect both the European 'exception' regarding sport, not least in comparison to the way in which professional sport is managed in the United States, and the various bodies and organisations in charge of professional football: federations, professional leagues, players' associations, agents' groups and so on. I believe that, at this level, this report is useful if we succeed in gaining support for these positions among the various organisations and in thereby enabling them to make this report, on which we are going to vote tomorrow, their own. I believe that our exchanges back and forth with these organisations, which paid an enormous amount of attention to the matter, have been very interesting, and have enabled us to come up with a number of proposals.\nWe therefore welcome, and I think everyone else will do the same, the various recommendations and proposals concerning the training of players, the training of young players and UEFA's efforts in this regard to prevent young players from being sold straightaway and to enable them to play at the clubs under which they have trained. We welcome the recommendation concerning what might be referred to as 'trafficking in young players', whereby hundreds of young African players are used, with there being no plans in place for them afterwards. We welcome the fact that this report points out that immigration laws are made to be complied with, even in the world of professional sport, even in the world of football. We also welcome, as the Commissioner said, the repeated demand for crucial social dialogue. As Mr Belet pointed out, the financial sums at stake, today, in professional football, are exponential - huge - and there is a need, in this regard, for social dialogue, and clearly for regulation and redistribution.\nThere is one criticism, however, which was voiced today, and I am surprised by it. Everyone, including all of the committees, is talking about financial transparency. Today, I heard some of my fellow Members voice the idea that the simple act of saying it was enough. No, the proposal to create an independent organisation - under the auspices of UEFA, perhaps, but independent - would enable us genuinely to move in the direction of financial control and financial transparency. That is the only solution. Repeating it is not enough. It is like saying, on the subject of doping, that we need to combat doping, but without creating any national, European or international body to do so. We must not be hypocritical: we need such a body.\nI see that I have come to the end of my speaking time. I still had many things left to say. I also welcome, of course, the fight against discrimination and the fight against racism, these being subjects that are regularly taken up by the European Parliament and the Commission, as well as by the football world as a whole.\nToine Manders \ndraftsman of the opinion for the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (NL) Madam President, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I am shadow rapporteur of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, but I should like to point out that we started this dossier in the Internal Market Committee to prevent football from disintegrating - which was a real risk at the time - with a possible second Bosman case, namely the Charleroi case.\nI should like to thank the working party, particularly Mr Belet, for their good cooperation, which has now put before us what I see as an even-handed proposal, one that covers all aspects of the professional sport and in which we send a clear warning to all interested parties to do something about the situation that has come about over the years, in which it does seem as if professional sport is above the law until such time as a case is brought before the European Court, and then we speak about an economic entity with social and cultural values. The European rules must, however, be complied with.\nI would therefore ask the Commission whether it shares my view that we leave amateur sports out of the equation, but that professional sport is an entertainment industry which should probably even fall within the Services Directive, and that an internal market should probably eventually be created for these services, for this entertainment industry.\nAfter all, we are not discussing what is happening on the pitch, but outside of it, particularly the financial players around it. Competition at European level reveals very many discrepancies, because there are differences in interpretation. What is this attributable to? Why has an internal market not been established yet and why is every club required to operate within the domestic market in order to be able to compete with each other at European level? As I see it, if the bodies involved refuse to regulate themselves, then politicians should step in.\nWe are now sending a warning without wanting any fresh legislation - certainly not an exception - but a sign that the parties involved should solve their own problems and, if not, then I hope that the Commission will step in and say what should be done.\nGary Titley \nDraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Mr President, the Committee on Legal Affairs would like to remind colleagues that one thing that underpins the European Union is the rule of law. It is the rule of law which has delivered the single market, with all its advantages and some disadvantages, having regard, of course, for the principle of subsidiarity.\nWe recognise that there are items of purely sporting interest, nothing to do with economic interest, which belong to the sporting bodies. We also recognise that there is a difficult dividing line, which is why we welcome the British Presidency's initiative in setting up the independent review.\nBut we would remind colleagues that there are a wide variety of instruments in the EU Treaties that could be use to protect young players, to deal with players' agents, to provide for group exemptions to competition law, and to interpret whether sporting organisations provide services of general economic interest under Article 86 of the EU Treaty. So there is plenty provision for us to take action.\nClearly, what we all want is for football to be successful, for teams to thrive - we support success - and we also want to ensure that clubs like Accrington Stanley are well-catered for and their supporters are able to support them. So I would hope that out of this independent review we can develop a sensible, coherent response.\nThomas Mann\nMr President, my colleague from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Belet, has done an excellent job. His report strikes a balance between the social and economic dimensions of football. I spoke to club managers, players and fans and tabled amendments in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which received widespread support.\nYoung players need to be nurtured from early on by attending high performance centres and by being given plenty of playing practice. That is why I support the UEFA proposal always to have a minimum number of home-grown players in the team. Surely it ought also to be possible, Commissioner Figel', to enshrine this principle in law. I am in favour of professional clubs releasing their players for the national teams and being entitled to compensation if they are injured or absent for weeks at a time. It is time that FIFA and UEFA had a new, joint insurance system. Being named for the national side is extremely stimulating for the players and good for the clubs. Just a moment ago Karlheinz Rumenigge was here in the European Parliament.\nI am a member of a German league club and also of the Friends of Football Group here in the European Parliament. The issue here is fair play in competition between the teams. At present, many clubs have huge debts and yet still receive a licence. Other clubs manage their finances responsibly, but cannot reach optimal strength because of limited funds. Something has to change here. Let us continue to fight together against racism. Last year our resolution received the greatest number of signatures in the history of the European Parliament. Offences must be dealt with consistently, with games played in front of empty stands, points deducted and clubs banned if they are not prepared to take action. When it comes to preventing and eliminating doping there should not be any lazy compromises either.\nWe do not need a European supervisory body to monitor the activities of sovereign football clubs. What is effective in the long run is cooperation. That is why we must safeguard the independence of our clubs and subsidiarity. I have faith in the legality of the decisions made by sports tribunals and in the power of self-regulation in UEFA, FIFA and our national associations.\nGuy Bono\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank the rapporteur, Mr Belet, for having sought to reach a compromise among the various committees and political groups of our Parliament.\nHowever, I should like straightaway to say how hugely disappointed I am. We have reached a compromise between the groups, not least between the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. This compromise was voted on in committee, and here we find, today, that crucial points have been amended, namely the independent regulating body and the legal status of sports companies. This report will not mark the start of a new era for football in Europe, and I deeply regret it. Nevertheless, I hope that it can establish a form of cooperation between UEFA and the European Union with the aim of cleaning up as much as possible the world of football, for, as the UEFA President, Michel Plattini, pointed out, football is a game before a product, a sport before a market and a form of entertainment before a business.\nLadies and gentlemen, the deregulation that resulted from the Bosman ruling must be counterbalanced today by clear rules, in an effort to restore true values to the EU's top sport. The European football authorities do not have all the guarantees necessary to be able to regulate in a truly satisfactory fashion. Aside from their limited legal rights, they are both the judge and the ones being judged. They act as both commercial operator and regulator, functions that are difficult to reconcile.\nOn this point, as I indicated at the start of my speech, it is regrettable that the PPE-DE and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe should not have endorsed my twin proposal, namely the creation of a European legal statute for sports companies and the implementation of an independent body in charge of monitoring the top clubs, the main task of which would be to ensure that the financial, economic and sporting balance of football in Europe is preserved. I hope, however, that the European Commission will take due note of these proposals, which are meant not only as a defence against the current excesses, but also as an instrument for promoting a fair and united European sporting model.\nAt a time when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, Europe must show its citizens that it remains for them not just a vehicle for peace and democracy, but above all a vehicle for protecting them against the excesses of all-out liberalism. It is on this condition alone that Europeans are proud to participate in this great project that is European integration.\nKarin Resetarits\nMr President, Commissioner, Mr Belet, I will start straight away with the thing that has done the most to change professional sport in recent years: money. A professional club's greatest source of revenue is the sale of television rights. The bigger the national television market, the greater the clubs' revenue, budget and buying power. It is no accident that nearly all of the teams playing in the group phase of the Champions League are from large Member States. As in other sectors of the unbridled market economy, this imbalance leads to a rapidly widening gulf between rich and poor. On the one hand there are enterprises worth billions, like Real Madrid: on the other bankrupt clubs like Sturm Graz. That is unsporting and unfair.\nWhat can small Member States do to counter this imbalance? We need new leagues; we need to stop thinking so narrowly in terms of national countries. We need to be more European, including in football. Moreover, I believe that we should not buy and trade home-grown talent, but rather, as is usual in the United States, allocate talented players to clubs by lot. Weaker teams would have more lots and therefore more of a chance of being top clubs. If money alone determines football, then Europe's most popular cultural asset will lose its defining characteristic: its sporting spirit.\nDariusz Maciej Grabowski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, soccer has moved from being a sport and providing entertainment to being a money-making machine and a way of gaining power. It has practically become a new religion. If soccer is not to become a tool of lawlessness and violence, we must change the environment in which it operates - in terms of business and the media - radically and rapidly. I would like to express my gratitude to the author of the report, Mr Ivo Beleta, for raising this important issue, and for pointing out most of the problems and indicating ways of solving them. In my opinion, radical decisions are required to counteract the monopolisation of football by wealthy corporations.\nIn the first place, full transparency is needed as regards the income and expenditure of all clubs, and high penalties should be paid for any breaches.\nSecondly, there need to be limits or caps placed on the increase in spending by the wealthiest clubs over the next few years.\nThirdly, financial and other support is needed for countries, organisations and clubs investing in young people and sports facilities.\nFourthly, there has to be an agreement with FIFA to tackle corruption and crime in football.\nPoland wants to host the European championships in 2012, at which the principle of fair play and healthy competition will triumph.\nIan Hudghton\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, Mr Belet made reference to believing in the autonomy of sport. I agree. The report draws attention to areas where more cooperation or even regulation might be appropriate, but I believe the structure and organisation of the game of football is not one of them. Local, national and international leagues and competitions are best left to the football authorities to organise.\nAround here, when we refer to the term 'national' we tend to mean 'of the Member State. The Member State is, of course, the building block of the European Union, but in football that is not the case. I and my Welsh colleague, Jill Evans, have tabled amendments 28 and 29, which I hope will be adopted tomorrow. A football game which is being played this very evening illustrates why these amendments are important. My footballing nation, Scotland, is playing Italy, the world champions. Our amendments simply make it clear that 'national' in football does not necessarily mean 'Member State', and nothing in this report or in the terminology of this report ought to in any way bring into doubt or undermine the status of the historic footballing nations of Scotland, Wales and England.\nV\u011bra Flasarov\u00e1\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, football is far and away the most popular sport in Europe, and the environment and atmosphere surrounding football have a major influence on young people. This influence is all the stronger as it is spontaneous and not imposed from above.\nIt is therefore important that football is not viewed solely as a environment awash with large amounts of money, an environment conducive to lawbreaking and acts of violence and an environment whose top levels are completely cut off from the amateur leagues that form the foundation of the game. At the same time, the amateur leagues are, I would venture to say, more socially beneficial than the exclusive environment of professional sport, in which business has to a large extent detracted from the original pleasures of the game.\nAlong with rapporteur Mr Belet, I wish to call on the EU to ensure that the customs and habits of professional sport do not influence student and youth football, and that children are not traded on the basis of their talent and performance, as though they were young gladiators. This practice affects the right of children to develop their personalities in an open atmosphere with a broad range of knowledge, and introduces the unforgiving adult world into their upbringing. At the same time, football clubs become less interested in devoting the time and effort to developing their own young players. This in turn has the effect of restricting the large-scale involvement of children in popular sports, and of strengthening selection, which turns a small minority of talent into merchandise while the majority are left on the margins.\nTop-level football influences not only its own players and spectators; it also constitutes a world in which children and young people in particular find their role models. We should therefore try to ensure that football stadiums stop being venues for aggressive behaviour, that xenophobia and racism disappear from football and that the business surrounding football is not - rightly or wrongly - linked to corruption.\nJeffrey Titford\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Mr President, the EU has no competence over sport and nor should it. The Champions League and the G14 clubs across the UK, Spain and Italy, oppose the EU intervention in football broadcasting rights. Bayern Munich is for it; English clubs are against it, yet a UK Sports Minister, Richard Caborn, is here to lobby for the Germans. So much for British interests!\nAmendment 25, until it was sensibly withdrawn, ordered the flying of the EU flag at Champions League and European Championship matches. Had they thought about Switzerland, who will co-host the European finals in 2008? The fact that the Champions League includes Russia, Turkey and Norway? None are in the EU and there is no EU team. The same amendment also demanded that the EU anthem be played at these matches. But 'Ode to Joy' is a complete misnomer to 41% of the population, and 58% of the British population. You know, Schiller wrote 'Ode to Joy' in 1785, and his words 'Oh friends, no more these sounds', may have been controversial then, given that Beethoven was unfortunately already disabled by deafness when he wrote the Ninth Symphony, but they are appropriate today. And, as for 'Do you fall in worship, you millions?', well I can tell you, over 200 million people say 'no'.\nPatrick Gaubert\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as shadow rapporteur for my political group in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur, Mr Catania, with whom we have worked effectively and fruitfully throughout this procedure. Sporting fixtures are there to attract a large, family-oriented public, which legitimately aspires to watch matches in complete peace and security. The fact is, for years and even very recently, certain individuals have been using football grounds for the purposes of staging violent or racist demonstrations. Such abuses are totally unacceptable.\nFootball is the most popular sport in the world. In order to prevent these kinds of incidents, the Member States have had an organised and effective system in place since 2002 to exchange information on the risks represented by certain matches, and especially by certain dangerous supporters. A single, direct point of contact has been designated in each of our Member States. These national 'football' information points meticulously prepare for international matches by improving police cooperation among the services. They therefore need to improve their information exchanges even more and use, for example, standardised forms. These points of contact will thus be able to work in a more structured and more professional fashion.\nI should also like to congratulate Mr Belet on having included in his comprehensive report several paragraphs on the fight against racism. That seems particularly crucial to me, in view of the rise in all forms of intolerance within our society. Football can in fact only continue to play a social and educational role if matches take place without violence.\nLadies and gentlemen, in a few hours' time, Mr Belet, Mr Bennahmias, Mrs Hazan, Mr Bono and myself will submit a written statement on the fight against all forms of trafficking in, and exploitation of, children in football. I call on you to support us in this undertaking and to sign this text as soon as possible.\nPier Antonio Panzeri\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Catania for his report and Mr Belet for the work he has accomplished, which I find balanced even though I too share the view that more could have been done.\nFootball has now taken on a significant major role, and in view of the new challenges that are arising we can no longer imagine that it can be controlled solely through the football bodies. Thus there is a need, which has been accepted by the European Parliament, to take action to ensure more balanced growth in the football sector, seeking to respond to the changes taking place with an up-to-date approach.\nMoreover, as has been said, the ever-growing importance of European football involves, as we can see, consequences of considerable significance in all sectors. We need only think of sponsorship and the value of television rights, marketing and the increasing number of international competitions, which in turn have effects on various sectors, and the new social and cultural problems generated by them. Thus, I would say that this new, ever-growing social dimension of modern football encompasses public behaviour, morality, drug-taking, violence and racism, and even the exploitation of young players.\nThere has been talk of the big teams but very often we miss the real scale of the problem by dwelling too much on the large clubs and not going beyond them, when in fact it is above all in the lower divisions that we need to take greater care than we have done up until now.\nIt is therefore right to recommend that greater regulation be imposed on European football and that this should be connected with European law and the dynamics of the internal market. It is right to implement a more modern form of governance and to try to elevate the social and cultural influence of football in a positive way. The objective that we ought to set ourselves is not so much to invade UEFA's sphere of responsibility and to replace it but to implement policies that contribute to better management of this sphere of activity. We need to be clear, though: the demands for independence emanating from the football bodies must not turn into the idea that each of them can do what it pleases, outside the scope of EU law.\nIf we want, as is our duty, to combat the mistakes and the decline within the world of football, it is important to accomplish this task through collaboration between the political and parliamentary bodies and sporting bodies. Everyone needs to give of their best to achieve this objective.\nLuciana Sbarbati\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too welcome the two reports.\nIt has been said that today football in Europe is all about big business, but it is also true that it ought to be something else too. However, fees in the millions, a lack of transparency, violence arising as a result or a response and racism are a spectacle to which, to a certain degree, we are often becoming inured. This jeopardises the educational role of sport - in this case, football. What we really ought to be doing is reflecting deeply on this role, starting with amateur football and sport as played in schools, where the positive values of competition always go hand in hand with respect for the rules.\nAlthough the EU does not have specific competence in this field, as has already been said, the relationship between football and violence, which is exploding in all its absurdity and often involves the players themselves, means that we all need to get involved. It is our duty to lay down, as we have tried to do, common measures to prevent and repress hooliganism, in cooperation with the football associations, UEFA and police forces, for the safety of all citizens.\nI would say, however, that we must also look at the deeper causes, or subsidiary causes, for which these bodies have up until now not been responsible and which need to be identified and addressed.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMr President, I would like to thank Mr Belet for the way he has gone about writing this report. I do fundamentally disagree with him in some areas, and indeed the massive power-grab that this report is asking for in its recitals, but I welcome the professional way he has conducted himself in writing the report.\nYes, there are problems in football, but none that we European politicians cannot make a lot worse. Yes, there are small elements of people who use football matches as an excuse to be violent, and they should be arrested and stopped from attending. But, as many Rangers fans from Glasgow in Scotland will tell you, policing at international fixtures needs to be friendly and sensible, rather than hostile and over the top. Giving EU competence in this matter to us will not stop this violence, and we do not need it to actually swap best practice.\nThis report is a good example of why we should stand back and be sensible. Sport is best governed by those who participate in it. Many of this report's recommendations are quite sensible, but we are politicians and we simply cannot resist tinkering where we have no right. Just look at the now withdrawn amendment 25; listen to many of the contributions in this debate and you will see why.\nMy theory is that by demanding these new powers we will try and correct problems that do not really exist, and try and change and harmonise the very different sporting models in football that exist across the continent at the moment.\nAs someone who has refereed at the lowest level of the game for 25 years, and having heard much of the debate on this subject over my time in this Parliament, I think we are in great danger here of forgetting that professional football clubs - the ones we are speaking about tonight - are uniquely connected to the millions of amateurs who run out on pitches across Europe every weekend, and we could easily damage the solidarity people here wish to promote and protect by our quite ignorant plea for interference.\nChrista Prets\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I should also like to thank Mr Belet for his initiative and cooperation. I hope that we can keep the compromises that we have worked out and that we are not going to change a great deal at the last minute and then have to go to certain people on bended knee after all.\nIn this report we have considered and properly addressed the problems facing football today. What we do not want is more regulation at EU level. Instead we want legal clarification of the existing rules to prevent sensible football regulations being annulled. The idea that henceforth it will only be possible to settle any problems before the European Court of Justice, for example, is absurd. We did not want to do battle with the big clubs either, or attack the traditional clubs, but rather fight for a fair balance between small and big clubs. The award of licences might be an example here. In addition, considerably more attention needs to be paid to young players than has been the case thus far.\nSharon Bowles\nMr President, Mr Belet's report is not about the EU taking over football, and the ALDE Group has been at the forefront of tabling amendments to make that clearer. However, there is nothing wrong with it assisting in the sharing of best practice.\nThere are aspects, such as the business of football covered by European legislation, which are taken care of within the corresponding business or other legislation and do not need special rules.\nFootball also has a social or cultural dimension. However, the closest links are those forged within the local communities. That is where fans go week in, week out to see games and it is where many clubs, such as Reading Football Club in my own region, invest in football in community projects. It is those local links which are why national associations, leagues and clubs are best placed to make the right decisions within a self-regulatory framework and I believe, with the appropriate amendments, that is what this report says.\nLuis Herrero-Tejedor\n(ES) Mr President, as is customary, though this time it is well-deserved, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Belet, for his ability to hold dialogue with all of the groups and all of the Members.\nHe himself reminded us at the beginning of this debate that we must not lose sight of the fact that this is a report on professional football, thereby adding a component that I believe to be crucial; I would also like to stress that we are dealing with an own-initiative report. That is to say that this is the first time that the European Parliament has focussed on football, sending out the message that it takes an interest in the phenomenon of football. That means that we must make our principal causes for concern very clear.\nWhen it comes to professional football, we must essentially discuss professional football clubs and spectators. Without those two elements, the problem that we wish to tackle would not exist. I therefore entirely agree with Mr Heaton-Harris's final comment: there is no place for any speculation that does not take account of the crucial role of the actual football clubs.\nIf we send spectators the message, 'Look, the European Parliament wants to meddle in the world of football in order to make the spectacle of football less spectacular'; if we are going to say to the big clubs, the ones that have real customers, real social demand, 'Look, for the sake of the principle of solidarity, your income is going to be restricted, you are not going to be able to sign up the big players and you are not going to be able to have those structures. We are going to make football less spectacular', I can assure you, ladies and gentleman, that football fans - and there are many of us sitting here - will be astounded.\nThey would say to us, 'so you are concerned about football and you are sending out the message that you are going to make the spectacle less attractive by working against the big football clubs'. That is absurd. I would therefore ask, ladies and gentlemen, that we take that very much into account when it comes to dealing properly with the audiovisual rights of football clubs.\nEmine Bozkurt\n(NL) Mr President, whilst Europe should not, where paid football is concerned, be the referee, it should be more than a mere spectator. While we should not claim any competences where we do not have them, matters such as internal market rules, the fight against racism and cross-border fraud do indeed fall within the EU's remit. I am therefore in favour of paragraph 8, but against an independent supervisory body. Europe is no referee and should not stick its nose in matters which the football world is very capable of handling itself.\nI am indebted to Mr Belet for the enormous support in his report for the fight against racism in football. Last year, I took the initiative for a written declaration on this subject matter, something to which the report makes explicit reference. With record support, this became an official resolution, the proposed measures of which were adopted as stricter sanctions by the UEFA and FIFA. This excellent way of cooperating should be extended beyond the area of football.\nManolis Mavrommatis\n(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Ivo Belet and Mr Giusto Catania on the important outcome of their report on the future of professional football in the European Union. More importantly, however, I should like to congratulate Ivo Belet on the overall effort to focus the interest of five committees and a large number of agencies and public figures in sports and the economy. It is illustrative of the importance and dynamism which football exerts, magnetising millions of sports-loving politicians - and not only politicians - throughout the world.\nWhen the Bosman case hit the headlines in 1995, no one expected that the European Union would make the first major inroad into sports for the benefit of the workers and, above all, of footballers. Now, 12 years later, we have an own initiative report which lays new foundations with prospects commensurate with the values of the European Union and of more popular sport, or rather football.\nThe amendments voted by all the committees and the proposals to the Committee on Culture, Education, Media, Sports and Multilingualism and the Council pave the way for a fast proposal to create a legal framework for sports, regardless of if or when the Constitutional Treaty is passed, which makes such provision.\nThese are the reasons why the European Parliament should support the report on football, because it is universally accepted that this would mean a change of positions and status quo predicated on protecting sport from hooliganism, racism and xenophobia, drug use and equal treatment for small and big clubs in the management of Community rights and in highlighting talent without engaging in the trade of importing minors from third countries.\nJoseph Muscat\nMr President, I first wish to join my colleagues in thanking Mr Belet for the wonderful job he has done. Obviously, we all have our minor or major reservations on the text submitted, but he has made a good job of coordinating the work of all the committees.\nI should also like to stress another point: in this area we are lucky to have a trusted partner in UEFA. The way that organisation has worked in the past has shown that we can trust it to deliver on the goods it talks about regularly. Therefore we have a partner we can rely on.\nI will focus on only one sector, which is that of television rights. The digital era should be about more choice for consumers. Unfortunately, television viewers in many of our Member States are faced with less choice and have to pay for things they used to get for free before. With our report we are sending a clear signal to the authorities that we need to strike a balance between pay TV and free-to-air TV.\nGiuseppe Castiglione\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate and thank Mr Catania and Mr Belet for the report which they have presented to this Parliament.\nSport, and football in particular, is an inalienable part of European cultural identity, plays an undoubted social function and can be a useful tool in combating discrimination, racism, intolerance and violence. However, this positive function and role is today being increasingly compromised by those who want to make games in stadiums into yet another setting for violence and terror. Safety in the stadiums should therefore be our priority and the key word should be prevention.\nFor this reason I fully agree with the call made in the Belet report for all the Member States to introduce cooperation mechanisms between clubs, supporters' clubs and police forces, to combat the violence, hooliganism and delinquency which we see more and more, including during the games. I also agree on the need to step up sanctions against any display of racism or xenophobia in stadiums and for UEFA and other bodies to apply appropriate disciplinary measures to anyone responsible for any such behaviour.\nA preventative measure that is equally fundamental, however, is to reinforce and professionalise cooperation and the exchange of information between national bodies when international matches take place. It is also crucial to monitor the presence in the stadiums of fans who may represent a threat to public order and to obtain data on the nature of supporters' clubs, which is a crucial element for the host country to be able to successfully assess the risk connected with the sporting event and, in this way, prevent disturbances in the public eye.\nIt is certainly necessary to avoid abuse in monitoring all citizens and to respect the privacy and confidentiality of personal data, but we must not protect some people's privacy at the expense of the safety of everyone. Nor must this become a pretext for allowing the uncontrolled entry of genuine delinquents, on the grounds of decriminalising real offences solely because they were committed in the context of a sporting event.\nWe must create a fair balance, weighing opposing requirements against each other. This balance can only be found, however, while respecting individual freedom and protecting the rights of every person, and most of all the right to safety, including the right to go to a stadium and watch sport in peace.\nRichard Corbett\nMr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteurs and especially Mr Belet, with whom I served on the Independent Review of European Football established by the Council last year.\nFootball has a number of problems. One of these is the linkage of wealth and sporting success and the concentration of both in the hands of an increasingly small number of clubs in almost every league across the whole of Europe. However, measures to counter this trend taken by the football authorities - such as the home-grown players scheme or the obligation to sell TV rights collectively with redistribution to all clubs - could risk being found to be incompatible with European law. I was alarmed to hear Commissioner Fige\u013e say that the Commission was still thinking about this and had not yet reached a decision. That is why we need the White Paper to recognise if not derogations then at least sympathetic interpretations of EU law that recognise the specificity of sport. That is why the contributions of Mr Titford and Mr Heaton-Harris are so misplaced: they are aimed at alarming the British tabloids. It is nonsense to say that this is a power grab by the European Union: it is a loosening of existing EU legal requirements that were initially drawn up for other purposes. That is what is needed. To portray it in the complete opposite way of what is intended is completely disingenuous.\nJacek Protasiewicz\n. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating both rapporteurs, but Ivo Beleta in particular, on the results of the work they have undertaken. The report that Mr Beleta prepared covers all the key elements of European soccer, ranging from its legal context, management, competition, the internal market and social issues, to combating criminal behaviour such as racism or doping, as well as combating corruption at football events.\nOn the face of it it appears to be an easy job, because football is a sport that arouses great passions. The fact that this House is not immune to these strong emotions can be seen in the number of amendments the rapporteur had to take in his stride. One of these proved particularly important, as it concerned the sale of the broadcasting rights to football matches. In earlier discussions I supported a collective system, which would guarantee the equitable distribution of the proceeds of broadcasting, and provide a better competitive balance and the rivalry that sport needs. Now, I declare my support for the oral amendment that has been proposed by the rapporteur.\nAs a member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I would also like to express my gratitude for the fact that the report included employment issues concerning the contracts signed by professional players with clubs, the legal regulation of football agents and the transactions they make and education and training for young footballers with guarantees that the best will find places in club teams.\nI am convinced that football can provide the basis for development and self-fulfilment, which is why I am pleased by the points included in this report which talk about the need to support clubs that provide young people with the right conditions both for training and for learning.\nFinally, I would like to point out that the field of sport, including soccer, has become an area where the free movement of workers is truly taking place across the whole European Union and I hope that this will also soon be the case in other sections of the European Union's labour market.\nMaria Badia i Cutchet\n(ES) I too would like to thank the rapporteur, above all, for the spirit of cooperation he has shown in the drawing up of this report, a report on the future of professional football, which is not just important for football, since it deals with problems that have recently been increasing throughout the world of sport: violence at sports grounds, racist acts, doping, lack of financial transparency, etc.\nI would like to focus on two issues: firstly, the increasing economic importance of football, which has led to an increase in the value of television rights. In my view, it is important that the report has taken up the concern about the system of income resulting from sales of those rights, which can cause a competitive imbalance amongst the different clubs, although I regret - and this is something that I believe is missing from the report - that account has not been taken of the fact that this income also depends on the club's impact on the worldwide audience, not just the national broadcasting market, nor that there is some redistribution of resources resulting from the sale of the broadcasting rights of national leagues amongst clubs.\nFurthermore, I am pleased that the report takes account of the European Union's different national football associations, regardless of whether they are part of government sports structures or federations recognised by the Member States.\nFinally, I hope that the Commission will take account of these suggestions from the European Parliament when drawing up its White Paper on sport.\nVasco Gra\u00e7a Moura\n(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, mirroring the right of every citizen to access to justice, pursuant to any of the constitutions of the Member States, Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines that right for people whose rights and freedoms guaranteed under Union law have been violated.\nThe significance of these precepts is obvious: there is neither the jurisdiction nor any legal pact that can deprive anyone of their fundamental right to access to justice, although the exercise of those precepts can, in certain situations, be applied to what, in forensic terms, is known as a 'plea of lack of incompetence'. Nevertheless, such exceptions must be recognised by an independent and impartial court, previously established by law, as stated in the aforementioned Article 47, this being a vital prerequisite to the exercise of its own competence. For this reason, access to justice for a natural or legal person must never involve any form of disciplinary infringement.\nThe exercise of a right recognised by all constitutions and the European Charter must not result in an offence of any kind under the law. That being the case, the Belet report enshrines the correct principle that access to justice, even when not justified in sporting terms, must not be penalised by disciplinary measures. In this regard, I condemn FIFA's arbitrary decisions.\nThe vote on this principle will not only contribute towards making sport more transparent but will also strengthen the major principles on which the rule of law is based.\nMario Mantovani\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Belet, for his contribution to the report on the future of professional football in Europe.\nIn my view, Europe is going through a period of particular uncertainty and is experiencing a stage of reflection. This can also be seen in a human dimension that is very important for European citizens, which is sport in general and football in particular, because of their educational function and the role they play in social and cultural integration and also in combating discrimination.\nThis integration process was caused in part by the positive effects produced by the Bosman ruling, which in 1995 set out to create freedom of movement for football players. In this context it should, however, be pointed out that professional football constitutes an economic activity recognised by Article 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.\nOn the financial level the integration referred to has not been fully implemented, partly because of distortions in competition on the football market, caused by differing tax systems in the various countries of the Union. Thus, in some countries taxation is advantageous, allowing their clubs to pay footballers quite a lot more than the payments that other clubs' budgets can withstand.\nFinally, we should not neglect to highlight, again with regard to football, that the proposal for Community harmonisation in the allocation of television rights is not a real priority. This is because of the historical, cultural and above all market differences between the various European Union countries, as well as the conflict with the principle of subsidiarity as a basic principle that ought to be respected.\nMr President, five years ago in this Chamber I put forward the need for a European sports agency. I believe that today it is more necessary than ever.\nJ\u00e1n Fige\u013e\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, I thank both rapporteurs and all Members who took the floor, because many interesting points were raised. Tomorrow you will have to decide on the precise content of the report, but much of what you said can be used as input not only for further discussions but also for work in favour of football and sport and Europe as a Community.\nOne of the important points is, as Mr Belet said, to ask the relevant authorities to sit around the table and seek solutions. One of the messages is to work together. We have had close and regular dialogue for many years with bodies like UEFA and FIFA. The European Sport Review was discussed, as it continues to be now.\nI mentioned at the end of my introductory remarks the very interesting event that took place recently in Manchester. I have heard the divided opinions of British colleagues. Football is synonymous with the UK. We can convey many messages about the importance of cooperation for the sake and good health of football.\nIn football, Europe is a superpower. I do not want to speak about geopolitics, but I have attended international debates where it has often been said, mainly by African countries, that this dominance damages international relations and the sport. The Africans have been very critical of the Europeans. We should respond with clarity and credibility.\nThere is a professional but also an amateur element. This is a very important pyramid for football and sport, where both elements and the pyramid as a whole are important. Money is not the most important thing, because, if it were, then the whole pyramid would be turned upside down and that would be detrimental.\nFor example, last year we agreed with FIFA to support African engagement, via children's football, to promote sport and integration. This is part of the preparations for the Football World Cup in South Africa in 2010.\nTwo weeks ago, we met with sports ministers in Stuttgart. There were two negative topics in the debate: violence and doping. These issues were also mentioned in your report. The ministers agreed to continue work on the establishment of a European network of anti-doping agencies, which is one of the contributions to ensuring the transparency and credibility of our actions. Violence was also discussed. We will organise a conference on sport and hooliganism in November with the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.\nWe also spoke about the economy and sport and social inclusion via sport. For example, we agreed to produce more specific and more reliable data on the economics of sport to see how it contributes to the job market and growth in our countries. This is very important.\nThe remaining points for the Commission and in the coming White Paper on sport are the following key words, which are a kind of mosaic for our relations in sport: specificity, subsidiarity, autonomy and, of course, diversity - which is so visible and important in not only culture but also sport, transparency, rules-based activities and relations. However, all that must be implemented within the EU legal framework, not outside, which you firmly support.\nIn conclusion, we are now in the process of consultation on the White Paper. As I have said, once these reports are adopted tomorrow, they will help in this preparatory work. We have now received 670 contributions and more than 200 of these are collective, i.e. on behalf of associations and federations. Therefore, we need work together to get it right for the sake and credibility of Europe, which also has broader international responsibility in sport.\nEurope is a cradle of many disciplines, including football and the Olympic ideal and ideas, and we have to promote the values of these traditions and activities in a larger area of European cooperation and internationally.\nI should like to thank all Members of the European Parliament.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00 a.m.\nWritten statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)\nAlessandro Battilocchio \nin writing. - (IT) Football is deeply rooted in European identity and culture. Particularly, but not exclusively, for young people, it constitutes a vital instrument of social cohesion, informal education and economic and regional development. Recently, however, legal scandals, rigged championships, violence, racism, multi-million transfer fees and the way financial interests have prevailed over sportsmanship have only served to divert football from its original spirit and to alienate people from football.\nIt is therefore important for the EU to act to clean up a sector in which we are world leaders. As well as being a form of cultural expression, this sector can also continue to be a source of economic growth, jobs and social cohesion. I therefore hope that football, and sport in general, will in future receive the assistance needed to regulate the many interests at play. Above all, I hope that by supporting activities, meetings and events at local and European levels (and particularly by promoting access for young people, including disadvantaged youth), it will be possible to develop and protect the smaller sports and clubs that, throughout Europe, are an important tool for the civic education of our citizens.\nIles Braghetto\nin writing. - (IT) I would like to express my appreciation for and agreement with the work accomplished by the rapporteur. The issue of football, and sport in general, is an expression of a team spirit and a playing culture typical of western civilisation. I therefore believe that the right approach lies not in laying down new laws but in pushing the world of football towards forms of self-regulation that can encompass all those directly concerned - all participants, including football supporters.\nLegal certainty should be sought by means of guidelines guaranteeing cooperation and solidarity among all stakeholders in sporting events. I would particularly like to emphasise the need to encourage education of young people, the application of severe disciplinary measures to combat violence in stadiums and racism, the involvement of supporters in the management of football, the identification of a transparent system for the control of costs, fair competition between the clubs, and insurance protection for players.\nFor all these reasons, the adoption by the European Commission of the White Paper on the role of sport in Europe is eagerly awaited, and the drafting of an action plan for European sport in general and football in particular would be extremely welcome.\nG\u00e1bor Harangoz\u00f3\n, in writing. - Due to the increased occurrence of relatively important incidents within the framework of football matches, one can only welcome the Austrian initiative to amend the regulation concerning security in connection with football matches. The assessment of the international police cooperation following the European Championships in 2004 highlighted clearly that it is necessary to increase the international information sharing on risk supporters. However, it is important that, as stressed by our rapporteur Giusto Catania, the exchange of personal data should made in accordance with the domestic and international laws applicable and should not be used for other purposes. Due to the constantly growing number of supporters travelling to matches abroad, strengthened cooperation between the national football information points and a genuine international dimension is required. By preventing and controlling violence and disturbances in connection with football matches, through international exchange of information allowing every Member State to make efficient risk assessments, the aim should be to help reaffirm the moral and educational values of football and even sport in general.\nL\u00edvia J\u00e1r\u00f3ka \nIvo Belet's report on the future of professional football in Europe is a very important position statement. It is clear to all of us that football plays a variety of roles in Europe, and that it has a considerable social and cultural function; this popular game makes it possible for people to meet and get to know each other's views, and it also promotes social participation.\nRacism and xenophobia are social problems that are being expressed ever more strongly not only in our daily lives but in the world of football as well. From week to week, we have been able to witness firsthand serious racist incidents at football matches, and, in Central and Eastern Europe, intensifying anti-Roma sentiments. This sport, which enjoys exceptional popularity, is today closely associated with hooliganism and racist-motivated hate speech.\nRacism and xenophobia are widely present in football stadiums. In Central and Eastern Europe, the pitches resound with anti-Roma outbursts, regardless of whether a team with Roma supporters and patrons is playing\nThe popularity of the game must make for opportunities for the struggle against racism, for raising awareness and setting an example. The European Commission and the governments of the Member States must take part, along with the football clubs, in the struggle against the racial hatred manifested on sports pitches. More serious sanctions than what we have seen hitherto must be imposed for any racist-motivated incident in football; furthermore, it is indispensable that both UEFA and the national leagues apply the disciplinary rules in a strict and systematic manner.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-10":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nDaniel Stro\u017e  \n(in writing). - (CS) It can be reasonably assumed that the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, as recommended for second reading (Council common position), will contribute towards reinforcing legal security of both natural persons and legal entities within the Member States. It is well-known that the service of the above documents is a serious issue, with a significant impact on both the process of justice and civil and commercial relations. I believe that the recommendation of the European Parliament is in line with the effort to produce high-quality legislation at Community level.\nDaniel Stro\u017e  \nIn relation to the agreements between the EC and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on readmission and the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas which are to be approved by the European Parliament, I believe that insofar as these agreements - and similar agreements with the Western Balkan countries - have a significance in terms of generally strengthening the rule of law and fighting against crime, issues related to illegal migration should be resolved first of all by economic and political means. In addition, I would like to underline another important factor mentioned in the relevant reports which is that the conclusion of these agreements will imply a considerable financial burden for Macedonia and other Western Balkan countries. Taking into account the economic situation in these states it is essential that the Community provide appropriate and effective assistance, in particular financial.\nErik Meijer  \nin writing. - (NL) I remember in the early '60s there were reciprocal visa requirements for inhabitants of the countries of the then European Community and those of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Shortly after that those visa requirements were abolished.\nThis meant that the populations of the seven countries that together still made up Yugoslavia at that time were free to travel throughout much of Europe. Only for EU Member State Slovenia and candidate country Croatia has that not changed. The inhabitants of all the other territories, including candidate country Macedonia, have been cut off from the EU Member States since 1992. The young generation that has grown up since then has hardly been able to go outside their own borders. At the embassies of the EU countries in the Macedonian capital Skopje, for instance, you find large signs listing a large number of strict obligations. Only criminals can easily meet them, but students, researchers and journalists cannot.\nI support the improved access for those groups from 2008 and the lowering of the visa fee to EUR 35. Unlike some other members of my Group, I do not see the introduction of biometric registration as a reason to reject this improvement. I regret the conditional sale with the readmission policy, which does not adequately guarantee the safety of the refugees concerned.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund to help the populations of Germany and France (La R\u00e9union) who were the victims of natural disasters in January and February respectively proves, despite the delay, the relevance and importance of this Fund in assisting Member States.\nBearing in mind the deadlock in the Council on a decision on the Commission proposal to improve this Fund, we would reiterate that the continued eligibility of regional disasters must be defended. The European Parliament has previously confirmed that 'the EUSF should continue to enable action to be taken in the case of disasters which, although significant, do not achieve the minimum level required and that assistance may also be provided in special circumstances in cases where most of the population in a specific region has been affected by a disaster which will have serious, long-term effects on their living conditions'.\nIt is also essential to recognise the particular characteristics of Mediterranean natural disasters, such as droughts and fires - particularly in terms of time limits and eligible actions - and the possibility of higher levels of financial assistance for 'cohesion' countries and 'convergence' regions in the event of a disaster. The creation of an EU agricultural disaster fund must also be assessed.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nin writing. - (FR) Mrs Castex voted for the Susta report on the Protocol amending the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).\nFor French Members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the agreement hereby obtained, which will allow countries to produce generic drugs and export them to poor developing nations with no capability of producing these medicines themselves, constitutes an important step forwards.\nFor French Members of the Socialist Group, this report makes a positive contribution to resolving a public health problem that is clearly a matter of serious concern.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the protocol amending the agreement on TRIPS and Access to Medicines because I strongly believe the EU should be a key actor in the promotion of public health and access to medicines to all in the third world. This protocol is a step in the right direction.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The costs associated with introducing 'intellectual property' protection standards in the pharmaceutical sector in 'developing countries' have been known about for a long time.\nThe dramatic and unacceptable situation caused in these countries by the application of 'intellectual property rights' in the area of health, particularly in the fight against diseases such as malaria, HIV\/AIDS and tuberculosis, has been highlighted and warned about for a long time.\nWe therefore feel that this report represents an opportunity lost by the majority of this House, within the scope of its powers, to assume a humanist position and to clearly fight for a policy which could bring an end to intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector.\nHiding behind the idea that a negotiation of the Protocol seems very difficult, the majority of this House have signed a blank cheque to the Council because such vague recommendations can only cause the current situation to continue, creating financial and legal obstacles which will prevent those countries with fewer resources from being able to access the advances made in science and technology in this field.\nWe abhor the fact that it is particularly the pharmaceutical multinationals that will gain through this inhumane policy, by maintaining their fabulous profits at the cost of many lives.\nRichard Corbett\nMadam President, following the vote, Parliament has decided to have both a written verbatim record of its sessions and an audiovisual record of its sessions. This obviously has budgetary implications and I would urge the Bureau to examine the situation, enact the necessary changes to the budget or come up with a new proposal if it wishes the committee to re-examine this matter.\nI rather suspect, given the very large majority of the House on this issue, that the will of Parliament is rather clear, so I think it is rather the first course of action that will have to be taken.\nGraham Booth  \nin writing. - Keeping a record of all debates and making them available to the public could help Euro-scepticism. However this will also allow the EU to boast of greater transparency when in fact it will in reality do little to enhance democracy, because the European Parliament cannot initiate legislation and can be ignored by the European Commission. In the EU the unelected Commission initiate EU legislation and they offer no transparency at all.\nThe opportunity for a week to make corrections to speeches (amendment 4) was well intended and would protect MEPs from errors, but up to date news on the EU could potentially be buried by a week's delay, hindering the free press in informing the public. Therefore I voted against the report\nDerek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - Keeping a record of all debates and making them available to the public could help Euro-scepticism. However this will also allow the EU to boast of greater transparency when in fact it will in reality do little to enhance democracy because the European Parliament cannot initiate legislation and can be ignored by the European Commission. In the EU the unelected Commission initiate EU legislation and they offer no transparency at all.\nI do not support the opportunity to make corrections to speeches (amendment 4) the verbatim report should be as spoken. I make mistakes as much as anyone. Up to date news on the EU could potentially be buried by a week's delay, hindering the free press in informing the public. A separate note by way of explanation might be acceptable. Therefore I voted against the report.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The Corbett report recommends that, in order to save about EUR 10 million a year, we should no longer have the verbatim reports of proceedings in this Parliament translated into all the official languages. Access to the debates in each language would then only be guaranteed by way of the audiovisual recordings available on the internet, though individual Members of Parliament would be able to request the translation of certain extracts.\nHowever, not everyone in Europe has broadband internet access and, moreover, it has been suggested that requests by Members for translations should be restricted to some thirty pages a year. What Mr Corbett is proposing is therefore to limit the access of European citizens to the work of those whom they have elected to represent them and to defend their interests within the European Union. This is unacceptable. It is all the more unacceptable because at the same time the same institution is spending EUR 100 million a year on its own propaganda. To say nothing of the Commission, which spends more than EUR 200 million on vital activities such as the large-scale broadcasting of pornographic internet videos that are supposed to be promoting European cinema.\nFortunately, good sense - or rather the mortal fear of the electorate - has prevailed among most of our colleagues and multilingualism has been preserved.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) We firmly reject the report's proposal that oral contributions should appear only in their original language in the verbatim report.\nThe European Parliament is trying to make a big thing of the fact that speakers are speaking to the whole of Europe as spokespersons for their European groups, but at the same time we are going to refuse subsequent access to their statements and restrict availability by cutting back on translations into different languages.\nIf we are to have a democratically functioning EU, we must be prepared to pay for it. An organisation that pours out more than SEK 360 billion on a protectionist agricultural policy must be able to pay SEK 90 million to show respect for the EU's citizens.\nHowever, if the translation costs are deemed to be insupportable in future, the minimum must be that the verbatim report contains the speaker's original language and an English translation.\nPatrick Louis  \nin writing. - (FR) The French Members of the Independence and Democracy Group voted against the Corbett report on the amendment of Rule 173 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament which seeks to abolish the full and systematic translation of parliamentary debates.\nThe idea behind publishing the debates, which applies to judicial proceedings and political deliberations alike, is one of the fundamental principles of democracy.\nPublication helps to reduce ideological bias, arbitrariness, cronyism and dirty tricks. This of course is based on the assumption that all have access in their own language to the full published proceedings by ensuring that the same words do indeed express the same notions for everyone.\nWho among the peoples of Europe would be capable of recounting and understanding a debate when faced with a hotchpotch version of it in twenty languages?\nIt would probably be the same as someone trying to understand the so-called 'simplified' treaty and attempting to replace the 400 new clauses contained in the existing treaties, since here too, apparently, no consolidation version has been made available during the ratification process.\nFaced with increasing reticence from the inhabitants of its Member States, the European Union seems to be capable of displaying nothing but obfuscation, falsification and concealment.\nJules Maaten  \nin writing. - (NL) The decision of the Secretariat of Parliament to no longer report the debates in plenary in every language went unnoticed in 2006. Parliament has now reversed this decision. I agree that too much time and money is spent on translating debates and documents into the 23 official languages of our Union. It is a pity that no compromise solution was put to us, in which the debates could be translated into English and French, so that the proceedings would still be available in written form in addition to the audiovisual data.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) Multilingualism is much more than an expression of the cultural diversity of the European Union. In an organisation of sovereign and independent states which have joined together as a means of ensuring, through cooperation, the best advantages for their citizens without having at any stage waived their status as free and sovereign states, multilingualism is the recognition of the relationship of equality between all the members.\nThis reason alone would suffice for us to defend the continuation of this multilingualism in the functioning of the Community institutions. However, other arguments may be added to this. Giving up multilingual internal communication potentially means reducing the possibility for political action by Members of the European Parliament who are fully entitled to express themselves in their mother tongue. Furthermore, if we minimise multilingualism in our external communications, we may end up distancing an institution which expends a great deal of energy trying to bring the EU closer to its citizens.\nFinally, there is a counter economic argument to the economic argument made: the linguistic diversity of the European people and the mastery of numerous languages has to be a competitive advantage, not a cost.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the Corbett report on the amendment of Rule 173 relating to the verbatim report of proceedings, even though I regret the adoption of a whole series of amendments recommending the verbatim translation of the reports into all the official languages.\nTo those hard-line advocates of multilingualism I would say, somewhat euphemistically, that it is a fiction to claim that, without this extension to the translation process, the European Parliament would be the only parliamentary assembly in the world not to have all its proceedings and debates translated in hardcopy into all the relevant languages. This is a fiction to the extent that it has been agreed that not only will the multilingual version be retained but the simultaneous translation into all the official languages should also be made available, on request, to all the Members of the House as well as to the public at large. This is the really essential part, it seems to me.\nFinally, I regret that Parliament has been unwilling to adopt a more contemporary approach as far as access to the documents is concerned: I say yes, a thousand times yes to multilingualism. However, I shall continue to oppose the so-called defence of linguistic diversity when this is used as an excuse by those who support the status quo and openly oppose change.\nMarianne Thyssen  \nin writing. - (NL) I voted against the proposal in the Corbett report and I did so for the same reasons that I have previously opposed the scrapping of the budget for translating the verbatim report of our sessions in this House.\nIn a parliament, the spoken word is sacrosanct. What we say is not just an item on the day's news if we are lucky, it is part of the democratic legislative process. Making this accessible in the official European languages is not a luxury. Translation is politically necessary for a proper archiving system which after all serves to allow open access to information.\nWe have to bear the consequences of our fundamental decision to choose multilingualism and not let it surreptitiously crumble away. A parliament that has self-respect does not ditch its traditional archiving system. If we need to economise, we would do better to choose different areas of the budget. Anyway, I stick to my view that our insistence on multilingualism is a necessary form of respect for the diverse cultures and languages in the EU and a blessing for democracy.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this report, which advocates the establishment of a European Statistical Governance Advisory Board in response to a Commission proposal to improve the production of EU-wide statistics.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this uncontroversial report, proposing the establishment of a European Advisory Committee on Community Statistical Information Policy. The amendments Parliament also adopted will ensure the Committee's efficiency, and affect its name and composition.\nRoberta Alma Anastase\n(RO) Today's vote on Mr. Mantovani's report is important due to the stimulus it gives to the European policy in the field of lifelong education.\nExamining the current situation in this field and its correlation with the labour market, the Mantovani report proves to us, one more time, the existence of a reality we have lived for many years, but which has not been followed by a firm and coherent policy that could cope with its challenges. Therefore, I believe it is important to implement the new proposals as soon as possible. In fact, I would like to point out the importance of recognizing and promoting education for tolerance on the entire European Union territory. This is the only way in which mobility on the labour market will not generate socially excluded groups, whose behaviour becomes deviant sooner or later.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nin writing. - (FR) Mrs Castex voted for the Mantovani report on the establishment of a European Qualifications Framework.\nThis French Member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament welcomes the future introduction of the European Qualifications Framework, which will facilitate transnational mobility for workers and learners, while at the same time meeting the requirements of the labour market by way of a common reference point for the transposition of qualification levels.\nAccording to the proposal all qualifications, from the end of compulsory education to the highest levels of university teaching and professional training (the Commission's initial document only concerned general educational qualifications), should be classified according to one of eight reference levels based on knowledge, ability and acquired skills.\nMrs Castex believes that the EQF, as a tool for comparing, translating and converting the qualifications of one Member State to those of another, will respect the diversity of the certification systems and the richness of the qualifications that exist in the European Union. It is a tool that will also facilitate greater mobility for the citizens of Europe.\nIt is now up to the Member States to set about the massive task of classifying the reference levels required for the EQF, otherwise the European Qualifications Framework will be destined to remain an empty shell.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) This report contains several contradictions and we are critical of the compromise accepted by the majority of the European Parliament on the establishment of a European Qualifications Framework. However, there are positive aspects to the recognition of qualifications among the various Member States which should be supported.\nHowever, the final text adopted accentuates the federalist nature of the European Parliament's proposal by setting specific dates for the adaptation and correlation of the various education and training systems used in the Member States, despite specifying its non-binding nature for the next few years.\nWe would stress that education policy is the sole responsibility of Member States which is why we feel that the 'adaptation' proposed infringes this principle.\nWe regard as negative the link with the Bologna Process and the trend towards the commercialisation of education, with emphasis being placed on 'employability' and on the prospects of the labour market being linked to the Lisbon Agenda.\nCarl Lang  \nThis report deals with the certification at Community level of lifelong learning qualifications. This is a completely desirable measure and one that should be encouraged. However, I reject the internationalist justification used in the document, especially as I recall the total defeat suffered by the Lisbon Strategy.\nThere is an element of Europeanist ideology in this text. It is written that the sacrosanct objective of globalisation constitutes our one and only hope of salvation and that globalisation is beneficial both economically and socially. In my opinion ultra-liberal globalisation is a machine for destroying the economic, social and cultural fabric of nations.\nMoreover, the report only refers to potential progress, something for the future. Should we not be looking at the present as we attempt to analyse the failures and damage that has already been done to our society by globalisation?\nIn the face of such blindness, irresponsibility and inadequacy I intend to vote against the report.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, I voted in favour of adopting the report on the recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning.\nThe future development of European society will be increasingly dependent on education, scientific research, innovation and technology. That is why it is so important to provide support for the promotion of mobility across the European labour market. I am convinced that setting up the European Qualifications Framework will facilitate access to the European labour market.\nThe rapporteur, Mr Mantovani, has rightly pointed out in his report that as of 2012 all qualifications certificates, diplomas and Europass documents should relate to the relevant EQF level. The European Qualifications Framework should be used to facilitate comparison of levels of qualification. It is very important for the Member States to garner support for the implementation of the European Qualifications Framework, notably by the exchange of best practice. The European Qualifications Framework Advisory Group mentioned in the report is in a position to ensure the cohesion of the cooperation process and monitor the latter.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report, which seeks the establishment of a European Qualifications Framework to help with the EU-wide recognition of the qualifications that people receive. It should lead to an improvement in mobility for people who wish to work in other Member States by providing a neutral and credible reference point for the comparison of various qualifications.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) In theory, it should be possible for a professional's qualifications to be recognised in any other Member State and for the same conditions to apply as for the domestic workforce. In practice, there are still some problems which need to be addressed. For example, if an experienced teacher from Austria were required to complete a two-year period of practical training in order to do the same job in Germany, there would obviously be something wrong. In some Member States, work placements are not only being misused as a way of employing well-qualified staff with academic degrees as cheaply as possible, they are also being used to create barriers to certain professions.\nPrecarious working conditions, which initially only affected the low-wage sector, have long since spilled over to skilled workers as well. The EU must not give further impetus to this trend with the 'Blue Card' scheme. We have enough qualified workers, if only we were prepared to pay them properly.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The adoption of the European Qualifications Framework reinforces EU intervention in the Member States' education systems, homogenisation, and adaptation to predetermined quality and performance indicators. It is yet another way of replacing education with flexible 'learning', outside the socially instituted process of education. Knowledge is replaced with ephemeral, superficial ongoing training that will equip workers with whatever skills are needed by capital at the time.\nThese qualifications will be recognised on the basis not of certificates awarded by the formal education system of each country, but of certification examinations set by organisations that are controlled by employers. This further promotes the separation between degree certificates and the possibility of pursuing a career.\nLinking different levels of education and forms of learning, which aims to put learning by experience on a par with systematic education, is an attempt at levelling down workers' rights and driving down the wages of all workers to the lowest possible level.\nThrough a system of lifelong learning and certification of professional qualifications, the EU's wider aim is to subordinate all education to the priorities of the market and strengthen the profitability of capital. This is at complete variance with the educational needs of workers and young people.\nFor these reasons, we are voting against the report and the Commission's proposal.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) Transnational labour mobility in the EU has become inevitable: it is an everyday reality within the EU-27 after enlargement. These changes are accompanied by demands for more innovative and flexible education that will prepare Europeans for their integration into the modern labour market where education is the basic precondition for all age groups and all strata of society.\nI voted in favour of the report by Mr Mario Mantovani on the proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning because I am convinced that this is the only way to fulfil the goals of the Lisbon Strategy.\nThe structure of the European Qualifications Framework is based on eight vertical levels, termed 'reference levels', defined in terms of three horizontal criteria - knowledge, skills and competence - thus enabling individuals to better integrate in the labour market on completion of a learning process.\nIn order for the European Qualifications Framework to be successful, it is absolutely essential for the Member States and social partners to base their cooperation, during the implementation phase, on mutual trust.\nThe labour market structure in Europe is changing and we see an emerging need for a flexible approach to education. The Member States should therefore make use of the European Qualifications Framework to improve the lifelong learning programmes. There is also the need for both employers and European citizens to understand the practical importance of qualifications. This will lead to greater, and most importantly barrier-free, labour mobility across the EU.\nJos\u00e9 Albino Silva Peneda  \nin writing. - (PT) The globalisation of the economy is a question for which Europe has not yet found a clear and convincing answer.\nA more globalised economy implies a readiness for change which means greater mobility.\nThe creation of a common reference framework for the recognition, comparability and transfer of qualifications originating from different systems is fundamental to the development of a decisive component of the European project, in other words the mobility of workers facilitated in this case by the portability of their qualifications.\nBetter training of our workers combined with a harmonised system for the recognition of their knowledge, skills and abilities will enhance their mobility and the development of the internal market.\nMore and better skills among European workers could help to ensure better organisation, more innovation and improved competitiveness among our undertakings.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) It is a shame that the launch of SIS II keeps being postponed. Today we have adopted a resolution on this important issue. We are so far behind schedule that it is essential to find a way out of the situation that would enable us to use the SIS 1+ network after 13 November 2008.\nIt is now clear that the human and financial resources allocated for the implementation of SIS II will have to be shared between three projects being developed simultaneously: SIS II, SISone4all and the installation, operation and management of a communication infrastructure.\nThis is why, in my opinion, the correct distribution of EU and Member States' resources will be of great significance. However, in view of the project's importance as regards the security of the EU, it is obvious that SIS II is the greatest priority. We must allocate funds for EU security and the development of communications infrastructure.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) To 'fill a gap' during the extension of the Schengen Information System (SIS), which includes the Visa Information System (VIS), the current proposal aims to provide a temporary solution to prevent any hiatuses and potential interruptions caused by the delay in installing the 'infrastructures' of the 'new' system. The costs will be distributed between the Community budget and Member States.\nWe would point out that this involves expanding the features of the SIS by developing them, extending access to new authorities and interlinking them, with the addition of new categories of data (such as the data capture mandate and biometric data).\nThis extension of the previous system significantly threatens the rights, freedoms and guarantees of citizens by adding new elements to a database which is, in addition, shared by numerous bodies. The confidentiality of this data cannot be fully guaranteed as records may be kept 'for a longer period' and be shared with third countries.\nAt the root is an attempt to bring the SIS into line with the dangerous and unacceptable objectives of the current security offensive and with the expansion and growing communitarisation of internal affairs in the EU, which we clearly reject.\nBairbre de Br\u00fan, Jens Holm, Mary Lou McDonald and Eva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - We do not oppose the suggested temporary solution in order to guarantee the existence of a network for SIS 1+ for the period from 13 November to 17 December 2008. However, we cannot support the use of the passerelle in Article 67(2), indent 2, of the EC Treaty as suggested by Mr Coelho. That is why we have chosen to vote against the report.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) We already have a major problem with organised criminal gangs and illegal immigrants who tend to congregate in border areas where they are also easier to apprehend than in cities. Both groups are already on the starting blocks and are intent on crossing into other countries as soon as the borders open, where they will vanish without trace. We must respond to this situation with increased cross-border cooperation and intensive checks in border regions. The expansion of Schengen is, after all, a major responsibility for all the countries involved.\nAccession to Schengen should therefore not be made solely dependent on the functionality of the Schengen Information System, which is something Poland, for example, does not yet appear to have achieved. Instead, we must ensure that future members of Schengen are able to assert effective control of the EU's external borders, that there is no softening of the transition periods for the protection of labour markets, and that begging does not increase any further. Until this is guaranteed, over-hasty and ill-considered expansion must not be allowed to occur.\nAccording to the FRONTEX Annual Report for 2006, the apprehension figures at Schengen's current external borders (mainly Austria and Germany) are still far higher than those at the EU's external borders, so it is highly doubtful whether the expansion should be approved. Indeed, the question is whether Schengen should not be abolished in part, especially since the Austrian Interior Ministry's report on human trafficking indicates that almost 50% of illegals in Austria have entered the country across the Schengen border with Italy.\nS\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard  \nin writing. - I do not oppose the suggested temporary solution to guarantee the existence of a network for SIS 1+ for the period from 13 November to 17 December 2008. However, I cannot support the use of the passerelle in Article 67(2), indent 2, of the EC Treaty as suggested by Mr Coelho. That is why I have chosen to vote against the report.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) I am in favour of a reasonable compromise that would achieve a balance between health and environmental protection on the one hand and agricultural production on the other hand. This is why I voted for the report prepared by my Slovak colleague, Mrs Irena Belohorsk\u00e1, who is a recognised expert in the field of prevention and treatment of cancer diseases. I congratulate her on the report which is based on her vast experience as a medical practitioner and which introduces a balanced strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. I believe that this report will contribute to the adoption of more effective measures for better information of the general public and lead to the setting up of correct application methods and a gradual reduction in the use of pesticides in agriculture.\nA possible solution is to support farmers in ways that would encourage them to reduce the use of artificial fertilisers in their fight against diseases, pests and weeds on their farms, and in doing so help achieve a gradual changeover to bioproducts. The report can inspire consumers not to choose, at a market or in a supermarket, only the best-looking produce but to give priority, for the sake of their health, to less visually appealing but healthier bioproducts.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) All of us wish to breathe clean air and halt the melting of the glaciers. At the same time, in spite of energy saving programmes, our need for energy is growing exponentially. At stake is also Europe's dependency on gas and oil imports.\nWe must therefore invest in the development of renewable sources and tackle issues of nuclear power plants safety, in particular the question of final disposal of radioactive waste. In this way we could obtain up to 14% of our energy from clean sources. We cannot ignore, however, the fact that 32% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, employing 300 000 people and substantially polluting the environment. This is why I welcome and have supported the report by Mr Reul on conventional sources. I agree with the rapporteur that we should review investments and also develop those technologies capable of increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel energy production and reducing emissions. We have much to work on.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) Today we have reached an important decision on the strategy on the use of pesticides. I voted in favour of the resolution. We are well aware of the fact that the air we breath is polluted and therefore poses health risks and that the food we consume has been processed using chemicals that are dangerous to human health. Our children, the future generation, are growing up in these conditions.\nI am absolutely certain that the hazards that pesticides pose to human health must be reduced. Therefore, we should take decisive measures and do our best to find the necessary funds. I welcome the plans to require the Member States to draw up action plans highlighting the areas in which pesticides would be entirely banned and making substantial reductions in the use of pesticides within the next 10 years.\nIrena Belohorsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (PT) It is well-known that, in July 2006, the Commission presented a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, together with a proposal for a directive establishing a framework for Community Action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides and a proposal for a regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, with the aim of reducing the general risks and negative impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment.\nThe risks associated with pesticide use have already been reduced, but, in some areas, particularly in countries which have for a long time used intensive agriculture, these can still be found in the soil and water in undesirable quantities. This also means that countries such as Portugal, with more traditional agriculture, should receive more support in order to maintain less intensive agricultural production.\nHowever, we do not feel that the solution lies in substituting GMOs for pesticides. While the undesirable effects of chemical pesticides on human health are well-known, the precautionary principle should be applied with regard to the effects of GMOs on human health as these have not yet been studied.\nThis Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides only relates to plant protection products, in other words to one area of pesticides.\nGenowefa Grabowska  \nin writing. - (PL) I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has adopted a new directive on the production and use of pesticides. The directive tightens up the conditions under which trade in the chemical substances used in the manufacture of plant protection products may be permitted. The outcome will be beneficial to the citizens of the European Union, especially as regards their life and health. In addition, the directive details the cases in which spraying from the air may take place. It also recommends lowering the amount of pesticides used and prioritising non-chemical alternatives.\nThe report by Mrs Belohorsk\u00e1 is worthy of support, if only because of the very wide but also up-to-date scope of the provisions. There can be no doubt that European Union citizens no longer wish to have daily contact with toxins, and do not wish to consume contaminated products. Our citizens do not wish either to be affected by carcinogenic or toxic substances, or by substances with endocrine-disrupting properties. In response to these clear expectations expressed by European society, it was appropriate also to support a ban on the use of pesticides in rural and urban public areas. The use of pesticides in areas surrounding hospices, sanatoria, rehabilitation centres, clinics and hospitals should be banned. Such a ban should also extend to parks, public gardens, sports and leisure areas, school grounds, children's playgrounds and similar locations.\nKarin Scheele  \nin writing. - (DE) The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides is an important addition to the proposal for a regulation and a directive which has been voted on at first reading today.\nThe Thematic Strategy is needed because the use of pesticides in the European Union has not decreased, despite the successful measures adopted voluntarily by some Member States between 1992 and 2003, and remains at a high level. The Belohorsk\u00e1 report underlines, once again, the need to apply the precautionary principle in the use of pesticides.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) I consider the report on conventional energy sources and energy technology to be of the utmost importance. The realities of life are forcing the EU Member States to change their attitude towards energy within both the EU and the world markets - resources, the energy mix and security of supply.\nI would like to emphasise the importance of nuclear energy, as it is a secure, reliable and environmentally friendly resource. The fact that Germany, which has 17 nuclear power plants, produces six times more CO2 pollution than France, with its 59 nuclear power stations, is very persuasive.\nNuclear energy is particularly important for countries that are not rich in renewable energy resources such as wind, solar energy, water and biomass, the use of the latter being particularly expensive. Electricity is of the utmost importance and should be accessible to everyone.\nI voted in favour of the report and would like to stress the importance of EU assistance for the construction of nuclear or other environmentally friendly power plants.\nRomano Maria La Russa\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I just feel a need to clarify a few points about the new generation of nuclear technology. It is worth remembering that Italy's nuclear power stations were shut down following a rescinding referendum in 1987, perhaps rightly so, although that has gradually placed us in a situation of dependence on foreign sources of energy.\nHowever, the new generation of nuclear technology, which is clean and safe and environmentally friendly, is undoubtedly necessary to confront the problem of energy supply and climate change. The energy mix must hence be updated and, along with renewables, clean coal and gas, nuclear will enable Europe to limit its dependence in future.\nFor this reason I voted in favour of the building of fourth-generation nuclear power stations, which will enable energy to be generated in a safer and more environmentally friendly manner. I do, however, still have doubts, serious doubts and concerns, about the storage of nuclear waste. The report may consider the problem of waste storage solved, but quite frankly I disagree: the waste problem is crucial and, if it is to be solved in the near future, requires a huge amount of investment in research.\nTo conclude, I believe that the choice of energy mix - just three more seconds please - to ensure security of energy supply for the Union in coming years must be altered as research progresses and in particular as new technologies develop.\nKarin Scheele\n(DE) Madam President, my colleagues from my delegation and I myself voted against the Reul report because we do not believe that nuclear energy is either safe or clean, and nor do we believe in the new generation of nuclear power plants and the new generation of nuclear energy.\nIf it really is the case - and there are reports and statistics about this - that nuclear energy is to have a massive impact in terms of reducing our CO2 emissions, then we will have to have a substantial increase in the number of our nuclear power stations. That is neither realistic nor practicable. For that reason - and I will speak more on this subject when the next report comes round - effective measures to improve energy efficiency and also to cut CO2 emissions from cars would be a better way of making Europe a healthier place and convincing other countries and continents to follow suit.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote against the report as we do not consider it to be balanced and, among other things, it fails to address important problems in relation to nuclear energy.\nNor do we believe that the Union's energy research funds should be used to develop new generations of reactors for nuclear fission.\nWe question the value to the environment of synthetic fuels produced from fossil sources, or hydrogen gas extracted with energy from the same origin, or nuclear energy, as none of these energy sources is sustainable in the long term from an environmental or supply point of view.\nWe also believe that fossil fuels must be actively phased out in the long term, which is not mentioned in the report.\nWe think that CO2 capture can be an important part of reducing CO2 emissions, but other energy-saving, efficiency-boosting measures and the development of renewable energy are more sustainable in the long term and should be the final goal.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) This report contains various positive aspects, including the recognition of the role of conventional energy sources and the need to use these in order to produce energy, opening up prospects for the relaunch of nuclear fission energy and calling for the lifting of restrictions on new coal-fired power stations.\nIt also opens up prospects for the relaunch and mining of coal and calls for international cooperation, including with countries outside the EU, such as China and India. In addition, it emphasises the value of endogenous resources and places the contribution of renewable energies on a more realistic plane. It contains certain criticisms of the production and use of liquid biofuels and points to the need for countries to encourage more R&D in the area of energy, particularly as a way of overcoming environmental and nuclear safety problems.\nHowever, it also contains various negative aspects, including the association of the growing problems in the oil market solely with contextual and episodic issues, while disregarding the strategic issue of depletion of resources and continuing to ignore the enormous potential of biomethane produced from waste, an approach which is already being implemented in various European countries.\nThis is the reason for our abstention.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this own-initiative report on energy issues which canvasses many areas of energy efficiency, supply and conservation. I did not support amendments endorsing nuclear power: my view is that sustainable, renewable energy resources should be developed and that research & development efforts should focus on these areas first.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) In principle, we all agree that we need better energy efficiency and more rational energy transmission and that the expansion of renewables is important. Nonetheless, the promotion of renewables must not be used as a pretext to curtail even more of the Member States' sovereign rights by the back door as part of the EU's Constitution. As this point is not made sufficiently clear in the present report, the report must be rejected.\nDespite the ongoing expansion of renewable energy sources, we will remain dependent on conventional energy generation for many decades to come, and we must therefore ensure that it becomes more environmentally friendly. In the EU, however, there still appears to be a fixation with nuclear power, which is not only reflected in its glowing description as an 'environmentally friendly source of energy', which itself is a mockery, but also in the generous funding of the nuclear research budget. I see in this a failure to rethink our approach in any discernible way, which is another reason why I reject the report which is the subject of the vote.\nTobias Pfl\u00fcger  \nin writing. - (DE) The Reul report is an apology for the nuclear industry. Flying in the face of common sense, nuclear energy is depicted as the technology of the future, with even more EU research funding and budgetary resources to flow into the development of this high-risk dinosaur technology.\nIndeed, despite the recent 'incidents' at Vattenfall's nuclear plants, the focus is on expanding nuclear energy in Europe. In light of these incidents, it is extremely cynical to claim that nuclear energy generation is becoming 'ever-safer'. Instead of continuing to invest in this troublesome energy form, with a deliberate failure to address the issue of final storage, a social and ecological revolution should finally be the aim.\nThis means breaking apart the private monopolies which exist in the nuclear industry, providing a massive injection of funding for renewables and localising energy production. Given that it is the nuclear companies, in particular, which have initiated a new round of massive price increases, there is an urgent need for action. The report merely serves the profit interests of Europe's nuclear industry. The call for new nuclear power plants in Europe is unacceptable.\nThe legal basis for funding for an indefinite period is to be enshrined in the Reform Treaty. This is yet another reason to reject the Treaty. Every additional cent for EU nuclear funding is one too many. Promoting energy production from renewable resources, solar, wind and hydro power, is the only sustainable energy policy.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) When it launched the Energy Package at the beginning of this year, the European Commission highlighted the need for a technological action plan for fossil fuels and underlined the fundamental requirement for a pragmatic approach towards nuclear energy.\nThe reality is stark: there are no alternatives to fossil fuels which are as cheap and as efficient. This means that these fuels will remain the central and essential component of the EU's energy policy beyond 2020.\nThis is why we must find new solutions to the energy supply issue in the EU, bearing in mind the need for competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply. As a result, all investments in the development of new energy technologies, firstly to reduce environmental impact and enhance the safety of existing installations and secondly to develop new energy sources and ensure more efficient and cleaner use of fossil fuels, are of particular importance.\nAs it is essential that Member States and the EU concentrate their efforts on energy research, from more efficient use of energy sources to new technologies and the cleaner use of existing energy sources, I voted in favour of this report.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Reul on conventional energy sources and energy technology.\nThe report raises a very important current issue that calls for broad debate within the European Union, namely that we need a unified strategy and should develop a common energy policy. Ensuring Europe's energy security is a priority issue, and the Commission's proposal to submit a European Strategic Energy Technology Plan to the 2008 Spring European Council is therefore very welcome.\nAs a world leader, the European Union must also take the lead in the development of modern energy technologies whilst maintaining all the relevant economic and environmental standards.\nLars Wohlin  \nin writing. - (SV) I have chosen to support the report because the EU has conducted an unusually balanced discussion of the need to include nuclear energy in Europe's future energy mix. Among other things, the report states that 'nuclear energy is indispensable if basic energy needs are to be met in Europe in the medium term', and that 'nuclear energy is currently the largest low-carbon energy source in Europe and [it] stresses its potential role in combating climate change'. At present nuclear energy is responsible for one third of the EU's electricity supply and will always be one of the most important energy sources in many EU Member States.\nWhen the issue of CO2 emissions is raised, it is unfortunate in my view that greater attention is not given to nuclear energy. If we are to meet future energy demand without greater dependence on fossil fuels and rising CO2 emissions, the development of safe, new nuclear energy will become increasingly important. Unfortunately, nuclear energy is not included among the measures that are considered to be realistic with a view to achieving the target of between 20% and 30% by 2020.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Today we gave the car industry the task of developing engines which will reduce CO2 emissions to less than 120 g\/km. Currently the figure stands at 157 g. I want to warn, however, those who applauded this proposal that reducing emissions is greatly hindered by the increasing number of drivers in general as well as the high number of drivers driving old vehicles.\nDouble regulation of advertising will not solve the issue. It is well-known that the majority of people give priority to cost-efficiency when buying a car, rather than the vehicle's environmental impact. Costs, but also emissions are growing also because of the imposition of increased vehicle safety.\nLadies and gentlemen, until vehicles with a lower environmental impact and running costs become more affordable, road transport's share of emissions will not show any considerable decrease. This is why I was not among those applauding today's report. Neither the committee's report nor the Commission's strategy are sufficiently comprehensive. This is why I supported other proposals, related to fines for exceeding emission limits and especially fiscal measures and car fleet renewal support.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) The report just adopted on the future CO2 strategy for cars contributes without any doubt to one of the most polarised debates taking place in the European Parliament at present. At stake are not only the environment, and therefore the health of EU citizens, but also the competitiveness of an important industry. I voted for the amendment since it represents a compromise between both aspects. It pays attention to environmental protection and at the same time provides suitable and realistic terms for the European car industry.\nCar advertising represents up to 20% of total advertising turnover for publishers of printed media. Laying down mandatory advertising requirements as stipulated in the original report by Mr Chris Davies would breach the fundamental principle of freedom of expression. This is why I voted in favour of the amendments that leave out the controversial paragraphs 36 to 41 of the report. I supported the PPE-DE motion inviting car manufacturers to sign up to a voluntary code of practice on car advertising. After most amendments were adopted, in the final vote I voted for the report by Mr Chris Davies. The outcome of the vote is a clear political signal in favour of preparing European legislation dealing with the issue of cutting CO2 emissions.\nKarin Scheele\n(DE) Madam President, we do still have the legislation by means of which Parliament can demonstrate that we take climate protection seriously in Europe, and we need to summon all our efforts so that we can genuinely achieve, through that legislation, everything that we have not voted on today.\nI think it is regrettable that we have not committed to a 120 g\/km ceiling from 2012. More than ten years have passed since our industry promised to achieve this with its proposed self-regulation on the grounds that this approach would be better and more efficient, and I would have liked the House to send out a clear climate policy message today. We have not done so.\nThat is why I have also voted against the report, and I hope that in the legislation, we will show more grit and determination and make it clear that we really take climate issues seriously in Europe.\nJan B\u0159ezina\n(CS) I voted against the proposal of the report on the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars, although for reasons different from those mentioned here earlier.\nI voted against the proposal because with it we are moving away from an integrated approach, contained in the earlier strategy documents, and placing the whole burden of CO2 emissions reduction on the European car industry instead. I also disagree with the call for an obligatory allocation of 20% of advertising space. It bears a dangerous resemblance to the information campaign on the harmful effects of smoking.\nSuch an approach overall turns CO2 emissions reduction into a dogma which, when translated into future binding legislation, will result in a reduction in our competitiveness.\nChristoph Konrad\n(DE) Madam President, I voted against the Davies report because, in my view, we have taken what is, in essence, an unacceptable and unrealistic decision by envisaging uniform CO2 efficiency categories for cars.\nThere should have been a sliding scale based on size and weight, primarily to level the playing field for manufacturers in the European Union. Let me give you an example: it makes a difference whether I heat a house or just one room. That is why it also makes a difference whether I drive a large car or a small car. That is why there needs to be segmentation and a sliding scale based on weight. We have missed that opportunity, which I think is regrettable, and with this decision - which I did not support - we have also missed the opportunity to establish a measure of balance between the interests of the environment and those of industry.\nKurt Joachim Lauk\n(DE) Madam President, I voted against the Davies report because, as a result of the amendments adopted, we are still a long way from the optimum situation, which is to protect the environment, on the one hand, but also promote employment in Europe and not burden the consumer unduly with excessively high prices. In essence, the decisions that we have taken are at the expense of employment and the consumer.\nIn technical terms, we have moved away from the integrated approach which would have been essential to create a situation in which everyone contributes to cutting CO2 emissions, not only the car manufacturers but also the manufacturers of other vehicle components. We have abandoned that route. What is more, we have not included weight and we have not completed weight segmentation, which is important for European competitiveness, because it is the higher-weight vehicles that are at the forefront of innovation, the innovation that Europe needs.\nWe have set timeframes which are difficult or expensive to achieve and we have taken the absurd step of not heeding the call for CO2-based taxes in the Member States, which means that the old vehicles which pump out CO2 are still on the market and on the road. That is why I have voted against the report.\nLinda McAvan\nMadam President, I have two points to make, the first on the procedure, the second on the voting list.\nOn the voting list: firstly, there was no mention of paragraph 3; secondly, I think we should look again at what happened about Amendments 52 and 51. If you look at it, 51 is clearly the nearest to the original text and should have been voted first. 52 is furthest away and should have been voted second.\nI would ask that the Presidency look at this because that is clearly what should have happened. So, on those procedural points, I would like some answers.\nSecondly, on the politics of it, this was the first real vote on climate change. It was not a piece of legislation - that will come - but, by failing to support the 2012 date backed by the European Commission, I think that the ALDE Group and the PPE-DE Group in this House failed the first test on climate change and the people out there will be looking at what happened here today and wondering whether we really are serious about the commitments we made back in March to reduce CO2.\nWe talk about Europe being a Europe of the environment. We have to do it in legislation if it is ever going to happen.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nin writing. - (FR) Mrs Castex voted for the Davies report on the reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles.\nWhile France continues to be monopolised by the Grenelle Environment Forum, the European Union has in turn added another valuable building block to the quality of our environment by adopting a strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from private vehicles.\nMrs Castex is very pleased that Parliament has called on the European automotive industry to ensure that new vehicles do not emit more than 120 g\/km of CO2 by 2012.\nThis French Member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament welcomes the Carbon Allowance Reductions System (CARS), as this mechanism will impose financial penalties on manufacturers who fail to meet their quotas, while at the same time issuing credits to those who have taken the initiative by achieving emissions that are below the limit value curve.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld and Christofer Fjellner  \nin writing. - (SV) We have essentially voted in favour of Mr Davies' report on a strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from cars.\nIn order to reduce CO2 emissions, it must be a priority to reduce the proportion that comes from car traffic. It is important to find more environmentally friendly alternatives to using cars. However, in our view car manufacturers should be given the opportunity to choose themselves how they wish to meet the environmental targets set by us politicians. Legislation should not regulate in detail how this should happen.\nWe also oppose the rapporteur's rules on advertising, which are unjustified and restrict freedom of expression.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the report.\nSome 19% of all CO2 emissions produced in the Community now come from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles. The European Union must commit itself to an ambitious and realistic target for reducing average emissions from all vehicles placed on the EU market.\nThe impact of road transport on air quality must be reduced as the vehicle fleet is gradually renewed.\nI welcome the adoption of the deadlines that have been set by Parliament. If verifiable and measurable actions are to be taken by the automotive industry after 2011, setting 2015 as the date for achieving a threshold of 125 g\/km seems perfectly reasonable to me. Indeed this corresponds to the entry into force of the Euro VI emission standards.\nFor legislation to be effective it must above all be realistic and the industry has for a long time been putting environmental issues at the heart of its policies. When it comes to climate change the priority must be to reduce CO2 emissions in absolute terms.\nJules Maaten  \nin writing. - (NL) The Davies report deserves support because of the political signal it sends. All sectors will have to do their bit to remedy the climate change problem, including the European car industry. That is why I warmly support the compromise to achieve a maximum of 125g CO2\/km by 2015.\nFor the Netherlands, the Davies report has another extra dimension that is undeniable. Because of the problem of particulate matter in the air in the Netherlands, it is necessary that measures be taken at European level to tackle this at source. If this does not happen, then for transport-intensive areas like the port of Rotterdam and Schiphol airport, it will be impossible for us to meet the present and\/or stricter norms for particulate matter.\nI am in favour of better information to consumers about the environmental friendliness of particular cars, like what we have now for fridges and washing machines for instance, but I voted against the proposal for cigarette-type warnings to be made compulsory in all advertising and marketing statements from the car industry. In the area of advertising and marketing, I have more faith in self-regulation than all kinds of European legal obligations.\nErika Mann  \nin writing. - (DE) I voted against Mr Davies' report on the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles. Having initially voted in favour of the report in the direct voting in plenary, I then withdrew my vote in writing, as noted in the parliamentary records of 25 October 2007.\nIn my view, the report is extremely arbitrary and fails to take appropriate account of the needs of Germany's automobile industry or environmental concerns.\nFor example, the report does not differentiate between the various weight classes of vehicles and therefore makes unrealistic demands of car manufacturers.\nAs regards advertising, an increasing comparison is made between labelling needs for tobacco products and vehicles.\nThe rapporteur (Mr Davies, an English Green Liberal) was only prepared to compromise on one point at the very end of the process during the deliberations on his report. This was much too late to formulate a sensible recommendation from Parliament which could have secured the support of all the groups.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for the original version of this report, which proposed tough limits on emissions of 120g carbon dioxide\/kilometre by 2012. Unfortunately, the proposal was weakened by Tory and Liberal MEPs to allow for a higher emissions limit and a longer phase-in period. The overall strategy is good, but it is a pity it has been weakened unnecessarily.\nTokia Sa\u00effi  \nin writing. - (FR) The European Parliament has approved the Community Strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars and I welcome this very much.\nThis initiative will enable us to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and at the same time contribute towards achieving the EU's more general environmental targets and energy security objectives. Nevertheless, I believe that the message that this vote has sent to the Commission and to the international community at large could have been a more ambitious one.\nThe 120 g\/km threshold for CO2 was first put forward in 1995 as a feasible target for the automotive industry. Now 12 years later its implementation is still being resisted, even though technological advances have meant that CO2 emissions can now be reduced more than was possible a dozen years ago.\nIn being satisfied with a maximum mandatory limit of 125 g\/km of CO2 Parliament does not go far enough. For this reason I voted against Amendments 42 and 52 because their objectives, under the pretence of being prudent and realistic, are in fact simply too moderate.\nAt a time when the consumer is becoming increasingly sensitive to pollution from motor vehicles, any measure aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from this source will benefit the car industry, the consumer and, of course, the planet itself.\nRenate Sommer  \nin writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of the proposals to introduce a binding average emissions ceiling, albeit with some concern. In my view, a sliding scale based on the size and weight of the vehicle would have been preferable.\nAlthough I otherwise tend to be in favour of voluntary commitments from industry, I believe that binding legal requirements are essential for the automobile industry: experience has shown that voluntary commitments here would be bound to fail.\nAs we know, a reduction of around 5% in greenhouse gas emissions from the EU-25 was achieved between 1990 and 2004. Not for road traffic, however: in stark contrast, this sector saw a rise of 26%. There is clearly an urgent need for action here, and the car industry must make its contribution to cutting emissions.\nThe year 2012 for the introduction of the ceiling has been criticised on the grounds that it does not allow a long enough phase-in period. However, this date has been in discussion for years, and the industry has known what to expect for a very long time.\nThe issue which we must always consider, however, is balancing environmental interests and the interests of the car industry, as this is also in the interests of jobs and competitiveness in the European Union. This is a buoyant industry and it is important for the EU. Without robust industries, we would have no money for environmental programmes!\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) So far the Member States have only succeeded in reaching an agreement on the consolidation of indirect taxation - excise duty and VAT, determination of the minimum rate, the application of numerous VAT exemptions. I doubt that a minimum excise duty rate - for fuel, for example - would increase economic competitiveness. It is more likely to result in increased prices and reduced consumption, particularly in view of the global increase in prices. The proposed coordination of excise duties would constitute an unbearable burden to new Member States.\nThe proposed consolidation of tax bases at EU level would have been more appropriate for the economies of the 15 old Member States, as they have similar development levels. This proposal is a step towards the consolidation of tax on profits. The greatest burden would fall on the weaker economies of the new Member States. This would lead to a loss of opportunity for them to benefit from tax competition as well as accelerate their economic growth. It would deprive them of the chance to raise their standard of living to match that of the old Member States.\nI voted against the report, as it was ill-timed, in spite of the amendments.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats believe first and foremost that taxation policy should be a national matter.\nThe report also stresses the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States.\nWe chose to vote in favour of the report as in many ways it stresses the role of taxation policy in the Member States as regards employment, welfare and the environment, as well as a well-functioning internal market.\nG\u00e9rard Deprez  \nin writing. - (FR) I supported Amendment 20, as tabled by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, which seeks to delete paragraph 17 of the Wagenknecht report concerning the contribution of taxation to the Lisbon strategy.\nIn order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market I am in fact in favour of any measure that contributes towards fiscal harmonisation within the EU.\nWhile taxation is still essentially a matter of national sovereignty, it has very quickly become apparent that we need to ensure a minimum degree of fiscal coordination between the Member States. This is why, in matters relating to indirect taxation, the Commission has gradually established a minimum rate for excise duty, in order to reduce distortion of competition.\nYet in the report that is being voted on today, paragraph 17 now seeks to re-examine this very system and proposes to replace it with a code of conduct.\nI do not believe that it is sufficient merely to 'encourage' Member States when it comes to coordinating indirect taxation. What is more, I believe even less in the effectiveness of a code of conduct on excise duty matters: this is likely to provide even greater temptation to unpick the EU's rules and practices, which would in turn create the sorry situation of unfair competition in this area.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We voted against the final text because, among other issues, it assumed a position of defence of economic and financial groups, as highlighted by the rapporteur who removed her name from the report before the final vote and called for it to be rejected. The resolution aims to ease the rules and procedures so that large undertakings can easily enter the various markets and reap the largest profits with the least number of obstacles in any Member State.\nFurthermore, we consider that the fiscal sovereignty of Member States in terms of defining their own fiscal policy must be respected in all discussions on this issue. This is not what has happened here. A supposedly common European fiscal policy which promotes 'tax competition' would only serve the interests of major European and international capital.\nAvailable data show that, in the last 10 years, there has been a significant drop in the average rate of taxation of corporate profits, whilst income tax has remained virtually unchanged.\nWe regret that the proposals made by the rapporteur, which highlighted the redistribution potential of taxation and pointed out the transfer of the tax burden from high incomes to lower incomes, have not been included in this final text.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List is firmly opposed to this report, which seeks to move towards a common taxation and customs policy for the EU.\nIt is amazing that today the European Parliament is taking decisions on matters for which there is no common policy. It is not for the EU to decide on taxation matters and promptly to call on the Member States to harmonise their national taxes. In addition, it is entirely unreasonable to try to move towards the imposition of a Community tax.\nIn the report it is also possible to see how the Lisbon Strategy opens the door for the EU to tackle new policy areas, with supranationalism, new projects and increased costs in their wake.\nThe June List is voting against this report, as taxation must be decided nationally and sovereignly by the Member States.\nAstrid Lulling  \nin writing. - (FR) The report on the contribution of taxation and customs policies to the Lisbon Strategy, as voted on by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, constitutes an acceptable compromise between the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, on the one hand, and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, on the other, and I support it. I am also glad to see that we have succeeded in maintaining this balance during the vote in plenary.\nFor me the key point in the report is paragraph 4, which underlines the benefits of healthy tax competition in the European Union. If indeed we wish to achieve the objectives of economic growth and employment, as set out in the Lisbon Strategy, we must ensure that we do not impose too great a tax burden on undertakings, for it is they who create the jobs. What is more, we should never overtax employees and consumers, either directly or indirectly, for they make a considerable contribution to growth.\nTax competition forces Member States within the Union to moderate their fiscal demands and to be more efficient in the management of public spending, and this can only be of benefit to the taxpayer.\nThe common consolidated corporate tax base, which is another controversial theme in the report, would in my view bring an element of coordination to fiscal policy that will render European corporate taxation less bureaucratic and more efficient.\nDiamanto Manolakou  \nin writing. - (EL) Tax policy is used to redistribute income for the benefit of capital. It is used by all centre-right and centre-left governments, and governs capital in the EU.\nThere is no common tax policy because of intra-imperialist conflicts. Even if such a policy existed, however, capital would be furthering its own profitability at the expense of ordinary people's income and needs.\nAmid unrelenting competition, capital now moves easily and rapidly from high-tax countries to countries with lower taxation. Indeed, in all the Member States, the corporate income tax rate is decreasing at the expense of personal income.\nHowever, this is not true of tax on labour income, which remains constant, while indirect taxes and VAT have risen, increasing inequality and the gap between rich and poor. This is also reflected in OECD figures, which show that indirect tax in the form of VAT rose to 6.9% of GDP in 2006. Thus capital is systematically being exempted from tax and the levy on workers is being increased through indirect taxation.\nThis is happening in Greece as well: corporation tax has been reduced by 10% and VAT has increased by 1%, with a further increase of 2% on the way.\nThis is the barbarity of capitalism, which creates inequality and poverty for the majority of people, and we must reverse this.\nMary Lou McDonald  \nin writing. - While the report contains a number of positive elements concerning greater fairness in the distribution of the tax burden, I cannot support any increased role for the European Union in relation to taxation, which would further undermine the economic sovereignty of Member States.\nGay Mitchell  \nin writing. - The Fine Gael delegation in the European Parliament decided to oppose the Report on the final vote because of the proliferation of references to the CCCTB and related matters.\nWe support the Lisbon Agenda and are in favour of the Report, such as recognising the positive aspects of lower taxation and the benefits of tax competition, but do not accept the right of EU Institutions to interfere with the rights of Member States, such as Ireland, who are also in the Eurozone. Interest rates are set by the ECB and the Growth and Stability Pact sets borrowing and inflation requirements. Tax policy is therefore one of the instruments left to those Member States under the Treaty and should be safeguarded.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - There are many ways in which fiscal attitudes across the EU could be helpful in generating a series of better conclusions for the Lisbon Strategy. Simply put, the incentivisation of growth of small businesses and job creation, as well as environmental issues, is seen as a positive. This is for Member States to undertake and follow through - such is their competence.\nConsolidating tax bases at an EU level would not make the difference suggested by the rapporteur. The EPLP maintains that many good things towards the Lisbon Strategy can be reached by Member State action rather than EU action.\nSahra Wagenknecht  \nin writing. - (DE) In its vote today, the European Parliament has shown that a majority of its Members support a taxation policy which serves the interests of the top ten thousand and is to the detriment of the large majority of people living in the European Union. Although some of my proposals were accepted - after all, no one is keen to openly champion the cause of increased rates of VAT, higher taxes on earned income or better opportunities for EU-wide tax dumping - the proposals we made on increasing taxes on wealth and financial transactions and limiting tax dumping through the introduction of a uniform consolidated corporate tax base were rejected by the majority of Members.\nAs the final report after the individual votes was almost unrecognisable as my original draft, with certain aspects of its content deteriorating further in the version of the report agreed in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I felt compelled to remove my name from the report and call for Members to vote against it in the final vote. I welcome the fact that relevant sections of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament also felt unable to endorse the final version of the report, as the outcome of the voting shows.\nToday, the House has passed up the opportunity to heed calls for a more equitable and socially compatible taxation policy and adopt this as the clear position of the European Parliament. Instead, the EU's misdirected policies have yet again been confirmed unquestioningly by the majority in the European Parliament.\nLars Wohlin  \nin writing. - (SV) Today I chose to support the report on the contribution of taxation policy to the Lisbon process. I advocate healthy tax competition and a common consolidated corporate tax base for international companies, without harmonisation of tax levels and with an option for each Member State to remain outside it, if it so wishes. It is also important to lay down the Member States' sovereignty in the field of taxation. I also take exception to any attempt to move towards an EU tax.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) I admire and respect the determination with which some countries have introduced a smoking ban not only in offices and in all workplaces but also in restaurants, pubs, bars and clubs. We have economic impact studies that have not confirmed worries of restaurant owners about an income loss. We also know that the treatment of respiratory cancer diseases and other illnesses costs us up to EUR 50 million.\nIn Scotland, the number of people admitted to hospital with myocarditis has decreased by almost 20% since the introduction of the smoking ban. Children born to women smokers as well as to women exposed to passive smoking during pregnancy are born prematurely and have lower than normal birth weight. I appeal to the Member States of the European Union, including my own Member State, to introduce without delay effective laws that would result in a smoking ban in workplaces and restaurants, and in effective measures for reducing the overall use of tobacco.\nRoberta Alma Anastase\n(RO) At the same time with voting on this report, I would like to emphasize its importance for the future of the European citizens and of the entire European Union. I welcome the strategic approach of the smoking issue, including passive smoking, as well as the proposal of concrete and exigent actions to fight against it and its negative consequences at a European level. Also, I am convinced that a strategic approach of this issue should include the smoking prevention policy, as an essential element, by developing a true system of education in this respect. Today's reality is obvious; there is a clear and increasing need for awareness as regards the consequences of smoking among the entire European society. It is not less important to focus these efforts of prevention on educating children and youth, as well as their parents, in advance, in order to ensure a smoke-free Europe for future generations.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, I should like to explain my vote on the report by Mr Florenz on combating the worrying phenomenon of nicotine addiction. I wish to emphasise that I voted in favour of this report, despite being an advocate of freedom for smokers and despite obviously being a defender of pluralism. Nonetheless, the problem of the harmful effects of so-called passive smoking, that is to say the effect on non-smokers of being surrounded by smokers, is very alarming indeed. Suffice it to remind the House that the deaths of 650 000 people a year are smoking related. This figure includes 80 000 passive smokers, some of whom are children. That is the reason why we should impose limitations on the freedom of certain individuals in order to prevent deaths.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Madam President, firstly I wish to express my satisfaction with this report. It is excellent that we are adopting a clear position against passive smoking.\nI voted for this report because it is high time we acted at European Union level to prevent people from actually being exposed to the dangers of tobacco smoke. As we heard earlier, 650 000 people die each year from the effects of smoking. It is time to take action.\nDespite my support for the proposal, I know that it will be difficult to put into practice and implement everywhere. Article 11 incorporates the notion that smoking should be banned in private cars everywhere in the EU if underage children are present. This is a good aim, but we have to consider how it might be monitored. A smoke-free environment is a goal we should strive for, but in future we will need to pay more attention to ensuring that the action we take is reasonable and that compliance with the law can be monitored.\nChristoph Konrad\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, of course we all know that smoking is bad for our health. Nevertheless, I voted against the report on a smoke-free Europe as a matter of principle, for it is true to say that nowhere else has the state asserted itself quite so successfully as in the fight against smoking in public. Countries in the EU - and that includes us - are intervening on an unprecedented scale, with their smoking bans, in citizens' private habits.\nWe are experiencing a state-sponsored prohibition policy across the board, designed to train people to change their behaviour. The report itself makes this clear. Unanimity - or, as we have it today - virtual unanimity is no guarantee of freedom. The opposite is true. In essence - and this is something we should recognise - freedom thrives on the opportunity to deviate from the norm. Concerned citizens are on the march, we have the nanny state, and all those who have anything to do with this and support it think that it has nothing to do with liberty. They are quite wrong!\nRenate Sommer\n(DE) Madam President, yes, I also voted against the report on a smoke-free Europe, although by doing so, I am subjecting myself to what is tantamount to a witch-hunt, even in the House by the way. That is the reason why so many of our fellow Members simply did not have the courage to vote against the report, even though they do not want this nannying policy either.\nOf course I am in favour of protecting non-smokers, children and young people, but a matter of principle is at stake. Firstly, we have no health policy competence. That lies with the Member States. Anything else is a violation of subsidiarity and is a constructed competence at EU level. Secondly, and more particularly, we have had enough! We have had enough, ladies and gentlemen! For years, the EU has waged war on smokers, alcohol and the obese in Europe, apparently on the assumption that our citizens are stupid and need nannying through legislation. That is precisely what I am opposed to.\nThe citizens who I represent are not stupid. A prohibition policy is always counterproductive and my job is to represent people, not nanny them.\nDaniel Hannan\nMadam President, if ever there was an issue that cried out for subsidiarity, it is surely that of smoking. Pass over the hypocrisy of subsidising the growing of tobacco in the European Union while penalising its consumption. Disregard the double standard of discouraging smoking within the EU but encouraging it outside. Focus instead on the more basic question of what any of this has to do with Brussels.\nSurely the legal and fiscal status of tobacco is a national prerogative, and the question of where and when we may consume it should be decided more locally still: in a privately-owned space by the proprietor of that space, and in a public space by the municipal authorities. It ought to have nothing to do with national governments and certainly nothing to do with the European Union. Subsidiarity, colleagues - remember that?\nMarcin Libicki\n(PL) Madam President, during this sitting we have debated the report by Mr Florenz on limiting the right to smoke cigarettes. I voted against this report because I believe that restrictions should only be imposed in cases where smoking will harm other people. We cannot, however, ban people who wish to harm themselves from doing so. That amounts to an intrusion into the rights of the individual that goes beyond the rights of any employer. The issue of treatment-related costs is of course relevant, but that is simply a matter for those responsible for insuring others. If it were deemed appropriate, the rates for smokers could be increased to cover treatment costs. There is another issue worthy of mention too, namely subsidiarity. Previous speakers have already referred to it and of course I entirely agree that this issue, which is in any case essentially flawed, must come under the competence of national authorities, not that of the European Union.\nDaniel Caspary  \nin writing. - (DE) I welcome all measures in the Member States to inform citizens about the risks of smoking. In my view, all these measures fall within the purview of the Member States, not the European Union.\nI have therefore rejected the Florenz report in the final vote.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of Mr Florenz's report on the 'Green Paper: Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level' as I consider it essential that appropriate steps are taken to reduce the number of deaths and serious illnesses caused by tobacco smoke.\nIn that regard, I support the call for the Commission to amend Directive 2001\/37\/EC on tobacco products in order, in light of new scientific advances, to revise the rules on the use of additives and other substances in these products, particularly in relation to carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic additives.\nRobert Goebbels  \nin writing. - (FR) Strasbourg is not Qom and the European Parliament is not the 'supreme leader' who has been sent down to dispense propriety and righteousness across the Union. Everybody now knows that smoking is bad for your health. But life itself is dangerous, for it always ends in death. I personally have never smoked in my life.\nWhile it does not shock me that some adults are prepared to take the risk, I never cease to be amazed at the proselytising of the ayatollahs on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety who, by issuing own-initiative report after report, are attempting to 'save the planet' to the detriment of human beings and their weaknesses. I say 'no' to these zealots.\nGenowefa Grabowska  \nin writing. - (PL) As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and also as a non-smoker aware of the many negative consequences of cigarette smoking in one's immediate surroundings, I welcome the report by Mr Florenz entitled: 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke'.\nI believe it is entirely appropriate for the European Parliament itself to send out a firm and unequivocal message to all EU citizens and Member States making it clear that we do not wish to see people smoking in public places, notably in restaurants, in bars and on public transport. We particularly do not wish to see people smoking in the workplace.\nWe are also calling for stricter measures against the sale of cigarettes to minors. In addition, I think the introduction of restrictions should be accompanied by a wide-ranging information campaign that should cover more than the harmful effects of smoking. The latter are generally well-known, but it also needs to be made clear that non-smokers' rights to live in a smoke-free environment cannot be dependent on or restricted by smokers wishing to exercise their right to smoke at the expense of non-smokers.\nIf our appeal for a Europe free from tobacco smoke is to bear fruit, we Members of the European Parliament should set an example and give up smoking at our workplace. That means no more smoking in any Parliament premises.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for this report which seeks not only to support Member States in the strict measures they have adopted to combat tobacco addiction, but also to promote better public health.\nNot only is tobacco smoke a major source of air pollution, the chemicals contained in cigarettes expose smokers and non-smokers alike to serious risk. This is particularly true in enclosed spaces, such as workplaces, bars and restaurants. It therefore seems essential to me that we should clearly and unilaterally ban smoking in such places.\nImposing strict legislation designed to provide maximum protection for the health of our citizens cannot effectively be achieved without a real effort at alerting and informing the public as to the risks associated with tobacco use. I also welcome the willingness that has been expressed to direct information campaigns at certain target groups, especially the young, pregnant women and parents.\nFinally, I regret that an amendment has been adopted calling on the Commission to investigate the health risks associated with chewing tobacco and the impact this has on cigarette consumption. I believe that this request does not belong in a report such as this, for the health risks presented by chewing tobacco, namely cancer of the tongue and so on, are generally recognised.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this report, which sets out the options for reducing the harm caused by tobacco smoke across the European Union. It does not call for EU legislation, but calls on Member States to institute comprehensive smoking bans within two years. The UK already has such a ban, but given the harm tobacco causes I support this sensible approach being extended across the EU.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Smoking bans are, of course, in the interests of public health and, for public buildings, are therefore to be welcomed. It is also sensible to protect children and young people. However, with these particular groups, it would be more helpful if people set a good example and maintained existing anti-smoking campaigns. It is hypocritical, however, for the European Union to attempt to prescribe smoking bans wholesale for all Member States when it has shown itself to be incapable of even reaching an agreement on facilities here in the House.\nOur democratic system and modern attitudes to life are based on freedom of choice and, logically, this should apply to smoking as well. If a majority of the population is in favour of a smoking ban in restaurants, then this will come into effect over the short or the long term. There is already a trend for people to become non-smokers and, in line with the principle of sovereignty, it should remain a matter for each country to decide whether smoking bans should be introduced in restaurants, for example, and what form these bans should take.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis  \nin writing. - (EL) I have supported the Florenz report on the Green Paper 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke'. I believe it will contribute to public health protection and help substantially in reducing the harmful effects of smoking, both in young people and in chronic smokers. It will achieve this by pushing for the immediate prohibition of all additives that strengthen addiction and by promoting preventive measures at European and Member State level.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - I strongly support smoking bans in public places to protect public health and to avert the dangers of passive smoking.\nA Scottish ban on smoking in public places has now been in place for 19 months, and figures show that since the smoking ban was introduced there has been a 20% reduction in heart attack admissions to hospital.\nThe smoking ban has therefore saved lives and has been effective in promoting better health for Scots. I look forward to seeing this approach applied across the rest of Europe.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Florenz entitled: 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke'.\nTobacco smoke is a very harmful substance. It contains thousands of chemical substances, including over 250 carcinogenic and toxic components. Even the slightest exposure to these substances can contribute to the development of tumours. Tobacco smoke particles are deposited permanently in enclosed areas causing air pollution that even the best ventilation systems cannot deal with effectively.\nThousands of people die each year in the European Union as a result of passive smoking. These deaths could be prevented. It has to be possible for every European Union citizen to live and work in surroundings that are free from tobacco smoke. This must be emphasised particularly in connection with public institutions and premises. Seventy per cent of the population of the European Union is non-smoking. We must bear this in mind and ensure that these people are able to live in a clean and safe environment.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) I voted against the report because it does not clearly reflect the European Union position on Turkey. It is necessary to freeze accession talks with Turkey completely. There are numerous reasons for doing so. At present Turkey is an untrustworthy partner. By refusing Turkey's EU entry, in other words by telling the Turks the truth about their future EU membership, we would help the country democratise their society at last.\nTurkey continues to occupy a Member State of the European Union: 40% of Cypriot territory is under Turkish military occupation. There is no freedom of religion in Turkey. Non-Muslims, Christians, members of the Orthodox Catholic Church and Protestants all suffer from persecution because they are not allowed to build churches. Five hundred Orthodox churches have been destroyed while everywhere in the European Union Muslims are building mosques. There is no freedom of speech in Turkey. Turkey denies the massacre of one-third of the Armenian population in the past. It is getting ready for another military intervention in Iraq. It is not solving the issues of the Kurdish minority on its territory. Turkey is not in Europe and does not belong in the EU. A privileged partnership with Turkey, instead of full membership, will be quite enough.\nChristoph Konrad\n(DE) Madam President, I did not vote for the resolution on Turkey because I am greatly concerned that the Turkish Parliament has agreed a military strike against Iraq. This could not be taken into account in the report, but is a very topical issue.\nTaking measures against a terrorist group is rather different from voting to invade a neighbouring country. It is not in the EU's interests to see any destabilisation of Iraq. We should be reminding Turkey that, as a candidate country, it should be considering EU interests within the framework of common interests. This shows that full membership for Turkey - which I do not support, incidentally - with its shared borders with Iran and Iraq would mean a complete redrawing of the political map within the EU. In my view, we should spare ourselves the associated risks.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Madam President, I voted against the Oomen-Ruijten resolution because I think that Parliament should play a more active and a more ambitious role in monitoring the negotiation process with Turkey.\nNow it seems that we have to make sure that we do not hurt the sensitive feelings of Mr Erdo\u011fan and Mr G\u00fcl. It is becoming increasingly clear that Turkey is a candidate country unlike any other. Turkey evidently does not need to adhere to the Copenhagen criteria so strictly, despite all the promises from the Council, the Commission and Parliament that it would have to.\nThe way things are going we should not be at all surprised that more and more citizens in the European Union are turning their backs on the Union.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Madam President, this new vote on Turkish accession is a clear illustration of the fact that not only for most of our citizens is Europe far away and of no great concern to them, but that the European institutions themselves are increasingly alienating themselves from the citizens of Europe.\nTo the Eurocrats, Europe is not really Europe any more, as we blithely proceed to prepare for the accession of a country that is not European at all, not European in historical, cultural or religious terms, not in the euro, and not even European in geographical terms. What is more, this whole business has been pushed down our throats in a fundamentally undemocratic way, because the vast majority of European citizens really are against the accession of Turkey, but they are not allowed to have their say.\nThe citizens are not allowed to have their say on Turkey, just as they are not allowed to have their say on the new Constitution that we are not allowed to call a constitution. Are the Eurocrats actually afraid of democracy, afraid of consulting the people? This Europe is operating in an increasingly undemocratic and antidemocratic way, and it will all end very badly.\nEija-Riitta Korhola\n(FI) Madam President, two weeks ago Hrant Dink's son Arat Dink and the publisher Serkis Seropyan were sentenced to prison for a year under Article 301, that is to say for insulting Turkishness. What was their crime? Over a year ago, thus prior to the murder of Hrant Dink, their newspaper Argos published a story stating that Hrant Dink, in an interview with Reuters, had said he thought the killings which took place in 1915 were genocide. The newspaper was therefore only reporting this, and that is all.\nI therefore think it is vitally important to vote in favour of our resolution calling on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. I say this as a friend of Turkey. It would be good if Turkey understood that this is not meant as an anti-Turkish stance. It is more about the custom the EU has of trying to create a better society in which the horrors of history can be avoided. A mindset where national identity protects itself with a penal code in which Article 301 is a continual frame of reference, and in which the mistakes of a nation are denied, is in serious conflict with this custom.\nOne of the bases of the European identity is that history is looked straight in the eye and held to account. The Armenian genocide is a historical truth. Parliament will be demanding that Turkey acknowledge it in the resolution on the start of negotiations.\nG\u00e9rard Deprez  \nin writing. - (FR) I wish to support the amendments made to the text that has been submitted for today's vote on relations between the European Union and Turkey and in doing so would recall the conclusions reached at the European Council held in Brussels in December 2006. These set out the principle whereby, as far as enlargement was concerned, the European Union would require each candidate country to comply fully with all the Copenhagen criteria, but that any enlargement would still be subject to the Union's capacity for further integration.\nQuite a few of you will have been aware for some time of the doubts, or rather the concerns, that I have had about the European Union's ability to continue to function properly if Turkey were to become one of its Member States.\nOf course Turkey is a 'friendly' country and in geo-strategic terms is a very important partner for the European Union. I am therefore completely in favour of the EU maintaining a privileged partnership with Turkey. However, I am fiercely opposed to that particular country becoming part the Community.\nMoreover, I believe that the problems of integrating Turkey as a potential Member State will become increasingly clear as the accession negotiations progress.\nPatrick Gaubert  \nin writing. - (FR) I congratulate the rapporteur on having tabled the resolution on relations between the European Union and Turkey. The motion for a resolution by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten is a consensual and balanced document and in it she has sought to cover all the issues relating to this particular problem.\nOn the one hand the resolution congratulates Turkey on having recently held free and fair elections, calls on the Turkish Government to accelerate the process of reform and welcomes its intention to adopt a new civilian constitution. The motion for a resolution further calls for a new political initiative to be launched for a lasting settlement to the Kurdish issue. It also refers to attempts at reaching a settlement to the Cyprus question within the UN framework.\nOn the other hand, and this is in accordance with the position being supported by France, I welcome the fact that the resolution recalls that Turkey's accession continues to depend on full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria and on the EU's capacity for further integration.\nFor all these reasons I have decided to support the adoption of this resolution at the final vote in plenary. I can only once again express my deep regret that Parliament has not formally called on Turkey to officially recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As we highlighted earlier, many questions are raised by the negotiations on Turkey's accession to the EU. This process is being encouraged by the major powers which, despite the contradictions, are aiming to integrate this great country into the EU's 'single market', thereby gaining control of its economy and using its geo-strategic position for their own plans in the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia.\nThe resolution is therefore illuminating in this respect as it underlines 'the importance of Turkey as a transit hub for the diversification of gas supplies to the EU' and 'energy projects involving Turkey in the South Caucasus', and also 'the geo-strategic position of Turkey in the region' whose 'role in transportation and logistics will become more important in the coming years'.\nThe following are some of the other important aspects that should be underlined:\nTurkey has not made any steps towards recognising Cyprus - an EU Member State - and still militarily occupies the north of this island and disregards UN resolutions on this issue;\nthe Turkish authorities are still engaged in repression against the Kurdish people and are still denying their legitimate cultural, political, economic and social rights.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The report on the progress of Turkey's course of accession to the EU includes utterly spurious congratulations to the Turkish Government and the new president. The report is a hypocritical and ineffectual expression of wishful thinking about human rights in vague and general terms, condemning terrorism and mentioning the joint struggle waged against it by the EU and Turkey.\nOn the other hand, there is no reference whatsoever to the continuing occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkish military forces. There is not even a token condemnation of Turkey's continuing refusal to recognise the Republic of Cyprus, and no pressure brought to bear on this issue. There is no condemnation of the Turkish regime's policy of contesting Greek sovereign rights or of its threat to use force against neighbouring countries. There is no serious condemnation of the barbarous persecution and crimes committed by the Turkish authorities against the Kurdish population. There is not the slightest allusion to the political persecution, at the hands of the Turkish middle class in all its guises, both pro-burka and secular, of communists and other progressive-minded people. Despite all this, Turkey is urged not to use disproportionate force in the impending attack on northern Iraq!\nIn the context of the EU, the report reflects the objectives of powerful imperialist countries in line with their geopolitical interests in the wider area.\nIt is in the interests of the Turkish people and other peoples in the area to oppose Turkey's integration into the EU and its imperialist plans.\nPierre Pribetich  \nin writing. - (FR) This resolution loses its impact because important amendments relating to the recognition of the Armenian genocide have been rejected by the majority of Members.\nI am and will remain in favour of Turkey's accession to the European Union. However, this accession process has to recognise some historical facts.\nMoreover, I am totally opposed to the contradiction that Parliament has now introduced. In paragraph 5 of the resolution of 28 September 2005 it in fact called on Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide and regarded this admission as a precondition for accession to the European Union. The decision to omit the Armenian genocide from the new resolution is a step backwards and one that I cannot support.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) Regardless of the end result, the current negotiations with Turkey must bring about the reforms which the country so desperately needs and which, in themselves, are the most important aspect of a country's potential accession to the EU.\nIn this context, we must regard the AKP's victory more as a commitment to economic reform than as a vote for Islam.\nGiven recent developments, the Kurdish issue must be tackled in conjunction with the United States, bearing in mind the issue of Iraq where the Kurdish north is peaceful. On the other hand, we cannot refrain from criticising the Kurdish terrorist attacks on Turkey or the lack of integration and acceptance of Kurds within Turkey itself.\nFinally, we can never highlight enough the geo-strategic importance of Turkey in relation to the security of Europe's borders, energy supply, particularly as an alternative to dependency on Russian gas, as a partner in dialogue with Islamic countries and on the Iraq issue.\nFor all these reasons, the EU's strategy must be to negotiate seriously and firmly.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for the resolution that urges Turkey to accelerate the pace of its reforms.\nWe have to call on Turkey to do more: to ensure civilian control over the military; to have zero tolerance of torture; to provide protection for women and minority groups, and to recognise the Armenian genocide.\nThe handling of the Kurdish issue also has to be used as a criterion for assessing the reform process. The report that we have voted on urges the Turkish Government to launch a political initiative aimed at finding a lasting settlement to the Kurdish problem. It also deplores the violation of Iraq's territory, while at the same time, of course, condemning the violence perpetrated by the PKK.\nThis is not about targeting Turkey as such, it is about recalling that we cannot have double standards, that we cannot sell off cheaply the values that we hold dear.\nIt would also be disastrous to continue to ignore public opinion, which was again expressed in a poll carried out by Notre Europe before the Lisbon Summit. The people of Europe are concerned about ill-prepared decisions on any future enlargement and about the EU's capacity to absorb any more countries after the huge wave of new accessions that took place between 2004 and 2007.\nRenate Sommer  \nin writing. - (DE) I support the resolution on Turkey. The Turkish Government must be vigorous in implementing reforms at last.\nAs for the Armenian genocide, although Turkey's admission of this genocide is not part of the Copenhagen criteria, a country which aspires to join the EU must surely face up to the dark side of its history.\nOverall, Turkey has a very long way to go before it meets the Copenhagen criteria. Substantial deficits in relation to human and minority rights, civil and political rights and the general weakness of Turkey's democracy vis-\u00e0-vis the military still exist.\nThere is still no progress on the Cyprus issue. For that reason, we must continue to push, this year, for the ratification of the Ankara Protocol. Without this, and also without the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island, there can be no solution. Turkey apparently refuses to understand that there are 27 Member States of the European Union and that one of these is the Republic of Cyprus!\nAs regards the conflict in the south-east of Turkey, the plan to launch an incursion into northern Iraq has existed at least since spring 2006. At present, it is to be feared that the invasion will indeed take place. However, a country which - despite international support for the securing of its borders - claims the right to violate international law as it sees fit disqualifies itself from accession to the European Union once and for all.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski  \nin writing. - (PL) I abstained in the final vote on the report concerning EU-Turkey relations. This was because, despite negotiations lasting several months, the resolution makes no reference to the issue of Turkish responsibility for the massacre of Armenians in 1915.\nTurkey is attempting to impose censorship on the international community regarding this matter. The most recent proof of this was the pressure brought to bear on the US Congress. The latter nevertheless stood firm and adopted an appropriate stance. It is a mistake to give in to unjustified pressure from Turkey on this matter.\nI should like to add, however, that I very much appreciate the inclusion in the aforementioned resolution of statements concerning the rights of Christian minorities in Turkey, such as the right to train clergy and Church institutions' right to legal personality.\nDominique Vlasto  \nin writing. - (FR) I decided to abstain on the resolution on EU-Turkey relations in order to signal my opposition to the accession negotiations currently under way. Two recent events should make us aware of the risks associated with this hypothetical accession. First there is the political crisis that the country went through before the new President of the Republic was sworn in: this illustrated the tensions that exist within Turkish society and also the fragility of that country's institutions. I am also thinking of the tensions that have built up at the Iraqi border and the risk that this could destabilise one of the few areas in that country where violence has been contained. The Turkish Parliament's decision to authorise the army to make military incursions into Iraq is unacceptable. Turkey is playing a dangerous role in the region and the EU should not lend any support to these populist and aggressive actions.\nAll this only reinforces my conviction: if we enlarge the Union to the borders of Iraq, I do not see what we will have left that is European. I believe that Turkey is still unfit to join the EU. It is up to us to put forward an alternative option: here the 'Mediterranean Union' proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy certainly offers an opportunity that should be seized by the EU and by Turkey.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) I did not vote for the European Parliament resolution on EU-Turkey relations because enlargement of the European Union and Turkey's entry into the Community are rather serious matters requiring more detailed knowledge and more intensive debate. In my opinion, in the accession process the same rules should apply to all countries.\nThe proposed amendments calling for an admission of the Armenian genocide and for an apology to Armenia and the Armenian people were not adopted by the plenary. Only such an admission and apology can give impetus to the process of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. Furthermore, Turkey continues to hinder progress in the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem. The cross-border military operation against Kurds who live along the border with Iraq, approved in a declaration issued by the Turkish Parliament, will not lead to a constructive solution to the terrorism problem in the country. It will simply lead to the destabilisation of the entire region.\nThere is also no visible progress in the matter of freedom of religion within the territory of the Republic of Turkey. The safety of Christians living in Turkey and respect for their rights are not guaranteed. In recent times we have witnessed violent attacks on Christian priests, missionaries, publishers or converts. Turkey has also not re-opened the Orthodox Church's seminary without which the very existence of this ancient church is threatened.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote (continuation) \nPresident\nWe still have three explanations of votes remaining.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n- Mr President, I welcome the fact that the total amount of irregularities in the way European funds are being used is declining. The fact that the amount of irregularities in the agricultural sector fell so dramatically by 34% is especially encouraging. A strong and competitive role for OLAF is among the factors that helped to improve the situation. I welcome the proposal enshrined in our resolution to increase cooperation among EU Member States in the area of taxation.\nHowever, I want to express my deep concern about the fact that fraudulent activities increased in the new Member States, especially Romania and Bulgaria. In EU-10 they grew by 8% while debt for the EU-2 increased by 152%. I want to express my strong support for the calls on Romania and Bulgaria to build up their administrative capacity to manage EU funding and improve the supervision and transparency of public procurement procedures at all levels.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n- Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Deutsch for his excellent report. Today's substantive discussion and our resolution, which I supported, is an excellent starting point for the future activities of the European Investment Bank, especially taking into account the EU 2020 Strategy.\nIn addition, I would like once again to urge the European governments to provide the EIB with a more significant lending capacity to our neighbours, especially those in the east, who are highly in need of loans and investments, and who are also suffering from the effects of the crisis. Compatibility between the policy goals of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the lending directions of the EIB should be ensured in the future even more than before.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nMr President, in January and March we witnessed mass atrocities in Nigeria which caused the deaths of several hundred people, including women and children. What is necessary for Nigeria is first of all a reconciliation process and the peaceful coexistence between Muslims living in the north and Christians living in the south.\nSecondly, taking into account that, despite Nigeria being one of the biggest oil producers in the world, most of its people still live in poverty. They do not benefit from the overall development of the country so corruption, which is widespread, has to be challenged and fought effectively and seriously.\nThirdly, European Union assistance to Nigeria should address the most important problems, the most sensitive issues in order to achieve at least some visible progress in this country.\nBastiaan Belder\n(NL) Mr President, the latest news I received this week about Christians in Jos sounds extremely worrying. In recent weeks, too, our co-religionists - Christians, that is - have been found murdered in various places in this Nigerian city. For example, on Saturday 24 April, members of a gang of Muslim youths stabbed to death two journalists working for a Christian monthly. The perpetrators used the mobile phones of their victims to call the latter's unsuspecting friends and relatives and say, 'We have killed them all, come and see.'\nMr President, this is typical of an atmosphere of violence with impunity in Nigeria of which Christians are the main victims, and which has resulted in hundreds of deaths in and around Jos since the start of this year. Significantly, one observer has spoken of systematic religious persecution. Hence his appeal to the international community - and thus also to the European institutions - to recognise Islamic extremism as a key explanation for the explosive situation in Nigeria, particularly in the case of Jos, which lies at the crossroads between the Muslim north and the Christian south.\nUnfortunately - and this is also my criticism today - this is what the joint motion for a resolution explicitly does not do (see paragraph 5). The motion for a resolution fails to take a firm line on the Islamic extremism prevailing in Nigeria; worse still, it opposes - and I quote - 'simplistic explanations based only on religion'. I too oppose single-cause explanations, but this oversimplification on the part of the EU, of this House, does not help the Nigerian Christians, whose lives are poised between hope and fear these days, in the slightest. That is my criticism, and that is why I abstained.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\n- Mr President, I think it is appalling that a country with such massive oil reserves as Nigeria should be involved in such mass atrocities, but at the same time, taking our cue from the Vice President of the United States, the solution has to be in dialogue, dialogue, dialogue, allied with education, education, education, so that peace can be brought to the country.\nI appreciated Joe Biden referring to the line by the Irish poet William Butler Yeats: 'a terrible beauty is born'. We hope that terrible beauty may be turned into a wonderful beauty in Nigeria, where peace and prosperity will prevail. The European Union has an important role to play in that - and, indeed, in the discussion today - and in the vote we have set out a marker. I appreciate that very much.\nPresident\n- The Minutes from this sitting will be presented to Parliament for approval at the start of the next part-session. If there are no objections, the resolutions adopted at today's sitting will be handed over to the recipients and bodies named in them immediately.\nWritten explanations of vote\nSophie Auconie  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted for this recommendation since it highlights the innovative, constructive and democratic character of the convening of Conventions for the revision of the Treaties (for example, the Convention held from 1999-2000, which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the Convention held from 2002-2003, which prepared the draft treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe), while recognising the altogether exceptional character of the revision of the Treaties currently made necessary by the implementation of transitional measures concerning the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nIn summary, the Convention system must be used since we are talking about revisions of the Treaties that go beyond simple provisional, technical adjustments. Therefore, following the example of the rapporteur, Mr M\u00e9ndez de Vigo, I think it is good that the European Parliament 'approved the European Council's proposal to amend Protocol No 36 by means of an Intergovernmental Conference, without convening a Convention'.\nLiam Aylward and Pat the Cope Gallagher  \nin writing. - (GA) Pat the Cope Gallagher MEP and Liam Aylward MEP have drawn attention to the fact that only Ireland and Malta use the system of proportional representation to elect Members of the European Parliament. Northern Ireland also uses the system of proportional representation for European elections. We are completely against the implementation of uniform or identical electoral systems for the election of Members of the European Parliament. Since the founding of the Irish State, it has been demonstrated that the proportional representation system is a fair and equal system.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - This vote concerned the possibility of convening a Convention for the revision of the Treaties in view of transitional measures to do with the composition of the European Parliament. When taking into consideration various factors such as the Convention held from 22 February 2002 to 18 June 2003, as well as that which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, I am in agreement with the view of the rapporteur to support the Council's proposal to amend Protocol No 36 through holding an intergovernmental conference rather than convening a convention.\nCarlos Coelho  \nThe entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has changed the composition of the European Parliament, which is going from having 736 Members to having 751. There will be 18 new Members from 12 Member States. Since the Treaty of Lisbon sets an upper limit on the number of MEPs from each Member State, Germany has three fewer seats. As it is not possible to curtail an MEP's mandate during a term, this means that Parliament will temporarily have 754 Members, making it necessary to change the Treaty so as to temporarily lift the limit of 751 Members. I believe that it would have been preferable to apply this new composition in the 2014 elections and not in the current parliamentary term, but I recognise that there is a broad consensus on putting these changes into effect immediately. For this reason, I agree that the Intergovernmental Conference, which will be convened just to adopt the transitional provisions relating to the remainder of this parliamentary term, should not be preceded by a Convention; this must not, however, constitute a precedent for the future.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe sin of Europe's system of Conventions, recalling the French and US experiences, was presuming to have a legitimacy that it still did not, in fact, have at that time. I therefore think that the Convention that adopted the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe ended up extrapolating the powers that had been conferred on it. I wish wholeheartedly that the results had been otherwise, but the circumstances at the time did not permit it. I therefore think that the return to the formula of intergovernmental conferences is the most realistic way of ensuring dialogue among Member States' governments, and it should focus on the specific problems that it is being called on to solve, such as that on which we voted.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI voted for the decision not to convene a Convention for the revision of the Treaties with regard to the transitional measures concerning the composition of the European Parliament. I voted that way because I believe that it seems unnecessary to convene a Convention to approve an amendment of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union. I agree that the Council should amend Protocol No 36 within the framework of an Intergovernmental Conference, without convening a Convention.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski  \nI agree completely with the author of the report, and would like once again to recall that in the decided majority of Member States new Members of Parliament have already been appointed in accordance with current regulations. We await, therefore, introduction of the Council proposal on modification of protocol No 36. This will enable the additional Members to come to Parliament as observers immediately after approval of the amendment to the protocol, and with its entry into force our new fellow Members will be able to start work as full Members of the European Parliament.\nFranz Obermayr  \nin writing. - (DE) The rapporteur is opposed to a Convention, because the treaty changes are only transitional measures. I do not see the situation in the same way, as it also concerns democratic problems. France has a different electoral system and therefore does not have the option of 'moving up' democratically and directly elected members from a list. It is for that reason that I have voted against this report.\nSiiri Oviir  \nin writing. - (ET) If we look at this precisely and from a legal point of view, the decision we are taking will amend the Treaty of Lisbon, which envisages the convening of a Convention. However, as the action is limited in scope and restricted to the transitional amendment, I relied on the principle of proportionality and supported the transitional solution nominated by 479 colleagues: that is, to give the right of decision to an Intergovernmental Conference rather than convening a Convention.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted against this report because I am against not convening a Convention for the revision of Treaties.\nRafa\u0142 Trzaskowski  \nThe decision not to convene a Convention was one of the most difficult decisions related to the introduction of the 18 new Members to Parliament. We have made this decision precisely out of respect for this instrument, whose objective is to increase the legitimacy of decisions concerning fundamental EU law. It is not a precedent for the future. All important matters concerning changes to the Treaties, such as electoral procedure, will still require a Convention to be convened. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr M\u00e9ndez de Vigo, and the coordinators for making this decision, because it was not easy. We have a problem with the appointment of the 18 new Members, because some Member States have not used the appropriate procedure. However, we have decided that the most important principle is representativeness. This House should have, above all, a balanced representation as quickly as possible. Therefore, we call on Member States to complete this process as quickly as possible, assuming at the same time that all Members will be chosen in direct elections.\nSophie Auconie  \nI voted for the excellent report by my colleague, Mr M\u00e9ndez de Vigo. A transitional measure must in fact be found to reconcile respect for the Treaty of Lisbon with Article 5 of the 1976 Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. It is therefore necessary to increase the number of MEPs to 754 for the rest of the 2009-2014 parliamentary term.\nFurthermore, I am pleased with the wording of paragraph 6 of this report, which calls for a uniform system for electing MEPs: 'Notifies the European Council that it intends shortly to draw up proposals to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States and in accordance with principles common to all Member States, and that Parliament will initiate such electoral reform under Article 48(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 223 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; insists, further, that a Convention devoted to the reform of the European Parliament will be called to prepare the revision of the Treaties'.\nJean-Luc Bennahmias  \nThe European Parliament has agreed to 18 MEPs joining the Chamber during the parliamentary term. This agreement means that Parliament, elected in June 2009 under the procedure of the Treaty of Nice, is in conformity with the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009.\nI voted against, and did so for one reason which in my opinion is crucially important: during the European elections of June 2009, most of the Member States believed it very probable that the Treaty of Lisbon would be ratified imminently. Consequently, they adapted the way in which the elections were held. This is not the case with France, which did not make any arrangements to ensure a smooth transition from 72 to 74 MEPs.\nThe solution found in the end - the appointment of two members of the National Assembly - is unacceptable. Since 1979, MEPs have been elected by direct universal suffrage by European citizens, and not appointed by national assemblies. It is thanks to direct universal suffrage that we can rightfully speak on behalf of all Europeans. The fact that Parliament has accepted the French compromise sets a worrying precedent in terms of its failure to comply with the Treaties.\nPhilip Bradbourn  \nin writing. - We welcome measures to allow the 18 additional Members to take up their seats in the European Parliament. However, they should not enjoy observer status until the transitional measures enter into force and they can take their seats as full Members of Parliament. As observers, the incoming Members would be entitled to their salaries and expenses before they are entitled to vote. That is wrong, and it is why our delegation has voted against this report.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nI must express the strongest criticism of France's decision as regards the appointment of the two additional MEPs called to take their seats in the European Parliament, by virtue of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nUnlike the 11 other European countries affected by this reform, which anticipated the election and which have of course relied on the results of the European elections of June 2009, the French Government, for its part, has decided to simply appoint members from its national parliament: this is a disgrace to democracy.\nFurthermore, we French socialists did not think that the other 16 MEPs should have to pay the price for this complete lack of preparation on the part of France, and in the end we therefore advocated the launch of an IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) that will enable these elected MEPs - firstly as observers - to come and play their role as representatives of the European citizens who elected them with this sole aim in mind.\nCarlos Coelho  \nThe last European elections (2009) took place before the Treaty of Lisbon had entered into force, so Parliament's composition was still the same as that established by the Treaty of Nice (736 Members). The European Council agreed with the draft composition proposed by Parliament in 2007, increasing the number from 750 to 751. I considered it preferable for the new composition of the European Parliament to be applied only in the next European elections in 2014. Nonetheless, there is a broad consensus that it should be done now. It will, therefore, be necessary to regulate how the 18 new Members (shared between 12 Member States) will be elected. The new Treaty sets an upper limit on the number of MEPs from each Member State, meaning that Germany will lose three seats. As it is not possible to curtail an MEP's mandate during a term, this means that Parliament will temporarily have 754 Members. I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Mendez de Vigo, when he recommends that the new Members take up their posts on the same day, to avoid regional distortions to representation in Parliament. I do not agree with the possibility that the new Members be appointed by their national authorities. I believe that Members only acquire legitimacy through election.\nMarielle De Sarnez  \nThe Treaty of Lisbon increases the number of MEPs from 736 to 751. However, as the 2009 elections took place before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, only 736 MEPs were elected. Our Parliament therefore had to adopt new provisions concerning its composition for the rest of the parliamentary term. The Democratic Movement delegation did not vote in favour of this text for two reasons. It cannot agree to the Council's proposal to convene an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) without having a Convention composed of representatives of the national parliaments, Heads of State or Government, Parliament and the Commission. This accelerated procedure 'violates' not only the spirit, but also the letter, of the Treaties. It also sets an unfortunate precedent. The appointment of two members of the French national parliament among the 18 additional MEPs constitutes a serious attack on the primary legislation, which stipulates that MEPs must be elected by direct universal suffrage and not appointed by their national parliaments. This only positive result of this episode will be that it has drawn attention to the need to reform Parliament's electoral procedure in the long term and, more specifically, to the demand that we have long been making for a proportion of MEPs to be elected to a European constituency.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for this report because it argues that the 18 additional MEPs, from 12 Member States, can take their seats after being elected. It is regrettable that the Council did not adopt the necessary measures in time to allow these Members to take their seats immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe fact that the Treaty of Lisbon did not enter into force in time to be immediately applicable to the elections for the 2009-2014 term of the European Parliament led to a problem that has ended up, I believe, being resolved sensibly and in a way that reflects the inevitable difficulties of transition periods. Therefore, while it would not make sense or be legitimate to strip elected Members of their mandates, it would also not be reasonable to prevent the Member States that are benefiting from an increase in the number of their representatives from appointing them in accordance with the legislation governing their respective electoral systems. The exceptional circumstances fully justify the exceptional solutions adopted.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nAn increase in the total number of MEPs by 15 (from the 736 stipulated in the Treaty of Nice to 751), with 18 additional seats to be distributed among 12 Member States, has been adopted. Germany has been allocated three fewer seats in view of the maximum number laid down in the EU Treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon had not entered into force before the 2009 European elections, so the latter were held in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Nice, meaning that the European Parliament currently has 736 Members rather than 751. On the other hand, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon means that the 18 additional MEPs from the 12 Member States concerned can legitimately take their seats. It is not possible to curtail an MEP's mandate during a parliamentary term or, therefore, to reduce the current number of MEPs in the German delegation by three. I therefore take the view that the amendment of Protocol No 36 requested by the European Council stems directly from the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, and is a valid solution that will enable all those Member States entitled to additional seats to designate the MEPs concerned. These 18 MEPs must take up their seats in Parliament at the same time in order not to upset the balance of nationalities in the House.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nAs we have been asserting and as can be seen from this report, the Treaty of Lisbon not only implements neoliberal, militarist and federalist policies but is an instrument full of ambiguities and contradictions, such as those expressed in Protocol (No 36) on provisions concerning the composition of the European Parliament. The arrogance of those promoting the Treaty was so great that it prevented them from making these provisions flexible, because they had done everything to avoid referendums from being held in order to escape a vote by the peoples of the EU's countries and a repeat of the No by the French and Dutch peoples to the so-called 'Constitutional Treaty'. The Irish people also said no to this travesty of a text, and it was only after much pressure and blackmail that their vote was obtained, but already after the European elections.\nThis report has shown the attempt by some MEPs to entrench the EU's federalist trajectory by invoking a democratic legitimacy that the Treaty does not have. These Members are also attempting to further subordinate national legislations to the EU's interests with proposals that seek a uniform electoral procedure in all Member States, which is a sovereign competency of each Member State, and are demanding that a Convention be convened charged with the reform of the European Parliament to prepare for the revision of the Treaties.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nWhether the Treaties are revised by way of an Intergovernmental Conference or by way of a Convention changes absolutely nothing as far as the crux of the problem is concerned. Whether through incompetence, negligence or political miscalculation, one single country, France, refused to anticipate the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for its representation in the European Parliament, in spite of the repeated demands of several political groups, including my own. Consequently, today, France is the only one of the 27 that intends to appoint two new MEPs by the indirect means of a decision by a national parliament of which the voting system is thoroughly unjust. All of this is in violation of the Treaties themselves, and in violation of the Act of 1976, which provides for the election of MEPs by direct universal suffrage. Moreover, complicit in this is the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, which, despite having been dealt a severe blow in the 2009 elections, will inherit one of the two extra seats. This is scheming between friends, with the support of this Parliament. Unfortunately, in order to pass off this anomaly, the rapporteur is hiding behind the temporary nature of the measure. Temporary? The new French MEPs will sit for four years, which is more than 80% of the parliamentary term. I would have expected our fellow Member to have been firmer in terms of both the value of words and the defence of democratic principles.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted for several amendments aimed at underlining the unacceptable nature of the choice made by France, which is appointing members of its national parliament to sit in the European Parliament alongside 16 others, who for their part stood in the election of 7 June 2009. In my opinion, this choice, which was clearly made amid a total lack of preparation, runs counter to fundamental democratic principles and raises important questions about the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament. On the other hand, we must not block the arrival of the other MEPs, whose appointment is perfectly in accordance with the spirit of the Treaties. This issue demonstrates just how necessary it is for us to provide ourselves in future with a uniform method of appointing MEPs by direct universal suffrage, with this reform to be carried out by means of a convention.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted against this report because of our main amendment, in which we claimed that Members of the European Parliament should be elected by direct universal suffrage.\nCarlo Casini  \nI have cast my vote, which is categorically in favour of the two reports drafted by Mr M\u00e9ndez de Vigo. I am satisfied for two reasons: the committee that I chair acted promptly, reaching a provisional agreement, and that agreement paved the way for the one reached today in plenary by a very large majority.\nFrom this perspective, I have endorsed the idea of voting against paragraph 5, introduced by an amendment of mine tabled in committee, to emphasise that the appointment of the 18 new Members will have to comply as far as possible with the provisions of the 1976 Electoral Act, which requires that Members be elected directly by the European citizens. Therefore, the preference will have to be for an automatic method that allows the candidates who received the most votes of those who were not elected during the last European elections to join Parliament. If, however, the national electoral system does not allow for such a calculation, we can resort to appointment by the national parliaments.\nMara Bizzotto  \nThe political crisis in Kyrgyzstan is yet another episode in the destabilisation of the Central Asia region, a region that we know is crucial to Europe given the importance of the issue of where we source our energy and raw materials from, and to the United States and Russia, in view of the country's strategic position. This, unfortunately, is the disappointing outcome of the 2005 revolution, which had raised hopes of a real change in the political dynamics of the small, former Soviet republic and which seemed to herald, together with the events of the same years in Ukraine and Georgia, a calmer geopolitical future in the region as a whole. Unfortunately, today, Kyrgyzstan is reaping the bitter fruits of a change that did not happen, and the resolution on which we are voting contains the necessary and appropriate guidelines that this House should give to the European bodies that will be directly involved in the Kyrgyz issue in international and diplomatic forums. The hope is that the Commission and the Council will work consistently with one another on these guidelines, and, above all, will do so with a sense of urgency which, unfortunately, has been inexcusably lacking in other, even recent, cases. It was with the sincere hope that European action will have a positive impact on the stabilisation of Kyrgyzstan that I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution.\nDiogo Feio  \nA product of the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan is being disputed by the great powers and it seems to have declined into a process of political agitation and disintegration of the political and social fabric, which needs to be better monitored by European institutions and the governments of Member States. Europe's relative lack of knowledge of the Central Asian republics must be remedied, and channels for relations and communication sought that enable better access to more information and more detailed monitoring of their respective situations. I welcome the European Union's firmness in making the issues of freedom, democracy and human rights central to its agenda for Kyrgyzstan. I also hope that the provisional government shows itself to be as good as its word and undertakes reforms that do not fail to take these issues into account. The announcement of the calling of elections and of a constitutional referendum constitute an encouraging sign for the near future.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nAccording to independent observers, last year's presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan in which Kurmanbek Bakiyev was re-elected were tainted by massive fraud. Furthermore, after his initial democratic undertakings Bakiyev's rule turned authoritarian. Following mass demonstrations, President Bakiyev was forced to flee the capital and his place was taken by a provisional government led by the opposition leader Roza Otunbayeva, who issued a decree on power succession and an order of compliance with the Kyrgyz Constitution. Meanwhile, Bakiyev fled the country to seek refuge in Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan attracts special interest from the United States and Russia because of its strategic location in the middle of Central Asia. The EU and Central Asia have common challenges in terms of energy, the fight against climate change, drug trafficking control and the fight against terrorism. For this reason, the EU must engage actively with the provisional government, with a view to exploring and exploiting possibilities to promote good governance, the independence of the judiciary and other EU policy objectives laid down in the Central Asia Strategy.\nJacek Olgierd Kurski  \nAs co-author of the European Parliament motion for a resolution on Kyrgyzstan, I want to express my thanks to fellow Members who voted in favour of this document, today. Worthy of particular note is the intention announced by the interim Kyrgyzstani Government to begin work on constitutional reform and the rapid creation of the foundations for conducting democratic parliamentary elections. This explains the appeal to the interim government to meet Kyrgyzstan's international obligations and to ensure that the electoral process will be free and fair. We follow events in Kyrgyzstan with anxiety, and this includes the maintenance of an uninterrupted supply corridor for NATO and other international forces which are part of the mission in Afghanistan. It is essential that the European Union and the European Parliament monitor the situation in Kyrgyzstan very carefully, that essential assistance is given and that dialogue between all groups of Kyrgyzstani society is supported.\nBogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz  \nI voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on Kyrgyzstan, because I think that as a member of the delegation to Central Asia I am obliged to give at least this support to a nation which in recent weeks has found itself in such a difficult situation. The resolution calls for an end to violence, for dialogue between the parties to the conflict and for respect for the right to freedom, human rights and the principles of a state of law, and stresses the importance of a coherent and stable constitutional framework for ensuring democracy. I think, therefore, that the international aid programme should be brought into being as quickly as possible, and that the EU should assume the role of leader in the programme.\nNuno Melo  \nThe situation that is currently being experienced in Kyrgyzstan is concerning, all the more so because it is country situated in a very important part of Central Asia, with a geostrategic location near Afghanistan and adjacent to the Ferghana Valley. A United Nations-led international investigation into the events is needed, in order to identify responsibilities. It is important that the Special Representative for Central Asia follows the situation very closely, working closely with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nEuropean Parliament motion for a resolution No of 6 May 2010 on the situation in Kyrgyzstan is the common voice of Europe directed to Kyrgyzstan and its authorities. The motion for a resolution on Kyrgyzstan is an important signal from the European Union and the whole of Europe. We should show both the citizens and the Kyrgyzstani authorities, and not just by resolutions like this one, that we support the strengthening of democracy and the development of society, the security of the population and sustainable growth.\nThe European Parliament must be an institution which supports all prospects for democracy and does not accept any deviations from that route. The changes in Kyrgyzstan are a consequence of the last few years and the transitory nature of the hopes associated with the Tulip Revolution. Electoral fraud and the mild form of authoritarianism which has begun to operate in Kyrgyzstan cannot and will not be a matter of indifference. The only measures which we can and will support are democratic measures, because they are the foundation of the European Union. There can be no consent, on our part, to other measures. I hope the resolution on Kyrgyzstan is one of many steps we will take. The whole of Europe expects this of us.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution, together with the big majority, including the two oral amendments made during the vote.\nVilja Savisaar  \nin writing. - (ET) The events that took place in Kyrgyzstan at the start of April, already a month ago, have had a serious impact both upon the country's internal governmental situation and upon international relations. Thanks to this, Russia has increased its influence in Kyrgyzstan, both militarily and also economically, which was to be expected given the previous economic ties between these two countries. At the same time, Russia has promised to give economic aid both through direct financial support and also by selling gas and oil products at a favourable price. Today's report largely draws attention to the fact that the European Union and the UN must help ensure that a democratic government is elected and that human rights violations come to an end in this country.\nIt is certainly true that there is a desire to reduce corruption both in the public sector and in the justice system, which will perhaps make it necessary to reform the public sector and guarantee the independence of the justice system. Yet this is all directly connected with the country's economic situation, and therefore cooperation is necessary between the EU, the UN and Russia, because otherwise Kyrgyzstan will not be given priority; instead, all the 'great powers' will attempt to use this situation to their own ends. Therefore, I support this resolution, which calls on all parties to cooperate to ensure the observance of human rights and the development of democracy, as well as the reform of the public sector and the independence of the justice system. I believe, however, that it will be some time before this country reaches the desired level of democracy, since in order for that to happen, appointments will have to be made through open competitions rather than being allocated to relatives.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI welcome the recent communication on clean and efficient vehicles. Putting electric cars on the market could represent a competitive advantage for European industry. We must not, however, forget that Europe is currently the world leader in the automotive sector, and we cannot put this competitive advantage at risk. I therefore call on the Commission and the Member States to develop the conditions necessary to create an internal market in electric vehicles. I would also warn of the need to harmonise the standards for batteries and compatible charge points in the various Member States. It is also important to create tax incentives, with appropriate electricity prices for consumers. Another essential factor will be the modernisation of electricity grids. I call for greater investment in research and development into smart grids and battery technology, in order to make more efficient use of primary materials. I ask, therefore, that all efforts be made to maintain Europe's world leadership in the automotive industry.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted for the motion for a resolution because I believe that electric vehicles can contribute to achieving the priorities for the Europe 2020 Strategy, which consist of developing an economy that is based on knowledge and innovation, and promoting an economy that is more efficient in terms of use of resources; in other words, one that is more environmentally friendly and competitive.\nDiogo Feio  \nAt a time when debate about CO2 emissions has become unavoidable because it is central to discussion of climate change, and when the volatility of fuel prices has made the continuation of the current dependence on petroleum and its derivatives unsustainable, at least in the long term, it is important to find alternatives. For that reason, innovation put at the service of economic and social needs must seek solutions that are scientifically and economically viable. Electric vehicles are a significant innovation with high market potential, particularly in the long term, as they are responsible for reduced emissions of CO2 and other pollutants, and for improved energy efficiency and the promotion of innovation based on technological leadership. Given the above, there must be a European strategy for electric vehicles, supporting industry in developing clean and viable technology and supporting the creation of a single market in electric vehicles. Nevertheless, I must once again warn that the setting of a European strategy must not mean the creation of a complex mass of regulations weighing heavily on the industry, putting its development and viability at risk.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe challenges posed by climate change, CO2 emissions and other pollutants, and the volatility of fuel prices have created a positive climate for the worldwide development of electric vehicles. Electric vehicles contribute to achieving the 'Europe 2020' priorities of fostering innovation and knowledge (smart growth), promoting a more resource-efficient and greener economy (sustainable growth), and allowing the economy to grow by creating jobs (inclusive growth). It is important that the high cost of electric vehicles - caused mostly by the cost of batteries - decreases, which requires research and innovation. I therefore welcome the priority given to the development of electric vehicles by the Spanish Presidency in the context of the fight against climate change, and the Commission's Communication on a European strategy on clean and energy-efficient vehicles of 27 April 2010. I believe that the necessary conditions for the existence of a single electric vehicle market must be created, while at the same time guaranteeing efficient coordination of policies at EU level, in order to avoid negative impacts, particularly on employment. This coordination also encourages compatibility and interoperability.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nWe believe the development of electric cars to be necessary as an alternative to vehicles that use fossil fuels. Faced with the atmospheric pollution associated with such vehicles, and the inexorable exhaustion of fossil-fuel reserves, particularly oil, within a few decades in the unfortunately likely event that the current energy paradigm persists, the development of electric vehicles stands out as an important option to consider. Nevertheless, the limitations and problems that are still associated with these vehicles, and which we mentioned during the debate, must not be ignored. These problems and limitations, as we said, make it inadvisable to take commercial or advertising risks. Instead, they warn of the 'the need for further R&D to improve the characteristics, and reduce the costs, of electric vehicles'. Above all, the 'goal of a largely decarbonised transportation system by 2050' that is mentioned in the report, must involve significantly increasing development of various types of mass and public transport and promoting their use to make them accessible to all; electric vehicles must be strongly represented in this process.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, which makes it possible, among other things, to standardise chargers for electric cars, since the European Union and our fellow citizens have everything to gain from the development of a European electric vehicle market, and even from the creation of a global market. Therefore, these measures strengthen the EU's position within the framework of combating pollution and protecting the environment, by facilitating the use of clean vehicles, whatever the vehicle type. They also facilitate support for research and innovation, thus having positive consequences for the competitiveness of the European Union in the field of technology. The adoption of this motion for a resolution is likely to herald the beginning of a new model of society that takes the various challenges (environmental, social, technological, demographic, and so on) into account. I am relying on the other European institutions to support us in this undertaking.\nIosif Matula  \nin writing. - (RO) I support the promotion of electric vehicles as a medium- and long-term priority. We must identify ways of encouraging Member States to implement a common strategy on standardising electric vehicles. The success of this strategy will definitely reduce costs for users, thereby making electric vehicles more attractive. A lack of coordination at European level means that not only users have to pay high costs. Industrial manufacturers will need to standardise their various industrial specifications, which will have a direct impact on costs. This is why, if we want to move in the desired direction, I believe that we must focus on standardisation procedures. We must find ways of encouraging European consumers towards using electric cars. I think that local authorities have an important role to play in this. They will be able to encourage European consumers through their example, as well as through providing infrastructure facilities and benefits associated with the various charges, such as for parking or pollution. I believe that the use of electric cars by Europe's institutions would set an example and send out a very positive signal. By way of an experiment, a mini fleet of electric cars should be created as soon as possible as an alternative to the current modes of transport.\nNuno Melo  \nThe growing concern for CO2 emissions and climate change has created an urgent need for rapid development to make it possible for electric vehicles to be a valid alternative to those currently in use. Increased use of this mode of transport makes a very positive contribution to achieving the objectives set out in the 'Europe 2020' Strategy. The EU must, therefore, invest significantly in creating a supply network that effectively covers Europe's territory. Decisive steps must also be taken to remove a series of obstacles that currently make this mode of transport unattractive.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) In the context of our shrinking resources, electric vehicles definitely have the potential to become a genuinely climate-friendly alternative, provided that we continue to develop them. However, this will only be the case if both the manufacturing processes and the operation of the cars are genuinely non-resource-intensive and environmentally friendly. Electric and hybrid drive systems are currently still in their infancy and we need to put in place a standardised framework without giving this technology priority over other alternative drive systems. In the current proposal too little attention is paid to other alternative drive systems, which is why I have abstained.\nGeorgios Papanikolaou  \nSupport for the development of electric vehicles may have numerous benefits. Promoting electric cars will help significantly in combating climate change, by switching to cleaner and more advanced technologies, in promoting innovation and in limiting our energy dependency. The development of this technology also includes certain aspects to which due consideration will need to be given, such as the removal of administrative and other obstacles which might have a negative effect on the circulation of green cars and the provision of incentives for retraining people working in the automotive industry, so that they can acquire the necessary skills. I think that the motion for a resolution is a very balanced text, because it addresses all the above issues, which is why I voted for it.\nAldo Patriciello  \nIn order to assess the impact of the measures discussed, we need to analyse the statistics quoted by the Commission. In fact, in 2007, 72% of the European population lived in urban areas, which are the key to growth and employment. Cities need efficient transport systems in order to support the economy and to ensure the well-being of their residents.\nApproximately 85% of the EU's GDP is generated in cities. Urban areas have the task, today, of making transport sustainable in environmental (CO2, air pollution, noise), competition (congestion) and social (demographic changes, inclusion, health) terms. Our rising to this challenge is also crucial to the success of the EU's overall strategy to combat climate change, to achieve the 20\/20\/20 target and to promote cohesion.\nNine out of 10 EU citizens believe that the traffic situation in their area should be improved. I am convinced that coordinated action at EU level can help to strengthen the markets in new technologies for clean vehicles and in alternative fuels. In this way, we can encourage users to opt, in the long term, for cleaner vehicles or modes of transport, to use less congested infrastructure or to travel at different times. I wholeheartedly support these initiatives, which aim, in the medium to long term, to improve our habits in line with the economic and industrial development of the Union as a whole.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I followed my group in voting in favour of this resolution, although our amendment on speeding up a review of type-approval legislation was not adopted.\nSophie Auconie  \nIn Europe 380 000 businesses are involved in motor vehicle distribution and services. Almost all of these are small and medium-sized enterprises, employing 2.8 million people. Since 1985, the motor vehicle sector has been governed by a block exemption regulation in the context of European competition law, in order to take into account its specific characteristics: the oligopolistic situation, and the highly technical nature and long life span of products. Today, however, the Commission is proposing to abolish the existing exemption for the sale of new vehicles. Only the secondary market (repair and maintenance services and supply of spare parts) would remain subject to a specific exemption regime. This motion for a resolution, which I already supported in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and which I voted for again today in plenary, carries a clear message on the part of the European Parliament. It follows detailed consultations with the motor vehicle sector. It calls on the Commission to take into account several elements that are likely to destabilise the balance of power between motor vehicle manufacturers and distributors, to the detriment of consumers.\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f  \nI decided to vote for this motion for a resolution as it highlights the problems inherent in the European Commission's proposal on the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation.\nThe recommendation from the European executive to amend certain clauses in the current regulation in this field, by specifically imposing the obligation on car intermediaries to make up to 80% of their sales from a single car make, could increase the latter's dependency on manufacturers, with the risk of restricting competition in the sector and having a detrimental impact on the options available to consumers.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs the European Commission has started the process of reviewing the legislation applicable to motor vehicles, in particular Regulation (EC) No 1400\/2002 ('MVBER') and Regulation (EC) No 2790\/1999 ('GBER'), it is important to note that the Union and its Member States are currently facing an unprecedented economic and financial crisis that has had a real and profound impact on the automotive industry. This industry continues to be fundamental to the European economy, contributing to employment, technological innovation and competitiveness. With this in mind, the new regulations must take into account the need, in the medium and long terms, to create conditions for the sustainability of the European automotive industry, allowing it to remain at the forefront of technology and innovation, and economically sustainable. In view of what we have just voted on regarding electric vehicles, the new regulatory framework must incentivise the manufacture and use of this type of vehicle, as well as environmental research and the development of automobiles with less environmental impact and lower emissions.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nWe voted against this motion for a resolution, which welcomes, in principle, the current revision of the competition rules applicable to distribution and repairs in the motor vehicle sector. In fact, it welcomes the abolition of the exemption and the application of the general law of competition. As usual, under the cover of a preliminary consultation, it will be those lobbies that are the most influential or effective, but not necessarily representative of the industry, that will prevail, to say nothing of the dogma of beneficial competition for all. On the other hand, the efforts made by professionals to adapt to the legislation in force today will be undone. Admittedly, whether doing or undoing, one is still taking action. The question is whether the objective of the Commission, and in particular of the Directorate-General for Competition, is to justify its existence by producing laws, rather than implementing regulations that satisfy demands for quality and safety of services and products, demands that are necessary everywhere, but particularly in the motor vehicle sector.\nFranz Obermayr  \nin writing. - (DE) The Commission's proposed changes are contrary to the interests in particular of small and medium-sized businesses in the motor vehicle sector. In addition, this sector is governed by a large number of complex regulations (relating to safety and the environment, for example) and therefore competition law must be based on the specific features of this market. For this reason, I have voted against the Commission proposal.\nAldo Patriciello  \nIn July 2002 the Commission adopted a block exemption regulation on motor vehicle distribution agreements, to replace Regulation (EC) No 1475\/95.\nThe main objective of the Commission's competition policy is to enable the companies involved to benefit from a safety zone through the adoption of block exemption regulations designed to guarantee proper supervision of the markets. Block exemptions contribute, therefore, to legal certainty and to the consistent application of European rules. I must point out that the importance of this debate consists, in fact, in outlining the guidelines underpinning the future legal framework which, following the expiry of the regulation, should govern the agreements on the distribution of motor vehicles and on the associated after-sales services.\nTherefore, in order to decide on an appropriate scope for the block exemption applicable to the car industry, I urge the Commission to take account of the conditions of competition on the major markets and of the need to make a fundamental distinction between the markets for the sale of new motor vehicles and those for repair and maintenance services and\/or for the distribution of spare parts. I would reiterate the importance of supporting such proposals. They discourage individual initiatives in favour of competition among dealers and repairers and encourage the development of the sector.\nRobert Rochefort  \nThe so-called 'block exemption' regulation, introduced at European level in 2002 to increase competition in the motor vehicle sector and bring tangible benefits to consumers, is reaching its expiry date. In its proposal for revision, the Commission is introducing changes that will have worrying consequences for consumers, in terms of variety of choice, quality and price. This is why we are using this motion for a resolution, which I supported, to clearly state our reservations about some of the proposals on the table. In particular I am thinking of the 'single branding' obligation, which will have a negative impact on consumer choice and the independence of dealers with regard to manufacturers. I would also like to express my concern as regards the absence of a guarantee of appropriate access for all stakeholders to technical information and spare parts, which will in fact limit the freedom of choice of the dealer or the garage owner to whom the consumer might turn. Finally, let us recall that the Commission must urgently tackle new forms of anti-competitive customer tying measures, such as after-sales services being contingent upon the exclusive repair or maintenance of a vehicle within the brand-specific network.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution, together with the big majority of the Chamber.\nRegina Bastos  \nCancer is one of the biggest health challenges faced by Europe: it is the second most important cause of death in the EU, with 3 million new cases and 1.7 million deaths every year. According to the World Health Organisation, at least one third of all cases of cancer are preventable. It is therefore essential that relevant stakeholders across the European Union engage in a collective effort to address cancer. One of the purposes of the proposal presented by the Commission for a 'European Partnership for Action Against Cancer - 2009-2013' is to support the Member States in their efforts to tackle cancer by providing a framework for identifying and sharing information, capacity and expertise in cancer prevention and control and by engaging relevant stakeholders across the EU in a collective effort. I welcome the objective of reducing the cancer burden by introducing 100% population screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers by 2013, urging the Member States implement the aforementioned guidelines. For the above reasons, I voted in favour of the report 'Action Against Cancer: European Partnership'.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt \nin writing. - (LT) I voted for this report, since the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer for the period 2009-2013 proposed by the European Commission is an excellent initiative to combat this terrible disease more effectively. Cancer is one of the main areas of Community action in the field of public health, since every year 3.2 million Europeans are diagnosed with cancer, which represents the second most frequent cause of death after heart disease. The Partnership proposed by the Commission aims to support the Member States in their efforts to tackle cancer by providing a framework for identifying and sharing information, capacity and expertise in cancer prevention and control. I would like to stress that only by engaging all the relevant stakeholders across the European Union in a collective effort to address cancer, can we remarkably reduce the number of cancer cases in Europe. I agree with the European Parliament's call for the Commission and Member States to further develop and consolidate initiatives that provide cancer sufferers with support either directly or indirectly. I also agree that the Commission and the Member States must ensure that in all Member States there is equal access to cancer drugs for all patients who need them. Therefore, this partnership to combat cancer initiated by the Commission is a very important step towards a common social and political partnership for all of Europe that aims to reduce the European burden of cancer.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nThe predictions about an exponential rise in the number of cancer cases diagnosed are intended to sound a loud alarm bell for the international community. One European in three will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. In fact, this cruel disease is the second most common cause of death in Europe. The European Parliament is using the motion for a resolution it has adopted to draw attention to the fact that there are still unacceptable disparities across Europe in terms of cancer screening and treatment. One third of the cancers diagnosed have a fatal outcome for the patient because they were diagnosed too late. This is a reality which Europe must change through information programmes, educating the public and facilitating access to high-quality medical services. Last but not least, the EU is doing too little at the moment in terms of research into this disease about which too little is still known. Research and prevention are the main lines of attack against this disease. This will yield results in the medium term. The incidence of cancer cases must start to decrease so that Europe can achieve the ambitious target set by the European Commission. This is to cut the number of new cancer cases by 2020 by 15%, taking into account the rising trend caused by population growth and the ageing population.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI welcome the Commission's proposal to set up a European Partnership for Action Against Cancer for the period 2009-2013 because I believe that the fight against cancer is an essential part of the Health Strategy. Nevertheless, as a form of primary prevention, I call for the implementation of measures to encourage healthy lifestyles as an essential factor in improving health. Environmental factors also affect health, so it is necessary to tackle environmental problems that are responsible for the development of specific types of cancer. This is why it is important that there be a cross-cutting and integrated approach in fields of action such as education, the environment, research, and social issues, as well as greater coordination between the various cancer-research centres in the EU. I would draw attention to the need to make better use of the finance aimed at combating cancer under the Seventh Framework Programme as well as the need for large-scale research programmes. It would also be important to include funding to promote cancer prevention in the financial perspective.\nDiogo Feio  \nA new comprehensive cancer approach is essential, because the disease is growing at almost epidemic rates at global level and is one of the main causes of death in the world, responsible for almost 13% of the total number of deaths in 2004 (nearly 1.7 million deaths every year); because it was the second-largest cause of death in 2006, with the majority of deaths resulting from lung cancer, colorectal cancer and breast cancer; and because one in three Europeans is still confronted with a diagnosis of cancer during their lifetime, and one in four Europeans ends up dying from it. A clear commitment to prevention and national screening plans is necessary, since we know that adequate prevention and early treatment will allow almost 30% of cases to be avoided. It is also essential to reduce inequalities in treatment. I would draw attention to the unacceptable situation in Portugal, where innovative and effective cancer-treatment drugs,specifically for lung cancer and breast cancer, are being refused to patients for purely financial reasons.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nCancer is one of the biggest health challenges we are facing worldwide. It is currently the second most important cause of death in Europe, with 3 million new cases and 1.7 million deaths every year. The European Commission proposes a European Partnership for Action Against Cancer for the period 2009-2013. As a social and political problem, cancer requires joint actions at European, national, regional and local level. The Treaty of Lisbon defines precisely that the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. One of the areas of such action, at European level, is protection and improvement of human health (Article 2E). The European Union has already agreed two important evidence-based instruments for prevention: the European Code Against Cancer and the Council Recommendations on screening for breast, cervical and colon cancer. I therefore welcome this motion for a resolution's recommendation to mobilise the public sector in general to invest in a robust and consistent effort for cancer prevention.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nCancer is one of the main causes of death in the world and cases have been increasing at an alarming rate. We therefore consider the EU's support for the Member States' efforts at fighting cancer, as mentioned in the report, as well as the promotion of a collective effort in the sharing of information, capacity and expertise in cancer prevention and control, to be important. The reduced number of cases of cancer in some countries resulting from the adoption of policies to improve prevention and treatment shows that this is a good path to follow. The report refers to various significant issues, including: the need for primary prevention and control of diseases that can develop into cancer; the importance of screening; the insufficiency of the funding that is currently available to the fight against cancer in the EU, particularly public funding; the need to reduce occupational and environmental exposure to carcinogens; the need to update the lists of carcinogenic substances; and the protection of cancer patients and chronically sick people in the workplace. It could have gone further on other issues, such as the elimination - rather than reduction - of inequalities in access to cancer treatments and associated care.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg  \nAs the author of written declaration no 71\/2009 on the fight against breast cancer in the European Union, which has been adopted by Parliament, I am exceedingly pleased by the Commission communication on Action Against Cancer: European Partnership.\nIn this document, the problem of cancer in the EU has been diagnosed and objectives set in the fight against cancer. Despite the fact that the health service is de facto managed by the Member States, the EU can, nevertheless, act to extend health care and be, for example, an excellent platform for the exchange of good practices. It will be up to the Member States if they make use of this additional tool prepared by the Commission.\nThe proposal contains a very specific goal, namely reducing the burden of cancer in the EU by 15% by 2020. To put this programme into effect, it is necessary to achieve integration of all Member States' plans in the fight against cancer by 2013. The next step is to reduce by 70% the disproportion in mortality from cancer among Europeans being treated for these conditions. The differences between the Member States with the best and the worst results in the EU are still too great.\nThe communication also contains an emphasis on prophylaxis and includes the introduction of 100% population screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers. I am pleased that our recent appeal, contained in written declaration no 71\/2009, came at a favourable moment in the Commission's work, which - I hope - augurs well for its rapid and reliable implementation.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nI voted for this report concerning the setting up of a European Partnership for Action against Cancer for the period 2009-2013.\nThe aim of this partnership is to establish a framework for identifying and sharing information, capacity and expertise in cancer prevention and control. The Member States must act together, particularly in the area of screening. In Europe, one in three people will develop cancer during their lifetime. However, one third of all cancers are preventable, and prevention offers the most cost-effective, long-term strategy for reducing the burden of cancer.\nI am pleased that the majority of this House voted in favour of the proposals that I made as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, such as the need to give greater encouragement to public-private partnerships to stimulate research and screening, particularly in the field of medical imaging.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nEven though health is the responsibility of each Member State, we have everything to gain from adopting a global approach to cancer prevention and treatment, and that is what I am supporting here. In this way, Europe will be able to enable closer cooperation with the stakeholders involved (civil society, various organisations and others) in order to disseminate as effectively as possible best practice in the area, and in particular to improve the effectiveness of patient care by taking patients' psychosocial and mental well-being into consideration. This partnership would also help ensure that associated problems, such as the inequalities faced by patients with the disease, are taken into account. This is fundamental to improving patients' everyday life. I also welcome the adoption, on 19 April, of a written statement, which I supported, calling on all EU Member States to introduce breast cancer screening nationwide and the Commission to draw up a follow-up report every two years. Breast cancer remains the main cause of death among women aged 35 to 59.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski  \nAccording to the World Health Organization, cancer is the main cause of death worldwide. Currently, one in three Europeans is diagnosed with cancer, and one in four Europeans dies from this disease. Unfortunately, the aging of society will also contribute to an increase in the incidence of cancer in the next few decades. I think that in order to tackle this growth we must improve national plans for the fight against cancer and run an even more effective information campaign for people in the EU. Children should be taught a healthy lifestyle from their earliest years, which in the future will result in a reduced number of cases. According to the experts, one third of cases can be prevented, but for this to happen, the EU must increase funding for the fight against cancer. This would make it possible to carry out scientific research and a wide-ranging programme of anti-cancer prophylactic measures in all the countries of the Union.\nNuno Melo  \nPublic health is one of the EU's priorities. The fight against all forms of cancer is part of this, as this disease is responsible for the deaths of millions of European citizens every year. We all know that prevention and early diagnosis are essential to effectively fighting cancer, so the vast majority of efforts must be focused on these areas. It is very important to develop efforts in the fight against the three types of cancer that cause the most deaths - lung cancer, colon cancer and breast cancer - without neglecting the others.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Throughout Europe cancer is the greatest threat to health and the death rates from cancer are high. Out of 3 million new sufferers, 1.7 million will not survive. Early diagnosis and treatment could reduce this figure significantly. We must not only invest in treatment across Europe, but also provide support for preventive measures. We must make transnational cooperation our priority, so that we can permanently stop the spread of cancer. This report should been seen as a positive step in the right direction and that is why I have voted in favour of it.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nI voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on Action Against Cancer: European Partnership. All measures intended to fight cancer and minimise its effects should be supported. Medical science is still unable to stop cancer, which is becoming one of the greatest plagues of humanity. The knowledge that, in 2006, cancer was the second most common cause of death is horrifying. There are many causes of cancer, or often the causes cannot be defined and diagnosed. However, it is possible to prevent cancer and limit its effects in about 30% of cases. To achieve this, suitable national testing programmes are needed. The European Union, acting in the interests of its citizens and because of the need to ensure their safety, must provide for the development of appropriate methods of early diagnosis of disease, preventative measures and advanced therapy. In many Member States it has been possible to achieve progress in the fight against cancer in different ways, including use of anti-smoking strategies and specific methods of prevention. Similar measures should be put in place throughout the Union, but with greater intensity and effectiveness. The forecasts for the coming years, in terms of cancer incidence and mortality, are not optimistic. The knowledge that in spite of various methods of diagnosis and treatment, very many people are going to die of cancer, is always bitter and sad. However, let us take care that our citizens are aware that in this matter they have full support.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nReducing cancer cases in the European Union by 15% between now and 2020: that is the ambitious objective of the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer for the period 2009-2013. It is an objective that is supported today by the European Parliament vote on the Peterle report. It is a response that is up to the challenge, even though, according to the World Health Organisation, in 2010 cancer will become the main cause of death in the world, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.\nIn 2010 alone, 3 million Europeans will develop cancer, and nearly 2 million people will die of the disease. We urgently need to do more in the area of systematic screening of the most common cancers: lung cancer, colorectal cancer and breast cancer. Encouraging a revolution in oncology also means promoting research into the carcinostatic properties of some foods, and encouraging early screening of tumours through the state-of-the-art biomarker technique: complex urinary or blood tests. These are all measures resolutely aimed at diversifying the provision of patient care so that 2010 is the year of reaction and so that the European Union not only supports, but also inspires national programmes for action against cancer.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted in favour, of course, of this important report, crucial for preventing cancer.\nJoanna Senyszyn  \nI strongly support the European Parliament report on the Commission communication on Action Against Cancer: European Partnership. According to estimates by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, one in three Europeans is diagnosed with cancer, and one in four Europeans dies from this disease. This year, 3 million Europeans will develop cancer and nearly 2 million are expected to die of cancer. In Poland, about 100 000 people fall victim to cancer every year, and 70 000 die. The fight against cancer is one of the permanent areas of EU action in the field of public health. The Treaty of Lisbon stressed the competence of the Union to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States for the protection and improvement of health. Specific action on these intentions is found in the Commission initiative entitled European Partnership for Action Against Cancer for the period 2009-2013. The objectives of the partnership, and in particular its prophylactic measures, are essential to limit the incidence of cancer. The restrictions placed on the financial resources for these objectives are disturbing. In the communication, goals have been set for a 10-year period, whereas the Community budget ensures only short-term financial support. Therefore, I appeal for: increased subsidies, especially for prophylactic programmes in the area of regional policy and the European Social Fund; more effective use of resources available in the Seventh Framework Programme, for example for better coordination of scientific research; and increased resources to be planned in the new Financial Perspective.\nViktor Uspaskich  \nin writing. - (LT) Cancer is the biggest health problem in Europe and indeed worldwide. Sadly, today cancer is still epidemically increasing. With more than 3 million new cases and 1.7 million deaths in the EU each year, cancer represents the second most important cause of death and morbidity. Currently one in three people in the EU will be diagnosed with cancer during their life-time and experts predict that the cancer burden will increase sharply due to the ageing population. Urgent action must be taken to improve cancer control and prevention in the EU. The situation is particularly serious in Lithuania. Statistical indicators for the various types of cancer are among the worst in the whole of the EU. Therefore, I particularly welcome the European Parliament Resolution on combating cancer in the enlarged EU and the European Commission's European Partnership for Action Against Cancer for the period 2009-2013, a new attempt to join all the stakeholders to work together in the spirit of fruitful partnership. Cancer is a social and political problem, not just a health problem. To solve it there need to be joint actions at European, national, regional and local level. I would like to stress that the Treaty of Lisbon clearly defines the Union's competence to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The objective we all share is to help Member States combat cancer and provide a framework for identifying and sharing information, capacity and expertise in cancer prevention and control.\nJaros\u0142aw Leszek Wa\u0142\u0119sa  \nToday, we voted on the motion for a resolution drafted by my Slovenian colleague Mr Peterle, of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), on the fight against cancer. Of course, I endorsed adoption of the motion of the European Commission to set up a European Partnership for Action Against Cancer for the period 2009-2013. This new form of cooperation is intended to support the efforts of Member States in the fight against cancer. Medical statistics show that over 3 million new cases and 1.7 million deaths are recorded every year in Europe. This means that every year cancer holds second place among the most serious diseases and causes of death. As part of the European Partnership, Member States should prepare, as quickly as possible, integrated plans for fighting this cruel disease, so that it will be possible to reduce incidence by 15% by 2020. However, it must not be forgotten that in this uneven fight the most important factor is prevention. This is the most cost-effective measure, because one third of cancer cases can be avoided. Therefore, preventative measures should be supported both as part of medical practice and in the context of ever more healthy lifestyles.\nMara Bizzotto  \nThe importance of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) can be attributed to their crucial role in starting a veritable revolution in the world of science, not only by proclaiming the birth of the knowledge-based society, but also by making a sustainable approach to the use of natural resources possible.\nIn the light of these considerations, it is impossible, in the specific case of new technologies dedicated to energy efficiency, to ignore the fact that ICTs are an important resource for ensuring that progress goes hand in hand with respect for the planet, guaranteeing as they do that households and industry can both benefit economically from savings. The policy of energy saving will characterise the sustainability of the European social model, which is why I decided to vote in favour of the report.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nSwitching to smart metering may reduce energy consumption by up to 10% at European level because it would facilitate the two-way transfer of information between network operators, energy suppliers and consumers. The analyses show that the smart use of information and communications technology (ICT) can reduce energy consumption in buildings, which currently account for 40% of the total energy consumption in Europe, by up to 17%. All these figures amount to the reduction of carbon emissions by up to 27% in the transport sector alone.\nAll these forecasts only serve to encourage us towards making full use of state-of-the-art technologies. Even though it will not be possible to implement these technologies in the short term throughout the European Union in a uniform manner, it is important that all Member States are aware of the option of using state-of-the-art technologies to cut carbon emissions, bearing in mind the extremely ambitious targets for the Europe 2020 agenda.\nThe construction and transport sectors feature among the large consumers of energy and may accelerate the implementation of state-of-the-art technological systems. In the same way, the use of natural resources may be less harmful to the environment and produce less carbon with the help of the new technologies.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nInformation and Communication Technologies (ICT) play an essential role in promoting European economic growth. Their influence on the energy sector also involves a profound change in our society, making it more decentralised and flexible, with distribution as a byword for greater wealth. The use of ICT and grid technologies allows us to improve the efficiency of our energy consumption by, for example, developing electricity distribution grids, smart buildings, smart homes and smart metering as well as eco-efficient transport. It is, however, important to continue to make use of the opportunities for innovation that ICT offer us. The development of an innovative European smart grid is essential, with instruments to measure and monitor the efficiency of energy consumption, implementing smart metering in accordance with the timetable set out in the third energy market package. In this way, consumers will be able to manage their energy consumption, evening out the demand curve. ICT can also play an important role in measuring and quantifying the global effects of climate change and evaluating climate protection measures, thereby contributing to the fine-tuning of climate policy.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on mobilising Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to facilitate the transition to an energy-efficient, low-carbon economy. ICT could acquire an important role in alleviating the effects of climate change by reducing energy consumption, increasing energy efficiency and integrating renewable energies.\nDiogo Feio  \nAt a time when reducing emissions of CO2 and greenhouse gases along with investment in renewable energy and 'green' technology are priorities, this report is extremely timely. It is therefore essential to consider the presentation of measures for the mobilisation of information and communications technologies, in order to make the transition to a more efficient energy economy possible at the least possible cost to the public and to companies. It is truly crucial to promote sustainable growth that is reflected in the well-being of the current population and economy, and also in solidarity towards future generations.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nInformation and communication technologies can make a significant contribution to the EU economy's energy efficiency, notably in the buildings and transport sector. In this context, I welcome the Commission's efforts to promote smart metering and smart grids in energy production, distribution and use. I would stress, in particular, the call on the Member States to facilitate the availability of broadband internet to all EU citizens in order to ensure equal access to online services.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nThere can be no doubt that mobilising information and communication technologies (ICT) can facilitate the transition to an energy-efficient economy, since this is also a way of reducing energy consumption, increasing energy security and helping to curb environmental damage, particularly greenhouse-gas emissions.\nNonetheless, we know that progress is slow in harnessing the potential of energy efficiency and energy savings, not only because existing economic interest groups are looking after their own interests, but also because of the low level of aid for the necessary changes.\nWe therefore support various proposals included in the report, specifically those that incentivise the harnessing of ICT in the planning of a new transport policy and increase intermodality in the transport sector, or those that call on the Commission to develop a different vision for aid priorities, taking into account these issues of mobilisation of ICT to facilitate the transition to an energy-efficient economy in various areas beyond transport and mobility, such as industry, health and housing.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nFor some years now, the European Union has been setting itself important objectives in relation to energy saving and the reduction of carbon emissions. The information and communication technologies (ICT) sector is without doubt one means of improving the energy efficiency of the individual Member States. ICTs can, in fact, help to monitor and manage energy consumption, and to provide new applications and technologies to improve the use of natural resources and foster the use of cleaner production and industrial processes. The broad public consultation process launched by the European Commission clarified the manner in which ICTs can help to improve energy efficiency. The European Commission has calculated that ICT-based systems can cut energy consumption in buildings - currently put at some 40% of overall energy consumption in Europe - by up to 17%, and transport carbon emissions by up to 27%. Urban organisation achieved through the use of ICTs can substantially reduce the energy impact of urban areas. Therefore, action should be taken to disseminate good practice and raise awareness among local decision makers of the benefits that ICTs have to offer.\nAldo Patriciello  \nThe European Union has reaffirmed its commitment to a 20% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. It will be difficult to maintain this commitment without fully exploiting the potential offered by ICTs. ICTs can, in actual fact, significantly reduce CO2 emissions.\nICTs are responsible for 1.75% of the carbon emissions in the services sector in Europe and produce 0.25% of the emissions associated with the production of ICT-based equipment and of electronic consumer goods. The remaining 98% of emissions come from other sectors of the economy and of society. It is therefore a good idea to harmonise the methods for measuring and quantifying energy performance so as to have data that enable us to develop innovative energy-saving strategies and to prevent the phenomenon of 'green disinformation'.\nI should like to point out, in this context, that ICTs can play a vital role in the achievement of fundamental objectives, insofar as they are present in nearly every sector of the economy and help to increase productivity by more than 40%. For these reasons I reaffirm my full support for this strategy, which combines appropriate economic and industrial development with an environmentally sustainable strategy.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) Information and communications technologies (ICT) offer in every Member State a means of increasing energy efficiency and provide new applications and technologies for improving the use of natural resources and for transforming industrial production and processes into an eco-efficient economy. ICT-based systems can reduce energy consumption in buildings, which currently account for 40% of the total energy consumed in Europe, by up to 17%, as well as carbon emissions in the transport sector by up to 27%. The ICT sector employs 6.6 million people in the 27 EU Member States, stimulates the innovative capacity of every sector and contributes more than 40% of the global increase in productivity. The European Commission and Committee of the Regions must urgently produce the 'practical guide for local and regional authorities' on how to improve energy performance through the innovative use of ICT. This will set out the way in which the authorities can use ICT as part of their plans for climate change. It will also describe how the cohesion funds can support business partnerships for creating innovative ICT applications in order to encourage and support cities and municipalities in the use of ICT for reducing emissions.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - We, Greens, voted in favour of this report. All the original parts of the text that some groups wanted to delete remained in.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nin writing. - I was rapporteur for the Environment Committee's opinion for this report, and I am acutely aware of the potential for the ICT sector to deliver considerable energy savings in the European Union, particularly in buildings and the transport sector. But we must also bear in mind the effects of the so-called 'digital divide', which can be seen both within and between Member States. It perpetuates social and economic inequality and it reduces the capacity of ICT to deliver wide-reaching benefits in terms of energy efficiency. The importance of access to high-speed internet for everyone is paramount. Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, should make more efforts to roll out the necessary infrastructure to ensure that all European citizens and businesses can benefit from the available technologies. This would directly address the inequality and injustice created by the digital divide, and is the only way to ensure that the energy-efficient potential of ICT is fully realised.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nTaking into account the fact that the measures put in place to achieve the objective of 20% energy savings by 2020 are working too slowly, there is a need to increase and accelerate innovativeness in information and communication technologies and to achieve a significant increase in the proportion of energy obtained from renewable sources. It should be noted that when the transport sector grows, carbon dioxide emissions also rise rapidly. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on applying information and communication technologies in this very sector, in order not only to reduce the level of emissions, but also to prevent it from rising. ICT solutions must be included when planning the new European transport policy. This can bring about a reduction in traffic density in transport, which will have beneficial effects on the natural environment. All of these measures will not only bring measurable benefits for the climate, but will also reduce the costs associated with energy use and will lead to the creation of environment-friendly jobs. However, it should be borne in mind that the new Member States are not able to adapt so quickly to the requirements introduced by the European Union. We should also take account of the interests of these countries, because they constitute a significant group which still uses traditional sources of energy. Time and financial resources are needed to change this.\nViktor Uspaskich  \nin writing. - (LT) I support the European Commission's initiative to use information and communications technologies (ICT) in order to improve the Union's energy efficiency and increase the competitiveness of European industry. According to the calculations presented by the European Commission, the use of ICT is an excellent measure allowing us to reduce energy consumption and at the same time reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 27%, something which is very important. This would also reduce damage to the environment. I completely agree with and support the position expressed by the rapporteur that the application of ICT will stimulate European industry and the new technologies market, and this would contribute to market resuscitation or the creation of new jobs. I believe that it is necessary to take all measures to both begin applying ICT in those Member States, where it has not yet been applied, and improve it where it is already being applied. In particular I would like to stress the importance of ICT in the planning of a new European transport policy. Logistics are an important factor in the rationalisation of transport and reduction of carbon emissions. It is important to recognise the need to increase public and private investment in ICT tools in order to develop smart energy infrastructures for transport. The use of intelligent transport systems (ITS) applied to road transport and interfaced with other transport modes can help reduce congestion and its harmful effects on the environment. As a member of the Committee on Regional Development (REGI), I would like to stress that we must encourage Member States to disseminate good practice and raise awareness among local decision makers of the benefits that ICTs have to offer.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi  \nThe European Commission White Paper on adapting to climate change contains many ideas on which we must focus, now and in the future, in order to curb this threat linked to global warming.\nI particularly welcome, therefore, the passage in the report that emphasises the importance of integrating the adaptation dimension into all EU policies, whether in relation to agriculture or fisheries, or linked to forest management, with a horizontal and cross-sector approach that can guarantee the consistency of the measures that will be implemented from time to time.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nEurope is going through a period when it needs to recognise the pressing urgency to take measures to reduce the impact of human activity on the climate. The White Paper on climate change is a step forward towards standardising the actions aimed at cutting carbon emissions at European level.\nIn view of its ambitious target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, the European Union needs to move much faster than it is at the moment. Member States, whether new or old, are duty bound to make increased, equal efforts and realise that preventing or treating a disease in its initial stage has a higher rate of success than treating a chronic condition.\nIt would be sad if Europe realises too late that climate change can affect the chance of agriculture being viable as a main source of food for both Europe's and the world's population We are already facing extreme weather conditions, drought and flooding every year. It is difficult to imagine at present how it could be worse than this. However, the experts are not very optimistic. This is why actions aimed at mitigating the impact of human activity on the climate are key to continuing normality.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI welcome the European Commission's initiative to present a broad policy framework for European action on climate adaptation policy. However, mitigation and adaptation measures must not be separate. I would stress the importance of the Emission Trading System (ETS) Directive, under which Member States should earmark at least 50% of ETS revenues for both mitigation and adaptation measures. I also believe that additional measures must be prioritised to promote the EU's strategy aimed at achieving a 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020, with a view to making this objective legally binding at Union level. Of the adaptation measures presented, I would stress solidarity among EU Member States towards disadvantaged regions and those most affected by climate change. To achieve this solidarity, it is important for the Commission to consider the reinforcement of public funds devoted to international cooperation in the forthcoming 8th Framework Programme for R&D to support its fight against climate change. I would also stress the importance of the role of research and technology in developing a low-carbon society, in view of the Commission's recent communication on the Strategic Energy Technology Plan, and the logic of intervention between the public and private sectors as well as between Union, national and regional financing.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution which welcomes the Commission White Paper on an EU strategy for climate change adaptation and proposes a range of measures across several policy fields. Even if we succeed in keeping global warming at safe levels, climate change entails unavoidable consequences which require adaptation efforts. Climate-proofing and adaptation need to be mainstreamed across policy areas, especially those concerning water, soil, agriculture and fisheries, and coastal areas. Biodiversity is at risk, but there is also a need to ensure that urban, transport and infrastructure planning does take climate change into account. Civil protection structures have to prioritise preparedness for floods and droughts. It is important to keep the social and public health implications of this challenge in mind. It may gravely impact on respiratory health and increase the incidence of vector-borne diseases. Deprived communities, poor children and elderly people are amongst the most vulnerable to climate change health risks. Revenue generated by the Emissions Trading Scheme must contribute to the adaptation effort and the EU budget needs to reflect the urgency of coping with such challenges.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on the Commission White Paper: 'Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action'. Adaptation measures are necessary in order to meet the challenges posed by climate change. I believe that adaptation to climate change is necessary and will allow us to improve current emergency management systems, management that could be more efficient by combining satellite and ground-based observations.\nDiogo Feio  \nAs I said yesterday regarding the vote on the Le Foll report on EU agriculture and climate change, 'environmental concerns, whilst legitimate and necessary, must be duly weighed against the impact of the proposals in terms of agricultural sustainability and productivity'. The same is true in all sectors of activity, so it is essential that the EU create a strategy for addressing climate change, making a serious commitment to sustainable development and seeking to reduce its carbon emissions, without thereby putting its productive activities - especially industry - at risk. Any climate change policy must - particularly against a backdrop of economic and financial crisis -seek economic efficiency and sustainability, putting innovation and research at the service of new techniques and solutions that are more environmentally friendly and equally efficient and competitive. The focus must be on clean sources of energy, on the more efficient use of natural resources, and on strong investment in research and technologies that are more environmentally friendly; this will make it possible to maintain European competitiveness and will allow the creation of more jobs within a framework of sustainable development.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe EU must retain and reinforce its leadership role in the international fight against climate change. Scientific research in this area is essential if we are to take a path that is right and safe, whether for combating climate change or for adapting to it. The issue of adaptation is cross-cutting and affects several sectoral policies. There must be greater political coordination by Member States in these areas. In fact, I advocate making national adaptation plans based on a common European framework obligatory. I believe that we must have common European policies in areas such as, for example, water, energy and forests; for example, I would reiterate the need for a European charter of risks for the coastal borders. Analysis of the risks represented by climate change to Europe's most vulnerable regions is urgently required. I also believe that there must be European targets for the efficiency of public water-supply systems. I would also highlight that natural ecosystems are the Earth's most important carbon sinks, sequestering 50% of global annual greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to both mitigation and adaptation.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nThis report is in keeping with the belief that climate change is global, disastrous and inevitably human in origin. However, just like this belief, which is now almost religious and no longer subject to dispute, it is excessive. Like everything excessive, it is ridiculous. Thus, without even waiting for any scientific assessment, an absolute precautionary principle should be applied to cope with the worst possible scenarios in terms of the possible impact of so-called global warming on ecosystems, but also on habitable areas, industrial facilities, and so on. I note in passing that such prudence is rarely applied to other measures linked to the environment and human health, such as GMOs for example. On the basis of real or imaginary risks, ranging from diseases possibly linked to global warming to forest fires reputed to be solely due to this same phenomenon, via floods and the overheating of central power stations, we are being urged to accept the interference of the Commission and of European policies in absolutely all areas, up to and including the use of the smallest plot of land. It is a shame that so many trees, recognised carbon reservoirs that they are, were sacrificed to print this text. As the poet said: hey lumberjack, stop a moment.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski  \nUnavoidable climate change is forcing society and the European Union economy to accommodate to a new reality. I think there is a need for an adaptation policy which should be appropriate to the character and type of changes which are taking place, and should also include a strategy for the protection of areas which are most at risk. I fully agree with the rapporteur and think that in order to coordinate these measures better it is extremely important to implement a system of information exchange and monitoring at international level, but also at regional and local levels. I am pleased, above all, by the emphasis on the significant role of the common agricultural policy, which in the process of adaptation to climate change plays a key role as a guardian of ecosystems and biological diversity. Therefore, I think projects which prevent or alleviate the effects of droughts and floods, supporting farmers who work in difficult conditions, are very important.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nI voted in favour of the entire motion for a resolution on the Commission White Paper entitled 'Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action' because I believe that it is of special interest to Europe, in general, and to Italy, in particular, due to its geoclimatic characteristics. There are, in fact, obvious difficulties in managing Italy's hydrologic resources, as is clear not only from the frequent droughts in the south during the summer months, but also from certain episodes of flooding, such as the one that occurred in December with the River Serchio in Tuscany. In Italy we also have the terrible problem of summer fires, and that is why it is absolutely crucial to improve safety conditions. Although the draft White Paper is at present only an initial framework of reference, I believe that it certainly makes a significant contribution, especially where the management of emergencies is concerned. At the same time it outlines a general strategic approach on increasing the resilience of the EU to the impacts of climate change.\nAndres Perello Rodriguez  \nA large proportion of Parliament, like the Spanish delegation of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, has formally opposed paragraph 41 of this resolution, which asks for the principle of subsidiarity to be applied to land policy. We all recognise the diversity that exists between the different regions of the Union, but it is precisely for this reason that, as the resolution states, Southern Europe suffers much more from the pressure of climate change, and needs Europe and its common policies. This is a question of solidarity that the whole of the EU would benefit from. We therefore deeply regret the disappearance of the first proposal from the text, in which Mr Prodi asked for the Directive on land to be unblocked in the Council. It is crucial that we launch this legislative instrument, which is essential for adaptation and, in particular, for tackling the risk of deterioration and desertification. It is true that the risk is more present in Southern Europe, but let us not forget that climate change affects all of Europe's environmental assets. Those to whom this resolution is addressed should know that a large proportion of Parliament is still calling for a supportive and common policy.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - We, as Greens, voted in favour of this report. The good new is that the amendment to delete the focus on nuclear safety was defeated.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nThe results of work conducted by scientists show that the effects of climate change are going to have an increasing influence on the natural environment and the economy as well as on our daily lives. Therefore, taking action intended to adapt to the present and future effects of climate change is a serious challenge for society throughout the world. Decisions concerning the best ways of adapting to climate change must be made based on reliable scientific and economic analyses, but not all regions have access to information of the right quality. Therefore, the idea to create a climate change monitoring platform would seem to be a good one. The platform would be useful for the exchange of information, experience and best practices at European, regional and local levels. However, I am not certain if in assuming the role of leader in the international fight against global climate warming, as is recommended in the document, the EU is not trying to take on too much responsibility for global affairs. It seems to me that when we are having to deal with challenges such as the economic crisis and the need to create growth, we should not be treating expenditure on the fight against global climate warming as a priority. Irrespective of the measures which will be put in place for adapting to climate change, it should also be borne in mind that some countries will be exposed to exceptionally high costs of implementation of the adaptation policy, and leaving these countries without any financial support may lead to an increase in the differences in development of different Member States.\nDominique Vlasto  \nIn my report in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I regretted the lack of consideration given to the transport sector in the European strategy for adapting to climate change, when it is of considerable economic importance and one of the principal sources of CO2 emissions. I therefore welcome the fact that this report places transport once again at the heart of this problem. We must make substantial efforts to successfully help enterprises and users adapt to climate change. The success of our policy depends on adequate and innovative methods of funding being mobilised to limit as much as possible the impact on people, ecological balance and economic activities. Furthermore, our strategy must take into account sensitive geographical areas, such as coastal, marine and mountain areas, which are particularly vulnerable and will bear the brunt of climate change if we fail to take suitable protection measures. Our Parliament must urgently adopt effective adaptation mechanisms for the transport sector, which must no longer simply be the cause of the problem but must become a solution in the fight against climate change.\nRyszard Czarnecki  \nin writing. - Securing value for money, effective management, and the elimination of fraud are key priorities of the ECR Group for the EU budget. We therefore support the thrust of the Cozzolino report and most of its conclusions.\nThe ECR group cannot, however, endorse the concept of a European Public Prosecutor. This office risks being a dangerous first step towards European competence for aspects of criminal law and the focus on its creation is a distraction from making existing systems and bodies work effectively.\nAs the ECR amendment to remove the paragraph supporting progress towards a European Public Prosecutor was rejected, the ECR abstained on the final vote.\nDiogo Feio  \nAlthough I, like the rapporteur, consider it positive that the number of financial irregularities reported to the Commission by the Member States fell from EUR 1 024 million in 2007 to EUR 783.2 million in 2008, I believe that the goal will be to achieve a level of EUR 0 million of financial irregularities per annum. In order to achieve that, I consider it essential to adopt measures that establish greater transparency in the fight against tax fraud - especially in VAT - and all financial crimes; greater cooperation between governments in the case of cross-border fraud; improvements in the quality of data and constant updating of national databases; and rapid responses by governments to requests for information. There must also be better administration and monitoring of applications for cohesion funds, and there must be provision for applying sanctions to Member States that do not make good use of these funds. I would also stress the essential contribution of the European Anti-Fraud Office to reducing these figures.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe annual report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests for 2008 records that the financial impact of irregularities, as far as they have been identified, fell from EUR 1 024 million in 2007 to EUR 783.2 million in 2008, with reductions being recorded in all spending areas except direct expenditure and pre-accession funds. I would stress, in particular, the need to include information on irregularities that will clarify the proportion of the total resources affected by errors and suspected cases of fraud. Combating fraud and corruption is an important duty of the European institutions and all Member States, which must provide all necessary resources to combat these scourges effectively so as to protect the financial interests of the Union and its taxpayers.\nNuno Melo  \nAt this time of economic and financial crisis, not a single euro of the EU budget can be wasted, and this is even truer when such waste is a result of fraud that leads to Union funds being paid out inappropriately. Over the years we have seen irregularities decrease significantly. Nevertheless, we cannot be satisfied with reducing these irregularities to marginal amounts or to almost zero. The EU has to adopt budgetary control mechanisms that are effective at early prevention and detection of fraud, so that public funds are only made available when they are actually going to be used correctly, notwithstanding effective punishment for those who break the rules by attempting to illegitimately appropriate such funds, which are scarce by nature.\nFranz Obermayr  \nin writing. - (DE) For me the fight against fraud is a very important concern, in particular with regard to the regional funds and the pre-accession funds. However, the proposed measures for combating fraud have too much of a centralist focus. I have therefore abstained from voting.\nAldo Patriciello  \nI am pleased that the financial impact of irregularities, as far as they have been identified, fell from EUR 1 024 million in 2007 to EUR 783.2 million in 2008 (the fall affected all spending areas, except direct expenditure and pre-accession funds). I fully support the work done by the Commission, and I would point out that the fight against fraud and corruption is a clear duty of the European institutions and of all the Member States.\nGiven the particular economic situation plaguing the whole of Europe, I agree on the need to safeguard the Union's financial interests and to combat organised crime which, according to national indicators, is increasing its capacity for collusion within institutions, precisely by means of fraud against the EU budget.\nI therefore think it crucial to enact effective legislation to improve administrative cooperation in tackling harmful tax practices and to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market. In this sense, I support the proposal for a Council directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, while stressing the importance of increasing the responsibility of the Member States, starting with the quality of the information entered into databases.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - In the final vote, I said in favour. The amendment by the ECR Group, which I voted against, was defeated.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nIt is worth noting that in 2008 there was a significant fall in irregularities in comparison with the previous year. The greatest improvement occurred in the area of spending on agriculture. The report shows that the estimated amount of irregularities fell by 34%. However, the greatest growth was recorded in the area of pre-accession funds, where the wrong spending of resources rose by as much as 90.6%, but it should be remembered that they are not Member States and they lack experience. Despite this improvement in the situation in 2008, a certain part of EU budgetary resources is still being badly spent. To a certain extent, this results from a lack of effective mechanisms of control and supervision. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which has existed since 1999, has had many successes in the fight against embezzlement. However, it is essential to guarantee its full operational independence. I support the rapporteur's proposal to enable OLAF to draw more extensively on internal audits carried out by the Commission, rather than relying only on information provided by officials or Member States. What role should be played by Member States and their systems of supervision and auditing? Combating fraud in European projects should be a priority for us. Honesty and responsibility in spending the limited means of the EU budget will allow us to save funds, which can then be used in fighting the consequences of the recession. We must not forget that the resources in the EU budget belong to all of us - to the taxpayers. Therefore, we should guarantee that they are spent in the most effective way.\nViktor Uspaskich  \nI would like to stress that combating fraud and corruption is an important duty of the European institutions and all Member States. However, I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that in some countries corruption in the distribution of European Union funds is directly linked to the discrediting of policies conducted within these countries. Separate political and financial clans are forming in these countries that aim to control the distribution of European Union funds. Therefore, the European Parliament, the European Commission and other important European Union institutions should draw attention to discrimination against and discrediting of policies, political organisations, political opponents and opposition leaders at national level. The European Union that fosters democracy must firstly ensure that the opposition parties of its Member States have the opportunity to work and express themselves freely and control actions for corruption prevention. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that European Union money should be used to improve the infrastructure of Member States, to educate people and such things. Investing European money purely in infrastructure would benefit both the country and its trade. There would no longer be 'poor' business people who ask for but do not receive support. Furthermore, in this way we would not need to control the distribution of European Union funds to thousands of stakeholders, that is aid recipients, which would mean that thousands of racketed subjects would also disappear. Therefore, all the attention should be directed at the public use of that money.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi  \nI wish to take this important opportunity to comment on the vote on the Luxembourg-based European Investment Bank's annual report in order to insist, as I have already done in some questions, on the importance of increasing the budget for the EIB's financial instruments in support of the city centre development and regeneration plans.\nThe instruments that currently exist, such as the JESSICA Fund, are one of the few financial engineering instruments that a region or municipality can use to finance urban development projects. The interventions also extend to council housing, but only in relation to areas that complement the project and to the energy renovation and improvement of buildings. I therefore take this opportunity to stress that, in my opinion, the JESSICA Fund should be extended to the financing of new (obviously environmentally friendly) buildings too, since in this way it would help local authorities to address the housing problem in our cities as well.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI welcome the 2008 annual report of the European Investment Bank (EIB), and encourage it to continue its activities to promote the development of the European economy and foster growth, stimulate employment, and promote interregional and social cohesion. I also welcome the importance given by the EIB to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to sustainable energy and the mitigation of climate change, and to the investments in the convergence regions of the EU particularly hard hit by the recent economic slowdown. The EIB responded quickly to the global economic crisis, in particular through the Economic Recovery Plan, and for those Member States which have been most severely hit by the crisis. I call, however, for future reports to detail major loans supplementing European Regional Development Fund grants to regions implementing technologically advanced programmes or programmes related to renewable or clean energy supplies. In the same way, the reports on the investment facility should include information on the results of programmes financed. By making adequate funding available, the EIB should play a greater role in supporting infrastructure investment, green technologies, innovation and SMEs, as part of the Europe 2020 Strategy.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe European Investment Bank (EIB) plays an essential role in helping Member States face up to the serious economic, financial and social crisis. With this in mind, I believe that the increased funds allocated, in particular, to the European Union's cohesion policy have been crucial in reducing the impact on the least-favoured and worst-hit regions. The increased funding for small and medium-sized enterprises, which represent the majority of Europe's enterprise, and the extra funding for research and development would help to further alleviate the effects of this crisis. Therefore, bearing in mind that the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force and the current and future challenges that are emerging for a European Union that is in a difficult economic and social situation, it is essential to reinforce the activities of the European Investment Bank, make its activities more transparent and set the right priorities for it.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe European Investment Bank (EIB) was established in 1958 by the Treaty of Rome. The EIB, as the long-term lending bank of the European Union, lends money to the public and private sectors for projects of European interest, using the financial markets and its own funds. Its main target is to contribute to the integration, a balanced and sustainable development as well as an economic and social cohesion of the EU Member States. In 2008, the EIB had to face unprecedented challenges, as the global economic crisis has reached the European Union's economies as well. In terms of crisis management, I am pleased to highlight the EIB's quick response to the global economic crisis by self-financing an increase of its capital and hence raising its volume of lending in support of the European Economic Recovery Plan. I therefore welcome the EIB's annual report for 2008 and the adoption of this report, which encourages it to continue its activities to promote the development of the European economy and foster growth, stimulate employment, and promote interregional and social cohesion.\nNuno Melo  \nThe European Investment Bank (EIB) plays a very important role in the EU's economy, because it is the guarantor of funding for operations inside Europe that are connected to the following: ensuring economic and social cohesion; preparing for the knowledge economy; developing trans-European transport and access networks; supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); protecting and improving the environment; and ensuring sustainable, competitive and secure energy. It will not be possible to implement the 'Europe 2020' Strategy without the support of the EIB, which will have to make available the funds necessary to carry out projects in the areas of infrastructure, green technology, innovation and SMEs.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nThe EIB has seen its role expand in 2008 as a result of the financial crisis. Against the backdrop of a liquidity crisis, the EIB has continued to grant loans to the public and private sectors for projects of European interest, using the financial markets and own resources. In addition to stimulating the national economies, the EU also took a decision concerning the European Economic Recovery Plan, assigning an important role to the EIB, especially with regard to the enhanced financing for SMEs, energy from renewable sources and clean transport. As a response to the crisis, the EIB has significantly revised upwards its targets: in order to help businesses and to encourage economic recovery, the EIB has substantially increased the volume of its lending, disbursing EUR 10 billion more than expected. In particular, loans to SMEs have increased by 42%. Furthermore, the Bank has developed new risk-sharing financial instruments, simplified lending procedures and accelerated the implementation of projects in the Member States and in the sectors that are most severely affected by the crisis. The report stresses the positive effects of these measures, while at the same time calls for a thorough follow-up of the real effects of the support programmes provided for SMEs.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - That was an easy one. I voted in favour in the final vote.\nMara Bizzotto  \nThe joint motion for a resolution on the recent inter-ethnic atrocities in Nigeria, on which we are voting, seems satisfactory from the point of view of the principles and the guidelines that our House wishes to pass on to the other European institutions that are responsible for the EU's external action. We have to take action to ensure the political stabilisation of Nigeria and to create solid foundations for its economic and social development: we are fully aware of the general considerations; there is no shortage of them, given the wealth of natural resources in Nigeria. Solving the political, economic and social issues can make the environment peaceful, less subject to inter-ethnic tension and able to reject the acts of violence that, tragically, we have seen become more frequent over the last decade. As well as recognising the fact that the responsibility for the mass violence between Christians and Muslims should be ascribed to both ethnic groups, we ought perhaps to have made it clear that another worrying factor, which also relates to the episodes of violence that have occurred, is the gradual penetration in Nigeria of radical Islam, a very clear expression of which is the adoption by 12 of the 36 states of sharia as the law of the land. However, for the general reasons stated, I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution.\nMaria Da Gra\u00e7a Carvalho  \nI deeply regret the recent events that took place this January and March in Jos, where hundreds of people were the victims of religious and ethnic confrontations. The conflict in Nigeria has roots in religious, economic, ethnic, social, historical and political reasons. Given that Nigeria is the eighth-largest oil producer in the world, it is regrettable that the majority of the country's inhabitants live below the poverty line. The adverse effects of climate change have also been contributing to the worsening of the situation in Nigeria. I believe that, in a country as oil-rich as Nigeria, equal access to resources and income redistribution are necessary for the peaceful resolution of these conflicts. I call on the Federal Government of Nigeria to ensure equal rights for all citizens, to fight the problems of control of fertile land, access to resources, unemployment, poverty, and to mitigate climate change. I call on the Commission to pursue dialogue with Nigeria under the Cotonou Agreement, to examine the deeper causes of the conflict, whilst giving consideration to issues that are fundamental to sustainable development, such as climate change, energy security, capacity building and education.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the European Parliament motion for a resolution on the mass atrocities in Jos, Nigeria. I strongly condemn the recent violence in and around Jos, when many hundreds of people were killed in ethnic and religious clashes. The EU must pursue political dialogue with Nigeria, under Article 8 of the revised Cotonou Agreement, and urgently tackle issues relating to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, as enshrined in universal, regional and national human rights instruments.\nDiogo Feio  \nThis is not the first time that Nigeria has suffered a conflict that has threatened to split the country. In this respect, I would point out the civil war that ravaged the country for three years, between 1967 and 1970, and almost led to the independence of the south-east of the country. Although the Igbo revolt was crushed because the military power of the central government prevented Biafran independence, the truth is that the ethnic, cultural and religious differences persist and are on the increase there, making the country a classic case of a state that is under permanent threat of disintegration. Nigeria's borders were drawn up by the colonial powers, which paid no attention to the aforementioned differences. That does not, however, mean that responsibility for the country's conflicts lies essentially with Europeans. It is time for African leaders to abandon this tired old excuse and try to serve their own citizens lucidly and capably in both projects and proposals. Africa will be able to be what Africans yearn for it to be as soon as they have leaders that are up to the challenge. The massacres in Jos are another profoundly sad, regrettable and bloody page in the history of a country that is accumulating them at too quick a pace.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI think that there was an urgent need for the European Parliament to condemn the ongoing massacres in Nigeria and to call for a return to peace. Given the instability and the fragility of the most highly populated country in Africa, where the majority of the population suffer from poverty, this motion for a resolution may act as a foundation for strengthening the political dialogue between the European Union and Nigeria, and for a more detailed study aimed at finding viable short- and long-term solutions to end this violence and to re-establish a lasting peace. As MEPs, I believe we have a role to play in the defence and promotion of human rights, which are violated on a daily basis in Nigeria. Therefore, in my opinion, the clause demanding that those guilty of violence be tried in a fair manner is fundamental. In the light of all these measures, which of course will not all be easy to apply, I was eager to vote in favour of this joint motion for a resolution.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) In Nigeria there have been repeated outbreaks of violence between Christians and Muslims and each of these two groups represent around half of the population. These disturbances are now taking place even more frequently. Trivial matters are causing violent clashes. Even the curfew which has been in force since January and the stationing of troops in the area did not prevent new massacres from occurring. The fact that the long absence of President Yar'Adua plunged western Nigeria into a political crisis, that there were serious clashes between Christians and Muslims in the central Nigerian town of Jos and that the ceasefire in the oil-rich Niger delta has come to an end does not bode well for the future, following the death of the president. When Muslim nomads attacked Christian villages at the beginning of the year and at least 500 people were murdered, it is said that the army only responded hours after receiving the first report. What was lacking was an outcry from the EU. When the Swiss people voted against the building of minarets in a referendum, Muslim states threatened Switzerland with economic sanctions and jihad. However, when Christians are murdered because of their religion, the EU takes months to react. The European Union must act as an honest broker in this respect and respond more quickly. This is made clear in the motion for a resolution, which is why I have voted in favour of it.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I voted, of course, in favour of such an important resolution, and I supported very much the oral amendment proposed by my colleague Kiil-Nielsen to call on the Nigerian authorities to repeal the recent move by some Nigerian state governors to execute death row inmates.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Wilderness and its diversity represent a gift and treasure that humanity should look after not just in the European Union. The European Union's efforts will remain ineffective as long as we do not stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, plundering Asian, African and American waters, as long as we do not spread more effective education about our joint responsibility for protecting nature against humanity all over the planet, and it will make this report, which I also supported today, just another scrap of paper.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, if we wish to halt the accelerating process of loss of biodiversity, it is essential to protect Europe's wildernesses forests and water bodies. For our common actions to be effective, it is vital, firstly, to draw up unequivocal definitions of wildernesses and to establish the precise location of the latter on the map of the Community.\nIt is also vital to develop a strategy based on expert analyses of risks and of the processes involved in the degradation of wilderness areas. This relates, in particular, to the invasion of foreign species that compete with the indigenous ones, and also to the impact of ongoing climate change.\nAnother key issue is tourism in its broadest sense. I refer, in particular, to the implications of unsustainable or indeed aggressive tourism. If we are to raise awareness of these issues amongst the Community's citizens, it is important to conduct information campaigns, to provide special funds in the framework of local authority institutions and to support grass roots initiatives.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\nMr President, I would like to congratulate Gyula Hegyi on his dossier and thorough research.\nAt this time of global climate change and environmental troubles, it is clear that we need to address the issue of the European wilderness. I believe that it is important that we coordinate a strategy for the protection and restoration of our precious wild lands. We have a responsibility to nature to use land properly.\nIn my own country, Slovakia, an increase in the bark beetle population forced the national park services in the High Tatra region to use pesticides to combat the corrosive nature of the insect. However, these pesticides contain the chemical cypermethrin, which often destroys healthy vegetation and poses serious health risks for humans and animals in the region.\nJust as we must find a better solution to this dramatic insect population explosion in Slovakia, it is necessary across Europe to find ways to effectively protect our natural and wild lands. I urge the European Parliament to act responsibly and quickly in order to protect the remaining wilderness.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, I am pleased to support the report on pre-commercial procurement as it greatly minimises the risk of investing in innovation. This aspect is particularly important at a time of recession. The success of pre-commercial procurement will enable public institutions to collaborate in developing new products in order to improve the quality of public services. We believe that this will increase the interest of SMEs in proposing innovative solutions for improving the quality of public transport, healthcare, reducing energy consumption in public buildings and protecting citizens from security threats without having to intrude upon their privacy. This new approach will help Europe's public sector to tackle fundamental public tasks without state aid while, at the same time, increasing the innovative potential of European firms. With this report, we have given the European Commission a powerful signal to hurry up and make some specific legislative changes.\nJan B\u0159ezina\n(CS) Mr President-in-Office, at this point, I would like to express my opinion on the unbundling of production and transmission systems for gas in connection with the adopted legislation. The proposed certification procedure for third countries seems a reasonable solution. This is the very first time that the EU is giving its attention to energy security in the context of the gas market. In response to the gas crisis which we have experienced, it is also necessary to speed up the construction of alternative pipelines to Europe which are not dependent on Russia. The main infrastructure projects, such as the Nabucco gas pipeline, which is to link the Caspian region with Europe, cannot exist without large-scale vertically integrated undertakings and their investments. However, these are hardly going to come pouring in if the risk of unbundling, and hence a weakened economic position, is hanging over them. The solution that Parliament could use is to establish exemption from unbundling for the new infrastructure until such time as there is a return on investments. I do not know whether we have exhausted all the possibilities open to us in this legislation.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, the common energy policy is currently one of the greatest challenges facing the European Union. Our response to it must be based on solidarity.\nWe are all aware that Russia remains one of our most important and also most difficult trading partners. The fact that Russia is our main source of gas supply cannot, however, be allowed to mean that it can receive special treatment. The rapporteur suggests relaxing the Union's policy towards the Russian Federation. I believe that we must pursue a fair but strict policy towards a trading partner that uses the raw materials of energy as a weapon with which to exert political pressure.\nIt is emphasised that diversification of energy sources is one of the fundamental issues arising in the area of energy security. One way of tackling this would be to free ourselves from dependency on Russian raw materials. The construction of the Nabucco pipeline and the exploitation of other sources of energy are steps in this direction.\nJim Allister\nMr President, once more we have preened ourselves in this Parliament on our green credentials, and speakers have competed to push higher and higher the unrealistic targets for energy from only renewable sources and the targets for reductions of CO2 emissions - all in the belief that by our puny but costly efforts, we will save the planet.\nYes, we should use and promote sustainable energy sources, but pursuit of what for most has become a dogma with no regard to cost or viability needs to be tempered by reality, including the reality that climate change is not new, but cyclical, as well as the reality that while we inflict these targets on ourselves, manufacturing increasingly switches to where no such restraints inhibit them. One day, we will have to account for the own goals in which the EU excels.\nJohannes Lebech\n(DA) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Laperrouze's report, but I also voted in favour of a number of amendments, all of which put a question mark against nuclear power as an energy source of the future. They were rejected. By voting in favour of the report as a whole, I am supporting the many good elements it contains, but I also recognise the fact that the majority sees nuclear energy as part of Europe's CO2-free energy mix.\nHowever, I still feel that this is not the solution for the future. The solution for the future is a massive investment in, and development of, renewable energy.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) I agree with the provisions of the Second Strategic European Energy Policy Review, but I would also like to mention some aspects of the gas crisis. The current gas crisis between Ukraine and Russia, unfortunately, not the first one, has affected 15 Central European and Balkan countries. I have not seen figures showing the extent of economic losses which the countries affected have experienced, but I would like to underline the moral and valuable losses. How are EU citizens supposed to feel when the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which was obviously political, ruins the EU economy, energy security, political stability, and EU states are unable to take any measures? I refer to Slovakia and Bulgaria's intentions to renew operations at safe nuclear power stations which had been closed, something which many of us parliamentarians support. When we debate any EU legal act, including any in the field of energy, we stress that the consumer is most important, in other words, a layman. When are we going to pay attention to a layman - the European Union citizen?\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, to many colleagues, a target of a 95% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 may seem extreme but, if we are to accept - as I do - the peer-reviewed science as represented by the latest IPCC report, that level of reduction will be required if we are to keep the 2 \u00b0C increase in global warming in our sights.\nSecondly, while I voted against a range of nuclear-related amendments due to my ongoing concerns with nuclear fission, I have no problem with references to research on safety issues or on new generations of nuclear energy. Like many, I watch and wonder as to whether nuclear fusion will ever become a reality.\nThe third point I would like to put on the record is my ongoing concern with the Irish situation and the lack of transparent and real ownership unbundling of our electricity grid, which remains a major disincentive to investment by other producers, especially using alternative fuels, with the result that the Irish have one of the highest electricity costs in Europe.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, that issue of high electricity prices in Ireland has been tackled by a colleague of ours, formerly of this Chamber, Simon Coveney, and we hope that he is successful in it.\nI voted in favour of this report because it talks about sensible issues like energy efficiency and energy security related to the climate change agenda. I have concerns about nuclear power, as do many people in Ireland, but I think we need to acknowledge that, when interconnectors are up and running, we are likely to be using power generated by the nuclear sector. So, yes, we need research into the safe disposal of nuclear waste and into new developments of this technology to enhance the safety and security of it.\nIn the absence of that, I remain concerned and voted in accordance with those concerns in relation to this report. I particularly regret that Amendment 37 was rejected, as I think it reflected, very fairly, many of the concerns of this House.\nNirj Deva\nMr President, I was delighted to be able to support Mr Lu\u00eds Queir\u00f3's report on proportionality and subsidiarity of small airports. We have always tried to have one-size-fits-all policies in the EU, but the EU must recognise that each Member State and all local circumstances require different solutions. Mr Queir\u00f3's report has addressed that in its fullest.\nThere are small airports, there are medium-sized airports and there are large international hubs. We do not want the European Union to be a massive airport structure. We have got the right balance in this report, and that is the way we should be looking at our infrastructure in the future. This is one of the reasons why, in my own constituency of the South-East of England, I am very reluctant indeed to support a third runway at Heathrow when we could have a better structure for Kent in a new airport on the Thames Estuary.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) In practice, it can be seen that the procedure under Article 45(2) has serious shortcomings. Apart from the fact that no one other than the rapporteur in the debate can discuss the topic in plenary, it even deprives the rapporteur of the possibility of discussing individual amending proposals which are problematic in the report.\nI did not vote for the amending proposal of the Green group because, on two points, the new version expresses reservations regarding the Czech Presidency's proposal. However, as this is not the official position of the Council, such recommendations are premature and often counterproductive.\nIf working life is to be compatible with family life, one's professional career must be placed on an equal footing with non-gainful activity which takes place in the context of inter-generational solidarity. I am convinced that the report brings new incentives to eliminate the multiple discrimination facing men and women who freely decide to care for their nearest and dearest.\nI would like to emphasise the work done by rapporteur Anna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1, but I am sorry that because of the procedural processes, we have not voted on her draft report.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, I distance myself from the amendments just announced to the Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 report on non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity. A mature European society must learn to see full-time care for children and other dependents as a fully valued alternative to professional life. The proposal from the Greens, which attacks this approach by the Czech Presidency and calls it reactionary, is, in my view, erroneous and immature, although the MEPs have unfortunately voted for it. Far from being a reactionary relegation of women to a role of subordination to men, it is a way to rehabilitate the family within society, giving equal rights to men, too. Today it is men, too, who push prams and care for children in hospital. Those men and women who devote part of their lives to caring for a child or for infirm parents are performing socially important work which must not, in future, be considered an inferior occupation. I welcome the fact that the Czech Presidency has placed this approach among its priorities. Our aim must be to create conditions where a man or woman who decides to take this course will not suffer discrimination in the job market and will be able to use a range of options for balancing work and family life according to the principles of flexicurity. We must strengthen parenthood, and hence inter-generational flexicurity, instead of weakening it with obstacles imposed by the labour laws. The prejudices of the last century are deepening the demographic crisis. The Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 report was a step in the right direction, and I object to the amended version which has been adopted.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(CS) Likewise, I would like to express full support for Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1, who has presented her own-initiative report which indeed addresses and underlines the need for inter-generational solidarity between individual family members. This is not only a question of care for the younger generation, the new arrivals in the family. In many cases, we also need to solve the problems of caring for older members of the same family.\nI think the Czech Presidency has rightly grasped the urgency of this current demographic situation - and there are also economic benefits to be considered - and I reject the position of the Greens, who have quite wrongly submitted an amending proposal which devalues this correct intention. I fully support Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1's report.\nAt voting time on the final report, my voting machine did not work. I was in favour of the position put forward by Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1.\nIvo Strej\u010dek\nMr President, thank you for your patience and indulgence. Let me take the opportunity to explain why I voted against the Greens and their amendment. I do not want to vote against the Czech Presidency.\nMy first point is that the Czech Presidency does not call for a particular change in the so-called Barcelona targets, but for the opening-up of the debate on a possible and viable revision of the targets. My second point is that it is evident that there are different social, cultural and economic conditions which can hardly enable the achievement of the Barcelona targets in general terms and equally all over the EU. Thirdly, the report does not take into account further factors, such as the freedom of each family, as well as the interests of children. Last, but not least, it is also difficult to achieve the Barcelona targets because childcare is, quite rightly, entirely in the hands of national governments.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) I, too, intended to vote in favour of the Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 report because it was, all in all, an even-handed report that does not lapse into the traditional, politically correct clich\u00e9s when it comes to matters such as discrimination or what is meant by it.\nThe amendment tabled by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance which I voted against, has, in fact, completely nullified the report and does contain a number of very questionable elements, including the attack on the Czech Presidency and the gratuitous claim that raising children in the home would, in fact, have a role-confirming effect. This is a particularly weak argument, but any stick will apparently do to beat a dog and to hold debates, to provide real arguments for an issue such as pay for stay-at-home parents.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1, notably because it recognised the work undertaken in the home by women. Work of a nursing, caring, educating and teaching nature should be properly valued. After all, if such work is undertaken outside the home, it is recognised and included when calculating the GDP. Gary Becker, a Nobel prize winner, refers to the importance of the economic contribution made by people undertaking domestic tasks to the economic progress of society as a whole. As to the definition of a family, in Polish, this term refers to a union capable of procreating, and does not therefore encompass same sex unions.\nAstrid Lulling\n(DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 report, which the Greens were opposed to and introduced an alternative discussion about. I am of the opinion that we in Europe must ensure, on the basis of our community of shared values, that women in particular who are starting a family have the right to choose whether to stop work completely or only to work part-time after the birth, in order to care for their child. I was very fortunate that my mother was able to do this and I must say that I have benefited from it.\nIf my mother had been unlucky enough to be divorced after twenty years of marriage, she would have been in a difficult situation, because she would not have received any social security support, particularly in old age. I have been fighting for forty years to ensure that women who choose to devote themselves to their family and their children are not discriminated against and do not put themselves in the wrong by making this choice. I cannot vote in favour of an ideology which wants to entrust children and adults to the state from the cradle to the grave.\nI regret the fact that the report from the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality was rejected. The majority of members who voted against it did a disservice to women, to the family and to society.\nNirj Deva\nMr President, I am very grateful to Anna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 for producing this report. Even though my group had some issues with it, I feel that she has touched upon something which is fundamentally important for the EU.\nThe EU's population is dropping sharply. The role of women in raising families is not recognised in many of the Member States as a contribution to their national GDP. Women and mothers are an integral part of working life in our society, and there are many millions of mothers looking after their children in my constituency in the South-East of England. Their contribution to the British GDP and to my own region's wealth is of fundamental importance for our country.\nThis report, for the first time in the European Union I believe, recognises that contribution. We need to encourage our Parliament to look at these issues in technical detail in the future so that we have equality and solidarity between the sexes.\nJim Allister\nMr President, today we debate and deplore the evil of the sexual exploitation of children. Virtually every speaker in the debate rightly condemned paedophile activities and pornographic abuse of children. Likewise, the misuse of the Internet drew the wrath of many.\nIt is disappointing, however, that, despite such unanimity, several Member States have not attained the same level of criminalisation of this abuse of children. Grooming, sexual abuse and child pornography should have no place anywhere in the EU, nor should we tolerate any of it. Silence is the best friend of paedophilia. We have seen it in churches, families and communities, where a blind eye has been turned, leading to some of the scandals of which we are aware in our various Member States.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, I was glad to support the report just now, but I should add to my previous comments the fact that seven countries have not yet committed themselves to the Council of Europe Convention or to the UN's Optional Protocol containing modern instruments for fighting child trafficking, prostitution and pornography. I am sorry to say that this also applies to my country, the Czech Republic, which, of course, wants to combat this more effectively, but for a long time has been resolving the issue of incorporating criminal liability of legal entities into its legislation. It is, of course, these legal entities that are organising child trafficking and making fat profits from it. I therefore call on the Czech Presidency to ensure that this domestic problem is resolved and that it serves as an example to the other EU Member States.\nWritten explanations of vote\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - Such agreements are vital in the process of strengthening the ties between the European Union and the United States of America. With competition from the new emerging markets ever increasing, it is of the utmost importance to be on top of the situation, and I think that this report expresses this feeling exactly.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted in favour of the Niebler report as scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and US is an absolute necessity. This transatlantic agreement must inspire both the US and European Community to reap the reciprocal benefits resulting from the scientific and technical progress achieved through research programmes. This agreement will facilitate the exchange of ideas and the transfer of expertise for the benefit of the scientific community, industry and ordinary citizens. I would like to emphasise that the US is a global leader in the field of science and technology.\nWe must take note that the agreement is based on the principles of mutual benefit, promotes participation in cooperation activities, such as coordinated calls for joint project proposals and access to each other's programmes and activities. Principles supporting effective protection of intellectual property and equitable sharing of intellectual property rights are actively promoted. The proposal also provides for missions by EU experts and officials and for workshops, seminars and meetings to be organised in the European Community and in the United States.\nI hope that this agreement will also contribute to the success of the Lisbon Strategy which is aiming to create a knowledge-based Europe. After setting up the European Institute of Technology, this transatlantic scientific and technological cooperation will generate new opportunities.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - Mrs Niebler has presented the report on the third extension of the EU-United States Agreement, which supports the Council decision concerning the extension of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America. As a mutually beneficial agreement advancing scientific knowledge and technological progress, I am very pleased to support this measure.\nDaniel Petru Funeriu  \nin writing. - The extension of the Scientific and Technological Cooperation agreement between the EU and the USA is, beyond doubt, a positive aspect for European Research. The overwhelming vote shows just this.\nHowever, experience shows time and again that the most fruitful scientific collaborations are obtained when two researchers from two institutions collaborate on a commonly designed and jointly funded project. Therefore, in order to bring more substance to the scientific cooperation with the US, I call upon the Commission to explicitly establish simple, project-oriented financing instruments of joint research grants between researchers in the US and the EU. The explicit inclusion in the agreement of fields such as biomedicine, nanotechnology and space research is welcomed. I would like to see included also other cutting edge fields, such as stem-cell research. The fact that there are justified ethical issues related to some research fields should be a drive to a common reflection on these aspects rather than a barrier to common scientific progress.\nDue, in particular, to the European Research Council grants, the EU is increasingly attractive for American researchers. The EU now has instruments to seek higher and longer term incoming scientist mobility and must act so that the EU achieves a net brain-gain.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu  \nExtending the agreement for scientific and technological cooperation with the United States is a confirmation of the need for cooperation and mutually beneficial exchanges between the EU and US in the cutting-edge sectors of research and innovation.\nThe inclusion of the space and security sectors in this agreement marks an important step towards consolidating transatlantic relations, which is a priority objective of the PPE-DE Group. This cooperation must also cover forms of civil and military collaboration in areas of common interest, including pioneering fields such as the new space technologies, nanotechnologies and defence research.\nI firmly believe that this cooperation will help boost the results obtained from the activities which have been carried out aboard the international space station, as well as in the sensitive area of communication satellites. In addition, I feel that cooperation with third countries is important, especially with Russia, mainly in projects of the GPS-Glonass-Galileo type.\nAll stakeholders must benefit from the valuable results obtained by one of the parties, whether in the civil sector or in the military sector with an application for the civil sector, because safety and security are the prime concern of the world's citizens nowadays, and sharing this success is not only proof of mutual trust and partnership, but is also a guarantee that these results will not be used for anything other than the benefit of mankind.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I wish to record that I support this report on Extension of the EC-USA agreement for scientific and technological cooperation.\nHowever, my voting machine did not work and I wish to record my vote in favour of this report for the record.\nTobias Pfl\u00fcger  \nI voted against Angelika Niebler's report on the extension of the agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America.\nThe content of the extended agreement differs from the previous agreement in that sections on space research and security research have been added. As both the USA and the EU are explicitly planning to use space for military ends and as they define security primarily in military terms, it is reasonable to assume that the cooperation agreement will also serve military purposes.\nCooperation in the fields of science and research is extremely important. However, it must be used for civilian purposes. I am opposed to any military use.\nLydie Polfer  \nI voted for this report proposing renewal of the December 1997 agreement, renewed for the first time in 2003, which will allow the two parties to continue, improve and intensify their cooperation in scientific and technical areas of common interest.\nThis collaboration will bring mutual benefits from the scientific and technical progress achieved by our respective research programmes. There will also be a transfer of knowledge that will benefit our companies and our citizens.\nThis cooperation is part of the European policy on technical research and development that is such a major part of the European legislation. It will allow us to strengthen the scientific and technical bases of European industry and promote its increased international competitiveness.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1  \nToday I did not vote for the report on the continuation of scientific and technical cooperation between the EU and the USA. This is despite the fact that the level of investment by the EU and USA in this field is amongst the highest in the world, and many interlinked scientific institutes are leading scientific and technical progress around the world and are contributing towards solving a number of global problems. In the long term, however, I would criticise the unwillingness of the Commission and the Council to reach agreement with the USA on basic common ethical principles for science and research. It troubles me that the present agreement once again contains no such provisions. This is irresponsible towards humanity and shows a lack of consideration for those scientists who voluntarily maintain specific ethical principles while others do not. This applies especially to biotechnology.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the Niebler report concerning the extension of the EC\/US agreement for scientific and technological cooperation. The agreement for scientific and technological cooperation came into force a little over 10 years ago and has already been renewed once, after the first five years. I fully agree that the agreement needs to be extended again so as to continue to foster scientific and technological cooperation with the United States in common priority areas that provide both parties with socio-economic benefits.\nI am also satisfied that the terms of the agreement are virtually identical to those signed previously, except for a few technical amendments. Finally, I applaud the addition of space research and the security sector to the EC\/US agreement.\nFlaviu C\u0103lin Rus  \nI voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council decision on extending the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America as I feel that any scientific cooperation can lead to new discoveries which, in turn, can support the development and evolution of mankind. Given that the US is one of the biggest global driving forces in the field of scientific research, I feel that the extension of scientific cooperation with this country will be beneficial to every Member State in the European Union.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nThe renewal of the agreement for another five years would be useful for both parties, as cooperation between Russia and the European Community in the field of science and technology would be continued.\nAs the content of the renewed agreement will be identical to the content of the agreement which expires on 20 February 2009, there would be no sense in continuing talks on the renewal of this agreement in the usual manner.\nGiven the advantages to both parties of a speedy renewal of the agreement, a one-step procedure is proposed (one procedure and one act, linked to the signing and formation of the agreement). Both parties to the agreement are striving to ensure continual cooperation (in particular implementing such activities, in which third parties must participate, pursuant to the cooperation agreement). I agree entirely with this proposal.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted in favour of the Niebler report as scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and Russia is a necessity. The agreement between the EU and Russia must inspire both the European Community and Russia to reap the reciprocal benefits resulting from the scientific and technical progress achieved through research programmes.\nThis agreement will facilitate the exchange of ideas and the transfer of expertise for the benefit of the scientific community, industry and ordinary citizens. I note that this agreement is based on similar principles to the agreement signed between the EU and US in the same fields, namely science and technology.\nWe must take note that the agreement is based on the principles of mutual benefit, promotes participation in cooperation activities, such as 'coordinated calls for joint project proposals and access to each other's programmes and activities'.\nPrinciples supporting effective protection of intellectual property and equitable sharing of intellectual property rights are actively promoted. The proposal also provides for missions by EU experts and officials and for workshops, seminars and meetings to be organised in the European Community and Russia. In this European Year of Creativity and Innovation, let us hope that this agreement will contribute to making the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia more effective.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - Mrs Niebler has presented the report on renewal of the existing agreement between the EC and Russia on cooperation in science and technology. Peaceful collaboration and work between Russia and EU is mutually beneficial in advancing scientific knowledge and research and I am delighted to support this measure.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu  \nRenewing the partnership agreement on scientific and technological cooperation with Russia is an important step in the process of normalising and consolidating relations between the EU and the Russian Federation, apart from easing recent tensions.\nHowever, it is not sufficient to normalise relations for cooperation in these fields. The EU and Russia must first of all find a way of consolidating their partnership and of cooperating in the area of security policies, primarily the energy security policy. The recent gas crisis highlighted the need for us to adopt a serious and united approach to dealing with the issue of the European Union's dependency on its resource suppliers.\nLet us not forget either the crisis in Georgia which, for a time, put at risk the whole post-Cold War structure in Europe.\nIn view of all the challenges posed by globalisation and the global crisis, Russia is an important player which cannot be excluded from or ignored at the negotiating table. However, the Russian Federation must observe these agreements and standard international regulations.\nI appeal to the European Commission and Czech Presidency to find specific ways of resolving these problems as soon as possible, for their own benefit and that of Europe's citizens and third country partners (Ukraine and Moldova).\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I wish to record that I support this report on agreement between the EU and Russia on cooperation in science and technology.\nHowever, my voting machine did not work and I wish to record my vote in favour of this report for the record.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik  \nin writing. - (SK) I voted in favour of scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and Russia because it is necessary to build firm, stable and genuinely neighbourly relations with the Russian Federation. I see cooperation in science and technology as an excellent means of building such a relationship. The European Community, like Russia, has achieved significant scientific advances which may be mutually beneficial to both sides. The Community can certainly benefit from such cooperation, realising and perfecting its own scientific and technical projects. However, I would underline that for genuine neighbourly relations, willingness and reliability are needed on the other side, too.\nThe last few days have borne witness to Russia's serious unreliability as a trading partner. The actions of the Russian Federation caused a gas crisis in many countries of the European Union and this posed a direct threat to the economies of Member States, showing up the drawbacks of energy dependence on Russia. I hope that in the interests of good cooperation in the scientific and technical field, such events will not be repeated in future.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1  \nJust as I voted against the agreement with the USA, I also voted against the report on the Agreement on scientific and technical cooperation between the EU and Russia. I did so for exactly the same reason. It troubles me that it does not have a chapter devoted to an agreement on common ethical limits for research. I regret the fact that the Commission and the Council underestimate this all-important aspect of research and do not even attempt to frame such an agreement. It is as if they are not aware that ethical limits have a place, more than anywhere else, in science, where preliminary caution is so necessary. At least in the case of science and research financed from public funds, an international agreement on ethical principles would be entirely appropriate within such a cooperation agreement.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted for the report by Mrs Niebler on the renewal of the EU\/Russia agreement on scientific cooperation. It is indeed essential to renew the agreement drawn up with the Soviet Government years ago. Cooperation between the European Union and Russia has produced excellent results, due to the fact that they have joined forces to achieve the sole objective of improving general wellbeing.\nI therefore welcome Mrs Niebler's initiative and stress the importance of continuity and constancy in the diplomatic relations between the EU and Russia in order to ensure that the international geopolitical balance is maintained.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - There are several reasons why this agreement strengthens the EU internal market and cooperation in standards as well as maintaining consumer protection.\nFirst among them is that science is a global discipline and advances we can share go towards increasing the sum total of human endeavour. Benefits which we can work towards are specifically and generally a positive.\nWhether it is the car industry working to reduce emissions, or universities creating strategic links, the success of promoting this agreement is measurable.\nConsumers, too, are beneficiaries indirectly, as the best minds can be brought to bear to create greater trust in the answers to our joint concerns.\nDaniel Stro\u017e  \nAlthough it may seem that the adoption of the draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the agreement (renewing the Agreement on scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and Russia) is really a formality of only secondary importance, I do not think this is so. With increasing urgency, it is becoming clear that Russia must be a strategic partner for the EU, rather than eternally condemned and seen as a bogeyman. We should therefore welcome any step in the direction of cooperation between the EU and Russia at various levels and in various forms. Cooperation with Russia can also be expected to play a very important, unambiguously positive role in the current severe economic crisis. Russia cannot be separated from Europe. It belongs to Europe, whether we like it or not, and cooperation with it may soon be vitally important for Europe.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - When we talk about wilderness, in reality we are referring to a natural environment from which significant human activity has been absent, in other words, virgin areas. Wilderness may refer to both land and sea.\nThere are two different approaches: one refers to the concept of conservation and the other to that of preservation. These are distinct. The former can be described as 'proper use of nature', the latter 'protection of nature from use'. I believe that conservation and preservation may be distinct, but their application depends on the particular area. To take an example, Europe is too small to have forbidden areas for its citizens. Forests cover about one third of the land area of which only 5 % can be described as wilderness.\nMost areas in Europe which are wilderness are protected under Natura 2000. This is a European network which already covers the most valuable and bio-diverse areas of the EU. That is why I agree that no new legislation is required concerning wilderness areas as most are covered by Natura 2000. It is, however, important to map wilderness areas according to forest, fresh water and marine wilderness.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nI voted in favour of the report. There are several reasons why Europe should be interested in protected wilderness areas. Firstly, they function as refuges and genetic reserves for many species that cannot survive in conditions that are even only slightly altered. There are also many species that have not yet been discovered and described. Most of these live in the soil or in rotting wood and are highly sensitive to change. These unpolluted areas are ideal for studying natural changes and the evolution of nature. At the same time, these areas are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change caused by humans outside their boundaries.\nThen there are many purely ethical reasons for preserving wilderness areas in Europe. We have a moral obligation to ensure that future generations can take enjoyment and benefits from the protected wilderness areas in Europe. The development of sustainable tourism is being used as a means to attribute an economic value to wilderness areas and to promote their conservation.\nIt is therefore important to draw up appropriate recommendations to help the EU Member States find the best way to ensure that present and potential protected areas, as well as wilderness areas and their natural processes, are safeguarded within the Natura 2000 framework.\nNicodim Bulzesc  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report since I agree that we really need to proceed with the mapping of the last wilderness areas in Europe. Of course, this cannot be done without defining wilderness. Therefore, I urge the European Commission to take action in this field. I also agree with the idea that we should promote sustainable tourism in these areas and teach site managers how to preserve and protect the wilderness.\nTherefore, I join the request of the main NGOs in the field and ask the European Commission to give some guidelines for wilderness preservation in Europe.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - This report indicates that not even the farthest reaches of Europe are beyond the EU's grasp. The whole point of wilderness is that it is supposed to be untouched by mankind - including the EU. However, given the various pressures on the environment, the Commission has proposed action to protect and nurture Europe's most remote and isolated regions.\nI am therefore generally supportive of this report, provided that Member States retain a prominent role in the management, designation and protection of wilderness.\nI am somewhat sceptical about the merits of an EU strategy on wilderness, given that the EU's management of agriculture and fisheries has proved to be so disastrous. It is vital that the EU acts as a facilitator and repository of best practice in this process, otherwise the whole point of the measures proposed would be undermined.\nNotwithstanding those caveats, my region of north-east England is blessed with isolated areas of outstanding natural beauty largely untouched by humans. I therefore supported this report.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - Natura 2000 has done much to protect unspoilt or virgin environment. This report stresses the importance of such projects and I am in full agreement with the rapporteur that many resources must be used to ensure the protection of such areas. It is important to map these areas because it might be too late if we leave this too late.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - Mr Hegyi's own-initiative report emphasises the importance of the protection of wilderness areas in Europe in the application of existing Directives, proposing a definition of 'wilderness' as still untouched areas as well as 'areas where human activities are minimal'.\nWhile the report is welcome, certain areas remain unclear; for example, whether existing wilderness areas or potential future wilderness areas are being discussed. I would also like to know whether there are wilderness areas that are currently not listed as Natura 2000 sites which would potentially come under the consideration of this report.\nAreas of special consideration under Natura 2000 fall under the competences of various DGs in the Commission. While I am appreciative of the work undertaken by these different departments and their different mandates, increasing the levels of cooperation and coherence could greatly enhance the protection afforded by Natura 2000 sites. I am pleased to support Mr Hegyi's report, but regret that due to the application of Rule 45(2), I was denied the opportunity to debate it.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted for the Hegyi report, since I believe it is necessary to improve the protection and promotion of wilderness areas in Europe.\nDue to the environmental pressures resulting from centuries of human activity, wilderness areas today cover only 46% of the Earth's surface.\nI believe that it falls to the European Commission to draw up recommendations for the Member States, which must include the production of a map and a strategy for Europe's wilderness areas.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nWe voted in favour of this report because we need to protect nature, but through human use. Forests currently cover 33% of the land area of the countries of the European Economic Area, corresponding to 185 million hectares. Only about 9 million hectares of forest (5% of the total forest area) is considered 'wilderness'. These areas, together with their native plant and animal communities and the ecosystems of which they are a part, are in an essentially natural state. These wilderness areas should enjoy effective and specific protection conditions, as genetic reserves and refuges for many species which are unable to survive even in slightly altered conditions, especially large mammals, like brown bears, wolves and lynxes.\nWe have a moral obligation to ensure that future generations can enjoy and benefit from Europe's wilderness areas. The development of sustainable tourism can be used as a means of giving economic value to wildernesses and creating support for conservation, encouraging ordinary people to discover the hidden value of nature without damaging it. Sustainable tourism strengthens acceptance of conservation policies, since the tourists come to understand the need for protection as a result of their personal experience, while helping to economically maintain wilderness areas which can provide job opportunities for local people.\nDuarte Freitas  \nToday, Europe's wildernesses are reduced to a fraction of what they were in the past, so their protection is a priority.\nThey must, therefore, be central to European biodiversity policy and the Natura 2000 Network must take these areas into account, so as to make the best use of the ecosystem services they provide.\nI therefore approve of the Hegyi report in the hope that European wilderness areas can be better preserved for enjoyment by future generations.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this report which highlights the need to protect the 46% of the world's land which is wilderness and has not been significantly modified by human activity.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nGone are the days when the history of humanity was a story of survival in the face of nature's adversity. In our part of the world, although we still need to protect ourselves from nature and its attacks, it has become necessary to protect nature from human presence and domination. We must do so for ourselves: for the interest we have in preserving the richness of biodiversity and for our need to preserve the planet on which we have been offered the chance to live. It is on the basis of these precepts that we must consider efforts to preserve wilderness in Europe and, very specifically, in the outermost regions, where such diversity is so important. The same precepts demand that interventions and regulations be balanced and considered. If we want to foster a new way to use our rural areas, we must not increase the human activities undertaken there to levels that cannot be borne. The protection of wilderness, especially where it coexists with human activity, must mean the promotion of balance, preservation and sustainability. We must not place intolerable burdens on rural life or make people abandon areas already impoverished in themselves.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting for the Hegyi report on wilderness in Europe. I believe that the European Union should take a greater interest in wilderness areas, because they act as refuges and reserves for many species that cannot survive in altered conditions. Moreover, the ethical reasons for this decision must not be forgotten.\nWe European citizens have a moral obligation to ensure that future generations can benefit from the protected wilderness areas in Europe. I therefore applaud Mr Hegyi's initiative, aimed at promoting the development of sustainable tourism, a real indicator of the economic value of wilderness.\nFlaviu C\u0103lin Rus  \nI voted for this report because, in my view, Europe must protect its wilderness areas and contribute to the upkeep of its national parks. According to the 'Wilderness in Europe' report, there are 10 national parks in several regions of Europe. The upkeep and protection of these national parks also mean protection for the species of animals and birds which inhabit these areas.\nIn view of the fact that some of these species are on the point of extinction, I feel that the European Union must become actively involved in developing programmes which will help to revitalise these species and repopulate certain areas where, unfortunately, some species of animals and plants have disappeared.\nOn the same lines, I believe the following measures are necessary: a closer analysis of land clearing activities in areas which are not designated as national parks and the development of specific projects aimed at reforestation in areas which have been cleared. I personally give my strong support to any such project and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nThe term wilderness refers to a natural environment that has not been significantly altered by human activity. Even now, 46% of the surface of the Earth is classed as wilderness.\nThere is a difference between the notions of conservation and protection. The former involves proper use of nature. The latter implies protecting nature against exploitation. In my view, nature needs to be protected, but through human action. Europe is too small for it to be sensible to ban its citizens from entering certain territories. The territories in question are of particular and exceptional value. This can be exploited in an environmentally friendly manner by developing new products in the area of tourism.\nAt the same time, these territories are especially vulnerable to the impact of environmental change caused by human beings. It is our moral duty to ensure that the next generation is able to see and experience genuine wildernesses in Europe. The development of sustainable tourism may prove a way of benefiting from the economic importance of wilderness lands and acquiring resources for their protection.\nAn interesting initiative linking programmes aimed at wildernesses and sustainable tourism has arisen in Europe. I refer to the PAN Parks Foundation, whose aim it is to develop sustainable tourism in those lands.\nThere is no need to introduce new legislation regarding wildernesses, but the European Commission should develop appropriate recommendations to ensure that that Member States of the EU receive assistance concerning the best ways of protecting present or potential wildernesses that might be included in the Natura 2000 network.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - In recent years, general and business aviation has been the fastest growing branch of the aviation sector. Airports in my constituency of North-East England, such as Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley, are popular with amateur pilots and, increasingly, business people. It is therefore a sub-sector that needs support and sensible regulation.\nI am impressed with the Commission's commitment to proportionality in the regulation of general and business aviation. This approach marks a significant departure from many previous transport-related proposals and is to be welcomed, although we must remain vigilant to ensure that the sector can continue to grow in a sustainable way without the kind of onerous red tape that, far too often, has characterised the Commission's proposals.\nInevitably, this sector will decline somewhat in the short term as the economic crisis continues to set in. However, general and business aviation contributes significantly to economic growth, especially at a regional level as we in north-east England can attest.\nI voted in favour of this report.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - I agree with the rapporteur on the need to emphasise the importance of data gathering, proportionate regulation, airport and airspace capacity, and environmental sustainability, whilst acknowledging the importance of one of the fastest-growing industries of our time. We call to strike a balance in these mentioned issues so as not to hinder the business and leave it sustainable.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - MEP Queir\u00f3 has responded to the Commission's communication 'An Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation' and has highlighted several areas where policy considerations for the non-commercial air transport sector in general and business aviation have additional impact. Of particular interest are the extension of Community competence in areas of security and safety, and the impact on the sector of Community initiatives such as the Single European Sky and the Air Traffic Management System.\nEnsuring safety, while ensuring that environmental concerns are met by the sector in a responsible manner, both in reducing noise pollution and reducing the volume of emissions generated, is a primary concern. The rate of growth of the sector and its diversity both make it one where future regulation will be necessary. This communication points to a path for developing future policy.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nI have voted against the report by Lu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 on the future of general and business aviation.\nIt is undoubtedly true that the number of general and business aircraft movements has increased significantly and therefore that the environmental impact has also grown.\nHowever, in my opinion, investing in the expansion of airports is the wrong approach, because this will only lead to more demand for travel and an increase in air traffic. We need to find alternatives so that the level of air traffic does not escalate and pollution remains within reasonable limits.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu  \nGeneral and business aviation is a flourishing sector characterised by an increased degree of adaptability and flexibility, features which conflict with the rigid inflexibility typical of large airports in particular. For this reason, I support the recommendations of my colleague, Luis Queir\u00f3, on the consistent application of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity in this sector, on a case-by-case basis, with the proviso that all the security and safety requirements are complied with.\nI appeal to all Member States to take into consideration all the recommendations made by the Commission and rapporteur, especially those concerning how to make airport capacity more efficient and use it to optimum effect, not only with regard to large airports, but especially regional and local airports.\nIn fact, as rapporteur for the European Single Sky II package and the extension of the EASA's powers, I took into account the need for this segment of the aviation sector to enjoy all the conditions which are required to ensure sustainable development for the benefit of both the industry and, ultimately, passengers too.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Queir\u00f3 on an Agenda for a Sustainable Future in General and Business aviation. Certainly we are warned that a new European policy is required concerning general and business aviation.\nThis is because there has been a constant growth in the total turnover of companies in the civil aviation sector. Indeed, it is estimated that the number of passengers using business aviation could double in the next ten years or so. Furthermore, the advantages brought by this type of aviation to economic and social wellbeing as a whole must also be acknowledged.\nI therefore welcome the report by my fellow Member and hope that the potential of a sector enjoying remarkable growth can be fully exploited in the future.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - The public sector has been hampered by traditional methods in the procurement of research and development services. This can be altered through what is known as pre-commercial procurement. Pre-commercial procurement is a special approach for the public sector to procure research and development.\nThe EU needs a broader innovation strategy. And what we are terming pre-commercial procurement has to be seen as part of the strategy. This is essential to re-enforce the innovation capabilities of the Union and to improve public services for European citizens. The US public sector spends USD 50 billion on research and development procurement. Europe spends USD 2.5 billion. It is obvious why pre-commercial procurement is crucial to help the public sector in Europe address major public challenges.\nOne of the problems existing in the EU is a lack of awareness of how to optimise research and development procurement. The problem is a result of what is known as exclusive development. Companies which have developed a product or service for a public body cannot use their findings for other customers. Pre-commercial procurement will address this anomaly. It will allow a specific approach which involves risk benefit sharing. This will also result in cost-effective development of innovative solutions.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nThank you, Mr President. I shall vote in favour. I consider that pre-commercial procurement has the potential to be very advantageous for innovation and that it can offer updated public services of high quality in the European Union.\nNot only that. Pre-commercial procurement contracts offer major opportunities to small and mediumsized enterprises, in relation both to the public contracts sector and to their global development and experience. Indeed, they are, by their nature, more accessible for small and mediumsized enterprises than traditional large commercial contracts.\nDespite all this, I fear that what is proposed will not succeed in attracting small and mediumsized enterprises unless the way in which such contracts are to work is made clear, especially in a cross border context, and unless further clarification is provided on certain procedural aspects, including provisions on State aid and intellectual property, so as to create a transparent and stable environment for public bodies and enterprises.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - This report makes sobering reading: for all the talk about the Lisbon agenda, and making Europe the world's most competitive economy by next year, I was shocked to read that the US public sector is spending USD 50 billion per year on research and development procurement.\nThis amount is twenty times higher than in Europe and an amount that represents approximately half of the overall research and development investment gap between the US and Europe.\nI welcome this report by my colleague, Malcolm Harbour, who has set out ways in which Europe can begin to close that productivity gap. The key to this process is in the title: driving innovation.\nIn my view, the best way for the aspirations of this report to become reality is to ensure that the EU encourages innovation and technological development rather than throwing regulatory obstacles in the way.\nGiven the important role of public procurement in promoting and supporting new technologies, I supported this report. I hope its principles will be of use to local authorities in my region of North-East England.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - I agree with the rapporteur on the importance of innovation, especially in demanding sectors such as health, ageing and security. Pre-commercial procurement marginalises the room for error and should thus be used as an innovative means.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - My colleague, Mr Harbour, has presented an own-initiative report regarding increasing innovation in Europe to ensure sustainable and high-quality public services. Access to such services in a fair and equitable manner is essential for the full functioning of the free market. This communication addresses the issue of the research and development (R&D) phase of a pre-commercial product.\nPre-commercial procurement is a specific approach for the public sector to engage R&D, with a view to driving innovation to ensure sustainable high quality public services in Europe. The scope of public services concerned covers healthcare, education, security, climate change and energy efficiency, all issues which benefit the entirety of society. The adoption of this strategy will allow for cost-effective, value-added development of new and innovative solutions, and so I supported this proposal.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nPublic procurement in the area of research and development in Europe represents an insignificant proportion of total public procurement. Europe does not appear in a favourable light either in comparison with the United States, whose public sector allocates USD 50 billion a year to public procurement in the area of research and development, an amount 20 times greater than the sum spent in Europe. This is most unfortunate if we really want to strengthen our innovative potential.\nIt is worth noting that many products and services currently available would not exist were it not for the commitment of public resources. The GPS satellite navigation system and semiconductor technology are but two examples.\nEurope needs to make technical improvements in many areas, such as health, sustainable growth and security. For many of these areas, no commercial solutions are yet available, or if they are, further research and development action is required. Pre-commercial procurement is one way of eliminating this gap between public sector demand and supply, offering the public authorities the possibility of improving the services they provide.\nPre-commercial procurement also represents an important opportunity for SMEs. The innovative potential of the latter is enormous and, thanks to the commitment of public resources, they have the opportunity to develop and sell the solutions devised to other clients.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly welcome the report by Mr Harbour on precommercial procurement: driving innovation to ensure sustainable, high quality public services in Europe. It is extremely important for the European Union to confront social challenges in an appropriate fashion, so as to guarantee considerable improvements in the provision of public services.\nPrecommercial procurement, from this perspective, can help to bridge the gap between supply and demand in the public services sector. I agree with the rapporteur when he emphasises the need to educate customers on how to approach innovation in public contracts, since the profession is highly skilled and needs well-trained staff.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nPre-commercial procurement occurs when the public sector places orders in the area of research and development, thus supporting innovation and ensuring the sustainability and high quality of public services.\nPre-commercial procurement is tremendously important in terms of strengthening the innovation potential of the entire European Union, improving public services provided directly to the citizens, and also eliminating the gap between supply and demand in the public sector.\nOne example of a solution developed on the basis of public procurement is the GPS navigation system.\nIn the United States, the funding allocated to orders in the area of research and development is 20 times greater than that allocated in the European Union.\nFor SMEs, public procurement represents a valuable opportunity to gain experience. Pre-commercial procurement contracts are advantageous for smaller enterprises, as the latter often do not comply with the requirements for ordinary commercial public procurement.\nAs a matter of urgency, Europe should develop comprehensive solutions to improve the use of pre-commercial procurement, not only by national authorities, but also by local and regional ones.\nMarian Zlotea  \nFirst of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Harbour for the report he has compiled, for the way in which it reflects the work of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). Adopting this own-initiative report compiled by Mr Harbour will help boost innovation in research and development within the European Union. We must capitalise on the benefit which we will gain from a pre-commercial procurement policy. Public procurement is an area which offers the prospect of huge opportunities for SMEs, with pre-commercial procurement being easier to access than large-scale procurement contracts.\nWe need to follow the example of the US and focus more on procuring research and development services. We must define a beneficial pre-commercial policy instrument in order to boost the EU's innovative base. At the moment, companies which have developed a product or service for a public body are not able to reuse their findings for other potential customers, which comes on top of the financial barriers to procuring rival solutions. Pre-commercial procurement allows cost-effective development of innovative solutions.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote against Mrs Laperrouze's report, as we believe that the final report is unbalanced and infringes the right of the Member States to decide whether or not they wish to use, develop or invest in nuclear energy. We are in favour of common research into nuclear safety, for example, but we feel that, in several cases, the report is far too pro-nuclear energy. These decisions should be made at Member State level.\nMoreover, we are, in general, in favour of investments in energy infrastructure, but we are dubious about supporting all of the projects and investments that the rapporteur would like to support. We would have liked to have seen clearer criteria in order to be able to support such a position, particularly in the light of the debate on Nord Stream.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - First and foremost, Europe must devote its efforts to help its members in their quest for the search of oil and gas. There is a probability that Malta has fossil-fuel reserves beneath its seabed. Full exploitation cannot be carried out because of issues on the median line between Malta and its Northern African neighbours. This should not only be a bilateral issue but it is also in Europe's interest to seek a solution on behalf of its Member State.\nThe issue of nuclear energy has once again taken a prominent position. There are pros and cons. The nuclear debate is never-ending. One cannot fail to take note of the possibility of evaluating this energy supply.\nI am informed that Malta was considering the importation of energy generated from nuclear plants in France. This energy, on reaching Malta, would be in the form of electricity and the negative aspects associated with nuclear plants would not be an issue. The energy generated would be cheaper than that from a gas pipeline from Sicily. Malta would not have to undertake the capital expenditure needed to construct a power station.\nLiam Aylward  \nin writing. - I welcome this week the financial allocation of EUR 100 million that is being given by the European Union in support of the construction of new electricity networks between the East Coast of Ireland and Wales.\nThis new project is part of the EUR 3.5 billion economic stimulus package which was announced by the European Commission last week in Brussels. It will help to construct more modern energy networks which will fully protect the security of energy supplies into Ireland into the future.\nThe European Union is also going to financially support new projects in the field of alternative energy, and this includes the wind energy sector.\nAs a member of the European Parliament's Environment Committee, I have witnessed the growing dispute about energy supply.\nWe all must reflect on what has been happening for a number of weeks now concerning energy supplies coming from Russia into the EU via the Ukraine.\nThe reality is that we in the EU need to break down our absolute dependence on Russian energy supplies. We need to develop other energy sectors\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nThank you, Mr President. I am voting in favour. I consider that forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, hydroelectric or geothermal energy, biomass or marine resources, are potentially the most important source of energy for the European Union. These can help to stabilise energy prices and contain the increase in energy dependency.\nIt is therefore very important to set out a European energy policy that will allow a substantial shift towards energy technologies that are efficient and have low carbon emissions, so as to cover our energy needs. If energy efficiency and energy saving continue to be a priority, in line with the continuing development of renewable energy sources, I agree that it should be possible to meet our energy requirements using low emission sources by 2050. I also agree on the importance of a systematic approach founded on synergies between the various sectors. In short, the long-term energy and climate challenges, at both European and global level, are an exceptional opportunity for encouraging new business models in all economic sectors, in order to stimulate innovation and to encourage environmentally friendly entrepreneurship.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nWe do not have a single European energy policy. Each state defends its own interests. An additional EUR 5 billion have been allocated to EU electricity connections and broadband Internet. This is an historic event as, for the first time in the history of the EU, the European Commission debated the budget again and proposed such a project. This is especially important for Lithuania since, so far, it has neither an electricity link with Sweden nor one with Poland and is an energy island. Energy links are investments which do not reap many rewards financially. Therefore, such vitally important projects should be financed with EU funds. Today, Lithuania buys gas for around USD 500, while other EU states, which are much further from Russia than Lithuania, pay less for gas. We would gain a lot by showing solidarity and speaking with one voice to Gazprom about pricing.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - The three main objectives - security of supply and solidarity between Member States; combating climate change: recalling the 'three times 20' objective for 2020 and the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by between 50% and 80% by 2050; and the economic growth of the EU: obtaining the best prices while avoiding price volatility - are of utmost importance when we discuss the European energy policy. We have to consider the policy that the decentralisation of energy sources will have, and new types of renewable energy should also be encouraged.\nGiles Chichester  \nin writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues welcome the strategic approach on the supply of energy as contained in the Laperrouze report on the Second Strategic Energy Review.\nWe voted against the references to the Lisbon Treaty in line with our long-standing policy of opposing it. However, because there are references to the Lisbon Treaty which we could not specifically vote against, we have decided to abstain on the final vote.\nDrago\u015f Florin David  \nI voted in favour of Mrs Laperrouze's report on the strategic analysis of the EU's energy situation because it stipulates that the EU's future energy policy should include emergency action plans, the implementation of projects aimed at diversifying supply sources, as well as new climate change objectives.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nWe voted against this report because we disagree with many of the proposals that it propounds, as they are always based on free competition and liberalisation of markets in a strategic sector in which the existence of public policies and public ownership of the principle means of energy production was essential.\nHowever, we voted in favour of several proposals. For example, we are also concerned about the security of fossil fuels such as oil and gas, and the rapporteur's statement regarding the unlikelihood of world production exceeding 100 million barrels per day (currently 87 million). when requirements in 2030 are estimated at 120 million barrels per day, as well as the risk of a major crisis during the next decade.\nWe also agree that more research in the energy field should be undertaken, specifically into the transmutation of nuclear waste and nuclear fusion.\nNevertheless, we oppose the attempt to put economic groups in the European Union in a position of strength relative to the public companies of third countries, and the use made of this report to defend the Treaty of Lisbon and call for its ratification.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Laperrouze report on the Second Strategic Energy Review despite (for me) its over-enthusiasm for nuclear energy. I am not in favour of early closure of safe nuclear plants, but my enthusiasm for new plants is extremely limited. In my own region, the South-West of England, we have the possibility of constructing a tidal barrage across the Severn that would, with far less potential damage to the environment, have an output of two nuclear power stations and provide in a 'green' way 5% of Britain's energy needs.\nI also voted in favour of the Green Amendment 22 pointing out the delay and escalating costs of the fusion power ITER project. I was not in favour of basing this joint project in Europe as the host pays a disproportionate part of the total budget. I was therefore in favour of Japan, which wanted it, hosting this white elephant. Far earlier than anticipated, I am being proved right.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nEveryone is aware that energy is a major challenge for the Member States. Energy saving, increased energy efficiency, research into commercially viable renewable energy and new technologies for transport and diversity of supply are all known routes to reduced dependence for the Member States. We do not question the need for some cooperation, organisation even, at an intergovernmental level, for solidarity between the States.\nIn reality, though, it seems from the report that the design of an energy strategy and security of supply are much less important than the introduction of a single energy policy or the introduction of a single network for gas and electricity, under the aegis of a single European regulator for each sector. Now, the choices, needs, options and capacities of the various states are extremely different.\nThis sensitive issue really is a strategic one and, as such, can only be left up to the sovereign decision of the states in accordance with their interests. The objective once again, though, is an increase in the powers of the Brussels bureaucracy. We know this is what we have to thank for providing us with problems ranging from an explosion in electricity prices to regular power cuts.\nThat is why we have voted against this report.\nMarie Anne Isler B\u00e9guin  \nThe report again suggests the nuclear option, even though this energy is not competitive and uranium is obtained in dangerous conditions that give rise to ethnic discrimination and have an unacceptable impact on health.\nDue to the issue of global warming, coal cannot be considered a 'transitional component'.\nI believe that the 'diversification of EU energy resources' is linked to the exploitation of fossil resources in the Caspian Sea. The gas and oil fields of the Kashagan region are putting pressure on the populations and their environmental resources: the extraction of oil rich in sulphides threatens the health of the populations and biodiversity.\nThe diversification of energy supplies assumes that there are gas and oil pipelines to transport resources to the EU. The TBC and Nabucco projects are affecting the political stability of our neighbours. We have an obligation not to allow our energy needs to threaten their stability. The populations of the Southern Caucasus must receive an economic and social benefit from the extraction of energy from their territories.\nIn Africa, the production of solar energy destined to meet our needs has to be suitably rewarded.\nWhy not say in the report that renewable energies and energy saving are the answer in the future? As it stands currently, I am voting against this report.\nOna Juknevi\u010dien \nTo guarantee EU energy security, a common EU energy market is needed, into which all Community Members would be integrated, above all the Baltic region. The dependency of countries in this region on Russia, as the single supplier of energy resources, stands in the way of energy security, not just for these countries themselves, but for the Community as a whole. Therefore, it is necessary to allow the connection of the Baltic countries to EU networks through priority and sufficiently funded EU projects. The diversification of energy sources and suppliers cannot remain a matter for the member countries themselves. It must be decided at EU level. Therefore, I particularly support the rapporteur when she urges the Commission 'to prepare a European strategic plan which would set out long-term investment intended to satisfy the needs of future electric energy production and concrete guidelines for investment in nuclear energy'. As the financial crisis has hit the construction sector particularly hard, equally so in Lithuania, the rapporteur's call for 'greater efforts to solve the problem of final disposal of all types of radioactive waste, and especially very radioactive waste', becomes particularly relevant with the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power station.\nPartnership and Cooperation Agreements (in particular with Russia) must be a means of safeguarding the interests of all EU Members, and EU Member States must adhere to the principles of solidarity and unity in discussions with energy suppliers in third countries. Only a united Europe is strong and competitive in an age of rapid globalisation.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu  \nThe issue of the European Union's energy security is a regularly recurring topic, which is becoming increasingly relevant, clearly indicating that there are deep-seated, unresolved problems. The recent gas crisis has demonstrated the absolute need for Member States to join forces at Community level and show solidarity, both in crisis situations and in devising and implementing joint solutions which are mutually beneficial.\nBeing located at the EU's eastern border, Romania is aware of both the risks and benefits accorded by this geo-strategic position. For this reason, Romania supports and promotes, on the one hand, the construction of alternative energy transit routes, primarily the Nabucco gas pipeline, while, on the other, it supports the process of clarifying and strengthening partnership relations with Russia, which is a major player in the international arena, not only in this difficult sector involving the supply of energy resources.\nWith this in mind, the recommendations made by the rapporteur regarding the Southern Europe Corridor, especially Nabucco, and the interconnection of the gas and electricity networks running from north to south in South-East Europe, must be considered and implemented as quickly as possible.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nThe gas crisis which we have just survived has clearly demonstrated once again how important a secure, reliable and cheap energy supply is for the EU. It is disturbing that nuclear power is suddenly being promoted as 'climate friendly' as part of the energy debate and that reactors which have come to the end of their useful life and which have had millions in subsidies spent on decommissioning are suddenly being reactivated. This is probably a result of the fact that the EU ignored the gas dispute and left the Eastern Member States in the lurch. This is a lesson for the future. We must reduce our energy consumption, although critics doubt whether the compulsory introduction of energy-saving bulbs will achieve this, and we must push for the use of alternative forms of energy. However, while the focus of the budget is on nuclear power, this will never happen and new energy technologies will be marginalised.\nAlthough considerations relating to the security of the EU's energy supply are important, they must not result in support for Turkey's entry into the EU for reasons of energy policy. Even if Turkey does not become a member, the planned oil pipelines will still be able to pass through Turkey and it will still be possible to implement the gas infrastructure projects.\nAntonio Mussa  \nI greatly valued Mrs Laperrouze's work and have therefore voted in favour of its adoption. I only hope that the ideas and indications she has supplied in her report will be adequately appraised by the Commission and interpreted in the most positive and wide-ranging way possible.\nI therefore hope that no obstacles will be put in the way of the quickest possible definition of projects regarding infrastructures and that they will be appraised in accordance with priorities that relate solely to development times, financial structure, available supplies and the relationship between public support and private commitment.\nIn this connection, the presentation of the Commission's proposals for the European Recovery Plan, with a plan for financial support for certain projects, neglects the Mediterranean area by excluding the AlgeriaSardiniaItaly natural gas pipeline (including the section within Italy) from the highest priority European projects.\nI still hope that within the ambit of diversification of sources and supply routes, we can make gradual progress, making use of new opportunities to start on infrastructure where it is lacking.\nI hope that the mechanisms of solidarity will not permit market distortions or give rise to excessively onerous procedures. I hope that the Energy Charter will be able to play a fundamental role together with the enlargement of the Energy Community, in particular, in relation to transit countries, including in the field of renewable energy sources.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nThe context in which a strategy that is intended to be long-term is given consideration has a decisive influence on the result of the analysis and the content of proposals. The debate on the Strategic Energy Review is no exception. In this context there are, however, repeated indicators suggesting that it is more permanent than transitory. These indicators include energy dependency (whether on Russia or on the main oil-producing countries) and its consequences; increasing energy costs, whether because of higher prices brought about by greater global demand or because of the decreased purchasing power of states impoverished by a severe economic crisis; and the environmental consequences on various levels of constantly increasing global energy consumption, which the economic crisis is unlikely to reverse. Together, these factors point to a need for a strategic approach based on lesser dependency and, as a result, greater diversity (either of suppliers or of energy consumed); greater efficiency; a sustained research effort into alternative energy; greater integration; and, at the same time, the development of production capacities at a local level - specifically, those using alternative energy sources. It is an enormous challenge, but it is a strategic issue which we cannot ignore.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Laperrouze, on the Second Strategic Energy Review. I agree that we need to establish a true base for future European energy policy, aimed at pursuing the objectives of security of supply, combating climate change and the economic growth of the European Union.\nLike the rapporteur, I emphasise the importance of achieving the institution of a European fund, guaranteeing the noncommercial risks of certain projects for the production and transport of energy that affects Europe, so as to encourage investments in all networks.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - The EU has ambitious plans, matched against a risk that resources will be increasingly constrained as populations around the globe demand more energy. The answers, in maintaining current security of supply and developing efficient non-carbon based energy, are not mutually exclusive.\nSafety of our environment and avoidance of energy poverty among those people, particularly in the South-East of England who live on fixed incomes, are equally important objectives.\nThat is why I support a mixture of technological solutions to energy supply in the EU. Whilst I respect the necessity for caution in the nuclear industry as regards safety, I believe it offers a degree of certainty: if we were deprived of this process now, it would be accordingly disastrous for many of my constituents on fixed incomes.\nBart Staes  \nThe report on the second strategic review of energy policy shows far too little in the way of cohesion. In my view, total commitment to bringing about an energy-efficient economy should receive top priority in European energy policy. Restricting the consumption of energy should be given absolute priority in a bid to achieve the objectives concerning climate change, sustainable development, innovation, job creation and competitiveness. In fact, an approach such as this is a very effective and inexpensive way of safeguarding a continuous energy supply. As already stated, it creates a huge number of jobs for both highly qualified workers and unskilled ones.\nEuropean energy policy must give due consideration to the changing way in which energy is consumed and produced, with a view to the future. Decentralised energy systems will need to be combined with extensive sources of renewable energy. Alongside energy efficiency, energy-saving measures are of key importance. We should therefore insist on insulation, as well as other measures, in the building industry. In this report, the significance of nuclear energy is overrated. It may cover about a third of total demand for electricity, but that only comes to 6% of the total demand for energy. In this context, I would like to remind you that there is still no sustainable solution for the problem of (highly) radioactive waste.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - Energy independence in Europe needs to be higher on the political agenda. The need for clear definitions across the European Union on energy poverty is also important. There also requires to be more joined-up thinking in terms of how we can harness the Green Economy to help us through the current financial crisis by creating jobs, but also to give the EU the energy independence which we need. An investment in the EU Grid has to be addressed.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski  \nThe report by Mrs Lapperouze on the Second Strategic Energy Review contains a point advocating the construction of the South Stream pipeline. This is a sister project to the North Stream pipeline, aimed at making it totally impossible to implement the Nabucco project. The South Stream pipeline strengthens Russia's position in terms of the supply of sources of energy, and cannot therefore be considered a project to achieve diversification in this area.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We are highly critical of Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1's report and intended to vote against it, as we thought that it was extremely hostile to women. Women were to take care of the home, children and the elderly instead of working. As luck would have it, we did not need to vote against the resolution, as the amending resolution from the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance was approved.\nEven though we ultimately chose to support the resolution, there were wordings that we were opposed to or were doubtful of, and therefore it was not clear how we should vote.\nAs Swedish Social Democrats, we think that the right to work should apply to everyone. Society must, then, also provide the tools and conditions to enable women to go out to work, something that is a pre-requisite for their emancipation. Well-developed childcare and care for the elderly is one of the most important pre-requisites necessary for women, too, to be able to go out to work. Of course, there must be solidarity between the generations, but this solidarity must not result in women being forced to stay at home to look after the elderly and children.\nWe nevertheless believe that the resolution adopted by the majority sends a clear message to the Czech Presidency to show that its objective of placing the care of children and the elderly in the home on an equal footing with work is both old-fashioned and extremely hostile to women.\nRobert Atkins  \nin writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues are supportive of a number of the general principles outlined in this report, including support for carers, work-life balance, and parental leave.\nHowever, due to certain references in this report, particularly with regard to the Working Time Directive, we have chosen to abstain.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - It is a fact that in the Lisbon strategy, the concept of 'work' relates to formal gainful employment. The concept of 'work' has to be given a wider interpretation. There are activities carried out by both men and women which do not qualify as formal gainful employment, but one cannot deny that these activities constitute work. For instance, voluntary, domestic and family work are all different aspects of the concept but do not fall within the traditional definition of gainful employment.\nThe definition of work to this day is too economic. Many people of either gender care for dependents and yet, notwithstanding this, the input of such work is ignored by employment statisticians. In my opinion, domestic work is household production and should form a significant part in statistics relating to the economic output of a country.\nThis, however, is not recognised when calculating the goods and services that make up the GDP of a country. The result is that women, who are responsible for the greater part of household production, are undervalued as regards their input. Given the hours of work in household production, one must accept that this should be taken into account when computing the total production of a country.\nAdam Bielan  \nI voted in favour of the report by Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1. I believe that in particular, women running a household and bringing up children should not encounter discrimination on the labour market. Running a home and bringing up children is largely unseen work. It does not enjoy prestige, yet it is work undertaken for the benefit of the entire community. There are some six million women in Poland who are homemakers. Accordingly, the EU's policy should define the notion of work in such a way as to allow for a series of concessions benefiting women who put their professional career on hold, women who devote themselves to their family and also women who care for their family whilst they are also active in the workplace.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nIn Europe, the employment rate for women caring for children is only 62.4%, while for men it is 91.4%. Moreover, 76.5% of part-time workers are women. Unsuitable services, low pay, late inclusion in the labour market, lengthy procedures regarding agreements on fixed-term work and insufficient incentives for young couples - these are some of the reasons why young people choose to get married and have children later. I urge EU states to make provisions for the cost of maternity leave to be covered not just by the employer, but by society too, and to offer parents more opportunities for flexible working, and child care institutions more opportunities for flexible working hours, so that both women and men can balance work and family life more successfully.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - I support this report which focuses on the various aspects of direct and indirect discrimination towards women and men who are responsible for taking care of dependents. It argues that a better understanding of the relationship between employment (paid work) and family obligations (unpaid work) is essential to enhance economic independence of women and consequently gender equality.\nThe non-gainful employment of women and men who, for instance, educate children, care for the elderly at home, provide inter-generational solidarity and work for the common good, is still not considered economic work to this day.\nThe report calls on Member States to take measures aimed at the recognition of not just traditional forms of gainful employment but also of various other forms such as voluntary and domestic and family work, and to assess how they should be included in Member States' systems of national accounts, and to assess its impact on GDP.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - MEP Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 has presented a report which presents a definition of the term 'work' which includes non-monetary and informal labour, which extends recognition to non-market-based or non-remunerated work. Despite the prevalence of this work in all Member States, statistical evaluations of 'labour forces' rarely take this into account, leaving it under-analysed, ill appreciated and unrecognised. At the very least, all full-time mothers' work must be credited for contributory pension purposes.\nI voted in support of this report despite some misgivings and concern with the overall thrust of the report.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nWe voted in favour of this alternative position presented by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, even if there are certain parts with which we are not in complete agreement, because it improves on the rapporteur's proposal.\nThis is an area in which public policies that are intrinsically linked to achieving gender equality are essential. It is essential that public services exist and that everyone has access to quality services, irrespective of their financial position and gender, and without suffering any discrimination. This requires national public health services that are free or mainly free, and quality, free, public education for all.\nIt is also essential to create and maintain good quality, affordable public health facilities, with opening hours that meet the needs of parents and children, as well as good-quality, affordable care facilities for the elderly and dependants. All this is essential in guaranteeing the general public better living conditions and facilitating women's access to the labour market and paid work, so that they can become economically independent, which is a basic issue for the emancipation of women.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nThe explanation of Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1's reasons shows us that the objective of her report is the proper social and economic recognition of certain activities which cannot be classified as part of the 'formal labour market'. To put it clearly and succinctly, we are talking essentially about educating children and, in our ageing societies, caring for dependent people. That needed to be said because it is not obvious at first, neither in the report's title, which talks about discrimination, nor on first reading of a text which is written in an occasionally strange style.\nIn fine, the text talks rightly about recognition by society, about including all wealth creation, however invisible, in the national figures, about freedom of choice, and even about the granting of personal rights to social security and pensions to those who choose to dedicate themselves to the family rather than to a career.\nHowever, it is sad that Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 didn't follow her logic to its conclusion and forgot the only measure which would really be able to give both freedom of choice and promote a rise in birth rates by getting rid of the financial constraint, namely, the parental wage that the Front National has been advocating for years.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nI have voted in favour of the Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 report on bringing an end to discrimination.\nWe must do everything that we possibly can to achieve gender equality.\nOn the one hand, men must become more involved in housework and childcare and, on the other, it must be possible for women to follow a completely independent career. However, it is important that we never lose sight of the welfare of children and make appropriate, affordable childcare facilities available.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) Equality and equal treatment on the labour market, as well as in all other contexts, go without saying in a democracy. To that extent, the rapporteur is, of course, right.\nHowever, as usual, it appears that the measures proposed to rectify our lapses with regard to human rights and democracy seek to increase the EU's political power at the expense of the Member States. It always ends with an attack on subsidiarity. In practice, this report proposes that the EU should shoulder the responsibility for the Member States' social policy and legislate on issues that are closely associated with labour market policy. There are also wordings that open the way for a common tax policy. All of these are examples of political issues that the Member States themselves should have control over.\nIn spite of several of the good intentions, I have therefore chosen to vote against both the own-initiative report and the alternative proposal for a resolution.\nThomas Mann  \nThe Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 report makes it clear that for women, the decision as to whether or not to go out to work still represents a choice between two unequal alternatives.\nI am in favour of the work done by both men and women in the home, including housework, bringing up children and caring for elderly or disabled relatives, being better recognised and better paid. The household economy deserves a more important role than the one currently allocated to it. This commitment must be taken into account in particular in national social security and pension policies.\nIt is right that the demand for 'solidarity between the generations' has been raised. We support social responsibility towards older people and we will not permit entire groups to be discriminated against and excluded. The value of this integration work amounts to almost one third of the national income in Germany. This example should become the accepted approach throughout Europe.\nWe also need to recognise the contribution made by people over the age of 50 to the common good. Younger pensioners currently find themselves in a difficult situation because they have finished working far too early, usually as a result of being forced to do so. We need more jobs which are suitable for older people. Their experience, their detailed knowledge and their readiness to try new things put them in a good position on the labour market.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this report which is in favour of the rights of workers regarding parental and carers' leave, providing a call for non-discrimination against carers, and more recognition for the work they do.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Instead of setting quotas, which can easily give rise to feelings of envy and resentment, it would be more appropriate to provide support for young women in their educational choices and career planning, in order to discourage the focus on women's professions. If a woman chooses the security of working in a team or within the family instead of a lonely, stressful managerial role, we must accept this. Equal pay for equal work is something which is long overdue. If this is not implemented, then all attempts to provide paternity or parental leave will fail, on account of the financial realities.\nSingle parents are at particularly high risk of poverty and society needs to show more solidarity in this respect. Another problem is that work done by women, such as housework, bringing up children or caring for relatives, is often not regarded as proper work. We must bring about change in this area. If we want family life to continue, we must introduce family-friendly working hours, but the EU is opposing this. It is not enough to call for solidarity between the generations. We must put it into practice. Today's report appears to be a step in the right direction, which is why I have voted in favour of it.\nTeresa Riera Madurell  \nI have voted in favour of the motion for a resolution tabled by the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance as an alternative to Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1's report, since it better tackles the actual problems that still persist with regard to achieving true equality between men and women, recognition of changes in the family model, reconciliation of personal and working life and the positive measures for action that we Socialists have always upheld.\nWe cannot perpetuate stereotypes nor solve our economic difficulties by forcing women to stay at home and take care of elderly people and children, as stated in Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1's text, which presents women as 'potential mothers' who procreate and bring children into the world, bringing them up chiefly together with fathers.\nWith my vote I also want to send a clear message to the Czech Presidency which, as it explained in its programme for these six months, also intends to promote the image of the woman-carer, encouraging many female professionals to give up their careers to take care of their families. I am given the impression that the Czech Presidency does not understand the term 'equality between men and women' in its fullest meaning. I hope that in six months' time, we will be able to provide it with an explanation.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I vote in favour of the report by Mrs Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1 concerning inter-generational solidarity. I consider that the concept of 'work' as currently expressed by the European Union does not adequately cover all categories. Discrimination against women or men who freely choose to assist those who cannot look after themselves, or to bring up future generations, is now anachronistic and old fashioned.\nI therefore agree with the rapporteur when she affirms the essential need to make the concept of work sustainable and to acknowledge the unpaid work carried out by women and men towards inter-generational solidarity.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nA report on non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity was adopted today during the European Parliament's plenary in Strasbourg.\nInter-generational solidarity is one of the structural and key solutions of the European social model. The Member States are committed to taking action in order to eliminate the barriers impeding women from accessing the labour market on the same terms as men. In cooperation with the Member States and social partners, the European Commission should undertake a review of the political strategies aimed at reconciling family and professional life.\nFemale employment indicators confirm that in many aspects of work, significant differences remain between women and men as regards reconciling private and professional life. Pursuant to the aims of the Lisbon Strategy, the Member States are committed to finding employment for 60% of women capable of working.\nThe Commission should present its views on the new directive concerning specific rights and protection regarding the reconciliation of family and professional life in families where certain members require care. I have in mind for example, families with children, older persons or disabled persons.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nThe own-initiative report speaks of improving the existing situation as regards valuing women's role in inter-generational solidarity - caring for children, older people and dependents in the family. The report which I presented was truly revolutionary, because it was the first time that a Parliamentary initiative called for recognition of women's 'invisible' contribution to the financial system and GDP.\nThe report was unanimously approved in the Committee on Women's Rights. Even the Green group did not vote against it. Today, these same MEPs have submitted an alternative resolution without proposing any consultation beforehand. The entire left-wing spectrum in the European Parliament voted for the alternative resolution. I draw two conclusions from this. Firstly, the left has shown that it does not respect the work of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, although it ostensibly recognises its importance. Secondly, the left has raised doubts on the issue of equality and non-discrimination between men and women, creating a suspicion that for the left, this issue serves only as a media eye-catcher.\nI voted against the resolution. It was definitely a step in the wrong direction. Although it contains paragraphs from my original report, it shows that the left does not respect the work of millions of women throughout the EU. The authors of the resolution have shown that they are still entrenched in old ideologies that have now lost their validity. Furthermore, the resolution, in an unprecedented way, calls the Czech Presidency into question simply for having proposed some discussion of the Barcelona targets.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nThank you, Mr President. I voted in favour. I am very worried that child pornography on the Internet is a phenomenon that is spreading at a growing rate and, in particular, that it is involving ever younger children. The sexual exploitation of minors and child pornography are a grave violation of human rights.\nI therefore regard it as important, in the framework of international cooperation, to intensify the steps being taken to filter out and close down the websites containing child pornography, so that Internet service providers are obliged to block such criminal websites.\nHowever, despite the fact that the legal systems of Member States provide for penalties and a fairly high level of protection against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and child pornography, we need to increase the level of protection for children, also in view of the constant development of new technologies, in particular, the Internet, and the use of new forms of online grooming of children by paedophiles.\nIn short, we need to develop awareness campaigns for parents and adolescents concerning the dangers of child pornography on the Internet, in particular, the risk of sexual exploitation in chat rooms and Internet forums.\nAdam Bielan  \nI voted in favour of the report discussed and would like to congratulate Mrs Angelilli for tackling such a difficult but also important subject. Child pornography is an ever-increasing global problem. Every effort should therefore be made to combat it at international level. The police forces of the various Member States should exchange information and cooperate so as to prevent as many crimes of this sort as possible. I should also like to underline the need to develop effective methods of helping children who have been the victims of paedophilia.\n\u0160ar\u016bnas Birutis  \nIn my opinion, all EU countries should make sexual relations with minors up to 18 years, where there is use of force, rape or threats, a criminal offence. Obvious exploitation of children's trust, using a position of authority against them or influence on them, including within families, and abuse violating a child's situation, especially a psychological or physical disability, should also be made criminal offences.\nEU countries should demand that Internet service providers block access to websites promoting sex with children, while bank and other credit card companies should block payments on child pornography websites.\nNicodim Bulzesc  \nI voted in favour of this report because I agree that Member States need to 'criminalise all types of sexual abuse of children', including online grooming.\nConvicted sex offenders must be prevented from gaining access to children through employment or voluntary activities involving regular contact with children. Member States are obliged to ensure that applicants for certain jobs working with children undergo criminal records checks, which includes setting out clear rules or guidelines for employers on their obligations in this regard.\nMartin Callanan  \nin writing. - Often, the EU seeks to take common action where things are better left to Member States. In this case, however, I believe we can make a difference acting together.\nThe scourge of child pornography and child sex abuse is a serious blight on our society, wrecking the lives of those most vulnerable and worthy of protection.\nGiven the nature of the EU and the free movement of people, it is vital that we use the various means at our disposal to combat these sickening crimes wherever they occur. In particular, it is important that information about offenders is coordinated and updated regularly.\nWe must also improve cooperation with third countries so that EU citizens travelling outside the EU to commit sex crimes against children can be identified, stopped, prosecuted and extradited as required. The EU's global role offers an important opportunity to promote our values in countries and regions where children's rights are less well protected.\nI therefore voted in favour of this report.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic  \nin writing. - (SV) The delegation of Swedish Conservatives in the European Parliament have today voted on Mrs Angelilli's (Union for Europe of the Nations Group, Italy) report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The fight against the dissemination of child pornography must be prioritised. In this regard, European cooperation has a very important part to play in various roles. We Conservatives therefore voted in favour of the report.\nHowever, at the same time, we would like to point out that we did not share the rapporteur's view with regard to two of the many proposals that were presented. Unlike the rapporteur, we do not believe that we should compromise the strict professional secrecy by which certain professions, such as lawyers, priests and psychologists, are bound.\nWe also believe that we can hardly hold the owner of an Internet site strictly responsible for all discussions that are held on a website, including in private conversations in closed rooms. In spite of the objective, it is disproportionate to require all owners of Internet sites to monitor all of the private conversations that are conducted there in order to be able to guarantee the lawfulness of the site in accordance with this proposal. Instead, we must focus on other, more effective methods of combating networks that disseminate child pornography that do not have such serious consequences for the integrity of ordinary Internet users.\nC\u0103lin C\u0103t\u0103lin Chiri\u0163\u0103  \nI voted in favour of the Angelilli report because I believe that the protection of children's rights must be a priority for the EU and its Member States. Legislation combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography must be updated to take into account the development of new technologies, especially the Internet, as well as the use of some new forms of online grooming of children by paedophiles.\nI feel that the institutions of the EU and Member States must focus, in particular, on increasing institutional capacity to combat these offences.\nAs these offences respect no borders, the EU must develop a transnational network to combat this crime. In this regard, I support the idea of EUROPOL setting up a specific unit tasked with combating child pornography and child prostitution, comprising experts trained in specific issues. This unit must cooperate effectively with the police authorities in Member States and in third countries, with the relevant expertise.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - I fully support MEP Angelilli's own-initiative report and the recommendation to the Council on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Previous common positions have not yet been implemented in all Member States, while the threat posed to children's safety by greater technological progress continues to mount. This report would update and strengthen existing measures for combating these abhorrent behaviours, and define them as criminal offences, punishable by law. The implementation of Ms Angelilli's report means that the protection of children from these abusive practices will increase in response to technological developments, targeting, in particular, the sinister practice of 'grooming'.\nOther important proposals include cross-border checking of persons convicted of sexual abuse, to prevent them from obtaining employment where they would have direct contact with children in other Member States, and increased victim protection during investigations and trials.\nThe Internet is a vital part of our interconnected information society. Children are more computer literate than ever but, with this increased literacy and confidence, the dangers posed by unscrupulous persons are not clearly apparent to them or to their less literate parents. These common sense proposals aim to protect the most vulnerable members of our societies.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Angelilli report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography because I consider it essential to update the means of fighting all forms of exploitation of children, so as to ensure a high level of child protection within the European Union.\nThat is why I support the recommendations of the present report, specifically the proposal to criminalise in all Member States all sexual crimes against children, increased vigilance and monitoring of new forms of grooming of minors, particularly on the Internet, and the creation of the Missing Child Alert System to improve cooperation at European level.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nThe sexual abuse of children and child pornography are especially odious crimes which require, in an age of the Internet and sex tourism, stronger legislation, increased cooperation between the police and legal systems and improved victim support. Mrs Angelilli's report is worthy of our support.\nI should, however, point out that, apart from the developments in technology that are giving the perverts many more opportunities to satisfy their cravings, we should also look at moral decadence and the lowering of values as further reasons for the large increase in this type of crime.\nJust about 30 years ago, in the name of a so-called liberalisation of morals, unbridled pleasure seeking for all and the pseudo-personal growth of the individual from the earliest years, a certain political tendency promoted the sexual activity of minors, even in the columns of that mouthpiece of the trendy left, the French newspaper Le Monde. Whilst this undignified argument has, it is to be hoped, been rejected, its authors continue to preach and their political tendency continues to hand down lessons without ever having admitted its culpability.\nFinally, I wish to know why the only right not afforded to children in most of our states is their right to be born.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nAs mentioned in the present proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (the CoE Convention) - already signed by 20 European Union countries, is the first international legal instrument to classify as crimes the various forms of sexual abuse of children, including abuse committed, inter alia, using force, coercion or threats, even within the family.\nIn this context, Parliament calls on all Member States which have not already done so to sign, ratify and apply all relevant international conventions, starting with the CoE Convention. Amongst other recommendations, Parliament calls on Member States to improve their legislation and cooperation on this area, to ensure that sexual crimes against children under the age of 18 are always classified throughout the EU as exploitation of minors and to criminalise all types of sexual abuse of children.\nIrrespective of the necessary analysis and sovereign decision of each country regarding each of Parliament's decisions, we are in agreement with the main thrust of the resolution aimed at protecting and safeguarding the rights of children.\nJens Holm, Erik Meijer, Esko Sepp\u00e4nen and Eva-Britt Svensson  \nin writing. - The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are abominable crimes and international cooperation is necessary to put a stop to them. Therefore, we voted in favour of the Angelilli report today. However, there are aspects of the report that we do not support, such as creating uniform, extraterritorial criminal legislation applicable throughout the EU, as well as defining at EU level what should be considered a crime and aggravating circumstances.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nI am voting in favour of the Angelilli report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.\nNowadays, it is more important than ever for children's development and integrity to be protected in every possible way. Since, in most families, both parents work, the grandparents are not available to look after the children and the Internet is often the only form of entertainment, the extent of the risk is undeniable.\nKartika Tamara Liotard  \nin writing. - The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are abominable crimes and international cooperation is necessary to put a stop to them. I therefore voted in favour of the Angelilli report today. However, there are aspects of the report that I do not support, such as creating a uniform extraterritorial criminal legislation applicable throughout the EU and defining at EU level what should be considered a crime and aggravating circumstances.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) Sexual crimes against children and child pornography are among the most abhorrent crimes that people are guilty of. These are crimes that should have tough criminal penalties or extensive reliable care if the perpetrator is mentally ill.\nThe report proposes many constructive measures to improve the handling of these horrendous social problems. Member States are urged to ratify and implement all international conventions in this area, they should receive help to improve their legislation in this area and child sex tourism should be criminalised in all Member States. This is wholly in accord with my view of the EU as a union of values. I support a lot of what the report contains and have voted in favour in many individual votes.\nHowever, the report also seeks to harmonise criminal legislation within the EU and to establish a system of preventative measures to be financed from EU funds, despite the fact that this is a global problem that should be regulated by means of conventions and agreements at UN level. It is difficult to avoid the impression that, once again, we are faced with an example of the cynical use of a terrible social problem to boost the EU's position at the expense of the independence of the Member States. Criminal law is an absolutely crucial part of a sovereign state's competence. I have therefore voted against the report as a whole.\nAdrian Manole  \nI voted in favour of Mrs Angelilli's report on the sexual exploitation of children because this issue concerns one of the most sordid inhumane acts, which must be punished by measures adopted by all Member States.\nIn Romania, there is still a great deal unknown about this issue. We have little data about how extensive it is. This is why I feel that adopting this report will help expand the campaigns providing information, focusing attention and warning about child sex abuse, increase the number and scope of actions aimed at detecting minors who are being sexually exploited, set up rehabilitation services and then carry out regular checks on their situation, as well as improve the system for registering and monitoring child sex abuse cases.\nFurthermore, I believe that underage victims of trafficking must be provided with specialist services within transit centres, including assistance and rehabilitation across all Member States.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this report which calls on the remaining three countries which have not yet done so to implement the Council framework decision on combating sexual exploitation of children. I support the increase in the level of protection for children, in particular, on the Internet, and also on other developing new technologies.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nWhile the European Parliament is discussing how children can be better protected, the Islamic world is moving in the opposite direction. The most senior Islamic cleric in Saudi Arabia has described girls aged 10 or 12 as 'marriageable' and has demanded the right for child marriages to take place. As a result of Islamic immigrants, this will also have an impact on Europe and we must prepare ourselves for this eventuality.\nOur children must be given the best possible protection. As sex offenders who target children have a high reoffending rate, we must establish an EU-wide register of the names of potential sex offenders, paedophiles and people with relevant behavioural problems. We must combat violence against children and child abuse in all its forms more effectively and increase the penalties for sexual contact with children and the possession of child pornography. I have voted in favour of the Angelilli report because it will improve the protection for our children.\nSe\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain  \nInformation technology is growing and expanding in the European Union as we are now in the 'digital age'. Certainly, there are major advantages associated with this technology and with the facilities that go with it from the point of view of jobs, education, social life and research. This does not mean, however, that we should ignore the dangers associated with this technology.\nThere is a particular freedom associated with the Internet - a freedom without physical or practical limits. This freedom can be a good thing, as is the case the majority of the time, but it can also be used for the sexual exploitation of children and for child pornography.\nNothing is more important than the health, wellbeing and future of our children. We must do everything possible to protect them from harm. To this end, I was happy to give my support to Madam Angelilli's report, and I commend her for all the work she has done on this subject.\nDimitrios Papadimoulis  \nI voted in favour of the Angelilli report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, because it demands compliance, which should go without saying, by all the Member States with current international law and a review of the Council's framework decision, in order to improve the protection of children at European Level.\nThe United Nations statistics are dramatic. The large majority of victims of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation are children and adolescents. International cooperation in an integrated fight against these crimes is needed and all Member States should ensure that their perpetrators are taken to court.\nMaria Petre  \nI voted for the Angelilli report because we need RAPID, EFFECTIVE action to combat the causes and, above all, the effects of the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.\nOur children are finding themselves increasingly on their own as we are increasingly busy. This is how they fall prey to dangerous temptations. The EU's commitments, voiced by Commissioner Barrot, provide us with the guarantee that from March, we will have an excellent legal framework.\nLydie Polfer  \nI voted for this report aimed at adapting and reinforcing the Framework Decision of 2004, the objective being to protect children from sexual exploitation and violence. Given, in particular, the developments in technologies (especially the Internet), it turns out that protection thresholds in the framework decision need to be raised. The solicitation of children for sexual purposes should be seen as a crime. Cooperation between Member States should be strengthened in terms of the exchange of information about criminal records related to convictions for sexual abuse, so that those convicted of such offences can be prevented from taking jobs involving direct contact with children. Victim protection, too, must be improved.\nNicolae Vlad Popa  \nI voted in favour of the report initiated by Mrs Angelilli, which has tackled the issue of combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, placing the emphasis on the preventive measures that need to be considered by the Member States when they are drafting their legislative framework for combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.\nThe report also sounds an alarm bell concerning the poor application of the existing framework decision, along with the relevant international instruments, particularly the Council of Europe's Convention for the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, to which Romania has been a party since 2007, while also requesting the incorporation of new sexual offences. Member States must encourage the victims of sexual exploitation to contact the police and relevant courts competent in criminal and civil matters. They must also make accountable and inform both the legal representatives of minors and the staff having direct contact with minors about the dangers relating to grooming children online.\nAll these dangers can be restricted through setting up national control bodies and cooperating with Internet service providers to block child pornography websites or materials.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the report by Mrs Angelilli on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Condemning these practices is, in fact, not enough to eradicate this extremely serious violation of human rights.\nIt is worrying, however, that not all Member States have conformed to the prescriptions of Council Framework Decision 2004\/68\/JHA of 22 December 2003. This decision, among others, needs to be updated in order to increase the level of protection for children, also in view of the constant development of new technologies, in particular, the Internet, and the use of new forms of online grooming of children by paedophiles.\nI entirely agree with the rapporteur, who has given us a detailed and constructive report that reflects excellent expert knowledge of the issues.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nChild pornography is a delicate subject which should always be a main focus for European and national authorities. European Union Member States should severely punish any kind of child sex abuse and any kind of online grooming.\nI welcome the European Parliament's decision to request Member States to make a firm commitment to combating child sex abuse, especially bearing in mind how vulnerable children using chat rooms and online forums are to abuse.\nWith this in mind, effective cooperation is essential between national authorities and Internet service providers in order not only to restrict access to pornographic websites by children, but also to block the access of children to websites which advertise the opportunity to commit sexual offences. There are also recommendations for creating national schemes for providing psychological rehabilitation to both sex offenders and the victims of sexual abuse.\nI would like to stress the fact that every Member State must individually keep a child sex offender register and prevent such offenders from being employed in sectors which involve working with children.\nBart Staes  \nin writing. - (NL) I emphatically voted in favour of the report combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. It is beyond dispute that grooming (approaching children for sexual purposes) and paedophile chat rooms should be liable to punishment. In addition, indecency offences involving children should fall within extra-territorial criminal legislation. The European Union should also be able to use the general budget to fund the EU's intervention programmes to prevent recidivism for sex offenders. I also support the proposal in which the Commission, together with the major credit card companies, will look into the technical scope for blocking or closing Internet payment systems of websites on which child pornography is sold.\nFinally, I urge the seven EU Member States that have not yet signed the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse to do so soon. This also applies to the eight Member States that have not yet ratified the Optional Protocol from 2000 concerning child trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography to the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nin writing. - (EL) The political forces which support imperialist barbarity, war, the plundering of wealth-producing resources and the exploitation of peoples are jointly responsible for the daily crime being committed against millions of children in the world. They are responsible for the millions of children who are hungry, who are malnourished, who are forced to work and who live below the poverty line in the countries of the 'civilised West', for the millions of children who are victims of sexual exploitation and for the flourishing child pornography industry, which turns over and generates profits of over EUR 3 billion from the Internet alone.\nThe criminal measures proposed in the report will not be able to protect children, because they cannot and will not address the main cause which is giving rise to corruption and depravity at unprecedented rates: profit and the deeply rotten exploitative capitalist system. Nor do measures such as abolishing the principle of non bis in idem, monitoring communications and arbitrary intervention by the prosecuting authorities in the Internet make an effective contribution to child protection. On the contrary, experience has shown that, where such measures are adopted, usually by way of exception in the name of combating crimes which meet with a general outcry and repugnance, the aim is to get the grass roots to come to terms with them, so that later they can be used to restrict personal rights and democratic freedoms.\nLars Wohlin  \nin writing. - (SV) I have voted against the report on the EU harmonisation of criminal legislation in connection with sexual crimes against children. I am in favour of strong cooperation within the EU to combat the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, but I believe that criminal law should be a national matter.\nAnna Z\u00e1borsk\u00e1  \nProtecting children and young people from sexual abuse is an important issue and, indeed, a problem of our times.\nI have always been in favour of prior rights for parents in the upbringing of their children, but in this case the state, too, must protect children and adolescents. This protection does not apply only to the Internet. It also applies to media advertising, which should be decent and in keeping with moral values, and should not attack young people's right to innocence.\nParents play a special role in protecting their children against sexual abuse. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly says, in Article 26.3, that 'parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children'. The education given by parents includes education on responsible use of the media. However, parents cannot consistently perform their educational role if they do not have adequate time to devote to their family and their children. The state should allow parents this free time. The Internet can never replace time spent in dialogue between parents and children. A computer game cannot replace talking to one's grandmother. The joystick is no equivalent to an hour spent with one's grandfather in the garage.\nThe natural family is the space for protection of children, and parents are their first protectors. This is why I have started a project in Slovakia addressed primarily to parents: 'Do you know where your child is now?'\nMarian Zlotea  \nIn a civilised society, we must put the safety of our children above everything. Sexual exploitation is a violation of a child's right to care and protection. Sexual exploitation leaves children with psychological scars and sometimes even physical ones, thereby diminishing their hopes of leading a life of dignity.\nI would like to support the idea put forward by the rapporteur, Mrs Angelilli, that the framework decision currently in force since 2004 should be updated. We welcome the decision whereby this updating process must be carried out in order to increase the level of child protection, especially with regard to the new threats posed by the Internet and other new communication systems. Member States must ensure that the legislation will be amended so that websites with criminal content are blocked.\nWe must encourage cooperation between Member States to put an end to this type of crime and actively combat child pornography and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation of children. We need a comprehensive global strategy, along with diplomatic and administrative cooperation in order to ensure that this legislation is enforced for the benefit of children. We must offer protection to victims of abuse. We must also put an end to sex tourism.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Impact of counterfeiting on international trade - Consumer protection aspects of counterfeiting (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe report by Gianluca Susta, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade and\nthe oral question (B6-0486\/2008) by Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the PSE Group, to the Commission, on consumer protection aspects of counterfeiting.\nGianluca Susta\nrapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank all those who worked with me on drawing up this report, including the shadow rapporteurs, regardless of the positions that each political group will take tomorrow in the vote on the report.\nCombating counterfeiting is, above all, a way in which to support the competitiveness of the European system, and it falls fully within the compass of the fundamental rationale behind the Lisbon Strategy. I believe that it ought also to be considered in terms of its legal and penal scope within our globalised world. An OECD report from 2005 tells us that counterfeit products amounting to approximately EUR 150 billion are sold worldwide, without taking into account wholly domestic counterfeiting or on-line piracy. One commentator says that in reality, the turnover relating to counterfeiting is approximately EUR 500 billion.\nBy violating trademark rights, patent rights and intellectual property rights, counterfeiting therefore represents an obstacle to the strong points of our industry, our capacity for innovation and our capacity for creativity. This situation requires highly coordinated, targeted measures, significant care in relations with various areas in the world and, I believe, also a different approach to the relationship between the Community institutions and the Member States.\nAs it was produced by the Committee on International Trade, the report chose, because of institutional responsibilities, to dwell on the external aspects of counterfeiting, but the link between the external and internal aspects of counterfeiting in Europe - which remains the largest market in the world, and the second-largest importer in the world - are very clear.\nSo, to sum up, we must reaffirm certain fundamental prerequisites for combating counterfeiting: there is a need to strengthen our system of defence against the entry of counterfeit products, and this also means coordinating the police forces that are in charge of controlling products at the borders, and strengthening customs. We ought, however, also to focus significantly on the harmonisation of civil and criminal provisions within our internal legal systems, as well as working within the World Trade Organisation to strengthen the instruments with which the WTO has already equipped itself.\nIt is clear that turning perhaps more often to the World Trade Organisation for the resolution of certain problems connected with disputes that have arisen helps to reinforce the battle against counterfeiting, just as we believe that there should be penalties of some kind for countries outside the European Union that declare themselves in some way ready to act as conduits for the entry of these products into Europe, as well as for the circulation of such products worldwide.\nWe need stronger protection for intellectual property, a stronger capacity to defend ourselves within the major world geopolitical regions, and to protect ourselves from the large countries which are appearing on the world market. That is why we view ACTA with great interest. This would be a major international agreement within a multilateral framework, which would not negate the validity of a bilateral framework between the United States, Japan and Europe, with room too for Brazil, India, China and the other major trading regions of the world. It would have a dual focus. On the one hand, it would focus on transparency and respect for civil and political rights, as well as for privacy. On the other, while fully respecting fundamental rights, it would focus on strengthening the interests of trade which, for us, are interests closely linked with development and, hence, also with the freedom of our states within the EU and of the EU itself, as a major political operator on the world markets.\nThus, I believe that we should act on consumer education, the harmonisation of criminal law, stricter controls and the use of tools to exert pressure. With regard to certain developing countries, we have the system of generalised tariff preferences, and we should ensure that this system is strengthened but, at the same time, that it is also used to combat the willingness of certain countries to act as conduits for the entry of these counterfeit goods.\nThe report aims to create a framework uniting major interests of freedom, major interests of free trade, civil liberties, political and developmental liberties, seeking to strike a blow against a phenomenon that is currently making things very difficult for the European Union's competitive system. Certainly, we might have hoped for a little more, in the sense that some issues have been left in the background of the report, such as the creation of an observatory or the laying down of provisions on traceability. These are issues which did not meet with agreement from the majority.\nWe believe, however, that we have offered a major contribution to the Commission and the Council, and in particular to the Commission, to help it, in future, to carry out a wholesale revision of the rules in order to shelter Europe from this damaging phenomenon.\nEija-Riitta Korhola\nauthor. - Madam President, I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur for his profound work. Counterfeiting and copyright piracy are a drain on the economy in Europe and worldwide, and virtually no industry escapes this illegal activity. It is responsible for damaging legitimate business and especially, in the view of the IMCO Committee, it is a source of consumer detriment.\nThe problem is serious and is growing more serious, yet counterfeit and pirated goods continue to be freely available within the internal market. To combat counterfeiting and piracy, we have, firstly, to enhance enforcement, helping customs authorities to detect it, and to make agreements to undermine counterfeiting and piracy at the point where infringement originates. Action is also required to keep the internet from becoming an even more prominent distribution channel for counterfeit and pirated products by strengthening remedies to more effective redress.\nSecondly, we need public awareness campaigns. Too often, consumers are unaware of the scale and repercussions of the problem. The lives of consumers are put at risk by dangerous products, especially fake medicines. Government-led campaigns should increasingly focus on the social costs of counterfeiting and piracy, such as health and safety.\nThirdly, we need more data gathering, assessment and research. Comprehensive and comparable data are vital for both legal enforcement efforts and awareness campaigns. This year, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection agreed the new goods package, which created the new framework for market surveillance and for the enforcement of all EU law to ensure the safety of goods available on the internal market. Earlier in this legislative period, we adopted a modernised customs code and instruments to help create an effective and paperless customs. In this way, we have sought to enhance the operational efficiency of customs authorities at the external borders of the EU - the last buffer of protection - preventing the entry onto the internal market of counterfeit goods.\nFighting counterfeiting and piracy is an issue that should continue to be at the top of our political agenda. In Parliament, we call for the Commission to cooperate with governments, customs authorities, industry and consumers in all EU Member States. We must take action together if we are to fight it effectively. With this debate this evening, we challenge the Commission to deliver a coherent and coordinated approach to tackling counterfeiting and piracy. Only in this way can we ensure the trust and confidence of consumers in the products on sale in the internal market.\nJacques Barrot\nVice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Susta for his report on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade and, of course, I would also like to thank the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. These issues of counterfeiting and piracy really do, as Mrs Korhola has just demonstrated extremely well, deserve all our attention and determination.\nThe Commission is fully committed to the promotion of a high level of protection for intellectual property and respect for intellectual property in countries outside the EU. In line with Europe's role in the world and the Commission's strategy for ensuring that intellectual property rights are respected, we cooperate with partners who share our concerns. This applies to the United States, Japan, the G8 and the OECD countries. We want to make sure that the most modern, most innovative European industrial sectors, those that are most focused on quality, which has been identified as one of our main assets in terms of world competitiveness, are not abused or even ruined by countries outside the EU.\nThe European Parliament's involvement on this issue is welcome. Thank you. The Commission has followed the drafting of Mr Susta's report, and I thank him for having adopted a very ambitious, constructive position. We take note of the proposals concerning work with China, the use of the WTO dispute mechanism, our tariff preference system and the need to give more help to our small- and medium-sized enterprises.\nIn several areas, however, the final version of the report represents a backwards step in comparison with the initial approach. Also, the report adopts a more reserved and defensive tone, particularly with regard to ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The aim of ACTA is to combat large-scale illegal activities, and to protect the European Union's innovators. It does not set out to restrict civil liberties or to exert pressure on consumers.\nAs the Commission has reiterated on many occasions to the European Parliament, ACTA will go no further than the European Union's current system regarding the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The current system respects fundamental rights and civil liberties, including the protection of personal data. The application of criminal sanctions will have to be negotiated by the European Union's Presidency on behalf of the Member States.\nWith regard to the issues put forward by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I would like to stress that, since the high-level conference held last May with Members of the European Parliament, the Commission has reflected on the most appropriate ways of supporting the Member States, judicial and police authorities, businesses and consumers in their fight against these criminals. It is true that these complex problems are linked to various spheres and fall under the responsibility of various Directorates-General at the Commission. Enhanced cooperation is required.\nAt the start of this year - and this is important - a unit specialising in the enforcement of industrial and intellectual property rights was set up. I would stress this point. In addition, we need to have a solid knowledge base in order to put in place a permanent strategy for combating counterfeiting and piracy. Here, however, we have a problem: the production of statistics. We need to have statistics to gain a precise idea of the scope and size of the problem. The OECD also emphasised this point in its report entitled 'The economic impact of counterfeiting and piracy'.\nWe therefore need to act to ensure that precise, complete information can be collected. Businesses have vital data, but some of these are considered sensitive. It should be said that the only statistics the Member States are obliged to provide are those relating to customs seizures.\nSimilarly, it is difficult to obtain information on the number of persons that have suffered a loss caused by counterfeit products. Even though systems such as the Community system for the rapid exchange of information on non-food consumer products (RAPEX) provide some elements, they are not complete. The RAPEX system was designed to prevent accidents caused by dangerous products. It is true that counterfeit products could belong to this category. The main advantage of RAPEX is that it allows information on dangerous consumer products found in one Member State to be rapidly communicated to the other Member States and the Commission to prevent other consumers from buying them.\nGiven that RAPEX covers all dangerous consumer products, however, it is not necessarily the most appropriate tool for collecting information on losses caused by counterfeit products.\nThe European database on accidents, which receives data via the systematic monitoring of physical injuries, collects data on accidents and physical injuries notified by hospital emergency services. The information provided on the causes of physical injuries is, however, sometimes too general, and the level of detail is insufficient to establish whether the injuries were caused by counterfeit products. In addition, the disparities in methods used by the Member States to record the causes of accidents makes statistical comparison and production a difficult exercise, lacking in precision.\nIt is therefore clear that we ought to work to create rapid exchange networks using national contact points. This approach would make it possible to step up coordination and information sharing between the administrative bodies, the judicial and police authorities, and the sectors of economic activity involved throughout the European Union. On this point, an observatory could be very useful. The Commission is currently looking at the most appropriate practical options for setting up an observatory.\nIn line with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States have a duty to ensure that products put on sale are all safe and that market surveillance is carried out effectively, but in the past, this surveillance has not been carried out with the same degree of rigour in all Member States. The Commission therefore put forward a regulation on accreditation and market surveillance, which was adopted by the Council in June 2008.\nThe regulation establishes a common framework in relation to market surveillance. It relates to the system established by the Directive on general product safety, but adds to it. It sets common requirements concerning market surveillance, and all Member States are required to abide by these requirements. The regulation brings in a cooperation mechanism between authorities, at both national and cross-border levels. The mechanism should make it possible to disseminate useful information effectively, for instance, in order to issue an alert regarding the arrival of dangerous products at one of the points of entry.\nLast July, the Commission adopted a communication on an industrial property rights strategy for Europe. We would therefore like to put in place an integrated strategy including non-legislative measures to reinforce the application of these provisions. This strategy will make it possible to develop a new action plan relating to customs in order to combat counterfeiting and piracy, and to establish new approaches that will make it possible to improve information collection, promote public awareness-raising campaigns and increase the effectiveness of cooperation networks at all levels.\nThe Council has stated that it is very much in favour of this approach. On 25 September 2008, it adopted a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan. This resolution, which lays down the comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan, is a major political signal. This is proof that Member States attach considerable importance to respect for intellectual property rights.\nWithin this context, the Commission met with the directors-general of the customs authorities of the Member States at a high-level seminar, held in Paris on 25 and 26 November 2008. At the seminar, the broad outlines of a new customs plan to combat counterfeiting for the 2009-2012 period were set out.\nThis customs plan to combat counterfeiting will be drawn up by the Commission under the forthcoming Czech Presidency. The Commission attaches great importance to the protection of, and proper respect for, intellectual property rights in the markets of non-EU countries. It has set up organised dialogues on issues linked to intellectual property rights with its main trading partners, such as China. The Commission has proposed the introduction of detailed provisions relating to intellectual property rights, targeted more specifically towards the control of their application in bilateral and regional trade agreements.\nWith regard to awareness-raising and warning consumers of the ever-increasing risks, the Commission believes, of course, that this is a major issue. It is crucial that we can collect and analyse reliable data in order to support our work and allow us to develop effective policies and strategies. Once we have information of a high quality, we will be able to inform and educate consumers without giving rise to distrust or concern in relation to sensitive product lines such as pharmaceutical products or foodstuffs. Member States have an important role to play on this front in making sure information of this kind is exchanged.\nMadam President, I am finishing now. Please excuse me for having been a little lengthy. We wish to support the Member States so that they can contribute more effectively to promoting innovation and protecting consumer health and safety, and we need to take a global approach. That is why the Commission is concentrating its efforts on introducing a mechanism that will make it possible to develop knowledge and cooperation between Member States, consumers and businesses.\nYou see, Mr Susta, your report comes just at the right moment. This takes us to the heart of a subject which, personally, has always been of great concern to me, that of counterfeiting. We cannot protect an innovative Europe if we do not combat counterfeiting effectively. I therefore thank the European Parliament for the sensitivity it has shown with regard to this major problem. Thank you for your attention. Now, Madam President, I am going to listen closely to the comments of the MEPs.\nEva Lichtenberger\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Susta has already clearly described the significance of this subject, so there is no need for me to say it again.\nThe Committee on Legal Affairs has dealt with this subject, particularly as concerns international negotiations in relation to ACTA, and it raised the following points: the lack of transparency, for example, in international negotiations, the question of the interrelationship with international agreements and organisations such as TRIPS or WIPO, the lack of a legal basis for the definition of nature and the magnitude of penalty provisions - a point that is also very important for the Member States.\nI would like to summarise this briefly in one conclusion, namely that, whatever Member States or we think of the harmonisations of penalty provisions or however this takes place, we should be able to decide on the matter in question for ourselves. It must not be allowed to be the case that international negotiations without the appropriate transparency restrict, in advance, the freedom of action of the European Union and the institutions to such an extent that the European Parliament is no longer in a position to make a decision with the latitude due to it. Thus, we must not prejudge. The European Parliament asserts its rights. Ultimately, the areas of private life, data protection and the rights of citizens are also affected, and potentially, also jeopardised by this.\nWe could well have the opportunity to vote on two decisions tomorrow, provided the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats does not put an obstacle in the way by attempting to alter one of the decisions by means of an oral amendment. I hope that this view can still be changed. Thank you.\nCorien Wortmann-Kool\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Mr Barrot, it is true. You talked for a long time at this late hour. If, by doing so, you wanted to stress the fact that the Commission intends to prioritise the fight against counterfeiting, then you are forgiven. What is more, we would be happy to keep you to your lofty ambition, because it is still a major problem, and, indeed, one that is still increasing. It is no longer about cute Gucci bags, but about the health and safety of the European citizen, the European consumer.\nI should like to convey my heartfelt thanks to the rapporteur for his excellent report which we, in the Committee on International Trade, but for two, approved unanimously. Last week, we were embroiled in complex negotiations about new resolutions, but I am pleased that we all retraced our steps. I therefore hope that, tomorrow, we will be able to adopt this resolution by the Committee on International Trade by a large majority. We appreciate the fact that the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has withdrawn the alternative resolution.\nWe need far better cooperation if we want to win the fight against counterfeiting. Customs offices play an important role in this, as is illustrated by the coordinated effort in five European countries where customs offices and industry have been working together closely and have destroyed a considerable amount of counterfeit goods. Excellent!\nWe also need better coordination, but we do not propose a new European agency in our resolution, although we did entertain the idea. In that connection, I should like to draw your attention to Mr Martin's suggestion to set up a European scoreboard. That is an excellent idea.\nI also wanted to mention the penalties to you, in particular, Commissioner for Justice. I hope that you will take our proposals seriously and will actually take them on board.\nDavid Martin\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, can I firstly thank Mr Susta for his good cooperation on this report. We did not agree on everything but he was always very cooperative and as flexible as he could be.\nFirstly, Mr Susta gave us some global figures on the scale of counterfeiting. Just this week in my constituency, two separate events have drawn attention to the scale of counterfeiting at the regional level. Firstly, the UK Border Agency raided a ship in Grangemouth in Scotland, in my constituency, and seized GBP 3.6 million worth of fake designer goods. The ship had come to Scotland via Holland from China.\nAgain this week in Scotland, it was revealed that so far this year, Scottish police have seized half a million CDs and DVDs with a street value close to GBP 5 million. The police went on to say in their press release that the distribution of these knock-off DVDs and albums was nearly all controlled by organised crime. So this is clearly a massive problem across the whole of the European Community.\nAs others have said, counterfeiting is often seen as a victimless crime, but of course, as we are discussing, it is far from it. There are at least three groups of losers for counterfeited goods.\nThe first group is, of course, the business community: trade affects legitimate retailers and other businesses who pay taxes, employ people and generate revenues; counterfeiting also denies authors, artists and researchers a fair return on their talent and investments. There are the customers that have been mentioned by Mrs Wortmann-Kool who are killed, harmed or inconvenienced by fake products. Then there is the third group of people, the victims of criminality and anti-social behaviour, which are often financed by the proceeds of counterfeited goods.\nThe PSE Group largely agrees with what the Commissioner has outlined as the three areas of action required to tackle this problem. Firstly, we need tougher action against third countries that encourage or turn a blind eye to counterfeiting and fail to protect the intellectual property rights of others. We do not believe that ACTA is the full solution to this problem and we certainly believe that, if ACTA is going to come into effect, we need it to be more transparent, democratic and generally multilateral. As Mrs Wortmann-Kool says, we see part of the solution as an international scoreboard naming and shaming those countries that fail to respect the rights of others as far as counterfeit goods are concerned.\nThe second area where we need action is the on-going work of law enforcement agencies such as the police, trading standards officers and customs authorities. We look forward to seeing the Czech proposal next year for better European cooperation in this field.\nThe third and final area is the need to educate the public about the damage done by counterfeiting, and to explain to young people that individuals who work to create films, TV content and music have a right to earn a living from it.\nWhat we do not believe is that we should criminalise individuals who download the odd pirated song or pirated music or who buy a fake CD or fake football shirt. We do not want to criminalise these people; we want to educate them and get them on our side to tackle the real criminals in this process.\nCarl Schlyter\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (SV) Madam President, thank you Mr Susta. It should, of course, have been easy for us to come to a sound agreement here. However, Parliament's rules force us to present separate resolutions with no opportunity to vote on individual amendments. This makes it difficult to achieve a compromise in which the wishes of the majority in Parliament have a chance of being accurately represented. This is extremely unfortunate, because it means that if the Green resolution does not receive support tomorrow, for example, we will be voting through a proposal that entails control of the Internet and the content of the Internet and it will mean that distributors will be made responsible for this. This would be very unfortunate, as this is not even Parliament's intention.\nThere are two ways in which piracy and counterfeiting pose a threat to consumers and to people in general. They can be exposed to environmentally hazardous goods or to fake medicines that are dangerous to health and so be affected directly. However, they can also face the threat of excessive measures to protect trademarks, and copyright in particular. It is a question of finding a good balance. I think that Parliament's clear message to the Commission and the Council when they continue their negotiations is that, however the vote goes tomorrow, we will clearly state that personal use that is not for profit must not be treated as a crime. ACTA must not give access to private computers, music players and the like. This is a clear message from Parliament.\nAs regards criminal law, we must vote for the Green alternative proposal if we do not want some sort of image of us suddenly introducing criminal law at European level. Of course we have absolutely no mandate for doing anything of the sort. The question is whether it would work and how can it create a balance in a penalty scale in one country when the penalty scale in another country would, in fact, end up completely wrong. Doing this at international level then does not look as if it will work at all. The Green proposals are therefore better.\nThe original proposal says that no exceptions will be made for travellers. For a traveller who brings with him goods worth no more than EUR 400 to then be equated to a businessman who is able to bring 50 containers is unreasonable. Above all, it is unreasonable to vote to remove the rules on the qualitative content of the Internet, qualitative statistics which regulate content and also secondary responsibility and the responsibility of intermediaries.\nIn order to allow more Members to vote on the Green resolution, we will submit an oral amendment to remove Article 15, which was clearly somewhat controversial, and then I hope that many of you will be able to support our proposal. Thank you.\nPedro Guerreiro\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (PT) Madam President, the European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2007 on the textile sector indicated that half of all European customs procedures against counterfeiting relate to textiles and clothing. The same resolution underlined the need to apply binding rules on origin marking for textiles imported from third countries and called on the Council to adopt the pending proposal for a regulation on the 'made in' indication in order to provide better consumer protection and support European industry.\nThe fact is that a European Commission proposal in this respect, although inadequate, has been marking time since 2005. As a result, our question is as follows: when will the European Union lay down rules on origin marking for imports or for products manufactured in the various Member States?\nBastiaan Belder\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for this valuable report. Not only is counterfeiting an economic scourge, it also forms a threat to consumer safety and public health. Not only the production, but also the trade in, and transport of, counterfeit products should be given priority.\nLate last month, I paid an extremely useful working visit to Kosovo, where the situation is alarming. The chaotic, partly overlapping international presence, combined with the weak government in Pristina, provide an excellent operating base for smugglers in Kosovo. It is sick to see criminals from the Albanian and Serbian sides working together very well in a multi-ethnic effort.\nI would urge the Union to deploy the Eulex mission in Kosovo in the fight against these smuggling practices. It is unacceptable for the European Union to stand by while a black hole is appearing along its borders. The fight against counterfeit goods should not only be waged on the negotiating table, but just as much on the ground. I hope that the Commission will give this subject its due attention; in fact, I talked to the Commission in Pristina about this very subject. This is a vitally important point in our fight to protect intellectual property, not least in the western Balkans.\nChristofer Fjellner\n(SV) Madam President, this is, of course, an extremely broad subject. As I mentioned earlier, it encompasses everything from medicines, car parts and designer products to illegal downloads. In this area it is absolutely clear that counterfeiting is a huge problem and that counterfeit products are a threat to goods worth large sums of money and even to safety. However, there is uncertainty about how large these sums actually are and how many of these products are on the European market. I therefore believe that the investigation that is to be carried out by the Commission is an extremely good thing.\nI have chosen to focus mainly on ACTA, that is to say the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is in the process of being negotiated by the US, Japan, the EU and other countries. In this regard, the issue is, of course, one of far too much secrecy. We all react to rumours concerning what is going on. There is justified concern - concern that the border control personnel will search everything from computers to MP3 players. We have heard rumours of a ban on multi-region DVD players. I would suggest that this uncertainty and these rumours themselves are harming the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. I therefore believe that all of us here have a common desire for more openness. We need to be given a clearer idea of what mandate this is actually based on, what it is that the Commission wants to achieve and what will be considered unacceptable.\nIn my own amendment to the report, which luckily was also given a hearing, I focussed on what we do not want to see in ACTA. In the amendment, I pointed out, in particular, that we must not have measures that restrict privacy, nor should we go beyond the existing legislation in this area and, last but not least, that it must not inhibit innovation and competition.\nIt is nevertheless sad that in an area as important as this, we need to establish what we should not do when there are so many important things that we need to do. However, the reason for this is precisely the secretiveness and the uncertainty that this secretiveness creates. We must not end up in a situation where the fight against this and the tools that we use to help us are greater problems than the piracy itself. This is what I am concerned about. Thank you very much.\nChristel Schaldemose\n(DA) Madam President, I, too, would like to thank the Commission for its constructive presentation of the problem. I am on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and was involved in wording the question that we posed to the Commission on what is to be done about counterfeiting from the point of view of consumer protection. I would like to start by saying that I think it is extremely important for us to truly make an effort to reduce the extent of counterfeiting. There should be no doubt about that. However, I also think that it is extremely important for us to find out more about the consequences for consumers. There is no doubt that this is extremely significant for undertakings. However, we have started to see that there are problems and that these may affect the health and safety of consumers. Therefore, I actually think that, even though it is difficult to obtain accurate and good statistics, we need to make an effort to find out how dangerous counterfeit medicines, or whatever other products there may be, could actually be. I have visited the Danish authorities working on this and have seen seizures of chewing gum, water, washing powder and all manner of everyday products. It goes without saying that there may very well be physical consequences for consumers if we use chewing gum that is counterfeit and that probably does not comply with any rules on what chewing gum - or whatever product it might be - is allowed to contain. I just think we need information, because if we do not get this information on injuries or effects on health, I believe it may be difficult to get consumers on board in this fight to do something about product counterfeiting. Consumers should know that it has consequences so that they will also get involved by not buying the cheap and counterfeit products. That is why it is vital that we obtain knowledge and data in this area. I therefore look forward to the Commission presenting a specific proposal on how we can deal with this issue.\nGeorgios Papastamkos\n(EL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the phenomenon of counterfeiting, of imitation, is a legal problem with obvious financial repercussions. The legal dimension referred to relates to infringement of intellectual property rights; the financial dimension has to do with lost customs duty and VAT, which are an important component of the European budget, the European Union's own resources.\nThe economic dimension of the problem is obvious. Counterfeit products damage the competitiveness of European companies and, by extension, employment. The most worrying dimension of the problem is the threat to the health and the very life of consumers. Certainly, Commissioner, stepping up work with our trading partners is one measure. I would say that creating a European observatory of counterfeiting and piracy and approving a 'made in' manufacturing mark would also be a step in the right direction.\nNonetheless, Commissioner, although you do not have the relevant portfolio, I should like to say to you and to remind the honourable members that quantitative restrictions have been abolished on imports of clothing textile products. In my constituency, when I was a member of the Hellenic Parliament, factories were shut down and thousands of workers were left unemployed. No customs cooperation with the importing countries had come first; the Commission itself admitted as much. Customs cooperation came after the event and the European Union is paying to establish customs cooperation. That was your oversight. That was the Commission's oversight. We revised the sugar regime and the ones who got rich are the multinational sugar-exporting companies, not the producers from the poor developing countries, according to official statistics.\nCommissioner, I am not in favour of a Europe which is closed to the world. We are in favour of a Europe open to the world, but with rules, principles, transparency and identical terms of play. Products are being imported into the European Union with social dumping, with ecological dumping, and the European Commission does not react. The European Commission has a sovereign role in common foreign trade policy. You negotiate with third country partners; you set the terms of cooperation. Luckily, the Lisbon Treaty changes the terms of our interinstitutional relationship and the European Parliament will co-legislate with you and then the culture of cooperation between the European Commission and the European Parliament will also change. We are waiting for that time to come.\nFrancisco Assis\n(PT) Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the phenomenon of counterfeiting seriously threatens the most legitimate socioeconomic interests in the European Union, jeopardises the competitiveness of undertakings, is detrimental to employment, endangers the health and safety of consumers and severely harms the Member States and the European Union itself. As a result, it must be vigorously combated.\nThe European Union, due to the openness and transparency of its market, due to being the second world importer of goods and services, and due to its economic specialisation in high value-added products, is particularly exposed to the evils of counterfeiting. The negative effects of this spread throughout the economic fabric, but have a particularly severe impact on small- and medium-sized enterprises, which are naturally less well prepared to tackle such a serious threat.\nCombating this particularly dangerous crime requires cooperation to be strengthened, both internally within the European Union and externally in our relations with other countries or regional blocs, which are also confronted with this problem.\nInternally, measures must be adopted in two respects: the gradual harmonisation of the laws of the Member States, particularly the criminal laws, and the reinforcement of customs cooperation. Given the particular situation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, as already mentioned, it is vital to set up a technical assistance service for these enterprises because they are less well prepared to tackle this kind of issue. Only in this way will they be able to defend their rights.\nAt a wider international level, the current initiatives must be continued, both in terms of bilateral agreements and in the wider context of multilateral regulation of international trade. This will help to strengthen the role that the World Trade Organisation can and must have in this area, through its Dispute Settlement Body.\nCounterfeiting threatens some of the very foundations of our model of economic and social organisation. It jeopardises investment in research and innovation, devalues intelligence and the qualification effort, encourages organised crime and clearly weakens the rule of law. That is why combating counterfeiting must be an absolute imperative for all EU Member States.\nJacques Toubon\n- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, counterfeiting is an economic, social and health menace of a size that, in my view, is often underestimated. Some people estimate that a third of the goods docked in containers at Antwerp or Rotterdam are counterfeits. I did say 'a third', and these are estimates produced by official departments.\nI would like to say very clearly, and I am not going to beat about the bush, that I am truly disappointed by the European Parliament's proposals and by the debate this evening. For once, I am more disappointed by Parliament than by the Commission or the Council, since in this sphere, the Council and the Commission have done their work.\nThe action plan of 25 September, the seminar held on 25 November and the proposals which Mr Barrot has just set out on behalf of the Commission are real actions, not fine words. Commissioner, what I would simply like to say to you is that I would really like the observatory, for example, to be made operational during the first half of 2009 and for the regulation on market surveillance adopted by the Council to be adopted in this Parliament.\nAs far as Mr Susta is concerned, I am not speaking here of his alternative proposal for a resolution, which unfortunately we are not going to debate. I am speaking of his report. It is much too weak, much too timid, and says nothing on indications of origin, says nothing on the observatory and is timid and reticent regarding the protection of intellectual and industrial property. You talk of ACTA and say that we need to adopt it, but you say that we should not use the means that would be effective in enforcing it. In addition, I must say that I was staggered by the comments made by my two fellow Members from Sweden, who give the impression that the danger comes not from counterfeiting but from the fight against counterfeiting.\nLadies and gentlemen, we are completely mistaken if we do not take more resolute action. We are dealing with this subject as if it were a marginal economic activity, no more than that, whereas it could mark the end of our industries, it could signal widespread exploitation of workers from the emerging countries, let us not forget, and finally, could amount to widespread lack of safety for consumers. We must take action!\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik\n(PL) Madam President, I do not have to remind the people who are gathered here, and who are participating in this debate, of the dangers of counterfeit goods. There are many cases where counterfeit products pose a danger to the health, or even the lives, of consumers, and it is not necessary to elaborate any further on this point. It is merely sufficient to point out that counterfeit products include not only copies of luxury goods and CDs, but also medicines, consumer goods for both children and adults, as well as car parts. They often pose a safety risk, and the losses they incur do not only affect SMEs.\nPeople involved in counterfeiting activities are members of criminal gangs. Their activities are part of a highly profitable business, which we must try to combat. That is why we need joint action, not only in the field of customs and excise services, but also close, administrative cooperation between the Member States, which I think currently leaves something to be desired.\nOnly the actions of the European Commission, to prevent the smuggling of counterfeit cigarettes, provide a positive example of such cooperation. I would like our experiences in this field to be applied in the battle against other counterfeit products. The problem of counterfeiting falls within the remit of a number of the Commission's Directorates-General. It would be a good idea to establish a single Directorate-General which would be responsible for these matters and to define its competences.\nParliament is currently in possession of a written declaration on what are known as 'look-alike products', to which I have also contributed. A large number of original products are copied by look-alike products. It is often not clear under what legislation those who produce look-alike products might be pursued, whether this falls under unfair competition or intellectual property legislation. Furthermore, consumers who purchase look-alike products are often under the mistaken impression that they are branded goods. It is difficult to define the scale of the problem on the European market.\nThat is why I would like to ask the Commission whether it intends to respond to our request and conduct research into the influx and status of look-alike products on the internal market.\nEmmanouil Angelakas\n(EL) Madam President, a particularly large number of counterfeit products traded via the Internet or the legal production chain are counterfeit medicinal products. The dangers to the health of patients who unknowingly take them are obvious. These products are manufactured in factories or workshops which do not follow the rules of good manufacture and, in many cases, they contain no trace of the pharmaceutically active ingredient. In a recent announcement, President Kov\u00e1cs stated that, during checks carried out by the customs authorities in countries of the European Union over the last two months, more than 34 million antibiotic, cancer and other counterfeit drugs were found. Perhaps the time has come, Commissioner, for the European Union to open drug export monitoring offices, for example, in China and India, along the same lines as the FDA, which opened such offices last month. You should know that, without compulsory cooperation from the drug agencies in these countries, it will be impossible to check the 3 000 pharmaceutical factories in India and the 12 000 factories in China.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Madam President, there is no doubt that, in recent times, the problem of counterfeit goods and piracy has become a key issue in the field of international trade.\nThe European Union, as the second largest importer in the world, is particularly susceptible to being flooded with fake branded goods, toys or medicines, mainly from Asian countries. It should be stressed that this phenomenon has a much broader scope and far more serious consequences than we imagine. The products that reach the European market and that infringe intellectual property rights are, by and large, of a lower quality and, as a result, often also considerably cheaper than original products. As a result, for financial reasons, the consumer prefers to purchase the fake goods.\nThe production of counterfeit goods and piracy are forms of theft, and I therefore support all initiatives to combat them. I am particularly concerned about the growth of this phenomenon in recent times. That is why we must take decisive action, not only at European level, but also within the framework of the WTO. We cannot allow these people to rob us with impunity.\nJacques Barrot\nVice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, first of all, of course, I have listened very carefully to all the contributions. I will of course report on them to my colleague, Mr McCreevy, who is responsible for the internal market.\nI think that Parliament has a good grasp of the gravity of the phenomenon and its effects; Mr Toubon reminded us that it was an economic, social and health menace. It is clear that the European Union, while being open to trade, cannot allow trade to take place if it does not abide by the basic rules and is detrimental to consumers. We must therefore certainly take action, and I would like to remind you of some points.\nFirstly, and here I am in particular addressing Mr Toubon, the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy will be launched by the Commission in the spring of 2009. This observatory should supply statistics on counterfeiting and piracy in the internal market.\nThe observatory should identify vulnerable geographical areas and the illegal trafficking of websites selling counterfeit goods. It ought also to organise administrative cooperation between the Member States, organise the exchange of information and, as Mr Martin said, raise consumer awareness. This is truly a major task for the observatory.\nFor the rest, it is true that criminal law provisions were proposed by the Commission in 2006, and that we have Parliament's support, but, for the moment, the Council has not yet taken any action to adopt these provisions.\nOn this point, cooperation ought to involve not only customs authorities but also the police, the judicial authorities and, in general, all those who are capable of taking action on surveillance and the control of counterfeiting and piracy.\nI would like to tell those who have stressed the need to have indications of the origins of products that we have proposed a 'made in' label but that this has not yet been adopted by the Council. The European Union really should not be afraid of such labelling, which will allow consumers to make judgements and avoid being the victims of practices which completely break all the rules.\nI would add that ACTA cannot be accused of going further than the European Union's current system for enforcing intellectual property rights and, in particular, that it cannot be accused of infringing fundamental liberties or the protection of personal data. ACTA remains within the framework of the European Union's current system.\nIn any case, I thank Parliament for supporting the Commission in trying to bring about effective combating of counterfeiting. We note this report, and we also note the European Parliament's wish to successfully combat this system.\nI am sure that I have not replied to all the questions. There are also products that can be described as similar, and on this point too, we must have rules that make it possible to prevent abuse, which is to be wholly condemned, at the expense of the consumer. That is what I wanted to say in conclusion, but rest assured that all the comments that have been made this evening will be brought to the attention of the Commissioners because, once again, this is a complex subject area which necessitates several lines of action on the part of the Commission and which also requires an unwavering commitment from the Council and from Parliament.\nPresident\nThe joint debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, 18 December 2008.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU-Russia summit (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the statement by the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission\/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, on the EU-Russia Summit.\n\u0160tefan F\u00fcle\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, honourable Members, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss with you the next European Union-Russia Summit which will start tomorrow in Nizhny Novgorod. The European Union will be represented by the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission. High Representative and Vice-President Ashton will attend, as will Commissioner De Gucht.\nThe summit has been carefully prepared by the External Action Service working in close cooperation with the Commission and the two Presidents, preparations built on the debates held in the European Council and the Council, on Russia as a Strategic Partner in late 2010 and in January 2011, on the results of the previous EU-Russia Summit, and the visit by the Russian Government to the Commission in February.\nOverall, our relations have improved over the last two years. We have concluded bilateral negotiations on Russian WTO accession, agreed on the approach towards a possible future visa-waiver regime, and agreed the Partnership for Modernisation, which is now in its implementation phase.\nWork is also ongoing in the regular framework of the Four Common Spaces and all its technical dialogues. Our interaction is quite intense. Let me remind you that Russia is the only external partner with whom the European Union holds two annual summits. The visit by Prime Minister Putin and an unprecedentedly large Russian Government delegation to the Commission on 24 February was a clear sign of Russian determination to seek closer relations and cooperation.\nNevertheless, many significant bilateral issues remain unresolved. Of particular concern is the situation regarding democratic development and human rights in Russia. In the context of upcoming Duma and Presidential elections, the standards of the electoral process will receive particular attention.\nNow I would like to turn your attention to our main objectives for the summit, which are as follows:\nFirst: the European Union will strive to encourage Russia to resolve the last remaining outstanding multilateral issues to facilitate WTO accession before the end of 2011, building on the EU-Russia bilateral agreement reached in 2004 and last December. Russia can still achieve WTO accession before the end of 2011 if it can take the necessary decisions to resolve the handful of outstanding issues at multilateral level. The summit cannot replace negotiations in Geneva, but it can urge Russia to take constructive action.\nSecond: the European Union will impress upon Russia that more progress needs to be made on agreeing substantial trade and investment provisions, including on energy, in the new EU-Russia Agreement in order to provide a solid legal basis for deepened economic cooperation in the years to come. We do not rule out bringing the issue of Russia's unjustified ban on European Union vegetable imports to summit level, although we hope that scientific evidence will allow a quick solution at an expert level.\nThird: we shall maintain top-level support for the Partnership for Modernisation as an important vehicle for Russian commitments to reforms.\nFourth: we will promote human rights and the rule of law in Russia, and\nFifth, we will encourage Russia to deepen cooperation in our common neighbourhood and continue the dialogue on other topical international issues like the Middle East, for example, or North Africa. In fact, progress on Moldova\/Transnistria will serve as an important test case for closer foreign policy cooperation.\nFinally, we should also use the summit to reconfirm our political commitment to make progress on crisis management cooperation - provided our decision-making autonomy is in no way affected.\nEnergy also figures prominently in our dealings with Moscow. We will emphasise the need for further reforms in the Russian electricity and gas sector with a view to establishing a level playing field. We will also underline the need to cooperate on fighting climate change.\nTo pursue our goals of highest standards on nuclear safety, we interact with Russia both at the bilateral level and in multilateral fora such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the G8.\nWe will repeat our invitation to Russia to engage in negotiations on a comprehensive Euratom-Russia agreement which should promote the highest standards for nuclear safety. With regard to the Fukushima accident, the European Union will push for equivalence of approaches regarding stress tests for both existing and planned nuclear power plants.\nLast, but certainly not least, we have engaged in a clear process on visa-free travel. The European Union has prepared and agreed in March its proposal for the list of common steps towards the possible establishment of a visa-free travel regime, and we have indeed started negotiations in April. Since then, a Permanent Partnership Council on Justice and Home Affairs has been held and clear progress has been made. But negotiations on our common steps at expert level are, to date, not finished. We must be clear at the summit that there are no political short-cuts.\nAs far as Russia is concerned, its main objectives for the summit can be expected to focus on visas, the WTO, energy - including nuclear safety - and security cooperation. Russia might come back to the idea of a new Political and Security Committee at ministerial level. We believe that necessary cooperation structures are in place; what we need is political will to make progress on substance.\nThank you for your attention and I look forward to your comments.\nRia Oomen-Ruijten\nMr President, Commissioner, thank you for the good cooperation you have shown in the drafting of the resolution. I will not say anything more about the points which the Commissioner has mentioned because they are covered in the resolution. As far as the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is concerned, the final declaration of the summit next week must be more than just fine words. Russia is our great neighbour; Russia is an important partner. We are mutually dependent and the level of that dependence is great, so now we are expecting real agreements that will lead to results.\nWhat are our priorities? First of all, the Partnership Agreement. We need to set the negotiations in motion. I expect that the EU will persuade President Medvedev to grant his negotiating team full powers to undertake specific commitments. It is high time that we got things moving again on the trade and investment dossier. The negotiations on the energy chapter are also behind schedule. We need agreements on a solid and transparent energy partnership and one which is based on rules.\nI would also like to hear where we stand on the human rights paragraph. For us, for Parliament, this is a vital part of the partnership. I see the modernisation pact as a complementary issue, in the same way that the common areas are. This is a secondary matter, but it would help if we got the WTO rules through. That would help to establish a level playing field while facilitating the investment climate.\nPresident Medvedev is personally involved in improving the rule of law, but this is not enough, as you have just said yourself. We need to be certain that, in the upcoming elections, Russia is going to live up to the obligations it has undertaken under the Council of Europe and the OSCE. The elections will be the acid test. That, then, also means that new parties must be allowed to register. Russia should feel honoured that election observers have been called in well in advance. Lastly, the import ban on European vegetables (...)\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nHannes Swoboda\nMr President, Commissioner, Russia is undoubtedly a very important partner for the European Union, but - as the Commissioner has already said - a very difficult one. I hope that the negotiations will not take too long. Unfortunately, however, they will not be completed as fast as Mrs Oomen-Ruijten imagines. During the process, we need to have a dialogue both with the official elected representatives and with the representatives of civil society, who are often closer to us on matters of democracy and human rights.\nThe idea of a Partnership for Modernisation between the European Union and Russia is a good one. However, Russia also needs to play its part. We need more democracy and less corruption. We still hear many investors complaining of legal uncertainty, particularly as regards taxes. Above all - as the Commissioner has already mentioned - we need to prepare speedily for Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and WTO membership. In the area of energy policy, we need Russia to be obliged to acknowledge the principles of a transparent and fair energy policy. There is a lot that Russia can do itself, particularly as regards energy efficiency, where there remain many shortcomings.\nAlso as regards energy, I would like to bring up something that concerns its neighbour - indeed our common neighbour - Ukraine. Right now, Russia is once again attempting to use the issue of energy and energy prices as a political weapon. We must absolutely reject that. We are committed to the freedom of Ukraine to decide in which markets it wishes to be present and where it wishes to operate. We do, after all, want to have trade relations and a trade agreement with Ukraine. Russia should not put pressure on Ukraine in this area by giving it the option of either joining the customs union with Kazakhstan and Belarus or paying a high energy price. That is something we reject.\nAgain, as regards neighbours, we also expect Russia to adhere to the agreements in the treaties in respect of Georgia and to withdraw its troops back to those areas where they were present before the conflict. We also hope that Russia will make a positive contribution to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. On both sides, here it is not a matter of supplying arms, but rather of peaceful mediation between the two sides.\nThe Commissioner has already mentioned the importance of visa liberalisation. It is particularly important for relations between individuals that people enjoy as much freedom of movement as possible between Russia and the European Union. I hope that we will soon make some progress on this.\nOne crucial issue, however, will be how the next elections are held. Russia needs to be aware that the world, and the democratic world in Europe in particular, will be watching closely to see how these elections are carried out; whether the parties are registered correctly and fairly; and also whether certain individuals or certain parties are excluded from the elections at the outset. That is something that should be made clear to Russia at the summit. We want to see proper, fair elections in Russia too.\nRussia still has a lot of catching up to do in terms of its economy. However, Russia is ready for democracy. We want to see democracy in Russia, just as much as the citizens of Russia want this themselves. That is our desire and our vision. Russia needs to realise that democracy will be good for Russia too.\nKristiina Ojuland\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we hope that further progress will be made at the summit in Nizhny Novgorod with regard to a new and comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.\nBoth the EU and Russia must keep in mind that a true partnership can only be a straightforward relationship. On behalf of the ALDE Group, I would like to invite the representatives of the EU to address all the concerns raised by the European Parliament with their Russian counterparts.\nThe European Union will face major difficulties in relations with Russia unless the two partners rely on the same values and principles. If the Kremlin moves even further away from democracy and the rule of law, Russia will lose all legitimacy as a partner to the EU.\nFor example, the Kremlin has prevented a number of political parties from registering for the State Duma elections on procedural grounds, and the list is likely to be extended to include the People's Freedom Party led by Mikhail Kasyanov, Vladimir Milov, Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Ryzhkov. The surging suppression of the opposition must be brought up at the summit and the opposition parties must be allowed to register.\nLadies and gentlemen, Russia is not China. Russia is a member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE; therefore, she must uphold her international commitments and obligations. Furthermore, Russia must abide by her own constitution.\nRussia has to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours. We insist that she stops pressuring Ukraine - as my colleague said just now - for example, as Prime Minister Putin did yesterday when he met the Prime Minister of Ukraine, pressing them to join the customs union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. We cannot accept this. We expect Russia to withdraw its troops immediately from Georgia to the pre-conflict positions.\nLastly, the ALDE Group is very disappointed that, on the eve of the summit, Russia has imposed a disproportional import ban on vegetables from the EU.\nCharles Tannock\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, Russia is an important partner for the EU in many respects. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia exercises a potentially decisive influence on international affairs, from our relations with North Korea to its involvement in the UN quartet. I also welcome recent calls by President Medvedev for the Libyan tyrant, Muammar Gaddafi, to leave power. I also hope that the Kremlin will align itself with the rest of the international community on stopping Iranian nuclear proliferation.\nI also accept that Russia has economic interests in the former Soviet republics, some of which are now - thankfully - gravitating away from Moscow towards the EU. However, the EU should continue to insist that it will support and engage with these now-independent countries such as Ukraine, and make sure that the door is left open to them in terms of Euro-Atlantic aspirations. In this regard, I hope that the Vice-President\/High Representative will raise the issue of Georgia, parts of whose territory remain annexed and occupied illegally by Russian soldiers, and help also to put pressure on Russia to solve the Transnistria question in Moldova. I also accept that the Commission is now making the suggestion that the EU-Russia Summit should be annual rather than every six months, which is a good idea and the way forward.\nRussia is not a mature liberal democracy. Neither is it a country which enjoys an independent judiciary. But whether we like it or not, we still have to engage with the bear.\nWerner Schulz\nMr President, Commissioner F\u00fcle, while, at first glance, it may seem understandable for Russia to protect itself in order to prevent the spread of Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) infection into its territory, a complete ban on imports of European vegetables is not what we expect of a country that aspires to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO). That is also something we will have to talk about in Nizhny Novgorod. More important, however, are the political germs, or seeds, that are actually present - the weak beginnings of democracy and the rule of law. On these aspects, we should do everything we can within the context of the Partnership for Modernisation to help their roots to spread across Russia and develop.\nPresident Medvedev has acknowledged that economical and technical modernisation cannot be achieved without a fundamental modernisation of society. Yet so far, we have seen little in the way of action to accompany these fine words. The representatives of the EU should therefore make it abundantly clear to President Medvedev that the forthcoming elections to the Duma are a test of the credibility of his reform policy.\nGenuine and proper elections form part of the foundations of democracy. Anyone who wants pluralism and political competition should ensure that the election standards declared by the Council of Europe are adhered to and should allow long-term election observation by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) at the earliest stage.\nFair elections start with allowing the registration of parties. Regrettably, early indications suggest that the Russian leadership has learnt nothing from the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that there were no grounds for dissolving the Republican Party and apparently does not wish to allow the newly established People's Freedom Party to be registered.\nMore Kremlin-backed parties and an All-Russia People's Front initiated by Prime Minister Putin are merely leading us down a political blind alley. This semblance of competition has led the country into political apathy and devalued the Duma. President Medvedev could bring about a breakthrough here and end his Presidency with at least one demonstrable success.\nIn the particular cases of Mr Khodorkovsky and Mr Magnitsky, rather than waiting for a ruling from Strasbourg, the judicial arbitrariness should be brought to an end. The review of these cases by the Fedotov commission is a good first step. Its results and conclusions should be published as soon as possible.\nThe future participation of the Civil Society Forum established recently in Prague should be an important topic for discussion during the talks and negotiations between the EU and Russia. After all, events in North Africa demonstrate that for effective reform, you need an active civil society. The Russian Government should therefore work to bring this about in its own country and endeavour to achieve a partnership for modernisation with civil society.\nVladim\u00edr Remek\nMr President, Commissioner, I have been searching in vain for an answer to the question of why we are debating a resolution on the summit with Russia on the eve of the summit itself and voting on it on the day the summit takes place in Nizhny Novgorod. Moreover, the topic was not even included on the agenda of the plenary at the beginning of last week. This all smacks of bad planning, and it is now a formality, in my opinion. Moreover, instead of striving, through a principled process, for a new agreement on relations with Russia, which we recognise as an important partner, we are notoriously repeating proclamations and demands which clearly have no hope of succeeding.\nWe should, first and foremost, build on the issues where progress can be achieved. An example is the progress over agreements on the planned easing and possible final removal of the mutual visa arrangements with Russia. Instead of this, we are criticising the position of Russia in the case of imports of vegetables from the EU. How does our own behaviour appear, however, from outside the Union? When looking for the source of the deadly bacteria, and in the absence of hard evidence, we accuse each other, restrict imports and exports of commodities and claim compensation. We can surely draw our own conclusions as to the level of confidence we are inspiring, and not just in Russia.\nFiorello Provera\nMr President, the dialogue between the European Union and Russia must be expanded as much as possible in various areas, from the economy to human rights, because there are no alternatives to dialogue. Europe and Russia are, in fact, interdependent, both economically and politically.\nI am thinking of unresolved international issues such as energy security, the Maghreb, Iran's nuclear capability, terrorism, the Caucasus, Nagorno-Karabakh, climate change and others. Russia is a strategic partner for Europe, not least because of the synergies that may be built in future. As already happens to some extent, Moscow can supply us with mineral and energy resources as well as collaborate on military security and the fight against terrorism and organised crime Europe can contribute with financial resources, scientific and technological capabilities and our long-standing experience in the field of democracy and human rights.\nRussia's future is linked to Europe's and must be developed with perseverance, without complacency and despite the many difficulties that currently exist. In that respect, the conclusion of the strategic partnership agreement between the European Union and Russia is of great importance for our common future.\nB\u00e9la Kov\u00e1cs\n(HU) Mr President, in connection with the upcoming summit, I would like to draw the negotiating delegation's attention to two things. Firstly, I would like to encourage them to reconsider the importance of Russian energy imports and, secondly, to extend the Partnership Agreement in a way that EU representatives could participate as observers in the elections to be held in December this year and in the Presidential elections to be held in March 2013. As we can see, energy imports from Russia are likely to increase, bearing in mind that many European nuclear power plants will be closed down after carrying out the stress tests.\nSo we are, once again, beginning to be concerned that we will again be more dependent on Russia in the future. However, I would like to remind you that the coin has another side. Russia is just as dependent on the European Union, because they sell most of their products to us. If we do not buy their energy products, then the Russian economy will encounter serious stability problems in the future.\nElmar Brok\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Russia and the European Union are partners because of their mutual interests and because of their geographical location. This is the case whether we like it or not. We must make this partnership a positive and constructive one. That is why we need to make progress on the Partnership Agreement and on visa facilitation, to add substance to the Partnership for Modernisation, in order to work towards this.\nWe need to realise, however, that this gives rise to obligations on both sides, including in respect of membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), in that you cannot just continue doing as you like; rather, these agreed contractual or international rules are binding on everyone and there is no place for arbitrariness in reciprocal dealings. This also precludes using energy as a political weapon, for example.\nThese mutual interests must be handled positively and constructively, and where external policy is concerned, this naturally also means that Russia must take on some responsibility. At the moment, there is the case of Syria in the United Nations Security Council. In such cases, Russia must make a constructive contribution to the creation of a peaceful international community. This also means, however, accepting the sovereign rights of neighbouring states and their decisions as regards entering into the alliances that they wish to enter into. Moreover, Russia must make a positive contribution in the case of 'frozen conflicts' and must now bring to an end the unlawful circumstances in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.\nWe have a shared responsibility in the global world. It is clear that Russia and the European Union have substantial mutual interests in this global order, and in defining these interests, we must ensure that Russia recognises that democracy and the rule of law are also crucial for internal development. A degree of conditionality is called for not just in relations with us alone; a country in which there is no rule of law is also not a good place to invest, because there is no legal certainty. A country without democracy and the rule of law cannot really make progress in the long term for the benefit of its own citizens. Let us hope that the Partnership for Modernisation and other matters will help us to find a common and positive way forward here.\nKnut Fleckenstein\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to mention two points because Mr Swoboda has already mentioned a number of points on behalf of our group. Russia is indeed at an important crossroads. Its internal political situation will be determined by the elections to the Duma in December and the question of who will continue the modernisation embarked upon as president from 2012.\nOne can also put a positive slant on this. There could be no better opportunity to strengthen international confidence in Russia's development. This is conditional upon there being fair elections, fair opportunities for registration and access to the media for the candidates, to ensure at least an element of equal opportunity.\nMy second point concerns the Partnership for Modernisation between the EU and Russia. This opens up new opportunities for effective cooperation. We should therefore not miss the opportunity to support Russia vigorously in this modernisation - not just by investing in the modernisation of the economy, but also in its society. Governments put things down on paper and, as we all know, you can say what you like on paper. Citizens, however, become very restless if what is stated on paper is not implemented.\nCivil participation and the involvement of civil society, entrepreneurs, researchers, young people and artists are essential to a self-determined society of solidarity. We can only successfully support such modernisation, however, if people can come together easily in order to learn from each other and exchange experiences. For these reasons, the EU and Russia should finally reach agreement on the common steps that need to be taken to achieve visa-free travel and how these can be implemented, in order to achieve results as quickly as possible.\nWe have been talking about people in the Kaliningrad region and thinking about facilitation. A month ago, this House decided that visa facilitation should be allowed for cultural purposes. We have been talking about whether perhaps particular consideration should be given to young people here. These are all good suggestions to get the ball rolling, but they are no substitute for an overall solution. I would therefore urge the Commission to step up the pace. You can count on our support in any case, including as regards some of the more hesitant certain Member States.\n(Applause)\nAlexander Graf Lambsdorff\n(DE) Madam President, it is hardly conceivable that our relations with Russia are based on an agreement dating from 1994. We have not succeeded in resolving anything new since then. We alternate between cooperation and confrontation with Russia. Where the neighbourhood is concerned, we deplore the war with Georgia, the pressure brought to bear on Ukraine, the recognition of President Lukashenko in Belarus and the split in the Republic of Moldova as a result of the conflict in Transnistria. At the same time, our cooperation with Russia in the Security Council on the issue of Libya or on Iran's nuclear programme is pleasing.\nAs regards Russia itself, the new paradigm is what is known as the Partnership for Modernisation. Yet what is modernity without democracy? In the list of priorities that you have just given, Commissioner F\u00fcle, human rights came after cucumbers and the rule of law after tomatoes. Is that the best we can expect in this area? Do we expect nothing more of Russia's democratisation? I believe that as Parliament, we must make it clear that we do expect something; for example, fair elections - there must be progress there.\nThere is, though, one thing that I would like to say quite clearly: such progress is often to be achieved at expert level. Two summits a year is too much. Let us have one summit, as we do with America. We have enough exchange with Russia in the specialist areas. Otherwise, we will have summits with no real content, and that would not be good either.\nAdam Bielan\n(PL) Madam President, in my opinion, the most significant aspects of relations with Russia are energy policy and human rights. Russia is pursuing a strategic goal of bringing individual countries under its control by exploiting the issue of gas when conducting foreign policy. Just in the last few days, the Russian authorities have used blackmail to put pressure on Ukraine, making changes in gas prices dependent on the country joining the Russian customs union or a merger between Gazprom and Naftogaz. The above actions quite obviously put an end to discussions on the creation of an EU-Ukraine free trade area. Long-term agreements on gas supplies are also a way of influencing the policies of EU Member States. We should therefore commend the position of the European Commission, which has acknowledged that the agreement concluded by the Polish Government does not comply with EU law. Prices for Russian gas in Central Europe are already almost twice as high as those offered to Western European countries. Russia's discrediting of shale gas extraction projects is causing additional alarm.\nThe human rights problem is most apparent in the Khodorkovsky case. There can be no question that this issue must be raised during the summit, in view of the ruling handed down by the European Court of Human Rights on the unlawfulness of the arrest and detention of the Russian businessman.\nHeidi Hautala\nMadam President, I would like to remind Commissioner F\u00fcle of his very well-appreciated communication on the European Neighbourhood Policy; and I can hear, Commissioner, that you basically concede that we should apply the same principle to Russia as well, even if Russia is not a part of the Eastern Neighbourhood.\nBut we should indeed call for what you have termed deep democracy, and we have to work seriously to support civil society in Russia. I would like to highlight some points in the joint resolution that the European Parliament will adopt tomorrow. We underline the need to maintain close contacts and support programmes for the development of civil society in Russia. I would like to inform you, Commissioner, that today there is very worrying news from Nizhny Novgorod, where the summit will be just starting.\nI have been informed by civil society organisations there that pre-emptive measures have been taken by the law enforcement agencies. Attempts have been made to question people who could communicate with the EU representatives, and this is completely unacceptable. Even people who work on children's rights have been warned not to go to Nizhny Novgorod. The credit cards of the main local organiser of the civil society event - which is, by the way, the first ever linked to an EU-Russia Summit - have been blocked (for technical reasons, of course), and her car licence plates have mysteriously disappeared.\nCommissioner, I ask that you make sure that the EU representatives at the summit in Nizhny Novgorod will give recognition and support to the civil society organisations. To this end, I, together with my colleague, Mr Schulz, the Vice-Chair of the Joint EU-Russia Parliamentary Committee, have sent a letter to President Barroso, Vice-President\/High Representative Ashton and President Von Rompuy.\nNikolaos Salavrakos\n(EL) Madam President, firstly, may I wish you every success at tomorrow's summit, the agenda of which includes global governance, the global economy, the accession of Russia to the WTO and international issues, including developments in North Africa and the Middle East.\nRussia is the EU's third biggest trading partner. EU exports to Russia total EUR 65.6 billion. According to official statistics, the Russian economy is growing at a rate of 4%, despite the economic climate, and this is forecast to continue for a long time. Its accession to the World Trade Organisation will create numerous opportunities in economic relations between the European Union and Russia. At the same time, however, it will bring about innovative changes in energy, nuclear energy and international security.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we are aware that Russia is of significance to the EU, not just where economic matters are concerned, but also as a strategic partner. The ban on imports of EU vegetables that has been imposed by Moscow is undoubtedly problematic in the run-up to the negotiations on Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and we should make sure that Russia does not come into conflict with the WTO rules in future.\nThere are also problems, however, in the area of the still unimplemented agreement from 2006 in respect of EU airlines. Relations between the EU and Russia are further strained by the planned US missile defences in Romania. If the EU is serious about its strategies for improving relations with Russia, then it must firstly resolve these problems and secondly, give consideration to Russian sensitivities relating to an historical sphere of influence that undoubtedly exists, or which exists as far as Russia is concerned. That is the only way we will make any progress.\nPawe\u0142 Zalewski\n(PL) Madam President, the partnership between the European Union and Russia entails responsibility, including towards third countries. I would like to draw the Commission's attention to the paragraph of the resolution which calls on Russia not to use the supply of energy resources as a tool for influencing its neighbours' policies. This is what has happened in the case of Ukraine, where Mr Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, said quite openly during his last meeting with Mr Azarov, the Ukrainian Prime Minister, that lower prices would only be offered and the gas contract renegotiated if Ukraine entered into a customs union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which would mean abandoning its European plans and aspirations. This is nothing short of blackmail. If the contract is not renegotiated, gas prices on the Russia-Ukraine border may reach EUR 500 per 1 000 m3. Ukraine is already paying the highest prices in Europe for Russian gas, although it is closest to the sources of this gas.\nThis situation may result in a very serious economic and social crisis in Ukraine. I would like to make it clear that the European Union has obligations towards Ukraine, given that we are currently successfully negotiating the country's entry into a free trade area or the creation of such an area, and will, in the near future, engage in relations with it as an ally of the European Union. I would call on the Commission to demand quite plainly that Russia ceases all such practices and puts a stop to them.\nKristian Vigenin\nMadam President, yet another EU-Russia Summit is taking place this week. Major changes have occurred in the world since the last one. Let me mention among them, firstly, the Arab revolutions, a process of deep transformation which affects virtually the whole Arab world. The disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant reshaped the future of nuclear power, especially with regard to safety. Climate change has brought more and more dangerous consequences. Osama is dead but terrorism is alive and has targeted innocent people all over the world.\nThe list of events is long and all of them concern both the EU and Russia, two neighbouring global players with predominantly similar or complementary long-term interests. Their relations can only be further developed if they are based on mutual respect, openness and transparency. Any hidden agenda has the potential to distort, if not destroy, these relations.\nThe EU and Parliament have always been clear about the expectations of European citizens. Now, with regard to the upcoming summit, I would like to highlight four issues. First of all, the summit should bring decisive progress on all the remaining obstacles related to Russia's accession to the WTO. This important step will create better opportunities for the business communities on both sides and will further liberalise trade and economic relations globally. In this respect, the application of protectionist measures is counterproductive and we hope they will not be hidden behind overplayed health threats, which is, in our opinion, the recent case with the ban on imports of vegetables from the EU.\nWe hope that the road map for visa-free travelling announced in May will accelerate further visa facilitation and will bring closer the moment when the visa regime between the EU and Russia will be fully liberalised. To this end, Parliament expects that some politically sensitive issues will be properly addressed by the Russian authorities, in particular, by stopping the issuing of Russian passports to the residents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.\nI would like to see a more constructive engagement of Russia in our efforts to support democratisation, economic and social progress and stability in the six countries in the Eastern Partnership. The last two years have clearly shown that this EU initiative is not aimed at competition, but rather at cooperation with Russia, since the stable and self-confident common neighbourhood is in the interests of both the EU and Russia. In this respect, we urge Russia to intensify its efforts in facilitating the peaceful resolution of the conflicts in Transnistria and in the more and more worrying Nagorno-Karabakh region.\nFinally, I would like to mention that the EU and Russia should fully cooperate in the revision and elaboration of higher standards for nuclear power safety, following the events in Japan. We expect that higher standards are kept, not only in the newly built, but also in the already operational, nuclear power plants. I hope that this issue can be part of the discussions in Nizhny Novgorod.\nGraham Watson\nMadam President, Canada's Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, likened sharing a border with the USA to sharing a bed with an elephant. Our Union must share its bed with a bear.\nWe must continue to try to develop relations in the context of the four common spaces and on the basis of last year's Partnership for Modernisation. As the Commissioner said, the last two years have seen improvements. The agreement on a gas advisory forum and the improved early warning mechanism are among these. Progress this month in solving the Transnistria conflict would be another positive step.\nHowever, as Baroness Ashton said last month after the Khodorkovsky\/Lebedev judgment, and as the European Court on Human Rights has concluded on many occasions, real progress requires respect for democracy and human rights and a stable and fair legal framework for business, which are too often absent in Russia. A structured civil society dialogue would help; common action to fight climate change would help to build trust. But the Russian bear still has a sore head and I advise the Commission to carry to Nizhny Novgorod not only a jar of honey but also a large net.\nEdvard Ko\u017eu\u0161n\u00edk\n(CS) Madam President, Commissioner, as you are surely aware, Russia is a self-confident state and the Russians are a self-confident nation. The relationship between the EU and Russia must take the form of a genuine partnership, and not just a feigned partnership. Since we have excellent relations with the countries of the Eastern Partnership, relations between the EU and Russia must be at least on the same level. I am therefore delighted that, in your speech, you did not forget to mention the importance of abolishing the visa requirement with Russia, as relations between partners must be built on trust and openness. We should tell Russia clearly and seriously what the timetable is for abolishing visas, and what conditions must therefore be fulfilled.\nCommissioner, I would like to thank you for remembering, when preparing the joint EU-Russia Summit, all of the agendas that are important for the partnership between the EU and Russia.\nBastiaan Belder\n(NL) Madam President, first of all, a very urgent issue. I trust that this EU-Russia Summit will firmly address the very harmful and utterly disproportionate import ban on our European vegetables. The market gardening sector expects this ban to be lifted and deserves to see that happen. Commissioner F\u00fcle, can you confirm that the EU delegation will fully commit itself to resolving this situation in Nizhny Novgorod? This is a very important question and one that I get asked a lot in my country at the moment when I talk about the EU-Russia Summit.\nI wanted to say a few words, in particular, about the problematic accession of Russia to the WTO. Just one more brief question. Georgia has, in fact, played a key role here. Georgia has de facto the right of veto. President Saakashvili is raising the stakes. What he wants are transparent borders - he basically wants Abkhazia and South Ossetia back - and he has, of course, also put the import ban on Georgian wines and mineral water on the agenda. However, Russia does not seem to be budging at all. In brief, is it not the case that we have deadlock on our hands here? It very much looks like it. Besides, the Russian economy, which is mainly driven by oil and gas, does not really need accession to the WTO.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) Madam President, I call on the heads of the EU institutions not to forget human rights at the EU-Russia Summit that begins tomorrow. It is clear that respect for human rights is a valuable basis, without which a strategic partnership and the modernisation of EU-Russian relations would be impossible.\nThe specific case we need to discuss is the ruling by Moscow city court on 24 May to reject the appeal made by Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev against the new seven year sentence. In the 21st century, a shameful trial is taking place before our very eyes, and the sentences are not written in court. This is happening in a country linked to the EU by a so-called strategic partnership. The ruling by the Moscow court once again revealed serious flaws in Russia's court system and strengthened the opinion that it punishes those in Russia who have political ambitions, but whose opinions do not coincide with those of the Kremlin.\nThe ruling made on 31 May by the European Court of Human Rights and violations in Russia of the European Convention on Human Rights are facts that must also be discussed.\nWe, the European Parliament should say clearly that, if Russia's President, Dmitri Medvedev, wants to come to the European Parliament, he should appear here together with prisoner of conscience, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and this would be the most effective strategy and tactic for the modernisation of Russia. President Medvedev and prisoner of conscience, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, together in the European Parliament - that would be a sight worth not only the attention of the world's media, but also the heartfelt support of democratic society.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\n(LT) Madam President, this summit is special because it takes place against the backdrop of the forthcoming elections in Russia. We expect Brussels to send Russia a strong signal about the elections respecting democratic standards, which would safeguard diversity of opinion in the Duma. The question of nuclear safety is particularly relevant following Fukushima. I am pleased that the Member of the Commission mentioned that this issue will be raised at the summit and that there will be a call for the highest international safety standards in nuclear power plants already operating and those that are planned, in both Russia, and of course, the European Union.\nI feel that EU and Russian relations with Belarus should also be discussed. A convergence of positions would help to open the prison gates for those who recently stood in the Belarusian elections and would stop blatant human rights abuses. I very much support those fellow Members who said that we need to translate words into deeds in the area of visa facilitation, and not just with Russia, but all of the European Union's eastern neighbours.\nAs it assumes the EU Presidency, Poland has already found roads to a more fruitful dialogue with Russia, so that we can expect concrete steps to be taken in EU-Russia relations in the coming six months.\nJacek Olgierd Kurski\n(PL) Our most serious failings in relations between the EU and Russia are inconsistency, weakness and a lack of awareness of our own power. The Nord Stream issue is typical in this respect. First, we make energy solidarity one of Europe's leading principles in the Treaty of Lisbon, and then the EU agrees to the Nord Stream project, which is harmful to Poland and the other new Member States in geopolitical terms. We should therefore stand our ground when discussing each of the issues on the forthcoming agenda as outlined by the Commissioner.\nRussia must observe certain rules as regards the WTO. They should first allow Georgian wine onto their market before dreaming of WTO membership.\nAs far as visas are concerned, Russia must be told that the visa regime will be liberalised for countries participating in the Eastern Partnership first, and for Russia only afterwards. The Kaliningrad Oblast may represent an exception to this rule.\nAs regards the energy sector, Russia must be told that we are opposed to the repeated blackmailing of Ukraine, and that we are opposed to the measures taken by Russian agencies of influence, attempting to belittle the extraction of shale gas in Poland and in Europe. This is a great opportunity to gain independence from Russia.\nTunne Kelam\nMadam President, Russia has proclaimed a modernisation programme and some observers are speaking about a new perestroika. So far, unfortunately, there is no real progress. Analysts conclude that the priority of the current Russian \u00e9lites is to keep the present system in place, trying not to allow external relations to have any impact on the domestic situation.\nIt is therefore up to the EU to make one issue very clear. The success of the Partnership for Modernisation will be dependent on the Russian Government's willingness and capacity to provide for a truly independent judiciary and to implement the basic principles of the rule of law, transparency and reciprocity. If the EU will not address this crucial issue in a principled manner, hardly any progress can be expected.\nToday's International Herald Tribune writes: 'Russia can't have a modern economy until it has a genuine rule of law'. The summit venue will be Nizhny Novgorod, in Soviet times, Gorky, where the key figure of Soviet conscience, Andrei Sakharov, was banished for many years. I call upon the Commission and our negotiators to follow the spirit of Andrei Sakharov and to remember the message of Sakharov Prize winner, Sergei Kovalev, in this hemicycle two years ago.\nFinally, the EU should stimulate and help Russia to come to terms with its totalitarian legacy. After 20 years, even Mr Medvedev had to admit that one cannot ignore the terrible and criminal heritage of Russian power. I recall the words of our colleague, Mr Swoboda, who yesterday asked for a full clearing up of Russian history, especially the atrocities of the Stalin era. We can help Russia come to terms with its past.\nBoris Zala\n(SK) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Russia still requires a two-handed approach: on the one hand, firm demands for the fulfilment of democratic principles, but, at the same time, a rejection of Bush's well-honed anti-Russian policy.\nRussia certainly has no right to a sphere of influence. All former Soviet republics have the right to decide freely where they wish to belong. It surely has the right, however, to safety and international security. Such a sense of security would certainly liberalise the internal situation in Russia.\nIt is necessary to draw Russia into global politics on the side of Europe, so that Russia can feel that it is an accepted partner in the creation of an international and democratic order. The Partnership for Modernisation must fulfil not only the state-monopoly ideas of the Russian Government, but should create an area for untrammelled industrial and scientific activity, as Mr Fleckenstein said in his analysis here.\nIf we adopted a different approach to Russia along these lines, we might harbour the hidden hope that democratic processes would be liberated to a far greater extent in Russia, with a certainty and confidence that can then feed into European politics. I am keeping my fingers crossed that this will emerge from the forthcoming talks.\nMiros\u0142aw Piotrowski\n(PL) Madam President, on the eve of the EU-Russia Summit, and in the context of negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, it is important for the EU not only to speak with one voice, but to show Russia its unity and solidarity in practice. Energy solidarity is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, but Russia does not accept this principle, with the Nord Stream project being an obvious example of this attitude. We must not agree to attempts to isolate some of the EU's new Member States using the dividing wedge of the energy sector, and this should be clearly emphasised during the summit. We should also expect acknowledgement of the European ambitions of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and that Russia will be called upon to stop putting political pressure on these countries. Furthermore, we should remember that Russia is a unique democracy with a very high rate of corruption.\nInese Vaidere\n(LV) Madam President, the new European Union-Russia partnership agreement must be concrete and legally binding in all areas of cooperation. This is a justified demand because we cannot allow for the agreement to be a collection of general phrases. The European Union and Russia are mutually dependent. The European market is no less important to Russia than Russian gas is to us, and Russian economic modernisation plans are directly dependent on our technology and expertise. That is why our cooperation should be closely linked to improvements in the fields of human rights and the rule of law. The European Union is Russia's largest trading partner and main investor; that is why the new agreement must contain legally binding terms regarding investment. It is important to insist on the elimination of unilateral and unreasonable trade barriers. This relates to the Russia - Kazakhstan - Belarus customs union, as well as to the current embargo on European Union vegetables. Russia cannot be allowed to continue using energy policy to implement its geopolitical interests, by discriminating against certain Member States, for example in the field of gas tariffs.\nCommissioner, in continuing to work on the visa-free zone with Russia, we must also work on establishing a visa-free zone with the rest of our Eastern Partnership states. At the summit, we must reiterate that the six-point agreement on Georgia has still not been implemented. Taking into account the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections, the restrictions placed on opposition members regarding registration for the elections and on appearing in the mass media must be removed. We have already affirmed our willingness to be present in all phases of the election process, yet Russia must show willingness to accept long-term observers, as well as to actually implement fair elections. In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that these critical remarks are not in any way directed against Russia or its people, but the opposite - they are directed against the current government, in order to improve the situation in Russia and make our cooperation more fruitful.\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f\n(RO) Madam President, global warming, drug trafficking, the non-proliferation of weapons and energy security are common challenges requiring global solutions. This is why we need to build a solid partnership with Russia based on mutual trust.\nI would like to welcome the resumption of negotiations for an ambitious new partnership agreement in an attempt to overcome past tensions. I think that Russia must be supported by the European Union in its efforts to join the WTO, as this will boost trade and economic relations between the two partners and encourage investment.\nAt the same time, during tomorrow's summit, the High Representative must urge Russia to ratify the Energy Charter because proper energy cooperation cannot exist between the European Union and Russia unless the principles of transparency, reciprocity, competitiveness and non-discrimination are observed.\nPawe\u0142 Robert Kowal\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I expect that modernisation will be one of the issues discussed during the summit. I would merely like to remind you that modernising Russia is not merely a matter of economic or energy issues, but also a matter of political modernisation and relations between the authorities and society. I would ask you to raise this issue. This also involves relations between Russia and its neighbours, and Russia's 'sphere of influence'. Since you are conducting relations with Ukraine so very successfully, I would urge you to make it very clear that an association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine will also be beneficial to Russia, and that we are very alarmed at the manifestations of extremely forceful political pressure being brought to bear on Ukraine on the eve of the conclusion of negotiations, while these negotiations are in their final stages. Please make this very clear to the Russian side on our behalf. These are very important factors contributing to mutual trust between the European Union institutions and the Member States, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other.\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Madam President, firstly, may I say that I was astonished to hear a man such as Mr M\u00f6lzer, who is well educated in history, say that there are historical zones of Russian influence in Europe and that this includes parts of the European Union such as Romania. The days of the Hitler-Stalin pact are long gone and in a democratic world, we should be practising a kind of European Monroe Doctrine; in other words, that the fate and the policies of Europe are decided by Europeans. That does not mean that we do not want a policy of good neighbourliness and dialogue. Yet Nizhny Novgorod - the venue for our meeting - should also serve as a warning, because it reminds us of the famous story of the merchants of Nizhny Novgorod who believed that they could buy their freedom and their security and were then hanged.\nWe have to realise that we cannot buy security with money or by glossing over reality; it is only obtainable through honest partnership. We need a common foreign affairs and security policy. We need energy independence and energy security and less dependence on Russian energy policy, which is still being used for foreign policy purposes. We also need to speak clearly on human rights. We cannot afford to compromise here. Where Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev are concerned, I would state that these individuals must at last be freed - otherwise the state visit by the Russian President to the European Parliament will take place under a huge cloud.\nWe want to have a partnership with a Russia that is in the process of democratising, but to do that, Russia must democratise - in reality and not just in our wishful thinking. That is why I think Mr Swoboda is right: the forthcoming elections will be decisive. Then we will see whether our partnership with the Russian people - of whom we are very fond - can be expanded into a genuine partnership with the Russian state.\nMitro Repo\n(FI) Madam President, as Mr Posselt also said, Europe needs Russia and Russia needs Europe. Cooperation between Europe and Russia is important for promoting political, social and economic stability, not just in Europe but worldwide.\nIt is regrettable that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Russia does not meet today's needs for cooperation. We should make the strategic partnership closer, deeper and broader. The basis for all EU-Russia relations in future, however, needs to be the promotion of peace and security and support for democratic values and political and economic freedom.\nThe Partnership for Modernisation should be deepened and made more focused, but mere political dialogue between diplomats is simply not enough. We must do everything we can to make it easier for people to meet and increase cooperation in the areas of science, art, culture, education and enterprise.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\n(PL) Madam President, there will no doubt be a great many issues covered during the EU-Russia Summit, but one of the most important is anticipated to be the issue of energy security. For several months, Russia has been conducting a very intensive campaign aimed at obtaining exemptions for its gas infrastructure from the rules set out in the third energy package, or, in other words, the rules of our anti-monopoly law, which prohibit the simultaneous and parallel control of energy resources and transmission networks. Mr Shmatko, the Russian Energy Minister, Mr Kramer, CEO of the South Stream project, and Mr Miller, CEO of Gazprom, have made visits to Brussels in connection with this matter. This is a major campaign. The European Union's position on this matter must be set out very clearly to Russia, namely, that we do not intend to grant reduced tariffs to Russia; instead, what matters to us is that the gas market in Central Europe becomes more competitive and less monopolised. Commissioner, I would ask you to tell us plainly whether the European Commission is prepared to make statements to this effect during the summit.\nTomasz Piotr Por\u0119ba\n(PL) Madam President, in the run-up to the forthcoming summit, we really can say that the European Union lacks a single coherent strategy as regards Russia, and that the current policy of pragmatic cooperation based on a strategy of small steps may very easily fall apart during whatever crisis occurs next, as was the case in 2008 during the war with Georgia, or in 2009 after gas supplies were cut off.\nIn the context of the latter event, it is very important to emphasise the definition of the word 'diversification', which in Europe is often synonymous with the construction of a large number of different gas pipelines from Russia. Diversification is taken to mean the construction of the South and Nord Stream gas pipelines, for example. Meanwhile, the European Union should concentrate on guaranteeing gas supplies from non-Russian sources: it should do more to promote the Nabucco pipeline from Azerbaijan, and it should invest in gas terminals and research into extracting shale gas.\nIt is also very important that pressure continues to be put upon the Russian authorities at various levels to improve the human rights situation in Russia. Apart from discussion in the framework of the EU-Russia summits, we should ensure that the consultations which take place twice yearly with European Union representatives and diplomats from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are decisively stepped up.\nKrzysztof Lisek\n(PL) Madam President, I believe that the Russian authorities should be told that we expect them to behave responsibly. Russia is potentially a very important partner for the European Union, for example, when it comes to finding a solution to certain frozen conflicts in Europe which remain unresolved. I believe that the Russian authorities should be told that although vegetables and gas are important, they must stop supporting Transnistrian separatists, that we expect them to stop supplying weapons to Azerbaijan and Armenia, since this poses a great risk for the future of this region, and that we also expect Russia to fulfil its obligations under the agreement on Georgia concluded in 2008. We expect that Russian forces will be withdrawn from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and we expect that Russia will respect Georgia's right to consider and decide its own future.\nS\u0142awomir Witold Nitras\n(PL) Madam President, although I agree with Mr Lisek's statements on Georgia, and not forgetting what many MEPs have said about Ukraine, it seems to me that at tomorrow's summit, we must also spare a few words - or a great many words - for Belarus. I would ask everyone to remember that we have been dealing for many months with a very far-reaching political crisis there, and that for at least several months, we have been dealing with a far-reaching economic crisis. We are also dealing with a situation in which Russia is putting pressure on Belarus, probably a great deal more forcefully and effectively than it currently is on Ukraine. Russia is effectively attempting to take over the entire economy, or rather strategic sectors of the economy, by taking advantage of the dramatic situation in which the Belarusian economy finds itself. I have one request. If Russia decides to provide aid, and we know that it has decided to provide aid to Belarus, the European Union should ensure that Russia makes this aid dependent on the observance of human rights. These are common values that we apparently share with Russia, a fact which is often repeated by the Russians, and so they should help us to introduce these values in Belarus. Otherwise, by funding the Lukashenko regime, we will be responsible for it.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) Madam President, we always have a number of problematic issues on hand for negotiations with Russia, such as the standard of civil rights, the nonsensical ban on imports of vegetables from the EU, the anti-missile shield located in the EU, or the problematic involvement of Russia in many former Soviet republics.\nI do not want to say that we should avoid talking about these difficult topics, but I firmly believe that we should not limit ourselves to them.\nWe should also bring new ideas for mutually beneficial cooperation. European producers need new opportunities to sell their products. Russia is an enormous trade area, with ever increasing purchasing power. It is therefore necessary to work more intensively to eliminate the obstacles that are holding back trade cooperation, and also jointly to support projects such as the extension of the broad-gauge railway line running from the Pacific to the heart of the EU.\nProjects such as this can create new impulses for cooperation, the implementation of which will bring benefits not only to Europe, but also to Ukraine, Russia and many Asian countries.\nLena Kolarska-Bobi\u0144ska\n(PL) Madam President, talks are being held between the European Union and Russia on the future of the energy sector, but from what I understand, a new group is currently being set up, which will debate the third energy package in the context of gas security. I would like to call on Commissioner F\u00fcle, and on Commissioner Oettinger, to provide the European Parliament with information regarding the progress of the talks and the outcome of this group's negotiations. We would also like a list of the members of the negotiating group. I learnt from a representative of a Russian energy concern that the company would be participating in these negotiations. I would like to know whether this is true, and whether the representatives of large companies will take part in negotiations on the Russian side.\nCompliance with competition law in the field of energy, without the granting of any exemptions, is also a very important matter for the European Parliament. During the recent presentations of South Stream investment plans in Brussels, it was apparent that Russia and Gazprom want privileges and a special status. We cannot agree to this.\nVytautas Landsbergis\nMadam President, I see Parliament's resolution as Europe's hand extended to the Russia of today which needs, despite all its baseless pride and inherited arrogance, a really friendly advice and action plan. As the Human Rights Consultations advising President Medvedev have called for an essential renovation of the national house from basement to roof, our Parliament is coming not with empty appeasement but with constructive provision of cooperation.\nThe greatest chance appears there if Russia is open and striving to build an open society, not one that is closed in backward Stalinism.\nUnfortunately, Russia's pressure on the rest of the G8 to accept the occupied territories of Georgia in the WTO system on the side of Russia does not testify to their really good will.\nIf it is true that the West has consented to this, it is unfortunately thus showing its weakness just before the Nizhny Novgorod Summit.\nAngelika Werthmann\n(DE) Madam President, Russia is no doubt an important partner for the European Union, but a very difficult one. Accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is undoubtedly of great importance to Russia. However, I would like to call explicitly for a democratic process at both a political level and at the level of civil society. It is absolutely essential that human rights are respected and observed.\nElena B\u0103sescu\n(RO) Madam President, the EU-Russia Summit is taking place against the background of regional developments which influence this partnership. Reform of the European Neighbourhood Policy may help resolve the conflict in Transnistria. Indeed, Russia has shown an interest in setting up a joint political committee. However, the structure and deadline for setting up this body are due to be discussed.\nThe food crisis which is affecting Europe at the moment has brought trade with Russia to a halt. New negotiations on current sanitary regulations could improve this situation. Russia's membership of the WTO will have a long-term impact on economic relations with the EU. This is why all the relevant agreements need to be revised.\nThe energy issue is another topic of interest, as a result of launching the AGRI project. This would offer an alternative source to that provided by the Nabucco project.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMadam President, it is good that the European Union should strive to have the best possible relations with all its neighbours, and indeed with all countries around the world. Sometimes, that can be difficult - particularly, I suppose, when it comes to Russia, because it has a very chequered history. Even since the fall of the Iron Curtain over 20 years ago, its behaviour towards some countries, particularly neighbours such as Georgia, certainly cannot be admired.\nObviously, any negotiations with Russia have to be underpinned by a recognition of the important values of respect for human rights and respect for neighbours. Nevertheless, they do offer a great opportunity for tackling global issues like climate change and also, of course, a great opportunity to develop both our economies. Russia is a rising country and a developing country in terms of wealth. Certainly, if the fundamentals are right, there are great opportunities both for the European Union and for Russia in the long term.\n\u0160tefan F\u00fcle\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, today's exchange of views was indeed very useful for adding a final touch to our summit preparations and you can rest assured that I will convey the key messages to the High Representative and Vice-President Ashton who will debrief the Presidents and Commissioner Karel De Gucht.\nI have heard many of you calling for continuing engagement with Russia, calling for the relationship and coordination with the Russian Federation to be further developed, but I also heard calls for more democracy and less corruption. I also heard a call for no harassment, which was reported in Nizhny Novgorod, although I respect the role of the Russian Federation in ensuring security for the summit.\nWe have seen that we have convergent views on many subjects. We agree on the key importance of our relations with Russia both bilaterally and in multilateral contexts, whether regional or global. We agree that it is a multifaceted relationship in which economic, social and environmental issues, human rights and rule of law, security aspects and political cooperation are all of paramount importance.\nWe should not expect a resolution of all pending problems at this summit - and yes, we will raise the issue of vegetables. But we should aim to make significant progress in a number of areas.\nLet me comment on some of these areas. First: elections. The Russian authorities are well aware that the European Union will be following the 2011 and 2012 electoral processes very closely. Should there be irregularities in the upcoming elections, these issues would have to be addressed. Right now, we are calling on Russia to respect obligations it has undertaken in the context of the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the OSCE regarding free and fair elections, and to cooperate well with ODIHR to ensure appropriate monitoring. We will place a special emphasis on the issue of the registration of new parties and access to the electoral process.\nSecond: I took note of Parliament's concerns with regard to the human rights situation in Russia; we share most of them and these issues will be raised with the Russian President at the summit. The main forum for addressing human rights and rule-of-law issues is the European Union-Russia human rights consultations. This is an important instrument and its potential should be fully used. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case and the European Union will therefore stress the need to have an honest and useful dialogue for which a review of the consultations' modalities is necessary.\nThird: the Partnership for Modernisation. I fully agree with the honourable Members that the Partnership for Modernisation should be broadly based. The coordinators will present in Nizhny Novgorod the second programme report on the implementation of the partnership and, as you will see, the rule of law is at the very core of this initiative and we have concrete projects in this area.\nPoint four: Russia is the neighbour of our neighbours, and I think Nizhny Novgorod would be an excellent opportunity to refer to the recently adopted ENP review document and, with reference to this document, to make sure that we are transparent in our policy vis-\u00e0-vis the neighbours we share with Russia. This is an opportunity - based inter alia on that transparency - to make our point that caring about the well-being of the neighbours we share is a win-win process. I think it will also be a good opportunity, based on some new ideas in that ENP review, to talk about a strengthened cooperation to address the protracted conflicts in our neighbourhood.\nPoint five: the question of energy cooperation will be addressed at the summit. We need transparent, fair and competitive energy relations and we will raise our concerns with the Russian President. We will emphasise the need for further reforms, as I stressed in my opening remarks, in the Russian electricity and gas sector with a view to establishing a level playing field.\nMadam President, honourable Members, the European Union and Russia are partners. Partners should talk to each other frequently, they should try to achieve consensus where possible, but should not hesitate to openly address more problematic aspects. We have talked about some of these problematic aspects today. They should be addressed at the summit and, wherever possible, we should look for solutions or at least improvement.\nI have already mentioned the ENP review. I strongly believe that one of the added values of that reviewed Neighbourhood Policy is that the universally applicable values and principles reflected there are not only applicable to small and medium-sized neighbouring countries.\nPresident\nI have received six motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow (9 June 2011).\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nCristian Dan Preda\nI am pleased to be one of those signing this resolution, which reaffirms the importance of respect for democracy and human rights in relations between the European Union and Russia. Starting with the Russia-EU dialogue on human rights and continuing with the summits, I think that a systematic and honest approach is required in cases where the standards for a fair trial are not respected or human rights activists or journalists are persecuted and prevented from doing their job.\nFurthermore, clear reference criteria need to be introduced regarding Russia's respect for democratic standards, which will help deepen relations with the EU. Lastly, we must not forget either the support which needs to be given in developing civil society, as the guarantor of a democracy which will not only stick to procedures but be truly inclusive as well.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"3. Wilderness in Europe (\nGyula Hegyi\nrapporteur. - Mr President, as we did not have a plenary debate on this item and there was no possibility to table amendments following the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, you either have to trust your rapporteur - myself - or reject the whole resolution. In my view, it is not a good system, but that is the current tool.\nMany aspects of the Natura 2000 Directives should be reopened in the near future in any case and hopefully, the legislative act will cover the wilderness areas as well, giving full opportunity for the next Assembly to go further on this beautiful topic. I hope that my resolution will become a basis for further legislative actions providing the possibility for members to improve it in the future.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":2,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Accomplishment of the internal market in Community postal services (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the accomplishment of the internal market in Community postal services (13593\/6\/2007 - C6-0410\/2007 - (rapporteur: Markus Ferber).\nMarkus Ferber\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of a long debate that has stretched over four legislative terms in the European Parliament, beginning in 1992 with the publication by the European Commission of its White Paper on the development of postal services, which was followed by the adoption of the first Postal Directive in 1997 and its revision in 2002; now, at the start of 2008, after more than 15 years, I hope we are poised to adopt jointly a rational set of rules that will help us to reconcile the interests of consumers, the interests of the companies that have hitherto enjoyed a monopoly in the provision of postal services, the interests of the competitors wishing to enter this lucrative market and the interests of those who are employed in the postal sector. We in the European Parliament have been working very hard to achieve these goals over the past months.\nI must point out, Mr President, that the clock is fast - I have not been speaking for three and a half minutes yet!\nI believe we have succeeded here in the European Parliament in achieving an acceptable compromise between all these interests. I should like to thank all those who helped to achieve it - my fellow Members of the European Parliament and particularly Brian Simpson, with whom a 14-year friendship was forged by our joint efforts in the realm of postal services. We have been tracking this important issue together here since 1994. I wish to thank the Commission, which has played a very constructive role, both in its proposals and at the negotiating table.\nAt this point, I am afraid I have to address my special thanks not to the current Slovenian Presidency but to the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, which succeeded in formulating a common position on 1 October last year.\nI am especially proud, and we in the European Parliament can all be proud, of the fact that the Council, in its common position, embraced the outcome of our inter-group deliberations and incorporated more than 95% of it into the foundations of the common position. That is a great success for the European Parliament, and it shows that Parliament can resolve such complex issues as deregulation of the market in postal services, which is further justification for the additional powers entrusted to it by the Reform Treaty.\nAccordingly, in the committee discussions prior to second reading, we tried to identify areas of the common position to which we could make improvements. We did not make life easy for ourselves, because every compromise inevitably has some aspect here or there where there might be some scope for improvement. In December, however, we in the Transport and Tourism Committee, in an overwhelming vote of approval, established that all the points to which Parliament attached importance had actually been taken into account by the Council and that we could not make anything better. Any amendment would have been a retrograde step.\nThis is why your rapporteur is now able to say that the recommendation made by a large majority of the lead committee is that the common position be adopted without amendment, and I should be delighted if that were to happen tomorrow. We would also have set an example by wrapping up this complex issue of the liberalisation of postal services, which has exercised this House for 15 years, without once having recourse to the conciliation procedure. Let me just remind the House that we have always managed to reach agreement at second reading. To do so again would be the icing on the cake at the end of a long legislative process. I therefore ask for your support and reiterate my thanks to all those who have cooperated very constructively in this process.\nAndrej Vizjak\nPresident-in-Office. - (SL) I am greatly honoured to be here at your plenary session today.\nThe Commission's proposal for the directive on the accomplishment of the internal market in Community postal services has been one of the most demanding legislative proposals for the co-legislators over the last 15 months. When the Commission proposed it in October 2006, everyone expected endless disagreements and lively debates within our institutions about the future of one of the oldest and most traditional public services in Europe.\nDiscussing this matter was an extremely demanding task for the German and especially Portuguese Presidencies in 2007. From the outset, in the debates, our institutions established the common aim of avoiding populism and demagoguery and focusing on the essential parameters of this matter, including social aspects for postal employees and the permanent financing of a universal service.\nAs we know, the postal sector is threatened with structural change and it must adapt to new economic and social circumstances. The final phase of total reform of the internal postal services market offers a unique opportunity for growth to all contractors involved. In the end, the public expects us to preserve and improve the quality and efficiency of postal services to benefit the users, regardless of where they live.\nThe opening up of the postal services market has so far been a success story. New players have entered the market and new opportunities have been exploited, not only by these new players but also by the established ones. New user services have been developed. It is self-evident that total liberalisation of the postal services is a necessary condition for enlivening this sector and securing its existence alongside new forms of competition and alternative services.\nThe approach of our two institutions is further proof of the fundamental principles of protecting high-quality, reliable and affordable services for all users and disallowing discriminatory obstacles for new agents entering the market. At the same time both the European Parliament and the Council accept that some postal services markets within the European Union operate under basically different conditions. Therefore, when expressing its common position, the Council adopted the decision to set the end of 2010 as the common final date for liberalisation. However, some Member States have been allowed a transitional period up to the end of 2012 to implement the new rules. In common with the basic principle of all previous directives on postal services, the principle of subsidiarity allows the Member States to adjust the common rules to special national circumstances and ensures an independent regulatory authority to supervise the postal services market.\nLadies and gentlemen, in concluding this brief address, allow me to congratulate Mr Ferber and the rapporteurs of all the political groups involved, i.e. the shadow rapporteurs, on their contributions to our fruitful and constructive discussions. Although we did not always fully agree with their specific remarks, I would like to remind you that the Council included a number of appropriate changes in its common position in November 2007, thereby demonstrating its political decisiveness, openness and constructive flexibility.\nI would especially like to emphasise the fine work of the Commission in the whole process of common decision-making and its commitment to the effective support and guidance of the Member States in all questions relating to the implementation of the new directive. Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow you will receive the final decision and again acknowledge our principal agreement according to the provisions of the Council common position and the recommendation by the Committee on Transport and Tourism on 9 December last year. We are certain that we have found the right balance between the different aims and have openly and sensitively dealt with the political challenges without endangering the legal security of postal services contractors and consumers.\nLadies and gentlemen, thank you once again for your cooperation and for the text, which I am certain will be approved, and thank you for your attention.\nLeonard Orban\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, tomorrow the European Parliament should take a historic decision that marks the end of a process launched more than 15 years ago. The Third Postal Directive brings to a good end the well prepared gradual process of full market opening.\nWhat today appears a clear and obvious solution was far from uncontested when the discussion started. On 18 October 2006 the Commission presented its proposals. Intense and constructive negotiations in the institutions followed. It was eventually the European Parliament, through its report at first reading of 11 July 2007, that paved the way for the compromise result in front of you today.\nMany in this House have actively contributed to this important result, and - on behalf of my colleague Commissioner McCreevy - I wish to pay tribute particularly to the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, and his fellow shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups who have shaped the compromise. The same goes for the Finnish, German, Portuguese and - last but not least - the Slovene Presidency.\nSome remarks on substance: the text that is now on the table is balanced. It takes into account the interests of different political groups and Member States. The Commission's proposal had envisaged an earlier date for market opening, confirming the target date set by the existing Postal Directive. Two additional years is a substantial period. It will give all operators time to complete their preparations. It should not, however, lead to complacency.\nWhat is important for the postal sector, its customers, its operators and its employees is that there is a final and unconditional date for full market opening. The common position provides for fair conditions and requires us to do away with market entry barriers.\nA limited number of amendments have been tabled for tomorrow's vote. Mostly these are amendments that were already rejected by the Committee on Transport and Tourism in December. As my colleague, Mr McCreevy, observed at the time, these amendments do not bring added value for the internal market, for postal users, or for postmen and women. There is a momentum to finalise the process of postal reform.\nTo sum up, the text in front of you is, on balance, good in substance, and, if you look at its main provisions, you will agree with me that it is faithful to our objective: real market opening not as an end in itself but as the means through which we pursue the broader objective of a high quality, highly efficient and sustainable postal sector adapted to the needs of the 21st century.\nReinhard Rack\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, in recent years all of us, myself included, have repeatedly lamented the fact that, even in the case of major legislative projects, most of the seats on the Council bench have remained empty. We should therefore make a point of expressing our pleasure at the high-level representation of the Slovenian Presidency at this important legislative debate and at the fact that Slovenia is already entering, as it were, into the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon, which, of course, it has just ratified.\nThe internal market in postal services has been a long time coming. We are delighted that, if all goes well, this present draft of ours will help to bring the process to a successful conclusion. The initial proposal from the Commission was, in principle, coherent and acceptable, but for us in the European Parliament the basic principle was, in many cases, too broadly applied, and we felt that major points of detail remained unresolved.\nIn this respect it was a good thing that, under the direction of our rapporteur, Markus Ferber, whom I warmly congratulate on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party and European Democrats, our committee, acting by a very comfortable majority, was able to add numerous important elements to the Commission proposal at first reading and to interpret and flesh out its provisions.\nOn the financial side in particular we have added an extra option - an important one, since it ensures that a key issue is not disregarded. We reinforced the social provisions, especially on matters such as working conditions, working hours and leave entitlements. In particular, we introduced a temporary reciprocity clause to ensure that the Directive does not yield windfall profits by letting a few remaining monopolists expand their operations into deregulated markets.\nIn return we agreed to the entry into force of the Directive being postponed by two years. We believe that the proposal was generally well balanced, and we feel vindicated by the actions of the Council, which very largely endorsed the position of the European Parliament. We should accept that position tomorrow and share the satisfaction of the Council, the Commission and the rapporteur with the outcome.\nBrian Simpson\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, on behalf of the PSE Group I would like to thank Markus Ferber for his report and his hard work over many years.\nThe PSE Group accepts that a great deal of Parliament's first-reading position has been accepted by the Council, and this will guarantee the universal service; it will guarantee the financing of that service; it will also recognise that social protection must be in place, and it delays the implementation by two years to the end of 2010 for all the old Member States and 2012 for the new ones.\nIn my view this is a good deal. There are those who still fight the anti-liberalisation battle. But that battle was lost over 15 years ago when Parliament accepted - against my advice at the time - to liberalise the postal services sector.\nSome of us in this Parliament have delayed the full implementation for those long 15 years, but there comes a time, eventually, when we have to face up to reality.\nAlthough, personally, I would like to see a second reading with no amendments, my group believe it is right to clarify the financing of the universal service and to protect those services presently provided for the visually impaired and the blind. So we will be supporting amendments 1, 2, 6, 18 and 19.\nWe must ensure that postal services are able to compete, not necessarily against each other, but against other technologies. But we need the playing field to be level, and I hope, with the reservations I have outlined, that we can conclude our work on this dossier based on our first-reading position and get back to the most important issue of providing a reliable, regular and affordable postal service to our citizens, and to recognising the important work done by all those postmen and women throughout the European Union.\nFinally, when Markus Ferber and I started work on this dossier, neither of us had any grey hairs. Now look at the both of us!\nLuigi Cocilovo\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too, like all my colleagues, would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, on his work. This was a job that was initiated a long time ago and during the course of which we have had significant moments of convergence and some moments of constructive discussion. As far as my position and that of my group is concerned, there has never been any conflict of principles or ideology against the idea of liberalisation, which we all agree with and support, while, of course, seeking to ensure the guarantees that are necessary for a universal service.\nIn the current proposal for the Directive, which was approved by the Parliament during its first reading and then reconsidered by the Council, we can see that this guarantee is there, even if some of the conditions could be made more precise, specific and detailed. We do not want to be like those who cannot see the wood for the trees, but, on the other hand, nor do we want to ignore the fact that sometimes the devil is in the detail. For this reason we would have preferred that, as regards some of the issues concerning authorisations, concerning ensuring proper competition and also concerning tariff payments between the operator charged with providing the universal service and other individual services, concerning rights and responsibilities as regards network access, that some of the questions had been gone into in more detail. We would have preferred this, but the majority of the views taken in Parliament, which were also represented among the committee, was probably that making the guarantees more precise was unnecessary, and preferred instead not to run the risk of coming to a complicated agreement.\nIn summary, at this time we hold this standpoint and, as regards the amendments concerning conditions for the blind and the visually impaired, we would like to state clearly that, if these and only these amendments were to force a settlement to be reached, we would not be in favour. However, if other amendments should be approved we shall also vote in favour. Otherwise, we would vote against all the amendments put forward.\nRoberts Z\u012ble\nThank you, Madam President, Commissioner, Members of the Council. I should first like to thank Mr Ferber for his work in seeking a compromise between Parliament and the Council in such a politically sensitive area as postal services. I should like to emphasise that the objective difficulties in liberalising the approach to universal services, mainly for the new Member States, were reflected in the directive as an adequate additional time-limit of two years to reserve these services. At the same time a sound legal framework has been put in place to guarantee universal services. I therefore believe that the ball is now in the court of the Member States' authorities. Despite the difficulties encountered by postal enterprises in some Member States, including my country, Latvia, I believe that liberalisation of the market will resolve the seemingly hopeless situation of outdated postal service providers. As regards tomorrow's vote, I invite you not to support the aforesaid proposals, because the Member States must make use of their competence also in respect of the visually impaired. Thank you.\nEva Lichtenberger\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, I am afraid the facts of the matter prevent me from joining the celebrations. Fact number one: who will benefit? Those consumers who live in cities and love to receive advertising material in their letterboxes. They will benefit. So will businesses that specialise in mass mailings and postal advertising campaigns.\nThose people who are blind or visually impaired, on the other hand, will not benefit. I therefore implore you to support our amendment on this matter. There will be no benefit to the employees of the postal services either, who will be working for low pay and will be under enormous pressure, which can only increase in the envisaged conditions. Another group that will not benefit are people who live in the country or in remote areas and will have to rely on private postal services, for we shall see a creeping erosion of service levels down to the minimum possible and permissible. In particular, there will be no benefit to taxpayers, who must once again finance the universal service that was previously funded internally, as it were, being effectively subsidised by revenue from mass mailings and private postal services.\nFor these reasons I come down against the directive. I believe it is misguided. Competition is good, but care must be taken to ensure that it takes place on a level playing field. That has not been done in this case.\nErik Meijer\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (NL) Madam President, postal services are a labour-intensive public service. In the second half of the nineteenth century the states of Europe decided that they needed to have their own monopoly on postal services because the private sector was not up to the job.\nThere have always been private companies that tried to get round this situation. They offered cheaper services, but selectively, choosing the busiest parts of the postal delivery service and offering poorer working conditions and conditions of employment. Since the 1990s a political majority have tried to create ever broader scope for such companies, and this proposed decision gives them almost an entirely free hand. My Group expects this to result in poorer delivery services for consumers, deteriorating conditions for workers and extra costs for the Member States to maintain and restore their universal postal services.\nEven now that the three biggest Groups have agreed a compromise on deadlines and accompanying measures, my Group still sees this choice as a step backwards. In addition to measures to improve certain details, such as stricter guarantees for blind customers and for staff, we therefore propose that this liberalisation should be rejected. This would also be in line with the recent thumbs down given by voters in the German city of Leipzig to the sale of public undertakings.\nMichael Henry Nattrass\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, I note the phrase 'a fixed and irrevocable date'. One thing EU designer Jean Monnet hated about democracy was that nothing is irrevocable. No democratic government can bind its successor with the irrevocable.\nThere is a democratic deficit in the EU because the ever-closer Union was designed as irrevocable. No openings for democracy. The people may only vote to support what the EU elite want. It is a one-way street. The French and Dutch people voted against this irrevocable union. Ignoring them and introducing the same failed constitution proves my point.\nYou are failing to learn from history. The Soviet Union went. Hitler's Tausendj\u00e4hriges Reich lasted 12 years. The backlash you are creating by denying the people a referendum will bring this intolerant EU empire down as sure as day follows night.\nEtelka Barsi-Pataky\n(HU) Madam President, by the end of 2012 postal services will be fully liberalised, and the common market will have been achieved in this area too. Since opening the market will have different impacts on the markets in individual Member States, what we have achieved through the legislation is that the market will be opened step by step. We have also achieved a situation in which the relevant post offices can keep the revenue they have at their disposal until the end of the derogation period, and I personally put this down as a result. After a long time, European regulation has been born, so that puts everyone in a competitive situation. Particular thanks to the rapporteur for this. In other words, this regulation will not mean disadvantages for competing companies after the opening of the market, but new prospects.\nMadam President, all this is only half a victory if the next steps are not taken. What are they? Firstly, the post offices that enjoy the derogation must focus, in the years to come, on being able to meet the requirements supported by European competition, that is, that they really do use the time benefits that they are being given now.\nSecondly, state regulation and policies must ensure that, whilst the post office is slimmed down with the slogan of becoming competitive, universal service really must be ensured at a corresponding level. We should not forget that responsibility for service will still be the obligation of the state. In fact, regulation was born so that European citizens, wherever they live, even in the smallest places, should have access to postal services, at a suitable price and of suitable quality. Thank you for your attention.\nGilles Savary\n(FR) Madam President, I think that the issue we shall be voting on tomorrow is a historic one, because the post has been a public service from the early days, especially since monarchies. That was because the distribution of mail is strategic, and it also ensured a universal and fast service.\nWe have just put an end to public control of postal services, or we shall be ending it tomorrow, to replace it with a largely deregulated postal market. What is proposed in this directive will first of all be a wonderful market for lawyers and legal practitioners, because it is not harmonisation. Each Member State can decide on its own method of financing and there are four different methods. The directive also proposes something completely paradoxical: compensating for the financing of the universal service through State subsidies where, in some countries, what was not financially viable was financed by equalisation when that was viable.\nI think we are making a mistake. Time will tell, but we already have some indications of that today. Over EUR 880 million have been invested in the postal service in the United Kingdom. In Spain it has just been announced that, because of the pressure of competition, rural areas will no longer receive a direct postal service. The Germans are having problems in bringing the minimum wage into line with the postal services market. My feeling is that we are now benefiting companies, we are going to let them cream off the best part of the market, but we are not serving the general interest in postal services or the external competitiveness of the European Union.\nDirk Sterckx\n(NL) Madam President, I support the compromise reached by Mr Ferber and approved by the Council because I am in favour of an open market for postal services. I think this directive gives the Member States sufficient scope to ensure that their markets are opened up in a proper manner, and that there are different service-providers competing for customers on the basis of guaranteed quality.\nIt is certainly not the intention that the Member States should use this scope to prevent their markets from being opened up, although this is also a risk. It would be easy to apply this directive so that new firms faced such strict requirements that no one new would bother with the letter post. If this is how the Member States apply the directive, then we will have adopted a fine piece of legislation, but will have changed nothing in practice for postal customers.\nI think we certainly have to approve the text, but I would ask the Commission to make sure that the aim of creating an open market in postal services is not circumvented by measures taken by the Member States. I see that the rapporteur's country, for example, has recently taken measures that have actually closed down the postal market in Germany again.\nSe\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain\n(GA) Mr President, the postal service in Ireland has a central part to play in the lives of rural communities, especially for rural dwellers and people in remote regions who have no neighbours around. So I welcome the provision for universal service - something that is vitally important for people in Ireland and, I am sure, every other Member State as well.\nI should like first of all to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, for sticking firmly to that principle. For the benefit of customers it should be laid down in our draft documents, and in this connection I also welcome the new financial service being set up by the Irish Post Office in Ireland. This shows that postal service providers can gear themselves to new market requirements while continuing to provide their universal postal service.\nIn addition, I should like to welcome the recent ruling by the Court of Justice to the effect that a postal service provider is entitled to enter into an agreement regarding the distribution of social welfare payments.\nPedro Guerreiro\n(PT) The Council agreed to the full opening of the market in postal services at EU level from 31 December 2010 during the Portuguese Presidency, applying competition rules to what some say should be a public service to create an internal market in postal services. 'That's great', the Portuguese Prime Minister will say. That decision, however, represents a great blow to the public postal services, particularly with the abolition of the reserved areas, setting in motion a process to dismantle them and subsequently hand them over to profit-driven transnationals, and at public expense to boot, jeopardising the rights of the nation and of workers in the sector.\nIf there were any doubts as to the true significance of the inclusion of the 'protocol on services of general interest' in the draft Treaty, this directive will dispel them: continuation of the dismantling and destruction of public services, threatening their ownership and provision by democratically managed and controlled public companies. Hence our proposal to reject this directive.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin\n(SV) Madam President, the post is one of the public services which the people of our countries, both old and young, value most highly. Hence the formulation of the decision is absolutely vital. In previous debates on the directive I have expressed fears that the needs of thinly populated areas might not be catered for. It was not clear that the same service would be guaranteed for everyone. On one occasion during question time with Commissioner McCreevy I was promised that there would be no change in the requirement to provide a universal service. We now have a compromise which gives guarantees that those of us who live in thinly populated areas will have our post collected and delivered five days a week just like everyone else. I will support the compromise to the Postal Directive tomorrow. Let us hope that this leads to a better service, lower prices and a more effective postal system for everyone when we deregulate the single market in one further sector.\nCorien Wortmann-Kool\n(NL) Madam President, I would like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Ferber, most warmly for the work he has done. He managed to get Parliament to agree on this difficult issue at first reading, even though both he and I felt that we should have gone a step further. In the end, however, our united stance was what guided the Council, and so I too wholeheartedly agree with the common position.\nMembers of the Socialist and Green Groups have unfortunately got cold feet and cannot see the enormous opportunities that this directive will offer for new businesses and jobs. I am absolutely convinced of this, and examples in a number of Member States back me up. But everything will now depend on the European Commission keeping to the directive, so that it does not remain a dead letter.\nIf the directive is introduced, it will certainly achieve the aim of opening up the markets. There will be better services for consumers, and not what Germany is doing, squeezing new players, and not just new players but new businesses too, new services, new jobs, out of the market on the pretext of social protection.\nSo I am happy with the response that I received yesterday from the European Commission. I understand that the Commission is to investigate the situation in Germany. I would urge you to do so, and quickly, because the new players on the German market are in serious trouble, and it would be absolutely terrible if things do not work out, as well as setting exactly the wrong precedent.\nI predict that France and other countries will follow, and then we will achieve absolutely nothing in the end. So the Commission has a huge responsibility here. I hope that you will use every possible legal channel and also bring political pressure to bear to ensure that this directive is properly applied to the European postal market.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\n(RO) Madam President, Commissioner, postal services are of major importance to the economic and social life of communities. Therefore we must guarantee the accessibility of postal services and above all we must ensure the quality of those services.\nFull liberalization of the postal service market, including deliveries weighing less than 50 grams, will allow increased competition, the emergence of new operators and the creation of new jobs.\nHowever, I would like to dwell on several important issues. First of all, it is essential for universal service to be guaranteed and for every citizen to be able to receive mail, irrespective of whether they live on a mountain top or on an island. Secondly, we must ensure decent working conditions for people in this line of work; in particular, we must ensure that there are social guarantees concerning jobs and incomes. Thirdly, for Member States to guarantee universal service, it is essential for them to define as soon as possible the means of funding the universal service. The Directive allows Member States flexibility in this regard. Fourth, as we live in an increasingly digitized world, it is essential that mail operators should diversify their activity so as to provide electronic services, as well.\nSome Member States may have two extra years before postal services are fully liberalised. No matter when liberalisation takes place, mail operators should have an effective management which should guarantee the high quality of those services.\nDariusz Maciej Grabowski\n(PL) Madam President, allowing private operators to provide postal services is a controversial decision. Time will tell whether it is beneficial for consumers.\nWe must remember that in some of the new Member States with a lower level of development, institutions defending the interests of competition and consumers are weakly anchored in the public conscience. There is a danger of disrupting the balance between the interests of capital and those of the consumer. Setting the date at 2012 is therefore to be welcomed.\nAt the same time, I would suggest that before 2012 an analysis be made of the operation of the postal services market in those countries that have already adopted the new rules, with a view to identifying and preventing any irregularities in the remaining countries. I also consider that an operator providing public services should be rewarded by the authorities and not as - the authors of the report suggest - merely compensated.\nYears of work on this legislation have turned Mr Ferber's hair grey. I trust the introduction of the new regulations will not cause him further distress and result in actual hair loss.\nGabriele Zimmer\n(DE) Madam President, it is surely very obvious that Mr Ferber's position and those of Mrs Wortmann-Kool and other Members are poles apart. I believe it is wrong to treat privatisation and liberalisation of public services as the standard response to globalisation. I also have reason to believe that increasing numbers of people disagree with that approach. In a referendum in Leipzig last weekend, 80% of the electorate, or rather of those who voted, rejected privatisation, thereby preventing the city council from carrying out any more privatisations for the next three years.\nLet me also tell you that it is simply not the case that this directive we are discussing today incorporates real safeguards to protect people - employees - from social dumping. We have seen how the introduction of minimum wages in the postal services in Germany has met with resistance from those very companies that have built the foundations of their business on rock-bottom wages. I also have serious concerns about the implications of public institutions awarding contracts to such companies.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik\n(PL) Madam President, work has been going on for over 15 years on liberalisation of the postal sector, which is worth over EUR 90 billion a year in the Union as a whole. Today we are on the eve of voting on and inscribing such legislation in the history of the Union, and I want to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work.\nThe present version of the project is a broad compromise in which the main aims appear to have been achieved: full implementation of the internal market in postal services, mainly through termination of the mail monopoly, and assured continuation of a high-quality, low-cost public service.\nThe present version of the directive is not, however, as ambitious as the Commission's original proposal. In the course of the deliberations, departure from the idea of liberalisation in favour of a gradual, rather cautious opening of the postal market for letters weighing less than 50 grammes became increasingly apparent. This is reflected in the compromise date for the entry into force of the directive, specifically in the case of new Member States and countries with small populations, small geographical areas and public service clauses.\nThe date of 31 December 2012 for Member States that joined the Union in 2004 seems unnecessarily distant. I realise it is part of the negotiated compromise, which we accept, but it may well put a brake on the proposed changes. I fear such a long period - over four years - for the entry into force of the directive will simply slow down changes which, in the case of a two-year period, for example, would take effect almost immediately.\nFinally, I want to support Mrs Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1's call for clauses concerning the blind and visually handicapped to be reinstated in the proposed directive. They are missing from the present version.\nSa\u00efd El Khadraoui\n(NL) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur and my fellow Members who have helped to achieve a result that is a considerable improvement on the original Commission proposal. I understand why many of us want to leave it at that, but behind the positive elements that have been added to the directive there also lurk a number of dangers. Nothing has actually been achieved yet, because the Member States are being given a lot of responsibility on two crucial points.\nFirstly, there are still a lot of question marks over how the universal service is to be funded. The Member States have a number of options here, but it is not always clear whether these really work. In many cases this will lead to all sorts of disputes, including legal ones. I therefore feel it would be useful to make two things clear: firstly, that the Member States are under an obligation to guarantee the universal service and funding for it whatever the circumstances, and secondly, that the Member States must be required to get their house in order and to prepare for this new situation thoroughly and in good time.\nThe second important point is the social field. Here it is important to point out that this directive allows the Member States to require all postal operators, through a licensing system, to comply with the same collective agreements, for instance, or other minimum standards. This is a good idea, but it is still only optional, and it will be applied differently from one country to another.\nIn a word, I think the directive could be tightened up, and this has nothing to do with having cold feet, but reflects the fact that a free market has to be regulated and liberalisation needs to be carefully prepared.\nKyriacos Triantaphyllides\n(EL) Madam President, we are dissatisfied with the European Commission, the Council and our rapporteur, because they have made no reference to fluctuations in the number of workers in the sector, working conditions, working hours or pay.\nSimilarly, provision has been made neither for an effective check on tariff policies for businesses, nor for the private monopoly situations in parcel transport and express post.\nFurthermore, the report stresses the stable employment in Member States, despite local fluctuations, but no data has been produced to demonstrate this.\nIn these circumstances, then, it is not possible to make a proper evaluation in the interests of workers.\nFinally, it should be emphasised that the Council has, in a certain sense, ratified Parliament's amendments while allowing for plenty of discussion on the social consequences both for employees of services and for consumers.\nAstrid Lulling\n(DE) Madam President, the accomplishment of the internal market in postal services amply illustrates the truth of the saying 'Good things come to those who wait'. Even I can support this draft on the table, the result of fifteen years of hard bargaining. I happen to be one of those who would rather have preserved the monopoly of national postal administrations for letters below the 50-gramme threshold. Now this last stage in the controlled deregulation of the postal market is set to take effect on 1 January 2011.\nIn view of the structure of the postal services in Luxembourg, the statutory requirement to employ volunteers from the armed forces in the public service and the resulting costs, I could not have subscribed to rapid and insufficiently controlled deregulation of the market in postal services, because that could have had intolerable consequences for postal staff and customers.\nFor the first reading, I therefore asked the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, to allow for a two-year extension of the transposition deadline for small countries with relatively few inhabitants so that they could continue to limit the provision of certain services to the universal-service provider, and I thank him for his understanding. I had discreetly circumscribed this arrangement in order to ensure that Luxembourg benefited from the exemption, but the Ministers preferred to preclude any misunderstanding by naming the relevant countries. This keeps us safe.\nThe important thing is that the universal-service requirement guarantees the collection of mail and its rapid delivery to the designated residential or business address on each working day, even in remote or sparsely populated areas. The external funding that might be needed to cover the net cost of the universal service, and hence the question of affordable rates, has also been satisfactorily regulated. Lastly, the best possible measures have been taken to safeguard permanent skilled jobs with universal-service providers and to guarantee adherence to terms of employment and social-security schemes based on existing legal provisions or collective agreements, contrary to what the Left would have us believe. They ought to read the wording of the draft. It also expressly stipulates that preparations for the deregulation of the postal market must take account of social considerations.\nOn the motion tabled by our philanthropic missionaries regarding free postal services for the visually impaired, I personally do not see why wealthy people with impaired vision should send their mail free of charge at the taxpayer's expense. In any case, those who propose this amendment are barking up the wrong tree, because it is the Member States that guarantee such arrangements. Subsidiarit\u00e9 oblige!\nZita Gurmai\n(HU) Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen, the gradual opening up of the postal services market is an important milestone in achieving the internal market. It will contribute to ending special rights within the postal sectors, and it will set a specific and irrevocable date for opening the market, ensuring a sustainable, high level of universal service. Opening the market will intensify competition, and so the level of service can be improved with regard to quality, price and opportunities for choice. This measure will promote the harmonisation of the fundamental principles relating to the regulation of postal services, and will probably produce lower tariffs as well as better and more innovative services, and greater conditions for growth and employment will still be created.\nThe amendment to the Directive is the result of an exemplary compromise, a compromise that took into account the differences arising from the historical and economical characteristics of the Member States. It pays regard to the fact that preparing for liberalisation requires more time in some Member States, mainly those in Central Eastern Europe. At the same time, taking into account the interests of others and in order to prevent distortion of competition in the market in countries where the postal sector is already fully liberalised, the postal services of countries that are not yet opening their market may not provide services until the derogation deadline at the end of December 2012. I would like to thank Mr Ferber for his work, but naturally thanks are also due to Mr Simpson, the shadow rapporteur.\nEmanuel Jardim Fernandes\n(PT) I congratulate Mr Ferber and Mr Simpson for the quality of their report and all those Members and parties involved for their openness during the negotiating procedure. This liberalisation of the market in postal services is still far from achieving a competitive market in which consumers and companies are the biggest winners. I therefore argued that the Commission's approach might not sufficiently guarantee the universal service. I accordingly supported the shadow rapporteur Mr Simpson's position on the need to guarantee the universal service and to establish a compensation fund, and on the commitment to open up postal services below 50 grammes in 2010, or in special cases, such as the new Member States with outermost regions, by 31 December 2012. I am also pleased with regard to those states with the special provisions included, though I must point out that they may not be sufficient, in which case additional measures will be required.\nIn terms of employment, I am delighted with the addition introduced previously to make it obligatory for a report to be submitted on the overall development of employment in the sector, the working conditions applied by all operators within a Member State, and any future measures. I am very pleased with the common position achieved, but support the amendments submitted by my colleagues Mr Savary, Mr El Khadraoui and Mrs Ayala Sender, among others, and by my parliamentary group, since they reinforce the idea of the need for a considered process of liberalisation to reinforce equal universal access, development and employment. For all these reasons I urge the plenary to support this report and the Council, and to support Parliament's position.\nRichard Howitt\nMadam President, Parliament should pass our amendments to restore compulsory free postal services for blind people to this directive.\nMr Vizjak, you say you were open and flexible and yet you completely rebuffed Parliament's amendments on compulsory free services for blind people. We have heard Mr Orban say tonight, on behalf of Commissioner McCreevy, that our amendments do not bring added value to postal users.\nMr Orban, are not blind people postal users? And is not the real added value you are talking about the actual added costs that blind people are going to have to be forced to pay?\nTo Mr Ferber, I regret to say that I believe you were wrong to make a deal, dropping this requirement which Parliament passed at first reading. Yesterday you also failed to answer my question: is there a threat to blind people's services? I hope you will today. Because if there is not, what objection can you have to putting this into the directive? If there is, that shows why we need to put it in. In Italy, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Greece and Portugal, the post office, not the government, provides this free service. New and existing providers in a liberalised market will inevitably seek to cut costs; blind people must not be the victims. After liberalisation in New Zealand, blind people's services were ended. We must not let it happen here.\nFinally, for those who tell us that they are sympathetic to disabled people but this is not the right place or way to do it, you told us that about the Lifts Directive and the Buses and Coaches Directive, other single market legislation. But Parliament said no, and we insisted on binding access for disabled people. Today, again, we must insist on compulsory rights for Europe's blind and partially-sighted people.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n(SK) Madam Chairman, thank you for giving me the floor.\nThe common position adopted by the Council does not include the amendments concerning free postal services for blind people in spite of the fact that at first reading the European Parliament voted to maintain free postal services for blind people following liberalisation of the European postal market.\nI intended to vote in favour of Amendment 3 tabled by Eva Lichtenberger, in which Parliament's position at first reading is reiterated. Following today's discussion with the rapporteur, Marcus Ferber, I was informed that approval of any of the amendments would jeopardise a previously agreed compromise on the adoption of the Directive on accomplishment of the internal market in Community postal services at second reading, which could mean having to enter into conciliation.\nI realise the importance of adopting this Directive. When transposed into national law, the Member States will be able to solve this issue in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. I would therefore urge all of the Member States to provide free postal services for blind and partially sighted people in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and universal service obligations.\nEwa Tomaszewska\n(PL) Madam Chairman, I would also like to support the amendments concerning visually impaired persons. If the European Union declares to all and sundry that it tolerates no discrimination, then access to postal services must also be equal for all, and for the visually impaired that means assisted access.\nGerard Batten\nMadam President, this directive is yet another example of how one-size-fits-all, incompetent EU legislation adversely affects the lives of British people. This directive is the reason why post offices are closing and why postal workers will lose their jobs. Post offices play a vital role in the community, especially for the old, the poor, the immobile and the disabled. This is just one of a multitude of EU laws that have damaged, and will continue to damage, my country. The British people know this, and this is one of the reasons why they are being denied a referendum on the EU Constitution. If it is ratified, they can look forward to a lot more of the same.\nMarian Harkin\nMadam President, I believe the rapporteur has, in general - though not entirely - achieved a fair balance. The universal service provision will ensure consumers have full access to postal services and Member States still have the flexibility to determine the most effective and efficient mechanism to guarantee the USO.\nThe USO will also ensure that sufficient access points are established to take full account of the needs of users in rural areas and sparsely populated areas, and I know this will be welcome, particularly in my own country, Ireland.\nInitially, I have to say I had some reservations about the impact on postal workers, but Member States still have the authority to regulate employment conditions and collective bargaining in the sector, where this does not lead to unfair competition.\nFinally, I want to say that I support the amendment that there should be an obligation to supply free services for blind and partially-sighted persons. I disagree with Commissioner Orban - or is it Commissioner McCreevy? - I do believe this will provide added value, because, in a fully liberalised market, free services for blind or partially-sighted persons will disappear, and it will be added value if we can guarantee to them that they will continue.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n(SK) Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Ferber for an excellent report, thanks to which the long-awaited Directive will soon enter into force. This Directive will mean that from 1 January 2009 the internal market in Community postal services will be fully accomplished.\nI am particularly pleased that the principle of subsidiarity has been maintained and that concrete implementation has been left to the Member States, which will draw up legislation that is specific to their own situation. However, I would also like to stress the social aspect of this legislation as regards the rights of disabled people, especially blind or partially sighted people, and their right to avail of free postal services.\nI call on my fellow Members to support the relevant amendments that were tabled in plenary this week and that were adopted by Parliament at first reading. These services are appropriate and crucial for this section of the population: people with exceptionally low income, areas with very high unemployment levels and people in difficult social situations, not to mention those affected by social exclusion.\nMairead McGuinness\nMadam President, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I congratulate the rapporteur for the work done. I think the public believe this is already happening because in many Member States there is not a postal service of equal value between the regions. I am glad to see that there will be subsidiarity on this issue and the Member States will decide the best way to implement the principle of a deregulated market.\nI need to support my intergroup chairman, Richard Howitt, on the issue of disability. Unfortunately, the point was raised that rich blind people will benefit. Sadly, there are too few rich blind people in Europe and globally. I wish we could stand up and say that they were all rich and, indeed, famous, but it is not the case.\nI think we have to make a big stand on this, just to show that, while Europe is about freedom of movement of capital and services, it is also concerned about those who have no voice and those who have no sight.\nAndrej Vizjak\nPresident-in-Office. - (SL) Today's lively debate has shown that there are many justifiably differing opinions about the regulation of this traditional and oldest public service. It was also right that many different opinions and concerns were expressed.\nHowever, we must stress that the proposed text is a balanced compromise between, on the one hand, the opening up of the internal market in postal services, securing competitiveness and the added value that comes with it, and, on the other hand, consumer protection and protection of the rights of consumers and the rights of vulnerable consumer groups and those living in remote areas. In short, in the Council's estimation, it is a good compromise text and I would like to express my support for that opinion.\nWe also appreciate the intention behind certain amendments, but through discussions in previous debates a final compromise solution came to light. We are therefore of the opinion that this is a good text and I hope you will exercise much political wisdom tomorrow when you have the final chance to support this text.\nLeonard Orban\nThe Commission. - First of all I would like to extend my thanks to all the participants in the debate and stress that this debate has proven the MEPs' great interest in this dossier. This interest is closely linked to the crucial role that postal services play in the European economy and in the everyday life of European citizens.\nI would like to stress that the completion of this process will ensure a consistently high quality of universal service for all European citizens and for the business community.\nThe main goal of postal reform is to benefit all consumers and postal service users, including special needs groups. In this context, I paid particular attention to the contributions of several Members who spoke about the continuation of free service provision for the blind and partially sighted.\nThe European Commission is particularly sympathetic to these concerns. We believe that the liberalisation of the market will not change this, and that international obligations will continue to be met in full. I would like to underline that the common position specifies that market liberalisation will not prevent the provision of free services to the blind and partially sighted.\nUnder Article 23 of the Directive, the European Commission must prepare a report on the application of this Directive, including information about the groups mentioned above. The Commission believes that the Directive as it now stands, in the current format to which the European Parliament has contributed significantly, is the best legal framework, that will lead to high quality and sustainability in European postal services, while complying with international obligations.\nIn conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, we believe that the report, as prepared by Mr Markus Ferber and adopted by the Committee on Transport by a large majority, should be supported.\nMarkus Ferber\nrapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, permit me to make just a few remarks.\nFirstly, I should be happier if those Members who delivered impassioned speeches for the whole world to hear would at least stay in the chamber for the rest of the debate. That did rather disappoint me, I must say. I am referring specifically to Members such as Mrs Lichtenberger.\nSecondly, I must point out that we are talking here about liberalisation and not privatisation. The proprietary structure of existing postal services does not interest the European Union and is not mentioned in this directive.\nThirdly, let me say that, 500 years ago when the first postal services were created, it was private undertakings that provided postal services. Not until later did governments decide they could do it better. So let us have no distortions of history please.\nFourthly, I should like to remind the House that government monopolies are also abused. I am glad that Mrs Zimmer drew attention to that problem. In point of fact, she comes from a region in which the state most certainly abused its postal monopoly until 1990, to the detriment of innocent people. This is another point that needs to be made forcefully in the present debate.\nLet me get one thing straight: we did not forget blind people in this legislation. They are included, but they are included in a way that accords with the spirit of this directive. Through its provisions, the European Union is telling the Member States that they are responsible for the universal service and for funding the fulfilment of universal-service obligations, that they are responsible, through licensing and authorisation procedures, for ensuring that certain services, such as postal services for blind people, can be maintained in the long term. I am very grateful to the Commissioner for his announcement that the Commission intends to give consideration to this matter in its report under Article 23 of the Directive. We have not forgotten anything; we have not forgotten blind people. Nevertheless, I do wonder whether blind people should have free access, guaranteed by European legislation, and wheelchair users should not. That is something else to ponder.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, 31.1.2008.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nJean-Pierre Audy \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the approval, at second reading, of the Council common position amending the 1997 postal services directive with a view to full accomplishment of the internal market in postal services and I congratulate my worthy German colleague, Markus Ferber, for the huge amount of work he has done.\nI am pleased that the Council accepted all the key aspects of the European Parliament's position, particularly deferral of general market opening until 31 December 2010, with a two-year extension for those Member States that have joined the Union since 2004; the principle of a universal service comprising at least one delivery and collection five days a week for every EU citizen, with a sufficient number of access points maintained in rural, remote or sparsely populated regions; and observance of subsidiarity with regard to social considerations - a matter on which I hope the social partners will work at European level. I am sorry that provision has not been included for the creation of a European regulatory mechanism. My final point is this: I am keen to see operators reaching agreement soon on the introduction of a European stamp for 50 g letters and I intend to take a policy initiative to that end at an early date.\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi \nin writing. - (RO) The common position satifies the demands made by Parliament in its votes for the first reading, as well as the amendments proposed by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. However, the Commission has yet to provide clear research on the impact that the liberalisation of postal services is likely to have on employment.\nIn its opinion, the Committee asked for an impact assessment of the effects of this measure on the five million or more jobs related to or depending on postal services. This study is facilitated by the fact that postal services have already been liberalised in several EU Member States, such as the UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Experience in those countries has not so far indicated that liberalisation has led to an increase in the number of jobs in this sector, or to an increase in their quality.\nI believe that certain protection mechanisms should be allowed for situations where the emergence of new postal service providers on the market will lead to massive redundancy. One of the mechanisms available to the companies and Member States affected could be the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.\nJanusz Lewandowski \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, the road to the liberalisation of postal services is getting longer, and for that the European Parliament is partly to blame, having extended the European Commission's deadline by two years. The positions taken by national delegations reflect the varying situation on the markets of the 27 countries. Sweden, the United Kingdom and Finland, as front runners of the open market, as well as Germany and the Netherlands, which have gone a long way in that direction, all see the final deadline as a victory for protectionism. Starting from their model of a state-controlled economy, the new Member States consider not only the original proposal of 2009 but also the compromise deadline of 2011 as a threat to jobs in the postal sector. Poland, for example, has some 100 000 people employed by Poczta Polska, which is incapable of facing open competition in the medium term. Having found allies in public services in western Europe, first and foremost France's La Poste, they have succeeded in negotiating special conditions that postpone the free market in practice to the end of 2012.\nIn the event, the corporate interest of the postal workers has prevailed over that of the customers, who were sorely tried during the Christmas peak period in December 2007, when the incapability of the postal monopoly was harshly demonstrated. The slow progress made in liberalising this sector of the European market, which began as far back as 1989 with the first draft directive, shows the strength of the corporate interests defending the status quo against an extension of the public interest.\nMary Lou McDonald \nin writing. - Yet again we have an ideologically driven proposal, this time on postal services. There has been no assessment of the social impact it will have, and no serious consultation with post office management, with employees or with consumers.\nThere is no demand, no logic and no justification for the liberalisation of postal services. People do not want to be presented with an array of competing post offices marketing their products. They do not want to see their local post offices closed because the market offers insufficient profit for the private postal companies which will swamp the market, driving public operators like An Post to the wall.\nPeople want a reliable postal service which will deliver their mail with the minimum of fuss and which will keep local post offices at the centre of the communities they serve.\nHow can people take seriously the idea the EU is promoting a social Europe when this proposal drives yet another nail in its coffin?\nIt is time to call a halt to the ideologically driven forced march towards liberalisation and privatisation.\nPeople in Ireland have the opportunity to stop this by voting no to the Lisbon Treaty.\nKatrin Saks \nin writing. - (ET) I support the market being liberalised as quickly as possible and I welcome the directive which accomplishes the establishment of the internal market in postal services.\nThe closure of small post offices in Estonia has generated anger among people, but it is clear that with the implementation of new technologies such as the Internet the demand for a traditional postal service has fallen.\nWhere there is competition a new business in Internet-based services may arise, and this is to be welcomed. I also understand the need for a known deadline in the Member States.\nIt is therefore important for the principle of reciprocity to apply when allowing Member States to refuse to open their market to postal service providers from neighbouring States whose providers are protected by law.\nThe important thing is for the universal postal service also to be guaranteed for everyone, including people in outlying areas and islands. The postal service must be affordable, high-quality and accessible to all.\nIt is necessary to draw up plans for a cost-oriented universal postal service, since the concept is viewed differently in different Member States. I believe that there are grounds for demanding that cost considerations of all services should be excluded from the universal postal service indicator.\nRichard Seeber \nin writing. - (DE) EU-wide liberalisation of postal services will happen - not in 2009, as originally planned, but in 2011. In economic terms, the postal sector is very important, and it also impacts on other sectors of the economy. As in all other areas of economic activity, more competition in the realm of postal deliveries makes sense. Nor will businesses be the only beneficiaries, for consumers will reap great benefits too. This will not be the case, however, unless the basic conditions are right. In other words, it must be guaranteed that letters will be delivered as efficiently as ever and at reasonable prices. Care must be taken to ensure that the blanket provision of postal services is guaranteed in the long term - and guaranteed everywhere, including remote areas.\nParticular importance attaches to good working conditions and, above all, job security for all those who work in the postal services. It is also important that the same conditions should govern the operations of all postal-service providers. It was firmly established from the outset that this was not to be a cut-throat liberalisation.\nWe must create a good and sustainable arrangement for everyone - the postal companies, their employees and, of course, their customers.\nEsko Sepp\u00e4nen \nin writing. - (FI) Opening up postal services to free competition will inevitably mean a worsening of services, especially in sparsely populated countries like Finland. The post office should be a public service, and we need to guarantee it has adequate funding by using the cash earned from services which are 'easy' to manage to assist in areas which are more 'difficult'. A nation that wishes to preserve its unity and its sense of community will not privatise public postal services. We also rely on a public service to safeguard protection of privacy and ensure the kind of security we demand of the post office. Privatisation might result in an unsound staffing policy, which will damage confidence in the post office. That is why our Group is voting against the position on privatisation adopted by the Council.\nAlexander Stubb \nin writing. - The liberalisation of postal services is an important area of the European internal market.\nThroughout the discussion we have had many concerns about universal postal services. I think we can build on the experience of some European postal markets, which are already liberalised. Postal services have been secured in these countries at the same time as quality and service has improved through more businesslike operations. At the same time, travelling around in Europe I am faced with poor and slow service in many countries that are trying to get as many exceptions as possible from the liberalisation plans.\nFurthermore, this report leaves much space for Member States to implement the liberalisation. Many concerns that were brought up will thus remain concerns to be dealt with by national authorities.\nI would like to thank Mr Ferber for his perseverance while dealing with this very tough process.\nIuliu Winkler \nin writing. - (RO) The full liberalisation of postal services in Member States will have a positive impact not only on postal service users and consumers, who will benefit from new and innovative services and lower postal charges, but also on the economy of Member States as a whole.\nThe proposal for a Directive under discussion is complete in its current form, which allows for the extension of the deadline for full liberalisation of the postal service market in the case of certain Member States.\nRomania is one of the beneficiaries of the new provisions adopted by the European Parliament. The Romanian universal service provider is currently being restructured according to a schedule set by the Romanian Government for 2007-2010, and preparations for liberalisation will begin only afterwards.\nThis timeline benefits Romanian consumers, as the prospect of market liberalisation after 1 January 2013 means improved quality services at an affordable price.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Key objectives for the Conference of the Parties to the CITES (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on:\nthe oral question to the Council on key objectives for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Doha, 13-25 March 2010, by Jo Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety - B7-0003\/2010), and\nthe oral question to the Commission on key objectives for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Doha, 13-25 March 2010, by Jo Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety - B7-0004\/2010).\nJo Leinen\nMadam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Samecki, 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity and the EU is about to press ahead with a new strategy for biodiversity, in other words, for the protection of flora and fauna within the area of the European Union. It would greatly enhance the credibility of the European Union if we were also to work on an international level to protect endangered flora and fauna globally and to give this our support.\nThere will be an opportunity for this next month at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Doha. The EU must make itself a champion for all species which, as a result of various different factors, but in particular, over-exploitation or destructive and illegal practices, are endangered or even threatened with extinction. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has debated this issue in detail and will table a proposal for a recommendation in plenary tomorrow, and we would be very pleased if the Council and the Commission were able to endorse these recommendations.\nDue to the time constraints, I will just mention a few example species which, in our opinion, are in need of a high or an even higher level of protection. Firstly, there is the African Elephant. We are most definitely opposed to the downlisting of this animal from Appendix I to Appendix II. The prohibition of international trade, particularly in ivory, must remain in place. Secondly, there is the Asian tiger. It is now on the brink of extinction, and we are demanding stricter protection regulations for many parties to the Convention, in particular to prevent the illegal trade in the body parts and derivatives of the tiger. We know that there is a large market for tiger bones and components of the tiger in Asia and this is threatening the existence of this animal. Thirdly, there is the protection of the polar bear. Climate change is threatening to destroy the habitat of this species and there is also an increase in trade in the body parts of polar bears. We are therefore in favour of uplisting the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix I. I would also like to mention the protection of various species of shark. Various shark species are being over-fished, in particular the porbeagle and the spiny dogfish, but other shark species are also affected by this.\nUp to this point, there is consensus among us. I now come to the controversial issue. The source of the controversy is the classification of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, which is found in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Ladies and gentlemen, we are aware of the recommendations of the ad-hoc working group of the FAO, which wants to leave the Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix II. However, we are also aware of the proposal by the CITES scientific committee, which wants to uplist the Atlantic bluefin tuna to Appendix I. The background to this proposal is the data which reveals what is happening with this species. The stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna declined by 75% between 1957 and 2007, and in the last ten years alone, there has been a decline of 60.9%. The risk to this fish is increasing and gaining momentum and therefore, the vast majority of us in the committee were of the opinion that this species should be included in Appendix I.\nThis means that there will only be restrictions and prohibitions on international fishing fleets, not local fishing. Thus, the small, local fishermen can continue to catch this fish, and the preservation of the fish in the ecosystem is, in any case, more important than the general availability of sushi and sashimi. That is the conflict that we face. We need to take a long-term view and should provide proper protection for the Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix I.\nSilvia Iranzo Guti\u00e9rrez\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to be here on behalf of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council. I am very grateful for your interest in the positions to be taken at the next Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention - the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora - to be held in Doha (Qatar) on 13 to 25 March.\nThe Council considers the Washington Convention to be a fundamental instrument for the protection of species of fauna and flora that are in danger of extinction. We therefore need to play an active role in order to ensure that CITES is maintained as an effective tool for its dual objective of conservation and the sustainable management of natural resources.\nIn this respect, it should be pointed out that the European Union applies much more restrictive regulations than the Convention itself, using the principle of precaution in order to maintain or, if necessary, reduce the loss of biodiversity.\nThe next Conference of the Parties, to be held in Doha in March, referred to as the 'COP XV', is a great opportunity to debate a series of proposals to change the classification of various species of flora and fauna in the appendices to the Convention according to the level of threat, and other proposals to improve the application and observance of the Convention.\nThe European Union will play a constructive role in the Conference of the Parties, and I am particularly keen to hear Parliament's views on the various matters that we have on the table.\nWe have followed with interest the debates that have taken place in Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in order to draw up the resolution that I understand is to be put to the vote tomorrow on the strategic objectives that the European Union should set for the conference.\nI must say that the Council is still awaiting a proposal from the Commission on the position that the European Union should adopt regarding the documents and proposals submitted to the Conference of the Parties to be debated and, if appropriate, adopted. It is therefore difficult at this time to give detailed answers on these issues.\nAs soon as the Council receives the proposal from the Commission, the Spanish Presidency will ensure that it is examined, and that the corresponding decision can be adopted before the Conference of the Parties begins. The Spanish Presidency will also inform Parliament of the Council's position once it has been agreed.\nAs in previous meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, the Member States will work together to defend the position agreed within the European Union, and will ensure that it is consistent with the Union's policies.\nIt is important to point out in this respect that any amendment to the appendices to CITES should be based on the inclusion criteria set out in the Convention, which take into account the conservation status of the species concerned.\nThese amendments should also take into account the importance of controls in the context of CITES in order to improve conservation status, minimise unnecessary administrative burdens and ensure that resources are allocated directly to the areas that are of genuine concern for conservation.\nThe Conference of the Parties to CITES will once again have to adopt more crucial decisions to protect species threatened by over-exploitation, to which international trade could be contributing.\nThe European Union must ensure that the Convention continues to be an essential instrument for contributing to the conservation and sustainable management of precious wild flora and fauna resources.\nThe Presidency, working together with the Member States and the Commission, will attend the Doha conference in this spirit, and will work constructively to ensure its success.\nI am waiting to hear your points of view, ladies and gentlemen, on the objectives that need to be defended at this next 15th Conference of the Parties to CITES, which I will pass on to the Council. I know that the Council has the support of Parliament for participating in this conference with the common objective that the CITES Convention should continue to make a significant contribution to the sustainability of our planet, for our own benefit, and for the benefit of future generations.\nPawe\u0142 Samecki\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, the forthcoming 15th Conference of the Parties indeed offers a unique window of opportunity to improve the conservation and status of a wide number of species affected by trade.\nThe European Union is one of the major markets for wildlife products. Therefore, it has a specific responsibility to ensure that wildlife trade is sustainable and that robust international rules are adopted within the CITES Convention to that effect.\nIt is a priority for the Commission to make sure that international trade is not detrimental to the survival of endangered plants and animal species. In this respect, the EU has been playing a leading role within CITES and will continue to do so at the next meeting. The Commission will, in the coming days, adopt a proposal for the EU position in view of this meeting. The common EU position will then be adopted by the Council.\nIn its discussions with the Member States, the Commission will make sure that the final common position supports ambitious and science-based measures. I would also like to thank Parliament for its position on the most salient issues which will be discussed at the CITES Conference of Parties. This resolution sends a clear message which we will need to take into consideration.\nWhile the detailed position of the European Union has not been finalised yet, I can explain the principles and priorities which will guide our decisions on the most sensitive issues to be discussed in Doha.\nIn the first place, the European Union considers that CITES is an appropriate instrument to regulate trade in all species which are affected by trade. This is the case for terrestrial as well as for marine species and for species subject to important commercial interests or not.\nIn that vein, the European Union has tabled proposals to regulate trade in two shark species: porbeagle and spiny dogfish. It is of the utmost importance that sharks at last receive the protection they deserve after decades of overfishing.\nA listing under CITES Appendix II would put an end to unregulated international trade in shark products which is one of the key drivers of their exploitation. With such listing, trade in those shark products will only take place if they stem from sustainable managed stocks.\nThe European Union is also proposing to arrange for the protection afforded by CITES to the tiger, which is one of the most endangered species in the world. 2010 is the international year for tigers and is a perfect opportunity to strengthen the current mechanisms in CITES to allow for a merciless fight against illegal trade in this species and improved transparency in range states on how the tiger populations are conserved.\nI would also like to touch upon some of the other important proposals which Parliament has also clearly identified. The first is Atlantic bluefin tuna. I have to repeat here that there is no final position on this issue. What I can tell you is that there is concern within the Commission on the current state of the stock and that we are working hard to find an appropriate proposal that will help properly address this problem at the international level. The final Commission position will take account of the latest scientific information on the stock and of the outcome of the meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna which took place in November last year.\nThe second is elephants and the ivory trade. This has been a longstanding, contentious issue within CITES, especially among African countries themselves. The Commission is very worried about the high level of poaching for elephants and illegal ivory trade which has been observed recently.\nThe protection afforded to elephants needs to be reinforced, and the Commission will not support solutions which would present a risk of increasing poaching. In that context, we believe that it would not be appropriate that the next Conference of Parties agrees on a resumption of the commercial ivory trade.\nWe also consider that proposals submitted to CITES with a view to downlisting some elephant populations from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II need to be assessed objectively on the basis of the rules agreed within CITES.\nAllow me now to say a few words about the proposal by the USA related to the prohibition of the international trade in polar bears. We are all aware that the ice melting in the Arctic is a dramatic threat for the survival of this species. This needs to be addressed first and foremost via a very ambitious policy on climate change and I think that the EU has clearly shown the way to go in the matter. We also believe that it is worth checking how any additional threat to this species might be mitigated. International trade is limited but might exacerbate the pressure on the species. Our final position will depend on how the measure proposed by the United States provides real benefits for the conservation of a species.\nFinally, on the question of corals, there is no doubt that red and pink corals have been overharvested in many regions of the world. At the last CITES meeting in 2007, the European Union backed a proposal by the United States to regulate international trade in both species and we have again cosponsored a USA proposal for COP15. I believe that the European Union should be consistent in this support as the new information available does not show any improvement in the situation. I would also like to stress that such regulation would by no means result in the prohibition of trade but would just make sure that trade is possible when it is sustainable.\nSirpa Pietik\u00e4inen\non behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, with regard to CITES decision making, I am a firm believer that the decision-making procedure should be transparent and it should be purely based on sound scientific facts. That is behind Parliament's resolution concerning polar bears, elephants, tigers, big Asian cats and sharks.\nWith particular regard to the question of listing bluefin tuna on Appendix I of the CITES convention, I would like to raise a couple of issues. Firstly, a broad majority of the scientific community agrees with the need for a ban on international trade to ensure the future existence of the species. According to ICCAT, the current spawning stock biomass is less than 15% of what it was before fishing began. From these scientific estimates, it follows that there is a very realistic fear that spawners might become virtually extinct by 2012.\nA majority of the FAO ad hoc expert advisory panel considered that the available evidence supported the proposal to include Atlantic bluefin tuna in CITES Appendix I, and further stated that the listing would at least ensure that recent unsustainable catches in the east Atlantic and Mediterranean were reduced. Due to the fact that the panel needs to take unanimous decisions, and due to heavy resistance from Japan, this was not the panel's final suggestion. However, the view of the unquestionable majority of the panel cannot be disregarded. Furthermore, on the basis of scientists' decisions, it clearly concluded that the criteria for the inclusion of bluefin tuna in the CITES Appendix I have been met.\nThis is a matter of political opinion in several cases but, on the matter of biodiversity and extinctions, we cannot compromise and we cannot haggle. When there are no fish, there is no catch.\nKriton Arsenis\nMr President, Mr Leinen has covered everything else I wanted to say, so I shall focus mainly on the question of tuna.\nWe really do need to look at this issue from a scientific point of view. Bluefin tuna is in immediate danger of extinction. That is why absolute protection from global trade, in other words, trade outside the European Union, is the only appropriate solution. The CITES Secretariat announced last week that it proposes including listing tuna in Appendix I, which means a ban on global trade.\nIt said, and I quote: 'the Secretariat concurs with the majority of the FAO ad hoc expert advisory panel that these species meet the criteria for inclosing appendix I'. In other words, it supports this proposal in the corresponding FAO proposal, which is based on the ICCAT proposal.\nSo the scientific part of the debate has been resolved. Now let us examine it from a political and social perspective. Tuna stocks are collapsing. Scientific agencies maintain that, if global trade is not banned, in a few years there will be no bluefin tuna. The regulation of fisheries has so far failed to deliver. Instead of 19 000 tonnes of bluefin tuna, as proposed by the ICCAT for 2008, it is estimated that 50 000 tonnes were caught.\nWe propose that the global trade should be stopped today, while we still have time to save tuna, that trade should continue within the European Union, which is not affected by CITES and, at the same time, that the European Union should compensate fishermen and undertakings affected by the ban on exports.\nThe S&D Group has tabled an amendment to this effect. It will allow stocks of bluefin tuna to recover and trade to resume. In this direction, by way of exception, provision has been made to allow the ban on global trade to be lifted as soon as tuna stocks have recovered, rather than gradually, as provided for other species. If global trade is not banned, then stocks of bluefin tuna will collapse, the fisheries sector will go under and then no one will be entitled to compensation.\nIf we truly want to protect fishermen, we must support the inclusion of bluefin tuna in Appendix I to the CITES Convention. Otherwise, jobs and a beautiful and unique species will be lost forever.\nChris Davies\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, today is supposed to represent a new start for Europe, but what have we here? We have a Commissioner and a Minister just going through the motions. No fault to you, Commissioner, but please go back to the College and say we need to debate with the Commissioners responsible for the briefs in question.\nIt is almost as shameful as this resolution before us, which just highlights species after species facing extinction: a real reflection of mankind's failure to plan for the future. Of course, this issue of bluefin tuna, which no doubt will dominate the debate, really highlights the issue, it focuses it, and it is, of course, a species purely in European waters. The most expensive fish in the world, each one selling for tens of thousands of euros. Japan is stockpiling en masse. Japan, where apparently the word 'conservation' actually means buy en masse, kill the fish, and freeze them for 20 or 30 years so that they can be eaten in a couple of decades time. There will be no fish left in the Mediterranean by then, but people will still be able to eat sushi if they can afford the bill.\nThis is a case where even organised crime is involved in the fishing industry, and it is not surprising when so much money is to be made. The Mafia gets involved in this business. And then you look at ICCAT, the International Council for the Conservation of Tuna. 'Conservation of tuna'! Species have dropped by 80 to 90%. We are facing extinction and you have a body which is set up supposedly to look after the tuna! It has failed completely. The targets which it has set itself will fail completely. It ignores scientific advice; it keeps setting quotas far, far too high. Now some Members will say Appendix II is enough, but there is no evidence of that. Appendix II will make no difference. They will come back in a few years' time and say, 'Sorry, got it wrong'. There will be no tuna left.\nSo let us back the proposal that this fish be cited on Appendix I. Let us just remember it is time we tried to control mankind's greed; it is time we tried to give a bit of thought to the future of our seas.\nBart Staes\nThe way in which humans deal with natural resources, the way in which humans destroy habitats and overexploit wild plants and animal species, the way in which humans illegally trade in wild fauna and flora, all of this represents an ongoing attack on the biodiversity of spaceship Earth.\nThat very biodiversity is crucial. This explains the importance of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and it is why the conference next month in Doha is so important. We have a strong resolution in front of us. However, we must concede that attempts are being made to weaken that resolution behind the scenes. A fierce battle is being fought over this. That is why I ask everyone, especially my fellow Members from southern countries, from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, to ensure most emphatically that the recommendation of the Commission's environmental policy to include bluefin tuna in CITES Appendix 1 be adopted. This is crucial for the survival of this species.\nKartika Tamara Liotard\nMr Leinen, many thanks; you have said it all, we can talk about very many animals: the elephant, the Asian tiger, coral. However, I want to pay specific attention to just one.\nYesterday, Blijdorp Zoo in Rotterdam announced that not a single European zoo has managed to breed polar bears. The European breeding programmes for polar bears are unsuccessful and that is very bad news, mainly because the polar bear is threatened with extinction in the wild. The sea ice is shrinking and the polar bear's habitat is gradually being lost. More than 70% of the polar bear population in the wild may disappear within 45 years. In addition, the polar bear is also threatened by trophy hunting and trading. People apparently get a kick from shooting polar bears for fun, which I find truly repulsive.\nThat is why I am calling on the EU to support the proposal for a ban on the commercial trade in polar bears before it is too late; the bluefin tuna also belongs in Appendix 1 without further ado.\nAnna Rosbach\non behalf of the EFD Group. - (DA) Mr President, we are here today to talk about endangered species. We are talking about sharks, tuna, polar bears, big cats and elephants. We are talking about fishing quotas, conservation, maintaining habitats, and so on and so forth. We are talking about whether these animals should be listed in Appendix I or II, or whether they are simply expendable.\nWe have at least two sides represented in this House, with differing attitudes. One side wants the total conservation of a long list of species that are on the verge of extinction. The other side cannot get the fishing and consumption quotas high enough and promises local fishermen short-sighted fishing rights that will result in the total eradication of certain species within a sport space of time.\nWe need a well-balanced middle path which ensures that we and our planet can continue to thrive in the future. The documents we have here are full of so many technical details that one might get the impression that we were all specialists in this area. Should we not spend our time instead on together preventing fish and shellfish being fished during their breeding periods in general, on ensuring that animals, plants and seas remain viable food providers long into the future, on giving the animals that we eat a reasonable life for their species before they are humanely slaughtered?\nOur thinking is too short-term and we are not thinking of the biodiversity that our planet needs. It is not just about endangered flora and fauna; this is a far more complex issue. There is plenty to get on with - and how unusual it would be if we were to start taking preventive action instead of reacting at the last moment.\nClaudiu Ciprian T\u0103n\u0103sescu\n(RO) The statistics show that bluefin tuna is fished in quantities which far exceed the permitted levels, which means that the bluefin tuna population is dwindling with every year that passes. The proposal put forward by Monaco to include bluefin tuna in Appendix 1 of CITES may prove to be beneficial, given that this species is condemned to extinction unless urgent drastic measures are taken to protect it.\nIn 1992, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna adopted the recommendation on monitoring the trade in bluefin tuna. Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a far from effective instrument. In 2007, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna adopted a much more comprehensive programme known as the 'Blue Tuna Catch Documentation Programme', which came into force in spring 2008. Although this marks a step forward, it is still too early to give an assessment of this programme's effectiveness. As a result, I feel obliged to ask the following: to what extent can the position of the European Union in favour of including bluefin tuna in Appendix 1 offset, as part of the CITES conference, the desire of certain bodies and states which are not members of the European Union to adopt a standby policy until the hypothetical results of the recent initiatives from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna can be assessed?\nElisabetta Gardini\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard the Minister describe CITES as an effective instrument and the Commission describe it as an appropriate instrument.\nI agree. So let us not change this instrument which, up to now, contrary to what many Members have said, has worked very well indeed. Since tuna fishing was regulated and since lower quotas were set, fishermen have started to see not only more tuna, but also larger tuna.\nThe instrument works. Including in Appendix I, which concerns species that are genuinely endangered, a species that still numbers - thank God - millions of living specimens would set a very dangerous precedent.\nWe are waiting for the new figures and it is on those figures that I hope we will base our regulations since, as a famous American journalist said, 'figures don't lie, but liars figure', and how they lie! We are accustomed, especially on the environmental issue, to hearing wildly inconsistent figures: there will be some figures that lie and some that do not lie.\nThe bluefin tuna is not facing extinction, but the bluefin tuna needs to be regulated. Let us remember that there are entire communities that survive on this ancient activity, which dates back at least 11 200 years, so much so that in some cases, UNESCO considers it an activity to be preserved and promoted.\nEdite Estrela\n(PT) Mr President, the UN states that biological diversity is currently experiencing its worst crisis since the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. The destruction of coral reefs in the tropics, the growing desertification in Africa and deforestation threaten biodiversity and are having negative impacts on many sectors of the economy, such as food production, tourism, the pharmaceutical industry and energy production.\nThe UN also recognises that there has been a failure to achieve the target, set in 2002, of reducing the present rate of loss of biological diversity by 2010. CITES constituted the principal global agreement on the conservation of wild species with the aim of avoiding the over-exploitation of species of wild fauna and flora by international trade. The human consumption of natural resources, the destruction of habitats, climate change, the over-exploitation of wild species and illicit trade constitute the principal causes of the impoverishment of biodiversity.\nIt is therefore important to guarantee that, in the International Year of Biodiversity, the fundamental strategic objectives of the European Union in the context of the forthcoming Conference of the Parties to CITES will address the objective of protecting biological diversity, something which is fundamental for the well-being and survival of humanity.\nWe must be ambitious and demand the protection of all species threatened with extinction.\nGerben-Jan Gerbrandy\n(NL) I could talk about all the species on the agenda of the CITES conference at the end of March, but I want to highlight one, just because it so perfectly represents what we as a species are currently engaged in: the bluefin tuna.\nThis is a magnificent, impressive fish, which has been fished for centuries and which we have eaten for centuries. Unfortunately, this fish is now on the point of dying out. After years of mismanagement by politicians, who ignored biological recommendations time after time, who allowed short-term economic interests to prevail over the long-term perspectives of the sector, we now have no choice other than to totally ban the trade in bluefin tuna.\nThere are amendments on the table proposing a course of action other than banning the trade, but it is too late for that, unfortunately. A few weeks ago, EUR 120 000 was paid for a single bluefin tuna. That is the current reality. It also explains the enormous illegal catches which are estimated to be twice the size of the set quotas. That is why quotas do not offer any comfort. They make no sense, as a result of the illegal catch. The only salvation for the bluefin tuna is an international trade ban.\nI know that the consequences for the sector will be hard, I fully realise that, but let us learn from this experience: when the sea is empty, things really will be over for the sector. Therefore, let us deal more carefully with our environment, for economic reasons as well as ecological ones.\nI call upon the European Commission to quickly present the decision to the Council in order to place the bluefin tuna in Appendix 1 and I ask the Spanish Presidency to step out of its own shadow and to adopt that decision.\nLadies and gentlemen, in the seventeenth century, humans exterminated the dodo. Let us humans show that we have the ability to learn and avoid the bluefin tuna becoming the dodo of the 21st century.\nBas Eickhout\n(NL) There is another UN summit in March, this time on the trade in threatened animal species. It is the opportunity for the EU to speak with one voice again and, above all, for science to play an important role. Let us look at what the science tells us. Opting for short-term interests may mean opting for short-term interests for fishermen and hunters, but in the long term, this means the end of animal species as well as the end of many sectors.\nThe alternative is opting for the long term; in the case of the bluefin tuna, we are talking about 2012! That is not the long term, that is tomorrow. You must thus follow the recommendations of the European Parliament on a ban on the trade in bluefin tuna, but also ban the trade in polar bears and, moreover, have the African elephant placed on the said list in order to prevent it being increasingly hunted again.\nFinally, there will also be a delegation from the European Parliament in Doha. My wish is that the EP delegation will also play its part in determining the EU's position, so that, together, we can ensure that these animal species are saved for our future.\nWilly Meyer\n(ES) Mr President, I would like to ask the Spanish Presidency to indeed preserve bluefin tuna, but also to preserve the traditional Mediterranean almadraba fishing methods. These methods, which have coexisted with bluefin tuna for more than a thousand years, have never endangered it. What is really endangering bluefin tuna is illegal fishing, industrial fishing, seine fishing and the proliferation of farms.\nThis is the real problem for bluefin tuna. We should not be unfair: we need to be able to differentiate what is really endangering bluefin tuna, which is this type of industrial fishing - seine fishing - from traditional fishing methods.\nThe policy needs to be fair, and therefore we need to seek a path that does preserve tuna but that does not, of course, punish these traditional fishing methods. I think that is the perfect balance which, at times, is impossible to achieve, but we need to try to find this path so that we can preserve this species and ensure that it does not become extinct, without punishing the traditional Mediterranean fishing methods such as the almadraba technique.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\n(PL) Mr President, many cases of the illegal smuggling of endangered animals have been noted in Member States of the European Union. At border checks, customs officials find birds pushed inside bottles and turtles squeezed in between the body and upholstery of cars. According to a report of the Polish Customs Service, in 2008, a record number of as many as 200 889 live specimens of protected animals and products made from protected animals were intercepted at the border. In India, an inept fight against smugglers has led to a situation in which a dramatic rise in poaching has once again threatened the population of the Bengal tiger, for example.\nThe European Union, which has common external borders, should take particular care not to become a market where protected species of animals or plants are smuggled or brought in with impunity. The European Commission should place particular emphasis on an educational campaign and appropriate communication with citizens. The objective of this policy should be to raise the awareness of European tourists. For every year, customs officials find products made from specimens of disappearing animal and plant species in the suitcases of Europeans returning from foreign trips. The debate currently under way on the population of bluefin tuna is most certainly justified. The statistics speak for themselves. Over the last 50 years, the population of this species has fallen by as much as 75%. Stocks of tuna in the Mediterranean Sea are also gravely threatened. Inclusion of the bluefin tuna in Appendix I to the CITES convention would appear to be fully justified and the only way to prevent its becoming extinct.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\n(ES) Mr President, I share the concern regarding the biological situation of the population of bluefin tuna, and I agree with the need to adopt effective conservation and management measures that not only prevent it from collapsing, but also guarantee the sustainability of fisheries and responsible trade.\nMy country has been working towards this for years. In addition to the age-old example of almadraba fishing techniques, it has created a protection zone in the Mediterranean, it has limited the seine fleet to six vessels, and has been pioneering in terms of adopting a recovery plan for the species and documented monitoring of trade.\nIncorporating bluefin tuna into Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) would ban international trade without solving the underlying problems. The volume of catches is not limited, fishing flags can be switched to consumer countries, and it is a step outside of the recent agreements by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the regional fisheries management organisation responsible for managing this fishery. It would therefore weaken international governance of the seas and the principle of responsible fishing.\nWe need to get to the root of the problems. We advocate the reduction in catches already agreed in the ICCAT, and even a moratorium if it is determined by the scientific reports that are under way for the next season. We want the European Union to strengthen its use of controls and fulfil the ICCAT recommendations for ensuring the traceability of catch processes and sales.\nThis line of action is compatible with the integration of bluefin tuna into Appendix 2 of CITES, but it cannot be reconciled with Appendix 1, which should be reserved for a different scenario and not be subject to conditions that would erode its credibility as a CITES instrument.\nIn any case, this debate must send out a clear message: the European Union is completely committed to the sustainability of bluefin tuna, and will adopt the necessary measures to preserve it. The industry must demonstrate that quotas work and are applied, and that illegal fishing can be controlled.\nIn order to save fishing, we need to save the species.\nPat the Cope Gallagher\n(GA) Mr President, the condition of the bluefin tuna stock in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean is a source of worry for us all. The scientific information cannot be disputed. However, ICCAT - the international commission responsible for conserving bluefin tuna and for restoring and conserving the stock - has made tremendous efforts. If the bluefin tuna is listed in Appendix I of CITES, bluefin tuna fishing will be completely banned for at least ten years.\nTo treat the fishing industry in Europe in this way is unacceptable. It is vitally important that ICCAT is allowed to do its job.\nFor example, in 2006, the total allowable catch was 36 000 tonnes. The total allowable catch for this year has been reduced to 13 500 tonnes. In 2011, as ICCAT have proposed, this will undergo a reduction of at least 50% to under 6 750 tonnes. Further reductions in the total allowable catches will occur in 2012 and 2013.\nThe measures undertaken by ICCAT must be carefully monitored. If they are proven to be unsuccessful, then a total ban under Appendix I must be considered.\nFrom an Irish perspective - and let me say that we have no vested interest apart from the fact that we have a bycatch of 100 tonnes of bluefin tuna - are we to catch bluefin tuna by way of a bycatch, and when they are caught and killed to put them back into the sea? That is certainly not a sensible way to proceed. I believe it is important to take sensible and realistic measures to protect both stocks and the fishing sector in Europe.\nWhile there are people here who are most anxious to protect tuna, let me say to those people who might come from rural areas depending on fishing, you must also think of the other endangered species - that is, our fishermen.\nTherefore, I will be voting for the amendment to include bluefin tuna under Appendix II.\nIsabella L\u00f6vin\n(SV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, look around you in this Chamber. The empty seats can be seen as representing all the predatory fish that have disappeared from the world's seas in the space of around 50 years. The world's fishing fleets have succeeded in emptying the planet of the predatory fish that are so important for ecosystems. These include tuna, cod and salmon. The EU is the second largest fishing nation in the world and our responsibility for the depletion of fish stocks is indisputable.\nIn the years 2000-2008, for example, the EU fisheries fund paid more than EUR 23 million towards the building of new tuna fishing vessels - in other words, to an industry that also costs taxpayers millions every year in surveillance in order to reduce illegal fisheries; and all so that 70% of the fish can be exported to Japan to be eaten at exclusive business dinners!\nI would like to remind you all that listing the bluefin tuna in Appendix I of the CITES Convention does not mean that small-scale fishery in Europe will be banned, but will merely bring to an end exports that are heavily subsidised by taxpayers. It would make a good start to the UN's International Year of Biodiversity.\nCatherine Soullie\n(FR) Mr President, today there remains less than 15% of the original bluefin tuna stock. In the face of such figures, the solution seems obvious. Nevertheless, we should not forget about the jobs affected by the decision that we are discussing today. It should be pointed out that the aim of the CITES is not to prohibit fishing but merely the international trade in this type of fish, 80% of which is exported to Japan.\nBy protecting tuna, we are certainly protecting an endangered species, but we are also encouraging the continuation of a more balanced and sustainable fishing activity, one that is destined for our internal market and which generates employment. I am in favour of the idea of listing bluefin tuna in Appendix I of the CITES and, while I believe that this decision will be positive, the help of the Commission will be crucial, since it will mean that the fisheries sector can be completely overhauled.\nMy question therefore concerns the conditions of this support. France is requesting an 18-month extension accompanied by financial measures for those fishermen and ship-owners affected by a trade ban. What is the Commission's view on the subject?\nMoreover, I, like many of my colleagues, am concerned about fairness. How can we guarantee that boats flying the flag of countries such as Tunisia, Libya and so on will apply the international trade ban as rigorously as we do? What will the new control and penalty measures consist of?\nOur policy of having sustainable economic activities has to be practical, and sometimes even unpopular in certain sectors, but I hope that the Commission and the Council do not lose sight of the adjustments needed in order to implement these measures.\nGuido Milana\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support - and I have also tabled amendments in this regard - the inclusion of bluefin tuna in Appendix II. Supporting this certainly does not make feel me like a criminal. On the contrary, I feel very much on the same wavelength as those who, before me, starting with Mrs Gardini, upheld a different position.\nIt is deeply flawed to put tigers, polar bears, elephants and tuna on equal terms. The FAO would never allow itself to say anything different or to support a different position for these other endangered species. Holding a different view on how to manage the tuna issue certainly does not mean forgetting that biodiversity is a value that must be defended at all costs.\nThe spirit of the motion for a resolution is absolutely worthy of support. However, at a time when some people seem to be taking a step backwards in terms of estimating tuna biomass in the sea, rapidly moving towards inclusion in Appendix I probably means overlooking the side effects of this choice, which are severe and sometimes irreversible in many sectors of our economy.\nIn some ways, the same goes for the issue of coral and for its inclusion in Appendix II. Here, too, there is data that does not definitely indicate the extinction or endangerment of deep coral, coral that is at a depth of more than 150-200 metres, which is what is covered by the measure.\nCarl Haglund\n(SV) Mr President, once upon a time, it was actually possible to fish for bluefin tuna up in my part of the Baltic Sea, but we know what the situation is today. The bluefin tuna is threatened with extinction because of intensive overfishing.\nWe are having this rather sad debate because the right decision was not made at the right time. We have ended up here because for years now, we decision makers have refused to listen to scientific advice. As a result, we end up in a situation in which drastic action is required. In this connection, let me remind you of previous failures by humanity on this front. The Canadian coast provides a good example of how man succeeded in totally destroying cod stocks. These collapsed entirely because of overfishing, and they had just the same discussion there as we are having here today. We must not allow the bluefin tuna to suffer the same fate. That is why the French proposal, among others, is not a particularly good one, because it could have precisely this effect.\nOf course, the fact that half - or nearly all - of the Committee on Fisheries is sitting here also shows that this House does not deal with these issues in the best way; that is to say, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has discussions and comes up with ideas, and then those of us working on fisheries issues come here and debate them. That is something that we should reflect on. Nonetheless, I think that the Committee's proposal is a good one. It has a sound scientific basis, and there is no reason to change the Committee on the Environment's approach to this issue.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\n(ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, bluefin tuna has been on red alert for some time, and for years we have been hearing reports that clearly demonstrate that stocks are weak and how we have contributed to this, including through public subsidies. The European Union has been spending up to EUR 34 million on modernisation in recent years.\nI think that we have to say this, we have to take responsibility for the situation that we are in. We have driven stocks of bluefin tuna to the brink of collapse, and we cannot say now that we are not responsible in any way. We now have the opportunity to correct this problem by incorporating bluefin tuna into Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and this is the only way that we can do so, because I would like to stress that a lot of people rely on it for their livelihood.\nIt is true that there are sectors that have done the right thing and can and should continue to do so, but in order for them to do the right thing, there needs to be tuna. If there is no tuna, they are not going to be able to do anything at all. The only guarantee of this is Appendix 1, and therefore any other measure that could clearly counteract this proposal is a bad measure that will prolong the agony, not put an end to it. Therefore, let us not be mistaken, let us not cheat: we have an historical responsibility to this species, and to the people and the families who depend on it for their livelihood. Let us assume our responsibility courageously and with the honour that the European Union is worthy of at this time.\nIoannis A. Tsoukalas\n(EL) Mr President, my fellow members have already addressed every aspect of this issue. I should like to state that I endorse the positions taken by Mr Milana earlier and to say that we need to bear in mind that including bluefin tuna in Appendix I will have numerous social and economic consequences, such as bankruptcies and the closure of numerous undertakings, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, job losses and a loss of competitiveness for Europe.\nWe must remember that bluefin tuna feeds a EUR 6 billion global market. I should, in fact, like to hear a few scientifically-backed proposals which are designed to secure the future viability of populations of bluefin tuna, but which also take account of the viability of European fishermen and their families. In my view, the best and most appropriate way is to include it in Appendix II.\nNor must we forget that the European Union is not out fishing on its own, either in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic. Bluefin tuna fishing is a global activity. European fishermen face strong - often unfair - competition from North African countries. Unilateral viability of tuna populations makes no sense. We must ensure that everyone is playing the game by the same rules.\nAlso, the fact that Japan has 30 000 tonnes of frozen bluefin tuna is perhaps of some interest and the ban may well cause stock prices to rise from USD 10 billion today to USD 20 billion.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu\nMr President, all elements of this agreement are important but I want to focus on the bluefin tuna issue.\nIt is vital that we act now to prevent a stock collapse and to allow the numbers of bluefin tuna to recover. In 2006, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna agreed on an action plan designed to improve reporting and monitoring of stocks and inspection of vessels.\nBut it is clear that it is not enough. The stocks, particularly the eastern stock in the Mediterranean, remains critically low and there is a very real risk that we will soon witness the extinction of this endangered species.\nThe Conference of the Parties to CITES should therefore agree to place bluefin tuna in Appendix I of the Convention, and the Member States and the Commission must do more to combat illegal fishing and to enforce agreed restrictions and quotas.\nRamon Tremosa i Balcells\n(ES) Mr President, with regard to the possible prohibition of bluefin tuna fishing in the Mediterranean, I am very concerned that legal fishing will end up being pushed out by illegal fishing, and that the innocent will end up paying for the sins of the guilty.\nIn Catalonia, hundreds of jobs are at stake. The fishing practised there is respectful, fully regulated and monitored, in terms of both fisheries management and trade management.\nSince 2006, in the East Atlantic and the Mediterranean, fishing of bluefin tuna has been reduced by 30 000 tonnes to 13 500 tonnes. The minimum size of fish has increased from 10 to 30 kilos, and an 11-month fishing season has become an 11-month closed season.\nFinally, I do not think there is a consensus between the international specialists regarding the threat of extinction of bluefin tuna. If populations are compared between 1970 and 2010, which is when there is monitoring data, the population of bluefin tuna is above 15%. It is between 21% and 30%, therefore clearly above the 15% for Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).\nCarmen Fraga Est\u00e9vez\n(ES) Mr President, I would also like to talk about commercial fishing species, and I would like to make it very clear that regional fisheries organisations are already responsible for managing and conserving these species. In fact, one only has to skim through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to realise that it is perhaps designed for elephants and polar bears, but it is not, of course, designed for commercial fishing species.\nI am not against protecting bluefin tuna, as that would be absurd, if only because of its importance to the fleet. I do, however, think that the measures need to be decided by bodies that have the best specialists in both managing fisheries and scientific research, because there is a reason why the CITES has to take external advice when it receives proposals on these species.\nI therefore think that the proposal to include bluefin tuna in Appendix 1 of CITES is unnecessary and unjustified, because it already has the measures imposed by International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). It is unfair, because it would gratuitously damage a fleet that has just embarked on a huge drive to reduce fishing, and even counterproductive, because it could give rise to an uncontrollable black market in bluefin tuna.\nI understand the enormous pressure that public opinion in general and this House in particular - as we are seeing - is experiencing from environmental NGOs. My political group has therefore decided to support inclusion in Appendix II as a compromise between the proposal of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and those of us who think that fisheries management cannot be snatched away from regional fisheries organisations. Our proposal is indeed based on the scientific advice to CITES. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has recommended that bluefin tuna only be included in Appendix II of CITES, which demonstrates that many people have not even read the FAO report.\nCatherine Bearder\nMr President, I welcome the assurances we have been given here this evening that the EU will not support any proposals which would lead to an increase in illegal ivory poaching, yet I am dismayed to hear that the Commission then goes on to state that any proposals to downgrade the African elephant from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II need to be assessed objectively on the basis of the rules laid down by CITES.\nThese two statements are in direct contradiction to each other. Any discussion of relaxing the protection afforded to elephants under the CITES Convention will send a green light to poachers in the hope that soon there will be a market for their illegal and cruelly acquired goods.\nZambia and Tanzania are in violation of the Convention as they did not consult all the elephant range states as required in Resolution 9.24 of the CITES criteria for amendments. We expect the Commission and Council to ensure that the constitution of CITES, and the agreed moratorium, are respected. How do they intend to prevent the illegal proposals from Tanzania and Zambia from being placed on the agenda in the very first place?\nAntonello Antinoro\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe I can state with sufficient confidence that the speech by the Chair of the Committee on Fisheries, Mrs Fraga Est\u00e9vez, provided some technical information that either we are pretending not to know, or we probably do not actually know.\nShe mentioned what the FAO's recommendation is, what the truth is and what is being called for. Everything else is manipulation and conditioning of this Parliament and many Members. I would not want us to forget that policy must be sovereign and that we must keep the influence and pressures of economic groups, which likely want different things, out of this Parliament.\nWe know that in the last two years, the price of tuna has fallen and we know that we have set restrictions whereby there has already been a reduction of 40%. Going on the basis of studies that none of us is sure are true, everything else is manipulation on the part of economic powers that probably want the exact opposite of what we are seeking, namely to increase the price of tuna beyond all proportion and to see to it that, in the end, the only ones to pay are the small economies of small fishing fleets, on which many regions of this wonderful Europe of ours depend.\nNext I would like to recommend that the Commission and the Commissioner - also in view of the fact that the new Commission includes a Minister for Foreign Affairs, now surely more titled that in the past - ensure that agreements are reached with other non-European states so that the ban on bluefin tuna fishing does not apply only to Europe, and seek to control prices, including for non-European countries.\nClearly we support Mrs Fraga Estev\u00e9z's amendment and all that it entails as far as Appendix II is concerned.\nMaria do C\u00e9u Patr\u00e3o Neves\n(PT) In November last year, the ICCAT adopted strong measures to restrict catches of Atlantic bluefin tuna: a reduction in catches from 22 000 to 13 500 tonnes in 2010 and a restriction on purse seining between 15 May and 15 June. Ambitious and unprecedented measures, in the words of the then Commissioner, Joe Borg. These decisions were taken in accordance with the latest scientific views on the species and their impact should be evaluated before the end of 2010.\nIt therefore makes no sense to bring forward new restrictions which will be economically and socially punitive for the sector, especially in the period of serious crisis that it is experiencing, such as those which are equivalent to the inclusion of Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix I. The fisheries sector requires a dynamic balance between its three pillars: the environmental, economic and social pillars.\nWith respect to its environmental requirements, these must be scientifically-grounded, as in fact was the case in the ICCAT meeting given the active participation of the European Union. This being so, to include Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix I would constitute a serious precedent of ignoring the need for: first, a scientific basis for the announcement of restrictions; and second, a balance between the environmental, economic and social pillars. It would thus open the door to other decisions taken in an overly swift and biased manner, perverting the norms of responsible management.\nAlain Cadec\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the proposal made by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to list bluefin tuna in Appendix I of the CITES is too radical a measure. I shall therefore make it dependent on three requirements, which I believe allow a fair compromise.\nThe first concerns the independent scientific opinion that is due to be published in October 2010 and approved by the CITES meeting in September 2011. I believe that this scientific opinion is crucial. We must be certain that the species is genuinely endangered before taking a radical decision on the fishing of and trade in bluefin tuna.\nSecondly, it is vital to have a guarantee that Regulation (EC) No 865\/2006 on the CITES will be amended, since this will result in a general exemption for the internal trade in bluefin tuna. This amendment will mean that we obtain what we all want: the survival of our small-scale coastal fishing, particularly in the Mediterranean.\nThirdly, I believe that, since we are deciding to include this listing in Appendix I, financial support from the European Union for the fishermen and ship-owners affected by the decisions is essential.\nLastly, this decision, if approved under the conditions that I have just mentioned, will have to be accompanied by significantly stricter controls to combat illegal fishing. It is under these conditions and these conditions only that I can agree to the listing of bluefin tuna in Appendix I of the CITES. Without these assurances, a listing in Appendix II remains the least worst solution, if not, in fact, the best solution.\nEsther de Lange\n(NL) Mr President, we cannot permit ourselves to ignore the loss of biodiversity. Those could have been my words, but they are those of the European Commission, of the Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Dimas, to be precise, during the presentation last month of a communication on biodiversity.\nI assume that the new Commission sees this in just the same way and considers the importance of biodiversity just as seriously. If not, then I would like to be told that. Precisely because of the involvement of the European Commission in biodiversity, it surprises me that it is the Commission that is doing everything to save species and to push back the loss of biodiversity on the one hand, while the same Commission does not - or does not yet - have the courage to simply propose adding an endangered species such as the bluefin tuna to CITES Appendix I. That sounds like two sides of the same coin. Of course, we must financially support fishermen who work in good faith in order to pass this intervention. On that point, I agree with the previous speaker. In addition, we must deal more firmly with the illegal catch of tuna.\nHowever, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I would go one step further. For me, CITES and, in particular, the bluefin tuna, is a test case. A test case to establish whether you, the Commission, are in a position to follow up your words with action. A test case to see whether this new Commission can show leadership or whether it will permanently lend a willing ear to the Member States, who, as we know, will not agree on this, and whether it can avoid getting bogged down in wordings and communications, but will instead actually take action.\nI have just cited your words; you say you are prepared to do this, so it is now time to move from words to deeds, and I would say to the Commission: start with the bluefin tuna.\nSimon Busuttil\n(MT) If we permit the fishermen to do as they please, then we will be contributing to the depletion and extermination of tuna stocks. Similarly, however, Mr President, if we place a total ban on the trade in tuna, then we would be destroying the fishermen, the fishing community, their families and the community that depends on them.\nI believe that these are two extremes: neither should we annihilate tuna stocks nor should we destroy the sector that relies completely on it. However between these two extremes there is a path that we can take, that leads to a compromise. There is the path whereby one can control the fishing sector much more than was previously done without closing it down completely.\nTherefore, I believe that placing tuna in Appendix I of the CITES Convention is an extreme measure that should be avoided. We would be better off following what ICCAT is proposing, as it has been reducing quotas for fish catches for years. However, in order to reach a compromise, we could also place it in Appendix II of the CITES Convention.\nMr President, in order to avoid the depletion of tuna stocks, we do not need to put an end to the many fishermen that depend upon them. It is possible to reconcile these two.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, if you will pardon the pun, I think this is a Catch-22 situation for many of us because, if we ban the catching of fish, and particularly of bluefin tuna, fishermen will go out of existence. If we do not ban it, then there will be nothing to catch.\nI think one of the key elements here - and it is constantly coming up in many of our debates - is the scientific evidence. People have said that the scientific evidence is not reliable enough, it is not extensive enough and it is not up-to-date enough.\nI would like to ask the Commission and the Council: are they happy with the scientific evidence that is being produced? Because you can quote scientific evidence but then somebody might come along with a different example of a recommendation from other scientists.\nSo I think that is a key element in this, and I would like to hear what the Commission and the Council have to say about it.\nIzaskun Bilbao Barandica\n(ES) Mr President, today we have heard illegal fishing being confused with mafias, and I also want to speak out in favour of a sector that has demonstrated on many occasions that it is responsible.\nI advocate the need to control fishing. I also advocate the need to control mafias. This cannot, however, be a reason for including bluefin tuna in Appendix I.\nI must also say that the Basque fishing fleet, which is going to be significantly affected by this decision, if it is taken, has demonstrated that it is very responsible, because in order to defend the sector, on occasions it has asked for fishing to be suspended in other fisheries, for example, anchovies.\nI also have to say that we should listen to what the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) says since, in 2009, it adopted more restrictive and stronger management measures in line with the recommendations of the Scientific Committee.\nI would like to point out that for 2010, a fishing quota of 3 500 tonnes has been decided. In 2009, it was 22 000 tonnes and in 2006, it was 32 000 tonnes. Therefore, the compromise was made to implement new control measures if necessary.\nI am not in favour of the inclusion of bluefin tuna in Appendix I, as it could damage many sectors, including the small-scale sector, which has not been considered today. We should therefore only support its inclusion in the event that these measures are not effective.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Mr President, as a European from the Alpine region, allow me to move from the water back to the land. I would like the Commission to take a request to Doha concerning the proposal for an identity marking requirement. As we know, bred birds of prey - I am thinking specifically of falcons - are subject to an identity marking requirement when traded. The animals are registered, ringed or, in the case of larger animals, tagged with chips so that they can be identified if necessary. Without this identity marking, there can be no trade.\nThus, the point I would like to make is that for other species of animals that are endangered or bred, like the lynx in Central Europe, for example, there is no such requirement. Thus, it can happen that free-roaming, escaped or traded animals are not identity marked and it is not possible to identify them precisely. That is bad, both for behaviour research and for stock level research, and, of course, it also makes illegal trade easier. I therefore propose that this identity marking be taken to Doha as a useful contribution to the debate.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, I came to the Chamber to be educated, or at least I hoped that would happen, because there are two very valid sides to this debate, in particular, concerning bluefin tuna.\nThe first point I would make is that we have spoken about illegal fishing practices, and it seems to me that illegal practitioners do not care about what appendix anything is in. They will continue unless we have effective policing of these rules and regulations.\nOn the one hand, we can see some of the logic for an Appendix I classification, but there are socio-economic issues. I think we need to focus on the results.\nThere is the issue of discards and the impact of an Appendix I categorisation on this matter for fishermen. I am inclined to the view - but will be talking to colleagues later to discuss it within our group - that it should not be classified in Appendix I, and perhaps Appendix II is the place. It goes to show that even with the length and quality of this debate, there is still some confusion, in my mind at least.\nGiovanni La Via\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the controversial scientific data that we have heard from several parties and in view of a stock level that is certainly not yet, not even in the worst-case scenario, such as to warrant compulsory inclusion in Appendix I, I do not believe that such a restrictive measure, even with the limitations that clearly would be placed on certain territories in terms of fishing, is the best solution.\nAlso, in the light of the efforts that have been made in recent years towards reducing the level of fishing by specialist tuna fishing companies, in my view, we need to continue in this direction, keeping tuna in Appendix II and avoiding rushing ahead, which would be extremely dangerous for some territories and for companies in the sector.\nSilvia Iranzo Guti\u00e9rrez\nFirst of all, I would like to thank all of you for your speeches, which I have found to be very useful for contributing to shaping the common position that the European Union should take to the next Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The vast majority have highlighted the validity of the CITES in terms of helping to conserve species that are in danger of extinction.\nAs I said at the beginning, after the Commission has made its proposal to the Council, the Council will be able to shape its position at CITES with regard to the different items on the agenda for the meeting relating to the main endangered species. For example, people have talked about tigers and about elephants - Mrs Bearder - about polar bears - Mrs Liotard - but the vast majority of the speeches have referred to the case of bluefin tuna. Regarding this issue, we have heard a variety of opinions based on a variety of arguments.\nThe Council is, of course, aware of the results of the last meeting of the Scientific Committee of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) in October 2009, and also the recommendations of the FAO panel of independent experts in December 2009. The Council is therefore fully aware of the implications of the proposal to include tuna in the appendices of CITES, and not only for the conservation of the species, but also for the survival of the traditional fishing methods of some fisheries that have demonstrated that they are sustainable for the species. The Council will therefore carefully evaluate all of the issues before adopting its position.\nTo conclude, I would like to reiterate the thanks of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council to you for your speeches and contributions during this decisive phase for shaping the European Union's position for the next CITES conference, and I will be delighted to pass on the content of your speeches to the Council along with your great interest in the issues that are going to be discussed in Doha. I would also like to convey to you the commitment of the Spanish Presidency to ensuring the conservation and sustainable development of endangered species. We know that the Council has Parliament's full support in this.\nPawe\u0142 Samecki\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, my first general remark is to say that I really appreciate the contribution of all the speakers concerning all the objectives ahead of discussions at the conference.\nI can assure you that the Commission will be in favour of sustainable trade for the benefits of both biodiversity and the communities which need to live in harmony with the species concerned.\nNow, a few more specific comments in relation to your remarks; first of all, as I explained, the overall position of the Commission on bluefin tuna will be adopted very soon. This is an important matter because it relates mainly to the catches by the EU fishing fleets. It has been felt that it is more appropriate that, instead of the outgoing Commission, the new Commission takes a clear position on this issue because the new Commission will be in charge of defending or promoting the EU position at the conference.\nI am really confident that this proposal will ensure a sustainable future for both this species and the associated fishing industry. This will need to balance short-term and long-term perspectives on this issue. But, on more specific items and the questions raised by the distinguished Members of Parliament, on the question of support which could potentially be given to the fishermen affected, I think that we should stress that the Commission would be ready to assess the possibility of providing such support to the maximum possible extent, but we also need to remember that budgetary reallocations have been decided for many years and that we would also need to assess the financial consequences while we have a rigid financial budget for the perspective 2007-2013.\nThere is one specific issue concerning the proposal to include bluefin tuna in Appendix II and I think it is important to note that there are very specific provisions in CITES which would apply in the case of an Appendix II. There would be a lot of legal and technical discussions on what such a listing in Appendix II would actually mean. The practical impact of such a listing would be uncertain. That is why we need to think of what the practical consequences of putting bluefin tuna in Appendix II would be.\nRegarding Mrs Bearder's question on elephants, there are procedural weaknesses in the motions of Tanzania and Zambia but in our legal assessment, these flaws cannot be sufficient ground to procedurally reject these motions ex ante.\nFinally, I will comment on Mr Kelly's question. Is the Commission happy with scientific evidence on many issues? I think it is difficult for the Commission to question scientific evidence because it would mean that the Commission has better scientific or research capacity than the research institutes, which is not the case. That is why it is sometimes very difficult to take a position on the scientific evidence.\nPresident\nI have received seven motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nSergio Berlato  \nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate we are holding today on the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in March is particularly important for the rational use of wild flora and fauna.\nThe motion for a resolution on the subject seems to be skewed in favour of a ban on the use of many resources. I am referring, in particular, to the proposal to include Mediterranean red coral in CITES Appendix II. I should like to point out that the scientific community feels that there is no threat of extinction to species in the family Coralliidae, given the abundance of this species in all waters in which they live. Including coral in Appendix II therefore seems excessive and uncorroborated by scientific data. Trade in red coral is a significant source of income in vast areas of the Mediterranean, and including it in CITES would have significant consequences for the economies of numerous countries, including Italy, with acute public alarm and resulting job losses.\nFor these reasons, we are against the inclusion of this species family in CITES Appendix II. Furthermore, I would ask the European Commission to review the position it has adopted up to now, which appears to be more the result of excessive environmental extremism than considered scientific analysis.\nClemente Mastella  \nEurope has always been attentive to problems associated with the overexploitation of wild species and illegal trade in fauna and flora.\nLet us remember, though, that the CITES Convention should base its own decisions on results and on scientific data provided by the appropriate international bodies. Two points are particularly sensitive: the proposal to include the species Corallium spp. and Paracorallium spp. in Appendix II, and the request to include bluefin tuna in Appendix I.\nWith regard to coral, we feel it is right to reiterate our opposition in the light of the negative opinion issued by the FAO's scientific assessment panel in mid-December 2009, which showed that there was no data on the decline of the species that would support their inclusion in Appendix II. All that would seriously jeopardise the competitiveness of the coral goods craft industry, which is of major importance in terms of the economy and jobs in some areas of Italy (Torre del Greco in particular, Alghero and Trapani).\nAs for tuna, there are countries such as France and Italy that are most concerned with bluefin tuna fishing and thus with protecting the species so it can be exploited sustainably. We can support this motion but ask, however, that this inclusion be conditional on the implementation of the decision being deferred for 12-18 months and the provision of compensation for the sector.\nV\u00e9ronique Mathieu  \nContrary to the impression that some people tend to give, the CITES is not an instrument designed to prohibit trade; rather, its aim is to ensure that the international trade in wild animal and plant species does not threaten their survival. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet the Namibian Minister for the Environment and Tourism. By putting an actual monetary value on elephants in Namibia and by thus enabling a strictly regulated elephant trade to be established, the conditions are today in place to manage and to protect against poaching. Thanks to those measures, the number of individual animals belonging to that species - the survival of which is not under threat - has significantly increased. In the light of these points, I encourage you to support the proposal by Tanzania and Zambia to transfer the African elephant from Appendix I to Appendix II of the CITES, and to reject the proposal by Kenya.\nEdward Scicluna  \nin writing. - I strongly believe in sustainable development and do not question that the bluefin tuna (BFT) species is over-exploited and needs protecting. CITES has been successfully used to protect exotic species from extinction, in cases where it is impossible to control innumerable poachers and hunters especially in developing countries. But do we have the same situation here?\nThe BFT of the north-east Atlantic is being over-exploited by a handful of trawling companies, each catching thousands of tonnes. These trawling companies are from leading EU countries: France, Spain, and Italy. The EU does not need an international environmental body to assist it in controlling the fishing industry practised in its Member States.\nOf course, we have to be pragmatic. If international political opinion means we cannot stop BFT from being listed within CITES, let us apply common sense and proportionality by listing the species under Appendix II, as has been suggested by an FAO expert group. Putting BFT on Appendix I of CITES would cost my country's economy close to 2% of GDP. It is no different than asking to close down the whole salmon industry in Scotland in one swipe. Nearly 1% of the labour force would lose their jobs.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":2,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Although Bulgaria and Romania have managed to achieve accession to the European Economic Area, Brussels is apparently surprised by the lack of progress on combating organised crime and corruption. These are widespread problems, however, which are rooted in socio-political developments in post-communist countries. The general public is irked by the anonymity and indifference of capitalism and resorts instead to familiar and tried and tested networks.\nThis proves, yet again, that social transformation cannot be imposed from outside: something that the US is trying to achieve with its wars of aggression, while the EU dangles the prospect of 'accession'. The fact is that the latter is losing its effectiveness, forfeiting any opportunity to exert influence once countries have joined the 'club', which is why the EU must not repeat this mistake with Turkey.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, I should like to refer to Mrs Kudrycka's report on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of short-stay visas. This is particularly important for relations between Poland and Ukraine, two countries and peoples that have been bound together by historical ties throughout the centuries. The essential action required to introduce significantly easier visa procedures for our Ukrainian friends should be taken as soon as possible, notably where young people, students, academics and seasonal workers are concerned.\nIn the longer term, we should aim at the introduction of a visa-free travel regime. This is particularly important in terms of laying the foundations for Ukraine's integration into the European Union in the future. The Union must support the development of democracy in Ukraine, assist in the creation of civil society and facilitate contact between our citizens.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) This agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas is to be signed in parallel with the readmission agreement as these are 'mutually conditional'.\nAs indicated, these agreements form part of the EU's fight against 'illegal immigration' and its instruments. The report expressly accepts the 'recommendations as to need for providing adequate technical and financial support for Ukraine by the EC and the European Commission in particular, in achieving high level of implementation of readmission agreement'. However, we are critical in this respect.\nDespite the agreement introducing strict procedural deadlines, setting preferential visa fees, including a full visa fee waiver for certain 'categories of persons' (?), and providing for a simplified procedure in a number of cases, this is less than what has been demanded and what is required by thousands of Ukrainian citizens.\nWhat the rapporteurs have failed to realise is that there is a need for the effective implementation of measures aimed at facilitating issuance of visas to broader sections of Ukrainian society, or even a non-discriminatory visa exemption regime such as Ukraine provides for citizens of the various EU countries.\nWe therefore voted accordingly.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) For far too long, the EU has given a helping hand to countries around the globe while failing to make these monies conditional on the readmission of illegal immigrants. This has exacerbated the flood of illegal economic refugees pouring into destination countries without any education or prospects for the future. This has occurred in tandem with various visa scandals, in which countless people have entered the EU in the guise of tourists and promptly vanished into the EU's low-wage sector, thus destroying jobs on a massive scale. It is high time that readmission arrangements were made a fixed element of agreements. The opportunities to vanish into the anonymity of our conurbations must also be removed at all cost.\nThe growing trend towards the establishment of visa centres - which are then closed down due to a lack of applications - must also be treated with caution. This practice must under no circumstances lead to a situation in which visas are issued arbitrarily simply to avoid such closure.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) This agreement between the European Community and Moldova on the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas is to be signed in parallel with the readmission agreement as these are 'mutually conditional', just the same as with the agreements with Russia and Ukraine.\nDespite the agreement introducing strict procedural deadlines, setting preferential visa fees, including a full visa fee waiver for certain 'categories of persons' (?) (such as members of official delegations, business people, journalists, participants in scientific, cultural and sporting events, students, participants in exchange programs, close relatives, representatives of civil society, persons visiting for medical reasons) and providing for a simplified procedure in a number of cases, this is less than what has been demanded and what is required by thousands of Moldovan citizens. There is a need for the effective implementation of measures aimed at facilitating issuance of visas to broader sections of Moldovan society, or even a non-discriminatory visa exemption regime such as Moldova provides for citizens of the various EU countries.\nFurthermore, these agreements fall within the Community policies on immigration and the 'Schengen area' which includes instruments on the retention of biometric data.\nWe therefore voted accordingly.\nAdrian Severin  \nin writing - (RO) The Romanian Members of the European Parliament, members of the PSE, will vote against or will refrain from voting in relation to the EU-Moldova Agreement on short-term visas and the Readmission Agreement. This does not reflect opposition to the substance of the given documents, but to the inexact concepts included therein and which were launched by the Stalinist Soviet regime in order to give credit to the idea of the existence of a Moldavian language, different from the Romanian language. The reference to the Moldavian language remains null and void for the given Members of the European Parliament.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, I tabled this earlier. It concerns an explanation of my vote on the report on digital interactive television services by Mr Weber. I should like to say that there is a very interesting section in that document, maintaining that the public audio-visual media should be strengthened, not weakened. I voted in favour of the report, because recently the candidate for Prime Minister of my country declared that public television should be weakened. I am glad that the European Parliament is making a clear statement in this regard, namely that public television and the public audio-visual media should be strengthened.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin  \nWith all due respect for the subject matter, we would like to point out that this is a report the European Union could have done without. This European Parliament should devote itself to issues within a smaller area and not give opinions on everything under the sun.\nThe European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education should be closed down because it deals with matters which are outside the scope of cooperation within the EU. For the most part the Committee produces reports which propose that the Union should go in and regulate areas of detail for which the EU does not have competence.\nWithin the current EU cooperation framework it is established that the Member States have exclusive responsibility for the organisation of education. Cultural issues are also a matter for the Member States, and the Union is currently engaged in very limited cooperation relating to various cultural programmes.\nFor these reasons there is no justification for the existence of the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report. I support the use of interactive digital TV technology to benefit European citizens in a range of ways. The report emphasises the importance of the switchover from analogue, which is on track in the UK but lagging in some other EU member states.\nJoseph Muscat  \nin writing. - (MT) I would like to take the opportunity offered by this debate to register my disappointment at the way in which digital television is developing in Malta.\nCertain basic principles need to be respected.\nFirstly, Maltese consumers should have the right to continue watching national stations that are free to view without being charged.\nIn practice, all digital television service providers should broadcast these stations free of charge. In addition, anyone who does not buy a digital receiver from these companies should still have the right to receive the signal from these stations.\nMy second point relates to the interoperability of different platforms in Malta's case, digital terrestrial and cable. The lack of interoperability in the Maltese system is leading to less choice for consumers because when they wish to make use of the services of another company, they must install a different receiver.\nI hope that the updated policy of the authorities competent in this matter will address these problems.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr Weber has tabled a very interesting report on what is currently a controversial issue. In the present digital environment, services, networks and business systems have undergone significant changes, and a wide choice is now available to consumers. Interoperability has therefore become a fundamental concept for information and telecommunications networks.\nI agree that users' needs should be of paramount importance in market development. Accordingly, it is important to focus on viewers and on enabling them to make fully informed choices, so that they really are in a position to benefit from the full potential of new technology.\nThe interoperability debate mainly concerns broadening the choice offered to consumers in the area of interactive television services. This choice largely involves the services offered by operators rather than the equipment, however, especially as the choice can take various forms, and subscribers are able to choose between different platforms depending on the content and services available.\nI agree with the rapporteur that it is advisable to continue promoting the open standards developed by European Union standards bodies in relation to the switchover to digital and the interoperability of services, and to further this action by promoting European digital television standards in other parts of the world.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nWe do not consider that the Committee on Fisheries' amendment adds anything positive to the Commission's proposal, but is instead a step backwards. We cannot accept any restrictions on transparency, which is something the report in effect entails.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) The objective of the Commission proposal for a new Council regulation on the collection of data in the fisheries sector is to develop long-term sampling programmes which are well-integrated at regional level and which include ecological, economic, environmental and social data. The revision of the Regulation on the collection of data is intended as a response to the new demands arising from the need to move towards fisheries management (geared towards fleets and fishing areas rather than fish stocks) and towards an ecosystemic approach to fisheries management.\nThe aim is to ensure an approach which is more in line with the different situations in the fisheries sector which require a range of strategies to combat a common problem. The aim is also to make processes more transparent, thus guaranteeing better and more profitable treatment and use of fisheries data.\nThis Parliament report deserves my support.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) This proposal aims to replace, from 2008, Council Regulation (EC) No 1543\/2000 establishing a Community framework for the collection and management of data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy.\nCertain differences between this proposal and the current Regulation should be highlighted, such as: inclusion of new types of data, use of an approach which is more focused on fleets and on the distinction between different regions (fishing areas) and preparation of national three-year programmes.\nAmong other aspects, the text adopted today clarifies the type of data to which the Commission will have access, insists on ensuring the confidentiality of this data and provides for different levels of penalisation according to the seriousness of the failure to comply with the new regulation by Member States, including making the Community financial contribution conditional on the national programmes to be developed by Member States. It also calls on the Commission to clearly define what must be understood by 'official request for information' and 'incomplete national programme'.\nIt must be left to each Member State to adopt measures - based on the existence of data which is reliable and as complete as possible for the purpose of fisheries scientific research - to ensure proper management of their marine biological resources. However, this competence of each Member State is unacceptably called into question by the 'Reform' Treaty.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this proposal from the Commission for a regulation to establish a community framework for the collection management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. It is an uncontroversial report that should allow better operation of the CFP over time.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - It is only right that small groups do not have disproportional influence in this Parliament. While I respect the right to ensure that diversity of views is respected in debate, this should not extend to the administration of the House and other technical matters. Thus I welcome this reduction in representation by the non-attached on the Conference of Presidents where until now a handful of Members had a higher level of representation than political groups with more than 200 members.\nKarin Scheele\n(DE) Mr President, I said what I had to say during the explanations of vote, in order to save time during the voting. I am pleased that Parliament has adopted this report by an overwhelming majority, also because I am aware that there have been very arduous and intensive discussions in the Council working groups. We are sending out a clear message from the House today.\nThe report offers the opportunity for us to obtain quality statistics on public health and health and safety at work. This will be a prerequisite for many of the policies which we will be championing in future.\nRomano Maria La Russa\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking partly in my capacity as future draftsman of the opinion on the Community strategy on health and safety at work. I wish to clarify my position, which is unhesitatingly in favour of the proposed regulation to establish a legal framework for the systematic production of statistics in this area. I would take this opportunity to emphasise the need to take all initiatives that can help provide a clearer picture of the situation in Europe and in the various Member States, on which basis states can pursue the policies they deem most appropriate.\nFor this reason, a more Europe-wide approach needs to be adopted towards accidents at work within the European Union, a veritable scourge in certain countries. The approach must go beyond the current gentlemen's agreement and provide for data to be gathered systematically at regular, predetermined intervals. It must also take due account of the studies and investigations carried out by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work and by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Comparable data, combined with an exchange of good practice and the dissemination of results, can in themselves prove useful in encouraging countries to emulate the best of what is being done elsewhere.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) The Commission is responsible for producing Community statistics by coordinating the necessary harmonisation of the statistical information, while collection of the data is done by Member States on subjects such as definition of variables, breakdown, dates of implementation and frequency, and so on. Gender should also be introduced as a breakdown to have information regarding possible gender differences.\nAs regards health and safety at work, studies and surveys of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work and of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions should also be taken into account. Outside Europe, cooperation with the United Nations should be further enhanced, especially with the International Labour Organisation and World Health Organisation.\nComplementary financing will be provided for health and safety at work in the framework of the Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS). In principle, financial support to help Member States in further building up national capacities to implement improvements and create new tools for statistical data collection should be included.\nJules Maaten  \nin writing. - (NL) The transmissible diseases that threaten Europe, such as SARS and bird flu, show that far-reaching European measures are necessary to prevent a possible pandemic in Europe.\nUnilateral action by the Member States is not enough to divert the threat of such diseases. A coordinated European plan is necessary, and for this it is essential to determine the level of protection in the Member States.\nIt is therefore vital to have comparable, up-to-date information at Community level on protection against possible pandemic and widespread diseases. We must in particular consider the quantity of stocks of antiviral resources and vaccines in the Member States.\nI would be happier knowing that there were already stocks of antiviral resources and vaccines at European level. Without new powers the Commission will be forced to look on helplessly in the event of a pandemic.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted against the Jordan Cizelj report on the Euratom Supply Agency. I consider that the Agency should be independent of Euratom as the roles of promoting nuclear energy and controlling it should not in effect be joined.\nThe nuclear industry does not offer the solution for Europe's energy needs. Europe must strive to make more of our renewable energy potential and work to phase out the need for nuclear.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Mr President, I should like to explain why I voted as I did regarding this very important resolution. The European Parliament has become involved in a matter that tends to be disregarded. Less and less physical activity is being practised in individual Member States of the European Union, and sport is taken ever less seriously, despite its significant social and cultural role. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution in full awareness of what was involved. I welcome Parliament's stance on the subject.\nTom\u00e1\u0161 Zatloukal\n(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I willingly supported the report on the role of sport in education by Mr Schmitt, mainly because sport and physical activity can make an important contribution to combating negative health trends. I also support the modernisation of activities in the area of physical education, especially those aimed at establishing a balance between physical and intellectual activities in schools. I am in favour of investment in quality sports facilities and appropriate measures to allow access to sports premises and sports curricula at school to all students including those with disabilities. In this way we will ensure that every student can participate in a variety of sports. Further positive steps involve increasing the amount of time spent on physical education in schools and ensuring legal recognition of institutions and organisations that contribute to better integration of sports activities in schools and nurseries. I would like to thank Mr Schmitt for his well thought-out report.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, I abstained on the Schmitt report on sport in education. Just for the record, I would like to say on this subject that of course it is not that I am against sport in education, any more than I am against schools offering as many physical education lessons as possible: my view is quite the contrary.\nIt goes without saying that I think sports teachers should be treated in the same way as other teachers.\nI abstained because I think that sport and education, and certainly the teaching of sport in general, must categorically remain within the remit of the Member States alone and that Europe does not have to take control in every area.\nWhat also disturbs me about this report is that the multicultural society and the so-called gender question are dragged in left, right and centre, and that is a little bit too much given the political correctness in which this report is steeped. Shoemaker, stay at your last, and European Union, for heaven's sake stick to your areas of competence.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nWe Swedish Social Democrats chose to abstain in the final vote. The reason for this is that the report deals with a number of important aspects of sport in education but, at the same time, with matters which are and should remain a national concern.\nWe chose to vote against the statements in paragraphs 10, 24 and 47. We share the view that physical education is important and that voluntary work is an important part of the sports movement in Europe. However, whether you should have two, three or four hours of PE per week is not something the EU should get involved with.\nOf course, it is also important that the issue of gender equality becomes an integrated part of the curriculum and that PE teachers are trained in the subject. We also share the opinion that it is a good idea to have sports coeducation, but that is not an EU matter either.\nWe would like to emphasise, however, that we share the view of the report that sport is important for several reasons. It can make an important contribution to counteracting negative health trends like obesity. It can also contribute to added social value for society in general through its educational nature.\nDerek Roland Clark and Jeffrey Titford  \nin writing. - UKIP approves of greater investment in and participation in sport. However, we cannot accept that physical education be made compulsory for all and the UK parental opt out abolished by the EU, given that many groups have religious or cultural objections to sport, and also that some disabled children may not be physically able to take part in certain sports even when they would wish to do so. Obligatory PE is an issue for head teachers and boards of governors, not for the EU. In any case the EU has no competence on sport. UKIP welcomes commendation of the hard work of volunteers in sport but believes that a spirit of friendly competition means this must be done at national and not EU level.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) As stated in the report, full attention must be paid to sport due to its social and cultural aspects and due to the social and educational values that it transmits, such as self-discipline, challenging personal limitations, solidarity, healthy competition, respect for opponents, social inclusion, opposition to any form of discrimination, team spirit and tolerance.\nAccordingly, in our multicultural society, sport can and should be an integral part of formal and informal education, given that studies have shown that regular physical activity improves mental and physical wellbeing, while having a beneficial effect on learning abilities.\nWe therefore agree with the call made to the Member States and the competent authorities to ensure that greater stress is placed on health development in school and preschool teaching programmes by encouraging specific forms of physical activity suitable for these ages and raising awareness within clubs and associations in order to ensure that children can start physical activity at the earliest possible age, for the benefit of their development and health, and hence to guarantee physical education status in accordance with the profile of the institution and the corresponding level of study.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I wholeheartedly give my backing to the Schmitt report on the role of sport in education. The encouragement of sports participation amongst our young people is vital in a number of areas; sporting activities promote not only the obvious health benefits amongst the population but also contribute to social inclusion objectives, a sense of community and national and European cohesion.\nMy own country, Scotland, has one of the worst health records in Europe. However recent Scottish sporting successes, including Glasgow's success in securing the 2014 Commonwealth Games, have captured the imagination of the population. It is to be hoped that these successes can be channelled in a positive way and that Scotland can lose its \"sick man\" tag and become an example in Europe of how sport can be used for the maximum benefit of the community.\nGenowefa Grabowska  \nI voted in favour of this report because it deals with a matter that is particularly important for the health of a whole generation of young Europeans, and therefore for their lives as a whole.\nIncreased marginalisation of physical education within the school curriculum means that the time allocated to physical education in schools in EU Member States is gradually being eroded. The financing of school sports buildings and facilities is far from adequate. In addition, essential equipment for the conduct of physical education classes is in poor condition. There are also concerns regarding the quality of the training undergone by physical education teachers. The overall picture hardly inspires confidence. That is why we should support the European Parliament's initiative aimed at reversing the present situation.\nIt is to be hoped that the positive effects of this initiative will make themselves felt after just a few years. Providing for more sport in schools is not just part of the effort to obtain better results in competitions and future Olympic Games. It is also a way of ensuring that this generation of young Europeans will be notably healthier, fitter and not overweight, as is so often the case today. I know what I am talking about, because in my country, Poland, the number of children and young people who are obese or overweight is increasing at an alarming rate. I should like to believe that long-term positive results will emerge from the European Parliament's effort to draw attention to the inadequacies of the European educational system in this regard, and from its suggestions for remedial measures.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this own-initiative report, encouraging all EU member states to require physical education to be included for all school-aged children. Encouraging physical activity among young people will help deal with problems of obesity and general lack of fitness, along with all the secondary health problems that arise over time from these consequences of a lack of activity.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The role of sport in education is an important issue in several respects. We can cite, for example, the obesity which is rising across Europe, particularly among young people. This is an alarming fact and a major public health concern, the effects of which will be felt throughout the life of these people. We cannot forget in particular that these people will have health problems throughout their life which will have considerable social and economic effects on the organisation and future of our societies.\nAnother important fact is the evidence that the time allocated to physical education across the EU has been gradually eroded. It is therefore obvious that the increase in physical inactivity has also led to the most alarming of figures which is that, across the entire EU27, overweight affects almost one in four children.\nI voted in favour of this report which aims to help ensure that positive measures are taken to encourage health in the new generations.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nin writing. - (FR) The need to encourage the youth of Europe to take up sport has surely never been as relevant as it is today.\nThe reason is simple: in view of the sedentary lifestyle to which our children are now exposed we need to come up with an alternative to snacking and the games console and we need to do it quickly.\nThis is why I fully share the message being put across by Mr Schmitt in his own-initiative report calling for more compulsory physical education from primary-school level. It is a message that strikes home like a double booster injection.\nDouble because, firstly, school is the natural place for instilling into the youngest members of our society important social values such as honesty, solidarity, team spirit, tolerance and fair play. These are also values that have to be introduced into the family circle, for this is crucial.\nSecondly, in view of the twin threat that we are now facing, namely the public health problem generated by the prevalence of obesity among our young people and the social problem that is typified by an education system based on personalised choice, the European Union and the twenty-seven Member States have to react and rethink the relationship between sport and education.\nThis battle is far from being won: the average child now watches two hours of TV a day, which is a lot more than the 109 minutes a week that schools set aside for PE lessons.\nCarl Schlyter  \nThere are many positive objectives in the report, such as working for public health and against discrimination, and accessibility for disabled persons, but in spite of that there are too many calls and demands for detailed regulations which should not be made at EU level. I am therefore abstaining in the final vote.\nOlle Schmidt  \nFew question the importance of children receiving physical education at school. The negative trend of unhealthy lifestyles among young people appears to be increasing from year to year. Mr Schmitt's report therefore touches on a pressing and important subject. The problem with the report, not least with regard to the paragraphs voted on individually, is that Mr Schmitt goes a very long way. It is difficult to see why the EU in particular should regulate in detail the number of hours of physical education at school, not only for primary school pupils but also for secondary school pupils. Nor can I see any reason for Brussels to micromanage physical education, with demands for mixed gender groups and special sex education. The last paragraph, which aims to set up a special system of commendation for various types of voluntary work, looks particularly strange, not because dedicated Europeans do not deserve appreciation, but because it is difficult to see how such a thing would be structured, administered and financed.\nThere is no doubt that the aim of the report is good. However, the current formulation has turned out very dubious. That is why I voted no.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - As a former teacher of physical education, I will be supporting the Schmitt report because it addresses not only the need to ensure that physical education is taught in schools but that Member States must also ensure adequate training for physical education teachers.\nAll too often, particularly at primary school level, the PE lesson is conducted by a non-PE specialist normally in a hall that doubles up as a dining room or a theatre, particularly at Christmas time.\nIf we are to be serious about combating child obesity, if we are serious about improving child health and if we are serious about getting children away from video games and into sport, we must provide better facilities for physical education in all schools and ensure that the teachers have the specialist knowledge to teach the subject. For far too long PE has been a minor subject, particularly in primary schools, and lessons are often cancelled at the first whiff of rain. This has led to a generation of children being created that is the most unfit generation ever produced. Health and physical education is as important as maths and sciences, yet you would not know that if you entered many of our schools.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - After some consideration and serious doubts with the word \"fully\" in paragraph 8, I have voted in favour of paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Prodi report, as on balance I feel there is a need for an EU framework directive in the area of soil protection to fill in the gaps. Such a proposal needs to be in \"accordance with the principles of better lawmaking\" fully respecting the subsidiarity principle; so tomorrow, I will support the Guti\u00e9rrez-Cortines proposal for a proportionate EU directive which restores subsidiarity, removes duplication of obligations and is overall, a better balance than the Commission's proposal on soil protection.\nWith 300 soil types in Europe, only 9 Member States with national legislation in place, and the challenge of climate change before us, there is added value in an even-handed EU approach in addressing the international challenges caused by deforestation and decline in water quality, serious soil erosion, floods and landslides and ensuring safe food production.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) It is well-known that soil has a basic social function as it is essential for the production of food and other agricultural crops and the storing and transformation of energy and minerals, in addition to functioning as a natural filter for groundwater, the main source of drinking water, the habitat for a variety of organisms living in and on the soil, the platform for human activity and an important element of landscape and cultural heritage. It is therefore a key component of the earth's environment.\nThere are already several Community policies aimed at protecting these essential functions, although not the soil itself. As the Commission's impact assessment demonstrates that soil degradation is worsening, concern is increasing about protecting the soil, linked also to concerns about climate change, safeguarding sufficient and clean water, protecting biodiversity and fighting against desertification and deforestation. More Community legislation specifically aimed at protecting the soil itself should result in the exchange of information and coordination between Member States, without adding any unnecessary administrative burden or calling into question agricultural production and the social function of soil.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) I regard the Commission's assessment as important and I agree with the strategy proposed on the protection of soil, a non-renewable resource that provides vital services to human activities and to the survival of ecosystems.\nI support the Prodi report and consider that its proposals on better defining the relationship of soil with issues linked to biodiversity, desertification and climate change are particularly important.\nMarian Harkin  \nin writing. - Amendment 10: A framework directive is not proportional and does not respect subsidiarity. The open method of coordination is a better mechanism than a framework directive in this instance. Soil problems are almost always local and regional.\nAmendment 8: I do not consider that an EU framework directive is fully justified. I believe that soil protection should remain within the competence of Member States.\nDiamanto Manolakou  \nin writing. - (EL) The Commission's proposal on soil protection is generalised and vague. It makes no provision for Community funding or for basic, essential projects for the prevention and replacement of degraded soils.\nParticularly in the Mediterranean countries and Greece, the problems are more acute because of the warm, dry climate, geographical relief, strong winds, etc., which contribute to desertification and soil erosion.\nIn addition, the coastlines, which are long in relation to these countries' total area, favour salinification and the redeployment of land use for housing development. The lack of a soil map and thematic maps results in excessive use of agricultural chemicals. In practice, there is also an inability to promote crop rotation, because of the misconceived CAP pricing and subsidy system for agricultural produce.\nIn addition, the lack of any state department to record, prevent and restore pathogenic soils etc. makes this a worrying situation.\nThe Commission's proposal seems unable to address these problems, many of which should have been dealt with already. As for the excuse of the wide variety of soils (320), this problem could be resolved if the proposed measures were devised on the basis of the soil pathogens to be prevented or rectified, and not on the basis of particular soil types.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted for this first reading report on Commission plans to protect soil. I am in favour of the need to protect soil, but am yet to be convinced that a directive is the right approach, or whether a less prescriptive approach would be more suitable.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report but voted against paragraphs 8 and 10 as I do not accept that there is a need for additional legislation relating to soil protection.\nThere is a range of legal instruments in place already to ensure the maximum protection possible for soil, and until these pieces of legislation are fully implemented and the effects are fully analysed, I do not believe that further legislation in this area is either necessary or desirable.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) Protection of the environment is a politically important issue in Europe which has developed rapidly in recent years and in which research continues to be a priority for the Union. However, the environment cannot be protected in Europe without protecting the soil which is exposed to various degradation processes. The need for specific protection measures within a new European framework in this area therefore makes total sense.\nWe recognise that, in the main, soil is in private ownership, but also that soil is a natural resource of public interest and therefore must be preserved for the benefit of future generations.\nAs protection of the soil is closely linked with the main international environmental challenges, there is a need to consider Community legislation which is specifically designed to protect the soil itself and which can encourage the exchange of information and coordination of good practices among the Member States. Inserting soil protection in a future climate regime therefore seems to presuppose the recognition of the need for greater knowledge about the role of this resource in the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express my support for the Prodi report. Europe does need a common soil strategy. Soil degradation is continuing across Europe, given that existing legislation is inadequate to combat phenomena such as erosion, the loss of organic material, compaction, salinisation, landslides and contamination.\nA plan of action and measures need to be devised at European level, obviously with due account for national circumstances and within a framework of subsidiarity and cooperation with the Member States.\nThis is crucial above all in terms of identifying areas at risk and drawing up packages of measures. Moreover, it is vitally important that all 27 Member States should have a minimum level of legislation in this area and that education and awareness-raising campaigns be introduced.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik  \nin writing. - (PL) Multi-faceted protection of the soil is one of the main challenges for environmental protection at international level. It also has a tremendous impact on the economies of the Member States.\nI wish to express my concern about the consequences of natural degradation of the soil and degradation caused by human activity. Degradation of the soil is often the result of inappropriate human activity in the areas of agriculture and forestry. It can also be a consequence of industry, tourism, and urban development.\nI should like to point out to the House that compliance with the provisions of the directive will make it possible for degraded land to be reclassified, thus preventing the use of green field sites for industrial and commercial purposes. The directive will also provide for soil to be classified in terms of its potential for plant and animal production, with particular reference to the production of high quality food.\nI should like to highlight the need to develop a European strategy aimed at identifying and resolving issues relating to soil degradation. Due to the great variety of soil types, a European strategy is required, independently of national action. Such a European strategy would be based on prevention, and would aim to raise public awareness and to persuade the public of the need for soil protection. In addition, the strategy would identify risk areas with a view to resolving this problem at European level.\nIt should be noted that it is important to establish a clear demarcation between this directive and other European legislative standards relating to soil protection in order to avoid regulatory duplication.\nCurrent European legislation does not appear to prevent degradation of the soil. At the same time, soil protection is closely linked to the main international challenges in the area of protection of the natural environment. I therefore believe that there is a clear need to develop Community legislation aimed at protecting the soil as such.\nGlenis Willmott  \nin writing. - The EPLP voted against paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Prodi report on Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection as it has not been proven that there is a need for a framework directive for soil protection. As it currently stands the measures proposed in these paragraphs would be disproportionate as there is not enough flexibility or subsidiarity.\nHans-Peter Mayer\n(DE) Mr President, in my view, the inclusion of aviation activities in the scheme for emission allowance trading is a step towards meeting the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol, that is correct.\nHowever, may I recall what Mr Sarkozy has just said. He said that Europe must demand reciprocity, and there is none, or far too little, of that here. Emission trading should not begin before 2012 at the earliest. As is the case for small cars, exemptions must be in place for small aircraft under 20 tonnes in order to avoid any disproportionality. A jumbo jet is not the same as a Cessna!\nMany points in the report by the Committee on the Environment simply go too far and leave European businesses no room to manoeuvre and no time to implement the measures. There is massive discord here. Recalling again the words of the French President, we must think very hard, once more, about how we structure this emission trading scheme.\nLasse Lehtinen\n(FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of Amendments 77, 81 and 82 in Mr Liese's report, so as to ensure that airlines operating in Europe's peripheral regions would be able to compete fairly with the central European companies. Unfortunately, however, the majority thought otherwise.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, Parliament decided outside the scope of the Kyoto Protocol to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. Although aviation's share of overall greenhouse gas emissions is only about 3%, in 15 years the aviation sector's emissions have doubled. Today Europe has confirmed yet again its leadership in combating climate change. However, we need to strike a balance. It is only right that a proportion of allowances be allocated by auction rather than distributed free of charge, which will promote the development of young societies. Auction revenues should be used to develop technologies to reduce CO2 emissions in the aviation sector and not for other purposes.\nIt is well known that another strategy for reducing emissions is the integrated management of flight schedules. I am strongly in favour of a single starting date for both intercontinental and internal flights. The Commission has to persuade third countries to join by the end of 2011. I consider this a necessary condition for fair competition between all European airlines regardless of the company's address. The goal of reducing global warming by two degrees by the year 2020 involves convincing the rest of the world first of all. The international conference in Bali will soon show how successful we are in this respect.\nChristoph Konrad\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as regards the purpose of the report, which is to include European aviation activities in the scheme for emission allowance trading, a number of questions arise. What is beyond question, however, is that we have clear indications that this is not a particularly successful scheme, and although the Commission has data showing that it is not successful, we are now about to include aviation in the scheme as well. That is my main point of criticism and it prompted me not to vote for the report.\nBy including European aviation in the scheme, we are approaching this as an isolated solution. However, that is the very point which ultimately jeopardises the competitiveness of European airline companies and, alongside these companies, the competitiveness of European airports as well. To my mind, this is not acceptable and we must do all we can to identify global solutions which include other airlines and other airports too. That is the only way to achieve a solution which is good for the environment but is also good for competition in the European Union.\nEija-Riitta Korhola\n(FI) Mr President, I wish to thank my colleague, Mr Liese, for his excellent levels of cooperation. One concrete issue on which we sought compromise related to the channelling of revenue from auctions. I would have liked to see all the revenue going to air traffic, but I am grateful that my views were even partly taken into consideration.\nI start from the position that aviation is also necessary from the point of view of the environment because, for example, in the MIPS survey its benefits are clearly visible. Another basic consideration is that the aim must ultimately be emissions-free air traffic. That is why I am so in favour of channelling revenue into research and development in the area of aviation. If we really see the dramatic increase in emissions from air traffic as a problem, we need to spend all our available resources on ensuring that research money goes into the development of emissions-free air traffic. I hope that in the future the Council will bear this in mind. I also want to say that what Mr Lehtinen just said is my sentiment exactly.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nWe Swedish Social Democrats have chosen to support Parliament's report because it is a first step in reducing the impact of aviation on the climate. However, we consider it regrettable that a majority in Parliament advocate both high emission ceilings and an insignificant amount of auctioning of emission allowances. In addition, the entry into force has been postponed by a year compared with what was decided on Parliament's Committee on the Environment.\nIn time we would prefer to see aviation having a completely separate scheme for trading in emission allowances.\nLiam Aylward, Brian Crowley and Se\u00e1n \u00d3 Neachtain  \nin writing. - The Emission Trading Scheme is the most effective way of dealing with climate change emissions and to facilitate the EU in reaching its target of 20-30% by 2020.\nWe voted today in favour of peripheral regions being taken into account in this Directive and in favour of a deletion of a Commission proposal allowing an airline to demand conversion of its aviation allowances to Kyoto-backed allowances free of charge!\nWe voted to lower the cap allowance which will be the predicted actual end result in negotiations in future weeks, approximately 85-90% benchmarked against 2004-06 emissions.\nWe voted in favour of a review of auctioning in future, if a review is undertaken regarding other sectors. While we did not vote in favour of auctioning today, auctioning in all sectors could be considered as this would decrease the possibility of windfall profits and help increase competitiveness and innovation.\nWhat is most important is that industry carries its share of emission cutting in an innovative way without laying the entire burden on the flying consumer.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Liese report on the proposal to amend Directive 2003\/87\/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading as I consider that including the aviation sector in this scheme is vital for mitigating the effects of climate change.\nAviation's contribution to climate change is substantial and growing rapidly which is why this proposal for a directive represents an important step in meeting the ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in the European Union. However, it is essential to adopt measures so that this directive takes account of the situation in the outermost regions in order to prevent the social and economic impact of the emissions scheme on these regions being too high. I therefore regret that Amendments 98=100\/rev and 97=99\/rev were not adopted.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We have serious doubts about the general content of the proposals adopted in this European Parliament resolution, which is why we voted against it.\nFirstly, we disagree with emission trading which always protects those who have more money to buy emission rights and does not solve the problem of excess CO2 emissions.\nSecondly, due account has not been taken of those countries and regions where aviation services are fundamental, such as the outermost regions of the Azores and Madeira. For example, both flights between these islands and flights between continental Europe and these regions are particularly important for territorial cohesion in the European Union, which is why these flights merit special treatment.\nWe regret that the inclusion of the outermost regions in the EU territory and of all the flights arriving at or departing from European airports has not been taken into account in the impact assessment for this directive. This impact will be greater in those regions than in Europe on average, both due to the use of aircraft by their inhabitants and due to the impact of tourism on regional development. Likewise, no account has been taken of the dramatic consequences for their competitiveness of a tax on flights from which their neighbours are exempt.\nRobert Goebbels  \nI did not support the report that seeks to include CO2 emissions from aviation activities in the European Union's scheme for emissions trading.\nThe Kyoto Protocol excluded aviation and while most of the nations of the world do not recognise the Kyoto agreements the European Union now wants to do more than is required under the Protocol.\nThis idealism is all very well from an intellectual point of view but it will not save the planet, which in any case is not in real danger as such.\nHowever, Europe is in the act of sacrificing all its industries, including aviation, without any significant impact on the climate. I must protest.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, the Polish Members decided to vote against this report for a very simple reason, namely that not one of our comments was taken into account.\nI should like to point out that Polish aviation was very well prepared for reductions of CO2 emissions within the framework of meeting the Kyoto Protocol obligations (36% of 6% obligations) and CO2 emissions are not a problem for countries like ours. The countries of the old Fifteen, however, have so far only met 1.5% of the 8% obligations undertaken.\nHence the idea underpinning this proposal for a directive, which would enable the old Fifteen to meet their obligations at the expense of the new Member States. Is this what the European Union is all about? I do not think so, and I call for detailed work and reflection at second reading.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this first reading report on the Commission's proposal to include the aviation sector in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, also backing the amendments to reduce authorised emissions from the proposed 100% level to 90%. I also supported Socialist Group amendments to include all flights originating and terminating in the EU, but unfortunately other parties did not back these and they did not pass. Aviation is an important and fast-growing source of GHG emissions, and taking action to curb those emissions is vital in the fight against climate change.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The adoption of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union and other industrialised countries is under way and this Commission proposal to include aviation in the emission allowance trading scheme is an important element in the set of measures to be adopted internationally.\nWe cannot deny the significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the aviation sector. Solving the problem by means of emission allowance trading therefore seems to be a useful measure, particularly if correctly conceived and linked with other measures supporting market stability and preventing competition distortions.\nThe measures adopted today will set a precedent for the continuing international negotiations. This is why the EU must adopt a firm position with solutions that are actually effective in terms of protecting the environment, whilst defending our industries and our freedoms. Recognising that this is a difficult task, the rapporteur's work must be praised, as should everyone for their commitment to achieving compromises which are specifically aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change and balancing social and economic activities in Europe.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express my support for the Liese report. I have nevertheless seen fit to back some amendments modifying the initial draft, particularly those relating to 2011 as the date for the scheme's entry into force.\nThis is an especially significant point when it comes to avoiding the creation of market distortions within the European Union, albeit only for transitional periods, meaning that some operators would be at an advantage over others.\nI have backed certain other amendments too, on matters such as the percentage of allocations to be auctioned, and the use to be made of funds gathered in this way, provided that this does not set a precedent for reducing the financial room for manoeuvre falling within the exclusive prerogative of Member States.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I have voted in favour of the Liese report, even though I have doubts about its practicality and its implementation. I agree that aviation has to be included in any emissions trading schemes, but a balance has to be found between environmental considerations and those of the aviation industry. In addition, this scheme as proposed is highly contentious outside the European Union with many states threatening court action against the EU, including the USA, India and China because they believe any scheme involving aviation must be agreed internationally before implementation.\nIt is right that aviation should be involved in ETS. It is wrong to single out aviation as a major CO2 creator without also addressing the maritime industry and the biggest CO2 creator in transport, road transportation.\nSome of the suggestions outlined by the Committee on the Environment in its report were frankly extreme. Parliament has taken a more pragmatic and balanced view. But still I see problems ahead for this proposal in the months to come, not least on the international stage and not least that we have exempted private jets.\nS\u00f8ren Bo S\u00f8ndergaard  \nin writing. - (DA) I voted in favour of the final version of the Liese report, as it was a small step forwards in comparison to the Commission proposal. However, the report leaves much to be desired in relation to the steps necessary in order to combat climate change, and therefore demonstrates that the European Parliament is not at the forefront of this battle.\nMargie Sudre  \nThe outermost regions together contribute to combating climate change and regularly demonstrate their commitment to continuing in the same vein by becoming veritable centres of innovation in this area.\nI support the objectives being pursued by the inclusion of aviation activities in the scheme for emissions trading.\nHowever, the outermost regions could not support the implementation of the Commission's proposal as it stands, for otherwise the aviation companies that operate in these areas would have no other option but to pass the new surcharges directly on to ticket prices, to the detriment of overseas passengers and tourists who are already penalised by the high cost of air travel, and to the cost of air freight, which in turn will lead to price rises that will hit consumers and businesses in these outlying regions.\nI wish to express my thanks to the rapporteur for having listened to my appeals on this subject, and to Parliament for having finally endorsed the principle of granting special treatment for the outermost regions in this particular matter.\nI also welcome the fact that Parliament has accepted the possibility that part of the funds resulting from the emissions-quota bidding scheme might be used to reduce the negative impact of this project on the accessibility and competitiveness of the outermost regions.\nHannu Takkula  \nin writing. - (FI) Mr President, we all know that it is important to ensure that environmental protection is in place and to fight against climate change. Our actions have to remain within the bounds of common sense, however, and we, as decision-makers, should view things as a whole. In my opinion, the majority on Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety have not viewed the matter in all of its aspects with regard to this report. Emissions from aviation account for just 2% of total emissions and so they should be dealt with in proportion to the whole. That is to say, even if our entire aviation service were to cease, this would have barely any effect on global warming. We also have to realise that many airlines have already invested significantly in improving the environmental friendliness of their fleets.\nI voted in favour of Amendments 77, 81 and 82, to allow air traffic to continue to survive in Europe's remotest regions. I do not see the point of having air traffic structured mainly around just a few large airports. Competitiveness between national airlines should not be short-sightedly impaired to the cost of the cut-price carriers. I therefore agree with what Mr Lehtinen said in his speech.\nPresident\nThat concludes voting time.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"MON 863 - Risk Management (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Commission statement on MON 863 risk management.\nMarkos Kyprianou\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission has on many occasions declared - and, through its actions, proved - its commitment to ensuring that the legislative framework on genetically modified food and feed, which was approved by the European Parliament and the Council, is fully respected. We have the obligation - and I believe we are delivering on this obligation - to make sure that the legislation is properly and fully respected. Under the legislation, GM food and feed can be legally put on the market only if it is safe and appropriately labelled.\nI would remind the House of how the legislation provides for the division of work between risk assessment and risk management. The Commission has no discretion on the safety assessment of a GM product. The legislation clearly distinguishes between risk assessment, which is carried out by EFSA, and risk management, which is carried out by the Commission. This approach is defined not only by general food law but also by the Regulation on GM food and feed.\nWhenever new scientific questions emerge, the Commission adheres to the separation of competences and asks EFSA to evaluate the information and its impact on the risk assessment of a product. The Commission's role is to take relevant risk management decisions, provided that, and only when, such a risk is identified by EFSA as the European Union's body responsible for risk assessment. In other words, we manage a risk once it has been identified and assessed by the body responsible. It was a very specific decision, when the legislation was adopted, to give the risk assessment to a separate independent body. However, if there is no risk identified by the Authority, then there will be no sound scientific basis for the Commission to take a risk management decision.\nOn this specific issue, MON 863 had already been evaluated twice in 2004 before the authorisation was adopted. In both cases, EFSA concluded that MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect, and this opinion was reached with the involvement of the national authorities of the Member States and was further reviewed and confirmed by the Authority in 2006 following a specific request to the Commission by the honourable Member Ms Breyer. There were intensive repeated analyses, which were carried out as part of the authorisation procedure, and then there was the publication by Professor S\u00e9ralini in March this year - that is the sequence of events.\nThe work presented by Professor S\u00e9ralini was not a new study but only a statistical review of the existing rat-feeding study, which supported the authorisation of this product in the European Union. Despite the fact that it was not a new study but only a statistical review, as soon as the Commission became aware of Professor S\u00e9ralini's paper, it immediately asked EFSA to analyse it to verify whether the newly proposed statistical interpretation was well founded and, more importantly, whether the statistical differences were relevant for food and feed safety.\nIn order to take into account all new elements and thus to eliminate any possible sources of uncertainty, EFSA conducted a new review asking Member States to provide any relevant analysis or comments, set up a specific task force of internal and external statistical experts and held a meeting with the author of the statistical review. In the Commission's view, the procedures set up by EFSA to evaluate the review of Professor S\u00e9ralini's report represent a sufficient guarantee of independence and expertise. EFSA first responded to the Commission request in March by discussing the issue at the plenary meeting of the GMO Panel, before issuing a statistical report and a scientific statement by the Panel on 20 June.\nIn particular, the Authority underlines that the statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations and that the assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results. The conclusion of the Authority is that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification to question the safety of MON 863 maize and, therefore, it sees no reason to revise its previous opinions that MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect in the context of the proposed use. Parliament will be informed in more detail of the background I have outlined in the replies to the written questions on this subject by Ms Breyer, which are currently being finalised following the recent EFSA statement.\nAgainst this background, two conclusions emerge. First, and most importantly, there is at this stage no scientific basis to question either the safety of MON 863 or its status as a legally commercialised product. Second, the conclusions of the EU official body for risk assessment, made up of some of the best specialists in Europe, have been drawn after consultation of the national competent authorities as well as external experts. By trusting the outcome of this work, which confirms the previous evaluations, the Commission has, I believe, acted as a responsible risk manger, especially within the context of the legislation and the apportionment of responsibilities as I explained them during my introduction. The Commission will continue to work along these lines on the basis of a precautious and science-based approach.\nThe Commission, I would emphasise, has full determination to make a case-by-case risk management decision taking into account any scientific questions emerging during the evaluation procedure or even after the authorisation. We will always be vigilant; we will always be ready to examine every new piece of scientific information that emerges. But, of course, our final decision will have to be based on the risk assessment, which will be done by the body in charge of this responsibility based on European legislation.\nWe believe that our legislation and the Commission's approach offer the best way to provide our citizens with the high level of safety they expect and demand. I hope that I can count on the trust and support of the European Parliament as we continue our rigorous and impartial approach.\nRenate Sommer\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, was it not us, was it not the European Parliament that wanted to have an independent European Food Safety Authority? Was it not also the Council of Ministers that wanted to have an independent EFSA, an authority on whose findings you can rely, an authority where there is no risk of getting bogus studies? Did the European Parliament not at that time charge EFSA with making risks assessments of GMOs, and did the Council of Ministers not back that very thing in codecision?\nIn April 2004, EFSA assessed MON 863 maize to be just as safe as conventional maize. A second EFSA safety assessment in October 2004 came to the same conclusion. That is not of course what the green souls among us want to hear, and because what the Greens do not want simply cannot be, they commission their own study. Then this eventually finds, surprise, surprise, that genetically modified maize is lethal, and woe betide anyone who finds that suspect!\nThe EFSA experts then asked for a repeat of the trial on rats. Again there was no sign of acute toxicological effects. Incidentally, the Greens' study would have given the same result if the statistics had been evaluated correctly, but the statistical evaluation was not scientifically correct, as the Commissioner said.\nOnce again, the Green study's supposedly scientific findings were therefore deliberate scare-mongering, deliberately sowing anxiety in the minds of the public and pulling the wool over their eyes. It is the typical ideologically motivated policy of obstructiveness that they so much like to use in election campaigns as well. They are wasting taxpayers' money by always calling for multiple repeats of the EFSA risk assessments. But will they also question the EFSA nutrient profiles under the Health Claims Regulation, for example? Of course not, because they fit in with their ideology.\nThe Council of Ministers is also at fault, however. The national ministers responsible lack the courage to agree to authorise GMOs that have been examined and found to be safe. It is the small man's fear of not being re-elected, neither more nor less!\nWe are wasting such great opportunities for the EU: GMOs can give us better food and feed with nutrition-physiological added value and efficient renewable raw materials that are carbon-neutral and therefore have no effect on the climate. MON 863 is safe and must be approved just like the other useful plants that have been tested and found to be safe.\nKarin Scheele\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, in response to the previous speaker I would like to quote an Austrian proverb: 'blessed are those who believe, but you will still get to heaven if you do not'. Perhaps now I can challenge Renate Sommer's world view a little. It was not only Green Members, but the majority in this House who wanted a consumer- and environmentally friendly solution for the authorisation and labelling of genetically modified food and feed. Even a government close to you has questioned EFSA's handling of the studies referred to today.\nMy question to the Commission is now: what concrete steps has the Commission taken to bring about a reform of the European Food Safety Authority? This is not the first time we in this House have expressed doubts about its independence. And yes, Mrs Sommer, we wanted and we want an independent Food Safety Authority. But democratically elected Members naturally also have the right to take a critical look at its independence and work to see that it is genuinely independent. That is very much our responsibility, because we of course also know the mood and attitude of the public towards it in all the Member States.\nWe agree, Mr Kyprianou, that EFSA should continue to be responsible for risk assessment and the Commission for risk management. I am however convinced that both EFSA and the Commission need to take their responsibilities seriously.\nAs you know, next week we in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety will be dealing with the question of how the individual authorisation of genetically modified organisms should be handled in the context of comitology and the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. Such cases do not help that discussion very much. I hope that in future concrete steps will be taken to demonstrate that the Food Safety Authority really is independent.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, I was instrumental in organising a conference that took place on 12 June at the European Parliament in Brussels. The conference dealt with dangers related to the spread of GMOs, and was attended by distinguished scientists from many countries.\nTheir presentations clearly indicated that there is increasing evidence of the harmful nature of GMOs. Alleging technological progress, large biotechnology enterprises are disseminating serious threats to civilisation the world over. With all due respect to Mrs Sommer, I am more inclined to believe scientists than Mrs Sommer's assurances on the safety of MON 863.\nAt present, only a little animal husbandry and agriculture in the EU involves the use of GMOs. We still have one last chance to protect Europe against this danger. I have some questions to pose to the Commissioner. Does the European Commission intend to do anything about this? Above all, does it intend to heed the wishes of citizens of entire regions of Europe, where the majority of the population wishes to protect itself against GMOs, or does the Commission intend instead to be seduced by the misleading publicity alleging technological progress?\nHiltrud Breyer\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Kyprianou, I am most disappointed, because, like Mrs Scheele, I was expecting answers this evening about when we will finally have higher standards for risk assessment.\nI have been asking the Commission specific questions about these safety issues for months and getting no answers; then officials tell me in private that they are not in a position to give those answers. The French scientists' independent study is not the only one to come to the alarming conclusion that Monsanto 863 is unsafe and is an alarming threat to health and that it is irresponsible to leave it on the market any longer.\nA study has also been made in Austria. There are alarming concerns in the Member States. We cannot just deny that and stick our heads in the sand. I would have liked to receive answers from you today about the fact that the European Medicines Agency also sees a risk with the two antibiotic resistance genes, not only in MON 863, but also in the Amflora potato, authorisation of which has now been applied for. Even your own EU institution is contradicting EFSA. We really must have answers from you on this, Mr Kyprianou! You cannot simply say that you are not going to answer. Even the Council has called on you to comment.\nI find it curious that EFSA needed three months to evaluate the S\u00e9ralini study. Incidentally, Mr S\u00e9ralini will be here in Parliament on Wednesday and will then tell us clearly whether EFSA's all-clear, its whitewashing, is really justified. We do know that the EFSA studies make repeated references to Monsanto. They contain statistical errors. That has been pointed out not only by the French research team but by many Member States as well.\nWe are looking to you for answers as to how these mistakes can be remedied in future, how we are to deal with them, what value, if any, should be put on the precautionary principle. We need a reassessment. I would like you to tell me, Mr Kyprianou, in no uncertain terms: will MON 863 be reassessed? All EFSA has done is to look at the old data again. It has not carried out a reassessment at all. That is a very crucial question, to which we need an answer!\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nKathy Sinnott\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Mr President, scientists in France recently discovered extensive organ damage in the liver and kidney in animals raised on Monsanto 863. Three years before this, German studies were brought to the attention of EFSA by the German authorities that showed kidney damage in rats fed Monsanto 863. Yet, despite this, EFSA has reaffirmed their risk assessment on this and said that it is safe for European farm animals. Where are EFSA's studies? Why are they just looking at the industry's tests and just going back over them? How difficult can it be for them to try to redo the French and German studies?\nThe biotech industry in Europe alleges that GM farming is inevitable. My fear is that this will just be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Europe is capable of supplying its farmers with GM-free grain, but if we accept the inevitability, if we accept safety studies that are not really studies at all, then farmers will be forced into feeding their animals GM because otherwise there will be no other grain.\nI would remind EFSA that many products, after years of so-called 'safety', have been taken off the market. To give you one example, the polio vaccine we use today is the fourth polio vaccine, because the other three, after having been given to people for many years, were finally withdrawn because of mounting evidence of damage.\nWe are supposed to respect the precautionary principle in Europe, especially when we are talking about putting genetically-modified organisms into the environment, considering that, with GM, any resulting adverse effects may be irreversible.\nMarkos Kyprianou\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, I know that the GMO authorisations are a sensitive issue but, first of all, we have to remind ourselves that, based on European legislation adopted by Parliament and the Council, GMO products are allowed in the European Union, provided they go through the authorisation procedure I have just described.\nThat authorisation procedure provides for the risk assessment to be done by EFSA. So, whether some of us agree or disagree with the concept of GMO products, we are all bound by the European legislation. This is the rule of law so we have to follow it.\nFirst of all, on EFSA's work, as you know, Parliament was informed and I came along myself as well. We have taken decisions on improving the work of EFSA to make it more thorough and to take more account of the views of the Member States and all scientific developments that may take place during the authorisation procedure. The Commission adopted an action plan which has been put in place already and is being implemented and which will also be included in the legislative framework sometime in 2008. It is part of the Annual Policy Strategy for 2008. There we take into account how we can improve the situation and make proposals based on the views of the Member States and on long-term effects and many other aspects.\nI also have to insist that in the European Union we have the highest standards and the strictest legislation when it comes to GMO products. That is why you know we have continuously been taken to the WTO and are not doing so well there.\nBut nevertheless our legislation has been accepted by the WTO because it is science-based and the decisions are based on risk assessment so, in this way, we can fulfil our international obligations by taking into account primarily and foremost the safety of European consumers and European citizens. So it is not a question of personal preferences but an issue of applying the existing legislation.\nI know Mrs Breyer referred to those questions. There is a procedure. We have to get information. You will be provided with all the details on these questions. But again the questions arising are linked to the risk and the risk is not being assessed by us. It is assessed by EFSA. Therefore, we have to wait for the decision of EFSA on this issue before we actually provide the replies.\nOn this specific product there were many evaluations and many studies. They all caused EFSA to re-evaluate and reassess its position and it came to the same conclusions. So it was not something taken lightly. It was not something that was ignored. Whenever there was new science and new evidence, this was taken into account and we asked EFSA, which again is the risk assessor of the European Union, to take them into account. It is true that EFSA's latest opinion was based on the existing study but also Professor S\u00e9ralini's paper was on the same study. It was a question of how you analyse, how you do statistical analysis of the existing data and that is why we had a special task force on statistical analysis, internally and externally, and it came to the conclusion that there were flaws in the analysis and the conclusions of Professor S\u00e9ralini. That does not always mean that he who is negative is always right. Sometimes people who are positive as well may be accurate and correct.\nFinally, as to the issue of which studies the authorisation would be based on, the decision was that we would continue with the legislation that was originally adopted; that the applicant has the responsibility of providing the data and the studies information. In this way, they have the burden of proof which is assessed by the authorities. The authorities can ask for any further additional studies they would like and in this way they have the responsibility of proving their case. I will not go into the issue of the cost of eventually changing the system. The cost will eventually be a burden on the taxpayers of the European Union and not the industry. But the main reason is they should have the burden of proof and therefore the authority can analyse this data based on a critical analysis.\nI would like to remind you that a similar situation is used in the EMEA, the medicine authority of the European Union, where again the industry provides all the clinical trials and clinical studies and the decision is taken.\nSo I can assure you that we take into account and we will make sure that the EFSA takes into account and assesses and evaluates any new scientific evidence that may arise and the moment a risk is identified we will not hesitate to take the appropriate measures. As you know, we have done that and I personally have done that in the past on many occasions with unauthorised products.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Guinea Bissau\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on the situation in Guinea Bissau.\nJos\u00e9 Ribeiro e Castro\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, sadly, we are discussing in this House the situation of Guinea-Bissau, which is a truly painful situation. It is a country that has known chronic instability for many years and that tried to take the road towards democracy at the beginning of the 1990s. Nothing went right, there was a coup d'\u00e9tat and a minor civil war, and it has since been in a situation of major political and military instability, tensions and deep rivalries. Recently there has also been a very worrying presence of drug trafficking interests, which have become increasingly evident to all observers.\nWe strongly condemn the recent attacks: the bomb attack that killed the Chief of Staff, General Tagme Na Waie, and also the particularly barbaric, if not savage, assassination of President Nino Vieira. Regardless of their past, we express our solidarity with their families and with the people of Guinea-Bissau and we regret and strongly condemn these attacks.\nWe want to see a return to normality. The lesson that I have learnt and that I wanted to stress in this resolution was that impunity is not an answer. In the past, with regard to the assassination of Ansumane Man\u00e9 and General Ver\u00edssimo Seabra, how could we have closed our eyes to the fact that the perpetrators were not found and brought to justice? It is clear that this is not the answer. We must therefore impress upon the government of Guinea-Bissau that those responsible must be found. The guilty parties must be brought to justice and we have to provide all the assistance that is needed.\nFinally, I also want to draw attention to our concern at the presence of drug trafficking throughout the region, the risk that this also poses to the European Union and its shocking presence, which is clearly evident, in Guinea-Bissau. I also want to call for a closer relationship in this context with Cape Verde. We have established a special partnership with Cape Verde, which has very close relations with and extensive knowledge of Guinea-Bissau, but which is also very vulnerable. This is therefore also essential for our own European security. As a result, the intensification of this special partnership with Cape Verde is also very important in this context.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis\nauthor. - (LT) The killings in Guinea Bissau are a major blow not just to democracy in a state impoverished by drug trafficking, but to the whole West African region. The assassination of the President and the army chief of staff pushed the country ever deeper into a quagmire of failing institutions, increasingly fragile democracy, growing corruption and personality cults. The state's inhabitants live in chaos and there is a shortage of water, medicine and schools. Drug trafficking knows no limits or borders and is becoming a threat to the entire region, even reaching European Union states.\nAlthough until now the commanders of the armed forces have kept their promise not to interfere in the country's internal affairs, recent events may completely overwhelm what remains of democracy in Guinea Bissau. The new government must respect the constitutional order, deal with conflicts peacefully and thoroughly investigate the murders. With the assistance of the European Union's Security and Defence mission, we must reach a turning point in the country's development, offering stability and a decent life. We must hope that presidential elections will take place in a few months and that they will comply with international standards for organising elections. We call on European Union states and the entire international community to give Guinea Bissau the financial and expert assistance required to organise democratic elections. Guinea Bissau's opposing political forces should seek common ground and compromises at this difficult time for the state and urgently adopt decisions on the country's security, election procedures and public administration. We call on them to fight corruption more effectively and to consult with civil society and other organisations on internal reconciliation in the state.\nEwa Tomaszewska\nMadam President, on 2 March of this year, the President of Guinea-Bissau, Jo\u00e3o Bernardo Vieira, was shot dead in an attack carried out by soldiers loyal to the army's Chief of Staff. The previous day, General Batista Tagme Na Waie, the army's Chief of Staff, died after being injured in an explosion. Both deaths are linked to the political conflict in Guinea-Bissau, which has been going on for many years and has led to tragedy and a lack of stability in the country. Although the elections held in 2008 were peaceful, an initial assassination attempt took place shortly afterwards. The President survived that attack. Guinea-Bissau, a former Portuguese colony, is one of the poorest countries in the world. At the same time, a cocaine-smuggling route passes through the country.\nWe condemn attempts to resolve conflicts by means of a coup d'etat; we call for presidential elections to be held in Guinea-Bissau within two months; and we call for these elections to meet democratic standards and for constitutional order to be restored.\nIlda Figueiredo\nWhen the political situation in Guinea-Bissau is analysed, we should not forget that the people of this young African country were the victims of Portuguese colonialism, against which they in fact fought a very courageous struggle. With regard to what is happening there, which we regret, in particular the assassinations of the President and the Chief of Staff, we cannot forget that this is the result of all the difficulties and all the divisions that have existed for years, and that still exist, and that stem from its colonial past. We should also bear in mind that it is still one of the poorest countries in Africa, which means that the European Union must pay greater attention to cooperation in the areas of public health and education, in order to improve the living conditions of its population and overcome the difficulties that a large part of the Guinea-Bissau population still has to face, particularly women, mothers and children.\nIt is vital that the European Union reinforces its sympathetic support of these people. We also need to support education, the safe supply of drinking water and, in some cases, even agricultural production to ensure that the whole population has access to food. However, this support must be provided without external interference and with full respect for the sovereignty and choices of the people.\nMarios Matsakis\nauthor. - Madam President, this poverty-stricken ex-colony has suffered decades of political instability and crisis, resulting in profound and prolonged suffering for its citizens.\nIts transition to democratic rule and better times for its people appeared a promising prospect after the 2008 legislative elections were carried out in an apparently fair and peaceful manner. However, the dark clouds of divisive hate and violence appeared again over the country after the shooting of President Vieira by renegade soldiers on 2 March, the day after the killing of the chief of the army. We condemn both those murders, and we can only hope that the rival parties in Guinea-Bissau will find the necessary will and power to resolve their disputes through dialogue at the negotiating table for the sake of their citizens' well-being. In addition, as Guinea-Bissau has in recent years evolved into an important drug-trafficking country, we urge not only the country's authorities but also the international community to do their utmost in fighting effectively this deadly curse.\nMarie Anne Isler B\u00e9guin\nauthor. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance strongly condemns the assassination of the President of Guinea-Bissau, Jo\u00e3o Bernardo Vieira, and the head of the armed forces, General Tagme Na Waie, on 1 and 2 March 2009.\nWe demand that a full investigation be carried out and that the perpetrators be prosecuted, and similarly for the killers of Generals Man\u00e9 and Correia, killed in 2000 and 2004, who remain unidentified to this day.\nAs one of the poorest of the poor and noted for its low life expectancy, Guinea-Bissau is today faced with drug trafficking. As a bridgehead for the South American drug smugglers, Guinea-Bissau has become a country of transit for drugs which are destined for Europe, where we represent the biggest consumer. We also know only too well that this is affecting the entire sub-region as, in Mauritania, for example, large quantities of drugs have been discovered, even at the airport.\nThe European Union must help this country to turn its back on this trade by fighting it both here and there and by a return to development based on that country's own resources.\nWhile the last elections were welcomed by the international community and the European Union has shown its support for the process of learning about and installing democracy in Guinea-Bissau, the events this country has just lived through can only reinforce this position of aid and assistance.\nThe army too, which did not intervene in the electoral process, must also continue with its strict observation of the constitutional order, as it has promised.\nWhile the neighbouring West African countries have, after years of problems and chaos, rediscovered the road to democracy, respect for the institutions and human rights, Guinea-Bissau must not fall into the trap of reprehensible practices. The European Union must be present and use its influence and its example to help this country to stay on the road to democracy.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\u0117\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, in addition to what has already been said today on the situation in Guinea-Bissau, I would like to comment on two issues.\nFirstly, the assassinations of the President of Guinea-Bissau, Jo\u00e3o Bernardo Vieira, and the chief of the armed forces, General Tagme Na Waie, should be thoroughly investigated and those responsible should be brought to justice.\nSecondly, in our resolution today, we express our hope that the presidential elections in the country will be held within 60 days. We should today call upon EU Member States and the international community to make sure that Guinea-Bissau receives the financial and technical support which is needed to conduct credible elections.\nLeopold J\u00f3zef Rutowicz\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, it is very easy for destabilisation, which has tragic consequences, to occur in poor African countries, such as Guinea-Bissau. The assassinations of President Jo\u00e3o Bernardo Vieira and General Tagme Na Waie, the head of the armed forces, in March of this year, were certainly part of an attempt to destabilise the country, probably instigated by the drugs mafia. The lack of an effective security force in this country has meant that various kinds of homicide go virtually unpunished. We need to provide all the vital assistance that the government of this country needs, and this is an issue which the resolution addresses.\nIn addition to this, and in order to prevent these kinds of incidents, we need to declare a ruthless war on the drugs trade, which is a destabilising force in many poor countries in Africa, Asia and South America, supports terrorism and, through drug addiction, destroys the lives of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. If we cannot overcome this problem, we will pay an increasingly high price for our helplessness.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, let me first of all, on behalf of the European Commission, say that we deeply regret the assassination of His Excellency the President of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Jo\u00e3o Bernardo Vieira. We condemn this assassination in the strongest possible terms and also the attacks that resulted in the deaths of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces, General Batista Tagme Na Waie and other soldiers. I would like also to send condolences to their families.\nThe presence of drug-dealers and so much crime are more than worrying today. Under the eighth EDF and other instruments, but in addition by contributing to EUR 2 million to the UN ODC, the Commission has signed up to a very ambitious plan in the counter narcotics field. We think this is really very important, as has been shown by what has happened.\nWe urgently call for calm and restraint, and urge the national authorities of Guinea-Bissau to fully investigate these events and bring to justice those responsible. There should be no impunity. Unfortunately, these violent acts follow the successful legislative elections, which paved the way for enhanced EU and international support for the country's peace-building efforts. These attacks also come at a time of increased international engagement, intended to build a democratic and a stable Guinea-Bissau.\nUnder these extremely difficult circumstances, the Commission remains fully committed to continuing its strong support to the national authorities, aiming to bring back stability but also to sustain development. I am thinking of education, the poorest of the poor, the necessity for basic needs and basic services, and also of economic growth in the country. We are now starting to deploy the wide range of instruments at our disposal, thus aiming to help Guinea-Bissau achieve sustainable peace and, hopefully, consolidate its democratic process.\nAn ambitious country strategy paper for an amount of EUR 100 million, covering the period 2008-2013, was approved last year. This will focus on security sector reform - including the fight against drugs that I mentioned earlier - and the enhancement of the national sovereign institutions.\nLast year the Council also decided to establish an EU mission supporting security sector reform in the framework of the European security and defence policy. The forthcoming presidential elections - now expected 60 days after the nomination of the new President - will probably take place even before the summer break. Taking into account this extremely tight schedule, the feasibility of the deployment of the electoral observation mission is being carefully considered by the Commission. Nevertheless, the provision of post-electoral assistance to support the required reforms to the electoral framework, following the recommendations formulated by the EU-UN 2008, and the support given to observation of the forthcoming elections by regional organisations remain, among other things, our key priorities.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at the end of the debates.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-10":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Membership of Parliament\nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Alain Lamassoure and Adrian Severin, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the composition of the European Parliament.\nAlain Lamassoure  \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the motion for a resolution is a response to an invitation by the European Council in June. Article 9 A of the draft Treaty states that in future the composition of the Parliament will be a matter for secondary legislation. This will be a decision of the European Council, adopted by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent. The Council is inviting us to explain how this procedure should work. It wants to see us deal with this hot potato.\nFor our Parliament, this is a real political challenge. Are we capable of coming up with a reform that applies to ourselves? The last time we were asked to do this was in 2000, and Parliament did not manage to do it. For this reason the vote secured in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is already a remarkable political result. We obtained a large majority: two thirds in the final vote and three quarters on the main point, the distribution of seats, in terms of actual numbers, between the Member States.\nWhat is the problem we are facing? We should first remember that the current Parliament of 785 MEPs no longer complies with the new legal position resulting from the amended Treaty of Nice. It is this system that would apply, based on 736 MEPs, in the absence of any new decision. Up to now, in the Council and in Parliament, the Member States have been divided into categories: one supersize state, some large ones, some medium-sized, some small, etc. Each category has the same voting rights in the Council and the same number of seats in Parliament.\nThis is over! The future Treaty introduces two types of innovation in relation to this system. On the one hand, there are actual figures: a maximum of 750 MEPs, a ceiling of 96 and a minimum of 6 seats per Member State. On the other, there is a principle: between the maximum and minimum, the Member States must be represented according to degressive proportionality, and it is our job in Parliament to define this principle today, namely to choose how much proportionality and how much degressivity there is, or how over-represented the least populous countries are and how under-represented the most populous countries are.\nYour committee is proposing that this principle should be translated in the following way: firstly, the minimum and maximum numbers set by the Treaty must be fully utilised. In particular, the use of the ceiling of 750 seats will give us a small reserve -as it were - of seats, so degressive proportionality can be applied without reducing the number of seats of any country. This is a fundamental political choice, and is absolutely necessary to obtain unanimity in the European Council.\nSecondly, the larger the population of a country, the greater its entitlement to a large number of seats, of course. Thirdly, the larger the population of a country, the more inhabitants are represented by each of its Members of the European Parliament. So at present, a Spanish MEP represents more than 875 000 people, Mr President, while a German MEP represents only 832 000. Up to now, Germany has had twice the population of Spain. This anomaly will be put right by the allocation of four additional seats to Spain. In total, ten countries are affected by the proposed increases.\nWe are fully aware of the fact that this is only a temporary solution. It would be desirable to come up with some sort of mathematical formula that would automatically apply to any future enlargements, but the tight timescale given to us did not allow this. However, the resolution makes some recommendations on this point. Similarly, we had to use the only population figures available, those from Eurostat, since we did not have any figures from the citizens themselves. Adrian Severin will say more about this.\nFinally, we would warn our fellow members against amendments that contradict the fundamental principles of the report and will have the effect, depending on the case, of giving the large countries an abnormal advantage over the smaller countries or small countries over the large countries, in which case our work will have been in vain, because without unanimity in the Council we will have to stick with the 736 seats of the Treaty of Nice.\nSo, ladies and gentlemen, please refrain from bidding up your countries. We have spent the afternoon proclaiming that we are the only democratic institution protecting the interests of Europeans before the other institutions, above national egotism. Now, today, we have the perfect opportunity to show that our actions are faithful to our words.\n(Applause)\nAdrian Severin  \nrapporteur. - Mr President, our proposals - Mr Lamassoure's and mine - confirmed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, bring a number of improvements to the current practices regarding the composition of the European Parliament. If adopted, and properly enhanced, there will be no more artificial groupings, no more arbitrary negotiations, no more enlargement at the expense of the efficiency of the European Parliament, which is always growing with the number of Members. There will be more representativity, based on demographic realities and not on nominal or symbolic legal relations, more solidarity between the big and small states resulting from the digressive proportionality of the representation, and full legitimacy based on the civic representation resulting from the fact that the European Parliament is elected by European citizens.\nOne should note the difference between the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament, which is based on the vote of the European citizens, and national representativity within the European Parliament, which is based on the demographic realities within the Member States. We, the European Parliament, are representative of citizens and of the states at the same time.\n(Murmurs of dissent)\nYou see, immediately, some say only citizens, others say states. We are a Bundestag and a Bundesrat at the same time. A clear separation of this dimension should, perhaps, be considered in the future, but for the time being - once we have accepted that the citizens are voting and that digressive proportionality should take into consideration the size of the communities living on national territories - I am sorry, but we are both.\nOf course, within this framework, the concept of European citizenship is still to be clarified, and I hope that this will be done in the near future. Our report, however, is not provisional but transitional. It is transitional because I believe the principles we have defined are long-lasting, but progress is needed, and I am sure that in the future we can add to what we have already proposed to you. Therefore, we have included a number of revision clauses which to our minds - Mr Lamassoure's and mine - will assure flexibility, adaptability and future progress in the way in which Parliament is composed.\nNobody is penalised by this report. Maybe those with a better demographic policy are rewarded, and certainly it is an invitation for a better demographic policy, including migration policy. I do not think anybody loses - and, perhaps, nobody wins - in terms of a zero-sum game. As long as we have a more democratically legitimate Parliament, everybody wins.\nWe have some amendments. Some colleagues would like to reduce digressivity in favour of proportionality - more proportionality means more seats for the big countries. Some others would like more digressivity and not more proportionality. More digressivity means more seats for small countries. Therefore, I believe that we have to reject both these extreme options in order to promote the option which is, I agree, imperfect, but which for the time being is the best one. This is the option proposed by Mr Lamassoure and myself. Some would look on the basis of reference. Some would like all their national citizens, irrespective of their country of residence, to be taken into consideration. Others would like to see all inhabitants in their countries being taken into consideration. Others are trying to see only the European citizens residing in a certain country. So we are divided on that. The only solution is to stick with the actual practices and the actual Eurostat figures.\nFinally, there are some who are fighting for political prestige and think that, if we are not equally represented in this Parliament, we are unequal in our political weight. I think that once we have accepted digressivity - and proportional digressivity - these artificial groupings cannot survive any longer. If we fail to adopt this resolution, I am afraid that the European Parliament will send the message that it is not able to adopt an important reform and that it has to always wait for the executive institution to decide for it. I think that the IGC will suffer a first failure before it can even consider the issues on its agenda, and this failure might be a prelude to a total failure. I am afraid that everybody will go back to Nice and not to illusory dreams. I am afraid that, then, we will give a message which will mean a split between the big and small countries, and this will undermine any dream of unity, fairness and inclusion. Therefore, I end with an appeal to all my colleagues. I make this appeal to our sense of European responsibility and European solidarity. Hic Rhodus, hic salta! Here is Rhodes, and let us prove here that we are true Europeans, and not when giving lessons to the Commission and the Council.\nIngo Friedrich\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, the report provides clarification for which I would like to express my sincere thanks to both rapporteurs, Messrs Lamassoure and Severin. It makes clear that we are constantly exceeding the stipulated upper and lower limits. I would like to express my thanks specifically for this. This clarification is important for us all.\nSecondly, there are two outcomes to this report. Firstly, the less degressive the scale we have, that is, the more we gear ourselves to proportionality, the more genuine authority and legitimacy Parliament has. The conflict as to how much degressivity we need - how much less, how much more - must be continually managed and it is logical here, I believe, for us to say the less the degressivity, the greater the legitimacy. As a German, I would also add that it is somewhat problematic, of course, that we as Germans are the only ones getting less than we did on the basis of Nice. We would like a little bit more support here because the discussion in the German press is very explicit in this regard. We shall accept this because we too believe that the European aspect is more important than all the others.\nFinally, two findings which we ought to utilise for the future. Firstly, we really ought to be working towards obtaining a logical system in the long-term, which we do not have to be constantly renegotiating. Secondly, there are two controversial amendments, 2 and 3. Our Group has decided that irrespective of how the vote goes on the two controversial subjects, in the end the Group will vote in favour of the Lamassoure\/Severin Report. The Council has no excuse. In Amendment 2, which differs only minimally from the figures in the Lamassoure Report, the outcome would be that the Council is given a message from Parliament for the period 2009-2014. Hence our Parliament and all the Groups have on balance, as I believe, fulfilled their duties and the Council can decide, if it is willing.\nMany thanks for a fair discussion on such a difficult subject!\nRichard Corbett\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, on behalf of the PSE Group, I would like to support this report. My group will be voting for it and we hope that this text that was adopted by a 70% majority in committee can now be endorsed by an equally impressive majority in Parliament as a whole.\nThe rapporteurs have - sensibly, in view of the legal constraints laid down by the new Treaty, in view of the time constraints laid down now before the conclusion of the IGC - focused on correcting the main anomalies in the current distribution of seats rather than embarking on proposing a radical overhaul of the system, which could only have led to deadlock in the IGC and endangered the approval and ratification of the new Treaty.\nIn particular, no Member State will see a reduction in the number of seats that it is entitled to under the current treaties where they provide for the distribution of seats from 2009 onwards - except, of course, where it is laid down in the Treaty itself for the Federal Republic of Germany. With that sole exception, no country will see a reduction compared to what is planned already in the Treaty for 2009.\nNow, of course, some of our colleagues are trying to win more seats for their own Member State, sometimes arguing that their country's population is suddenly much bigger than we had all assumed beforehand, bigger than the Eurostat figures that are used by everybody, including the Council.\nOthers are arguing, for reasons of national prestige, that they should have the same number of seats as another particular Member State. I must confess that I am very surprised at the attitude of the Italian Government. I understand that Mr Prodi, and indeed some Italian Members here, have been arguing that it is essential for Italy to have the same number of seats as France and the United Kingdom. Yet they accepted - we all accepted - the principle of proportional degression: proportional to population. I accept that my country will have one seat fewer than France although we have always had the same size up to now. I do not see why it should be so difficult for Italy as well to accept that it has fewer seats than France for exactly the same reason. And I am surprised that a government from a country that has so often said that it is the example to us all in terms of being communautaire, that it has a strong European commitment, that it is not nationalist, it always puts Europe before its national interests, that now Italy and Mr Prodi is arguing that Italy, for reasons of national prestige, should have the same number of seats as France and the UK, even though its population does indeed differ.\nTo conclude, may I urge that this House support this report, reject the amendments and send a clear strong message to the European Council.\nAndrew Duff\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the ALDE Group will also support the Lamassoure-Severin proposal. The IGC is asking us to change our composition to suit the terms of the Reform Treaty, and that is a perfectly proper request. We, as a Parliament, need to send a strong, clear message back that we are able to take such a sophisticated and brave decision.\nThere is no pure, definitive formula. Paragraph 6 applies a practicable and sensible definition of degressive proportionality. Of course, I, too, accept that some national delegations are seeking to improve their position on the league table, but it transpires that all such proposals are mutually contradictory. All those who seek to alter the system fail. The D'Hondt proposal would give too much clout to the larger states, and I would say to Mr Friedrich that his proposal breaches the Treaty principle of degressive proportionality. The square root system gives too much clout to smaller states.\nI completely accept that the Italians raise an interesting point about the statistical basis, and we should examine, as a Parliament, the distinction between nationals, citizens, residents and voters. But the issue is extraordinary complicated, and it treads firmly upon national sovereignty in the area of electoral law and citizenship. We cannot possibly solve such a problem inside the space of a week before the end of the IGC.\nFollowing the IGC, there will be a report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, for which I have the privilege to be appointed rapporteur, that can address all these questions and propose a reform of the primary law of 1976. But all of that is for next year rather than the present state of affairs.\nMeanwhile, let us give solid support to the proposal and send a solution, rather than a problem, to the IGC.\n(Applause)\nBrian Crowley\non behalf of the UEN Group. - Madam President, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the co-rapporteurs for their efforts with regard to what is a very difficult and complex issue.\nUltimately, despite what some colleagues may say, turkeys do not vote for Christmas, so why would any present Member of the European Parliament look to see their seat being taken away? There is a legitimate reasoning behind the desire of those who seek to have the highest number of seats available to them in each of the national categories. I would be slow to denigrate that attitude in anybody. Because, if anything, when we look back over the changes that have occurred since the first direct elections to the European Parliament took place in 1979, there have been phenomenal demographic and population trend changes across the European Union, not least because of the expansion of the European Union into eastern Europe in 2004, which allowed for the free movement of so many people into other countries, which has altered the populations greatly.\nI think one of the careful elements that we have to speak about (and we can speak about degressive proportionality till the cows come home) is that there has always been a balance between the different institutions - and also a balance between the larger and smaller Member States - to ensure that no one institution would have total domination over another, or that larger Member States could not dominate medium-sized or small Member States. That is why it is important to maintain this balance as much as possible.\nI welcome the rapporteurs' inclusion, in a compromise amendment, of maintaining that interinstitutional balance. But, as well as that, when we look at the figures that have been used - and much has been quoted by other colleagues here with regard to the Eurostat figures - out of the 27 countries, the figures that Eurostat for 15 of those countries are using are only provisional figures from the central statistics offices of those countries. So, decisions are being made on only provisional figures when that could have a lasting impact with regard to the future allocation of seats in Parliament.\nWe must also keep an eye on further enlargement taking in Croatia, which would also impact negatively. Therefore, I would urge caution when voting on this issue.\nJohannes Voggenhuber\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, my Group will not be voting for this report because the proposed system of representation, and the distribution of seats, disregards basic democratic principles, sustains historic inequalities and is contrary to the nature of this House as representative of the citizens and of its electors.\nThese are not dreams that are not being fulfilled. Yes, Mr Severin, there are many who are wanting a great deal, but what we should all be wanting is to be getting some idea of what a Parliament is. A Parliament is not - as the rapporteurs told us in their letter yesterday evening - the representation of the Member States' socioeconomic capacity. No, it is the representation of the electors and nothing more. It is the representation of citizens or it is not a Parliament! It is not a Parliament if there is no demos on which to base ourselves, and it is not true that the term citizenship in Europe has nothing to do with the term under international law or the term citizenship in the United States. It is precisely the same and I would advise you to look at the existing treaties. I would advise you to look at the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in which the rights of those citizens are laid down. I would advise you to look at the rules governing access to the European Court of Justice. I would advise you to look at the rules on how we become voters. Then you will recognise that it is the easiest thing in the world to find out who is a citizen of this Union and who is entitled to vote for this Parliament. This is decided every five years.\nThe inhabitants, the population, these are a symbolic expression of socio-economic capacity. But we have already failed here once, when we were asked in Nice: dear Parliament, just tell us yourself what you want your composition to be. We failed on that occasion. Unfortunately, we have not used those seven years to clarify what this Parliament is. We are therefore reassessing the historical nonsense and the historical practical constraints that have arisen to date. These do not have anything at all to do with democracy and thinking on the Constitution.\nSylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, there are different views in my Group. I, however, support the report by Messrs Lamassoure und Severin. With the report Parliament responsibly keeps its right of initiative to submit a proposal itself on its future composition. It does so thanks to the intensive work done by both rapporteurs in a genuine European spirit. The proposal is well balanced, it is based on a clear, comprehensible and transparent system, and can also be sustained for future enlargements.\nThe proposal follows the principle of diversity. By using all 750 possible seats, it also ensures that in future Parliament will reflect the whole range of the main political orientations from each country. The proposal is also based on the principle of solidarity, hence the larger, most populous Member States agreeing to have less influence in order to allow the smaller, least populous Member States to be better represented. All this helps strengthen the Union's cohesion. I therefore hope that the Council unreservedly and speedily implements Parliament's proposal before the 2009 elections.\nOne further comment in conclusion. All the people who live in the Member State concerned form the basis for calculating a Member State's seats - as with the Council - including third-country nationals living there, because they are part of this society. However, this is only one side of the coin. Third-country nationals whose homes are in our Member States must also have the right to vote for the European Parliament. I have always fought for this and I shall continue to do so!\nBernard Wojciechowski\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Madam President, the usual thing to do when we have such a report before our hands is to argue what one country should get and what another should lose, which only proves that European solidarity is a myth and national egoism always triumphs.\nIn light of the recent German aggression by Mr Schulz against the President of the European Commission, let us look at a good method of winning at the zero-sum game.\nIn paragraph 8, we witness a lamentation that Germany will lose seats. We hear more and more of this lamentation: that more EU documents should be translated into German, that Germany is the biggest net contributor to the EU budget, that it should have its own seat on the UN Security Council and so on. We could make a whole list of such complaints.\nAt the same time, Mr Severin is trying to convince us, through his undefined degressive proportionality - which, coincidentally does not affect his own Romania - that when Poland loses three seats, it actually gains one. I only wish that his concept would work this well in the casino.\nBut let us get things clear. Only a socialist from Yorkshire could accept that two plus two is five.\nLuca Romagnoli\non behalf of the ITS Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Lamassoure-Severin report should be scornfully rejected because of its ideological anti-Italian subtext and the superficial nature of the technical arguments versus the political arguments on which it rests. I will not enter into a discussion of the merits of how much the ius sanguinis weighs with me as compared with the Jacobinism of the ius loci, as this is clearly absent from the thinking of the rapporteurs and those who commissioned the initiative.\nI am not a legal expert, nor do I have a major reputation like Professor Manzella, chairman of the Italian Senate's Committee on European Affairs, nor like other fellow Members, who can challenge with equal precision the legal inconsistency of the assertions made in the report. I believe, however, that it is worth stressing that for the rapporteurs incontestable facts do not count: in politics it is the assessment and the role that Italy has had in the past and still has today in the institution of Europe.\nThe very poorly Italianised principle of degressive proportionality, redefining the allocation of seats established in the Constitutional Treaty that has been put on hold, has been applied with clear discrimination against Italy. For some countries brackets have been left in the system, and there are some glaring instances of distortion of the facts, such as the allocation to Estonia of the same number of seats as Malta, although it has three times the population.\nWe can accept that in the United Kingdom people with the right to vote include residents who are not European citizens, and on this basis the rapporteurs allocate the UK one more seat than Italy, even though of those with the right to vote only a little more than one third voted in the 2004 election. We can accept that France, which compiles its electorate and fills up its demographic profile with the same variety of birthplaces that can be seen in its national football team, is allocated two more seats than Italy. We can accept the sloth of the Italian Government and we saw the flight at the time of the preliminaries to the debate in the Council.\nThere is something, however, that cannot be accepted. The rapporteurs cling to their debatable sense of citizenship. They claim that anyone living in Europe, even if they hold passports and citizenships from outside Europe, is a voter. They exclude from the calculation, however, citizens living outside Europe. This gives an idea of the gross, manipulative and unacceptable anti-Italian discrimination that we most strongly reject!\nIrena Belohorsk\u00e1\n(SK) First and foremost, I would like to express my support to the rapporteurs, Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin, for their report. We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that the Slovak Republic will lose one Member as a result of the agreed principle of digressive proportionality. In relation to the proportional allocation of seats in Parliament, this principle should be extended to all areas of EU employment policy. I therefore ask for an increase in the number of representatives and employees from the 12 new Member States in all EU institutions. I think that every Member State has a sufficient number of qualified people who can make a valid contribution to the EU.\nEquality is one of the principles underlying the EU. Even the original Member States committed to honour this principle when they welcomed among them the 12 new Member States. It should apply to all areas and not just the positions of Member of the European Parliament or Commissioner. I call for the principal of equality to be observed and honoured. When the new Member States joined the EU they had to fulfil many criteria. Now I appeal to the EU as a whole to fulfil its commitments towards them.\nGunnar H\u00f6kmark\n(SV) Madam President, by supporting Mr Lamassoure's report the European Union can take a historic step. With this report we can leave behind a time when the number of seats in the European Parliament was distributed on the basis of a system where different countries were categorised in different groups, on the basis of the negotiating skills of different heads of government, and where it is assumed that the EU's Member States have conflicting interests. If Parliament chooses to support Mr Lamassoure's report, we will leave behind this system and move to one based on the proportionality principle, where a country's size affects its representation in Parliament.\nThe system that we have had up to now has been very difficult to explain, but the system that we can get with the Lamassoure report is possible to explain. It is based on a maximum and a minimum level and on account being taken of the number of people in the different countries. This principle is also tenable looking to the future. It means that the interests of one country or another are not furthered, but the number of citizens is taken into account. This is a step forward in the democratic process in the European Union.\nI want it to be quite clear what alternative we are facing. We either support the proposals set out in the Lamassoure report or we go back to the Nice agreement with its arbitrariness and negotiations marked by conflicting national interests. When I hear the latest speakers from the benches up here and their agitation, I can also hear the national interests in relation to conflicts.\nThe Lamassoure report should be supported because it is based on a principle.\nS\u00e9rgio Sousa Pinto\n(PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs drawn up by Alain Lamassoure and Adrian Severin on the future composition of the European Parliament is an important contribution which highlights a balanced and objective solution on a matter which is, politically speaking, highly sensitive. I should therefore like to congratulate the two co-rapporteurs.\nWe should remember that it was last June's European Council which promised the European Parliament, by October 2007, a solution to the problem of its future composition so that the solution could be applied in time for the 2009 European elections. To those who feared that Parliament would be unable to resolve that question due to the prevalence of nationalistic ideology this report is an apt response and demonstrates that this institution is proficient at pinpointing and expressing the common European interest within the national dynamics which tend to complicate intergovernmental matters.\nIt is important to set out the European Parliament's position for the smooth running of the work of the IGC, which should be completed in Lisbon on 18 and 19 October. It is therefore essential to acknowledge the political link between this new proposal on distribution of seats in line with the principle of degressive proportionality and the reform package for the Union's institutions, in particular the double majority principle for the definition of a majority in the Council.\nI would like to take the opportunity to stress that the institutional aspect of the Reform Treaty needs to be coherent and that, as regards the question of double majority, which will ostensibly enter into force only in 2014-2017, the Treaties should not contain any gentlemen's agreements like the Ioannina compromise, which remain in force but, whilst they are legally recognised in the current framework, would merely serve to block the decision-making process in the Council.\nWe knew from the outset that the composition of the European Parliament would not merely be a question of mathematics. Within the limits of the present factors, the solution to be devised would have to meet three principles: the principle of solidarity according to which the Member States with the biggest population accept that they will remain underrepresented, the principle of plurality to make it possible to have representation over the full range of the principal political orientations in each country and the principle of efficiency keeping the maximum number of representatives limited to a level compatible with the role of a legislative assembly. With the application of the principle of degressive proportionality, the reports will achieve a reasonably consensual proposal.\nIn conclusion, Madam President, I would like to say that the European Parliament does not need to regard the agreement obtained as perfect before it can give its political consent. Despite its weaknesses, the current text enhances the European Parliament's credibility and is infinitely better than the irresponsible dragging out of an arm wrestling match between national egotisms, which would cost the Union and its citizens dearly.\nOn the eve of an important European Council, this House, which represents our citizens although I find it hard to follow the idea that this House also represents the Member States, is putting the European interest first trusting that the Heads of State will do the same.\nHenrik Lax\n(SV) There is a large group of citizens who have been ignored in the discussion on the composition of the European Parliament. I am thinking of the almost 50 million Europeans who belong to a regional or a national linguistic minority. Today we are only a handful of MEPs who represent these groups. This is not acceptable and, sadly, it gives a false image of the European Parliament. It is as if we do not understand the vulnerable position in which certain linguistic minorities still live. The report by Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin, which is based on the principle of 'degressive proportionality', is a brilliant display of statistical work and I too will be voting in favour of it, but we must now also dare to begin discussing other substantive issues. How will we increase the citizens' trust in the European Union? How will we guarantee that the EU and the European Parliament live up to the aims that we want others to pursue, that is to say how will we ensure that the voices of minorities are also heard?\nLadies and gentlemen, will we MEPs tolerate regional and national linguistic minorities being left at the mercy of the goodwill of national governments which may give them a seat, or do we want those minorities not to be represented in the European Parliament? The answer should be a resounding no! So as to ensure diversity it is therefore time to reserve a number of seats in the European Parliament for linguistic minorities. I myself speak for the Swedish-speaking population of Finland and for the province of \u00c5land.\nCristiana Muscardini\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on the composition of seats at Parliament contains some obvious contradictions, reinforced by the letter sent by the rapporteurs yesterday, as if to justify their position regarding such politically delicate questions, and it distorts the legal concept of citizenship as it has always been codified.\nThe principle put forward by the report goes beyond both nation states and the treaties. From a legal viewpoint, European citizenship is the legal status enjoyed by those, and only those, who hold citizenship of a Member State and who are, as a result, in possession of all the rights and duties connected with that status. It is citizenship, and not residence, which must be the test. This proposal also distorts the approach taken in the draft of the next treaty, which clearly specifies that the concept of citizenship has nothing to do with residency.\nThe European Parliament has wasted a great opportunity to demonstrate to the other institutions the capacity to find within itself solutions based on legal principles that are commonly recognised and shared. I would ask the rapporteurs why they did not even consider the possibility of using, for the purposes of allocating seats, the number of citizens in the Member States rather than the resident population.\nPerhaps it was to benefit some states more than others? Look at the case of the United Kingdom, which grants the right to vote in European elections even to those who are not EU citizens. Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin: stating, as you have done, that nobody has been penalised as compared with the Nice agreements, seems to me an obvious distortion of the truth, which others will be called upon to remedy.\nFor this reason, we cannot back this report. Not only that, but it is also detrimental, not only for our country - my country - but also for the other countries of the Union. It is also detrimental to representative democracy and the future treaty, which, as you yourselves recognise, contains guidelines and principles on which the distribution of seats at Parliament ought to be based. We cannot ignore the concept of European citizenship as the basis of the democratic legitimacy of our Parliament.\nRoberto Musacchio\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in favour of a decisive role for the European Parliament, which is often argued against, but it seems that the governments wish to use this proposal to manipulate our Chamber.\nThis proposal for the composition of seats is, in our view, ill-advised. Italy is being penalised, and that is a cause for concern, but what matters most of all is that the reasons for this penalisation are ill-founded.\nA historical parity is being destroyed, and, worst of all, the allocation of seats is being altered in the name of a resident population not granted the right of citizenship. Those who, like Italy, have given the right to vote to citizens not resident in the country are being penalised. What we need is something totally different: I think, for instance, that we really need a citizenship of residency, but one that would count not only in terms of the number of Members of Parliament to be elected, but also in terms of the right to vote and to be elected.\nWe need to guarantee representation for political minorities and small states, setting this out expressly in the criteria to be adopted in national electoral laws, and we need to think about new arrangements that make the most of the European parties and their ability to present themselves as such in elections. None of this appears in the report, and for that reason I will be voting against it.\nJens-Peter Bonde\n(DA) Madam President, the report that Parliament will be adopting tomorrow will effectively halt the accession to the EU of Turkey and other populous European countries. Germany will have its say in the Council doubled, whilst smaller countries will have theirs halved. At the same time, some of the larger countries will obtain more seats in Parliament. On the whole, Germany will continue to be compensated for having had the same number of votes in the Council as Italy, the United Kingdom and France, even though it currently gets maximum value out of every German in the Council. I do not think that the larger countries will produce such gains again, and the smaller countries cannot produce any more if the electorate is to perceive decisions as legitimate: listen to Mr Lax.\nI would appeal to the largest countries to stop and think. There cannot be both voting according to population figures in the Council and an approximation of the same voting principle also in Parliament. In the United States, there is equality between states in the Senate. In Germany, Saarland, with one million inhabitants, has three votes in the upper house of the German Parliament, whilst Rhineland-Palatinate, with a population of 18 million, has six votes; thus the German system is hardly fair. When my country joined the EC, Germany had three times more votes in the Council than Denmark; now it will be 15 times more. Previously, Germany had three-and-a-half times more seats in Parliament than Denmark; now it will be eight times more. That is too uneven, and will never have the understanding of the electorate. It will destroy the EU - that is the problem.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Madam President, allow me to begin by expressing my doubts about the timing of the resolution now under discussion. It is true that the June European Council asked Parliament to present a draft concerning the future composition of Parliament, but we now discover that the whole proposal is based on the Reform Treaty, a text that has yet to be ratified, let alone enter into force. In other words, we are putting the cart before the horse. Incidentally, it is not the first time this has happened, and it is really starting to become sickening.\nI am speaking here not on behalf of the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Group but as a representative of a small Member State - or rather a future Member State, as it is no longer a question of if but when Belgium will be split up and Flanders becomes an independent state. I digress.\nI think that the principle of degressive proportionality advocated by this report is the most workable and also the fairest starting point if one believes at least that the smaller Member States and their representatives in this Parliament must be able to go on playing a meaningful role.\nIn any case, I support a broad interpretation of this principle of degressive proportionality, and therefore intend to support the relevant amendment by Mr Bonde. In my view, it is in the interests of the European Union that the smaller Member States have the best possible representation in the European Parliament; if not, we shall see a further fall in popular support for the European institutions.\nSylwester Chruszcz\n(PL) Madam President, today we have two successive debates here in the European Parliament which will tell us what the order will be in the European Union and how power will be shared out. For me, as a representative of Poland and the League of Polish Families, this is a very sad debate.\nI take a highly critical view of this new attempt to introduce the Constitutional Treaty under the new name of Reform Treaty, as well as of the new distribution of votes in the European Parliament, which discriminates against my country. The report, based on highly dubious and far-fetched arguments that was adopted in the European Parliament's Constitutional Committee, clearly strikes at some countries and favours others; and not for the first time, either. I cannot give my consent to that.\nI am also calling on the President of Poland to reject this Treaty in a week's time in Lisbon.\nAlexander Stubb\nMadam President, I think this is one of the saddest days in our plenary work over these five years because it is the first time I, at least, personally, feel that this has become an intergovernmental body. This reminds me of the nights in Amsterdam in 1997; this reminds me of the nights in Nice in 2000. And today in the group, and I think here in plenary, we can see what it is all about.\nI really thought that the European Parliament was here to represent the interests of all European peoples, not narrow national interests.\nWe have three options on the table: one is the Severin-Lamassoure proposal, which I think is a European proposal. It is an excellent proposal and they have done a fantastic job and should be congratulated for it.\n(Applause)\nThe second option that we have is to go back to Nice. Perhaps some of us want that; I do not know. But do we really? Is that why we are going through this whole debate? Do we want to go back to Nice? Does Spain want to lose seats? Does Poland want to lose seats? I do not know.\nThe third option is what I call a provocative option and that is two provocations: one, to give the big states a hell of a lot more and the small states a hell of a lot less. The other provocation came from the other side, to give the little ones a lot and give absolutely nothing to the big. Is that what we want? Is that what we are here for? I do not think so. At least, I do not hope so.\nTomorrow's debate is about the credibility of the European Parliament and whether we can take a rational, logical and fair decision. Are we capable of coming up with a proposal, or are we just like the Member States?\n(Applause)\nJo Leinen\n(DE) Madam President, fellow Members, Parliament is providing an input with this Lamassoure\/Severin Report. We will be distributing the seats in 2009, whereas the new formula for distributing votes in the Council of Ministers will not apply until 2014. We are now ready to introduce this operation for the next period. The entire proposal, however, only applies if there is a new treaty. If the new treaty is not implemented, the Treaty of Nice and the accession treaties will remain in force, which means that all countries will have fewer seats. There should therefore be great interest in backing this proposal in the Plenary tomorrow.\nI thank both the rapporteurs, Messrs Lamassoure and Severin, for the work they have done. We cannot satisfy everyone; that would be a miracle. However, I do protest against what has been said by the Polish here, that somebody is suffering discrimination. There is no discrimination against anyone. On the contrary, a proposal has been put forward, which is plausible and adheres to objective criteria, on the basis of which the seats we have can be distributed.\nWe must, however, continue a debate which our Italian colleagues have started, namely the debate as to whether the concept of citizenship in the European Union is the same as the concept of citizenship at national level. The nation state has closed the borders and excluded all others. The EU is based on a different concept and we are in fact broadening this debate in order that all residents of the EU are represented by us and not just those in possession of a Member State's passport. There are 30 million in the EU who do not have the passport of a Member State, but who abide by our laws.\nWe shall be coming back to this once again next time. Thank you for this proposal, which now brings us on track to a successful conclusion for the Intergovernmental Conference and for a new European treaty.\nMargarita Starkevi\u010di\u016bt\nMadam President, I would just like to say to Mr Stubb that Lithuania does not gain in any of the cases he gave.\n(LT) I would like to say to Mr Alexander that Lithuania will have the same number of seats in all three cases, because in the first case it is determined, in the second case it is determined, and in the third case... When we are debating here as Parliament (as the President of the Parliament is not in the chair for this important session), when we are debating about Parliament and I do not see Mr Lamassoure. Is he here in the Chamber? Why should we talk? The key individuals have left. Everything is obvious. I speak about this because we really have to talk about a common home, a common Europe, and hear every voice of every country.\nThe problem of my country is that we have fought for our survival for many centuries. We are a small nation. Now many people live in other countries, they work in your enterprises and, practically speaking, they will be unable to solve Europe's problems. We try to maintain a relationship, to be together, to be a nation and will not disappear from the map, but these people will not be able to vote because the number of Members of the European Parliament will be set in respect of the number of citizens, yet they live in your country, Alexander, as well as Great Britain and Ireland and they work there honestly. Of course, they can elect the representatives of Sweden, Finland, Britain or Italy, but in this way we are simply declining as a nation. So this is the most important issue that makes me worry and am so sorry that, as Mr Lamassoure says, in this Chamber we really talk little about values. Today's debate is a perfect example. Looking at the surnames, I know who has got how many seats and I can say in advance what opinions will be presented.\nBogdan P\u0119k\n(PL) Madam President, I have long since become used to the flagrant hypocrisy that prevails in this House. But today I would like to ask one question. Alright, what you want, as I am hearing from most of the speeches that have been made, is for there to be a change in the voting principles and the allocation of seats in the European Parliament so that citizenship of a given country should not be decisive, in other words you are saying that we are already looking at an integrated European people with a unified standard and unified interests. This then is a European people.\nI would like to ask all you hypocrites how it can be that poor old Poland has only one third of the agricultural subsidies, that the Germans, the richest of all, despite the common energy policy, want to negotiate over the heads of other states with Russia and run a pipeline under the sea, with its threat to environmental protection? Can these two things be reconciled? And if what I say is true, then is it not too early yet to create the myth of a European state? We need to work towards it, but slowly and systematically, whilst accelerated actions of this type can only lead to results that are the opposite of what is intended.\nGerardo Galeote\n(ES) Madam President, I understand the difficulty of the undertaking, and I acknowledge and commend the work done by the rapporteurs.\nHowever, on some points the proposal for the distribution of seats that they make is, in my opinion, too discretionary and also does not take sufficient account of the necessary institutional balance inherited from the current Treaty of Nice.\nSome MEPs have therefore signed amendments that will be submitted to the plenary tomorrow and which, I would like to stress, fully respect the principle of degressive proportionality; and also in our view, they objectivise the allocation of seats for the future, linking it to clear and transparent criteria.\nOne of these amendments, which I should like to focus on, which would enter into force in the 2009 elections, is in line with one of the most prudent studies produced by the Spanish Government and sent to Parliament and the Council.\nAs you will understand, ladies and gentlemen, I am not guilty of defending the proposals of the current Spanish Government for partisan reasons, but what is true is that, in this case, the demographic factor is taken into greater account, and it should be considered to be essential in shaping the institution that represents the interests of the people.\nTherefore, Madam President, I would ask the rapporteurs to take them into consideration, and my fellow members to vote for them, and in any case, I hope that they will be submitted, defended and taken into account by the European Council when it makes its decision next week.\nCarlos Carnero Gonz\u00e1lez\n(ES) Madam President, this was not an easy undertaking, and I think that Mr Lamassoure, from the Group of the European People's Party, and Mr Severin, from the Socialist Group, have presented us with a magnificent report that has a profound sense of being European and pro-European.\nMr Stubb is right: this is one of the saddest debates that I have attended in this House, but I hope that tomorrow the result of the vote on this report will be one of the best moments that we experience, because this report, which is not only theirs but also belongs to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, with 70 % support, firstly responds to what the Council has asked of this House; secondly applies the principle of degressive proportionality, thirdly, guarantees a representative Parliament, something that would have been impossible with the Treaty of Nice, partly because under this treaty, in an unjustifiable and unjustified way, some countries like Spain ended up with no proportional logic in terms of their representation.\nFortunately, the proposal by Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin, of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, adequately resolves this problem.\nThis is the question: either this report or Nice. Either this report, with a representative Parliament, or Nice, with a Parliament that is not fully representative. All the promises we want can be made about this, but, of course, what we need is a realistic report so that at the Lisbon Summit, Parliament will have its efforts recognised, and also supported along with the adoption of the new Reform Treaty. Thank you very much.\nAlexander Lambsdorff\n(DE) Madam President, allow me to begin by saying that the Members of the Free Democrat Party (FDP) have allowed a free vote for tomorrow. There will therefore be no party line. Why is this so? There is a dilemma. The situation for Germany is, of course, deteriorating. Instead of the 832 000 voters per MEP to date, there will now be 858 000. Parliament wants to make this happen from 2009 onwards. This will not happening in the Council until 2014. Reference is being made to this among other things.\nEven good German newspapers like the Berlin Tagesspiegel write that the seats are being redistributed tomorrow. There are fellow Members here in Parliament who are saying: Germany will lose three seats tomorrow. The problem is - and this now skips to the part by which I personally stand - this is wrong. The Lamassoure\/Severin report secures the highest possible number of seats that Germany is able to have under the Treaty. The Treaty of Nice already stipulates that there is a maximum of 96 seats. The report clearly endorses this.\nWhy, then, this debate? Why the provocation with the d'Hondt method, in which only the larger countries gain and the smaller ones lose massively? It is a proposal backed, even initiated, by fellow Members from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to my great surprise. What does it actually mean? I believe that it is an un-European proposal. The balance, the just and fair balance between large, medium-sized and small countries, is lost here. What is more it is a proposal, which does not have the slightest chance in the Council. Do we and our fellow Members in the CDU therefore really believe that in Belgium, Ireland, Sweden or Estonia they cannot carry out any analyses and they will vote for this proposal in the Council? No! This proposal is an empty bubble, which is being replaced without any consequence - with one exception. This consequence is a further deterioration in the atmosphere as regards European policy at home in Germany.\nWe should support the Lamassoure\/Severin Report. We should ensure that a strong political signal goes out from the European Parliament to the Council that we are able to deal with the problems ourselves. If this signal, a European signal, is strong, it is good for us all and I expressly include Germany in this.\nJean-Luc Dehaene\n(NL) Madam President, as has already been said repeatedly in this House, it is ultimately Parliament's credibility that is at stake in this debate. At issue is its ability to carry out its task of presenting a proposal with a broad majority, thus making it difficult for the Council to disregard the proposal.\nThe virtue of the Lamassoure\/Severin report is that, pragmatically, it makes a proposal that meets all the requirements of the Treaty. There are not four alternatives, but in fact only two, namely the Lamassoure\/Severin report or Nice. After all, if we fail to win the support of a broad majority for a proposal, so will the Council, and we will revert to Nice.\nI do not really understand a number of the amendments tabled. Although it is clear that the square root amendment strongly supports the smaller countries, this is actually a caricature of proportionality. Nor do I understand, however, the amendment instigated mainly by German Members, which takes no account of the position of the smaller countries and requests that more opportunities be given to the larger Member States in the Council.\nAm I to understand, perhaps, that this is a vicious way of returning to Nice and restoring 99 seats to Germany? If that is the case, I find it very debilitating for this Parliament. I hope that, tomorrow, Parliament understands that its credibility is at stake, and that this can only be retained by supporting the Lamassoure\/Severin report with a broad majority, as that is the only realistic amendment.\nGenowefa Grabowska\n(PL) Madam President, it is hard for me to accept a report according to which my country - I should say, and I shall say, the Polish people, as it is they who elect their representatives - loses the opportunity to elect three additional MEPs. That is by how much the Polish representation in the European Parliament is diminished under the proposal that has been tabled today.\nWhy do I think that this is unfair, and why do I think that the criteria adopted in this report failed to take into account such obvious facts as those which my fellow Member from Lithuania has already mentioned today? This is about workers, about employees, about Poles who are temporarily living abroad - 3 million Poles abroad. Let us assume they have a right to vote in Great Britain or Ireland, but they come home. My question is: who is going to represent them? They are deprived of the right of representation even if they had a right to vote.\nThis report, and this is my second point, accentuates the institutional imbalance which has existed to date, fragile though it may have been, between the position of the states in the Council and in Parliament. Poland is losing the most in the Council with the transition to double majority voting, and it also loses out in Parliament.\nMy final point concerns a certain imbalance that has been spoken of here today, in the employment of officials in EU institutions, and especially in Parliament. This imbalance, which affects all the new Member States, could be ironed out here in Parliament. I am requesting an amendment of this report.\nAlfonso Andria\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, of course I realise that the task with which my fellow Members Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin were burdened was not easy, but I must say that the result, despite the efforts that have been made, leaves me rather perplexed, both from the legal viewpoint and in purely political terms.\nThe proposal refers for the first time to a criterion for calculation based on the resident population in each Member State, replacing the criterion of citizenship. Here a problem of legal and political consistency arises as regards the provisions of the future Reform Treaty, and specifically Article 9A, which expressly sets out the principle of the representation of European citizens. I also see the issue as political, partly because Parliament is making the function of the voice and the expression of citizens a little opaque - and what is more, at a time when the Union is undertaking to disseminate the culture of European citizenship, identity and the rights of European citizens.\nAnd please do not take the issue back to the level of national claims or, worse, reduce it to a mere quantitative issue. That would be a totally reductive and vulgar approach, and would in fact be ungenerous to the reputation of Italy. I also note, however, a disparity in treatment; there is a lack of homogeneity between one bracket and another; in many cases the reference parameters do not justify the difference in the number of seats between one country and another.\nI will finish, Madam President, by calling upon my fellow Members to vote in a way that is consistent with what is laid down by the Treaties and with what our role as members of parliament has been up until now and ought to continue to be: the expression of citizenship.\nRiccardo Ventre\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Stubb, who has unfortunately left, mentioned sadness this evening, and other Members have also expressed the same feelings. I believe, however, that it is sad to see discrimination between countries and MEPs, particularly those who are trying to ensure that fundamental principles are observed, as Mr Voggenhuber and Mrs Muscardini rightly said.\nHere, what is important is not to cast doubt upon the Lamassoure-Severin report; it is probably well constructed, albeit built upon a foundation of sand. In fact, there is a legal principle whose import is being completely destroyed, and that is the principle of citizenship. This point has also been made by those who have supported the report, as well as in the compromise proposals by Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin; Mr Leinen mentioned it, and Mr Duff also put it excellently: here we are not sure of our electorate!\nStill, on this total uncertainty over the electorate we wish to construct a criterion or a castle that has its own internal consistency - apart from the basis or foundation - and this will give us a composition that in no way respects pre-existing realities or the citizens. It will also bring us, as a further consequence - and heed what I say, for I do not wish to be a prophet of doom - before the Court of Justice. It is natural, and probably a duty, for those who find themselves injured to go before the courts as the extrema ratio, as the supreme decision-making body for such an important decision.\nI appeal to my government, the government of my country, which has shown extreme weakness so far on this process, from the outset in Berlin, to finally rediscover its pride and exercise the right of veto on this proposal.\nLibor Rou\u010dek\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, between today and tomorrow we have a historic opportunity to influence the decision on the future composition of the European Parliament. The report prepared for this purpose by the rapporteurs, Mr Lamassoure and Mr Severin, shows a good measure of quality, balance and responsibility. It brings a pragmatic solution, which should be embraced unchallenged by the Intergovernmental Conference, as it does not constitute an obstacle to the adoption of the Reform Treaty.\nThe proposed distribution of seats in the European Parliament is based on the principle of digressive proportionality. It is a just principle, which expresses solidarity between big, medium and small countries. The proposed solution is also based on the principle of demographic realities of individual Member States. Again this is a just and correct principle. In spite of it, some Members expressed their disagreement with this solution. They are of the opinion that their countries were discriminated against. I, however, do not see any sign of discrimination. Discrimination and inequality would be allocating the same number of seats to two countries with a difference in population of five million. I trust that Parliament will grasp the historic opportunity tomorrow and adopt the Lamassoure and Severin report by a decisive majority.\nNot supporting it would signal a return to Nice. That is returning to an alternative, which would also represent a loss for those Members who only recently have been touting the slogan 'Nice or death'.\nJacek Protasiewicz\n(PL) Madam President, today we are debating a very important report, on the basis of which the distribution of seats in the next term of Parliament is to be made.\nThe rapporteurs have put forward a proposal that is very interesting and certainly must have required a great deal of work, both analytical and conceptual. I would like to express my sincere thanks to them for that. But as far as I am concerned it does have two serious weaknesses. Firstly, our fellow Members are proposing a solution that is ad hoc in nature, temporary, and solely for the next term. However, I recall that when we began work on this report in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs we agreed that we would look for systemic solutions enabling an automatic change to be made to the composition of the Parliament when new states accede to the EU.\nThe alternative proposal announced by about 80 MEPs, including me, meets this condition. Use of the d'Hondt method to calculate the number of votes from individual states is an objective instrument eliminating political horse-trading. By accepting this amendment the European Parliament could become the first institution to rise above political and national disputes. I accept a neutral, mathematical method of weighing the strength of individual countries. This would be a step in the right direction and a model to follow for other multinational European institutions.\nAnother weakness in the conception presented is the lack of consistency in the approach to European citizens' rights. These include the right to be represented in this forum. In my view, the criterion of calculating the size of the Parliamentary representation from population numbers weakens this right. For example, how are citizens of Poland who live and work in Ireland or Great Britain supposed to feel? Various estimates suggest that there are between 2 and 3 million such people.\nUnder the electoral regulations that are binding in Poland, votes may be cast for candidates standing in Poland. But if we take the criterion of population as is suggested in the report, as a result of people leaving the country the number of MEPs elected in my country is diminishing, while it is rising on the islands. So who is going to represent them here in this forum? Irish MEPs, or British, or Polish, of whom there will be fewer? The report does not answer these questions. In this context I feel it is essential for changes to be made to the report's text, and along with many fellow Members we shall be voting for certain amendments.\nStavros Lambrinidis\n(EL) Madam President, it is widely accepted that the current distribution of seats in the European Parliament does not properly represent the demographic realities in the Member States and that the correlations are unfavourable for certain medium-sized and smaller countries.\nThe fact that the report does not reduce the number of seats laid down in the Treaty of Nice is certainly a positive one. I must also stress, however, that in the case of Greece an increase in the number of seats provided for, from 22 to 23, would be absolutely fair, since the country's population exceeds by 10% that of other countries with the same number parliamentary seats.\nI should like today, however, to focus mainly on the various amendments that have been tabled and which relate to the method of calculating the number of MEPs. One issue is failing to assess the entire population of a country, but only its citizens. I am in favour of the concept of the European citizen, but I disagree completely with its application here. As an MEP, I feel that I represent those in the section of the population of my country: without necessarily being citizens of Greece or of Europe, they are bringing up our children, looking after our elderly people, building our houses, staffing our universities, contributing to the insurance system and sending their children to our schools. Our decisions on the environment, services, immigration and insurance issues, and dozens of others, also in reality affect the lives of these fellow citizens of ours, who are, of course, often the least privileged. I therefore believe it to be democratically imperative that the number of MEPs ought to be based on the total number of residents of a country.\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Madam President, today's debate on the future composition of the European Parliament has unfortunately not been a highlight in the history of European democracy. It is perhaps good that neither the Commission nor the Council have found the time to listen to it.\nWe have had to listen to speakers who have put forward principles with a very great deal of pathos, principles which have still not brought us any further forward in practical terms and which therefore have nothing to offer apart from pathos. We have actually heard very many speakers who have focused on their own national interests. This has certainly been no way to success in the search for a European solution and as such, will probably not bring us any closer to a solution either.\nThankfully we have also heard some who have been pragmatic and looked for comprehensible solutions and therefore in the proposal of both our rapporteurs - Alain Lamassoure und Adrian Severin - have found a suitable base. I believe we should express our sincere thanks to both rapporteurs for the work they have done in committee as well as in what follows next. This is something that Mediterranean courteousness would normally always demand, but in this specific case both rapporteurs have really earned these thanks. From someone who does not come from the Mediterranean, therefore, my sincere thanks to you.\nI hope and am also looking forward to us perhaps experiencing an historic moment for this Parliament tomorrow at the vote. That is, if we manage to get clear and definite majorities for the proposal by Messrs Lamassoure and Severin and are thus able to give another clear signal to the Council. The European Parliament has at any rate put forward a sensible base for the 2009 elections.\nPanayiotis Demetriou\n(EL) Mr President, in order correctly to assess the report by the two rapporteurs, Mr Severin and Mr Lamassoure, we need to take into account certain facts and to apply certain rules.\nFirst of all, we must approach the report in a European manner, not a nationalistic one. If we fail to do so, we will be faced with competition over which country gets more seats and which fewer. Secondly, we must take into account certain facts, for example the European Parliament is not deciding today on the composition of Parliament, but is making a proposal to the Council. The Council has a certain margin and foundation on which to build, even it is based on the past, which we may think is not particularly well-balanced.\nIn addition to this, we have to apply the arithmetical facts we have been given. There are 750 MEPs, 96 per country at most and 6 per country as a minimum. We cannot also start bargaining about parts of the population which are inside and outside. We ought to reach a compromise based on the existing situation in line with the population and with what applies to other sectors. We are not here to re-found the EU. When we do, let us use different calculations. What matters today, therefore, is that we reach a result which has the widest possible support from the European Parliament, so that we retain our credibility and at the same time open up the way for European and not nationalistic movements. Let me appeal here to the esteemed Germans, who have always been generous; besides, if in the past they had displayed the tendency they have today we would have no EU. I also appeal to my fellow Members from the other states, so that tomorrow we can adopt the Lamassoure and Severin report with the greatest possible majority.\nProinsias De Rossa\nMr President, once we move away from strict proportionality in elections, we inevitably end up applying political compromise rather than pure mathematics. The democratic principle that all votes should have equal weight is something that cannot be applied until such time as the European Union becomes a fully federal system.\nWithin the limits set by the Council, this political compromise by Mr Severin and Mr Lamassoure is a reasonable and well-balanced effort to achieve fair play and solidarity for all the people of the European Union. I support it, and I oppose the alternative systems that are being proposed as less fair and less balanced.\nBut, because some have approached this exercise as a national ego trip, it needs to be emphasised that we are dealing here with how citizens elect their representatives to this Parliament according to their political preferences, to act as a co-legislator with the Council; it is the Council that represents the state, and not this House.\nSimon Busuttil\n(MT) Like the European Constitution, the Reform Treaty will introduce the principle that a Member State, no matter how small, should have adequate representation and cannot have less than six seats in the European Parliament. Malta, my country, which at the moment has five seats, will increase to six seats. This gain will heal a wound, as it were, that happened no less than seven years ago when in the Treaty of Nice Malta was given five seats instead of six, like Luxembourg, which has the same population.\nSix seats instead of five means a 20% increase in representation and it also means that the Maltese Members in this Chamber will be in a better position to perform Parliamentary duties that are always on the increase. Suffice to say that in this House we have more than 20 Parliamentary committees which, with six MEPs, it is very difficult to keep up with. With five it is impossible. These Committees are now preparing laws that bind all citizens including Maltese citizens and it is appropriate that the citizens of each country, even the smallest countries, are in an adequate position, in a good and reasonable position to be represented and heard in each of these committees. Even more so when one considers that under the new Treaty, the European Parliament will increase its powers and will be co-legislator with the Commission, indeed in all sectors.\nThe minimum threshold of six seats is thus a positive step that will increase the small countries' faith in the European Union and therefore I believe that we should support the Lamassoure-Severin report.\nAdrian Severin  \nrapporteur. - Mr President, it is never more difficult to understand an explanation than when the promotion of your interests depends on not understanding that explanation. I am afraid that many of our colleagues have vanished because they are not looking for an explanation: they simply wanted to make their points, and that is all.\nHowever, I would like very briefly to make some clarifications. Firstly, if this report fails, we are not only going to go back to Nice, but worse than Nice because, according to the mandate of the IGC, the Treaty will mention the 96 seats as the maximum level for one country - so it will be Nice, and Germany will have 96. By acting against this report, Germany will not secure the 99 seats they have today; they should be aware of that.\nMs Grabowska asked, what about the Polish citizens who live partially in Poland and partially abroad? It depends on their residence: whether they are tourists abroad or abroad for a short time does not matter, but if they are resident abroad and they are just visiting their families in Poland, they will be taken into consideration where they live, but they will, of course, be able to vote in the same way as any European citizens. Ms Grabowska also asked, who is going to represent them? This is absolutely clear - the MEPs for whom they vote. All European citizens will have the right to vote, and all European citizens will be represented by those MEPs for whom they vote.\nA number of colleagues said, and I am only quoting an Italian colleague: for the first time in the history of the Union, we take into consideration the residents and not the citizens. False! We have always taken into consideration the inhabitants, the population, since the Treaty of Rome. If you want to change this custom, you can certainly change it, but please do not say things here which are completely false.\nI will end with this: if there is a problem, the problem lies with the lack of harmonisation of the national legislation on elections. Certainly, I would be in favour of the approximation of that legislation, but this is a different issue. This takes time and we have to address this issue separately. I wish luck to the rapporteurs who are going to deal with the approximation of the electoral legislation; I hope that they will succeed. For the time being, I only hope that tomorrow, after a night of reflection, we will have a vote that will indeed reinforce the credibility of this institution.\nPresident\nMy fellow Member has been given additional time as rapporteur. I would like to reassure Mr Severin that this is not connected either with his report or with his person. My experience tells me that parliamentarians are people who speak better than they listen. And this was the way it turned out during this debate.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, 11 October 2007.\nWritten declarations (Rule 142)\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) This proposal falls within the ambit of the 'European Constitution' which is to be taken up again at the Lisbon Summit in relation to a new Treaty, once again asserting the pressures and threats previously brought to bear before it was rejected in the popular referendums in France and in the Netherlands in 2005.\nInstead of upholding the principle of sovereign States with equal rights, which would require at the minimum that much-vaunted solidarity on the part of the more populous countries and respect for the balance within the various institutional bodies (Council, Commission and European Parliament), the intention is to set minimum and maximum numbers and to apply degressive proportionality based on population, thus subordinating countries as a function of their population and constantly detracting from the representative nature of democracy. The imbalance which existed before the Treaty of Nice is not even taken into account.\nThus, for example, Portugal loses two Members and is left with only 22, whilst Spain gains four; it is certain that Germany will lose three, leaving it with 96; in addition France will have 74, the United Kingdom 73, Italy 72, Spain 55 and Poland 51. The six European powers alone account for 420 Members, many more than the majority of a European Parliament with 750 Members representing 27 Member States.\nThat is why we will be voting against the report.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) Mr President,\nI represent a small Member State on the Union's periphery. This, for me, means to understand how important it is sometimes to defend national interests vehemently and to highlight our differing circumstances. In general Members from the big Member States have understood this, at least those in my group. They are careful not to simply reject our opinions, to prevent the big countries from steamrollering the small ones in the Union.\nWhen Mr Lamassoure's report was being drafted, a small country's voice was heard inasmuch as I, along the other Finnish MEPs, kept hold of Finland's 14 seats in Parliament.\nIt is completely justified to speak up for the benefit gained. Now, however, the amendments to the report proposed by the Finnish MEPs to keep one seat have not got through at the committee stage, and they would not have had a chance of getting though in plenary. The main reason for that is probably that the benefit gained has already been renounced in some degree: in the Nice talks Finland agreed to have 13 Members.\nWith Mr Lamassoure's report, a lot more comes under threat. The amendments proposed by the German, Spanish and Polish delegates in my group seriously endanger the chances of the small Member States having any influence in the European Parliament. The amendment, according to which each Member State would have six seats as from 2014 and that the rest of the seats in Parliament should be allocated in accordance with the d'Hondt system, will completely destroy the current system of degressive proportionality, which is the best way of guaranteeing objective decision-making in the Union. The amendment would in practice mean that the number of Finnish seats, for example, would fall to 10, if enlargement continues. This we cannot accept.\nI therefore appeal to you all to remember to appreciate how important it is that the small countries can have an influence in our Union.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The distribution of seats among the Member States in the European Parliament must not on any account be arbitrary. At the late-night negotiations at the Nice summit the Member States were generally reliant on how awake a single man, a Head of State or Government, was during the night-time hours.\nFor Sweden the outcome was extremely bad. Even though our population is roughly only one million smaller than Hungary and the Czech Republic, we were given five fewer seats in the European Parliament, 19 seats rather than 24.\nIt is important that we have a principle for the distribution of seats that is fixed over time with a view to the continued enlargement of the Union's membership. It is also important to establish the principle of over-representation of smaller states in accordance with a degressive distribution.\nThis report proposes improvements on the current distribution of seats in the European Parliament. We therefore support it. However, we are firmly opposed to the idea of creating one constituency across the whole EU. It would mean having to reduce the size of national delegations even further. Creating a separate EU constituency is an artificial way to try to create a European demos. There is no common political arena in Europe. An attempt to break barriers of language and tradition by creating an EU constituency is doomed to failure.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in Bulgaria and Romania (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the draft Council decision on the application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (06714\/2010 - C7-0067\/2010 - 2010\/0814(NLE)).\nCarlos Coelho\nMr President, Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to mention four essential points. Firstly, the evaluation procedure. Since joining the European Union in 2007, Romania and Bulgaria have begun to work towards full integration into the Schengen Area. If the Council is to make a decision to abolish internal frontiers, the assessment procedures need to certify that all the conditions necessary for the implementation of the relevant parts of the acquis communautaire are met; namely, data protection, the Schengen Information System, borders by air, land and sea, police cooperation and visa policy.\nThe assessment procedures began with the part relating to data protection. This means verifying that each of these Member States is adequately prepared to implement all the provisions in terms of data protection. The results are therefore a prerequisite for the evaluation process for the Schengen Information System, which involves the transfer of data to these countries. Approval of this decision is therefore a first step towards the abolition of checks at internal borders with Bulgaria and Romania.\nSecondly, access to documents. The Council has submitted this draft decision to Parliament. However, evaluation and follow-up reports were not sent; these would enable Parliament access to all the information necessary to develop a reasoned and justified view. The documents were only supplied by the Council after Parliament's insistence.\nI welcome the efforts of the Ambassador of Romania, with whose help it was possible to find a solution to this situation by applying for confidential documents to be declassified and designated as 'limited'. This allowed the schedule to be met, but we will have the same problem when Parliament's opinion is sought on other aspects of the Schengen acquis. It is imperative, then, that the agreement between Parliament and the Council is concluded as quickly as possible regarding the transfer of confidential documents.\nThirdly, the evaluation of Romania and Bulgaria. In the case of Bulgaria, certain failures were identified relating to the adoption, implementation and enforcement of Recommendation 85\/15 by the Council of Europe, concerning the use of personal data in the police sector, and deficiencies were found in the operation of the National Commission for Data Protection. Bulgaria took appropriate action on these recommendations and, on 26 April, the Council concluded that the necessary conditions in terms of data recovery had been met.\nIn the case of Romania, weaknesses were detected in the adoption of two laws regulating the processing of personal data, and also relating to national authority facilities and resources for data protection, as well as the introduction of periodic assessments regarding Schengen data. In general, Romania has taken appropriate action in the light of the recommendations and those that are still pending do not prevent this country from applying, as applicable, all the necessary requirements with regard to data protection. The conditions for giving the green light to Romania and Bulgaria in the field of data protection have thus been verified.\nFinally, Mr President, the review of the Schengen evaluation mechanism. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the need to establish a European evaluation mechanism as quickly as possible which is simple, effective, efficient and transparent in the field of Schengen evaluation. Parliament rejected the proposals that were submitted to it last October. I would ask the Commission to exercise its right of initiative as soon as possible.\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I am quite confident that Bulgaria and Romania will do their utmost to reach the target date for lifting the internal border controls in March 2011. The Commission, within its competences, will fully support both countries in order for them to successfully pass the Schengen evaluation.\nIt is the responsibility of the Council to carry out the Schengen evaluations and, based on these evaluations, the Council will decide on the lifting of internal border controls. These evaluations are ongoing, so it is too early to assess the state of play of the preparations. But the first steps have been successful, confirmed by the positive evaluation of data protection, which allows now Bulgaria and Romania to get access to the Schengen Information System.\nThe European Parliament and Mr Coelho propose that Bulgaria and Romania should inform Council and Parliament on the follow-up recommendations. It is indeed the practice in the current Schengen evaluation that the Member States concerned report to the Council on the measures to comply with the recommendations, as the evaluation mechanism is now under full responsibility of the Council. On that basis, and under current legislation, it is up to the Council to inform Parliament accordingly.\nIn this context, I would like to take up your proposal and confirm that I will soon, in the autumn, propose a new evaluation mechanism following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty for the reasons that you stated, Mr Coelho.\nI think that both Member States and Parliament should be involved in this mechanism. Member States, of course, shall be involved to maintain mutual trust among each other on their capacity to apply all accompanying measures allowing for the lifting of internal border control, in particular, in the field of external borders, visa and police cooperation.\nThe European Parliament should indeed be fully informed of the outcome of these results of the evaluation. With this new mechanism, the Commission aims to remedy the current weaknesses as referred to by the rapporteur. There is no real follow-up at this time after evaluations are made and the recommendations are not always implemented. The support of Parliament in this process is indeed very much appreciated.\nMariya Nedelcheva\nI congratulate Mr Coelho and welcome the progress which this report mentions for Bulgaria and Romania. The positive results and conclusions from the 'Personal Data Protection' audit have made it possible to set a date for the Schengen Information System to be implemented in Bulgaria as well.\nBoth Bulgaria's accession to the European Union and its accession to the Schengen area generate enthusiasm among all of Bulgaria's citizens. In fact, it goes beyond enthusiasm as this concerns the opportunity to lift border controls and enforce the right of free movement across the whole European Union. This success is down to the tremendous efforts and resolute actions of the current Bulgarian Government which has done everything possible to make up the ground for the previous years it had lagged behind to meet the conditions and make the necessary preparations to apply the Schengen acquis.\nThe Schengen area is not only about the freedom of movement. It also means strengthened police and customs cooperation, especially in the context of combating the trafficking of persons and goods, and organised crime on a more general level. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area is part of a journey towards realising our dream of a Europe of citizens. To achieve this, constant efforts are needed, along with compliance with the requirements of the Schengen acquis by the countries' governments, not to mention steadfast support from Europe's institutions.\nThe European Parliament's access to the recommendations in the evaluation reports and the documents on the subsequent actions to take provide a guarantee that the constructive dialogue between us all will continue. This transparent dialogue also guarantees the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania that the fundamental rights enshrined in the treaties are a reality.\nIoan Enciu\nYesterday, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of when Europe's citizens enjoyed, for the first time, the freedom to travel without restrictions within the European Union. On the occasion of this anniversary, Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m stated: 'Schengen has become one of the most powerful symbols of the EU's capacity to improve the lives of its citizens'. As for Martin Schulz, the President of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, he said: 'Schengen is probably the most successful and tangible result achieved by the European Union in the last 30 years'. On this same occasion, I too just want to say: Happy anniversary to Schengen and freedom! Romania and Bulgaria could be an anniversary present for the Schengen area.\nAfter completing its evaluations, the Council concluded that both Member States provide sufficient guarantees to take the first step towards joining the Schengen area. We will confirm this step by expressing our opinion in favour tomorrow. It will not only be the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria who stand to gain from finally being able to join, but the whole of the European Union as well. Increasing cooperation in the economic, social and administrative sectors will strengthen the EU. Governments in both Member States must fulfil the requirements of the Schengen road map as part of the accession process.\nI am pleased that the European Parliament has successfully fulfilled its role as guarantor of European democracy. The amendment tabled by the rapporteur only serves to initiate a transparent type of cooperation between European institutions. It is the only one which can yield rapid, tangible results in the process of debating and approving European legislation. Interinstitutional disagreements in the European Union must not delay or jeopardise the rights, freedoms and well-being of European citizens whom all of Europe's institutions exist to serve.\nIntroducing a new evaluation system will, as Mr Coelho suggested, make it possible to guarantee security and strengthen the principal of mutual trust - essential to maintaining the Schengen area. I support Mr Coelho's proposals.\nNathalie Griesbeck\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago, we celebrated the anniversary of the Schengen agreements with President Buzek and President Barroso. This evening, well into the night, we are laying a specific new stone in the foundations for the draft decision of the Council.\nWe are passing from thought to deed and to collaboration, to the preliminary and indispensable conditions for the lifting of border checks with Bulgaria and Romania which, according to preliminary evaluations, are in the course of being satisfied. These two countries should, in fact, soon be in a position to guarantee the protection and processing of personal data.\nThis is good news and will result in the total integration of these two countries within the Schengen framework, which will contribute towards the strengthening of security and prosperity, not just for these countries but for the continent of Europe as a whole. I am certain that this will allow the problems of illegal migration and immigration, international criminality and all sorts of scourges to be combated. This will help to reduce the risks.\nTwo brief comments ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nTatjana \u017ddanoka\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, since the SIS is an integral part of the Schengen area, the issue at stake is extremely important. I myself come from a new Member State. I remember how Latvia wanted to join the area. In this regard, I very much welcome the accession of Bulgaria and Romania.\nNevertheless, I must point out that some shortcomings are detected. My group fully shares the position of the rapporteur that there should be a follow-up. In other words, Parliament must be informed of how problems have been solved, taking our concerns about data protection into account. I would also hope that the unavailability of slots will not be a barrier to joining the SISOne4ALL.\nFinally, we fully join the rapporteur in his concerns about the new Schengen evaluation mechanism. We believe that Parliament should be able to exercise democratic scrutiny and I wholeheartedly welcome the statement of Ms Malmstr\u00f6m that this will be the case.\nZbigniew Ziobro\nRomania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when joining the European Union in 2007. Now, however, we have the pleasure of discussing the draft Council decision on the application of the Schengen acquis in the two newest Member States of the European Union, which is one of the last steps towards lifting checks at the internal borders with Bulgaria and Romania. Both countries have received a favourable assessment from the committee of experts concerning their readiness for the lifting of checks at the EU internal borders, and the shortcomings which were identified should and certainly will be eliminated quickly. If this happens, it is to be expected that Bulgaria and Romania will be technically ready for connection to SIS II by October 2010, which is in accordance with the current road map. Thanks to this, it will be possible to open Schengen to the two new countries while, at the same time, maintaining the right level of care for the security of citizens and their interests.\nJohn Bufton\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, Schengen was a trade-off for the freedom of movement of people and goods and trusting those members involved to carry out appropriate measures to ensure safety and security on their own turf. Although the UK is not part of the formal Schengen acquis, we use aspects of the Schengen Information System in fighting crime. Yet, at the same time, the system and the Schengen acquis in general also provide the more astute criminal with a broader platform for international crime and corruption.\nAfter the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the SIS, the primary question must be whether these Member States are at a point where they can guarantee a level of scrutiny domestically to warrant free movement across the continent. There has been significant opposition to moving towards a second evolution of the Schengen Information System, in particular, the equilibrium between cost and efficiency. The UK operates independent stringent checks and does not participate in passport-free travel. Will we have to provide financial support for developing information gathering systems in those countries aspiring to Schengen, in order to mitigate the potential increase in crime related to open-border policy?\nSchengen brought with it an increase in the possibility of trafficking in illegal goods and people across borders. The security of travel without border controls rests heavily upon trust in the ability of individual Member States to perform checks to appropriate standards.\nThe expansion of the Schengen Information System increases the window for corruption and creates a much larger collection of information for criminals wishing to hack into the network. Similarly, deeper integration alongside a broadening of Member State involvement may require an expansion of measures used in the Schengen Information System, especially as we approach the advent of SIS II. For example, at what point will the storage of biometric data be positive?\nCritics also worry that the system may be used to monitor citizens with particular political views, with information garnered liable to be mishandled for political ends. With an increasing number of states joining the acquis, the risk is heightened. About 500 000 computers are currently able to access the Schengen Information System. It cannot be known how many of these systems are free of malicious software. In general, one in two computers have been victims to malicious infection. Spyware allows a third party to access the same data as the user. The broader the system, the more data there is to access, and the greater the number of criminals with aspirations to abuse the system.\nMember States must demonstrate exceptionally advanced security and, even with the greatest efforts and intentions, one cannot rule out the possibility of a breach which, in turn, would compromise all involved.\nElena Oana Antonescu\n(RO) I would like to express my very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, for the way in which he has handled this dossier and congratulate him on all the work he has done. I strongly support what he said earlier, not only for the current evaluation based on data protection, but also for the other reports due to be drafted in the areas which remain to be evaluated.\nThe Council must be able to guarantee that it can provide MEPs with all the information required to enable Parliament to adopt a suitable, fair decision. I sincerely hope that we will reach a solution so that we can carry out our work in normal conditions and make enlightened decisions.\nElena B\u0103sescu\n(RO) First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Coelho for the exceptional work he has done on this report, which is so important to Romania and Bulgaria, and also make the following clarifications. Romania's adoption of the law aimed at regulating the processing of personal data is an important step towards meeting all the conditions for joining the Schengen area.\nThe Ministry of Administration and the Interior has made considerable progress recently so that Romania is on track to join the Schengen area by the specified deadline of March 2011. Romania was mentioned as an example, particularly for its sea border surveillance system SCOMAR, in a number of reports produced by European experts. At the same time, other measures will include setting up the border police's new territorial services, improving cooperation with Frontex and continuing investments in making the land border secure.\nI would like to end by emphasising that border security ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nPetru Constantin Luhan\n(RO) I, too, wish to begin by joining the list of those congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Coelho. He has really done an exceptional job for Romania and Bulgaria.\nFirst of all, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Romania has actually been presented as an example of good practice regarding maritime transport safety. In addition to this, I believe that Romania, just like Bulgaria, meets the conditions for being part of the SIS system. This is why I think that the Commission must also get involved in supporting both countries in order to complete the other evaluations as well, so that we can successfully join what is the European Union's common area.\nWe are talking here about expanding the European Union in its entirety, including its values. One of these values is freedom and the right to move freely.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, Europeans are reaping the benefits of the Schengen Agreement. It facilitates the effective and free flow of people, the development of tourism and the growth of commercial exchange. This is to our credit and is a great achievement of the European Union. However, for this to be so, it is essential to have the right technical infrastructure which will allow these processes to be monitored. We know from our own experience that the role and responsibility of countries entering the Schengen Agreement is to comply with the requirements related to the Schengen Information System. It is for our common good, and for our common security. Standards in this area must be maintained.\nPiotr Borys\n(PL) I would like to thank Mr Coelho, who is our parliamentary Schengen specialist, and who has, indeed, done a huge amount of work in this area.\nFirstly, I am pleased that the Schengen Evaluation Working Group within the Council has evaluated the applications of Bulgaria and Romania positively, and that these countries have eliminated all the problems which stood in the way of making this important achievement. I think the most important matter is, of course, the protection of internal borders, and I think we will also continue to work on SIS II and the biometric data which are used. That is, of course, something for the future, but let us remember that this process is before us.\nI wish our friends from Bulgaria and Romania what we experienced with the Czechs and other countries two years ago, also in my country - in Poland - where the barriers were symbolically raised and Schengen became a fact. It really does change the cohesion of the Union and the historical approach to uniting the old and the new Union. I also hope that Bulgaria and Romania will meet all the essential requirements at the next stage and I wish Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m acceleration of this work ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, there is not much to add because there seems to be a very strong consensus here. I fully agree with those of you who have expressed the view that there was indeed a reason to celebrate this week. The Schengen area is an achievement of the European Union; we can be extremely proud of it. It represents the free mobility of people in a Europe without borders and I hope that the Schengen area will soon grow with two more members. In the meantime, access to the Schengen Information System is, of course, a very important first step.\nThere is still some work that needs to be done in these countries on visas, police cooperation, judicial process, organised crime and so on, and we will, of course, closely monitor this. I myself envisage visiting both countries by the end of the year to show my support and to study progress on the spot. I really want to thank these countries for the progress that they are making at present.\nAs some of you have said, trust is very important in ensuring that the other Member States see that there are concrete results, so we can have a happy ending to this story. In this regard, increasing the transparency of the system and increasing the involvement of the European Parliament in helping to evaluate and implement is a very important step.\nThat is why I hope that we can work together on this new evaluation mechanism. I would like, in my turn, to thank Mr Coelho for the work he has been doing on these two countries and look forward to further cooperation with you.\nCarlos Coelho\nMr President, four final points. Firstly, to express my thanks for the kind words of my fellow Members and the excellent cooperation on the part of my shadow rapporteurs and, secondly, to stress that there is a large consensus which says yes to these initiatives, but also to demand that Parliament be informed within six months as to the follow-up for the recommendations, which are not yet fully realised.\nThirdly, I would like to remind you that this is only the first step. Other steps are still to be taken, as Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m has rightly reminded us. Fourthly and finally, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m for her assurances that a legislative initiative on the evaluation system will be presented this autumn.\nThese two countries are being assessed solely and exclusively by the Council. As Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m has said, we need a European system of evaluation which involves all the European institutions, the European Commission and the Council, but also Parliament. Above all, however, it must be a European system of evaluation which does not operate according to two standards. That is, we cannot subject external states that wish to enter into Schengen to more demanding evaluation criteria than those which we apply to Member States that are already in Schengen. All countries, whether those that wish to enter or those that are already part of Schengen, must give proof of their strict compliance with the Schengen acquis and show that their control of external borders is as good as it should be. This is the only way we can ensure the security of our area of free movement, thus providing our citizens with assurances that they can travel about freely.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nKinga G\u00e1l\nin writing. - (HU) The further expansion of the Schengen Area is a positive development and should be supported by all means as it will make the free movement of citizens - a key item of the Union's acquis - accessible to all citizens. It means a tangible benefit provided by the Union to citizens in their daily lives. The Schengen acquis is particularly important for us, citizens of new Member States, who were barred from Europe for decades. It means a lot to me that another border, this time the Romanian section of Hungary's external Schengen borders, is expected to disappear in the near future. This will give citizens from both sides of the border, including the 1.5 million ethnic Hungarians living in Transylvania, the chance to enjoy a Europe without borders. According to their preparation schedule, Romania and Bulgaria will be able to join the Schengen Area in the first half of 2011, that is, during the Hungarian Presidency.\nIt is important to comply with this schedule, to ensure that the interim evaluation milestones are also successful. According to the current (interim) evaluation, there will be no legal obstacles to Romania and Bulgaria starting technical preparations for integration in this area, as well, in the second half of the year. I support the rapporteur's evaluation and findings, in particular, that the European Parliament and especially the LIBE Committee members must have access to evaluation reports and relevant information before giving their informed opinion.\nKinga G\u00f6ncz  \nThe accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Area next year could be a key success of the Hungarian EU Presidency, which will begin next January. The decision will increase security in the region and will grant freedom of travel in Europe without border controls to many more millions of citizens, including Hungarians. I welcome the positive evaluation in the last report of the Schengen Evaluation Working Group on the preparedness of the two Member States and that it was approved by the Council comprising Member States' representatives. As a result, Bulgaria and Romania are expected to be technically ready to join the Schengen Information System in October 2010. After the last evaluation scheduled for December, the two countries will most likely become full members of the Europe without borders next spring. The delay caused by the development of the Schengen Information System cannot have an adverse effect on the accession process of the countries awaiting integration. For Hungary, it is particularly important to ensure that the citizens of its neighbouring countries, including members of the Hungarian communities living outside Hungary, are able to enjoy freedom of travel without borders throughout the whole of the European Union.\nCsaba S\u00f3gor  \nin writing. - (HU) I am glad that the European Council has come to the conclusion that Romania and Bulgaria, the two newest members of the European Union, have met the relevant criteria and that therefore, the Schengen acquis can also be applied in these countries. For the citizens of Europe, one of the most tangible results of European integration is the establishment of the Schengen Area, resulting in unrestricted movement across borders. This opportunity is much more significant for citizens of former Communist countries, since the Iron Curtain blocked their way both physically and figuratively and made it practically impossible for them to travel to Western European countries. Now, twenty years after the fall of Communism, it all seems like a bad dream. By joining the Schengen Area, Romania and Bulgaria will take another step on the road to integration with a unified Europe. As internal border controls disappear, the concept of a 'border' will gain a new meaning and the borders between Member States will have a new function. Borders will no longer be administrative boundaries; they will instead become bridges and connect the peoples and countries of Europe. It is a welcome development that Romania and Bulgaria will become full members of the Schengen Area, an area interwoven with so many bridges and open borders.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU\/China summit - EU\/China human rights dialogue (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Commission statement on the EU-China summit.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I welcome today's debate about the EU-China human rights dialogue. As you know, the human rights issue was raised and discussed at the very recent summit meeting in Beijing and the joint statement also explicitly refers to it.\nI think it is fair to recognise that, although serious concerns remain and need to be addressed, China has also made remarkable progress in the human rights field over the last year. This is particularly true in the field of social and economic rights but also in some other areas.\nThere are moves afoot to reform the 're-education through labour' system. In this respect we welcome the new legislative initiative that is under consideration and we also hope that concrete reforms will be put in place soon. It is a fundamental principle of human rights not to deprive an individual of his or her liberty without due justice and a fair trial.\nChina is also working to implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. For example, the Ministry of Justice has recently directed courts not to rely on confessions on their own as sufficient evidence of guilt, as such confessions can sometimes be made as a result of torture by police or detention personnel. Similarly, China is initiating specific training measures targeted at these groups of public order personnel.\nWe are also pleased to note the progress made with respect to the Supreme People's Court now exercising full review power over death penalty sentences issued by lower courts. And we understand that the result is a reduction in the number of effective death sentences and executions. This is gratifying for the European Union. As you know, it has long been a priority area of intervention.\nNevertheless - and now of course I also have to say a few negative things - the Commission remains concerned by the situation of human rights in China in general and more specifically in the field of civil and political rights. We particularly have in mind here freedom of expression, religion and association and the protection of the rights of minorities, for instance in Tibet and in the province of Xinjiang.\nIn this context, the repression of human rights defenders remains a key concern. Exercising the right to speak freely often leads to beatings, to house arrest or even to terms of imprisonment. Access to the internet - the right to information - is closely monitored and restricted and those, for instance, who speak up in favour of greater autonomy for Tibet receive disproportionately long terms of imprisonment. The use of state secrecy legislation as well as other loosely defined criminal provisions facilitates the prosecution of those who speak or publish freely.\nThe Commission therefore urges the Chinese Government to permit expressions of all forms of opinion. This is also, we think, a very important factor for how the international public views China, particularly next year in the run-up to the Olympics, when all eyes will be on China. History shows that allowing freedom of expression leads, in the long term, to a far more stable society. We all know that.\nAll these issues are regularly addressed in the EU-China human rights dialogue. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the most recent dialogue which was held in October in Beijing allowed a sincere and an in-depth exchange of views on all topics of our concern, with several of the discussions leading to follow-up activity. It is important to recognise that this dialogue provides an important forum where both parties can openly speak about their genuine concerns while contributing to a better understanding of our differences - and our differences remain notable.\nIn this context we regret the Chinese decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Seminar in Berlin over the participation of two NGOs and that, for similar reasons, the Seminar could not be held in Beijing recently. We consider that civil society has a very important role to play and the Seminar provides the appropriate forum for NGOs to make their valuable contributions. I trust we are able to find a mutually agreed solution so that this important exercise will continue its successful path in the future, as underlined by the EU-China Summit.\nLet me close by saying that there are two more important human rights issues which we regularly raise with the Chinese side as a matter of high priority. One is the ratification by China of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other one is the release of those who were imprisoned at the time of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations or who later commemorated the 1989 events. Decisive action on both sides would send a clear positive signal and would be highly welcome.\nEdward McMillan-Scott\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I should like to thank Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner for that statement.\nI think it is very important, following the EU-China summit - and particularly the EU-China human rights dialogue - that there should be an opportunity for Members of this House to examine the outcome. I do not want to spend time on the EU-China summit. I want to talk about the human rights dialogue, because that was what took me to Beijing last May when, jointly with Ms Flautre, I was preparing a report on the reform of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.\nI want this afternoon to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That, of course, is the vast majority of people in China, who want change and reform. But that movement is led by, among others, Gao Zhisheng, a Christian lawyer who has disappeared from his home in Beijing, where he was being held under house arrest following his conviction for 'subversion' this time last year.\nWhile I know that his name was among those raised in the dialogue, I think that one of the problems that we find in this House is in relation to the dialogue. While I note that the Commissioner says that it was a sincere and in-depth exchange of views - and I am sure that was true on the side of the Europeans - I am not convinced that would be the case on the side of the Chinese. In my experience - since the time when I was EU-China rapporteur back in 1997, 10 years ago when this process began - there has been absolutely no product in human rights terms from China in the sense that people's lives have been improved or prisoners have been released or torture has stopped or the massive imprisonment reported by Harry Wu from the Laogai Foundation has ended. He estimates that there are 6.8 million people in one form of detention or other in China today, many of them there for religious convictions - and we think especially here of the Falun Gong practitioners, who are blameless but who are tortured for their beliefs and, in many cases, are dying.\nI would like also to reflect on the imminence of the Olympic Games. One should not forget that Article 1 of the Olympic Charter states that countries should enjoin 'universal fundamental ethical principles'. That means only one thing: that China cannot be held to be an appropriate host for these Games, especially since nothing has fundamentally changed since 2001. I hope all Groups will support the joint motion, which calls for an assessment by the IOC of China's compliance with the terms which were agreed back in 2001. I fear they will be found wanting. My view is that the Olympics should be transferred forthwith to Athens and remain there forever.\nHannes Swoboda\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Madam President, to come straight to the point, I believe the Olympic Games should go ahead in China, because we have a good opportunity to use these very games to step up our dialogue with China. That is in the joint statement too, Mr McMillan-Scott, and if you hold the opinion you have been expressing, you are against the joint statement.\nMrs Ferrero-Waldner, one of your former opposite numbers, Madeleine Albright, observed when she was US Secretary of State that it was naturally far more difficult to raise human rights issues in China than in Burma, because in China geopolitical factors were part of the equation. It is a fact that we need China as a partner in the quest for a solution to many global problems. That, however, must not prevent us from raising the question of human rights and discussing it in great depth, though not necessarily in the tone of schoolmasters or schoolmistresses who know it all. I am very pleased that the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been signed today, because many speakers have made the point that we have no right to speak about human rights issues unless we ourselves have a very good record of respecting human rights. We, indeed, are firmly convinced that it is in China's interests not to trample human rights underfoot but to respect them properly.\nChina wants stability. How is China to remain stable if the question of human rights is not raised more emphatically? We do not want China to crumble. It makes no sense to build up Europe while seeking to destroy China, but failure to respect human rights puts China's stability at risk. We want China to be governed in accordance with the principles of social justice. In the context of a monumental growth process, to which Mr Barroso also referred, the only way to safeguard stability is to take full account of social factors. It is impossible, however, to strive for social justice if human rights are not respected, if people cannot form trade unions or launch popular initiatives.\nWe want China to focus more sharply on environmental matters, because the environment is a major common global asset. We know that many initiatives are taking shape in China for the purpose of mass protest against the violation of minimum environmental standards. It would be a good thing for China if the nation listened to those voices. It would be a step forward for China.\nFor these reasons I believe it is not a matter of European arrogance but of protecting our common interests. In the interests of China we shall raise the question of human rights, and enlightened representatives of the Chinese political system would do well to listen to us and to this resolution, which is in China's interests and which would help China to advance, something it cannot do unless it respects human rights.\nGraham Watson\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I much admire the contribution of China to the development of world civilisation. In terms of technology, in terms of society and in terms of culture, China has probably contributed more than any other country to the development of humankind.\nI regret that China's growing economic maturity is not accompanied by a growing political maturity. But I regret, too, that the European Union is not doing more to push China in the right direction.\nTwo days ago, on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Union proclaimed its commitment to the 'promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world as a cornerstone of our external action policy'.\nAnd yet, two weeks ago, Messrs Barroso and Socrates left the summit early, having secured Europe's economic interests, leaving officials to negotiate the conclusions - conclusions which, unsurprisingly, made little mention of human rights, supported the lifting of the arms embargo and opposed Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations. They did much to undermine Mr Solana's carefully crafted words the previous month.\nI wonder what the world is coming to when the European Union, the self-styled protector of universal, interdependent and indivisible human rights, fails to speak out clearly against one of the world's worst human rights abusers.\nI suspect that both the Chinese and others may come to regret the decision to host the Olympic Games in Beijing. The Chinese authorities themselves promised that they would bring a greater climate of freedom and openness. And yet figures from Human Rights Watch suggest that abuses have increased in the last seven years. Not only does China continue to execute more people than the rest of the world combined but it has clamped down dramatically on internal dissent and media freedom in advance of the Games.\nThese developments violate the spirit of the Olympic Charter. They are in direct contravention of commitments made by the Beijing authorities themselves in the Host City Contract which they signed with the International Olympic Committee.\nThat contract has not been made public. Why? Because, if the world saw the complete and total disjunction between Chinese promises and Chinese practices, we would have no choice but to boycott Beijing in the same way that we boycotted apartheid South Africa.\nI do not believe in boycotts. I have also maintained that engaging with a China committed to reform and opening would bring greater fruits than empty threats. But President Hu Jintao has to accept that a deal is a deal. The Host City Contract, the human rights clause in the Chinese Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - these are promises made to China's citizens. If China wants the Olympics to prove its legitimacy and credibility to the world, then in return it must prove that it is willing to honour its human rights commitments: by improving media freedom in line with the Olympic pledges, by suspending the death penalty in line with United Nations demands, by ceasing its support for military dictators from Burma to Darfur and by allowing elections by universal suffrage in Hong Kong. That is how China can win its place at the heart of the international community.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, the People's Republic of China is a country to be found on every list of infringements of human rights, whether it is a matter of freedom of speech and association, compulsory abortion, disappearances, torture, religious freedom or threats of aggression against Taiwan.\nChina continues to persecute followers of the Catholic Church. A report by David Kilgour, the Canadian Government's former secretary of state for Asia, shows that one of the most persecuted groups since 1999 is Falun Gong, whose members have organs forcibly removed in Chinese work camps. People whose only crime was to meet with a vice-president of this Parliament, Mr McMillan-Scott, have recently disappeared without trace.\nMeanwhile, our trade relations are blooming. China is extending its influence in Africa and will soon be inviting millions of guests to the Olympic Games. I cannot understand the absence so far of the most obvious response: the free world must boycott the 2008 Olympics.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Flautre\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (FR) Madam President, we are talking today to Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, and that is welcome. However, at the 10th EU-China summit in Beijing on 28 November, the European Union was represented by its President, by the Trade Commissioner and by the Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner.\nIt is true that, since 2000, trade between the European Union and China has increased by 150%; it is also true that it has become much harder to produce statistics on the deteriorating human rights situation in China. There is nothing taboo about discussing human rights issues at the same time as trade issues. There is an obvious link between them, for example in relation to the freedom to join a trade union, and the ability of workers in China to mobilise and demand better working conditions. The general attitude we encounter is deplorable, all the more so because its effect is to make us waste time: the decision taken in 2001 promised a new openness in China and progress on human rights and democracy; the Chinese people are waiting for that promise to be kept and they are looking to us.\nThey have been disappointed in their hope that openness would result from China's staging the Olympic Games, and the sense of disappointment is bitter. Not only has the run-up to the Games so far brought harsher repression but - even more regrettably - the organisation of the Games has itself had unforeseen effects and has been used as a pretext for serious human rights violations. I am thinking here of the cases of forced expropriation and of the exploitation of migrant labour. All this may not be surprising, for the dissident Hu Jia informs us that the head of security in Beijing is also the person in charge of organising the Olympic Games there.\nPerhaps we shall get round to expressing surprise or even dismay about that state of affairs when the intimidation and repression of foreign journalists - which has already begun - becomes even more drastic, for they are already being prevented from working. The arrest of two Agence France-Presse journalists on 12 September, for example, shows that the rules introduced in January 2007 are being applied only patchily and only insofar as the persons concerned cause no embarrassment to the regime. The undertakings given by China are a dead letter; indeed, it is falling so far short of its commitments that it has resorted to compiling blacklists. There is currently a blacklist of 42 categories of people regarded as persona non grata during the Olympic Games, ranging from the Dala\u00ef Lama to followers of Falun Gong and including dissidents.\nIn January this year, negotiations began on a new EU-China framework agreement. That is welcome because a new agreement also means a new 'human rights and democracy' clause. It creates fresh scope for discussing human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities. However, 2007 was also the year that saw the cancellation of a legal seminar to prepare for the human rights dialogue because the Chinese authorities refused to allow two particular NGOs to participate - one of them the well-known organisation represented by human rights campaigner Sharon Hom. It was certainly salutary to find the Union taking a firm stand on that occasion. At the same time, of course, we have to ask whether seminars like this can continue. Our position is that the two things must not be mutually exclusive. It is very important to go on holding legal seminars. Equally, however, we cannot permit the Chinese authorities to dictate who may take part in them.\nKoenraad Dillen\n(NL) Ladies and gentlemen, in past decades this Chamber has been the scene of many ringing declarations on human rights. The proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has once again made us focus on what the essence of Europe really is. We are a community of values, based on solidarity, tolerance and respect for human rights.\nAt least, that is the theory, but the reality is rather different. And the European Union's watchword on human rights should really be rather different. In the last few weeks it has been abundantly clear that those who are sick of hearing about human rights are often the same people who apply that other principle of Realpolitik, namely erst das Fressen, dann die Moral, or 'food first, then morality', as Bertolt Brecht put it.\nIn Paris Nicolas Sarkozy, in exchange for lucrative contracts, is rolling out the red carpet for a mass murderer who just a few days ago sought to legitimise terrorism, boasting that he did not waste words talking about human rights in his country. In Lisbon a bloodthirsty tyrant like Mugabe is received with full honours, because in Africa too we have to look after our commercial interests.\nIn China we are pursuing the same course. Last year Amnesty International reported that Beijing was lagging behind on crucial issues such as the death penalty, judicial procedures, press freedom and freedom of movement for human rights activists. In the meantime the Chinese capital is undergoing a slick clean-up, says Amnesty International. Re-education by forced labour and imprisonment without charge are now being used to punish offences like the unauthorised posting of bills, driving an unlicensed taxi and begging, to name just a few.\nThe human rights activists will be silenced, but the stadia will gleam and sparkle next year, ladies and gentlemen. A lot of European worthies will be jockeying for front seats at the opening of the Games. And when they get home they will doubtless continue the fight against extremism in Europe. It is enough to make you sick.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) It is impossible to deny that since 1998, when we saw the start of the summit meetings between China and Europe, relations between the EU and China - at political, economic, trade and scientific research level - have been developing intensely and have grown into a strategic partnership. However, strategic partnerships, as we understand them, are based on common values, respect for democracy and human rights.\nRespect for human rights has always been and continues to be the foundation on which the EU is built. It is not a short-lived declaration, as the EU's history over more than half a century has undoubtedly proved. It is time that all the countries, the EU partners, understood that there are some things that the EU would never give up and would never abandon. I would therefore like to point out that several hours ago in this very room a historic document - the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - was signed.\nAt this point I would like to mention the fact that certain issues have a negative impact on the development of EU-China relations and the key to resolving these problems is in most cases in the hands of the Chinese authorities.\nDuring our talks with the Chinese representatives, even during negotiations on trade and economic cooperation agreements, we have always remembered and will never forget the fact that people in China are continuing to suffer in prison for their political views, for their religion or for belonging to ethnic minority groups, and for economic crimes, such as tax evasion, they receive the death penalty.\nIn recent years, with the approaching Olympic Games in Beijing, we have learned of other 'developments' such as the fact that people's accommodation is being demolished without compensation being awarded, in order to make way for the construction of Olympic structures, and the existence of a list of 42 categories of people not to be allowed to attend the Olympic games, including the Dalai Lama, his followers and human rights defenders.\nI can say only one thing: this is absolutely out of line with the traditions and spirit of the Olympic Games. My suggestion would therefore be to cancel these lists, which do China no credit at all, and ensure that in honour of the Olympic Games all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are released and a death penalty moratorium is declared.\nI regret the fact that the EU-China summit meeting in Beijing has failed to become a historical event and that the participants were not the sort of politicians capable of taking EU-China relations to a new level. Just one thing was missing: greater consideration and respect for people and their rights.\nGlyn Ford\nMadam President, I speak in this debate on the EU-China summit and the EU-China human rights dialogue, although from some of the resolutions tabled by political groups in this House you would not have known that the first half of this debate existed.\nIt is quite right that we raise with the Chinese the issue of human rights. The human rights situation in China is far from adequate. China continues to use the death penalty, as Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner stated in her opening statement. They repress campaigning organisations for Tibetan autonomy, religious groups outside a very narrow range of officially permitted groups, as well as others who promote their regions, promote press freedom and try and organise trade unions. We also have the insurmountable barrier with respect to the hundreds of millions of migrant workers in China who try to organise themselves to end exploitation and to promote decent labour standards.\nYet there is a complete refusal on the part of many in this House to acknowledge any of the progress that China has made over the past two decades. The human rights situation in China in my view, although far from adequate, is far better than it was back in the days of Tiananmen Square. As the Commissioner stated, the death penalty, for example, now requires confirmation by the Chinese Supreme Court. My own experience is that in China now there is a large degree of freedom of thought but not freedom to organise, because that still is the sine qua non in terms of what China and the Chinese authorities actually forbid.\nWe must continue to press China on these issues, but a refusal to recognise any progress positively discourages those progressive and liberal forces within the regime who are trying to push further, because they get no recognition for what they have done already.\nChina is now a global economic, industrial and political power. The EU needs to have a critical engagement that rightly criticises China where it has gone wrong, where it must go further, at the same time as we engage in a dialogue on tackling global warming, the negative impacts of globalisation, African development and the fight against terrorism.\nDirk Sterckx\n(NL) Madam President, I very much welcome a strategic partnership with China. I am very glad that we now have more than just economic ties alone and that cultural exchanges between us, for example, have grown enormously in recent years. I am very happy to see so much attention being given to the political dimension, and I will cite one example.\nAfrica: we must keep up our liaison with China on its Africa policy and we now have a forum in which to do so. I am pleased that Mr Michel is shortly going to Beijing to discuss that and other matters. And I find it a very good thing that we are increasingly working together on economic issues. But I am very concerned by imbalances in our economic relationship.\nFor example I find no hint of the fact that we should do more to pass on our experience of our Single Market to the Chinese who, in this regard, might improve their own market considerably. The same goes for regional policy, for the elimination of regional differences. We have experience in these areas. We have learnt a few lessons. But I do not think the Chinese are so keen to play ball here.\nMr Mandelson has said that there is a fair bit of uncertainty about investing in China, and that this damages our exports to China, and Chinese economic growth too. He is right, I think. You need the rule of law, certainty, in order for the economy to prosper. On matters of intellectual property, product safety or capital management. But you also need the rule of law when it comes to individual human rights, of course. That is just as important, if not far more so.\nI am glad we are to have a report on the human rights dialogue. I think we should have one every time. Like you, Commissioner, I see a number of hopeful signs, but the European Parliament must maintain the focus on one or two things which have not yet been resolved: freedom of expression, policy on minorities, forced labour which regrettably still continues, abuse of power of which regrettably there is too much, and the death penalty which still exists. We as the European Parliament must continue to emphasise these things, and it is something we must do day in, day out.\nHelga Tr\u00fcpel\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are faced time and again with the question of the right way to proceed in our political dealings with China. Mr Sterckx has just spoken again of strategic partnership, and rightly so. I find that an absolutely desirable aim. But we must be realistic, and we are clearly not yet on that level at the present time, because we do not have a foundation of shared values - human rights, fair treatment of minorities, rejection of the death penalty - on which a genuine strategic partnership could be built.\nI believe it was absolutely right - and I say this advisedly as a Green German MEP - for Angela Merkel to meet the Dalai Lama, because it shows that we mean what we say about respect for human rights.\nOn the other hand, there is something I do not find at all right. President Sarkozy, when he recently spoke here, told us that human rights must be the hallmark of the European Union, only to travel to China three weeks later and not make an issue of human rights there. These are European double standards, and they are something we must not tolerate.\nI fervently believe that our dialogue with China, which I support and which we must have the political will to pursue, cannot be all fawning sweet talk but must also include confrontation. If we combine these and negotiate with China in a self-assured manner, we must also express unveiled criticism. In the context of the Olympic Games too, the Chinese have to achieve the goals they set for themselves, and we Europeans should be bold and frank and confront the Chinese with our criticism when the need arises.\nTunne Kelam\nMadam President, a few hours ago the President of the European Parliament signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights and declared that 'we have a moral and political obligation to defend human dignity. This applies to each human being in this world.' And the Portuguese Prime Minister stated that 'the Charter is part of the EU foreign policy'.\nLet me turn to China. We understand that, by becoming the host of the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese Government committed itself to fully respect both the Olympic ideal of human dignity and internationally guaranteed human rights.\nThe European Parliament now has to conclude that there has been a recent increase in political persecutions related directly to the Olympics. In addition, more people are being executed in China than in the rest of the world combined - up to 10 000 a year.\nDefenders of human dignity are being arrested, and up to seven million people are being tortured in the notorious Laogai camps.\nWhat should we do? I think the answer was provided here yesterday by the Sakharov Prize Winner Osman, who told us to put more pressure on the respective governments: to do something concrete. There is an understanding of the sin of omission - responsibility for what we could and might have done but failed to do. It is not enough to voice our concerns; it is time to apply the principle of conditionality and to declare, as our colleague, Mr Watson, told us: a deal is a deal.\nThe only way to make the Communist dictators in China respect their citizens more is to send a signal that we take our own values of solidarity and human dignity seriously enough to make dictators feel real pain for their abuses and arrogance.\nJ\u00f3zef Pinior\n(PL) Madam President, the European Parliament has stressed the infringement of human rights in China, and the lack of democracy in that country, on many occasions. These are obvious matters. Only yesterday, in discussing the European Union's human rights report for the past year, we spoke of the lack of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in China.\nOn the other hand, it does not seem right to me to ignore the changes for the better that are taking place in China. In particular, the coming year of the Olympic Games should be used by the European Union to pressurise the Chinese authorities towards liberalisation, democratisation, the rule of law and the release of all political prisoners.\nOn 20 November a delegation of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights to the United Nations Organisation in New York met with Liu Zhenmin, China's representative to the UN. I consider it to have been a constructive meeting. The Chinese side showed signs of openness and sensitivity to pressure on human rights and democracy - a fact that was also emphasised by representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in talks with the Subcommittee's delegation.\nIstv\u00e1n Szent-Iv\u00e1nyi\n(HU) Madam President, Commissioner, billions of people are awaiting 8 August 2008, the opening of the Olympic Games, with great interest. Not only sports lovers will be watching, but also those who are expecting progress from China in the area of human rights. Unfortunately, we cannot be satisfied with the results to date. The Chinese Communist Party can rejoice, since it must have achieved a lot of success for the legitimisation of power. But we also have the opportunity to make the most of the period running up to the Olympics and sternly to demand an explanation for the unlawfulness appearing in the area of human rights. The European Union-China dialogue on human rights has been going on for 24 years. Unfortunately, its balance is not at all favourable. There is some progress, for example in the area of application of the death penalty, but in many areas there is a strong sense of backing out, such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of the Internet. In order for us to be able to bring about change, we must also bring about change in the dialogue on human rights.\nFirstly, we must say that the dialogue on human rights is not the only forum for raising such problems. Every Member State is also obliged to act strictly and firmly on these matters in bilateral relations.\nSecondly, the presence of civil organisations and transparency of negotiations must be ensured. Transparency is very important for us to monitor what is happening there. Since dialogue is not a goal in itself, it is only meaningful if it makes a good contribution to improving the human rights situation in China.\nFinally, I would like to speak about the situation of the Uyghur minority. Little is said about them and they are a forgotten minority. They are not only afflicted by the general oppression in China, but they are also the victims of ethnic, religious and linguistic discrimination. I urge you to act in their interests too. Thank you.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\n(ES) Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to issue a couple of reminders to European governments.\nThe first has to do with the lifting of the arms embargo on China, to which reference has been made on several occasions. I would like to point out that this House has frequently insisted that the lifting of that ban could only occur when there was genuine and meaningful progress in relation to those apprehended following the Tiananmen Square events of 1989, not progress in general terms, but specifically in relation to that matter, because that is what we are waiting for from the Chinese authorities at this point in time: some meaningful progress which would enable such action to be taken.\nUntil that time I believe that it would not only be premature, but would convey entirely the wrong message and give Europe a very bad image to lift an embargo which, I repeat, was imposed at the time for very specific reasons which have certainly not been clarified.\nThe second message, endorsing the opinion of my colleague Mrs Tr\u00fcpel, is that it is unacceptable for certain European countries to submit, and sometimes succumb, to pressure from the Chinese authorities aimed at preventing them from holding official meetings with important Chinese personalities, in some cases dissidents, or representatives such as the Dalai Lama, in return for assured trade relations with China.\nEspecially today, when we have signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights, this is something which is completely at odds with the basic ethos which we seek to impose on the European Union.\nAna Maria Gomes\n(PT) At the Summit, Europe spoke clearly about how China is perverting WTO rules, failing to respect workers' rights, exporting products that are harmful to health, pirating technology and impeding European access to the Chinese market. The Chinese leaders were not used to hearing the EU speak so frankly and they retaliated by holding up the joint declaration for a few days, but the European leadership regrettably failed to keep up the pressure: not only did it make unacceptable concessions on the referendum in Taiwan, it did not contradict the 'One China Policy' and it did not confront Peking on the subject of serious human rights problems. Because there was not time, President Jos\u00e9 S\u00f3crates told Portuguese journalists, sometimes these things are discussed over dinner.\nThe death penalty and the release of prisoners held since the Tiananmen Square massacre: these are among the reasons why this Parliament is in favour of maintaining the embargo on arms to China. Arbitrary detention and trial, corruption and forced evictions, persecution and repression of journalists and Internet users, repression of Tibetans and minorities, responsibility for the tragedies in Darfur and Burma: none of these fundamental issues was on the Summit's agenda. Clearly the EU is not alone in having a duty to call Beijing to account before it holds the 2008 Olympic Games. If the International Olympic Committee mediates about the quality of the air, why not judge Beijing on respect for the Olympic ideal in its relations with its own citizens and those of other countries? No one, least of all the EU Council and Commission, can continue to neglect the fight for freedoms and human rights in China. This is a marathon that will only gain impetus in the context of the 2008 Olympics. Not only does it affect millions and millions of Chinese, it will have consequences for the whole of humanity.\nMilan Hor\u00e1\u010dek\n(DE) Madam President, the human rights dialogue between the EU and China has been taking place twice a year behind closed doors for the last eleven years, and yet it has done nothing to improve the human rights situation in China. Reports of executions, torture in prisons and labour camps and the oppression of the Tibetans plainly show that we Europeans are not shouldering our responsibility.\nThe Olympic Games are coming up, and they give China good reason to furnish proof of genuine reforming zeal. At the same time, we must not practise double standards either. It is very gratifying that Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel received the Dalai Lama in spite of heavy criticism. It would only be logical if leaders in Belgium, France and other countries were to do likewise. The EU is accepted worldwide as the voice of human rights, and it is high time we acted consistently in every context, including that of our dialogue with China.\nAlexandra Dobolyi\nMadam President, today we are having a debate on the EU-China summit, which took place 10 days ago, and on the 24th Round of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, which took place two months ago.\nEspecially today, let me start with the second one. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is a core principle of the EU and its policies and it is something that we all strongly care about and support. But I am one of those who believe that the EU should follow a result-oriented approach in promotion of respect for human rights rather than a purely principled one and, most importantly, we have to accept that the improvements will only come step-by-step. That does not mean that the EU should hesitate in voicing its criticism and using its power to insist upon democratic reforms.\nI am also one of those who care about the high-level product safety that affects 550 million European citizens; who care about trade imbalance, effective market access, intellectual property rights and international competition policies that affect thousands of European companies and millions of European employees; and who care about cooperation on environment protection, international environment governance and climate change that affects the whole population of the Earth.\nBecause we care about all the above, we strongly support the Commission and Council and its Presidency for addressing, negotiating and stressing continuously each one of the issues in regular dialogue with the Chinese side. A simple reading of the 18-page joint statement of the last EU-China summit is enough to understand that the complexity, sensitivity and importance in the EU-China cooperation...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, this debate again shows that societal change takes time, and I think we always have to remember where China has come from. I think we also have to acknowledge a certain progress, as I said at the beginning. But, at the same time, it is true that we are not yet where we would like to see China.\nTherefore, I think the Human Rights Dialogue - also accompanied by the NGO seminar - remains the cornerstone for addressing our human rights concerns with China.\nHowever, I think we need to be determined but also realistic. Determined to convince China that it is in its own best interest to establish full respect for human rights across the board. Realistic, because we need to recognise that only through engagement and long-term effort can we really hope to achieve genuine reforms in China. In this context, I would also like to say that the continued holding of the NGO seminar is in the mutual interest of both China and the European Union. This has also just been confirmed by the summit.\nI think, therefore, there is a good chance that, back-to-back with the next human rights dialogue under the Slovenian Presidency, we will be able to resume this civil society seminar.\nOn a few other questions, let me just say that human rights were also mentioned in the joint statement that is there, and I will just read out the first few lines. 'The two sides emphasised their commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and continued to place a high value on the EU-China human rights dialogue, including the accompanying legal seminar.' You see: there it is. They underline the importance of concrete steps in the fields of human rights and affirm their commitment to further strengthening dialogue and so on.\nI would also like to say that there are a few concrete points that were highlighted in this discussion on which we want to see progress, such as the Falun Gong. The situation of Falun Gong followers who have been subject to repression because of their beliefs remains a matter of concern for us. We raised this issue several times, and more particularly on the occasion of the sessions of the Human Rights Dialogue. We asked, and will continue to ask, the Chinese authorities to put an end to the harsh treatment imposed on Falun Gong followers.\nConcerning the death penalty, I have said before that this issue is high on our agenda, and in this framework we have been urging China - and will continue along these lines - to reduce the scope of capital crimes, with a view to ultimately abolishing the death penalty.\nA first step would be to impose a moratorium on implementation. Then, as I said in my introductory remarks, would come a review of death penalty sentences by the Supreme Court as a first step which would be continuously monitored.\nI think the debate has shown very clearly that there is a mixed picture: there is progress, but there is still a lot to be done, and I can only say we will further engage with China in order to encourage China to make progress. I think the Olympic Games will be a good opportunity for China to show that more progress has been made by then.\nPresident\nI have received six motions for resolutions, tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday, 13 December 2007.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":2,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\n\nBernd Posselt\n(DE) Mr President, I have a high opinion of you and your chairmanship, but today I must make a protest. You have given the floor to many Members, including twice to Mr Lehne and to Mr Gollnisch and Mr Fox. I also raised a point of order concerning the calendar and it is an important point. I would like to ask you to check whether Amendment 4 was unlawful. I know that we rejected the amendment, but this is a question of principle. The treaty does not refer to 12 plenary sessions per year, but to 12 monthly plenary sessions per year. The amendment tabled by Mr Fox attempted to combine the August and the September plenary sessions in one week. This is not about a September I and September II plenary session, but about an August and a September plenary session. I would really like to clarify that this is unlawful.\nPresident\nThe fact is, Mr Posselt, that this issue has already been voted on and we cannot therefore reopen it. Nonetheless, you can rest assured that all the amendments to the calendar have been carefully considered by the Presidency.\nCarl Schlyter\nMr President, the Commissioner informed us just before the vote about the thrombin issue. I wonder if you could ask him to provide the statistical data to justify his statement that it is economically beneficial to consumers to replace cheap meat parts and put them in beef-like products, rather than using them today in sausages and other products.\nI would like him to show the statistical evidence that it is economically better for consumers, because they have so far not proven that. The Commissioner also made a comparison with minced meat but we know that the hygiene standards for minced meat are not the same as for prepared meat products, so I would question if both statements by the Commissioner are correct. If he misinformed Parliament, just before the vote, that would be a serious error. I would like you to write a letter to the Commissioner to justify those statements.\nPresident\nWe are not dealing with that item now, Mr Schlyter. We are dealing with explanations of vote. We are dealing with explanations of vote concerning the amending budget.\nOral explanations of vote\nHynek Fajmon\n(CS) I voted against the report of Vladim\u00edr Ma\u0148ka setting out the EU budget for this year. At a time of economic crisis, when it is essential to reduce public expenditure, I do not agree with the European Parliament going in completely the opposite direction and sharply increasing its expenditure.\nI do not agree with the European Parliament taking on an additional 150 staff, nor do I agree that Members of the European Parliament should receive additional new funding for their assistants, over and above what we already receive. MEPs are to receive EUR 1 500 more per month this year under the Ma\u0148ka report, on top of the additional EUR 1 500 per month under the Helga Tr\u00fcpel report, which was passed yesterday.\nThis will cost taxpayers an additional EUR 13.4 million per year. MEPs are already the subject of public criticism over the large sums of public money they receive. A further increase will meet with justified public anger throughout Europe, and I have therefore not supported this proposal.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki\n(PL) In contradistinction to the previous speaker, I endorsed the amending budget. It is not an amendment which only concerns accounting. This amendment makes very good sense. How is this? Well, it comes from our new function as Parliament, as a body which has been given legislative powers. The voters expect from us, MEPs, that we will be able to revise proposals submitted by the Commission, and that we will be able to revise proposals submitted by the Council. Let us remember that each Commissioner has a team of hundreds of people working with them. We have just one or two people to support us. So it is not a saving which we are ostensibly talking about, here. It is simply a response to a new function, a new role. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ma\u0148ka, for his superb report.\nKristian Vigenin\n(BG) Mr President, I wish to say that I supported the reports on the organ transplantation action plan, as well as the report on organ quality and safety. However, I wish to say that there are great differences between Member States in this respect. I therefore hope that this action plan and the report on quality and safety will help Member States to standardise their criteria and that they will be used as a benchmark for the future.\nI am mentioning this because my country, Bulgaria, has 35 times fewer donors than Spain. The problems in this area are linked to the whole chain of actions: from providing information to citizens to the actual transplant itself and post-transplant treatment. We do not have a network of donor facilities. There is insufficient equipment available, and we do not have a reliable donor database. Bulgaria is not a member of Eurotransplant and post-transplant treatment cannot be provided either. We do not have dispensaries built for hospitals which carry out transplants.\nThis is why I hope that this report and the decisions made by Parliament will provide some impetus and that this directive will be implemented as soon as possible.\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this report, because it establishes uniform and binding requirements on quality and standards for human organs used in transplants in all the Member States, and thus guarantees the protection of donors and recipients while, at the same time, enhancing cooperation between the Member States. With this report, we have given the opportunity of a better quality of life to those people - more than 56 000 European Union residents - who are currently waiting for an organ transplant.\nRadvilMork\u016bnait\u0117-Mikul\u0117nien\n(LT) I also voted for this important document on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. It really would be excellent to establish and organise a community-wide organ transplantation system that would be transparent and clean and which would ensure quality and safety at EU level. That is one of the most important objectives. 56 000 citizens are waiting for donors and this shortage of organs intended for transplantation also causes other problems, criminal activity and criminal problems. Therefore, I believe that this document will contribute to the creation of a suitable system that will ensure safe and reliable organ transplantation methods.\nMartin Kastler\n(DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report and I would like to congratulate Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik on the excellent work he has done. I believe that today is an important day, because we have ensured that donors and recipients of organs will have consistent standards and greater safety. I hope that this will also help to simplify the cooperation between countries and, therefore, I am very pleased that we have voted in favour of this report with a large majority.\nRichard Howitt\nMr President, I very much welcome this report and the new European rules for organ donation. If you die in another European Union country, why should your organ not be used to save life? If you need a rare match from another European country, surely these rules are sensible to implement.\nAlthough it has not been part of the debate, I would also like to put on record my personal support for an opt-out rather than an opt-in system for organ donation. Eighty per cent of European citizens say they support organ donation, yet only twelve per cent hold organ donation cards. We have to close the gap.\nLast year, 25 people in my East of England regional constituency died because they were on the organ donor waiting list but no donor could be found in time. At Addenbrooke's and Papworth hospitals in my constituency, we have European and worldwide expertise in lung and heart transplants. Let our surgeons do their work. Let our patients be treated. This is the gift of life.\nKarin Kadenbach\n(DE) Mr President, I can only agree with the previous speaker. I am also very grateful that this report was adopted today with a large majority. When we hear that 56 000 Europeans are currently waiting for a matching organ in order to be able to have a reasonable or a high quality of life, or even simply to survive, it is clear that we urgently need to harmonise and improve the standards and to make it possible for recipients to access organs from throughout Europe.\nJanusz W\u0142adys\u0142aw Zemke\n(PL) I, too, was in favour of adopting this document, because it is certainly a step in the right direction. However, while I agree with these principles, and that we are going to be concerned about the quality of donors and organs, I want to say clearly that this is only the first step in the right direction. If we want to bring about a fundamental increase in organ donations, the Union needs a significantly broader campaign, and measures of a prophylactic and informative nature. If this is not followed by promoting donation, it seems to me we will simply stop half-way.\nSe\u00e1n Kelly\nMr President, firstly, I would like to compliment you for the manner in which you handled this difficult topic here today, for explaining with courtesy the presidency's interpretation and for sticking to your guns. If you hadn't done so, it would probably be the case that we would be still here. I'm not saying I agree with you, but I am not qualified enough to give an opinion so I took your opinion as gospel.\nSecondly, I think the point made by Mr Salatto is valid, that we do need to have quicker and more accessible routes in and out of Strasbourg for the benefit of Members and others. Also I would like to compliment the quaestors, including my own compatriot, Jim Higgins, and others who are working hard to get Frankfurt-Hahn designated the same as Frankfurt airport and Strasbourg, from the point of view of transportation.\nFinally, I would like to say, regarding the accommodation charges here in Strasbourg, it would be helpful if they were the same for the weeks that we are sitting in Parliament as the weeks when we are not sitting. All this would make Strasbourg more attractive because it is a beautiful city. I understand why we are here, and once we are here, we are very happy.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nMr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the transplantation of human organs. Many people die every day because they suffer from organ failure and because organs are unavailable. The EU can help patients waiting for organs across Europe and, as a consequence, save lives. What we need is a well-coordinated system of organ donation and transplantation.\nI would like to stress once again a very important point, which is a political point: namely, the principle of voluntary and paid donation for human body parts. Reports from the World Health Organisation and the Council of Europe say that in several countries in the world, people are given a great deal of money to donate an organ. There are even reports that people are deliberately killed to get their organs: for example, practitioners of Falun Gong in China.\nWe are also aware of cases in some countries where the medical risk for the donor is high and the transplantation is often done under very bad medical conditions. So, finally, I would like to thank those who initiated the resolution we adopted today, and especially our rapporteur, Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik.\nAnna Maria Corazza Bildt\n(SV) Mr President, I and the other Swedish Conservatives have voted against the proposal to ban thrombin. The Commission proposal calls for clear labelling of meat that has been stuck together in this way and states that it should not be permitted in restaurants and large-scale catering establishments as it is difficult, in places like this, to provide customers with clear information.\nWe must defuse the debate about meat glues. Thrombin is naturally present in all meat. To avoid thrombin, it would be necessary to stop eating meat completely. The Commission's experts state that thrombin is not hazardous to health, and this opinion is scientifically based.\nThe important thing is that food is safe and that consumers are not deceived. Packaging must include accurate information about thrombin and the labelling must be clear.\nWhy should we ban thrombin? To do so would be to open Pandora's box. Is it really the job of politicians to manage our food? Where will it end? There are no grounds here for limiting consumers' freedom and their right to freedom of choice.\nWhen it comes to scaremongering politics about food that is not dangerous or unhealthy, I say 'that is enough!' Do not resort to a ban - tighten up the rules on labelling instead.\nRenate Sommer\n(DE) Mr President, adopting the resolution banning thrombin in foodstuffs today simply means giving in to public opinion. It is pure populism. We are not fulfilling our responsibilities if we do not follow the scientific evidence. What is the evidence? What is thrombin? Thrombin is a natural enzyme. It forms part of the blood and therefore of meat. All of us have a lot of thrombin in our bodies. If we ban it as a food additive, can we continue to exist or do we have to gradually dispose of ourselves as hazardous waste?\nOf course, we must prevent consumers from being misled by products which look like and are designed to look like other products. We can do this by using labelling in line with the new Regulation on the labelling of foodstuffs. We will be voting on the first reading of this regulation in June. We have a number of rules that prevent misleading advertising and we also have additional labelling for special products. The Commission has proposed exactly the same solution for labelling products in which thrombin is used as a glue. I would like to point out that there is a large number of similar enzymes which are not banned and are still used.\nAnja Weisgerber\n(DE) Mr President, consumer protection is a very, very important matter for me and therefore I am against consumers being misled or deceived in any way. This is why I am fighting for better labelling of food imitations in the Regulation on the labelling of foodstuffs, for example. I am calling on the Council to follow this approach, which is also supported by the Commission.\nToday, we had to vote on glued meat. Glued meat is meat which is glued together and sold as a high-quality product. In my opinion, this should not be happening, in particular, when consumers are not aware of what is going on. The decision today was not an easy one for me. The Commission has proposed comprehensive labelling rules, but consumers may still be misled, because it is difficult to prove that a product contains thrombin. This means that it may be used but not indicated on the label. Therefore, I think a labelling requirement is not sufficient in this case. I have now voted in favour of the resolution and of a ban on thrombin.\nKrisztina Morvai\n(HU) Over the past eight years, the post-communist dictatorship in Hungary has systematically trodden underfoot the rights of Hungarians. Among other things, it has unlawfully disbanded or had disbanded nearly every single street demonstration. With the help of nearly 100 excellent lawyers and solicitors from the National Legal Defence Service, the majority of cases have already succeeded in obtaining legal redress before the Hungarian courts, but there have been cases, such as the now famous Bukta case, which had to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.\nThe European Union is now scheming to dismantle, under the guise of accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the smoothly functioning 'Strasbourg' system. I call upon every single Hungarian and European human rights organisation to scrutinise this process and protest against things such as the Atondo report that has been adopted today, which, as I say, undermines and dismantles the European human rights protection system. It is Hungary's historic responsibility to see that under the Hungarian Presidency, we do not speed up but rather prevent this dangerous process.\nRadvilMork\u016bnait\u0117-Mikul\u0117nien\n(LT) This topic is actually quite sensitive and has been the cause of much debate in the European Parliament and, of course, in society at large. I still think that banning some products or additives is not a solution and perhaps we have to agree with the argument that it is the consumer who has the right to choose, having full information, what he wants to buy and what he wants to consume. On the other hand, controlling the process would be rather difficult. In this day and age, the age of public awareness, with a lot of accessible information, we have yet to formulate wordings, unambiguous of course, that are acceptable to society, so that when people buy one product or another, they can obtain appropriate information and can understand what the product's ingredients are. Therefore, I feel there need to be more consultations with society, its education and perhaps additional consultations with scientists.\nMartin Kastler\n(DE) Mr President, the citizens of Europe are right. They like honest foods and they like honest politicians.\nI respect public opinion of this kind. We cannot simply ignore public opinion and we cannot simply dismiss it as populism. That is not the case. We must take notice of what our citizens are saying to us. If our constituents and our citizens are of the opinion that real meat must be real meat and that it must not be made of pieces of meat glued together, then we must make sure that it is not possible for meat to be processed in this way. This is why I have voted against allowing thrombin to be used as a food glue.\nKarin Kadenbach\n(DE) Mr President, I have also voted in favour of the resolution banning the use of thrombin as a food additive, because the Commissioner's arguments did not convince me. We do not want glued meat in Europe. Even if thrombin is an enzyme which is not harmful to health, by using it to glue together scraps of meat to make one large compressed piece of meat, the risk of bacterial infections must be significantly increased. On the other hand, the decision made today was clearly for the benefit of the consumers of Europe and in opposition to the purely financial interests of the industry. Consumers who want a steak must be given a steak and not a piece of meat that has been glued together. This means that we must call on the Commission not to authorise the use of thrombin.\nPeter Jahr\n(DE) Mr President, the current debate about so-called glued ham shows that some manufacturers do not deal honestly with consumers. I would like all food to be labelled in such a way that it is not possible to mislead consumers. If this enzyme is used, consumers must be able to identify its presence. This is the basis for effective and fair consumer protection. Our job is to ensure that mature consumers have sufficient information to make decisions in their own interests.\nOne final remark about glued ham. The discussion with consumers about whether or not they want it has not yet taken place. However, it is important that consumers at least know what they are actually eating.\nSiiri Oviir\n(ET) I welcome the action plan, and I therefore voted in favour of it. This is a step in the right direction, and in order to solve this problem, we must all work together. Measures at European Union level will help us to enhance the efforts of the Member States to ensure the quality and safety of organ donation and transplants, to deal better with problems resulting from the lack of organs and, at the same time, to make the system of transplants more effective. The action plan which has been approved will give the Member States the opportunity to use the ten priority measures set out by us as a basis for putting their national action plans together in a better way. We are obliged, within the scope of our competency, to give help towards high-level health protection across the entire European Union.\nClemente Mastella\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, acceding to the European Convention undoubtedly represents progress in the process of political integration of the European Union, whose system of protection for fundamental rights is supplemented and strengthened by the integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in its primary law.\nWe consider it enormously important and politically significant that Parliament has been granted the right to appoint and send a certain number of representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe during the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Let us remember that promoting the respect of human rights is one of the fundamental values of the European Union enshrined in a founding treaty.\nI would also like to underscore how important the Convention and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights are in outlining a new legal and regulatory framework that lays down guiding principles in the areas of civil liberties, justice and internal affairs, above all, in light of the new forms of integration and harmonisation implemented with the enactment of the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of the Stockholm Programme.\nIt will also provide an additional legal instrument which makes it possible to present a claim before the European Court of Human Rights against an action or a failure to act by a European institution or a Member State in the context of the implementation of European law.\nLastly, it is significant that Article 1 of the European Convention will extend protection not only to citizens of the European Union and other persons within its territory, but also to persons who fall within its jurisdiction, even if they are outside the territory.\nAlfredo Antoniozzi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in favour of the European Union acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights because, as clearly summed up by the Atondo report, it represents progress in the process of European integration. This means a step towards political union and a strong sign of the coherence between the Union and countries of the Council of Europe and its policy on human rights which will strengthen the credibility of Europe in non-European countries. Lastly, it represents a clear desire to harmonise the issue of human rights and fundamental freedoms at a legislative and court level.\nThanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union is an international entity with its own legal personality for the first time. I hope that signing the convention is only one of the first steps towards the affirmation of the European Union as a single body at the level of major international negotiations.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, I am somewhat more reserved on this issue than the Members who have just spoken.\nIndeed, on the face of it, the idea of European law being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is quite attractive. It was rather alarming that national laws could be, as it were, censured by that Court. However, the way in which national jurisdictions implement these laws means that European law falls outside their scope, all the more so as this European law, in my country, France, for example, takes precedence, under Article 55 of our constitution, over French domestic law.\nOne might wonder, however, if this procedure will not result in a certain kind of overlap. Indeed, on the one hand, European law is rarely directly applicable within Member States; it first has to be transposed into domestic legislation by means of secondary legislation.\nOn the other hand, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg has shown itself to be keen to protect fundamental rights. It has also assimilated this legislation as arising from the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The fear is that we could end up with rather protracted proceedings, particularly if, as some people are demanding, a preliminary question procedure is instituted. This is why we would have preferred a distinction to have been made between compliance with the rules and participation in the appeals procedure.\nBruno Gollnisch\n(FR) Mr President, at a time when such tragic events are occurring in Thailand, we cannot fail to appreciate the need for major crimes committed against civilian populations to be referred to the courts.\nHowever, past experience is less encouraging than was indicated yesterday by several Members during the debate. At the first International Criminal Court, those who, without any military objective in mind, decided to use napalm to burn the civilian populations in the city of Dresden; those who decided to use atomic radiation to burn the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and those who decided to kill the imprisoned Polish officers by shooting them in the back of the neck were the judges, when they really should have been included among the accused. The track record of the former International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, particularly in the Milosevic and \u0160e\u0161elj cases, is not very satisfactory either.\nWith regard to the creation of a trust fund, if Member States are required to make a contribution, does this mean that Europe will compensate the victims of genocides that take place outside its territory? There are hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people who fall into that category. I fear that we are getting mixed up in something rather complicated. The idea of ultimately pursuing the defeated parties, in spite of the assurances that they are sometimes given, in order to reach a peace agreement would be to risk indefinitely prolonging conflicts; this is the basis for our reservations about this report.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) I voted for the resolution on the Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court that will begin at the end of this month in Kampala, Uganda.\nIn 1998, 138 countries agreed to set up the International Criminal Court and adopted the Rome Statute on the basis of which this court has now been operating for 7 years, since 2003. The time has come to review the Rome Statute, in particular, the so-called 'temporary provisions' on which we were unable to agree in 2002. All EU Member States have ratified the Rome Statute. However, some of our partners, like the United States, Russia and China, have not joined the International Criminal Court in its work. With its resolution today, the European Parliament again calls on these countries to ratify the Rome Statute and cooperate with the International Criminal Court. In the 21st century, people responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should expect not only moral condemnation from the international community but legal sanctions. These crimes cannot be committed with impunity.\nWritten explanations of vote\nCarlos Coelho  \nAs well as speeding up decision-making mechanisms, the Treaty of Lisbon is contributing to the fight against the democratic deficit, strengthening the roles of national parliaments and the European Parliament, and stressing the exercise of European citizenship. The introduction of the legislative petition, or the 'right to citizens' initiative', as it has been named, is of particular importance. This new device allows a group of not less than one million citizens of a significant number of Member States to request a legislative initiative from the Commission on the areas in which the Union has jurisdiction.\nThe Treaty of Lisbon also makes clear the importance of consultations and dialogue with other institutions and bodies, with civil society, and with social partners, amongst others. I believe that Europe must be the citizens' Europe, and this can only happen if we make it more democratic and transparent. In this context, I agree that the opinions of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions should be sought.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nIt must seem that I am repeating what I expressed yesterday in relation to Mr Tavares' report. However, the refugee problem is a European problem and it cannot be left to the national governments to manage, also in light of the geographic and economic differences.\nTherefore, I am in favour of creating a fund at a European level. The creation of such a fund must serve two purposes: it must support the refugees who arrive in our countries, frequently on our coasts, searching for help, as well as support the states which receive the greatest numbers of these desperate individuals due to their geographic location.\nIn fact, the problem is, and must be, a European problem, and it cannot be left to the management of certain states. I hope that the fund is only the beginning of a path which approaches this entire issue from a more European perspective and in a spirit of solidarity.\nElena Oana Antonescu  \nThe proposal for a directive on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products is part, along with the two proposals on the energy performance of buildings and the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency, of the Energy Efficiency Package tabled by the Commission in November 2008. We voted for it because we achieved, through the agreement signed between Parliament, the Council and Commission, the introduction of an improved labelling system.\nLabels will contain more energy consumption information for domestic appliances and energy-related products. In future, this labelling will also be applied to energy consuming products intended for industrial and commercial use, which was not possible until now. Last but not least, any kind of future advertising promoting the price or energy efficiency of categories of products will also have to indicate their energy class.\nProviding accurate, relevant and comparable information on the energy consumption of energy-related products will allow consumers in future to make correct, effective choices, thereby reducing both their energy consumption and household expenditure.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - The Maltese Government is against the Recommendation for second reading relating to labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products.\nThe reason given is that the nationalist government disagrees with an explanation statement in the report, in particular, with the following phrase: 'Construction products with significant impact on the consumption of energy shall also be included in the priority list.' It is inconceivable that the government does not agree to this recommendation on this basis. It could have agreed with the recommendation and made it clear that it had a reservation in relation to construction products which have a significant impact on the consumption of energy.\nIt is useless for the government to appear to be in favour of energy efficiency when the potential savings could be achieved through the labelling of some of these products given that buildings account for 40% of total energy consumption in the European Union.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nI supported this important report. The Energy Labelling Directive has a crucial role to play in the achievement of the EU energy efficiency target of 20% by 2020. In that context, it holds a key role regarding the fight against climate change, the transition of the EU to an efficient, sustainable and competitive economy, and the strengthening of Europe's energy security. Our aim is to pave the way towards a win-win situation, both for the market and consumers, by guaranteeing every consumer access to proper information and full awareness about the impact of his or her choices. In that framework, the agreement reached on the Energy Labelling Directive brings important added value. I welcome the position fought for by the European Parliament to maintain the model of an A-G scale which, according to a survey, is the most convenient and easiest for consumers to understand. There is an obligation to include reference to the energy label in all advertisements of energy-related products, where price- or energy-related information is disclosed.\nJan B\u0159ezina  \nI am pleased that the new legislation on the energy efficiency of products has finally been approved, following a lengthy tug of war between the European Parliament and the Council, and that I had the honour of being the shadow rapporteur for it on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party. The benefit is an expansion of Class A, allowing distinctions to be drawn among the constantly increasing group of energy-saving appliances while, at the same time, motivating producers to make appliances that are as energy-saving as possible. It is also important that there has been no expansion in the number of classes indicating the energy consumption of individual products, as this preserves the clarity of the whole concept. The fact that there are seven levels in total enables consumers to make effective decisions when selecting goods on the market, thereby helping to reduce energy costs through their behaviour. As far as new features are concerned, involving the obligation to indicate the energy classes of products in advertising materials, I consider it a success that this obligation has been restricted to advertisements providing information on price or information connected with energy consumption. Fortunately, the view prevailed that the regulation of advertising is acceptable only in case of need, and only to the extent necessary.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for this recommendation because it effectively contributes to helping European consumers choose products that use less energy or which indirectly lead to less energy being used. By adopting this recommendation, the European Parliament is playing a part in moving closer to the realisation of the EU's objective of a 20% improvement in its energy efficiency by 2020. It is a balanced text that ensures a situation that is beneficial to the market and consumers.\nDiogo Feio  \nThis initiative, like the one that we voted on yesterday regarding the energy efficiency of buildings, is part of a legislative package on energy efficiency that was presented by the Commission in November 2008 and has been the subject of ample debate in Parliament, the Commission and the Council; agreement is now, at last, being reached on the final text.\nAs well as having positive consequences for the environment, for the European objective of reducing emissions and for the creation of an economy that is sustainable in energy terms, this initiative also has the benefit of making consumers central to the decision. With the correct markings and labels, consumers will know exactly what they are getting, and will be able to make their choice on the basis of criteria such as energy efficiency and the lowest environmental cost.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe directive on energy labelling guarantees that consumers will receive adequate information thanks to the compulsory inclusion of the energy label on advertising. In the context of European efforts at achieving energy efficiency and the reduction of energy consumption levels, along with combating climate change, it is vital to mobilise the public for this cause. This can only be achieved if consumers are given clear and effective information about energy consumption on products that have been bought or are for sale. In this way, all members of the European public will become involved in combating climate change. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that consumers are able to consciously make more environmentally friendly choices. As this directive now ensures, levels of energy consumption caused by products are assessed against universal criteria and parameters, which allow them to be compared in a way that can be trusted. This will also lead to an increase in confidence in technical assessment and the information content on labels. This directive therefore has an important role in consolidating the 2020 strategy and, in particular, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nFollowing this vote, products that consume energy - whether for domestic, commercial or industrial purposes - must start displaying the new energy efficiency label, in order to better inform consumers. There is provision in the directive adopted today by the European Parliament for new types of energy efficiency classification to be added, and it is also applicable to products that consume energy in an indirect way, for example, windows.\nSome of the details are debatable, for example, that the format of the label will be based on the a classification between A and G - like that already used for refrigerators - with the possible addition of the classifications A+, A++ and A+++: in principle, the total number of classes must be limited to seven. Nevertheless, the directive seems to have the right objective.\nAll advertising for products related to energy or their respective prices must include a reference to the energy efficiency classification. The information provided must guide consumers towards choosing products that use less energy or indirectly lead to less energy being used.\nTherefore, in future, any advertising of the price or energy efficiency of refrigerators, washing machines or cookers must indicate the product's energy class.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski  \nMuch is said about the rights of consumers to know about the food, domestic equipment or home fittings which they buy. We want to know where they come from and how they were made, and the nutritional values of food. At a time of climate change, we all want to protect the environment and prevent abnormal weather, and this is why, when choosing food and everyday products, we are guided by ecological principles. It is important, therefore, that consumers are aware of how much energy is used by their equipment, and so I think they have the right for that information to be on the labels. Putting this information on product labels also shows the high quality of the product. It can then be a tool to protect the European market from cheap imitations of equipment from outside the European Union.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nI voted for this report. It acknowledges that the market is incapable of ensuring rational energy use. This is a definite concession that echoes our arguments, which I welcome. I also welcome the stated desire for top-down harmonisation of energy saving labelling. However, it is regrettable that total ecological footprint labelling for products is not proposed anywhere, when we really should implement it as quickly as possible.\nNuno Melo  \nThe EU is continuing to look determinedly for the best ways of ensuring excellence in energy efficiency, so as to succeed in improving its efficiency by 20% by 2020. This new labelling is very pertinent to consumers because it allows them access to better information so that they can make fully informed choices and recognise their impact in matters concerning energy efficiency. This means raising consumers' awareness of the energy-related consequences of their choice whenever they look to buy any consumer item which has a bearing on energy efficiency. The approval of this directive is especially important in increasing this awareness. That is why I voted as I did.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nIf the energy consumption label is introduced, then provided that it can be easily understood, it will soon become clear whether or not it will really be accepted by consumers. Public awareness has changed in this area and consumers are paying greater attention to energy efficiency classes, in particular, in the case of electrical appliances. Of course, the public procurement process should set a good example in this respect. However, the Member States must not be told that they can only buy products with the highest performance levels which belong to the highest energy efficiency class. Particularly at a time when everyone will have to make savings, the purchase price will increasingly be the deciding factor. The choices available in the public procurement process are not specified clearly enough, which is why I have abstained.\nRadvilMork\u016bnait\u0117-Mikul\u0117nien \nI voted for the resolution on the labelling of products using electricity and the provision of basic information for consumers. We talk about citizens' rights very often in Parliament - about the right to choose, the right to obtain accurate and correct information. In my opinion, that is particularly important in all areas of life. In this case, the question is related to the electricity used and its efficiency. People actually want to save energy, and mostly do this for two reasons, economic and environmental. Today, with advances in technology, when residents have the opportunity to choose electrical appliances according to their energy efficiency, the labelling that we agreed on will also help consumers make a conscious choice and contribute to energy saving (hence, citizens would choose more economical devices) and the preservation of the environment. I have no doubt that when Europeans see the amount of energy consumed, they will take advantage of the opportunity to choose more efficient and environmentally friendly products and equipment. Once more, I welcome the position of the European Parliament on this issue and I hope that such decisions will become a real stimulus and opportunity to realise our commitments to reduce energy consumption by 2020.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nThe recast of the Energy Labelling Directive has the objective of extending the scope of labelling information to include all products that impact on energy consumption, and not just household appliances.\nThe directive is part of the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan and it also envisages initiatives for incentives and public tenders. It will establish the fulcrum of an integrated and sustainable policy from an environmental standpoint. One of the most controversial points concerns which type of scale to use in order to avoid causing consumer confusion: it was decided to maintain the A-G closed scale layout after the European Parliament adopted a resolution in this regard.\nEnergy efficiency ratings will also be displayed on all advertising containing information on energy consumption or which relates to product prices. For the reasons I have explained, I agree with the stance taken by Mrs Podimata and I support the report.\nAldo Patriciello  \nThe Energy Labelling Directive has a crucial role to play in the achievement of the EU energy efficiency target of 20% by 2020. It provides an important added value for both the market and consumers. In essence, the mandatory mention of the energy label in advertisements will put an end to misinformation of end users, giving them all the information they need to make fully informed choices.\nAt the same time, due to Parliament's strong insistence, the introduction of an open scale layout was avoided, and maintaining the model of an A-G scale, which has a well proven value for consumers so far, was guaranteed. Moreover, the addition of a general review clause allows for a thorough re-examination in the light of technical evolution and consumer understanding of the label no later than 2014. This is one more safeguard that the consumer friendly scale as decided so far will remain unchanged at least until the review takes place. I therefore repeat with conviction that I fully support the directive.\nRovana Plumb  \nI voted for this report since, by including all energy-related products, the amendment to the Energy Labelling Directive will help achieve a EUR 4 million reduction in the transposition costs for each implementation measure updated and produced from scratch (if regulations\/decisions are going to be used instead of directives). It will also produce additional reductions amounting to approximately 78 Mt of CO2 emissions. In future, energy efficiency labelling will also be applied to energy consuming products intended for industrial and commercial use, such as cold storage rooms, retail display cabinets, industrial cooking appliances, vending machines (selling sandwiches, snacks, coffee, etc.), industrial motors, energy-related products, including construction products which do not consume energy but 'have a significant direct or indirect impact' on energy saving, such as windows and door frames.\nOne important factor in ensuring the proper application of this directive is guaranteeing every citizen access to correct information and making consumers aware of the impact of the choices they make. Providing accurate, relevant and comparable information on the specific energy consumption of energy-related products will help end users make a decision based on energy-saving potential in order to reduce energy bills in the long term.\nTeresa Riera Madurell  \nI have voted in favour of the Podimata report because I believe that Parliament and especially the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D) have managed to make extremely important advances with respect to a crucial directive in order to achieve the energy efficiency goal that we have set ourselves. Not only have we managed to maintain the A-G scale, which is known and accepted by European consumers, but we have also ensured that it is now obligatory to refer to the energy label of the domestic appliance as long as information on the price appears in its promotional or advertising material. Another noteworthy aspect introduced by Parliament is the obligation on the Commission to draw up a priority list of products related to energy, including some building products that are liable to be subject to measures in the future. Lastly, given the leadership role that must be taken by the public sector, I feel it is essential for administrations to acquire products that belong to the highest energy efficiency class in public tenders.\nSophie Auconie  \nMr Ma\u0148ka's report proposes several amendments to the European Parliament's 2010 budget. I voted for this report and, in particular, for its provisions that follow on from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. These include the EUR 1 500 per month increase in Members' assistance expenses. This increase is designed to enable Members to meet their new responsibilities arising from the Treaty of Lisbon, which considerably extends the scope of Parliament, thereby increasing its influence on EU decision making. Parliament needs to increase its expertise in legislative issues in order to match the Commission and the Member States. We represent European citizens and we need appropriate resources if we wish to defend their interests. I therefore supported this report.\nG\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm  \nI believe that those committees that will have a heavier workload as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon need to be reinforced. This justifies an increase in the number of staff for Parliament's and the groups' secretariats in these committees. However, I do not share the view that we MEPs need more staff. I would have liked to have seen Parliament's resources being enhanced first and foremost by means of redistribution and measures to improve efficiency, so that the total budget is not increased.\nIn my capacity as group leader for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament in the Committee on Budgets, I also took this line in the negotiations with Parliament's Presidency. In the end, we reached a compromise to the effect that the proposal will now be partly funded through savings of EUR 4.4 million. I still believe that further savings should have been included in the proposal but, as I played an active role in the negotiations, I have chosen to support the compromise achieved.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nThe entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon will probably cause a significant rise in Parliament's workload. In particular, this will lead to more extensive use of the ordinary legislative procedure, which will affect around 95% of legislation passed. Additional budgetary and human resources will allow Parliament to fulfil its new role as colegislator on an equal footing with the Council.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I supported the Ma\u0148ka Report on the European Parliament amending budget while conscious of the sensitivity of increasing budgets at a time when citizens are being asked to take pay cuts and jobs are being lost. The work in the European Parliament has undoubtedly increased because of the Treaty of Lisbon. I intend to use the additional assistance allowance to provide opportunities to young students who are applying in large numbers to my office for work.\nThis will provide them with remuneration for their work and valuable work experience, which I hope will assist them in their future careers. However, I believe that the Parliament needs to review our entire working methods and staffing with a view to improving our effectiveness and efficiency.\nNuno Melo  \nThe Treaty of Lisbon has given Parliament new responsibilities. This situation means additional administrative work, with the result that Members need qualified staff to act as advisors. This new situation leads to two problems: increased costs arising from the need for more assistants, and additional space required in order for them to carry out their duties in good working conditions. This situation leads to increased costs. That is difficult to explain during this time of crisis, but if Parliament's work is to be excellent, it needs to have the necessary financial and human resources. That is why I voted as I did.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nI voted in favour. Though it may seem like demagogy or another caste privilege, in this case it is not. The budget amendments are important and essential for the proper management of the life and activity of Parliament.\nIn our role as Members of the European Parliament, following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, we are called upon to undertake an important and conspicuous task. For that reason, we need collaborators and experts who are able to support us in our jobs on a daily basis. To do that, resources are needed. On behalf of myself and, I hope, my fellow Members, these resources will translate into even more effective, efficient and focused work.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I have signed and voted in favour of the Amendment rejecting the tranche, together with 16 other MEPs from my group. The reason is that I think it is of utmost importance to show that there is a substantial group of MEPs that do not agree with the increase of the assistance allowance in these times of economic crisis.\nAt the final vote, however, I voted in favour of the Ma\u0148ka report, amending Parliament's budget for 2010.\nEva-Britt Svensson\nI voted against the report on the supplementary budget for 2010. To increase MEPs' secretarial allowance by EUR 1 500 per month in order to deal with the increased workloads resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon is not tenable. For one thing, you cannot employ highly-trained experts for EUR 1 500 per month. Secondly, there is no room for new staff in Parliament's working premises. Thirdly, a proportion of the budget funds have been taken out of the reserve specifically for building investments. Fourthly, for the 2011 budget, Category 5, the rapporteur, Mrs Tr\u00fcppel, stated that secretarial allowances cannot be guaranteed in future until a proper evaluation of their benefits has been carried out. I regard this increase as an unjustified supplement for the already high secretarial allowances, and this at a time when the unemployed, single women, pensioners and other socially vulnerable groups are forced to make sacrifices to rescue the floundering euro project.\nDiogo Feio  \nIn the name of transparency - which the citizens require - and thoroughness, I do not believe that the Council is free of its obligation to be publicly accountable for the funds made available to them. That is why I agree with the rapporteur's decision to postpone the decision on discharging the Council's accounts until the requested additional information has been submitted.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI am in favour of postponing the decision on releasing the implementation of the EU general budget for the year 2008 in the interests of transparency and rigour, not only in terms of implementing the budget, but also the complete supervision of the use of all the EU's financial resources. This will afford the Council the opportunity to obtain all the explanations and information that are needed to secure a decision endorsed by Parliament. This is absolutely vital to the credibility of the European institutions and public confidence in those in power. Moreover, basic respect for the policies and guidelines set out by the democratic bodies and those legally empowered to do so is at issue here.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nThe procedure of discharging the budget is important and the legislative and supervisory activities of Parliament hinge upon it.\nThere is no need for me to reiterate the supervisory power that Parliament has acquired over the years, thanks not least to the budget procedure, on the basis of which it has managed to turn the mandatory reporting of European institutions into a serious and important matter. Moreover, it is also fundamental in light of our citizens' expectations.\nIn a moment of crisis such as the current one, European citizens are called upon to make extraordinary sacrifices and we must carry out careful and accurate supervision of bureaucratic or actual management expenses. For the reasons I have stated, I commend the rapporteur and express my agreement.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I have voted in favour of this report because I agree with the fact that we need to postpone the discharge decision until October.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski  \nI voted against granting discharge in respect of the Council's budget for 2008 because the Council's financial documentation was received in Parliament too late. The European Parliament's supervision of the Council's finances is far from being transparent.\nElena Oana Antonescu  \nThe last few years have seen a steady, rapid rise in the need for organ transplants within the European Union. Although the organ shortage remains the biggest challenge facing us at the moment, there are far more difficulties related to the different transplant systems which are used in Member States.\nBack in 2008, the European Parliament called on the European Commission, via the resolution adopted in April, to draft a directive setting out the legal framework for guaranteeing the quality and safety of organ donations within the European Union. The Commission subsequently tabled a proposal for a directive, which was debated in the European Parliament, featuring the following three objectives: guaranteeing quality and safety for patients across the EU, providing protection for donors and facilitating cooperation between Member States.\nWe voted in favour of the compromise reached between Parliament, the Council and Commission as we need common quality and safety standards at EU level for the procurement, transport and use of human organs. This is a measure which would facilitate organ exchanges, thereby benefiting the thousands of patients in Europe who require this kind of treatment every year.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nI support this report on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. With the growing demand for transplantations in the European Union and the imbalance between patients waiting for a transplantation and the number of organs donated, we must aim to avoid the commercialisation of donation and end the illegal trade in organs. Therefore, we must apply strict legislation on living donors, ensure the transparency of organ waiting lists, lay down strict confidentiality rules in order to protect the personal data of donors and those waiting for organs and define the responsibility of doctors. Once common quality and safety standards have been adopted, opportunities would be created for cross border exchanges of organs and this may increase the number of transplantations performed.\nRegina Bastos  \nOver the last five decades, the transplanting of organs has become an effective practice at global level, which has contributed to improving the quality of life and increasing the life expectancies of sufferers. This directive establishes rules that seek to guarantee high standards of quality and safety for organs of human origin to be transplanted into human bodies in order to ensure a high level of protection of human health. The directive introduces quality national programmes in which standards and practices for transplantation processes in the Member States are defined. It also sets out in more detail the procurement process and issues connected with the information system.\nThe traceability and protection of donors and recipients also deserve special attention. I voted for this report because of its three main objectives: guaranteeing quality and safety for patients at Union level, ensuring the protection of donors, and facilitating cooperation between Member States. Nevertheless, I would stress that organ transplantation programmes must comply with the principle of voluntary and free donation that is already enshrined in previous legislation on substances of human origin, and that they may not be sold in any way.\nGerard Batten, John Bufton, David Campbell Bannerman and Derek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - UKIP believes that ongoing development and improvement in the present international network of facilities and agencies for organ exchange will not be facilitated by the EU's attempts to invade and regulate this network. On the contrary, organ donation in the few countries where there are many donors is likely to decrease if demand for organs from the many countries where there are few donors becomes EU-mandatory. In the latter countries, moreover, the resulting relative abundance of foreign organs is likely to reduce organ donation there also. Consequently, UKIP members voted against this report.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex  \nI voted for the draft directive on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. The directive covers every stage in the chain, from donation to transplantation, and provides for cooperation between Member States. An effective transplantation system is not solely based on donors' support; it also depends on the correct use of information and on the quality of the network by which this information is shared. I therefore supported the idea of creating a European database recording information on the organs available, and a pan-European certification system guaranteeing that the human organs and tissues available have been obtained legally. Indeed, in order to ensure equal access to available organs, organs must only be donated on a voluntary basis, without any payments being made. However, the principle of not paying for organs will not prevent live donors from being compensated, provided that such compensation is strictly limited to covering the costs and loss of income resulting from the donation. Such a transparent, safe and efficient donation system is the only way to combat organ trafficking.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nI voted in favour of the proposal for a directive for the following reasons: 1. Given the increase in the demand for organs for transplant and the limited supply, which often forces patients to look for solutions to their problem beyond national borders, the adoption at Community level of a common framework of quality and safety standards and the creation of a network of cooperation and mutual information is absolutely necessary in order to improve protection for public health and services to patients. 2. National provisions governing the procedure for providing consent to organ donation, the selection of which remains within the jurisdiction of the Member States, are not affected in any way. On the contrary, the proposal for a directive supplements the current legal framework of each Member State of the EU with specific quality and safety standards throughout the transplantation procedure and, at the same time, safeguards the absence of any form of speculation and maintains the anonymity and security of both the donor's and the recipient's personal data. 3. Cases of organ smuggling are minimised and the confidence of potential donors is strengthened, with the ultimate aim of increasing the number of donors. 4. Sanctions are imposed by the Member States in the event of infringement of legislation relating to the identity of donors or recipients.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation because it contributes to reducing operation waiting lists for European sufferers. It is unacceptable that, on average, 12 people awaiting a transplant die every day. This directive will make it easier to donate and transplant organs, and to exchange them between EU Member States, benefiting thousands of ill Europeans.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe scarcity of organs for transplantation has been feeding a terrible market which affects, above all, developing countries, but which has also hit deprived people in Eastern Europe. I share the concern about the difficulty of combating this brutal trade and the terrible consequences for those who are deprived, forcibly or not, of their organs: savage drops in quality of life, chronic illnesses and, in many cases, death. The adoption of common rules puts the European Union on a level footing in terms of requirements and responsibilities, in stark contrast with the sombre situation that I have described.\nPatients and donors will have the conditions, the monitoring and the protection that those involved in the trafficking networks lack, and the Member States will start to be able to cooperate effectively. I agree with the rapporteur that donation must be altruistic, voluntary and free, and that the donor must only be compensated for any expenses or inconvenience incurred by the donation. I believe that my colleague, Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik, has proposed some good alterations that improve the basic text; they must be a result of his medical training and of his following this subject since the last parliamentary session.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI warmly welcome this proposal and its three principal objectives: guaranteeing quality and security for patients at Union level, ensuring the protection of donors and facilitating cooperation between Member States. In general in the EU, there is a broad social consensus on the donation of organs for transplantation. However, due to differences of culture and tradition, and also in the system of organisation, there are different approaches to this issue within the Member States. I would stress that although the directive is aimed at maintaining or attempting to achieve harmonisation between quality and security measures, it should not create an extra administrative burden for Member States. Rather, it should have a sufficient margin of flexibility for it not to jeopardise good practice already in force. The proposal for a directive establishes common, binding standards of quality and safety for organs of human origin to be transplanted with the aim of guaranteeing a high level of protection for health throughout the EU. I endorse the Commission's view that, in principle, organ transplantation programmes must comply with the principle of voluntary and free donation. Organ donation must always be free and protected from any potential commercialisation.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nOrgan transplants are an important means of rehabilitation for patients suffering a multitude of illnesses that cause fatal problems with certain organs. The number of transplants in the European Union has increased, saving and prolonging many lives. However, there are still long waiting lists for transplants. Our vote in favour expresses our agreement with the improvements that the report is attempting to introduce to the current situation. As well as affecting quality and safety, and the establishment of procedures necessary for procurement and transport, these improvements relate to the protection of donors and recipients, with due consideration being given to ethical principles and the principle of non-remuneration. The report also tackles the worrying issue of human organ trafficking in a way that seems appropriate to us.\nNuno Melo  \nThis aim of this directive is clear enough: we need more organs for patients and greater cooperation between Member States on this matter and on combating organ trafficking. Hence, one of the foundations of this new legislation provides for the designation of a new authority in every Member State to be responsible for compliance with the standards of quality and security of organs. These authorities will be responsible for ensuring the quality and the safety of the organs 'throughout the entire chain, from donation to transplant, as well as in evaluating the quality and safety during the recovery and subsequent monitoring of the respective patient'. The new directive also requires that the health professionals involved in all stages of the chain, from the donation to the transplantation or removal of the organ, are properly qualified. Specific training programmes should thus be developed for these professionals. For all these reasons, we voted for this proposal. That is why I voted as I did.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nOrgan transplants can save lives, but only when a healthy organ from a matching donor is transplanted. Unfortunately, errors have occurred repeatedly in the past and this makes it even more important to impose quality and safety standards in this area. It is also worth discussing the fact that Muslims are often happy to accept organ donations, but are not generally prepared to donate organs because of their religion. I hope that the report will contribute to improving quality and safety standards, which is why I have voted in favour of it.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nI would like to express my vote in favour of Mr Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik's report. The growing need for available transplant organs in a context of cross-border exchange and of significant differences among the transplant systems adopted by the various Member States requires cooperation and common regulations regarding the quality and safety of the organs to be strengthened.\nThe proposal for a directive aims to reach those objectives by focusing on increasing the number of transplants and raising the quality standards in donation, procurement, control, preservation, transportation and transplant processes. Furthermore, by underlining the principle of voluntary donation as against the trade or trafficking of organs, it aims to guarantee the rights of donors and patients. Though recognising the need to harmonise quality and safety measures, the rapporteur stresses that the directive must not create an additional administrative burden for Member States and must leave enough flexibility without jeopardising current good practices.\nMaria do C\u00e9u Patr\u00e3o Neves  \nTransplantation is one of the medical specialities to have made the greatest advances over recent decades, having achieved considerable success and been crucial in saving human lives. Paradoxically, it is the success of transplantation that, alongside other factors, has led to a growing number of candidates for organ transplants, resulting in long waiting lists. It has also led to the human drama associated with the death of approximately 12 patients per day in the EU because they have not been able to receive the organ that they need in order to survive. One of the ways of minimising this problem is exchange between EU Member States, ensuring greater compatibility between donor and recipient in a shorter space of time, and with a higher level of organ acceptance. This exchange, however, requires quality and safety standards across the board, as set out in the present directive by Parliament and the Council. The Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik report on safety and quality standards for organs intended for transplantation thus makes an important contribution towards minimising organ shortage and towards basic protection of the health of the recipient and the living donor. Therefore, we are pleased to welcome it.\nAldo Patriciello  \nOrgan transplants are, without a doubt, one of the most positive aspects of progress in the health field but, at the same time, they open up a whole series of problems in terms of donors' and patients' rights which must be dealt with from the ethical, social, legal and economic points of view.\nIt is a question of setting a positive process in motion to address the major imbalance between the need and the numbers of organs available, without compromising the principle of free, voluntary donation in order to prevent all forms of commercialisation and illegal trafficking and whilst guaranteeing the quality and safety of organs for transplantation with measures that ensure both confidentiality and traceability.\nThe adoption of common quality standards is definitely a step forward that should be welcomed as part of a framework in which the World Health Organisation may make a further contribution. However, in setting up a European database, it is important that we take care not to introduce an unnecessarily rigid framework or create additional red tape that would hamper the current perfectly proper and efficient process.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I have supported the report lead by our colleague Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation as one very urgent measure to improve the life expectation of more than 60 000 people in Europe waiting for a transplant. I hope this will make the possibility of getting an organ easier and safer.\nOlga Sehnalov\u00e1  \nI voted in favour of the report, even though there is a need, concurrently with the desired effort to unify safety and quality requirements for human organs designated for transplant, to focus, in particular, on increasing donor numbers in the various Member States, taking account of the different national traditions of health systems. It is therefore necessary to assess this area rigorously from the perspective of the subsidiarity principle.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I was pleased to support this report in its vote through Parliament. Within the South-East of England, many families are victims of the harsh reality of a poor supply of organs necessary for transplantation. This report assists in creating an EU cross-border standard which could provide for an improved supply into and across the EU so that such families of individuals needing organs can be more easily met with the hope of relieving their conditions.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski  \nI endorsed the report on standards of safety in organ donation because the report includes the principle of non-commercialisation.\nM\u00e1rio David  \nThe European Parliament has adopted the calendar of plenary sessions for 2011. It is regrettable that EUR 200 million per annum of the taxpayer's money continues to be spent on holding 12 sessions in Strasbourg every year. The hypocrisy is reaching the point of not even complying with the provisions of the treaties, as compliance would involve one session per month; in other words, including August. The city of Strasbourg's legitimate aspirations could be satisfied with the permanent establishment here of one or two European Union agencies. As for the 'circus', it should obviously stop! Furthermore, it makes no sense at all for the European Parliament to meet 48 days of the year in a city that does not have direct air links with virtually any of the Member States' capitals.\nMoreover, those that do exist have commercial timetables, which are totally incompatible with parliamentary activity. It is easy to see that the Heads of State or Government who make these decisions travel by private aeroplane and do not lose dozens or hundreds of hours per year getting to Strasbourg.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nI have voted against the proposal made by some Members to divide a session into two parts, but still to hold it during one week. Apart from the fact that this does not make much sense, the additional travel to and from the session would give rise to unnecessary costs and waste valuable working time.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I enthusiastically supported the amendment proposing to reduce the two September part-sessions to one. I am a big supporter of the idea of reducing the two EP seats to one, based in Brussels. Thus, I support any initiative willing to get rid of the Strasbourg seat.\nSophie Auconie  \nIssues relating to the diet and health of citizens are extremely sensitive and must be considered carefully and objectively. This is very much the case with the debate on the authorisation of food additives such as thrombin. Thrombin is a product obtained from animal (cow or pig) plasma and blood, the cicatrising characteristics of which are used by the agri-foodstuffs industry to reconstitute meat from a collection of pieces. This additive fulfils the four criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1333\/2008 permitting authorisation: food additives must be safe when used (confirmed by the EFSA in its opinion of 2005); there must be a technological need for their use (very useful as a stabiliser); their use must not mislead the consumer (use limited to pre-packaged and, hence, labelled, products); they must be of benefit to the consumer (end product is stabilised). In addition, the overwhelming majority of Member States are calling for thrombin to be authorised. Therefore, since this additive does not pose any risk to health and has a genuine role to play in food preparation, there was no reason to oppose its authorisation.\nZigmantas Bal\u010dytis  \nI voted for this resolution which aims to limit the use in food products of food additives that are dangerous to health, in order to protect the health of consumers. Legislation currently in force in the European Union provides that food additives may be used if they benefit the consumer. As the benefit of thrombin ('meat glue') for consumers has not been proven and the process of binding together many separate pieces of meat significantly increases the risk of it being infected by bacteria, I did not support the proposal to allow this food additive to be used in bovine and pork products. In addition, we must strive to prevent such products processed with 'meat glue' from finding their way into public establishments serving food.\nJean-Luc Bennahmias  \nI voted for a resolution calling for thrombin not to be used in meat. Thrombin is used as a 'glue' in reconstituted meat. It poses a health risk because the process of bonding together various scraps of meat significantly increases the surface area of the foodstuff, which might have been contaminated by bacteria. In addition, reconstituted meat could mislead consumers seeking to buy meat.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nI voted in favour of Parliament's resolution because it does not allow the use of foods containing additives and enzymes, such as thrombin, which are dangerous and compromise the quality of food and consumer safety. The guarantees given by the Commission are not only unconvincing and inadequate but they also increase my concerns. Furthermore, the Commission, and the Commissioner himself, have not demonstrated the necessary awareness, as their recent decision on licensing modified potato crops also demonstrated.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe motion for a resolution expresses some reservations regarding the use of an enzyme preparation based on thrombin with fibrinogen as a food additive for reconstituting food, which seem pertinent to us. The Commission's proposals do not fully deal with these reservations. Doubts persist about the possibility of using unpacked reconstituted products, compromising the information necessary for the consumer, as well as about the effectiveness of banning the use of these products in restaurants and other public establishments that serve food.\nThe Commission itself recognises that using this food additive could mislead the consumer as to the state of the final food. The proposed solution to the above problem of labelling could not be enough, on its own, to deal with this problem. Doubts also persist about the process of binding foods (for example, cold bonding without the addition of salt and without any subsequent heating process) and the safety of the final product. We therefore deem this resolution worthy of our support.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nI very much regret the adoption of this resolution relating to the banning of porcine and bovine thrombin. The text has no valid scientific basis. Indeed, this food additive, which is derived from animal plasma and blood and used in pre-packed products to bind together separate pieces of meat, meets all the health and safety criteria laid down by the European Food Safety Authority. It is authorised in France and used in black pudding, for example. It is therefore important that we take our decisions on the basis of data provided by the scientific community, not by the media. Let us not lapse into an emotional debate! What is more, the labelling requirements for products containing this additive are said to have been tightened up. The word 'thrombin' and the phrase 'reconstituted meat' have seemingly been clearly shown. It has therefore never been a question of misleading consumers who have, by all accounts, been better informed.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nFood safety and the health of European citizens are at stake. This issue has been raised within Parliament with the case of thrombin, which is a food additive used to 'glue' pieces of meat together, and whose final appearance could easily mislead the consumer. The agri-foodstuff industries were already pleased to see how widespread the use of this substance had become, and for good reason, because it enabled them to get rid of their meat waste and sell poor quality pieces cheaply. Although the European Food Safety Authority has concluded that thrombin is harmless, I am still very sceptical about these results. It is time to show the Commission that food safety and health are major concerns for the European Parliament. I therefore welcome this vote rejecting this enzyme.\nChrista Kla\u00df  \nWe cannot allow the consumer to be misled by the food additive thrombin. Regulation (EC) No 1333\/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 regulates the conditions for food additives throughout the EU and we are now looking to include new substances in it. The key thing here is the safety of substances. In order to meet consumer demand for food which looks attractive, the food industry has created substances which are added just for the sake of better appearance. One such substance is thrombin, which is obtained from edible parts of animals and which is not harmful to health. Its role is to combine individual pieces of meat together into a single meat product.\nAlthough not in itself a health hazard, parading individual pieces of glued together meat as a single piece of ham does constitute consumer fraud. Although such products cannot therefore be banned on health grounds, they must be labelled very clearly and unambiguously by indicating not just the name of the product but also its effect and a clear designation of the processed product. A piece of meat glued together with thrombin should never be allowed to go on sale as ham. Instead, it must be clearly labelled as 'combined meat parts treated with thrombin'. I will vote in favour of the approval of this substance only if we impose a clear labelling requirement.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - Today, Parliament voted to block the authorisation of thrombin for use as a food additive. We do not yet know the implications of this decision, which is based on an emotional reaction to reconstituted meat and not on a scientific assessment of the actual enzyme. The Commission outlined with clarity that EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has said there are no safety issues involved.\nThe Commission proposal would allow for the product to only be used in pre-packaged, clearly labelled combined meat products with the name of the enzyme, thrombin - a blood-derived product - in the list of ingredients. Thrombin is currently in use. After today, it will not be permitted. Is it wise for this Parliament to start telling people what to eat, rather than providing them with information of what they are eating? There is a difference.\nNuno Melo  \nThe proposal which suggests that thrombin from cattle and\/or swine should be included on the list of food additives approved in the EU does not give us any guarantee that this substance has a clear benefit for consumers, and ultimately this may mislead consumers. In addition, the whole process of linking different pieces of meat greatly increases the surface that can be infected by pathogenic bacteria. That is why I voted as I did.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nWhen we consider, in particular, the increasing levels of allergy and food intolerance and the fact that knowledge is constantly being developed in this area, it is imperative that we regulate additives. Precisely because of past scandals, it is very important that we prevent any possibility of the consumer being misled. More research into the safety and tolerability of some additives, such as aspartame, would be desirable, but that was not the subject of this resolution. I voted in favour of it, nonetheless.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nI voted against the resolution, given that thrombin is an additive which cannot be regarded as a cause for concern in terms of food safety. Meat which includes thrombin among its ingredients could be sold only with a label stating 'combined meat parts', while all the ingredients could be specified on a label, in compliance with legal provisions. This would allow citizens to make an enlightened choice, which means that we cannot mislead anyone. The use of thrombin could enable many citizens to purchase food products at much more affordable prices.\nFranz Obermayr  \nI oppose the use of thrombin to glue together different pieces of meat which are mostly of poor quality. Consumers are generally unaware of what is happening and are being deceived. On the other hand, the process does not result in any demonstrable benefits for consumers. Therefore, I have voted in favour of this report, which aims to restrict these practices.\nJustas Vincas Paleckis  \nI voted for this resolution, because I agree that the use of food additives must be moderate - it is only justifiable when it gives consumers an added benefit. However, I do not think that thrombin 'meat glue' complies with this requirement. If the use of 'meat glue' became very widespread, it would be difficult for consumers to differentiate between real meat and pieces of meat that have been glued together. As mentioned in the report, that increases the risk of meat infection. Thrombins would only be of benefit to producers, who would be able to bring to market pieces of meat that would otherwise be of no use to anyone. In all other industries, the European Union is trying to combat fabrications and forgeries. I do not think that the food industry should be an exception.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nConsumer protection is one of the European Parliament's key tasks and European consumers are often unaware of the nature of the products they are about to buy and the additives they contain.\nClear, accurate labelling is obviously important. However, in our capacity as legislators, we need to ban certain harmful products. Whilst the draft Commission directive would not permit the use of thrombin as a food additive in meat products served in restaurants or other public establishments serving food, there is, however, a clear risk that meat containing thrombin would find its way into meat products served in restaurants or other public establishments serving food, given the higher prices that can be obtained for pieces of meat served as a single meat product.\nThe labelling conditions contained in the draft Commission directive would fail to guard against the creation of a false or misleading impression to consumers as to the existence of a single-meat product, and therefore there is a risk that consumers would be misled and prevented from making an informed choice in relation to the consumption of meat products containing thrombin. I therefore agree with the opinion expressed in the resolution.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nI am very pleased with today's vote banning thrombin. This is a victory for consumers. The problem with thrombin is not the risk it poses, although there are indeed health issues involved, but its misleading nature. If not forewarned, it is impossible to distinguish with the naked eye between a piece of meat and another piece of meat that has been bound together with thrombin.\nThis is highly deceptive. Using thrombin amounts to placing on the market a sort of prefabricated, artificial meat. I cannot quite see how this benefits consumers. Yet thrombin is used in some Member States without consumers being informed. The attempts to deceive consumers and to try to hide the truth must stop. That is not the way for manufacturers to restore consumer confidence.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu  \nin writing. - I fully support this resolution and the efforts to prevent the authorisation of thrombin or 'meat glue'. It is misleading for consumers because they assume they are buying a single piece of meat, but in fact, they are buying many pieces which have been artificially stuck together. Industry has argued that use of this substance enables them to create cheap meat for people who cannot afford more expensive products, but the fact is that it enables industry to sell smaller pieces of meat for more money, not less.\nAnd there is a health issue here too - many small pieces of meat glued together have a much larger surface area than a single, larger piece, which significantly increases the area on which pathogenic bacteria can thrive.\nMisleading the consumer is contrary to EU law, and there are potentially serious health implications of using this substance in this way. This is why I voted in favour of this resolution.\nMarc Tarabella  \nI welcome the adoption, by a 'very close margin' (370 votes, when we needed 369), of this resolution, which protects consumers from the use of thrombin as a 'meat glue', as a food additive used to glue pieces of meat together to form a single meat-based product. Its use is clearly potentially misleading for consumers, in terms of the quality of the product they are buying. Therefore, it was my duty and that of my fellow MEPs to strongly oppose the Commission's desire to allow the agri-food industry to use a new food additive of which the sole purpose is ultimately to generate further profits, with a concomitant disregard for the protection of the rights of consumers, one of which is to receive accurate information about the food which they choose to consume.\nElena Oana Antonescu  \nIn 2008, the European Commission presented an Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015), with the aim of strengthening cooperation between Member States in the area of organ donation through the exchange of good practice. The actions stipulated in this plan complement the European legal framework set out in the Commission's proposal for a directive on organ donation and transplantation. Although there are significant differences between Member States in terms of practices and results at the moment, the exchange of information and good practices will help countries where there is a low availability of organs to improve the level of availability.\nThe other actions stipulated in the plan are aimed at improving the quality and safety of organ transplantation, creating a register for evaluating post-transplant results and setting up an organ exchange system for particular cases, such as children or adults with special requirements. I voted, along with my other fellow MEPs, to support such a plan which will facilitate cooperation between Member States as well as combat illegal organ trafficking.\nRegina Bastos  \nOrgan transplantation has proved to be indispensable in treating certain illnesses and provides the possibility of saving lives, offers a better quality of life for patients, and has the best cost\/benefit ratio when compared with other replacement therapies. Nonetheless, there are several issues of concern as regards this therapy, not least the risk of transmission of diseases, the limited availability of organs, and organ trafficking.\nThere is currently no database covering the whole of the European Union which contains information about organs intended for donation and transplantation or on living or deceased donors, nor a pan-European certification system which provides proof that human organs and tissues have been legally obtained. I voted for this report, because I welcomed the Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015), which was adopted by the Commission in December 2008, and which sets out a cooperative approach between Member States in the form of a set of priority actions based on the identification and development of common objectives and the evaluation of donation and transplantation activities through agreed indicators that might help to identify benchmarks and best practices.\nJean-Luc Bennahmias  \nEvery day, 12 people die in Europe because they have not received a transplant in time, and 60 000 people are currently waiting for a transplant. However, no organ exchange network has yet been set up at the EU 27 level. Although a directive will soon see the light of day, I voted with the other Members for a resolution which sets out the direction to be taken by Parliament on this issue. There are three particularly sensitive issues: cross-border exchange of available organs; information for citizens; and the identification of potential donors. The resolution suggests, for example, that citizens ought to be able to use the Internet to declare themselves 'willing donors'.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nAn organ transplant is the last chance of life for thousands of people every day. In Romania, 13 people on the transplant waiting list die every day due to the lack of donors.\nRomania is faced with a tragic situation at a time when there is one donor per million inhabitants. The Romanian Parliament has tried to introduce the concept of presumed consent, but public debate has blocked this step being taken every time. The measures taken by the Commission and European Parliament only serve to bring some order and make recommendations in a system which is important in terms of saving as many lives as possible. Funding the medical system does not come cheap. Removing organs and carrying out the transplant, along with post-transplant care, are expensive medical procedures, but every Member State must make efforts to encourage this type of medical procedure.\nIn fact, Spain provides a good model because it has successfully achieved the highest number of donors in the European Union. There is no need to reinvent the wheel as long as we have, right in our midst, a successful model. In these circumstances, measures such as promotion through this directive, cooperation between Member States and organ exchange, all tightly regulated by quality and safety standards, give us encouragement.\nNikolaos Chountis  \nThe figures speak for themselves. Approximately 60 000 patients are on a waiting list for a transplant in the Member States of the EU. Every day, 12 of them die. The availability of organs differs considerably from one Member State to another: from 33.8 dead donors in Spain to 1 dead donor in Romania per one million people. The divide between the supply and demand of organs is exploited by criminal gangs, who have turned it into a profitable business. The Commission's action plan on organ donation and transplantation has added value, because the proposed strengthening of cooperation between the Member States will increase the availability of organs, improve the efficacy and accessibility of transplant systems, improve the quality and safety of organs, and promote exchanges of best practices.\nI voted in favour of the Perello report because it proposes a package of priority actions which maximise the percentage of donations by donors, introduce the concept of transplant coordinators in all hospitals in which organs may be donated, target public awareness, improved knowledge and skills on the part of health professionals and patient support groups and the introduction of registers to facilitate the evaluation of post-transplantation results.\nMarielle De Sarnez  \nThe number of organ donations and transplantations is increasing every year in Europe, thus enabling thousands of lives to be saved. However, a large number of obstacles still need to be removed because there are still not enough organs to meet demand. Every day, 12 patients die in the EU due to a lack of compatible donors. Organ donation varies considerably from one Member State to another; there are, for example, 34.6 donations per million inhabitants in Spain, compared with 0.5 in Romania. What is more, organs are rarely exchanged between Member States. Parliament's vote is the first step towards a European network to meet the requirement for swift, flexible and safe transplantations on the model of Eurotransplant (Austria, Benelux, Croatia, Germany, Netherlands and Slovenia) and Scandiatransplant (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland). The EU is also going to extend the use of the donor card which, although supported by 81% of Europe's citizens, is held by only 12% of them. The Member States must ensure that no payment is made for donations and must guarantee their traceability and confidentiality, in particular, to combat transnational trafficking of organs.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe discrepancy in the percentage of organ donors in the various countries of Europe seems to suggest that the systems in some Member States are more effective than in others. These systems must, therefore, be studied and, potentially, adopted by those that are shown to be less successful. In an area that is closely tied to the health and lives of the public, in addition to adopting best practices, it is clearly becoming necessary to optimise resources and make collective use of the European scale of organ availability.\nIt makes no sense for someone to die because there is no organ available in their country, when it may exist and be available elsewhere. I support the idea that anyone who encourages or promotes so-called 'transplant tourism' must be punished, as must recourse to organ trafficking networks. Punishments must be particularly severe for health professionals or insurance companies. I would stress the need for effective monitoring both of recipients, and of altruistic and voluntary donors, to whom the public cannot fail to owe a debt of gratitude.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nCurrently, there are 56 000 patients in the EU waiting for a suitable organ donor, and every day, 12 people die waiting for a solid organ transplant. Organ transplantation represents the only therapeutic alternative for patients in the final stage of liver, heart and lung failure. There is, however, a considerable discrepancy between the number of patients waiting for a transplant and the number of patients who actually receive one. This discrepancy is the result of a shortage of organs for transplantation in comparison to need. The inclusion of more patients on waiting lists coupled with the minimal increase in the number of patients receiving transplants is reflected in the longer waiting time. This time is expensive and can have a negative impact on patient survival rate and the rate of success for implants. The Commission's proposal to draw up a European plan of action on donation and transplantation for the 2009-2015 period sets out an approach for cooperation between the Member States, formed around a set of priority actions, and is based on the identification and development of common objectives, the establishment of consensual, quantitative and qualitative reference indicators and parameters, regular reporting and identifying best practice.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira  \nThe transplantation of organs can deliver many years of full and healthy life for people who would otherwise frequently need intensive care, or would simply not survive. The number of transplants in the European Union has increased, saving and prolonging many lives.\nHowever, there are still long waiting lists for transplants. There are currently 56 000 patients waiting for a suitable organ donor in the European Union, and it is estimated that every day, 12 people die while waiting for a solid organ transplant. The number of deceased organ donors, on its own, is not enough and the number of live donors fails to satisfy requirements.\nFurthermore, there are wide variations between Member States in deceased organ donation rates and, at present, there is neither a database covering the whole of the European Union which contains information about organs intended for donation and transplantation or on living or deceased donors, nor a certification system which provides proof that human organs and tissues have been legally obtained. It is in this context that the report under discussion suggests steps that we consider important for strengthening cooperation between the Member States in this area, from which all of them could benefit.\nNick Griffin  \nin writing. - A permanent shortage of organs for transplantation hampers the wonderful efforts of health care professionals to help patients. It is also a sad fact that there is a shortage of donors, and that this drives some vile criminal activities. To seek to address these problems by creating an EU-wide database is, however, a mistake. It is naive to place hopes in a database covering the whole of the EU, with all its different languages and IT systems, when the failed attempt to produce a Health Service database for the UK alone has wasted billions of pounds.\nHealth services across Europe are unable even to fund basics, and face savage cuts as ordinary citizens pay for the bust of globalism. This being so, far more can be done to encourage organ donations by investing in education programmes at national levels, than by diverting funds to pay for well-intentioned bureaucratic meddling. Additionally, there are tight time constraints on organ viability. Thus, an EU-wide network would be of use to very few patients. Proposals to set one up are another pretty-sounding excuse for the further advance of an agenda that has nothing to do with patients' welfare and everything to do with federalist dogma.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nSeveral thousand people die each year in Europe because they have been unable to receive a transplantation in time. The need to implement EU-wide measures to facilitate intra-Community exchanges of human organs for transplantation, through improved quality and safety standards in this area, was therefore becoming an increasingly urgent issue. This is why I voted for this directive, which aims to protect live donors and the individuals who benefit from their donations, and safeguards basic ethical principles, such as anonymity, volunteering and the inalienable character of the human body, which must not be a source of profit. The idea of establishing a network of competent authorities in the Member States also seems to me to be particularly positive, as does the idea of online registration in national or European registers. Of course, every possible precaution must be taken to ensure that these measures work properly.\nV\u00e9ronique Mathieu  \nI voted in favour of the report on the Action plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation for 2009-2015. The technical progress achieved in the area of organ transplantation is a huge source of hope for all those individuals for whom transplantation remains the only possible treatment. The main challenge today is the shortage of organ donors, which is evident from the long waiting lists for transplantation. To meet this challenge, it is essential that measures are adopted to identify potential donors, and a great deal of progress can be made to boost the numbers of organs donated in Europe. As the rapporteur emphasises, the appointment of a key organ donation person in hospitals is probably the key factor in improving arrangements in this area.\nIncreased cooperation between Member States will ensure better exchange of information and good practice aimed at increasing the numbers of donors. For example, enabling citizens to add their names to a donor register when they apply for a passport or a driving licence is one initiative which should be considered by Member States and which I, and most of my fellow Members, regard as positive.\nNuno Melo  \nWe approved this new directive for various reasons, but especially because we believe that this is a plan that will be crucial in saving many lives within the EU. Twelve patients die every day and 60 000 are waiting for a compatible donor for organ transplants within the EU. Transplantation has increased continuously over the last two decades and it is the only available treatment for cases of terminal deficiency in organs such as the liver, lungs and heart. Mortality rates among people waiting for a heart, liver or lung transplant are between 15% and 30%, so patients who need an organ transplant will have to wait less time for that operation, thanks to this new directive. That is why I voted as I did.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nThe three key objectives in the area of organ donation and transplantation are ensuring quality and safety for patients at EU level, ensuring protection of donors and facilitating cooperation between Member States.\nA European approach to the issue is important, considering, among other things, the mobility of patients within the European Union. Generally, in the European Union there is a broad societal consensus on organ donation for the purpose of transplantation. However, due to different cultural, traditional or organisational system backgrounds, there are differences between Member States in approach to this issue.\nSome countries have a high rate of donations, whilst the donation culture still needs to be developed in others. Sharing of best practices, models and expertise across the European Union could prove very useful in increasing organ donation rates.\nCooperation should be fostered in order to identify successful elements of different transplantation systems and promote these on the European level, thus leading to the improvements in provision of high quality and safety of organ donation and transplantation. I therefore voted in favour.\nMaria do C\u00e9u Patr\u00e3o Neves  \nThe present report establishes a set of actions that are aimed at promoting cooperation between the Member States in the field of transplantation in order to contribute to the increase in transplants, the reduction of waiting lists and a consequent reduction in the number of patients who die while waiting for an organ. At the same time, the action plan also establishes common quality and safety standards for the Member States, which not only contribute to the protection of patients but also facilitate cooperation between countries. The creation of national and EU records of the processes involved in transplantation (avoiding discrimination, monitoring the results, etc.) also stands out. This will lead to greater and more thorough awareness of the current situation in Europe, as well as reducing opportunities for organ trafficking. The report supports the action plan and underlines the necessity and urgency for the courses of action that it points out, taking a firm stance against all forms of trading in organs that currently take place in different parts of the world. I believe that this report is an important addition to the Commission's output and a valuable contribution to an acute human cause within the context of health care provided to the European public.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nI would like to congratulate Mr Perello Rodriguez of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe on the report on which we have just voted. The action plan should mean that the 60 000 people who are currently hoping to receive an organ will see their life expectancy considerably increased. It is also important to highlight the leading position held by the Spanish health system as regards this issue. This has been acknowledged by all the rapporteurs and groups.\nOlga Sehnalov\u00e1  \nI voted in favour of the report, although I think there is primarily a need to focus, in particular, on boosting donor numbers in the various Member States, taking account of the different national traditions of health systems. It is therefore necessary to assess this area rigorously from the perspective of the subsidiarity principle.\nViktor Uspaskich  \nLadies and gentlemen, the statistics speak for themselves. According to this report, there are currently 56 000 patients in the European Union waiting for a suitable organ donor. Every day, 12 people die waiting for an organ transplant. Sadly, many people are simply dying because of the great shortage of organ donors and insufficient cross-border coordination. This sensitive issue is linked to various legal and cultural aspects. However, matters are complicated still further by the EU Member States' different national policies and fundamentally different organ donation rates. It would be possible to ease some of these shortages through an EU database and certification system, which would provide information about the availability of organs and would guarantee their quality and legality.\nIt is also important to mobilise and inform society. Many EU citizens are not fundamentally against donation, but are afraid of adding their names to the register. Therefore, donation should be as accessible as possible - promotion may often be effective. For example, I welcome forms which would give citizens the opportunity to add their name directly to the organ donor register when they apply for a driving licence. The shortage of organs for transplantation is also a powerful stimulus for the trade in organs and people. The EU should establish better donation and transplantation coordination because, as we can see, the poorest regions of Europe are becoming fertile ground for the illegal trade in organs.\nSophie Auconie  \nThe Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that the EU must accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and I welcome this. To render this accession effective, the unanimous agreement of the Members of the Council and approval by the European Parliament are required. For my part, I fully support this accession, which will supplement the European system for the protection of fundamental rights.\nJean-Luc Bennahmias  \nThe Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that the EU must accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This accession is not merely symbolic; it enables the protection of the fundamental rights of EU citizens to be improved. It will also have the effect of making the decisions taken and the actions implemented under the Common Foreign and Security Policy subject to the European Convention, even though they are outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.\nVilija Blinkevi\u010di\u016bt \nThe Treaty of Lisbon lays down the legal basis for EU accession to the ECHR - the most important instrument for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, the core of Europe. EU accession to the Convention will further strengthen the EU's system for the protection of fundamental rights. I agree with this proposal, since it is an historic opportunity making it possible to safeguard human rights and fundamental freedoms for EU citizens and Member States on the same basis. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will be given jurisdiction to examine whether the legislation of EU institutions, bodies and agencies, including rulings of the European Court of Justice, are in compliance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is very important that people will have a new opportunity to defend their rights. Once they have exhausted all national remedies, they will be able to bring actions to the European Court of Human Rights on violations by the EU of fundamental human rights, encouraging the development of a more harmonious case-law system in the area of human rights. The uniform and full application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at EU level is equally essential to ensure the Union's credibility. As accession to the convention will have a huge legal influence on the creation of a harmonious system for the protection of human rights, I call on the Commission and the Member States to consider the opportunity to develop guidelines with clear explanations of all the implications of accession, the impact on human rights and the envisaged procedure for submitting complaints.\nCarlos Coelho  \nHuman rights and fundamental freedoms are the body of values and principles that mark us out as human and the basis of our coexistence; they are universal, indivisible and interdependent. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon represents an important step in human rights terms, not just because it makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding, but also because by giving the European Union legal personality, it enables the EU to accede to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This accession is of the greatest significance at both political and legal levels in the creation of a true area of human rights. As regards action on the part of the Union, to which substantial powers have been transferred by the Member States, this makes it possible to guarantee protection for the public similar to that already enjoyed as regards the Member States.\nEuropean institutions are obliged to comply with it, not least during the process of drawing up and adopting draft legislation. On the other hand, legislative and case-law harmonisation between the EU and the ECHR in the field of human rights must contribute to creating an integral system in which the European human rights courts (the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights) must operate in synchrony, with a relationship that is not a hierarchical connection but rather one of specialisation.\nProinsias De Rossa  \nin writing. - I support this report on the EU's accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), as provided by the Lisbon Treaty. Now, the Union's institutions will fall within the scope of this fundamental rights protection system. EU accession to the ECHR improves the Union's standing when calling on third countries to abide by its human rights standards and extends to people in the EU the same level of protection against Union action that they enjoy with regard to Member State action. Despite the fact that the EU will not join the Council of Europe (CoE), accession to the convention should entail the right to nominate candidates for the post of judge, and allow for European Parliament representation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE when this body elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Further to this progress, the Commission should be mandated to negotiate accession to the protocols supplementing the ECHR which concern rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The next logical step, also in harmony with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, is the accession of the EU institutions to the European Social Charter.\nPhilippe de Villiers  \nThe protection of fundamental human rights must remain a national competence because interpretations vary from one country to another and from one culture to another. This is particularly the case with the concepts of discrimination, secularism and the very definition of human life (from conception to its natural end).\nThe Court of Justice of the European Union - an institution of which the decisions are becoming increasingly political - will endeavour to dismantle a little more the national constitutional systems and the foundations of European civilisation. Apart from being useless and a waste of resources, the EU's accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms will lead to confusion and unresolvable legal conflicts with the Strasbourg Court.\nFor reasons of logic, I oppose this new consequence of the legal personality of the EU, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for this report because I believe that the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a strong message that enhances the credibility of the Union in the eyes of third countries which it regularly calls upon to respect the ECHR.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe European Union's accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a result of the process that began in Maastricht, in the sense that it gave the European Community legal personality and culminated in the Treaty of Lisbon. The adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, initially with a reduced scope and later on extended by being integrated into the treaty, constituted an important stage in this process.\nThe European Union is now participating more intimately in a continent-wide human rights area. I welcome this development. I hope that solutions can be found to the various legal, technical and institutional issues that are arising at the moment, and that these solutions will be based on the principle of subsidiarity, on voluntary cooperation between the Member States, and on respect for their sovereignty and national legal systems, and on the rule of law.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nI welcome the adoption of this report, which contributes to the EU's commitment to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This commitment is a step forward in the process of European integration and another step towards political unity. Moreover, since the EU system for the protection of fundamental human rights is consolidated and strengthened by incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights into its primary law, the EU's adhesion to the ECHR will constitute a strong message in terms of coherence between the EU and the countries that belong to the Council of Europe and its pan-European regime in matters relating to human rights. This adhesion will further increase the EU's credibility in the eyes of the third countries which it regularly urges to respect the ECHR as part of their bilateral relations. With regard to the activities of the EU, this adhesion also guarantees the public protection similar to that which they already enjoy in their relations with all Member States.\nSylvie Guillaume  \nI voted for this report in order to give the green light to the negotiations on the accession of the EU, as a legal personality in its own right, to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. This accession will actually provide citizens with a new means of recourse: they will now be able to refer a case to the European Court of Human Rights if their fundamental rights are infringed by an EU Institution or a Member State on account of an action or failure to act on their part. We must also insist that the EU accedes to the additional protocols of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to the revised EU Social Charter, because the EU must also make progress on these fronts.\nPetru Constantin Luhan  \nFollowing the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes it compulsory for the European Union to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I support this measure as it will enhance the EU's credibility in the eyes of its citizens by guaranteeing respect for rights. Accession to the convention will provide citizens with protection against the actions of the EU and its institutions, just like the protection they enjoy at the moment against the actions of Member States. At the same time, we will also achieve closer cooperation between the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights and national courts.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nThe judgments of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the separation of Church and State are in line with the secular tradition of the French Republic. The rulings supporting the ban on a female teacher wearing the veil in the classroom and opposing crucifixes in schools testify to this. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union proposes restricting civil liberties only if the values enshrined in the EU's fundamental texts require it. The fact is, those texts never once mention the compulsory separation of Church and State or the secular nature of institutions. The European Union is therefore incapable of guaranteeing the freedom of conscience of Europeans.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak  \nOne of the foundations of the European Union at its inception was respect for human rights - a value which remains permanently at the centre of the EU's interests. EU law bears witness to this, but so do constitutional provisions of each of the Member States. Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a significant step towards stronger protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. This decision makes the EU part of the international system of protection of rights, thanks to which it has strengthened its credibility in the eyes of third countries, and also of its own citizens. The convention, while not altering the institutional construction of the EU, does, however, add another court, the European Court of Human Rights, which will keep watch over the way in which the Union fulfils its obligations in relation to the provisions of the ECHR. In view of the fact that the report on the institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms presents provisions which are in accordance with the above remarks, I decided to vote for its adoption.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nThe importance of the EU acceding to the ECHR is linked both with its symbolic and political credibility and with the fact that the EU and its institutions will be under stricter obligation to uphold individuals' fundamental rights. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon provides the legal basis for starting negotiations regarding the EU's accession to the ECHR.\nI support the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, one vital preliminary matter is the observance of certain guarantees that the agreement on the European Union's accession to the ECHR should contain, especially with regard to preserving the specific characteristics of the Union and EU law. Accession must not interfere with the Union's competences, nor with the obligation of Member States not to submit disputes that fall within the scope of EU law to external dispute resolution systems. It is therefore important to safeguard the prerogatives of the Court of Justice wherever the Strasbourg Court is called upon to rule on the compatibility of a Union act with fundamental rights before the Court of Justice has had the opportunity to do so.\nAldo Patriciello  \nI thank the rapporteur for his excellent work on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which will be beneficial for Europe's citizens as it will provide us with a new court that is not part of the European Union, and will ensure that the rights of European citizens are always upheld by the European Union and the Member States.\nIn keeping with the principles of democracy, the European Union and the Member States must always have the right to defend themselves. Therefore, I believe it is vital that each country that accedes to the convention should have a judge who will explain the background to each case, just as I feel it is important that the European Parliament should have an informal body in order to coordinate information sharing between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is also important, moreover, that Parliament should be consulted and involved in the negotiating process.\nEvelyn Regner  \nI voted for the resolution because I take the view that the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) would be a good step forward in creating legal certainty and consistency. In recent decades, the European Court of Human Rights has adopted a raft of decisions which make the defence of the fundamental rights of European citizens concrete. Acceding to the convention as the European Union would also contribute to the Union's credibility in the eyes of third countries.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nI am delighted with the adoption of the report drawn up by my fellow Member, Mr J\u00e1uregui, on the signing up of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I am concerned that some Europhobe Members persist in denying the need for this measure, whereas I believe that signing up to this convention implies a greater guarantee of protection for human rights, also within the EU.\nNuno Teixeira  \nThe EU's accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was already advocated in the Treaty on European Union; the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon made it obligatory. Accession will strengthen protection of human rights in Europe and submit the Union's legal system to external legal control. This will ensure harmony of case-law between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights, and will grant the European public protection from the action of European institutions, under terms similar to those that already exist with regard to the Member States.\nIt should be noted that accession does not grant the EU membership of the Council of Europe, or call into question the autonomy of Union law, since the CJEU remains the only authority adjudicating on issues relating to the validity and interpretation of Union law. I would also stress the importance given to the possibility that the Union should be able to submit candidates and choose a judge to represent it, and the need that is mentioned for Parliament to be kept duly informed about accession negotiations and for a mechanism for exchanging information between the parliamentary assemblies of both institutions to be established in the future.\nRafa\u0142 Trzaskowski  \nI support the report, most of all because it extends the system of protection of human rights in the European Union and gives it greater credibility in the eyes of its citizens. When it is not possible to appeal at national or EU level, when a petitioner is refused permission to institute proceedings, or when an action cannot be brought against an EU institution - these are situations in which the added value will be apparent. Therefore, let us continue the fight to strengthen the system of protection of human rights in the EU.\nViktor Uspaskich  \nLadies and gentlemen, as you are aware, respect for human rights is a fundamental value of the European Union which is anchored in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. There is no doubt that, if everything is done properly, EU accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) could be an historic opportunity to strengthen the human rights situation in the EU and all of Europe. This could be our chance to guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms of EU citizens. EU accession to the ECHR would give Europe an excellent opportunity to act as a moral lighthouse, to be an example. This event would not only enhance the EU's credibility, in terms of relations with non-EU Member States, but would also improve public opinion about EU structures. However, this would only happen if we use all our joint efforts to eliminate double standards in our political programme and legal system.\nUnfortunately, as shown by events in recent years, accusations often have a purely political overtone. Courts both in my country and in the rest of Europe are still very often susceptible to political manipulation. Unless that changes, very promising events like EU accession to the ECHR will simply be a waste of time. Therefore I support wholeheartedly accession to the ECHR, provided this really will defend fundamental human rights and freedoms and, most importantly, within the EU itself.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - I am supportive of the ECHR while recognising that judicial interpretations of certain provisions of the convention have created obstacles to the deportation of terrorist suspects. This needs to change.\nNotwithstanding any statements of respect for the position of Member States in relation to ECHR, EU accession to the convention will complicate and possibly hinder the freedom of Member States to derogate from or individually interpret aspects of the ECHR.\nPolitically, I fundamentally object to the driving motive of EU accession to ECHR as 'a move forward in the process of European integration [involving] one further step towards political union'. This misconceived aspiration is further underlined in the statement that EU accession constitutes 'an accession of a non-State Party to a legal instrument created for States'. For all these reasons, I voted against the resolution.\nSebastian Valentin Bodu  \nThe organisation of the International Criminal Court conference in Uganda is an important sign of this international institution's acceptance across the continent of Africa, especially as the Court's initial investigations, after it was established in 2002, were launched here. No one can deny the importance of such an international court which investigates serious cases involving breaches of human rights, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Consequently, it is important that an ever-increasing number of states acknowledge the authority of the International Criminal Court and that the signatories of the Rome Statute ratify the agreement as a matter of urgency. The notion of setting up an international court for investigating crimes against humanity emerged as far back as 1919, during the Paris Peace conference. It has taken 83 years to reach an international agreement and set up the ICC. At the moment, states which have ratified the ICC's Rome Statute must also regulate the Court's right to investigate crimes of aggression. Furthermore, signatory states must harmonise their national legislation with the provisions of the Rome Statute, in keeping with the commitment they have made.\nDiogo Feio  \nThe European Union has been a firm advocate of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and all its Member States are sharing in its accession to this important court. I hope that the State Parties are able to live up to their responsibilities and that the result of the Kampala conference is an ICC that is better able to face up to the challenges of our times, that receives adequate cooperation from national legal systems, and that is granted sufficient means to effectively exercise its authority; the grave seriousness of the crimes on which its activities will focus, for the most part, demand it.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes  \nThe EU is a staunch supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which promotes universality and upholds the integrity of the Rome Statute with a view to protecting and consolidating the independence, legitimacy and effectiveness of the international judicial process. The proof of this is that the EU is systematically promoting the inclusion of a clause relating to the ICC in negotiating mandates and agreements with third countries. The EU has already provided over EUR 40 million over ten years under the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy for projects aimed at supporting the ICC and international criminal justice. The Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the ICC in Kampala, Uganda, represents a unique opportunity for the State Parties, the non-State Parties, civil society and other interested parties alike to strongly reiterate their commitment to justice and responsibility. There are 111 State Parties to the ICC, with some regions under-represented, such as the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. I hope that the Member States will participate in this conference by providing representation at the highest level and publicly reaffirming their commitment to the ICC.\nJean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon  \nI note with satisfaction that the resolution proposed by Parliament on the review of the Rome Statute requires the crime of aggression to be officially included as a war crime and that no jurisdictional filter will be necessary to determine whether such a crime has been committed. Yet how can this new legislation be implemented if the main states that have committed crimes of aggression since the coming into force of the Rome Statute in 2002 (the United States and Israel) are not required to ratify it?\nHow can it be rendered effective if these states are not urged to cease pressurising the states that are party to the International Criminal Court into guaranteeing the immunity of their nationals? It is also regrettable that a Parliament which professes to be in the vanguard of the fight against climate change is not proposing to include ecological crimes as crimes against humanity, as was proposed at the Cochabamba Summit. The most serious crimes against humanity must be punished. The International Criminal Court could be a useful tool in this area. It is just a question of actually giving it the resources. As this is not happening, I am abstaining.\nAlfredo Pallone  \nI feel bound to express my agreement with the motion for a resolution on the Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda.\nEurope itself sprang from the need to put an end to the expressions of racial hatred that reached a peak in the atrocities of the Second World War. The European Union has always been consistent in seeking to strengthen cooperation between states in order to prove and prosecute crimes against humanity.\nIt is right that eight years after the entry into force of the Rome Statute, states should reaffirm their strong commitment to building on peace, stability and the rule of law. In particular, states should commit to policies aimed at collaborating with the International Criminal Court and protecting the victims of violence. In many cases in practice, victims encounter major difficulties in accessing information about the court and fail in their attempts to have their rights protected.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda  \nin writing. - I enthusiastically voted in favour of the resolution and I am especially glad that the oral amendment by my colleague had been adopted, i.e. to include 'indigenous people' in the list of groups that need special attention.\nSabine Wils  \nin writing. - I welcome the motion for a resolution on the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Kampala, Uganda, as it contains very crucial and important points and requests regarding the ratification and the implementation of the ICC. Therefore, I voted in favour.\nBut I want to express my deep concerns about certain phrases in the resolution, which refer positively to the 'Stockholm Programme', the 'EIDHR' and to the European Union as a 'Global Player'. In this matter, the 'Stockholm Programme' and the 'EIDHR' might have had a positive impact, but in many other areas, these two programmes\/instruments are not used in a democratic and transparent manner. The European Union has indeed been acting as a 'Global Player' but, in my view, not at all in a positive way towards a more fair and solidary world order.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":3,"2024-22":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Cashman, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (recast) C6-0184\/2008 -.\nMichael Cashman\nrapporteur. - Mr President, I look forward to this debate, and particularly to hearing from those who are not so keen on enhancing transparency and public access to documents.\nI wish to begin by thanking the seven ministers from the EU who have declared their support for my report. In particular, they are, and I quote: 'therefore, glad to see that Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report on 17 February 2009 that shares our vision of a more transparent Union'.\nI find it staggering that, when we are trying to reconnect to our citizens, people do not support transparency and openness. I find it equally staggering that, when we are trying to connect the institutions back to the public, there is a lack of willingness to enhance public scrutiny and accountability.\nSome Members have raised doubts about whether all the amendments that my report proposes are within the scope of the legal basis of the regulation - Article 255 of the Treaty. I should like to set their minds at rest: the object of Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 is: 'to give the public a right of access to documents of the institution which is as wide as possible. That right of public access to the documents of the institution is related to the democratic nature of those institutions.' Do not simply take my word for it - I am quoting verbatim from the Turco judgment of the Court of Justice. It is in the spirit of that judgment that we must interpret Article 255 of the Treaty.\nTake our Amendment 44 on classified documents. It is simply disingenuous to say, as the Commission has, that the classification of documents as confidential has no link with public access to such documents. Under the present version of Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001, documents may only be classified in order to safeguard the essential interests protected under Article 4(1). So the link is already there. What we have done is to draw the logical consequences from that link and incorporate rules on the classification of documents into the regulation itself. These rules, which are carefully modelled on the rules the Council and the Commission already apply, define limits on the public's right to access to documents, just as Article 255 requires, and there is nothing in the Treaty to prevent the institutions adopting these in the regulation.\nTake our Amendment 24, which refers to agencies and bodies created by the institution. Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001, as amended, will lay down the principles, conditions and limits of public access to the documents of those agencies, but it will not, in itself, create obligations for agencies.\nIf you read our Amendment 29, for example, you will see that the regulation applies only to documents held by the institutions, although it does set the standards that agencies will be expected to follow in adopting their own rules on public access to their documents, in accordance, I might add, with the joint declaration adopted by the Council, the Commission and Parliament on 30 May 2001.\nLet me also point out for those who cannot witness it, the sadness that the Council is not here to attach the due importance to this extremely important report.\nI know some of you were also concerned that we went too far in seeking to ensure that Member States did not undermine the level of transparency the regulation aims at. I believe I have come a long way to meet concerns, as you will see from compromise amendments that remind the Member States of their duties under Article 10 of the Treaty not to stand in the way of the achievement of the Community's objectives, including transparency and democracy.\nThe amendments by Mr Nassauer may bring some reassurances to his group and other MEPs who are concerned that some private information may get into the public domain. That will not happen and cannot happen under my report. There is still the space to think that personal and private data will remain protected, so I will listen with great interest as to why those who oppose this regulation do so.\nMargot Wallstr\u00f6m\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for a very substantive report on the Commission's proposal for a recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 regarding public access to documents. This is a very important and cherished subject and I appreciate the enormous work that has been done by Mr Cashman, as rapporteur, and also many other active, interested and skilled people in this House.\nThis is a subject that touches upon fundamental and sometimes conflicting rights of citizens, associations and undertakings. We need to look very carefully at the necessary changes to be made to this Regulation and we need to remain focused on openness. All three institutions have agreed that, overall, Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 has worked remarkably well for almost eight years now. Parliament, Council and Commission are much more open now than ever before. You could say that the change of rules led to a change of practice and to a change of minds and attitudes.\nAt the same time, Parliament, Council and Commission also agree that legitimate interests have received adequate protection. We should not forget that the EU institutions have granted access to a higher number of documents, while a decrease in the number and rate of refusals has been registered. So I hope you agree that Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 has proven its value. For this reason, a complete overhaul is not necessary.\nHaving said this, even a good tool can always be improved. The legal base we have as our starting point is Article 255 of the Treaty, as has already been mentioned by the rapporteur. Following that, the Regulation shall define principles and the limits governing the citizen's right of access to documents. As regards the report at hand, I note that some amendments go beyond the scope of Article 255 of the Treaty and therefore these amendments cannot be accepted. But - and this is an important 'but' - they point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. The Commission will certainly look at that with a constructive, pragmatic and open mind.\nIt is good practice to assess from time to time whether legislation works well and achieves its objectives, and it is in this spirit that the Commission drafted its proposal for a recast of the Regulation. The use of the recast technique meets the objective of better lawmaking. Since this Regulation touches upon a fundamental right of citizens, it is of the utmost importance to adopt a single, clear and readable legal text.\nThe recast technique does not tie the hands of the legislator more than the traditional way of amending legislation. Irrespective of the choice of legislative technique, the Community legislator may not go beyond the aim of the proposal.\nWe are committed to continuing to enhance transparency and openness, and I firmly believe that this is a good way to do it. In this context, however, I have to mention that a number of the amendments concern provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 which the Commission did not propose to amend. We are not in a position to accept them because they go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal.\nHaving said this, the Commission is, of course, willing to take on board good ideas, although we are at the moment still in the early stages of the procedure. I would like to confirm that the Commission is willing to have discussions with the two co-legislators and that we want to try to find common ground in order to reach a balanced and workable compromise text. However, the Commission prefers to come forward with an amended proposal when the two co-legislators have stated their position. We cannot and will not prejudge or anticipate discussions or negotiations.\nWe should also bear in mind the changes that the Lisbon Treaty - if and when it enters into force - will bring about on this important issue. Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 will then apply to all institutions, bodies, agencies and offices of the European Union, albeit to a limited extent for the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank. For citizens, the Lisbon Treaty will mean real progress when all EU bodies will apply a common set of rules on access to documents. Such a single set of rules ensures consistency but, at the same time, it must be tailored to fit the great number of bodies with very different mandates and competences.\nI would also like to repeat what I have said on previous occasions in this House and elsewhere. Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 is the cornerstone of a policy on transparency, but we also need to think about what we can do proactively outside the formal legislation. That is why I announced at the joint committee meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 20 January that I am taking the initiative to prepare an openness action plan. Improved registers, greater user-friendliness and accessibility, active dissemination, and quicker publishing of documents are some examples of what I want to address in this action plan and, of course, continue to discuss with the other EU institutions. This is a pragmatic and efficient way to mainstream transparency into all our policies. We need to lead by example.\nIn this spirit, we should also look at ways to make our institutions and the way they operate more understandable to citizens. We need an active policy of informing citizens and making them aware of how Europe-wide policies affect their everyday life. Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 is, of course, an important tool but, beyond the legal text, it is how we put this into practice that really counts.\nTo sum up the Commission's position on Mr Cashman's report at this stage of the procedure, I would like to say the following. There are some amendments the Commission cannot accept because they go beyond the legal base of Article 255 of the Treaty. There are other amendments we cannot accept because they go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposed changes, but in some cases, such amendments nevertheless point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. Also, the Commission is always willing to take on board good ideas in whatever context it may be. Once we have Parliament's and the Council's positions, you will have the position from the third corner in the institutional triangle.\nI look forward to an interesting and thought-provoking discussion to come. The subject deserves that, and our citizens are entitled to expect clear and well-functioning legislation on public access to our documents.\nMonica Frassoni\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have one minute for the Committee on Legal Affairs and one for the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance. Therefore, I would like to combine them, since the two things have much in common in this case.\nMr President, we in the Committee on Legal Affairs have discussed the recast issue at length. I will say straight away that we are not at all pleased: indeed, we think that the use of the recast procedure for this kind of act was not a particularly bright decision, not least because, as the Commissioner said, the real task here is to understand how a regulation that has worked fairly well, but could be perfected, can, in fact, be improved. So, the outcome, whether through the use of this procedure or through the practical proposals that have been made, is surely a step backwards compared with the current situation. Something must therefore be done about it, and it is more difficult to do this with the recast procedure than with a full legislative mandate.\nThe second thing I would like to say is that there is no point in beating about the bush: I am pleased that the Commissioner is announcing welcome initiatives on transparency and openness, but the fact remains that the Commission's proposal excludes documents that are currently open and transparent from the scope of this legislation. That is the truth of the matter, and it is also true that a number of Member States, including her own, have said as much quite clearly and have said that it is unacceptable.\nToday, the problem is that if we want to improve a piece of legislation, we cannot all simply defend the status quo because if we do, we run the risk of being less transparent, less comprehensible and even, may I say, less democratic.\nAnneli J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki\nMr President, transparency is the basis of democracy. Unfortunately, the European Union can hardly brag about its transparency. Directives need to be changed, but so do attitudes. What can you say about the statement by the Council that outsiders should not be given documents relating to legal advice in connection with legislative procedure? Outsiders, citizens if you like, should not be given them then. I cannot understand how European Union citizens can be outsiders.\nAttitudes, therefore, have to change. Legislation has to change to make the legislative documents of the Council, Parliament and Commission transparent, and the emphasis here is on legislative documents. If I make a comparison with my own country, for example, and the Finnish Parliament, we could not imagine the statements of its Constitutional Law Committee being secret. That would mean the people would not be told the reasons why this or that law is being enacted; and the Council says we should not say anything because the public are outsiders.\nIn legislation, in the formulation of directives, in everything, we need to work on the assumption that we should increase transparency, and there is also room for improvement in voting procedures. We should have electronic voting...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nDavid Hammerstein\nMr President, Commissioner, we should not waste the opportunity presented by this excellent report to reach agreement at first reading - I mean, during this Parliamentary term - so as to create legislation ensuring greater transparency in access to documents. Excuses are not acceptable, and I hope we have the time and the common sense to reach such agreement on this excellent report.\nIn the report, we in the Committee on Petitions express our concern at the fact that, where infringement proceedings are brought against a Member State as a result of a petition by citizens, the Member State has the right to deny access to the public documents used in those infringement proceedings, thereby shutting the door on citizens' participation.\nWe are also very concerned at the lack of interoperability and the technical block that exists in the European Parliament regarding the use of interoperable documents, that is to say, open-standard documents, which are not compatible with the software and IT platform that Parliament is currently using, which is specific to a single company.\nThe fact is that the European institutions do not guarantee citizens genuine access to the content of documents without imposing discrimination of a technical nature. That is unacceptable, because people cannot access the documents that we are creating. As I speak at this moment, no one can access my words without a technical platform provided by a particular firm that has a monopoly on this information. That really is something that goes against transparency and access to information.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld\nMr President, we fully share Mr Cashman's aims and commitment to transparency, but we must not forget that there is a regulation that is being recast here. Together, we have pushed the current transparency legislation through. The four Nordic Member States have written to the committee about this regulation, stating that it increases citizens' trust in the EU and that it provides the greatest possible degree of transparency. Mr Cashman and I have always worked very well together, but this time we did not have enough time to sort out all of the issues that were unclear. In other words, it is quite early on in the process, but I welcome many of the proposals and look forward to our continued cooperation.\nWhen the Transparency Regulation was adopted, the 'yes' votes from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats were decisive in winning the vote. This time, too, the PPE-DE votes will probably be significant for the final outcome, which will presumably come during a new Parliament. The PPE-DE Group will use its votes to strengthen legal certainty, predictability and clarity when the rules are formulated as the process continues. We want increased transparency and citizens must be able to follow the democratic debate. We believe that the matter requires more preparation, so that there are common impact assessments with regard to the institutions' way of working, for example.\nA number of amendments, around 40 to 50 of them, which relate to the Commission's right of initiative, have caused some discussion. The only thing I would like to add is that it should not result in a greater lack of clarity, as that would run counter to the aim of the recast. What is on the table today will probably be modified after the elections. The PPE-DE Group wishes, then, to achieve a degree of transparency that can receive the support of all EU citizens and Member States. This requires those involved to know what the rules are - that being the aim of the proposal. Sanctions cannot be used, either, if there are no clear instructions. As regards sanctions, there is already existing legislation to be taken into account. We therefore see the proposal as an as yet unfinished product, but we fully agree with Mr Cashman that it should lead to increased transparency and that is what we have indicated in our amendments. Transparency is an important part of democracy.\nI have five minutes for the PPE-DE Group, so could I just say my last few words?\n(SV) We say 'yes' to transparency, but we want to avoid the naivety that can expose people to danger or abuse.\nWill the PPE-DE Group lose the three minutes, or what?\nPresident\nI do not know what to say. The agenda specified two minutes, but I am sure that you will have a further opportunity to speak.\nCostas Botopoulos\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I will speak in English in honour of our rapporteur. With this very interesting report, Parliament is doing three things. First of all, it is taking realities into consideration. We are speaking now about privacy in the era of the Internet and not privacy as an abstract notion. We are taking into account the use of Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 which has, for some time, been applied to problems but also with good use.\nWe are taking into account the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the proposals by the Ombudsman and other agencies, and the case-law of the Court. We are also taking into account the Commission's real proposal with its possibilities and its drawbacks - and I think there are some drawbacks.\nThe second point - and this is very interesting - is that this report is based on principles and not technicalities; a balance between access to documents and the safeguarding of private life; a generalised access to documents but with very precise rules; a very important distinction between public and private interests and this notion of European public interest which is very important to those of us who love Europe; a distinction between legislative and non-legislative procedures which is also interesting; parity between EU transparency and Member State transparency.\nLastly, the most important thing is that this report tries to establish a complete system of transparency - not transparency for every institution separately, but transparency on an interinstitutional basis where all the institutions are taken into account and where the principles of good administration and the Charter of Fundamental Rights are also taken into account. There is also a very common set of classified information, albeit with spy movie names such as EU Confidential, EU Top Secret, but it is important to have a common set of rules in this matter also.\nWhat we are trying to achieve here is transparency as a general rule, with exceptions where those exceptions are justified by the protection of other rights, but to have a common set of rules whereby transparency is the most important one but other exceptions are also taken into account.\nMarco Cappato\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, excuse me if I am not able to stay to hear the Commissioner's answer. I believe there is something significant missing from this debate and that something is the Council which has, in truth, been absent from the entire debate, including at committee stage. This, moreover, is the material point: there exists, particularly within the Council, a concept of Europe as the sum of the governments of national states. Consequently when these governments meet together as legislators, these affairs are, shall we say, confidential; citizens must then await the final outcome.\nThis simply cannot be tolerated when we know that the European Union has legislative powers and citizens have a right to information throughout the entire legislative process. As confirmed and demonstrated by the judgment in the Maurizio Turco case, citizens have a right to information on the positions of national delegations within the Council as well as on legal opinions. That is why we pledge our full support for Mr Cashman's report, which embodies a different idea of Europe; that of European democracy.\nI believe that Mr Cashman should also be supported in his attempt to put forward proposals that go above and beyond those made by the Commission. The European Commission would be mistaken if it were to ask us to limit our activities as a legislative body to the proposals put forward by the Commission. I believe that our right to extend the mandate is even enshrined in the treaties. I hope that Mr Cashman will accept our proposed amendments, particularly on greater financial transparency, and I believe that as the European Parliament, we should set a good example.\nI read today in the press that our decision to publish parliamentary attendance - this has nothing to do with this report - a decision taken in this House, has, however, apparently run up against technical problems that will prevent it from being implemented before the European elections. There is no technical problem, this job can be done quickly and easily, and I hope that as Parliament we will set a good example on this as well as on the rapporteur's necessary and positive changes to the Commission's proposal for improved access to documents. We hope to hear something from the empty Council benches sooner or later, if only a public explanation of their reasons for opposing our proposals. They must have the courage to publicly defend the idea of a Europe that must make its decisions on legislation in secret, something I regard as wholly unacceptable.\nEva-Britt Svensson\nMr President, transparency and public access in respect of everything to do with legislation and political decisions is one of the most important factors behind being a democratic society. Transparency and public access create a sense of participation and confidence in the political system. The opposite - secrecy and the withholding of documents - creates mistrust and a sense of not being involved, and can sometimes aid in the development of corruption and the abuse of power.\nAn increasing amount of national legislation, with the principle of public access we have in Sweden, for example, is now being made at EU level. The decisions have been transferred to EU level, but transparency and public access have not followed. Our citizens see this, of course, and that is one reason why we have a low turnout for elections to the European Parliament. Citizens find it difficult to penetrate and understand the decision-making process within the EU system and feel, quite rightly, that decisions are taken and legislation is created at EU level without them having any real opportunity to study all of the documents. They therefore have no opportunity to discuss, debate or influence the decision makers.\nWe all want to increase the turn-out for the Parliamentary elections, but, if we are to succeed in this, campaigns and exhortations to go and vote are simply not enough. In order for this to be meaningful, we need to do everything we can to provide citizens with information and awareness. We must establish a dialogue with the citizens instead of the one-sided provision of information from above. Public access must be the main principle, secrecy must be an exception. There must be a specific method for permitting secrecy in specific cases and there must be strong grounds for doing so where that is the case.\nThe Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left and I have submitted amendments to, among other things, broaden the definition of documents, make more documents accessible to the public and prevent any individual Member State from being able to submit a veto. Commissioner Wallstr\u00f6m said that a good tool can always be improved. Unfortunately, this report will not bring improvements, but will, in fact, make things worse. However, it can be improved by supporting the amendments tabled by myself and the GUE\/NGL Group. Therefore, for the sake of democracy, vote in favour of the GUE\/NGL amendments and increase the citizens' ability to get involved.\nHanne Dahl\nThank you, Mr President, Mr Cashman has written a good report, for which I would like to express my support. The Commission's revision of the 2008 Transparency Initiative will make public access to EU documents more difficult. If this report is adopted, it will go a long way towards rectifying that. However, we still lack access to the advisory working parties within the Commission. According to a statement from the organisation Alter-EU made just before Christmas, we have satisfactory listed information on only two thirds of the members of the working parties involved in producing legislative proposals within the EU. This is completely unacceptable. As a citizen, I need to know whether it is tobacco industry lobbyists or health organisations that are advising the Commission when an initiative to improve public health is to be produced. I also need to know whether it is the chemicals industry or the environmental organisations sitting round the table when an aquatic environment plan is drawn up.\nHans-Peter Martin\n(DE) Mr President, one reason why we fell into the trap of globalisation is specifically that we failed to avoid the Europe trap. The Europe trap essentially lies in our failure, then as now, to act according to the tried and tested principles of transparency of the Scandinavian and other states.\nI have now been a Member of this Chamber for 10 years and it was not by chance that, when I arrived here - not with this intention, but it came to me very quickly - I found myself saying, 'oh my word, transparency is the crucial issue', and for that reason, I set up the European Transparency Initiative back in 2000. The initiative was adopted by the Commission word for word, it is just that there is still little by way of substance.\nCommissioner, you can read up on what I said to your fellow Swede Anna Lindh - in a long speech at the Nice Summit - in this area. You, as a Swede, understand what this is about. You do know what should really be done.\nIn the European Union, however, the reality when it comes to transparency issues is that the task we face is like trying to clear an avalanche with a shovel. We are not getting through, and new snow keeps on coming. There is only one way to rescue this European Union, and that is to have real transparency on the Swedish model plus that of the US Freedom of Information Act right now, immediately. Without it, you will experience yet more avalanches, and this time they will hit populated areas.\nManfred Weber\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we decide laws at European level for several hundred million people, and that is why transparency is required. We all agree on the objective - transparency is important, and I also think that we, as the European Parliament, have no need to hide. We are under the media spotlight, we are watched by journalists, our work is already transparent.\nWe all agree on the objective, but we must be allowed to argue about the methods of achieving it, and just because someone disputes and wants to get to the bottom of those methods that does not necessarily mean that he or she wants everything to be done behind closed doors. Rather, such people are often just people who ask questions. Here in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we have a lot of critical questions, such as about the competition procedure in the Council, such as on the issue of whether we need to make all the legal service's documents public, such as the question of whether the private affairs of an MEP should now be the subject of public discussion. We fight for data protection for our citizens, yet MEPs are to be expected to make everything public. Asking questions like this is allowed.\nThe key point, the reason why there is also a lot of scepticism in our group, is the question of the legislative process. When we vote, everyone can look up how individual MEPs have voted. All MEPs must also bear responsibility for the way they vote. This is already in evidence as things stand. In a legislative process, though, in the trialogue, when we discuss things amongst ourselves, there also has to be a place for carrying out negotiations.\nWe know that, if everything were public, the form of negotiations that we have today would no longer exist because you would be putting your head above the parapet as soon as you tried to seek out and to bring about political compromises. That is why there is still a large amount of scepticism in this group about this proposal. We will clarify the final position of our group tonight.\nI would like to make one thing clear on behalf of my group, however, which is that we do want transparency, but the methods of achieving it must continue to be up for discussion. We do all agree on the objective. Looking at the individual European institutions, it is not Parliament that is the problem. It is, rather, the Council, which is not represented here today, that represents the problem as, alas, we have no idea what goes on in the Council's working groups.\nInger Segelstr\u00f6m\n(SV) Mr President, Commissioner Wallstr\u00f6m, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Cashman and others who have contributed to the fact that we will soon be taking a new and long-awaited step towards making our work more accessible to our citizens. Vice-President and Commissioner Wallstr\u00f6m has also fought hard and long.\nWhen Sweden joined the EU, many people were worried that documents would leak out via that country, which has a very strong public access principle, but this has not happened at all. Mr Cashman can tell us about this, because if someone is in favour of transparency and accessibility, that person will also know where the limits are for working material, secrecy and disclosure.\nIn the Committee on Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abstained from voting. I hope that you are now in favour of increasing public access within the EU, so that the Swedish Presidency, together with the rest of us, will be able to take this important and key democratic issue further for all EU citizens. However, I can understand the PPE-DE Group's hesitancy - after all, it was your group that ensured that we were forced to have a secret vote when Turkey was to begin accession negotiations. Is that what you want? I hope that Parliament will now stand united and that we can proudly say to our voters in the EU elections in June that the EU will become increasingly open - that we have no hidden agendas and that we want to be scrutinised on and judged by what we do - and with a transparency of which we can be proud. We do a lot of good things and it would be good if the citizens were better able to follow the work that we do.\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski\n(PL) Mr President, it is clear to everyone that the decision-making process of the Community's institutions and bodies must take place openly and publicly. That is the basis of democracy. Based on this principle, citizens and elected authorities should have the broadest possible access to the documents held by the European institutions, which includes this Parliament. This will enable citizens to truly participate in the political process and to ask the public authorities for clarification.\nDespite the efforts made by the European institutions to increase openness and transparency, the situation is, unfortunately, far from satisfactory. The Committee on Petitions has stated that citizens are aware of the deficiencies and failures in the implementation of this right. It is extremely important that in rights infringement procedures, which are often brought as a result of citizens' petitions, citizens are assured of full access to all documents at each stage in their pursuit of their rights. This should also apply to the documents with which the European institutions are provided by the Member States. This has been a major problem, even for the Commission in the German Jugendamt case, where access to information was highly restricted, even though it was public information.\nI would like to underline once again, that easy access by petitioners to the information they need should be the foundation for the success of the European transparency initiative. The principles of democracy demand it.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, the problem of the estrangement of the public from politics in the EU is something that is well known, which is why we attempt to demonstrate our citizen-friendliness over and over again. This includes regularly recurring initiatives to simplify access to the documents of Parliament, the Council and the Commission.\nThe Internet is, of course, a cheap and simple tool to achieve this. The EU's homepage has been revised and has, at least, been made more logical and easier to navigate around than it was in the past. In its Internet presence, the EU also highlights the importance of multilingualism as a significant factor in achieving greater transparency, legitimacy and efficiency within the Union. Yet it does not, in reality, live up to what it asks of itself. In practice, the consistent use of the three working languages German, English and French would, in fact, make it possible to reach the majority of the population.\nEven the Internet presence of the current Presidency, which is in English, French and Czech, takes no account of the fact that German, with an 18% share of mother-tongue speakers in the EU, is the language with the most native speakers in the Union, while a further 14% of EU citizens speak it as a foreign language. I believe it is time that more attention was finally paid to this state of affairs.\nSirpa Pietik\u00e4inen\nMr President, access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. People have to have the widest possible access to all information at the early stages of the decisions taken by the institutions, or on the background to these decisions, so that they can fully participate in the formulation of policies.\nThe EU aspires to be more democratic and accessible to its citizens, so granting the widest possible access to EU documents is crucial to the Union's efforts to increase citizens' confidence in its institutions and to the whole legitimacy of this institution. That is why I was rather disappointed at the Commission's proposal regarding this regulation, although I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the very good, dedicated and skilful work he has done in this context.\nI would also like to thank Mrs J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki for her great efforts in this matter. Both of them have held to the guiding principles of openness and transparency where denying access to any document held by an institution is a definite exception. Such exceptions are, in some cases, necessary, but they should be limited to the smallest number on a clearly defined basis.\nI also welcome the initiatives to push for the more proactive and clear disclosure of documents through improved Internet databases. Accessing documents is also a question of finding them. Often, information exists online but is hiding behind complex databases and here, we certainly need a lot more development.\nColleagues, we are defenders of democracy and, therefore, should have been more active already. We have to be very bold in defending broad access and transparency to all documents. I think that this is not the time to start compromising, or else we may compromise our status as good decision makers in the eyes of our voters as well.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna\n(PL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Michael Cashman on an outstanding report which affects one of the most important aspects of European democracy.\nThe European Union is undergoing systematic changes and transformations. Unfortunately, communication between the European Union and its citizens is not keeping up with these changes. The situation is similar with access to documents and information destined for the citizens themselves.\nTransparency is a fundamental principle of the European Union, set out in Article 255 of the EC Treaty. Every citizen of the European Union and any natural or legal person residing or established in a Member State has the right to access European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.\nWe can only get the citizens of Europe interested in and build their confidence in the EU institutions, in MEPs and national politicians if we provide complete and honest information. It is therefore our duty to increase the transparency and effectiveness of the institutions of the European Union to the greatest degree possible. We must focus on making it easier for users to access information and on continuing to simplify the system and its tools.\nAlthough it could do with some improvement and streamlining, the regulation which affects this report provides a sound legal basis. I am therefore sorry that the Commission gave no consideration to the rapporteur's 2006 proposal on transparency.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, access to documents is one part of the process of transparency, but there are many other issues. The use of documents and information is key, and one of the big problems we have - and we acknowledge it, and the Commissioner in the Chamber currently is one of the best practised - is to get knowledge of the EU's decision-making process out there, because people do not understand the process. During the Lisbon Treaty debate in Ireland, people came up to me and said: 'you are urging us to vote 'yes' and you are going to lose your job'. They thought I was the Commissioner - perish the thought!\nIt is not enough to say that we give people loads of information, because in one sense, that would lead to a lack of transparency: it just covers things up with mountains of paper but no clarity. I would prefer that people fully understood how this place works and therefore could engage with it. I dare say that there are many in this House who do not fully know how this place works. I rest my case.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) In an attempt to solve the Baltic countries' energy island problem, in particular with the growing threat to Lithuania's energy security following the closure of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant at the end of this year, the European Commission has drafted the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. I called on the European Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport to provide an opportunity to see the document. I was told that there had been no discussion with the high level group drafting the strategy on the possibility of publicising information and documents, as formulated in the answer: Sharing with the outside world. The European Parliament is being classed as the outside world, to which information is not provided. Time and again we have discussed the opportunities available to society to see documents held by EU institutions, have we not? If a Member of the European Parliament representing citizens does not have such a right, this is a disastrous situation.\nMargot Wallstr\u00f6m\nVice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank the Members for an interesting debate and for their many valuable comments.\nRegulation (EC) No 1049\/2001 will now be updated to 'version two', one might say. It is important to point out again that we are not starting from scratch: we already have a good basis, and it is just a matter of improving on that. This will also be a version for the age of the Internet, as was mentioned in the debate. Electronic registers will now be included, and add to that active dissemination, as examples of these improvements.\nThe ideal situation would, of course, be for us to disseminate information so actively that no requests for access have to be made since everything is already out there - with some exceptions, of course. I can give you one example of what can be done, which is that I have already made my own correspondence register available on the Internet, so you can see my correspondence and documents.\nIt is not possible for me to go through all the comments that were made during the debate, but I want to comment briefly on a few crucial points, one of which concerns the definition of documents under Article 3. This is one of the articles of the Commission's proposal that have been most discussed and, I admit, most criticised.\nWe maintain that the current definition leads to ambiguity and a risk of unpredictability and bad practice. Is this Post-It note a document, for example? Mr Cashman is saying it is, and according to the wide definition in the Regulation, it could very well be so - as could the other scribbles I have here. Sometimes it is not helpful to make a definition too broad. We still maintain a wide definition, but we will reduce the discretionary non-disclosure of documents. The definition that we propose is much wider than the notion of official documents often used in national legislation. It comes very close to the concept of information in the UK Freedom of Information Act and in the Dutch law on transparency, for example. The registration of documents is an obligation under internal Commission rules, but these do not determine whether a document falls within the scope of the regulation. So we clarified and helped with the definition of documents. This will also help citizens to know what is it you can and should ask for in order to get full information. A more precise definition of documents means safer administration and more clarity for citizens.\nThe Court has ruled that documents relating to an ongoing investigation are manifestly covered by an exception to the right of access and, therefore, that those files are currently not acceptable and this does not constitute additional restriction of the right of access. In no Member State do citizens have access to the files of the competition authorities - I just wanted to make that point.\nI also acknowledge that we could have explained and phrased things better in Article 3. I believe we share the same goal, and thus it should also be possible to find a clear and unambiguous wording. This is an example of an area where we should be able to achieve a good compromise text.\nAnother fiercely discussed point is Article 5(2) concerning access to Member States' documents. Let me be clear that the Commission's intention has been to implement what the European Court of Justice has ruled, and Member States must effectively justify why they refuse access to one of their documents, just as the institutions do regarding all other documents. The bottom line will always be the rules in Regulation (EC) No 1049\/2001.\nHowever, it is equally important that the Commission can have correspondence with Member States, for example, in the field of infringements of EU law. We need to have the possibility to quickly find satisfactory solutions from the perspective of both the Commission and EU citizens, as codified by EU law. Those kinds of contacts need to remain confidential, and that is also what the Court has said.\nFinally, I shall just comment on the 'space to think' under Article 4(3). If we think carefully, I guess most people would agree that Parliament, as well as the Commission and the Council, needs a certain space to think. Documents related to decisions that have not yet been taken, or reflecting internal discussions, are not the same as other documents. What about the records of political group meetings or preparations? You have yourselves identified a number of problems and limitations arising from refusing a space to think, considering, again, what would benefit citizens most and what would be most helpful.\nI must say that I would have preferred the Council to be here - as many of you have said - just as I would have preferred a fuller House, because these are absolutely crucial issues for all of us. The big task for us all in the next few weeks or months is to find common ground. That is also true within this House, and today's debate has shown that it is not always that easy. The more divisions there are, the more difficult it will be when the three institutions hold discussions. Parliament, the Council and the Commission each have their role, which should be respected, and I hope Parliament will speak with one strong voice, because that will benefit us all and benefit the end result, which I hope will be a balanced and workable compromise text.\nMichael Cashman\nrapporteur. - Mr President, those were interesting remarks, but I am afraid they have very little to do with the contents of my report.\nI would point out that we have nothing to fear from public scrutiny and we have absolutely everything to fear as institutions from hiding information. We become more vulnerable. Commissioner, it is official documents which are accessible. Go back and look at the report. The space to think. Official documents. Within the notion of a space to think, that will not be official. Go back to the report. Accept our principles.\nIt has been an interesting debate but I have to say that the recast - which you defend - is not in the spirit of the interinstitutional agreement and it is not enough. You say it has worked well, but I am afraid the recast ignores vital jurisprudence on what actually needs to be done.\nMy reasons for delaying the final vote are so that we have absolutely maximum flexibility to negotiate with the political parties and with the institutions. I would further point out that there is nothing to prevent the Commission from amending its proposal at any time after the vote tomorrow, except perhaps institutional and political reluctance.\nI find it somewhat patronising to be told that we will get action plans. Commissioner, I do not doubt your personal commitment to openness and transparency, but I do not want action plans for our citizens. I want rights enshrined in law which cannot be taken away - not gifts, but rights.\nParliament must therefore put political pressure on the Presidency to negotiate and it may be that we will have to negotiate without the Commission. Yes, Commissioner, I know the Council is not here, but I do not give up on one Council. I have been in politics long enough to know that you fight and you fight.\nLet me finally quote this President, if you will allow me: 'My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government'. So said Barack Obama on 21 January 2009. I await a comparable announcement from the Commission or, indeed, from President Barroso.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.\n(The sitting was suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12.50 p.m.)\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nStavros Lambrinidis  \nThe amendments by the European Parliament to the regulation on public access to the documents of the European institutions, especially to documents relating to the legislative procedure, are a catalytic step in safeguarding transparency and participatory democracy in Europe.\nParticularly important in my opinion is the requirement that every initiative or document designed to somehow influence the decision-making procedure must be published.\nWe are all aware that various lobbies frequently try to influence the legislative procedure by putting forward their arguments. European citizens have every right to know what these arguments and interventions are. They must be able to judge the essence of them and evaluate the final stance taken by their governments, the European Commission and, of course, their MEPs.\nAt least the same level of transparency should also be provided at national level by the Member States for their citizens on the basis of an express requirement in the European Parliament report, a call which we hope will very shortly be adopted by governments and national parliaments.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Dess, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future.\nAlbert De\u00df\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 50 years ago, in 1961, I began my training to be a farmer. Ever since then, I have been guided by the common European agricultural policy. It has become an important mainstay of the European unification process.\nSince the beginning of the CAP there have been fundamental changes to its tasks. The first task was to increase food production in order for us to be less dependent on food imports. Sometime later, Europe was in the position of having to deal with food surpluses. With an ever-changing situation, there were also more and more reforms.\nToday, we are debating the next reform, the new approach of the CAP after 2013. As rapporteur for the CAP reform towards 2020, I am pleased that we have achieved a cross-group compromise. Even if not all of the individual interests could be taken into account in a compromise, the report was adopted with a large majority in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The clear vote is an unambiguous signal to the Commission of the form that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development sees the CAP taking towards 2020. I am certain, Commissioner, that the new approach of the CAP after 2013 will also bear the stamp of the European Parliament. The Treaty of Lisbon gives us that possibility.\nMy thanks today go to my fellow Members for their involvement and support, and to the committee chair Mr De Castro, the coordinators and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation and willingness to compromise. I would like to thank the staff of the committee secretariat, the political groups and in my own private office for their splendid cooperation.\nTurning to the report now: food safety and the security of supply for half a billion people remain the main goals of the common agricultural policy, not only in the EU, but also worldwide. The CAP is intended to be sustainable and competitive, to supply consumers with safe, high-quality food and also to promote renewable forms of energy. The two-pillar structure of the CAP is to remain so as to create certainty of planning for our farmers for this next period.\nThe report clearly states - and here we support the Commissioner - that the agricultural budget should remain at the current level in the next financial period. I cannot understand President Barroso's statement that massive cuts are to be made in the second pillar. I believe that there will be cross-group opposition to this.\nThe simplification of the common agricultural policy remains an important task. That is a core demand of our compromise. We are also calling for a fair distribution among the Member States. That is also necessary in order to create a level playing field in terms of competition. We are seeking to move away from historical and individual references towards area-based premiums. The role of small farmers is to be recognised and, on the basis of subsidiarity, the Member States are to decide themselves how to support these small farmers. The importance of young farmers is mentioned. From my point of view, it was important to avoid introducing a new additional payment system that would lead to extra control and sanction systems for greening.\nOverall, we have found a compromise that many Members will be able to support tomorrow so that we can send out a clear signal as regards the new approach of this agricultural policy. A large majority of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) will support this report.\nDacian Ciolo\u015f\nMr President, Mr Dess, honourable Members, this report has come at a pivotal time, just as the Commission is drafting detailed legislative proposals that it plans to present to Parliament and the Council in October.\nI would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Dess, for his work over past weeks and months. I would also like to thank the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their hard work and the fruitful discussions that we have had since I began the task of preparing the reform of the common agricultural policy.\nMany elements in the report are in line with the Commission's vision as set out in the communication on reforming the common agricultural policy, which was presented at the end of 2010 and was intended to spark debate.\nI am thinking in particular of the question of food security, which is one of agriculture's underlying aims. I am also thinking of the importance of preserving the two pillars of the common agricultural policy, as Mr Dess has just said, whilst also recognising the need to make the policy greener and to focus more on integrating the sound management of natural resources. I am also referring to a fairer distribution of common agricultural policy money between European farmers and to the need for a budget that is able to address food and regional issues, but also the management of natural resources in the European Union.\nI also note that you have included a proposal for higher ceilings for direct payments. At this stage, let me stress the considerable contribution that many large farms make to rural employment. Criteria such as employment will therefore be taken into account when we define the ceilings for agricultural income aid.\nAdding a green component to the first pillar in conjunction with a stronger rural development policy is another key objective that will help to tackle climate change and environmental issues, but will also contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy.\nI am pleased to see that the report stresses the importance of closer links between direct payments and conservation of natural resources. I want to establish an effective, pan-European instrument that achieves the objective of simplifying the direct payment system. I am a strong advocate of decoupling direct payments, which has proved beneficial in helping farmers to adapt better to market conditions. However, I share the view expressed in your report, namely that we need to be practical and realistic. In certain situations, specific segments and sectors that are economically, ecologically and socially sensitive, I feel that optional coupled aid should also be available.\nDirect payments will continue to play an important role in maintaining regional vitality. This is a particular challenge in areas with significant natural limitations. That is why the Commission communication stressed the value of providing income aid in addition to the second pillar payments made to areas with natural constraints, which will continue to be awarded.\nWe will examine the concerns expressed in your report, which suggests that this component should not be included under the first pillar. In the communication on the future of the common agricultural policy, I suggested creating a specific support scheme for small farmers, which would help them by minimising the administrative red tape associated with direct aid. Under the second pillar, small farmers could also receive significant support for restructuring or to allow them to contribute more at a territorial level, but also in economic terms, by becoming more profitable and more competitive.\nLimiting direct payments to active farmers is another point on which your expectations and my vision of the future common agricultural policy coincide. Here again, we want to establish a European definition that can also allow for the specific conditions in Member States.\nI have also paid close attention to your proposals on market measures. Strengthening management capacity and the negotiating power of producers and producer organisations, transparent pricing and other risk-management measures are all subjects that I am committed to examining in detail as part of the impact assessment. I intend to develop specific legislative proposals on these points.\nI agree with your comments on improving and enhancing rural development measures. I also agree that we need measures that will allow us to respond more effectively to challenges associated with global warming, biodiversity and the sustainable management of natural resources.\nThe second pillar of the future common agricultural policy will have to address all these challenges and will also have to consider how technical knowledge can be used to build a future that combines competitiveness and environmental concerns. I can tell you that the entire Commission - the full College of Commissioners, including President Barroso - is in favour of a strong second pillar in the future common agricultural policy.\nI was interested to read your proposals regarding young farmers. Rural development policy must provide a wide range of support measures that will meet their needs. I would also like to consider what could be done under the first pillar of the common agricultural policy for young farmers. In future, I would like Member States to be able to define thematic sub-programmes: packages of measures which specifically target young farmers and recognise that they are a priority group in the Member State. I am thinking of measures for setting up, vocational training, training services, investing in modernisation and restructuring farms.\nAs you emphasise in your report, our policy will need adequate funding if it is to address future challenges. We are currently waiting for the Commission communication on the next multiannual financial framework, which will be published by the end of June. We will build on that communication when we present our impact assessment and legislative proposals in the autumn, as I said.\nThank you once again for this report. I am happy to answer any questions. I hope that this will be a very productive discussion.\nKriton Arsenis\nMr President, Commissioner, today we are debating the common agricultural policy. A lot of people criticise the common agricultural policy, because they believe that it has caused environmental damage and has in the past and even today continues to put developing countries at risk on numerous counts, especially in terms of agriculture and development.\nThose who levy this criticism are right, but those calling for a reduction in funding for the common agricultural policy are wrong. The common agricultural policy is not just a policy for agriculture; it is an instrument for redistributing resources from the towns of Europe to the countryside. It is the European citizens in the countryside who take care of our forests, rivers and lakes and who give us food, clean air and water.\nWe need to provide incentives for them to make changes where changes are needed. However, if we want to apply serious policy, we should increase funding for our agricultural policy, for a fairer, more effective and more viable common agricultural policy.\nKarin Kadenbach\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we were to ask European citizens what they expect from European politics they would answer quality of life, using terms like health and environment. With this common agricultural policy, we are facing precisely this task of fulfilling these expectations of European citizens in us as politicians, but also in politics in general.\nThe contribution from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is an important one in this context, because we want the same things European citizens do. We want wholesome food produced in a diverse system, and by diverse I do mean biological diversity, but also diversity in terms of production.\nWe must enable the preservation of the environment in which we live. We need to take care of our water bodies, the air and the soil. We need to ensure that the rural habitat continues to be developed and does not become the poorhouse of Europe. We need to pursue an agricultural policy that involves the development of all regions. We need money for this and we need the money to be properly and fairly distributed.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\nMr President, my apologies! Please start timing. I wish to present a number of comments from the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. It is a shame that they were not fully incorporated into the report of the Committee on Agriculture. They are as follows. Food security at EU and global level and globalisation necessitate a new and strong common agricultural policy, which will firstly improve our competitiveness on the international market, secondly ensure a fair income for farmers, thirdly ensure that consumers can buy high-quality products at fair prices, fourthly ensure the sustainable development of rural areas and fifthly help to improve the state of the environment.\nIn order to accomplish these tasks, objective, transparent and simplified criteria need to be established, which guarantee equal support for farmers in all Member States under the direct payments system. It is time to move away from the use of historical payments. The CAP should incorporate measures for regulation of and intervention in the agricultural market, and a risk management mechanism. Finally, the CAP should pay more attention to small, family-owned agricultural holdings, given the need for diversification to...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nMichel Dantin\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Dess, the shadow rapporteurs and other contributors on the work that they have done to draft this text. In my opinion, it is both balanced and ambitious. We will be voting on the report tomorrow.\nAlmost six months after Mr Lyon drafted his report setting out the European Parliament's views on the common agricultural policy (CAP) post-2013, the European Commission decided to draw on the report by including many of its ideas in the communication issued on 18 November 2010. The new report, which was adopted almost unanimously by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, affirms the new direction that we would like the common agricultural policy to take in the coming years. Our farmers are not there to produce mere commodities, or wares to sell. They are there, above all, to produce food for Europe's 500 million citizens, but also to help to feed the rest of the world. Stating it in these terms is not just semantics: it is a philosophical choice that we are making.\nMr Dess's report endorses a positive approach to agriculture's environmental and ecological contribution and therefore appeals for a reduction of the often onerous administrative procedures generated by European and national legislation. By arguing in favour of graduated direct payments and a review of the regulatory instruments, the report also provides a new perspective on social perception of the CAP and of global trade.\nAs we speak, the G20 in Paris is beginning discussions on regulating the global commodities markets, with particular reference to agricultural commodities. Parliament's approach, then, has not been defined in a vacuum, where we are cut off from the world. Rather, it is part of the wider deliberations on how to come up with a global response to a global challenge.\nAs with Mr Lyon's report one year ago and Mr Garriga Polledo's report on the financial perspectives last month, tomorrow we will be voting in favour of maintaining the agricultural budget for the 2014-2020 programming period. I am sure that it will be a close-run thing, but we do need to take a stand and to make choices, because we will not have the money to do everything ...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nSt\u00e9phane Le Foll\nMr President, Commissioner, Mr Dess, Mr Dantin was cut off, but he was going to explain that the global food challenge is important, and it is important. As has already been said, this report, together with previous reports and the Commission's communication, seeks to demonstrate that Europe's aim is to have a common agricultural policy that guarantees food security in Europe and contributes to global food security. That entails political commitments on market regulation, which is what is under discussion today. We too will have to push for this in our debates at EU level. At a time when there are plans to eliminate Europe's food security programme, we need to remember that food security is still a matter of solidarity and is still extremely topical in Europe: almost 30 million Europeans are currently suffering from malnutrition. Let us not lose sight of that fact.\nEssentially, this report sets out the broad thrust: the greening of agricultural policy. Of course farming needs to take a positive approach to environmental issues. In particular, it needs to focus on the European element and ensure that it is factored in by incorporating environmental issues into the first pillar.\nAnother important point is that this compromise is the result of lengthy negotiations, in which I have always been involved, on the question of graduated support. At long last, support will be allocated in accordance with two criteria: employment - I believe that agricultural policy needs to allow for the notion of providing employment - and, of course, the production of public goods. This approach is better than continuing the debate on aid ceilings and never coming up with any solutions. I am making the point this afternoon because it is my honest opinion.\nLet me conclude by saying that this report and Parliament's commitment are pointless unless the agriculture budget remains at its current level. That is my response to the comments made by the Commissioner and the President of the Commission on the second pillar. We cannot accept a budget cut.\nGeorge Lyon\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I think the world-renowned Scottish poet Rabbie Burns might have described this report as a bit of a 'cow'rin, tim'rous beastie' in its original form. Thankfully, through the good work that Albert Dess and all the other shadow rapporteurs have put in over the last months of negotiations, we now have a report that has some real substance and one that has many areas that we can support.\nI believe, however, that it falls short in one important area, in that it fails to answer the fundamental question asked by our taxpayers and our consumers who pay for the common agricultural policy: what are the direct decoupled payments for? That is a fundamental question that we all need to face up to. There is no longer any linkage with food production because they are decoupled. There is a link to public goods through cross-compliance, but I do not think this fundamentally answers that question. I believe that the report should perhaps have gone a little further in responding to that question by backing the idea of a more targeted direct payment, containing a major incentive to develop a more sustainable and competitive model of agriculture, and giving the possibility of a targeting of payments at LFA areas - the so-called greening of the direct payments, which I believe the Commissioner is very much favour of.\nIf we move down that road, I believe it gives us the ability to respond to that question and explain to the public exactly what direct payments are for. It also negates the call for caps and ceilings to be put on aids because, if there are public goods attached to the direct payments across all the direct payments, then the bigger the farmer, the more public goods that farmer will deliver. So there is no need to cap them. I believe that the report hints at that direction and I welcome the move towards that type of model. I hope we can improve the report tomorrow. If we do so, our group will certainly be happy to support it.\nJames Nicholson\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, can I also take the opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur. He certainly proved during the time that negotiations were going on that he had a very big back indeed, because there were a lot of people throwing knives at him during that period. So he proved to be very resilient in his task, and he got there.\nThe first thing I want to do is to welcome the fact that it is going to be a Pillar Two structure, because I think that is what we are all agreed on.\nI listened to the talk about greening. When you speak about greening it means different things to different people in different countries, including how it is applied. We have got to get our heads around this somehow. It is not a simple throw-away line that you can use in some way or other, because it is going to have a tremendous effect down the line.\nMr Le Foll is right. If the money is not there at the end of the day, there is little we can do in many of these areas. We have got to be responsible, and we have got to be responsible as a Parliament as we move towards the legal text that the Commissioner will bring forward in the late autumn of this year. That is going to be a tremendous challenge for us in this Parliament. For the first time we are going to have a responsibility, a say, and be part of the final decision-making process.\nSo from that point of view, I am opposed to the present text when it talks about capping. I will be supporting the amendments that have been put forward to reduce the degree. This is something that we have got to talk about more but, as I said, it will all be no good if the budget is not there.\nWe have got to look at how we spend the money. Are we spending our money as wisely as we can? Is there not too much of it going on administration? Is there not too much going on bureaucracy and red tape? And is not enough being given towards food security? Again like greening, people talk about food security as a throw-away line.\nWhat are we doing to achieve food security? We could be facing a crisis in the next nine or ten years. There are fewer farmers, fewer people working; this is where I think we have to concentrate in the future.\nMartin H\u00e4usling\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in our opinion, the report takes us clearly in the right direction. European agricultural policy needs to be fairer, and it needs to be fairer to the environment. I believe that we have achieved these objectives with the report. At the end of the day, European agricultural policy must meet our objectives on climate and diversity. This, too, is incorporated into the report. European agricultural policy needs to deliver environmental services. Then taxpayers will be prepared to pay for it. We need a fair distribution between farms, but also between the Member States, and we need to practise a fair trade policy towards less developed countries. This, too, is in the report.\nWorking through nearly 1 300 amendments has been a laborious process, but in the long term we have achieved our aim of reaching a major common compromise with clearly defined objectives. Parliament has proved itself capable of making such policy. Many points could have been worded more clearly in our view, such as the terms for payments under the first pillar - crop rotation, protection of meadow land - but fine, it is now down to the Commission to flesh out the final arrangements.\nIt is also important that degressivity is included. Large farms need to deliver more when it comes to jobs and the environment. This was supported by a large majority in committee. It is also important that the role of farmers in trade is enhanced, and it is also important that the matter of the protein deficit is addressed. In the long term we cannot afford to import from other countries protein crops equivalent to 30 million hectares of feed area. It is high time that we made a start on this.\nWe are all agreed that a strong second pillar is important. Rural development, environmental measures and measures for less-favoured regions - there must be a clear emphasis on these. If Mr Barroso wishes to axe this point he will face huge opposition from Parliament. It is precisely here that the opportunities for rural development lie, and we cannot turn our backs on the less-favoured regions.\nPatrick Le Hyaric\nMr President, Commissioner, the report presented today outlines a new direction for the common agricultural policy. It includes graduated public funding that reflects employment and environmental considerations, the fact that agriculture produces public goods and the concept of active farmers. However, we have seen too many good intentions that have never improved life for working farmers. Let us bear in mind the scenes being acted out right now in our rural areas. Although the idea of a safety net is attractive, it is not enough. We need to return to public intervention mechanisms in order to guarantee basic prices for small and medium-sized farmers.\nBringing together economic, social and ecological efficiencies will also put an end to the ultra-liberal free trade model that is currently destroying family farms. The European Union needs to strive for radical changes in the World Trade Organisation and to work more closely with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) so as to return to cooperation systems that include variable customs duties at the border.\nWe also need far more research funding in Europe. Lastly, we need to ensure that the budget for the policy is maintained ... (The speaker concluded off-microphone)\nKrisztina Morvai\nMr President, we could not hear the English interpretation of the previous speech. I was very interested in it and, if it is not too much of a burden on the speaker, and if you can do something so we can hear it in English, I would very much appreciate it.\nPresident\nDid anyone else not hear the English interpretation? Perhaps it is just a local problem in the back rows. We are looking into the matter.\nApparently it was a channel mix-up. We are working on the problem. Please bear with us, but I am sure the speech can be read afterwards on the web. We have web streaming and I am sure the interpretation will be there.\nLorenzo Fontana\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I must thank and congratulate Mr Dess on the hard work he has put in, together with all the shadow rapporteurs.\nWe are particularly pleased that there are references in this report to less-favoured areas - mountainous areas are specially close to our hearts. We are particularly pleased that there is support for small farms, which are fundamental because they are of great importance both for protecting the land and for the quality of the products produced on them. We are also particularly pleased that there are substantial references to young farmers, who to some extent represent the future of agriculture.\nWe should all be aware, however, that a major battle must now be fought over the budget, which is why we are appealing to you, Commissioner, as you know it better than I or anyone else here does. We cannot allow the common agricultural policy (CAP) to have its budget cut, because that would mean that agriculture is probably worth less in Europe. Clearly, if agriculture is worth less in Europe, then agricultural products and hence all our food is also worth less. That is not what we think, of course.\nLastly, Commissioner, I would like to mention the issue of imports. As you know, imports do not of course come into the CAP, but they make up another essential piece of the jigsaw that should go alongside the CAP, because if we import cheap, poor-quality products our agriculture is bound to collapse.\nDiane Dodds\nMr President, I would like to thank Mr Dess for a comprehensive report.\nLike other speakers, I would like to emphasise the importance of an adequate budget for the new CAP. I believe that it is hugely important to base our budget on the arguments around food security.\nIt is estimated that, by 2050, we will need a 70% increase in global agricultural production. I would argue that the new CAP should aid this and keep that production within Europe. We should not be doing anything to hamper the food production base that we already have.\nI welcome the clear support for the two-pillar structure and I also welcome today's affirmation from the Commissioner of his support for that as well. However, I would have to add that I do not want to see the support for greening in Pillar One imposing further burdens and costs on our farmers. For that reason I would like to see flexibility at national and regional level, given the wide diversity of farm structures and land bases across the EU.\nGiovanni La Via\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the hard work done by the rapporteur, Mr Dess, and the shadow rapporteurs - and I congratulate them all, of course - is today entering its final stage.\nA new common agricultural policy (CAP) means a lot to Europe for the future of its agriculture and the survival of vast rural areas. The new CAP must enable people to enjoy an adequate supply of quality food, as well as being able to sustain the production of non-marketable public assets. To achieve the goals indicated, there is a need for further, more effective and especially simpler instruments for farmers, together with easier access to funding and less red tape.\nWe also need market instruments to combat effectively the unfortunately recurrent crises, and also instruments to prevent and insure against the risks inherent to agriculture. We need a CAP for young people, to whom we can entrust the agriculture of the future. We have decided to promote protection of biodiversity and of the countless regional and production specificities of the European Union through a rural development policy that will enhance all the natural and human potential of rural areas. At the same time we must seek to make farming businesses competitive. That is why I would like to impress on the Commission the need to include technology transfer measures in rural development.\nAs approved in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I confirm the importance of supporting the introduction of ceilings for direct payments awarded to large economic players. I think the introduction of a system of degressivity of aid as the size of a holding increases above a certain threshold is necessary to avoid overcompensating larger holdings that already enjoy major economies of scale.\nI cannot avoid underlining the need for adequate financing for the CAP. This House cannot accept a rural development funding cut.\nLu\u00eds Manuel Capoulas Santos\n(PT) Madam President, with this reform we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament want to make the common agricultural policy (CAP) fairer, more equitable and more suited to the times in which we live, when the issues of the legitimacy of aid in relation to society and of food safety and food security in the broadest sense are more relevant than ever.\nWe have succeeded in seeing our main concerns included in this report. They include the need to maintain an adequately funded common agricultural policy for the Union. I must stress that we shall not agree to the withdrawal of any financial resources in order to guarantee the enforcement of the CAP. We want a fairer distribution of aid both among Member States and among farmers, through the introduction of a new system not linked to production but based on environmental and social criteria; that is to say, one that promotes employment. We must also orient the CAP towards real farmers and create a specific mechanism for small farmers.\nI am sure that with Parliament's strengthened role under the Treaty of Lisbon we will be able to translate these goals, which for now are merely theoretical, into concrete actions.\nMarit Paulsen\n(SV) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Dess for his excellent work. I would like to talk about one aspect of agricultural policy. That is the enormous challenges that humanity and the whole world are facing. These include the climate, biodiversity and the eutrophication of waterways. There are all sorts of examples I could give here. In this context, I think that we need to realise that it is farmers who manage our environment and the prerequisites for our lives and our futures on a day-to-day basis. It is in agriculture and forestry that we have the best tools and it is for the use of these environmental tools that farmers should be paid, and they should be paid well for this. I would therefore like us in future to change our thinking somewhat and move away from income subsidies, which are difficult to account for, and ensure that we pay for the job that farmers do. In other words, we should stop paying subsidies and start paying for the services provided. The most important task for agriculture is, of course, to produce food - sufficient, good-quality food - but my view is that food should be paid for on the market. Environmental services cannot be paid for there.\nJanusz Wojciechowski\n(PL) Madam President, in many respects the Dess report is very good, but in one respect it is quite the opposite, since it rejects the idea of a fair equalisation of direct payments. The bizarre and absurd principle whereby more assistance is given to those who are richer and less to those who are poorer is to continue to hold sway in the agricultural sector. The farmers in the new Member States, and not only the farmers, are extremely worried and alarmed by these developments. The agricultural sector is in decline, particularly in the new Member States. I would ask you to look at how much land is lying fallow in Poland, Lithuania and Slovakia.\nI would call on my fellow Members from the old Member States to end this discrimination. Let us finally equalise direct payments fairly, and let us not create a two-speed Europe. I should like to address the French Members of the House in particular to remind them of the slogan of 'liberty, equality, fraternity' which adorned the banners of the French revolution. We have liberty, but we do not have equality, and without equality there can be no fraternity. Let us demand equality.\nJos\u00e9 Bov\u00e9\n(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do agree that, as well as liberty and fraternity, there should be equality for farmers and the new Member States in Eastern Europe. Yes, I agree with you.\nI think that this report marks a huge step forward. It was not easy at the outset: the situation was fairly confrontational. However, the important thing is that we reached a consensus. This consensus has allowed us to maintain the broader vision, and I believe that therein lies the European Parliament's great strength. We have succeeded, despite the difficulties, and I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Dess, and all the Members. The first phase is complete.\nIn this document, we have reiterated the need for equality, justice and fairness for producers and regions. I think that is important. We have clearly stated and confirmed that we want to safeguard and develop small farms, that we want small farms to be taken into account because they are essential to quality and regional biodiversity. In my opinion, this was another fundamental point. The idea of making agriculture more scientific, of moving away from productivist industrial farms, is now enshrined in the texts. We now need to make it a reality: only then will farming become a viable option for future generations. This is not a question of ideology.\nLastly, at present, we are worried about the real budgetary threats. We need to come up with unequivocal responses. What we want now is to move into the second phase, which is obviously the legislative debate. Why? Because we need more than texts and lofty intentions: it is in debating legislative proposals that we will really see where we are going. That is essentially what we are waiting for.\nLet me close, however, by expressing my fury at Germany's attitude. It has forced us to cut food aid to Europe's poorest citizens to one-fifth of the original amount. That aid was part of the common agricultural policy budget. I want to find another way of helping our poorest citizens: the 80 million Europeans who do not have enough to eat.\nAlfreds Rubiks\n(LV) Madam President, a great job has been done, but the completed report is couched in very general terms. The report clearly outlines a new direction - agricultural greening. This could be a form of lifebelt for non-productive farmers, who could avoid having to engage in agricultural production and yet receive area payments. In my view, we should, when applying this report in practice, bear in mind what is missing. The protein problem is missing, the issue of the quality of imported food has not been incorporated, there is no mention of the problem of genetically modified crops, and land degradation issues have been insufficiently addressed. There is still no clear definition of such terms as 'active farmer', 'new farmer', 'fair area payments', and 'family farms'. Unfortunately, a great many farmers will find no answers to their problems and their questions in this report. In the future we must improve it.\nJohn Stuart Agnew\nMadam President, whilst the term 'greening' of Pillar One may appeal to armchair farmers, it will pose major problems to heavy-land farmers who could well abandon land rather than attempt to plant it in the spring. Had this policy been enforced this year, it would have resulted in total crop failures. Proper inspection and enforcement of greening measures will also be impossible.\nTo be effective, the capping of single farm payments will need to be severe. This will immediately motivate farmers to formally split their businesses with their spouses so that the full payment is retained on both divisions. Added to that, I am informed that the savings made from capping will accrue to the EU and not the Member State that actually generated the savings.\nCultivation of GM crops should be the decision of individual Member States. The suggestion that no single farm payment can be received by farmers who cultivate these crops is utterly nonsensical. The world is short of food. We should be encouraging the uptake of new farming technology and not vilifying it. I hope the last three winters will have convinced all of you that there is no threat to us from global warming.\nKrisztina Morvai\n(HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, how different the opinion of the increasingly outraged European citizens would be about the European Union if they found that their tax contributions were spent exclusively as public money on public interest and for the public good, proportionate to the public good produced. The Dess report takes this direction in connection with the agricultural assistance provided by the European Union. Tomorrow we will bear immense responsibility in deciding whether to adopt the ceiling, the maximum that was determined by the Dess report as a result of the hard work of those who submitted motions for amendment, for hectare-based and area-based assistance. I would like to ask you to follow the sense of justice of your voters and adopt this ceiling. Let there be a cap on public money that the green and red barons and other urban businessmen receive from the European taxpayers!\nEsther Herranz Garc\u00eda\n(ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, though today's debate focuses on this important report on the reform of the common agricultural policy, I should like to comment on a side issue that affects us and could affect the viability of the postulates we are defending in Parliament in connection with the reform of the future of the CAP.\nNext week, the European Commission will present its proposal on the financial prospects for the post-2014 period, in which, if my information proves correct, the Community executive is decidedly intent on proposing cuts to the EU agricultural budget.\nIt must therefore be borne in mind that the European Commission will not take on board the opinion that we will adopt tomorrow, in which we specifically request the expenditure of the common agricultural policy to be maintained.\nI fail to see how, with a reduced budget, we will be able to rise to all the challenges described in that document; how common agricultural policy subsidies will be made greener, a process we want to ensure will not require an additional effort on the part of agricultural and livestock farmers; how we will be able to achieve this.\nI fail to see how, with a diminished CAP, we will be able to respond - just to give another example - to price volatility, and establish a budget line, as is our intention, that will rise to the crisis we have come to know so well.\nThe CAP should not be measured merely in terms of expenditure because, in addition to the goods and services it provides, I believe it should be made clear - today of all days - that EUR 1 invested in agriculture generates EUR 10 of wealth in the agri-food sector. This should be very much taken into account when it comes to setting the next budgetary framework.\nFurthermore, it should not be forgotten that negotiations with third countries and with the World Trade Organisation pose a serious threat to the future of agricultural and livestock production in the European Union.\nPaolo De Castro\n(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Dess report marks the beginning of a new phase in the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform process. It is the result of several months' hard work by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for which I would like to thank Mr Dess and all the shadow rapporteurs and parliamentary groups.\nToday this House can give a clear opinion on the future of the common agricultural policy: it must be a robust, simple, flexible and greener CAP that takes young people and employment into account. That, Commissioner, is why we are worried by the news in the press today about budget cuts, especially in the second pillar. That would be incompatible with both the Dess report and the report on the European Union's financial perspective by Mr Garriga Polledo, which we adopted in plenary in recent weeks. The latter report introduced the important principle for the CAP of maintaining the current level of funding in the next financial programming period.\nTherefore, Commissioner, we would like some clarification about the news that has been circulated, and we would like to know whether as far as you are concerned there are different guidelines from what we have been told up to now.\nBritta Reimers\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his persistent and positive work.\nWhere the future of agricultural policy after 2013 is concerned, we have to decide the direction in which we want to go. Do we want an agricultural sector that faces up to the challenges by acting in an innovative, modern, courageous, self-aware, responsible and independent way in the market? Or do we want an agricultural sector that continues to be drip-fed by Europe and which needs its hand to be held and encouraging words from Mummy with each step it takes into the future? That is the course we are currently setting. To cope with the challenges of the future we need to promote modern technologies in the agricultural sector instead of having endless debates on ideologies. If farms are to be enabled to plan with certainty then we cannot keep changing course every couple of years. It is too much of a strain on our farmers' finances. Everyone here must surely be aware that each political change of direction results in new laws and directives, which in turn demand investment by farms without at the same time increasing their incomes.\nWe should not care whether a farm is large or small; instead we should be concerned with whether it is run in an economically sound manner. We should not care whether it produces conventionally or organically, so long as it handles resources responsibly. We should also not care how many animals are kept, so long as those animals are treated well. The important thing for us must be that we have sufficient good quality food in the future at affordable prices in Europe. After all, Europe is not alone in the world.\nHynek Fajmon\n(CS) Madam President, the day is finally approaching when a unified agricultural policy will apply in the old and new Member States, ending 10 years of discrimination against farmers from the new Member States. I very much welcome this development. I hope that no new discriminatory conditions will be imposed on farmers in the new programming period. Unfortunately, I have to say that the Dess report contains such a proposal. I am thinking primarily of support for the so-called capping of direct payments for larger agricultural undertakings. I regard such a course of action as discriminatory against Member States such as the Czech Republic, which, for historical reasons, have larger farms than elsewhere in the European Union.\nI therefore reject the idea of capping direct payments, since this is a move which will reduce the efficiency of agriculture throughout the European Union. The primary aim of agriculture has always been to produce food. Nowadays, however, a number of politicians, above all those from the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance and from the ranks of the left, want to turn farmers into biofuel manufacturers and anti-global warming warriors. I cannot support such developments.\nAlyn Smith\nMadam President, I would echo group colleagues and other colleagues in adding my own congratulations to our rapporteur. This has not been an easy job for him - or indeed any of us - and the report before us has been much improved through joint working and has much to admire within it.\nI particularly like the idea of the continuation of direct payments and the explicit removal of the historical reference values in paragraph 15 and the fairer distribution between Member States, and within Member States in the regions and nations within them, in paragraph 16.\nComing from Scotland, I am particularly glad to see a strong statement in favour of less favoured areas in paragraph 82. I know that farmers in Scotland - and everywhere else too - will be glad to see paragraph 44, which contains an explicit statement that cross-compliance should be risk-based and proportional. Commissioner, perhaps you could mention that paragraph in particular to some of your auditor colleagues.\nWhile there is much to admire in this report, let us be honest with ourselves and with our voters. Unless we have paragraph 1, all of this is pointless - and paragraph 1, where we call for a strong and sustainable CAP with a budget commensurate with the ambitious objectives, will be pointless too. Like other colleagues, I wish to express my own concern, not least at today's rumours that President Barroso is looking to make swingeing cuts to the budget and Pillar Two in particular.\nCommissioner, you are going to need all the allies you can get in these discussions within the Commission and with the Member States. We must have a CAP that is properly funded and properly ambitious for our farmers and our citizens. European agriculture has a great story to tell. Now is not the time to fall out over minutiae.\nBairbre de Br\u00fan\n(GA) Madam President, I welcome Mr Dess's report on reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), and I thank him for his work.\nThis week's vote will reflect what the European Parliament expects to see in the legislative proposals for the CAP. The budget vote, which is upcoming, is also extremely important for ensuring appropriate future funding for agriculture.\nWe need to see a strong and sustainable CAP - based on two pillars - which will keep farmers on the land, ensure environmental protection, promote the rural economy and provide fairness and transparency for all those who work in the food chain.\nGreening events dealing with the environment in Pillar 1 must be clear, properly designed and easy to measure, and funding for Pillar 2 must be strong and fair.\nGiancarlo Scott\u00e0\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, of all Europe's policies, the common agricultural policy is the one that has had to be updated the most over the years in order to cope with constant changes occurring on the economic front, including at international level.\nIt has always been updated with two main goals in mind: guaranteeing an income for European farmers and dealing with an ever-decreasing EU budget, while not forgetting a whole host of other objectives linked to quality of production, of the environment, of biodiversity and of water resources.\nThe CAP reform on which we will vote tomorrow is vital if we are to continue to support the income of our farmers, as my colleagues have already mentioned. The aim, then, is not to reduce direct subsidies but to find a balance between such subsidies and rural development, so that the system is rendered simpler and fairer, without the rules of competition being called into question.\nAs regards the objectives of the CAP in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, the CAP can contribute to the growth of a sustainable economy by responding well to new challenges and taking account of the diversity and richness of agriculture and the specific characteristics of the 27 Member States.\nGeorgios Papastamkos\n(EL) Madam President, we obviously need a strong CAP. The agricultural sector provides clear added value to the European economy. It plays a multifunctional role, by contributing to the production of public goods for the benefit of society as a whole. The CAP budget must, at the very least, stay at current levels and similar resources and objectives must be safeguarded for the new CAP.\nThe distribution of CAP resources between farmers in the European Union, which is at the top of the public dialogue agenda, requires care. The idea of a flat rate throughout the European Union is broadly opposed. In my opinion, we need objective criteria that take due account of the peculiarities of the agricultural sector in the individual EU Member States. The proposals to cap direct payments, pay special aid to small-scale farmers and only to pay aid to active farmers are a good idea.\nAgro-environmental measures should be easy to apply, should be flanked by adequate counterbalances and should not create any additional administrative burden. With widespread instability on agricultural markets, climate risks and a food crisis, we need to activate effective instruments. The current market measures need to be reinforced. We also need a permanent crisis management fund. The proposal for a new farm income stabilisation instrument is a good idea. Finally, I would highlight the need for effective measures for the benefit of young farmers.\nMy thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Albert Dess, for a difficult and complicated job well done. Commissioner, any weakening of the CAP will come up against political opposition from the European Parliament. I think that this is the cross-party message of this House and serious account needs to be taken of it.\nUlrike Rodust\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur and I am pleased that the report bears unmistakably socialist, social democratic hallmarks. We want a sustainable, ecological and social agricultural policy. We want greening and we want it in the first pillar. Cross-compliance and the agro-environmental measures of the system to date are not enough to achieve support for the whole of society, but that is precisely what we need.\nOur primary objective must be to ensure high-quality and sustainable food production in Europe and for our rural areas to be active and vital. We absolutely have to stop the increasing land abandonment, because we need people. People to look after the agricultural sector, as well as the areas upstream and downstream. The rumours emanating from the Commission concerning plans for massive cuts in rural development in the next multiannual financial framework are not acceptable.\nWe must continue to work for a strong second pillar in the common agricultural policy (CAP), for rural areas and for Europe. I would like to issue a general warning to anyone intending to cut agricultural funding. If this is done, there will be no reform. Everything will then stay the same as it is. That will be quite inexplicable to the citizens of Europe.\nRichard Ashworth\nMadam President, Parliament's demand to maintain, if not increase, the agricultural budget is in my view highly optimistic. These are tough times and budgets are not limitless. In my view, these proposals will need a reality check when the overall EU budget is determined some time next year.\nWe have to get back to the real priorities of the common agricultural policy. Food security, food safety, biodiversity, climate change, new technologies and creating a viable, competitive market-led industry have to be the focus.\nIn my view, the Commission's proposals have lost the direction which we had from the previous two reports. They lack focus and they are too complicated. I am happy to say that, in his proposals, Albert Dess has set out a very sensible framework in which we can develop future reform.\nElisabeth K\u00f6stinger\n(DE) Madam President, the report by Mr Dess is about giving consideration to protection of the environment and the climate in agriculture, as well as increasing the competitiveness of agriculture. We have negotiated good compromises on these points. I feel that we should speak out in favour of well thought through upper ceilings for farms, particularly when the recipients are multinational groups which sometimes receive sums that simply cannot be justified.\nThe Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is firmly on the side of farmers when it comes to removing bureaucracy. The complete reorganisation of the systems and the associated introduction of additional checks, as called for by others, would make no sense whatsoever. We need to be quite clear about one thing: if consumers expect European agriculture to move further towards greening and sustainability, then the measures concerned have to be given the necessary financial resources.\nI am firmly opposed to cuts in the EU agricultural budget in the forthcoming budget period. As regards the press reports stating that Mr Barroso, the President of the Commission, wants to take an axe to rural development, I would state quite clearly that if the Commission cuts the programmes for rural development then it will be cutting off the lifeblood of rural areas. Well-functioning farming structures would be dramatically affected by cuts in the second pillar. Mr Barroso would be well advised to heed what this House is saying.\nThe common agricultural policy is and remains a key area of Community policy and of the EU budget. We cannot impose additional constraints on our farms, which are facing increasing global competition, and at the same time reduce their support. On the contrary, investment subsidies under the second pillar will promote a keenness and a willingness for innovation. That will benefit everyone in rural areas. We must particularly implement measures in respect of young farmers, in order to secure the future of agriculture. Our future agricultural policy will decide whether or not Europe is self-sufficient in the future.\nIratxe Garc\u00eda P\u00e9rez\n(ES) Madam President, this afternoon's debate clearly reveals that this House supports and is indeed set on achieving a strong common agricultural policy that can rise to the challenges of food safety, environmental sustainability and employment in rural areas. If this is to be attained, we cannot allow - as, hopefully, will be upheld by this House - any cuts to the current CAP budget. We need to have sufficient funding to respond to these challenges.\nWe have to be in a position that allows us to safeguard farmers' incomes, and to put market mechanisms into place in order to prevent and avert price volatility such as we are currently seeing.\nFurthermore, I should not like to forget the events of the last few weeks in the fruit and vegetable sector, which are proof that the new CAP must also provide crisis-response instruments for all the sectors concerned, instruments that are efficient, expeditious and adapted to the needs of each individual sector.\nJulie Girling\nMadam President, thank you to Mr Dess for a very interesting and informative report. Inevitably, on an issue of this complexity, there are bits you agree with and bits you do not.\nWith 42% of our European expenditure going on the CAP, it is vital that we provide complete accountability to our citizens. Most people, in the face of rising food prices - sharply rising food prices - and dire warnings about lack of supply, will be expecting to see a CAP which focuses clearly on increasing productivity and efficiency.\nYes, we have to take care of the environment - I am a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and we know that - but we are in real danger here of creating a report with a rhetoric moving into things like 'greening Pillar One'; we are talking about moving away from the real focus, which is efficiency. On that basis, I do not support the capping of payments to large farms. This move will be institutionalising inefficiency and there is no justification for it.\nElisabeth Jeggle\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, as you have all done already, we must warmly thank our rapporteur for the commitment he has put into this report and also for his stamina in achieving these compromises. I am sure it was not easy, but we have achieved good compromises.\nWe stand for competitive and sustainable agriculture in Europe. That means that our farmers produce food of the highest quality. However, we are also producing a cultural landscape that can be seen, that provides recreational spaces for you all, for all of us, for our society, that provides jobs not just in agriculture but also in tourism and in many other areas. That is a service that agriculture provides for society, but this is respected far too little by society - and sometimes also by us. It is an extensive service, and such an extensive service does not deserve to have the agricultural budget cut if it is at all possible.\nCommissioner, we support you in your approach of bringing more ecology and more greening into the first pillar. However, this must not result in those countries and those farmers which already have very ambitious environmental programmes in the second pillar being discriminated against by this new approach. A solution needs to be found here that is fair to both sides.\nEnvironmental programmes are expensive. When I read in the newspapers - as has been mentioned already by many Members - that cuts are to be made in the second pillar, I reject it vehemently. We need a strong first pillar. We also need - and have spoken out in favour of this - a strong second pillar. We will support you, Commissioner, in these efforts.\nCsaba S\u00e1ndor Tabajdi\n(HU) Madam President, Commissioner, Parliament, the Commission and the Council all agree in that the budget of the CAP should be appropriate and should be maintained at least at the current level. It is important to keep the two-pillar structure, to maintain direct payments and especially the strong rural development policy, and to improve competitiveness and strengthen environmental awareness. Innovation, research and development are of key importance as well. Environmental public goods and technologies that reduce the effects of climate change and enhance biodiversity and water management should be the focus of rural development. Further financial assistance is needed in the future as well to help new Member States close the gap and ensure that they can access rural development aid with better co-financing conditions post-2013, as well. It is important to provide equal competitive conditions and equal opportunities for the new Member States from 2014. And finally, it is important not to play off large farms and small-sized producers against each other.\nMarc Tarabella\n(FR) Madam President, let us admit that it looked like we were heading for disaster with 1 267 amendments. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has therefore chosen to table as few amendments as possible. We are proud to stand strong and united with our shadow rapporteur, Mr Le Foll. We are also pleased to have worked together with other groups and the rapporteur to produce an ambitious compromise.\nIn my view, it is vital that aid should be allocated primarily to active farmers, rather than to landowners. This will foster food security, but also agriculture which is more sustainable and environmentally friendly and which ensures better management of resources and contributes to combating climate change.\nIn addition, we are delighted to see that the greening component will be a compulsory part of the first pillar, while direct payments will be shared out more evenly between individual Member States and different agricultural sectors.\nIn a historic first, we have created a degressive support system based on criteria linked to employment and environmental considerations. As for young farmers, support measures and incentives have been introduced to help and encourage them to set up farms. Essentially, we have all the ingredients needed to allow the Commission and Parliament to work together on defining the new common agricultural, food and environmental policies that we so urgently need.\nDaciana Octavia S\u00e2rbu\n(RO) Madam President, we need a strong agricultural sector, guaranteed by a common agricultural policy, which will have a sufficient budget, capable of ensuring food security in Europe.\nI think that Europe's farmers are entitled to decent incomes, which, along with ensuring food security, provide a basic justification for preserving the CAP. However, greater fairness is needed in the distribution of direct payments, both among Member States and farmers. I hope that the future legislative proposal will provide a solution for getting rid of the unfair disparities. At the same time, I want to thank the Commission for its intention to introduce a simplified funding programme for small farms.\nProgrammes for young farmers are also just as important. They must be given support in embarking on their farming career, not only as a contribution to rural development, but also to ensure a generational changeover, which is absolutely vital to the medium- and long-term future of European agriculture.\nJaros\u0142aw Kalinowski\n(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I believe that the Dess report has one very serious flaw. Paragraph 16 blatantly contradicts the fundamental principle of equal conditions for competition on the single market. On the one hand there is a proposal to move away from the historical reference values, and yet on the other hand there is a proposal to sanction huge differences in direct support for farmers from the individual Member States. Some would be given EUR 200-250 per hectare, others EUR 350 or over EUR 400, and we are not just talking about a division into old and new Member States, since farmers from Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Austria, Finland and Sweden would also receive the lower rates. It is high time to introduce equal conditions for competition in the agricultural sector, and any differences - which will be obvious - should result solely from objective criteria.\nMario Pirillo\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone is aware of the importance of the common agricultural policy and of the contribution it has made to the development of the EU and to food security.\nEnvironmental challenges and the fight against climate change mean that the post-2013 CAP now has a new role to play, for which I believe we need a stronger and more sustainable CAP equipped with a budget that can meet the objectives to be pursued, with particular attention to the development of quality food products and to the needs of small farmers. Speculation in agricultural commodities and extreme price volatility put food security at risk and require flexible measures. Possible market fluctuations must be tackled with counter-cyclical measures, which should be included in the first pillar and be capable of responding swiftly and automatically.\nJo\u00e3o Ferreira\n(PT) Madam President, this report does not address the future challenges mentioned in its title, but more importantly it does not address the serious problems of the present. That is why we have tabled a set of draft amendments that we consider essential for a thorough overhaul of the current common agricultural policy.\nI would like to highlight here the ones advocating market regulation measures and intervention mechanisms to guarantee farmers fair prices for their produce, and every country's right to produce. Among other examples, we propose keeping the system of milk production quotas as an essential condition for protecting producers in particularly sensitive countries; we advocate maintaining planting rights in the wine sector and maintaining aid for the distillation of potable alcohol and emergency distillation; and we propose setting up a public agricultural insurance scheme, financed from EU funds, to guarantee a minimum income for farmers in the event of natural disasters. We have tabled proposals for socially and environmentally sustainable agriculture, a vision that is incompatible with shameless declarations of faith in the market and competitiveness, like those made in this report.\nAndrew Henry William Brons\nMadam President, my party favours withdrawal from the EU altogether, and therefore from the CAP. However, the reality is that we are in it and we have got to make the best of it.\nWhat do we think of the Dess report? Well it is a bit like the legendary curate's egg. Parts of it are good. The idea of making direct payments conditional upon cross-compliance with environmental protection and landscape management is potentially beneficial, but only as long as they are not tied to the semi-religious precepts of climate change and social diversity nonsense.\nThe report recognises that the agricultural sector must continue to be supported by government price intervention, because quantities produced cannot be predicted or planned precisely and demand for agricultural products is low in price elasticity. That is important to ensure food security and avoid price volatility.\nThe most important thing from our point of view is that the UK must cease to be a net contributor to the cost of the CAP.\nMaria do C\u00e9u Patr\u00e3o Neves\n(PT) Madam President, the long process of work that this important report required, including the many compromises reached, have made it a broad-based, well-balanced record of the various interests that the common agricultural policy (CAP) has to address.\nThis report provides good guidance for legislative proposals, and I congratulate the rapporteur on that. There are, however, a few proposals that worry me, and I will make sure I follow their progress closely. I am referring to the redistribution of aid, which I think should be done strictly within the scope of the first pillar and on the basis of purely objective criteria, so that the aim of redistribution is not subverted by criteria of correctness, which will only tend to maintain the status quo.\nWe need a fairer CAP with a large enough budget for what is asked of it. I must also mention the need to place the much-abused dairy sector on the CAP political agenda by adopting Amendments 16, 12 and 5.\nWojciech Micha\u0142 Olejniczak\n(PL) Madam President, the aim of the common agricultural policy is to guarantee continuity in the supply of food to Europe's citizens. We must supply safe and high-quality food at affordable prices. This is what consumers expect. We must care for the environment when producing and processing food. We say yes to the common agricultural policy, and no to its nationalisation. We say yes to a large budget, and no to cuts to the common agricultural policy. Direct payments should be paid according to a simple method and on an equal basis, to all farmers in all Member States.\nLet us not forget that direct payments account for only part of farmers' income. Market regulations are therefore important. Good prices and market stability guarantee an income for farmers. We must ensure access to public services such as education, health services, transport services, sport and culture for citizens of rural areas. These are measures which should fall under the second pillar and cohesion policy.\nCommissioner, let us keep in place a programme which enables us to supply food to Europe's poorest citizens.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu\n(RO) Madam President, food security is one of the challenges of the future. The CAP must respond to this challenge. The new policy must continue with the positive features of the current policy and rectify the errors.\nI believe that this is what the Dess report does. Two pillars are being proposed: direct payments and rural development. Historical criteria are to be removed and objective criteria are required. There is no suggestion of an equal direct payment for all Member States. There is to be a fair difference, based on geographical and economic conditions, with a minimum and maximum limit in relation to the European average. The emphasis is on the environmental element, which is also being simplified. A strong rural development component is being retained and a request is being made for the amount of funding in the budget after 2014 to be at least equivalent to the 2013 level.\nI am pleased that Parliament's first report drafted after the Commission communication features very many guiding principles in common with the latter document.\nSergio Guti\u00e9rrez Prieto\n(ES) Madam President, the most important message issued by this House today is that it wants a fair common agricultural policy, or in other words a CAP that guarantees a sufficient level of income for all producers, irrespective of their activity and of the place where it is conducted.\nTo achieve this, we need ambitious policies in the areas of direct payments, market management - including up-to-date intervention prices - and rural development, thus adapting the CAP to the new reality. Indeed, the new CAP must be adapted to the 2020 strategy, but this must not entail cuts of even EUR 1, because there is no surfeit of resources for all the environmental, social and health challenges we intend to take on.\nI am particularly satisfied with Commissioner Ciolo\u0219's announcement that all possibilities will be explored also within the first pillar to draw young people into agriculture. Sometimes, quite rightly, we focus on improving conditions for current workers, but disregard in public debate what we need to do to bring new workers into agriculture so that our production will be assured and improved, in view of the fact that the countries that have lent most support to young farmers are least exposed to land abandonment. This challenge, which concerns the whole of Europe, is so serious that it should not by any means be left to the arbitrary determination of domestic policy.\nMarc Tarabella\n(FR) Mr President, a point of order: I would like to highlight the shocking attitude of the Hungarian Presidency, which is probably one of the worst that the EU has seen. The Presidency attended the first debate on the European Council, left at the start of the debate on the common agricultural policy and has just come back in for the debate on economic governance. This is an indication of how much it values European agriculture and European farmers. Yet the CAP makes up 40% of the budget: it should have been worth the Hungarian Presidency's while to stay for the discussion. I wanted to make that point.\nOreste Rossi\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we will vote in favour of this own-initiative report because the CAP is a fundamentally important tool for European agriculture and for the protection of EU producers and products as compared with non-European producers and products.\nThe main points of the report, which is based on maintaining current funding levels, provide for new and reasonable criteria for allocating funding, since the historical criterion has been abandoned as the parameter for redistributing direct payments. Provision has been made for payments to farms, account has been taken of production output and costs, and payments have been simplified. The report calls for direct payments to be capped and to be restricted to active farmers, precisely so that the recipients are those who actually cultivate the land, not speculators.\nAnother point that we consider significant relates to rural development and to the harnessing of all natural and human potential through quality agricultural production and the protection of mountain areas. One of the objectives of the new CAP must be to integrate new farmers, particularly young farmers, with targeted budget headings, and to reduce burdens and bureaucracy.\nHerbert Dorfmann\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Dess report represents a major step towards reform of the common agricultural policy. It is of fundamental importance that we find and deliver an efficient basis for the allocation of agricultural funding. This includes making allocations in the first pillar, in particular, fairer. I think it is high time to give up the historical approach.\nWe have many discussions on how funds are distributed between the Member States, but we also need to discuss how they are allocated within Member States. There are major imbalances there, too. Less favoured areas, particularly mountain areas and small farms, need to be given special consideration. Where less favoured areas are concerned, Commissioner, 12 months ago this House delivered a report on the redefinition of these, in which we were highly critical. We have heard nothing more about this and I would be very interested to know the Commission's thinking in this respect.\nDacian Ciolo\u015f\nMr President, after over an hour spent debating the report by Mr Dess, I remain very optimistic, not only about tomorrow's vote and the support for a report which, as I said in my introductory remarks, is very similar to the proposals contained in the Commission communication from the end of last year, but also about our future common agricultural policy.\nI would like to repeat what I said in my introduction: I remain committed to the principle of maintaining a balance and complementarity between the two pillars of the common agricultural policy. I also intend to keep a strong second pillar in the future common agricultural policy. Indeed, we have many aspirations for the second pillar: on territorial balance, environmental issues, young farmers, small farms, local markets and rural development. I can promise you that I, together with President Barroso and the Commission, see the second pillar as a priority. It will not be sacrificed in discussions on the future common agricultural policy budget. Let me reassure you on that point - and I speak for President Barroso too.\nNor do I want the question of food, which remains the primary and essential purpose of the common agricultural policy, to be pitted against environmental concerns - and the Commission communication does not pit them against each other, in fact. What we are proposing is balanced support for a range of agricultural practices. This will ensure a balance between the aim of being financially competitive and the desire to maintain and conserve our natural resources' regenerative capacities. In fact, I do not see how agriculture could be competitive in the medium and long term without careful management of natural resources. That is why we want to find a balance within the CAP, rather than pitting food concerns against environmental issues.\nThen there is the question of a more targeted common agricultural policy. Mr Ashworth raised this point, although I see that he is no longer here. The Commission is proposing more targeted direct payments. Here again, I consider that the proposals made in Mr Dess's report are very much in line with what the Commission plans to include in its legislative proposals.\nWe will propose measures that will allow us to deal with crises, be they market crises, health crises or crises related to extreme weather. That is the kind of instruments that we will be proposing. I would also like to thank Parliament for supporting us in this key aim, which will provide reassurance to farmers in the future.\nHaving made these additional comments, let me conclude by reiterating my confidence about tomorrow's vote and in the quality of the Dess report. I can promise you that in October, when the Commission presents its legislative proposals, you will recognise all the key elements. I would like to thank you once again for this work, which has brought real added value to the legislative package that the Commission will be tabling.\nAlbert De\u00df\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank everyone for this intense debate, and also for the support that I have been given here. Commissioner, we are all looking forward to your communication in October and then to good, positive cooperation. European agriculture is a positive factor. It feeds more than 500 million people, farms and looks after more than 170 million hectares of arable land and pasture, it provides many jobs in areas upstream and downstream, is an important buttress of rural areas and is already the most sustainable agricultural sector in the world. I therefore cannot understand why President Barroso has spoken of huge cuts in the second pillar. In so doing he is also jeopardising the EU2020 goals - in other words, his own goals. When 14 million farmers are feeding 500 million people, is it too much to ask that European agricultural policy be used to ensure that the 500 million people also provide properly for the 14 million farmers, so to speak?\nHere I should like to emphasise - as has been mentioned a couple of times today already - that there have been departures from my original report on some matters. I have been in the political game too long, and I know exactly why I drafted the report as I did. Had I written the report as it stands today, what would I have had to offer in the compromise negotiations? I allowed enough margin to ensure that everyone could be pacified, and a good result has been achieved today. My report therefore had a substantial buffer.\nThe result I wanted to achieve was for us to send a signal as Parliament that we are addressing the important aspects that are necessary if European farmers are to have a good future. Once the legislative proposals are on the table, Commissioner, we will then work intensively to achieve a good outcome together. I can already assure you that you are likely to have greater support here in Parliament than some other commissioners would have. We are able to offer you that.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday 23 June 2011.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nLu\u00eds Paulo Alves\nAgriculture provides security of supply of affordable, quality food; it provides essential protection for the environment and for balanced land use; and it creates jobs, growth and wealth. Giving money to farmers simply on the basis of the amount of land they own cannot be justified.\nWe have successfully pushed to change subsidies, so that 80% of subsidies no longer benefit just 20% of the largest farmers, and in this way we have helped small farmers. We have paved the way for a common agricultural policy that is fairer to the countries of the European Union and to farmers and different kinds of production; that respects the specific conditions in our regions; that is environmentally friendly; and that promotes employment in rural areas.\nWith regard to milk quotas, we have to check whether or not it is in fact a good idea to continue to implement a decision made eight years ago, on the basis of forecasts. This point is extremely important for the Azores in view of the fact that the sector plays a strategic role and quotas have been very important to milk producers until now. I must emphasise this, because alternatives to the milk quota scheme have not yet been put forward.\nElena Oana Antonescu\nWe are all aware of the potential and crucial role the common agricultural policy has in achieving environmental and climate targets, in providing public goods and also in attaining the EU's food security targets. However, it is extremely important that, when we talk about agriculture and the future of the CAP, 'simplification' and 'innovation' are the watchwords. We must focus on those policy measures which do not impose new administrative burdens because we do not want to make our farmers' lives even harder. The common agricultural policy must become fairer and simpler. I believe that we need to find a fair balance between the policy objectives we are proposing and the administrative burden. We need to safeguard farmers' welfare and strengthen local economies. We have to protect the environment and also be concerned about producing high-quality, safe and healthy food. When it comes to agriculture, we must not focus exclusively on technological solutions or on discussions about technological solutions. We also have to take into account consumption patterns, the issue of waste and the complex relationship between the environment, biodiversity and health.\nLiam Aylward\nin writing. - Firstly I wish to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. The final document sends a clear message to the Commission, which is currently in the middle of its internal budget discussion on the next financial programme: namely that Parliament sees the future common agricultural policy as one that is capable of delivering for the European economy in terms of employment and growth. It is a policy that will deal with the challenges of food security; it is a policy that will deliver public goods, protect the environment and enhance biodiversity; and it is a vehicle for tackling climate change.\nReducing European farmers' capacity and hampering their competitiveness and viability with a weak CAP budget would be counterproductive and short-sighted. This is a sector with a wealth of potential for expansion, for growth in the economy, for research and innovation and for tackling climate change. The CAP produces measurable results and a clear return on investment with regard to the delivery of public goods. The CAP post-2014, as outlined in this report, has clear aims and priorities, on which European farmers can and will deliver - but they need the support of a credible budget behind them.\nElena B\u0103sescu\nin writing. - (RO) I think that the report drafted by Mr Dess is vital in the context of the global food crisis and current environmental risks. The new version of the common agricultural policy includes values such as consumer protection and regional cohesion. I think that long-term productivity depends, to a large extent, on the sustainable management of natural resources, which is another objective on the agenda. I welcome the initiative promoting more active involvement by farmers in rural development programmes, which will help boost local competitiveness.\nFood security is another priority in the new common agricultural policy. Cooperation between Member States is essential, as demonstrated during the E. coli crisis this summer. In order to avoid food price fluctuations, I support the adoption of additional risk-prevention measures available to all EU farmers.\nAt the same time, I think that it is important for agricultural funds to be distributed fairly. On this point, I should stress, for example, the impact of direct aid on boosting small farms' profitability and competitiveness.\nSpecial payments must also be programmed for areas with natural handicaps which have special needs.\nNessa Childers\nin writing. - As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and a committed environmental campaigner, I expected a Dess report which would represent a CAP for the carbon era - one based upon environmental incentives, resource management, and a strong investment in the wider environmental issues facing the EU. As such, I am impressed by the degree to which the Dess report has committed to greening CAP; to supporting small- and medium-sized food producers; and to looking towards the future while also addressing the current concerns which face European agriculture. Given that the Commission is broadly in agreement with the Parliament's proposals, I call on this House to make their voice heard in ensuring that the European Council also supports this report's environmental proposals.\nVasilica Viorica D\u0103ncil\u0103\nin writing. - (RO) The common agricultural policy is faced with a number of challenges calling for the European Union and Member States to make a strategic decision about the future of agriculture. To be able to tackle these challenges effectively, the CAP must operate in an environment of sound economic policies and sustainable public funding which will help the Union achieve its EU 2020 strategy objectives. I think that the European Union also needs to have in the future adequate instruments for tackling the crises affecting the market and food supply, as well as the fluctuations in the prices and market in the agricultural sector. I think that CAP funds need to be shared fairly for the first and second pillars, both among Member States and among farmers within a Member State. This will tangibly reduce the great disparities in how these funds are shared among Member States. The CAP's second pillar is of paramount importance for rural development. I think that particular attention should be focused on motivating and encouraging young farmers. Consequently, I am in favour of introducing in this pillar targeted measures which will be defined by Member States, with the aim of achieving the EU's priority targets so that compensation payments are maintained for the disadvantaged areas in the second pillar.\nAnne Delvaux\nAgriculture is without a doubt the economic sector in which the European Union has achieved the most. The current debate takes place against the backdrop of the Commission's plans to unveil vital proposals for reform in October.\nThis House has reached a compromise in the report under discussion. We have retained two strong pillars: the first pillar, direct aid, needs adequate funding that reflects the challenges facing agriculture, which means at least maintaining current financing levels. However, it will also be brought more into line with the second pillar, support for sustainable development. I believe that the greening of the first pillar needs to be judged correctly, so that it does not add to the environmental requirements with which farmers are already seriously burdened. After all, their primary role is to produce food. The report also reaches out to young farmers who, as we know, struggle to get started in the sector.\nHowever, clearly these objectives can only be achieved if the Union's budget is not cut. What is the point of having ambitious aims if we do not have the means to realise them?\nIsmail Ertug\nWe in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have worked hard to ensure that the new EU agricultural policy is oriented towards ecological standards. In our view, farmers must be rewarded for providing services to society. That is exactly what they do, and nothing could be rewarded less in the prices currently being achieved at market.\nRetaining the two-pillar model guarantees that farmers will continue to receive a fixed amount in the future that they can rely on. These payments are important for long-term planning. By linking the direct payment to an economic variable we can achieve the transition from a Europe of 15 Member States to a Europe of 27 without offending anyone too much.\nThe report is a good compromise; it is a European compromise. The question now is what the Commission, and particularly President Barroso, will make of it. Cutting the funding for environmental protection in particular suggests narrow-mindedness, and I hope Commissioner Ciolo\u015f will be able to talk him out of it.\nIlda Figueiredo\nThis report proposes the continuity of the common agricultural policy (CAP), though with some contradictions.\nWe therefore take a critical stance, and we have put forward alternative proposals that respond effectively both to the need for agricultural production to ensure food sovereignty and food security in every country, and to the problems of family farming and rural development. These proposals all take into account the social importance of the land and of the people who work it, the specific characteristics of each country and social justice in the distribution of grants, both among Member States and among crops and farmers.\nThat is why we have put forward this set of proposals, in which in particular we clearly and unequivocally advocate the system of production quotas adapted to each Member State according to its food requirements, thus ensuring that farmers in countries such as Portugal are protected.\nWe want to guarantee every country's right to produce, and we are against liberalisation of the dairy sector and of planting rights in the wine sector. We also want to maintain aid for the distillation of potable alcohol and emergency distillation beyond 2012, and we uphold the 'existence of market regulation instruments and intervention mechanisms to ensure fair prices for production', thus countering the deregulating trend of previous CAP reforms.\nB\u00e9la Glattfelder\nEurope will need a strong agriculture even after 2013, because the principal means of guaranteeing European citizens' food security is European agriculture. Food production has to remain the primary aim of agriculture, because the world population continues to grow and is predicted to reach 9 billion by 2045. However, we need a strong common agricultural policy and strong agricultural assistance to achieve this goal. I therefore consider it important that pursuant to the report, the agricultural budget be maintained at least at the same level as in 2013 in the next EU financing period. This March, the Hungarian Presidency adopted presidential conclusions serving the interests of European farmers. The excessive price volatility in the previous period is partly the consequence of wrong decisions taken by the EU, for instance the abolition of maize intervention. Thus, we need an agricultural policy which ensures efficient action against extreme price volatility and speculation. The milk crisis made it clear that measures to restrict production are needed in the milk sector. In Member States where there was a higher-than-average decrease in sugar production as a result of the sugar reform, production must be allowed to increase.\nLouis Grech\nin writing. - It is imperative that the CAP is adequately equipped to rise to the challenges it will have to face in the future. The CAP cannot be monolithic; it should be implemented with flexibility and within the current economic and political context. A regulatory policy-based framework should be developed with long-term goals in mind. This would afford small farmers greater stability and would enable them to draw up investment plans over a broader time horizon without concern for the disruption that could be caused by short-term quick-fix policies and give them the support they need to safeguard their business. The agriculture sector's susceptibility to market instability and price volatility must be addressed and the CAP should guarantee a safety-mechanism and provision for effective risk prevention, which would give farmers a measure of income security in these economically trying times and serve to provide foresight of how global price volatility will affect developing countries. The global climatic challenges, the strain posed by demographic changes on food security, as well as the economic recession, should lead to the intensification of efforts to ensure sustainable growth, encourage and protect jobs. Dedicated innovation and research will support Europe's transition to becoming more environmentally and economically sustainable.\nVille It\u00e4l\u00e4\nin writing. - (FI) This report was a victory for the advocates of Finnish and European agriculture. Owing to our northern location, we in Finland are at a considerable natural disadvantage when it comes to growing crops, and so it is important that there are no changes to the amount of aid that we receive. Parliament's position is a strong message for the Commission, which is drafting its proposal for the reform of the common agricultural policy. Restrictions on current levels of national aid cannot be acceptable after this.\nPetru Constantin Luhan\nFood security is and will remain the main challenge facing EU agriculture. It is not the only one, as is also highlighted in the OECD-FAO report 'Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020'.\nI think that we must focus particular attention on the demographic challenges affecting the countryside in particular. If we fail to handle the demographic changes and make rural areas more attractive to young farmers, we run the risk, within a certain period of time, of this situation becoming a real obstacle preventing stable, high-quality agricultural production. With this in mind, we need to offer young people new, attractive measures, consistent financial support and increased access to innovative services and infrastructures.\nIn addition to all these measures, there is also a need for better coordination between the financial support allocated to rural development and the other regional policies and for the maintenance of CAP funding at a level ensuring that all the proposed tasks can be achieved. This will enable us to facilitate more active economic, social and cultural involvement from young people in European Union agriculture.\nAstrid Lulling\nUnfortunately the bold and innovative aims initially proposed by the rapporteur have not survived our discussions. In some cases they have been forced to give way to wishy-washy, colourless and insipid compromises.\nI can live with that, particularly when it comes to a fairer distribution of direct payments in Europe to guarantee the smooth operation of the internal market.\nHowever, I do regret our lack of courage on across-the-board greening of the common agricultural policy. Our farmers want to produce healthy food efficiently in order to provide food security for Europe's 500 million citizens.\nEleven Member States, including Luxembourg, have signed a joint letter to Commissioner Ciolo\u015f expressing their opposition to the end of the system of planting rights for vineyards in 2015.\nI am glad that the European Parliament has endorsed that proposal in Mr Dess's report. We do need to be careful however: our farmers must not end up working as underpaid landscape gardeners, leaving us dependent on imports of food and agricultural commodities from third countries, products subject to far less stringent requirements than those imposed on our farmers.\nI fully support this position. We expect to see it included in the Commissioner's legislative proposals.\nMariya Nedelcheva\nThe European Parliament must stand up for a strong, fair and well-financed CAP. It is time for us to ensure that direct payments are distributed fairly among Member States, regions and sectors. We need to show European citizens that genuine European solidarity exists and not just pay lip service to it. Mr Dess's report marks a very small step, but it is in the right direction. I also welcome the measures proposed for maintaining territorial balance in the EU. I am pleased that support is expressed in the report for young people in the agricultural sector because we must combat depopulation of rural areas. It is important that we maintain support for disadvantaged regions and the opportunity for production-related payments in the regions where there is no alternative to a particular production type. I am pleased to note that my request for greater flexibility within the second pillar was also heeded. The situation in agricultural sectors differs in the various Member States. Greater freedom in defining countries' priorities will offer genuine opportunities for agricultural regions to develop. However, it is important for us to take care that the proposed measures do not introduce further red tape for agricultural producers. Let us send a strong signal to the European Commission and Europe's agricultural producers, showing our support for a fairer, simpler and more flexible CAP.\nFranz Obermayr\nin writing. - (DE) A healthy farming sector - and I am not talking here about agro-industrial factories, but rather about small-scale family farms - provides a guarantee of the continued existence of rural culture, nature and our cultural landscape, as well as being essential to securing the supply of food for our population. Just how important the latter is has been made clear to us once again by the recent enterohaemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) crisis. Consumers make great demands of organic produce. They expect organic produce to provide ecological balance, which in reality is often more than questionable. Rather than having an especially positive impact on sustainability, the prudent use of resources, CO2 savings and the protection of livestock, organic produce is often transported right across Europe. The EU needs to act here - and I speak as a representative of Austria, the leading country in organic farming. Greater importance must be attached to regional provision and seasonal availability, as well as strict labelling of the origin of foods. Services provided by agriculture must therefore be recompensed by fair product prices. Let us not use the common agricultural policy to promote agro-industry; let us promote our farmers instead.\nSirpa Pietik\u00e4inen\nin writing. - (FI) The reform of the EU's common agricultural policy is one of this Parliament's most important tasks. The report by Mr Dess is a good basis for continuing the reform. We need a broader debate, however, to achieve the objective of environmentally friendly, resource-effective and diverse agriculture. The answer to the global problems of agriculture will not be found by increasing production in Europe, but is part of a broader equation, in which economic, social and environmental issues are taken into account. Instead of a narrow-minded agricultural policy, we need a food policy that considers the whole food production chain, from start to finish. That is the best way that we can respond to the serious, all-encompassing challenges faced by agriculture in its present form in the 2000s.\nPavel Poc\nI am delighted to learn that the new common agricultural policy will end the period of discrimination against farmers in certain Member States, including my own. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work, which is clearly the work of an author who understands the issues involved. I am all the more alarmed by the attempt to establish new discriminatory conditions. The capping of direct payments is a new form of discrimination against Member States in which, for historical reasons, most of the agricultural undertakings manage larger areas of land. These agricultural undertakings comply with the same rules and provide the same services as small undertakings in other countries, and they fulfil the conditions for direct payments equally well. The discrimination against large undertakings resulting from capping may put jobs in rural areas at risk, and stifle innovative potential. If we want to talk credibly about a single market, can we really countenance discrimination against certain Member States in the form of differences in payments per hectare or capping?\nFarmers from the 12 new Member States have now reached the end of a difficult 10-year period, which they agreed to on the understanding that it was a transitional period which would not be extended. Let us not prolong these inequalities contrary to the spirit of the EU accession negotiations, and let us not damage the credibility of the EU in the eyes of some of its citizens. We are gambling with the future of the EU itself. I would therefore like to call on all fellow Members to support Amendments 10 and 11, which reject the capping of payments.\nOlga Sehnalov\u00e1\nA fundamental requirement for fair competition on the internal market is the establishment of fair and transparent conditions for all farmers throughout the EU. The report on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is heading in this direction. Many of the negotiated compromises should be welcomed unequivocally, for example the simplification of administrative procedures in various areas of the CAP, or the continuation of full funding for direct payments in the EU budget and the refusal to renationalise these. However, I regard the issue of European farmers getting preferential treatment or being put at a disadvantage on the basis of additional criteria, for example the size of holdings, as problematic in view of the historically determined nature of the situation in the individual Member States.\nSergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris\nI wish to express my satisfaction with this first text on the future of the CAP. Even at this early stage, it aims to send the Commission what is a positive message for our farmers, pending receipt of the legislative text. Indeed, I consider that many paragraphs contain information that I and some of my colleagues sought to include. I refer to the important statements that promote our southern agriculture. For example, direct aid will no longer simply be based on a premium per hectare, but the size of the farm, employment arrangements, labour productivity and legal form will also be taken into consideration at long last. I am also very pleased that these payments will only be awarded to farmers who are truly active in the sector, so that the aid goes to those who genuinely need it and who use it to benefit agriculture. Provision has also been made to distribute aid more evenly, bearing in mind that, for historical reasons, farms in the European Union have very diverse structures. I fully support the paragraph calling for the new CAP to be equipped with the instruments necessary to limit price volatility. I will conclude by mentioning the most common form of agricultural production in my region, olive oil production, and the measure that we are awaiting from the Commission: an updated private storage system and the introduction of private storage.\nDominique Vlasto\nWith food security being a key factor in globalisation nowadays, we need to maintain our capacity for being self-sufficient. This means maintaining an ambitious common agricultural policy that can satisfy our most basic long-term need: food. The CAP does, however, need to be tweaked to make it fairer. European citizens would not understand if the bulk of assistance were to go to large agricultural operators: small farmers too must be able to make a living from what they produce, work in decent conditions and be paid fairly. When allocating aid, we must also give more thought to natural constraints, such as global warming, mountain areas and scarce water supplies. The current drought demonstrates that the CAP urgently needs to include practical resources that will allow our farmers to deal with water shortages. I would therefore appeal for a subtle shift in the CAP to make it more relevant and able to guarantee our food self-sufficiency, the vitality of our agricultural sector and the preservation of our rural areas.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"The Millennium Development - Goal 5: maternal health (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the Millennium Development Goal 5: maternal health.\nJean-Pierre Jouyet\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, like the European Parliament, the Council attaches great importance to achieving all the Millennium Development Goals throughout the world by 2015 and particularly the one that aims to reduce the maternal mortality rate by three quarters between 1990 and 2015.\nIn this respect, the European Union recalls that lasting progress in this area requires respect for and promotion of the rights of women and girls by guaranteeing them access to health services, notably as regards sexual health and by protecting them from the AIDS virus. The three EU institutions have made clear their collective desire to improve maternal health in the developing countries, particularly through the signature on 20 December 2005 of the European Consensus on Development, which puts maternal health among the priorities for the EU's development policy. We now have the necessary financial instruments to implement this goal, particularly within the framework of the partnership between the European Union and Africa on the Millennium Goals. As you know, regarding health, there are still considerable challenges to be met. They were mentioned in the United Nations annual report. 500 000 women still die each year from complications in pregnancy or childbirth that cannot be treated. These deaths cannot be avoided at this stage if we do not make any progress. The probability of a woman dying of these maternal causes is 1 in 16 in sub-Saharan Africa compared with 1 in 3 800 in developed countries. Therefore, in view of the scale of these challenges, in view of this totally unacceptable situation, the Council has taken the decision to accelerate and strengthen its action. In June, it adopted an Agenda for Action. The Agenda states that the EU will urgently support the attainment of the target set in 2005 regarding universal access to reproductive health and well as 2010 milestones to save - as you know - 4 million more children's lives each year, 2 million of which in Africa, and to have 35 million more births attended by skilled health personnel each year, 13 million of which in Africa. If we want to reduce maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015, it means that 21 million more births will have to be attended by skilled health personnel each year by 2010.\nThe EU will provide support to reach the target of 50 million more women in Africa having modern contraceptives by 2010, and more generally to have access to family planning. The Agenda, which was implemented by the Council, also states that the EU will contribute to helping to bridge the financing gap to achieve these targets by 2010. I can tell you that the financing gap is today estimated at more than EUR 13 billion by the World Health Organisation.\nIf - and the Commissioner will tell us if this is the case - the European Commission believes that, to bridge the financing gap, we need to increase EU support by EUR 8 billion by 2010, of which EUR 6 billion would be destined for Africa, it is essential that both partner countries and donors are stakeholders in dealing with the challenges facing us.\nIn this context, the Presidency is therefore convinced that reinforcing the health systems of the developing countries remains a key priority of the Millennium Development Goals. Several concrete actions are planned, which I will list: the Presidency and the Commission are preparing a joint paper on covering health risks; development ministers are going to meet during the informal meeting, which will take place on 29 and 30 September, regarding the conclusions of the November Council meeting and the forthcoming presidencies for universal access to healthcare; and finally, the Council will examine the Commission report on the EU programme for action to tackle the critical shortage of health workers in developing countries - and I have made a note of how crucial this task is.\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you can be sure that the Council will continue to act and do everything it can for the European Union to continue driving improvements in maternal health in developing countries, particularly Africa.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, the right to health is probably the basic right with the most inequalities in the world today. Those in greatest need, at greatest risk of ill health and premature death, have the worst access to health care - often zero access. This poses enormous challenges to the European Union and to the world community as a whole.\nThe European Union is very committed to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), including MDG 5 on maternal health, which is the subject we are discussing today.\nWe are aware of the fact that scaling up sexual and reproductive health and health funding in general requires a far more coherent and multi-sectoral approach, also involving other MDGs. Health results cannot be achieved without adequate investment in the systems that deliver better health. Health policy needs to be embedded in broader social and economic development planning. Countries need long-term predictable aid from external donors. Donors need to see a clear link between financing and results, and mechanisms to hold all partners accountable for their performance against international agreements are badly needed.\nPoor people - women, men and children - living in developing countries encounter a wide range of interrelated sexual and reproductive health problems. These include HIV\/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, complications encountered in pregnancy and childbirth, genital mutilation or cutting, infertility, sexual abuse, unsafe abortion and cancer of the cervix, among others. Together, these conditions are responsible for much suffering and many premature deaths. Exacerbated by poverty and the secondary position of women in society they are basically due to the lack of access to appropriate health services, lack of information and inadequate availability of skilled professionals and supplies of reproductive health commodities.\nTherefore, improving maternal health and reducing maternal mortality have been key concerns of the European Commission's work in health and development. However, despite our efforts and the MDG targets, MDG 5 is possibly the goal which is most off-track globally - especially, as has already been said, in Africa. This is very serious, all the more so because most maternal deaths occur at home, far removed from the health services, and often go unrecorded. So the actual maternal mortality figure might even be much higher than the half million a year that we are aware of according to the statistics.\nFrom a political point of view, there is another issue which causes concern. This is the increasing tendency not to prioritise sexual and reproductive health and rights policies in programmes because of sensitivities to abortion. By doing so, we are forgetting about the unequal position of women in many of our partner countries who have no say about the number of children they want or are forced to have sexual relations, sometimes even with a partner who is likely to be HIV-infected. Let us not forget about the many victims of rape, the young girls and women who, on top of their injuries and trauma, often get rejected by their relatives and communities.\nUnder the 10th European Development Fund and the Commission budget, we are therefore programming direct support to health in 31 developing countries. Many of these countries have very high maternal mortality rates and very weak health systems.\nIn this regard, budget support linked to health outcomes becomes another important instrument to address maternal mortality. To make this aid more predictable, the Commission is introducing in a number of partner countries a new financing modality called 'MDG contracting', under which budget support will be made over a longer term, linked with agreed outcomes which contribute towards the achievement of the MDGs. This will allow governments to support recurrent costs of health systems, such as the salaries of health workers. This is critical to increase access to basic healthcare, including safe deliveries and progress towards MDG 5.\nHowever, we know that what is being done in support of maternal health at the moment is not sufficient and that more efforts are needed to change the present situation. This is why on 24 June 2008 the Council of the European Union adopted the EU Agenda for Action on MDGs, whereby the Commission and the Member States commit themselves to increase their support to health by the additional EUR 8 billion which has been mentioned, and EUR 6 billion in Africa, by 2010.\nRegarding MDG 5, the Agenda for Action on MDGs mentioned two important targets by 2010: firstly, 21 million more births attended by skilled health workers and, secondly, 50 million more women to have access to modern contraceptives in Africa.\nWe the Commission - but also the Member States - will now have to make it happen together. We have made the commitment and we are determined to improve the situation of women in poor countries giving birth, which I think is the most natural thing in the world. I am glad that, as the Commissioner for External Relations today, in place of Louis Michel, I can say that, because, as a woman, I feel very much in solidarity.\n(Applause)\nFilip Kaczmarek\nMr President, Commissioner, Millennium Development Goal 5 is a very important objective, touching as it does not only on the quality of life, but on life itself, its initiation and continuation. The importance of Millennium Development Goal 5 is all the greater in as much as its successful implementation does not cost very much in monetary terms. There are programmes and projects that are already being put into effect around the world that have significantly reduced perinatal mortality, and their cost has not been particularly high. Despite this, in some regions the achievement dynamics of Goal 5 have been poor or very poor. Moreover, in some regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, there has been no improvement since 2000. This is a very worrying phenomenon, as it means that implementation of Millennium Development Goal 5 on a global scale is seriously threatened.\nUnfortunately in some developed countries we still see a tendency to ideologise the problem and concentrate on one really quite controversial issue, namely that of reproductive rights. This has already been mentioned today. However, one of the most important causes of death among mothers is hazardously performed abortions. However you look at it, it is logical that limiting the number of abortions would bring about a fall in mortality among mothers. Surely, then, it would be easier to limit the number of abortions than to increase the number of what might be called 'safe' abortions.\nIt is therefore difficult to agree with the assertion that reproductive health should be a priority in development policy. It is important, but surely the priority should continue to be the fight against poverty (I agree with the Commissioner), improving the position of women and keeping the promises made by developed countries. This choice of priorities is very important, because a poor choice of priorities could lead to actions that might be unfavourable. For example, we include the example of exchanging experience and best practice in resolutions as standard, but if the objective is inappropriate, an exchange of experience and best practice could be ineffective or downright undesirable.\nIt is also worth remembering that imposing our norms and standards on other countries and societies is morally ambivalent. In matters of ethics, countries that benefit from our aid should take their own decisions on what is good and acceptable. We should not, for example, say that abortion is a good solution. That would be inconsistent and it would be unjustified interference: inconsistent, because we ourselves wish to increase the birth rate in Europe, while promoting its restriction in other countries; unjustified interference, because no-one has authorised us to influence decisions on ethical matters in other states.\nIn my opinion, therefore, we should concentrate on what is not controversial, especially as there are very many things that are not controversial and on which we are all agreed: education, strengthening the position of women, protecting motherhood, good nutrition, access to skilled medical assistance and obstetric care. These are areas on which we can jointly concentrate, and thus facilitate the achievement of Millennium Goal 5.\nAlain Hutchinson\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner - to whom I would like to wish a happy birthday today - I am not going to refer to the text I was planning to read to you here on behalf of my group because I believe we are in the midst of a particularly important discussion.\nBy noting the failure to meet this Millennium goal, the fifth goal, which is very important because it concerns women and their suffering during pregnancy, we have to abandon the extremely hypocritical attitude and analysis we make in Europe when we know, see and can testify to the situation in Africa, on the ground, in villages, in countryside and in the bush. I was rather annoyed by what our fellow Member Mr Kaczmarek has just said, and that is why I am not going to read my paper. We cannot claim that abortion is a miraculous remedy for all the problems of women who have to give birth. Absolutely not. We have to devote the necessary means to ensuring that these women can have everything they need: an education, proper family planning, contraception and, where necessary, voluntary termination of pregnancy under proper conditions - but we are not going all-out for that. It is extremely difficult to say things clearly in Parliament because there are some people who, in the name of morality and sometimes in the name of conservatism, keep stopping us from taking proper measures, effective measures, for the benefit of women in the countries concerned.\nBeniamino Donnici\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have worked on the joint motion for a resolution on maternal mortality, taking account of the fact that Goal 5, 'Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio', is far from being achieved and requires a strong initiative, a strong and concrete initiative by the international community, which a Europe of rights and values can only interpret and guarantee.\nWe acknowledge the reassurances given by Mr Jouyet and Mrs Ferrero, but we need to move swiftly from words to actions. After all, maternal mortality, together with infant mortality, is the most important indicator of the level of human development, and it is unacceptable, as we have already said, that today more than half a million women still die each year during childbirth.\nAs we all know, the majority of these women live in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is one death every minute. As we have said, the same risk for women living in the developed world is one in 3 700. These figures appear even more dramatic if we look at the encouraging progress made during the same period by some middle-income countries in Eastern Asia, South East Asia, North America, Latin America and North Africa, which prove that this awful situation can be overcome.\nIn our opinion, therefore, this resolution is well-timed, articulate and comprehensive, and identifies strategies that can address this outright global health emergency, in recognition of the fact that access to an adequate level of healthcare is a fundamental human right.\nTo conclude, I hope that the valuable compromise reached between the groups on such an agonising issue can garner the widest consensus in Parliament and that the adoption of the joint resolution will bring forth concrete action from all of our institutions and nations, as well as adequate investment in infrastructure and transport, medical equipment, training for equipment operators, education, safety and policies for the emancipation of women, so that this crucial goal for civilisation can be reached by 2015.\nEwa Tomaszewska\nMr President, mortality during the perinatal period continues to be a very disturbing phenomenon, and one that is not justified by the state of medical knowledge. Improving the state of health of pregnant women is an even more serious problem at a time of demographic collapse.\nIt is worth remembering what a serious mutilation an abortion is for a woman. We cannot have the dilemma: if you agree to the killing of your child, you will have a chance of survival. A 75% reduction in perinatal mortality by 2015, relative to 1990, requires a general improvement in women's state of health and an increase in the money spent on health care and education aimed at prevention.\nThe situation is at its worst in southern and sub-Saharan Africa, and also in Asia. Each year half a million women there pay for their desire to have offspring with their lives. In the case of women infected with HIV and malaria, besides the danger to the mother's health, there is also the danger that the children will be infected. It should be emphasised that one important negative factor here is poverty, and financial means should be addressed to solving this problem. This situation very specifically indicates the value of solidarity between people. Recognising women's health - the health of mothers-to-be - as a priority and the mobilisation of international forces in order to improve health care for pregnant women is a serious challenge.\nKathalijne Maria Buitenweg\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I have now been a parliamentarian for nine years and, in that time, have had two children. They are now aged two and almost eight. Pregnancies are always full of suspense, of course - you always wonder whether the child will be born perfectly healthy - but I can honestly say that in neither of those pregnancies did I ever wonder whether I myself would survive. What a tremendous luxury that is!\nThe figures have already been cited. In Europe, fewer than 1 in 3 800 women die from pregnancy-related causes, but the figure is very much higher in some African countries: 1 in 16. The figure of 1 in 7 has been mentioned for Niger. One reason for this is unsafe abortions. I do wish these were not a reality, but this would require changes such as the provision of contraception or restraint on the part of men. Further reasons are a lack of medical assistance or delays in providing such assistance, and too many pregnancies one after another and at too young an age.\nThe wide discrepancies between the situation in Europe and in a great many of these other countries show that investment pays off. It is self-evident: investment in health care reduces maternal mortality. Yet very little is happening in this regard. In 1987 approximately half a million women a year died in pregnancy or childbirth and this figure was unchanged in 2008 - this is most disappointing. I make no secret of my cynicism. My feeling is that much more attention is paid to combating AIDS because this claims the lives of men, too. However, I am encouraged by what Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and also the President-in-Office had to say, and wish to thank the Commissioner most warmly for her speech.\nThere is a clear link between maternal mortality and self-determination. According to recent research, approximately 200 million women in developing countries would very much like to bear fewer children, but half of these have no access to contraceptives and sexual information. This results in 52 million unwanted pregnancies a year, and this is something we must be concerned about. According to Kofi Annan, the fight against hunger and poverty is doomed to failure from the outset if the international community does not succeed in strengthening women's rights. We, the European Union, are in a unique position to strengthen the call for equal rights for women worldwide. We do want this, but are actually shirking our real responsibility.\nTherefore, I should like to put the case for a European Envoy for Women's Rights. The majority of this House has already welcomed this, and I would also ask for the Commissioner's support. This will be a top diplomat who can raise her voice on behalf of the EU or mediate in cases of violence towards women, who will submit proposals to the Council of Ministers and the European Commission and who will be accountable to the European Parliament. It is a driving force that we need, someone who ensures that all our proposals take account of women's rights, as this is so crucial.\nMr President, I have already presented this proposal to a representative of the French Presidency. He said that he considered it interesting. I should like to ask the President-in-Office what he is going to do about this. I have the proposal here, including in French and German. I shall hand it over to him, and I sincerely hope that this Envoy for Women's Rights will be introduced, as we really need this driving force to effect real change.\nFeleknas Uca\nMr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, the current statistics show that, overall, MDG 5 is way off track and maternal mortality is even on the increase in Africa and South Asia.\nEvery year 536 000 women die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth. Of those deaths 99% occur in developing countries. In Africa one in 16 women dies during pregnancy or childbirth. In industrialised countries there is considerably less likelihood of this happening. The most frequent causes of death are haemorrhaging, infections and illegal abortions. Approximately 68 000 women die every year as a result of unsafe abortions and millions of women incur life-long injuries or other damage to their health. In fact, 97% of all unsafe abortions are carried out in developing countries.\nEvery minute a woman dies somewhere in the world as a result of pregnancy or childbirth. We have a moral obligation and an opportunity to prevent this. In developing countries, particularly in rural areas, women urgently need universal access to general health care, medical assistance and advice on pregnancy and childbirth.\nI am also calling for family planning, including access to effective contraceptives and safe abortions. The improvement in reproductive health and the abolition of any kind of discrimination against women are key and extremely important preconditions for achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.\nNils Lundgren\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (SV) Mr President, the UN's statement on the Millennium Development Goals really deserves every support from us rich Europeans. It is both a tragedy and a scandal that so many people in this world live in extreme poverty, that so many women die in pregnancy and childbirth, that so many newborn babies die at birth, that so many people have no access to safe contraception and that so many people are infected with HIV\/AIDS and do not have access to antiretroviral drugs.\nThe reason for this horrific situation is not a lack of resources, technology or medical knowledge. We know how these issues can be solved. This is clearly shown by the fact that many countries solved them a long time ago. What this is about is getting poor countries to change their social institutions in order really to make development possible in these areas. Progress has been made in several poor countries, for example in Egypt and Bangladesh.\nThe member states of the UN have undertaken to work towards these goals after careful analysis and in-depth political debates. But these are global issues and belong at UN level.\nSo why are they turning up here in the EU? Global issues should be addressed at global level, in the UN, where all the EU countries are members. The EU must deal with those issues which are common to its Member States, i.e. cross-border issues within Europe. The thing the EU can and should do to reduce poverty and thereby maternal mortality is to abolish its agricultural policy as soon as possible.\nIrena Belohorsk\u00e1\n(SK) I worked for three years as an obstetrician in Africa, so this problem means quite a lot to me. Also, during my time at the Council of Europe, I was a rapporteur for a report on maternity in which it was found that, in the developing countries and also in Europe, women were often not given basic protection during pregnancy.\nThere are many conventions and declarations, whether from the UN or the ILO, relating to the legal protection of women and their health which are not observed and often not ratified. As regards basic care in developing countries, the entire health care system is very weak. Only 10% of the population of Africa has access to health care services. Maternal mortality is therefore very high. In Africa, there is a lack of qualified professionals and doctors, and AIDS is still a cause of maternal death. Despite the protests of the world's public, female circumcision is still practised.\nIn Asia, the problem of maternity comes up against religious and caste obstacles. Comprehensive investment support is required here to boost health care and in particular mother and child care, but we know that child mortality too is very high. Instead of big targets, we propose caution and monitoring of the resources we provide.\nIf European funding is to serve a purpose, the targets must be clear, understandable and concentrated on a small number of objectives, but they will only be successful if we monitor them well.\nColm Burke\nMr President, there has been no advancement on Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5 on improving maternal health since 2000, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and before 2000 progress was practically non-existent.\nIn September 2000, world leaders adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their countries to reducing extreme poverty by 2015 through the objectives of the MDGs. The figures for maternal health, which is one of the eight MDGs, are the same now as they were 20 years ago. More than half a million women die in pregnancy or childbirth every year, which is one death every minute. Of those deaths, 99% are in developing countries. In parts of Africa, the maternal mortality rate is as high as one in sixteen. In the least developed countries, only 28 in 100 women giving birth are attended by trained personnel. The objective of MDG 5 is to reduce the ratio of women dying in childbirth by three quarters between 1990 and 2015.\nI call on the Council and Commission, ahead of the United Nations High-Level meeting on the MDGs in New York this September, to prioritise action to meet the MDG targets and to fulfil MDG 5 in particular. I will be travelling to the UN in New York at the end of this month as part of the delegation from the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, and intend to underline the importance of EU Member States renewing their commitments to achieving the MDGs by 2015.\nNow that we are at the half-way mark regarding MDGs, it is critical that EU Member States continue to progress to 0.7% GNI by 2015. Given the fact that there has been a drop in EU aid figures from 0.41% of GNI in 2006 to 0.38% in 2007 - a decrease of EUR 1.5 million - I urge EU Member States to refrain from reneging on funding commitments. Those not currently on track must increase their efforts. I call on the presidency of the Council to take the lead and set an example by ensuring that adequate predictable funding is available, and also to scale up their efforts, so that lives can be saved.\nGlenys Kinnock\nMr President, may I at the outset thank the Commissioner very much indeed for her strong and audacious statement, which was very much appreciated.\nMay I also say to Mr Kaczmarek that he should be aware that 19% of maternal deaths are caused by unsafe abortions. Surely this is something that has to be seriously addressed, and there should be no pretence that it can be dealt with in any other way.\nAs we focus on sexual reproductive health rights, we hear from the other side that they have problems with the vocabulary used in this resolution. Apparently they do not even like the word 'rights' to be used; they do not like the word 'services' to be used. These semantics would not go down very well, I fear, with the thousands upon thousands of grieving motherless children in the developing world, or with those children whose mothers have died in agony because there was no anaesthetic, or with a mother bleeding to death because there is no thread for stitches, or a mother dying because there is not the three cents to buy the magnesium sulphate that would save her from death through haemorrhaging. Tell them that the vocabulary used in this resolution matters. Try telling them that it all costs too much. Those lives are precious and no woman should die giving life.\nWe also have to take into account that some people say the reality is that women have low status and low value, and therefore that we cannot change things. That is absolute nonsense. We have to change things. We have to deal with the kind of misogyny that leads to this suffering and grief.\nWe also demand change from the presidency. We demand action from the presidency on the commitments it has made on the MDGs. We liked the fine words from the presidency of the European Union, but we need to see more action.\nMeeting MDG 5 means building health systems and ensuring that we address financially the fact that 40% of women globally give birth without any skilled assistance. We look to the presidency to take the lead. For instance, in France between 2006 and 2007, aid to Africa actually declined. France is off track in its commitments, and we need to know that the presidency is going to reflect on the call to action and make the kind of commitments that are needed before 2010.\nWill the presidency state whether those budgetary commitments will be made? Will it deliver on that promise? We know that there is a need to fight maternal mortality. We know how much it costs. We know too, sadly, what it costs not to do it.\nToomas Savi\nMr President, the condemnation of the use of contraceptives and the prevention of legal abortion has been one of the most malicious crimes committed against humanity, as some contraceptives also provide protection against sexually-transmitted diseases such as HIV. They also improve maternal health when combined with sufficient sex education. Legal abortion prevents unwanted children from being condemned to poverty, hunger and disease. By denying women the freedom of choice, we are receding from the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals. In order to improve maternal health in developing countries, the European Union must condemn the US global gag rule, as well as the ban on the use of contraceptives advocated by some churches.\nCarlo Casini\n(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we are absolutely duty-bound to act so that women can realise their maternal function in optimum health conditions. This much is clear. Therefore, the hope expressed in this sense by the motion for a resolution that we have been discussing deserves our support.\nHowever, I cannot hide the discomfort I feel when I hear the inappropriate use in international circles of the expression 'reproductive health services': we want reproductive health services, but we cannot allow this to include elective abortion, turning the tragic suppression of human beings at the very beginning of their existence into a social service.\nWhatever views each of us has on the legalisation of abortion, I believe that in a document on maternal health, we must not forget that maternity concerns two people, and not just one. I therefore welcome the fact that the compromise resolution includes a reference to both the Declaration of and Convention on the Rights of the Child, which use the term 'child' even for unborn children and call for special services for both the mother and child.\nI believe that it is only right that in documents designed to ensure the safety of motherhood, there should be references not only to these instruments but to other pro-life instruments. It should be about welfare, economic, social and psychological support and education on respect for life. Conversely, where this is limited and where the emphasis is placed only on the use of contraception, including abortion, we will not achieve the desired results.\nThere are countries in Europe, such as France and the UK, where there is no doubt that contraception is much more widespread than in other countries, and yet where according to official reports the number of abortions is steadily rising. I would just like to ask my fellow Members to give a moment's consideration to these points.\nAnne Van Lancker\n(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, I should like to thank the Commissioner most warmly for her very strong statement. It is true that maternal mortality illustrates the most distressing inequality between women in the north and south. It is clear that a number of our fellow Members in this Hemicycle still do not get it. Mr Casini, every year, 50 million women have unwanted pregnancies because they lack access to contraceptives; 42 million of these women have an unsafe abortion, 80 000 of whom die. These are the hard facts. The vast majority of these women live in sub-Saharan Africa; thus the West has absolutely no reason to lecture these women.\nThis is a disgrace, as maternal mortality is entirely preventable if women are just given access to health care and sexual and reproductive health. According to the World Health Organization, the cost of providing basic health care is EUR 34 per person per year. This is achievable - if, on top of the pledges of the developing countries themselves, the European Union were to spend 15% of development aid on health care, including sexual and reproductive health. That is just where the shoe pinches, however. There has been a continuing decrease in Member States' investment in health care over recent years. The budgets for family planning have almost halved since 1994. Even in the European Development Fund scarcely 4% is spent on health care, compared to 30% on infrastructure and budget support. It is clearly time, therefore, that the Council's words and the Commission's promises were turned into clear projects, for example to link budget support to clear results with regard to Millennium Development Goal 5 and to saving women's lives in Africa.\nSophia in 't Veld\n(NL) Mr President, I shall be frank: I find it hard to give a coherent speech here after hearing what was said by the gentlemen on that side of the House. This is something that particularly tugs at my heartstrings, including as a woman, as it also concerns me and the other women in this Chamber. After all, what we are talking about is not a medical problem, nor a financial one (although I am grateful for assurances concerning increased funding); it is a social problem. It is a problem concerning society's attitude towards women; a society that still regards women throughout the world as second-class citizens.\nTo be frank, I find it incredible that these two Members can say what they said, knowing that this costs the lives of half a million women each year. It beggars belief. There is not one woman who wants an abortion - not one! If faced with no other choice, however, she must at least be able to have it done safely and legally. This is a woman's right. Incidentally, I am delighted that this has the support of the Council of Europe. If we fail to recognise this right we are all just weeping crocodile tears here. I would therefore appeal to everyone in this House to vote in favour of the amendments condemning the United States' 'global gag rule' and also the Vatican's ban on condoms - I shall just come out and say it - as these two things are directly responsible for millions of deaths and must, I believe, be condemned by this House.\nMairead McGuinness\nMr President, our policies on maternal health in the developing world are failing. We know that from today's debate because no progress has been made in reducing the horror of women who die during and at birth. In Ireland, if a woman dies in childbirth there is an outcry and a full medical investigation, because the situation is rare. I am grateful that is the case but it is still shocking. That one in sixteen die in childbirth in the developing world is a frightening statistic and, while we debate here in our comfort zones, there are pregnant women in Africa in villages who know that their lives are at risk and that they may not live to see their child born or indeed to nurture their other children.\nMaternal health is part of overall health, and that includes access to food, and the issue of food security is an important one. But can I address another issue which has not been raised here yet? I thank the Commissioner for her comments on the need to train health-care workers. A huge number need to be trained but - let us be honest - the developed world is stealing trained workers from Africa to look after us here, both in the US and in the EU, and we need to be honest about this. We can afford to pay them and they want to come and work, but we are robbing those countries of their own people who have training. I would like you to perhaps address that in your closing remarks.\nThere is pain, suffering and death involved in this issue we are debating here. I have mentioned the children who are left behind. In India, just before Christmas, as part of the India delegation, we witnessed a very useful project being funded by the EU, where women of the villages - because there are no trained doctors and nurses - are given some training to help with infant mortality. There has been great success in that very small-scale programme because it is working from the ground up. Perhaps we need to mirror that type of programme to address maternal deaths, while we know that we do need all of these very trained and skilled workers.\nNeena Gill\nMr President, I am pleased that this Parliament is holding a debate on MDG 5 because, as I speak, at this very moment a woman is losing a life to give a life somewhere in the world. Shocking as this is, the progress on this MDG has been negligible, as we have heard, and it is the only MDG with no improvement - and in some regions it has worsened.\nSome would argue that this issue has had such little attention because it affects women, and because 99% of the deaths occur in the developing countries. This is one of the biggest social inequality issues in the world and I believe that the EU - whilst I recognise the Commissioner's personal commitment - has been very slow in addressing it.\nSo I would like to ask the Commission and the Council what they are going to do to ensure there is increased funding to ensure that this budget line is not diminished. When you are looking at heading 4, where short-term crises and natural disasters tend to take precedence, we need to ensure that it is prioritised not only internally within the Union but also internationally. I would ask the Commission and the Member States to look at delivery of these programmes with renewed scrutiny to ensure that the eight programmes are not beset by poor quality of service, corruption and lack of accountability, which is why the programme has not progressed in some countries. Well-thought-out programmes are what is needed.\nAs Ms McGuinness pointed out, we saw in India a project, with very little funding, for providing mobile phones and as little as two days' training for a link person who could recognise the danger signs in pregnancy and post-pregnancy, and this, combined with education, very basic-level personal hygiene and just the need to boil water, meant the difference between living or dying. So, in this year the UN has called the Year of Action for MDGs, we cannot be complacent for much longer and we must make sure that we take away the tragic divide between the rich and the poor world.\nEdite Estrela\n(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I enjoyed listening to you. Your diagnosis was correct and you put forward concrete measures. We need action plans, financial aid and assessment of the results. So more action and less speechifying! We also need to make up for lost time, as thousands and thousands of women die in developing countries every year because of lack of information and lack of access to sexual and reproductive health. The statistics are not merely numbers, they are family tragedies, they are children who are left orphans, they are people who die who could have been saved. Does thinking about this, knowing that this is happening in the world, not keep us awake at night?\nSexual and reproductive health must be a priority. It is regrettable that some seek to bring sexual and reproductive health down to just abortion. However, it is important that abortion is legal and safe, as well as exceptional, as this is the only way to combat illegal abortion. All women on all continents have a right to access to sexual and reproductive health. Without the right to sexual and reproductive health, there is no gender equality. The Commission and the Council must take the appropriate measures.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the failure of the fifth MDG affects us all, in that it epitomises our failure to move forward with the emancipation of women all over the world. We agree that it should be made a major political objective because it also lies heavy on our consciences. However, we should also have the courage to say that thousands of women are also the victims of ignorance, neglect and misinformation. Neglect because the majority of the 500 000 cases of maternal mortality could be avoided through prevention and basic healthcare. Distributing impregnated mosquito nets, for example, could prevent fatal cases of malaria for thousands of women. Ignorance, in that all too often, girls and women are still prevented from gaining a basic education, which would simply enable them to read and understand simple health and hygiene recommendations. Lastly, misinformation: a certain conservative idea of religion and tradition, which still keeps women in a state of intolerable dependence, marriage when very young, pregnancies in close succession, and taboos over female contraception. Consequently we are taking action; networks of parliamentary representatives for the developing population, from Europe and Africa, are working together within the UNFPA. We are speaking out in favour of health, reproduction and women's control over their fertility and, in addition to the necessary financial support for this, we have to change attitudes and the position of women. This is a key political goal for the development of all these countries.\nMarusya Ivanova Lyubcheva\n(BG) I congratulate you on your opinion, Commissioner. There are many problems to which the problem of mothers' health belongs. On the one hand, this is the system of health care, on the other hand are the social systems, related to care for motherhood in general. The health, mental and physical condition of not only the mothers but the children as well depends on the manner in which these two systems are synchronized. In the third place, motherhood is indelibly related to the demographic problems of each country and it is generally known that this is a grave problem.\nPart of the problems of mothers' health are related to financing. The countries should be called upon to set aside sufficient funds, while those that cannot receive aid so that the death rate among new mothers and children could be reduced and the necessary prophylactics could be applied, for every life is a gift, and provisions should be made for a maximum number of health services and social services for women.\nThe protection of motherhood also depends on the remuneration of the medical staff in maternity wards. This is a problem which exists in many countries, including in European Union countries, and one that has to be resolved.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) The European Parliament has begun discussions on the Commission's incentive to attract highly qualified specialists from third countries to the EU labour market - the so-called Blue Card. The Member States are asked not to drain skilled workers from the sensitive sectors of developing countries - education and healthcare - although some Member States, including the UK, are not prepared to do this. Talk about giving with one hand and taking away with the other! If we drain specialists from the healthcare sector, short-staffed as it is, women's health, the health of all members of society in general, will be endangered and in an even worse state. I would like to suggest that we ensure that the legal acts we are adopting do not contradict each other and that our policies are consistent with our principles.\nProinsias De Rossa\nMr President, I intervene in this debate first of all to thank the Council for its June action plan, but more particularly to welcome the very forthright statement by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner.\nIt is shocking and scandalous that this Millennium Development Goal is failing and that we have made no progress since 2000 and no progress over the last 20 years. Millions of women have died and tens of millions of children have been orphaned needlessly.\nWe know what is causing the deaths and we know how to prevent the deaths. We have the resources, and indeed the knowledge to prevent them, and yet it is not happening. Why? Why are we failing? It seems to me that we are allowing the conscientious objectors to block progress on these issues. We have to push past the conscientious objectors - those who reduce this issue constantly to the issue of abortion and the provision of condoms. Why anyone should see a condom as some kind of evil instrument boggles the mind and boggles reason!\nI would urge those who are in a position to make decisions, and to pursue decisions, to ignore the conscientious objectors and get on with it.\nZbigniew Zaleski\nMr President, just a little reflection on this issue that has political, psychological, physical and moral aspects and so is very complicated. When Mrs Kinnock says that this side does not like even the term 'service', I would object. There are so many 'services' but among them there is one which is very controversial: abortion. I think the side to my right wants to cover it with some very beautiful semantics, using terms like 'reproductive health'. I think you know the position of most of that side of the House, but there are so many other 'services' that you want to approve, use and support as much as is financially possible, and this will, I hope, diminish the ratio of deaths at those different moments that we discussed today. So this accusation is not very proper, although we know there are some moral problems related to just one 'service'.\nCatherine Stihler\nMr President, I think the fact that a woman a minute dies giving birth - one of the most natural things in the world, as the Commissioner described - is shocking and scandalous. Equally, the fact that we are failing to meet this Millennium Development Goal, and failing the most vulnerable women and children in our world, is also shaming.\nI would like to ask both the French presidency and the Commission to report back to the House what is decided upon in New York at the end of this month, and that they will personally make it a priority over the next weeks to secure change, not just at Member State level, but at international level, to put this higher on the political agenda.\nJean-Pierre Jouyet\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am not going to go over again what the Commissioner said with so much emotion, though I fully share her convictions regarding the scandal facing us. For this reason, the Council has developed an action programme. It is late in the day for it to be getting involved, it is true, but this programme is ambitious. I am not going to go over it again.\nThe Presidency, where it is concerned, will give priority to the promotion and defence of women's rights, to be very clear about this. Our programme includes, in particular, the preparation of guidelines for combating violence against women, which will be used as actions for the European Union in international settings and, at the end of this month, in high level meetings at the United Nations on Africa's development needs within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. We also have the initiative on women and armed conflicts, aimed at taking better account of the specific situation of women in places where the European Union is implementing external security and defence policies, taking the initiative, as the Presidency, of a new resolution in the United Nations General Assembly with the Netherlands on violence against women. Since I have mentioned our national position, although I am here to represent the Council, I should say that all the Member States are welcome to be associated with this resolution within the United Nations framework. Finally, in December 2008 there will be a forum for non-governmental organisations on the situation of women.\nAs regards maternal health and everything you have said, I can only share the commitment and indignation of those who have spoken, particularly as regards the links with the HIV virus, and say that the EU is going to finance the Global Fund to fight AIDS to the tune of EUR 91 million in 2007, as the leading donor to this fund for that year.\nAs regards the comments made by Mrs Kinnock who, as a committed European, can surely not be confusing the Council Presidency with a nation state - or else she is not who I think she is - I would like to say that as regards the European Union's budgetary commitments, the amounts given by France are going to increase in 2008. To be precise, the amount allocated to health grew between 2006 and 2008, from EUR 820 million to EUR 930 million. I do not think this is the place for us to fight our usual battles.\nOn a more personal note, having heard your debate, I must say that the Presidency will be looking very carefully at the proposal made by Mrs Buitenweg, which she has submitted to me. For the Presidency, I would very much like the fight against poverty to go hand in hand with improving the situation of women and respect for women's rights, everywhere. I would very much like there to be intervention when women's health is systematically under threat, and I would like us to have the necessary resources, all the necessary resources, under legal and safe conditions, to bring this scandal to an end; consequently, we cannot refuse to provide any of these resources, regardless of our convictions.\nWe need to forge ahead if we are to bring to an end what is truly a scandal as regards the situation of women, particularly in the poorest countries. Consequently we need to reach agreement, I repeat, regardless of our convictions. For its part, the Presidency has decided to take action itself, particularly in Africa, using all the resources at its disposal.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, we have heard some very important statements. This is an emotional question on which there are different points of views. I believe we should go back to the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo, which clearly indicates respect for national legal frameworks. We in any case reject coercive abortion, forced sterilisation, infanticide and other human rights abuses, which are clearly not in line with that policy.\nAt the same time, it is also very important to understand that childbirth is not without its complications. As Mrs Buitenweg said, it is a luxury in our countries, but the luxury is not there in other countries. The principle of voluntary choice should therefore guide this programme of action, which seeks to provide universal access to a full range of safe and reliable family-planning methods - which, of course, is the priority - and to reproductive health services which are not against the law.\nThe aim should be to assist individuals and couples in making their own choices and achieving their reproductive goals, giving them the full opportunity to exercise the right to have children by their own choice. That is what we have to achieve.\nIn no case will abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. Governments are committed to dealing with the health impact of unsafe abortions as a public health concern - because they happen and we have heard how many are women are dying from them - and to reducing the recourse to abortion through improved family planning services. When abortion is not against the law, it should be safe and part of a comprehensive reproductive health service. That is most important.\nOn the other hand, it is true that health-care systems should be better, as they are weak, and we are now looking at strengthening those systems by training more health-care personnel and through a system of health insurance, which is an initiative of the French presidency.\nIt is true that much money has gone, for instance, into combating HIV\/AIDS in recent years, but unfortunately ever more women are becoming HIV\/AIDS-infected in Africa: one out of four girls aged between 16 and 24 are now HIV positive. That is awful. The Commission is aware of this, and is encouraging initiatives through the Global Fund to be more geared to women and to be more gender sensitive.\nFinally, on the question of migration, this could go in the wrong direction. This so-called 'brain drain' is one of the issues that will have to be tackled when addressing migration as a whole. It has both positive and negative sides and we have to find the right balance.\nPresident\nI have received six motions for resolutions, tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nCristian Silviu Bu\u015foi  \nThe EU has committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, such as reducing the maternal mortality rate by 75% by 2015.\nAlthough, on the whole, the EU countries are on the right path, slow progress is recorded in the field of maternal health. The European Commission's initiatives to allocate funds for the health systems reform in order to improve the quality of prenatal and postnatal services, as well as of the access to such services, the support of research in the field of reproductive medicine and the training of medical personnel were opportune for achieving goal No. 5.\nThe Charter on enhancing the performance of health systems, adopted in Tallinn, in June 2008, is also important progress. Nevertheless, there are developed countries, such as France, Great Britain or the Netherlands, with a very low mortality rate, for which the 75% reduction by 2015 seems difficult, since evolution is slower than in the countries with a higher maternal mortality rate. Also, there are still disparities as regards the progress made in the EU states and even in the regions of various countries.\nTherefore, in order to manage to achieve the goal set for 2015, the rapid modernisation of the European health systems is necessary, with a special emphasis on research for improving prenatal and postnatal services, as well as more efficient sanitary education and family planning.\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi  \nin writing. - (RO) The European Union is a firm supporter of the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the United Nations and which established the targets to be achieved by 2015 as regards peace, security, development, governance and human rights.\nOut of the 8 goals, special attention should be given to the improvement of maternal health, since over half a million women, mostly from Africa and Asia, die during pregnancy or childbirth.\nThe main cause leading to the increase in mortality rate at world level is the absence of qualified personnel to provide maternal assistance both during pregnancy and delivery. This situation must be remedied by investing important funds in the underdeveloped countries, both in training specialized personnel and in medical equipment.\nThe targets for Romania, as regards the improvement of maternal health, are the reduction of mortality rate to 10 maternal deaths\/100,000 births by 2015 and ensuring universal access to health services.\nAt present, Romania has negative natural growth, with a mortality rate of 12%. By social assistance and information programmes, mother and child services, as well as additional financial support from the EU, the birth rate needs to resume its ascending trend and Romania to remain in the European Union's demographic strategy.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"13. Consumer rights (\nAndreas Schwab\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to all of my fellow Members who voted in favour. In view of this broad majority, I think it important that the Commission should give a brief comment in this regard.\nJanusz Lewandowski\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, we take note of the vote here today. We are looking forward to constructive cooperation with a view to coming to a final agreement. A few very important issues are still outstanding. This proposal on the single permit act is very important, and therefore we hope to come to an agreement very soon. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Mathieu, and wish her and the Hungarian Presidency my best.\nAndreas Schwab\n(DE) Mr President, I actually expected a different sort of comment. I expected the Commission to say that it is not able to agree on all of the points.\nJanusz Lewandowski\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I was supposed to comment also on the previous vote, and therefore I did so. I now wish to comment again on the latest vote on the Schwab report.\nThe fact that we are well into the third year of negotiations indicates very clearly that it is difficult to find an agreement on this important issue. I believe that the Council's position was a really good starting point. Parliament has added its own position. The Commission is not ready to accept everything that was proposed but we are ready to cooperate as much as possible to reach a final result.\nIncidentally I was told I should also comment on the result of the previous vote; this is why I am making two comments, which have not taken too much of your time.\nAndreas Schwab\nrapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, with regard to the Commissioner's last point, I would like to request that we refer the matter back to committee in accordance with Rule 57(2). I would ask for your support in this regard.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement - Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and Serbia (debate) \nPresident\nThe first item on the agenda is the joint debate on the EC-Serbia Agreement\nEC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Recommendation by Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Recommendation on the draft Council and Commission decision on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part [15619\/1\/2007 - C7-0341\/2010 - 2007\/0255(NLE)]\nStabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and Serbia. Council and Commission statements\nJelko Kacin\nMadam President, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and Serbia was signed in April 2008, and the transitional, interim trade agreement with Serbia has been successfully implemented since February 2010.\nThe ratification process began in September 2008 when the Serbian Parliament first ratified this agreement.\nThe agreement provides a political, legal and economic framework for cooperation between the European Union and Serbia, and Serbia was unable to continue along the path of European integration without the ratification process getting under way.\nIn 2009, there were no reports of Serbia on the European Parliament's agenda because the ratification process in the Member States stalled following Serbia's failure to cooperate fully with the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). To date, eleven Member States have ratified this agreement, which is why, today, I call on the remaining Member States to do the same as soon as possible.\nIf, today, we ratify the agreement in this higher assembly, we will be sending a strong and visible message of support for Serbia's European efforts. That alone, however, will not ensure a successful completion of the ratification process.\nThe resolution on Serbia, on which we will be voting tomorrow, carries precisely this message of support. We need to support Serbia along its long and difficult path to membership of the European Union.\nAs a country which has long been isolated and which has remained outside the modern tide of European politics and economy, Serbia is facing many challenges.\nIn the past two years, we have witnessed the political scene in Serbia becoming more pro-European. Serbian leaders will provide us with the best evidence of their sincere commitment to European values and way of life if they successfully resolve problems and implement all the reforms that are necessary.\nWe have already seen some positive developments. We have sincerely welcomed Serbia's willingness to compromise and the adoption by the UN General Assembly of a joint resolution on Kosovo in September 2010.\nOn 1 January 2011, Serbia abolished compulsory military service, and generations of young Serbian citizens have been given an additional opportunity to learn, study and develop. Civilian supervision of the armed forces has also been strengthened.\nOn the other hand, Serbia's advancement towards the EU has very much been hampered by the fact that two individuals indicted for war crimes by the ICTY remain at large.\nRatko Mladi\u0107 has been on the run for more than 15 years since the genocide in Srebrenica, that greatest of crimes perpetrated on European soil since World War II.\nWe welcome the statement of the Serbian Government that they consider the finalisation of their cooperation with the Hague Tribunal to be a priority. However, we call on the Serbian authorities, as the main ICTY prosecutor has said, to reduce convincingly the gap between the political will they have shown and concrete results.\nThe time has come for Serbia to close this painful chapter and to make a new step towards reconciliation in the region.\nSerbia will not be able to secure candidate status until it demonstrates that it is fully cooperating with the Hague Tribunal, as stated in the Council conclusions of 25 October 2010.\nThe most compelling evidence of this would be the arrests and extradition of those who have been indicted. Serbia's efforts to date to bring this about have not produced results and they remain inadequate.\nSignificant shifts in regional relations in the Western Balkans, evidenced most of all by the relationship between Serbia and Croatia, have been achieved. We welcome the stance of the Serbian President, whose new approach has given a powerful impetus to a lasting reconciliation in the region.\nDespite that, there are still further challenges. Belgrade must demonstrate a constructive relationship in the upcoming dialogue with Pri\u0161tina and, regardless of the issue of Kosovo's status, the relationship between Belgrade and Pri\u0161tina must become a partnership, so that the whole region is more easily able to progress towards Europe.\nThis also holds true for Serbia's relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Belgrade needs to support the reforms that will enable Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a country with its own institutions, to negotiate on its membership of the European Union. At the moment, that is still not the case.\nEnik\u0151 Gy\u0151ri\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, it is a great privilege and honour for me to return to the European Parliament in my new capacity as the representative of the Hungarian rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union. I hope, honourable Members, that you will consider me a former Member of this House, and as a guarantee that the Hungarian Presidency will be a Parliament-friendly Presidency.\nI look forward to working with you all during the forthcoming five-and-a-half months of this Presidency, with great expectations. I shall now use my mother tongue.\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to take part in this debate after which Parliament will vote on the approval of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement signed with the Republic of Serbia. I should also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the rapporteur of the European Parliament, Mr Jelko Kacin, who drafted an excellent report on the subject, and to warmly welcome the resolution on Serbia's European integration process. Similarly to other countries in the region, the prospect of European membership has benefited Serbia as well, and the country has made considerable progress in this direction over recent years. In this context, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement is an important step forward for Serbia on the road to the European Union.\nThe agreement strengthens the already close ties between the European Union and Serbia, and creates a contractual relationship between the two parties. The agreement establishes a new framework for political dialogue. It creates a free trade area and strengthens bilateral economic relations, through which it is intended to bring major economic benefits to Serbia. The agreement encourages the reform processes which will contribute to the growth of the Serbian economy and help Serbia develop a fully functioning market economy. Furthermore, the agreement lays the foundations for increased cooperation in numerous areas to evolve between the European Union and Serbia in the future, last but not least, in the fight against organised crime and illegal cross-border trade, as well as with regard to improving current environmental protection regulations.\nThe Council started the ratification process for the agreement on 14 June 2010. To date, eleven Member States, including, of course, Hungary, have endorsed the agreement through their parliaments. We are very confident that all the Member States will ratify it within a short period of time. The Council would welcome the Stabilisation and Association Agreement coming into force by the end of 2011, but by early 2012 at the latest. This would mean that Serbia would enter into an ambitious contractual relationship with the European Union at precisely the time when it starts making more intensive preparations for accession. Your votes will do even more to give prominence to and further this process, due to the unanimous support that was expressed by all political forces at the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 1 December. Serbia expressed its commitment to the European Union by its request for accession submitted in December 2009. In October last year, the Council asked the Commission to submit its opinion. This can be expected in the second half of 2011.\nWe are all aware that the European integration process has numerous advantages for Serbia. At the same time, Serbia still needs to make major reforms. These include further endeavours in the fields of public administration and the rule of law, justice reform, the fight against corruption and organised crime, and cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.\nAs the report submitted by Mr Kacin also states, the integration process advances on the basis of the progress made in this area. I welcome the fact that many results have already been achieved. At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity to point out that last year, Serbia took historic steps towards peace with its neighbours in the region. I also welcome Serbia's close cooperation with the European Union in the summer of 2010 and the resultant UN resolution that opened the way to dialogue between Belgrade and Pri\u0161tina. The Council fully supports High Representative Ashton in the work she has done in this area. This is a major challenge, but the possibility of creating a dialogue offers both Kosovo and Serbia the chance of coming closer to the European Union.\nLastly, allow me to share a concluding thought with you. I am convinced that the European Union must maintain the credibility of the enlargement process. The means of doing this are in our hands. I believe that if the accession negotiations with Croatia can be concluded successfully during the Hungarian Presidency, this will give a very positive sign to Serbia as well that the process is alive, and that the Balkan countries have a place in the family of the nations of the European Union.\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, 2011 will be an important year for Serbia, which will bring both challenges and opportunities. I welcome the opportunity which this new agreement gives Serbia so that we may build together a joint future in a peaceful Europe.\n\u0160tefan F\u00fcle\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to address the European Parliament today for the vote of consent to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the Republic of Serbia. I would also like to express my warm gratitude to the rapporteur for Serbia, Jelko Kacin, for his report on the European integration process of Serbia.\nThe Stabilisation and Association Agreement is a major step forward for Serbia on its path towards the European Union. The fundamental objective of this agreement is to pave the way for further European integration and reforms and to prepare Serbia for European Union membership. This important milestone will serve as an encouragement for Serbia, as it has renewed its efforts to promote reconciliation in the region.\nThe Stabilisation and Association Agreement sets up a comprehensive institutional framework through the SAA Council and SAA Committee, a renewed framework for political dialogue, and a network of subcommittees extensively covering most European Union policy areas. Naturally, it also establishes a specific body between this House and the Serbian Parliament, the Joint Parliamentary Committee.\nFrom an economic standpoint, the SAA foresees the gradual establishment of a free trade zone and the gradual integration of Serbia into the European Union's internal market, thus bringing economic benefits for both the European Union and Serbia. As was the case in central Europe in the 1990s, the agreement will boost investment, in particular, for indirect investments. It will make a key contribution to the growth of the Serbian economy and help Serbia move towards a functioning market economy.\nThe benefits of this agreement for the European Union are equally significant. Serbia's market has now been opened up to European Union exporters. Previously relatively high tariffs will be totally dismantled within a couple of years, with the exception of a few very sensitive agricultural products.\nFurthermore, by gradually integrating Serbia into the internal market, conditions for investors will become more stable and predictable. Rules on competition and State aid are aligned to those of the European Union. Protection of intellectual property rights is also gradually being brought up to European Union standards. The sizeable Serbian public procurement market is also being progressively opened up to European bidders.\nForging closer ties with Serbia entails a number of other advantages for the European Union in particular, as it will facilitate cooperation in the areas of justice, freedom and security, the environment, transport and customs, to mention just a few. It therefore helps make the European Union's policy in south-east Europe more credible and effective.\nFinally, it is particularly noteworthy that Serbia brought forward the implementation of the interim agreement. It officially entered into force in February 2010, but Serbia decided to apply it shortly after it was signed in April 2008. Serbia has thereby demonstrated a commitment to its economic integration with the European Union and has so far established a positive track record.\nSince 14 June 2010, when the Council decided to launch the ratification process for the agreement, nine Member States have notified ratification and two more have secured the approval of their parliaments. Today's vote by the European Parliament should therefore provide additional impetus for this process thanks to the unanimous support from across the political groups. I hope that ratification by the other Member States will follow soon.\nLet me conclude by focusing on the motion for a resolution on the European integration process of Serbia as a well-prepared contribution to today's political debate. I am therefore grateful to the rapporteur, Jelko Kacin. The resolution sends Serbia both a message of support for enhancing EU-Serbia relations, and a message of expectation in relation to the key challenges on Serbia's path to European Union membership. This is particularly timely in the context of the preparations of the opinion on Serbia's membership application.\nI was in Belgrade last November to hand over a detailed questionnaire to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for European integration. The Serbian authorities are currently working hard on their replies, which we expect by the end of the month. I am encouraged by the Serbian Government's adoption on 30 December of an action plan as a follow-up to the Commission's progress report. The Commission will thoroughly analyse the replies to the questionnaires and the steps taken by the Serbian authorities in the coming months to complete its assessment with a view to issuing the opinion in the second half of 2011.\nAs my Hungarian colleague said, 2011 is an important year for Serbia: a year of demanding challenges as well as a year of opportunities. The path has been set and the objectives are well known, yet it is up to Serbia to walk down that path, fulfil the required criteria, and, once ready, engage in the negotiation process with the European Union. I am convinced that, with our joint support, Serbia will continue to make the right European choices and move ahead in its integration efforts. This will deliver a positive message for the whole region at a time when we need to reaffirm its European perspective in order to consolidate peace and foster economic prosperity in the Western Balkans.\nGy\u00f6rgy Sch\u00f6pflin\non behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, in my view, the report on Serbia is excellent. I congratulate the rapporteur, Jelko Kacin.\nIt seems to me that Serbia has finally made up its mind that it genuinely wants a European future for itself. The majority of the political elite believes that this is the most favourable option. This determination has to be seen in the light of the turbulence of the last two decades. Serbia experienced the end of communism, the collapse of Yugoslavia, the wars that ensued, the rule of Slobodan Milo\u0161evi\u0107, the bombing of 1999, burgeoning mafias and criminality, violence, refugees - a depressing and traumatic history. The decision to opt for Europe, therefore, is a considerable achievement and signals that Serbia has become a factor of stability in the region.\nTwo major political problems remain: the arrest and transfer of Ratko Mladi\u0107 to The Hague, and coming to terms with the independence of Kosovo. Both these point towards psychological barriers. Mladi\u0107 has his protectors, and the loss of Kosovo is painful for a sizeable section of Serbian society; any loss of territory is painful. To these may be added several other areas that need attention, notably, the upgrading of public administration and of the administration of justice, the establishment of market conditions and full openness towards Serbia's past, including opening up the archives.\nThe auguries for Serbia's road towards Europe are reasonably good. There is a clear commitment in this direction. The tasks faced by the elite and by society are recognised and the technical preparations are going ahead. If all goes well, Serbia should receive the opinion this autumn and candidate status after that. The road to Europe will not be easy, but Europe as a whole benefits from a stable, democratic Serbia.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Opening of international negotiations in view of adopting an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Council and the Commission statements on the opening of international negotiations in view of adopting an international Treaty for the protection of the Arctic.\nAlexandr Vondra\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, as we all know and can read every day, the Arctic is increasing in importance, and it deserves greater attention from the European Union as well.\nThis was brought out in the resolution Parliament adopted in October. I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to address this issue, which I know is of particular concern for you.\nOnly three EU Member States have territories within the Arctic region. Nevertheless, the effects of climate change and of human activities in the Arctic region extend far beyond the Arctic itself. What happens in the Arctic has significant implications for the EU as a whole. So far, issues with an Arctic dimension have tended to be addressed by the Union within the context of sectoral policies such as the maritime policy or the fight against climate change. Although cooperation within the framework of the new northern dimension covers European Arctic areas, the Union has not developed a broad Arctic policy bringing together all the relevant individual policy areas.\nThis is now changing. In March last year, High Representative Solana and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner submitted to the European Council a joint report on climate change and international security. This report highlighted the new strategic interest in the Arctic region. It drew attention to the far-reaching implications of environmental change for the Arctic and it recognised that these could have consequences for international stability and for European security interests.\nThe report called for the development of a specific EU Arctic policy based on the growing geostrategic importance of the region and taking into account issues such as access to natural resources and the possible opening-up of new trade routes.\nThe Commission subsequently presented a communication on the EU and the Arctic region last November. This took up the various strategic challenges of the region and proposed concrete actions in three main areas: the protection and preservation of the Arctic in cooperation with the population; the sustainable use of resources; and strengthening multilateral governance of the Arctic. This last point was covered in last October's resolution.\nIn its communication, the Commission specifically proposed, as one of its policy objectives, that the EU should work to uphold the further development of a cooperative Arctic governance system based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and advocated the full implementation of all existing obligations, rather than proposing new legal instruments. This is one of the key elements in the communication.\nIn its conclusion last December, the Council gave a clear welcome to the communication and considered that it constituted the first layer of a future EU Arctic policy.\nThe Council agreed with the Commission that the EU should aim to preserve the Arctic in cooperation with its population and that it should address Arctic challenges in a systematic and coordinated manner. It considered that the goals of the EU could only be achieved in close cooperation with all Arctic partner countries, territories and communities, and also noted the intergovernmental cooperation in the region.\nIt also welcomed the Commission's intention to apply for permanent observer status to represent the European Community on the Arctic Council. The Council specifically stressed the importance of multilateral cooperation in conformity with the relevant international conventions and highlighted, in particular, the UNCLOS.\nIn line with the Commission communication, it did not express any support for the specific idea of an international treaty.\nOn the basis of this position, the Council is now taking forward work on the details of the proposal for action set out in the Commission communication. I hope it is clear from what I have said today that the Council is taking this issue very seriously.\nWe fully recognise the growing strategic importance of the Arctic region. We agree that the Europeam Union should have a comprehensive and coherent policy. The Council will certainly keep this Parliament fully informed about further developments and is grateful for your continuing interest in this subject.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament for its interest in the Arctic and also say how much we appreciated your resolution on Arctic governance last October. It gave political impetus to the Commission's own work on the communication that has already been mentioned, 'The EU and the Arctic region', which was adopted last November.\nNow, why is this so important? We share your concern that the Arctic region deserves international attention as never ever before. Scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring much faster in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. In the past six years alone, the ice cap has lost up to half its thickness near the North Pole and may have passed a tipping point. That is a clear warning sign we would be foolish to ignore. The radical transformation of the Arctic is having an impact on its people, its landscape and its wildlife - on land and at sea.\nTherefore, now is the time to act. That is why we adopted the communication, which is the first step towards an EU policy for the Arctic, laying the foundations for a more comprehensive approach. The communication focuses on three broad goals: protecting and preserving the Arctic, in full cooperation with its inhabitants; promoting the sustainable use of resources; and beefing up multilateral governance.\nThe proposals in the communication are the outcome of a very thorough analysis made by the Commission. This involved consultations with all main Arctic stakeholders, including both EU and non-EU Arctic states. This was all the more necessary because many EU activities and key developments of global scope, such as the integrated maritime policy or climate change, have an effect on the Arctic.\nSo, based on these discussions and in light of the motion for a resolution tabled for discussion today, let me stress that the Arctic region differs from the Antarctic in a number of key aspects. Unlike the Antarctic, which is a vast, uninhabited continent surrounded by an ocean, the Arctic is a maritime space, surrounded by inhabited land belonging to sovereign countries.\nSo the idea of establishing a binding legal regime specifically designed for the Arctic is, unfortunately, difficult, because none of the five Arctic Ocean coastal states - Denmark, Norway, Canada, Russia and the United States - is in favour of such a regime. I therefore fear that such a proposal would at this stage not only be ineffective but could prove to be detrimental to the EU's role and credibility in overall Arctic cooperation. Rather than expending efforts on that cause, the EU's interests and objectives are better served by building greater multilateral cooperation and making better use of the existing legal instruments.\nThrough the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other general conventions, there is already an extensive international legal framework in place. The UNCLOS is also the basis for settling disputes, including maritime delimitation. We want to see these conventions fully implemented and, very importantly, adapted to the Arctic specificities. For example, we propose a regulatory framework for sustainable fisheries management where areas and species are not yet covered by other instruments.\nSecondly, we will work closely with the International Maritime Organisation, developing and enforcing solid international standards for safer Arctic navigation, respecting human safety and environmental sustainability. This means either extending existing legislation or adopting new legislation.\nThirdly, we will also defend the internationally recognised principles of freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage. Coastal states should avoid discriminatory steps concerning navigational rules. Any measures will have to be applied in full compliance with the International Law of the Sea.\nFourthly, it is not realistic to propose an international moratorium on the extraction of Arctic resources. The bulk of the estimated reserves of minerals, oil and gas are either on the sovereign territory of the Arctic states or in their exclusive economic zones, and some of them have far-reaching plans for further exploration activities. However, we insist that the extraction and use of Arctic resources must always adhere to the highest possible standards for the environment and sustainability.\nWe share Parliament's concerns about the urgency of action in this region, and our communication puts forward a set of coherent and specific proposals. Based on this, we look forward to continued cooperation with you as we develop an EU Arctic policy.\nLet us never lose sight of our common goal, and let us work together with the Arctic states and the international community to find the best and most effective way of preserving and protecting the Arctic for future generations.\nAnders Wijkman\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I have participated in a number of meetings in the Arctic region focusing very much on climate change.\nNormally the first day in such meetings is devoted to the serious effects for the region, its wildlife, the livelihood of its people, and so on, because of global warming. The second day is very often devoted to opportunities in terms of geological exploitation. Something of a contradiction. I would submit that rapid exploitation of geological resources would, of course, entail very serious risks.\nI agree that you cannot draw an exact parallel between the Arctic and the Antarctic - I agree with the Commissioner there. At the same time, since we do not have a careful, sustainable environment framework in place for the kind of activities that are now being explored by the nations in this region, I think this resolution sends a very important signal: be careful. The fact that all political groups are behind it, I think, is significant.\nWe list three alternative ways forward: one, an international treaty, with, of course, special provisions for this region compared to the Antarctic; two, a moratorium, pending new scientific research and a better understanding of the region and its vulnerability or sensitivity, but also pending the results of many energy alternatives that are now developing very progressively. Maybe in the future we will not need those fossil reserves at all.\nSo I think that, even if colleagues in this Parliament may differ on the margin about the most responsible way forward, I think it is very significant that we are all behind this resolution. I want to stress that we want to go beyond just enhanced multilateral cooperation and dialogue; we want to ensure that the safety of the environment and the livelihoods of the people are protected.\nV\u00e9ronique De Keyser\nMr President, I would like to quickly remind you about what is happening in the Arctic so that everyone understands what is at stake in this debate. At the North Pole global warming is sharpening appetites for control of the area's natural wealth. The melting of the ice will make it easier, as you have said, to exploit the vast oil and gas reserves and to open up a navigable waterway between the East and the West, which will save thousands of kilometres for cargo ships but will unfortunately prove disastrous for the environment.\nClaims to sovereignty over the area by the five border countries - Canada, Denmark, Russia, the United States and Norway - leads to obvious tensions. The Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs announced this week that Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic's lands and waters was long-standing, well-established and based on historic title. He said that the Canadian Government would also promise increased political monitoring and a greater military presence in Canadian Arctic waters.\nThese words echo the Kremlin's announcement of its intention to deploy military forces in the Arctic in order to protect its interests. Until now, regulation of this strategic area has come from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed by 150 countries on 10 December 1982. It lays down that coastal states exercise control over an area up to 200 miles from their coasts and have economic rights over the resources of the seabeds, but this area can be extended if the states can prove that the continental shelves extend beyond 200 miles. They have until May 2009 - and that is very close - to put a request of this kind to the UN.\nRussia took the initiative in 2001, hence the current unrest. As far as my group, and Mr Rocard, who initiated this debate in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and who has recently been appointed ambassador for the Arctic, are concerned, given the implications for energy, the environment and military security, the Convention on the Law of the Sea is not adequate for the Arctic. The North Pole is a global asset that must be protected by a binding charter, in which the European Union must play a leading role. We want a North Pole that is clean and above all without troops.\nDiana Wallis\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, this debate clearly follows on from our resolution last October on Arctic governance. Our group has no problem in supporting the wish for an Arctic treaty, but more in the light of a quest for a new mode of governance. The treaty is perhaps more symbolic, but what we do insist upon is working with - and respecting - the nations and, more particularly, the peoples of the Arctic. It is people, as you have already said, that distinguish the Arctic from the Antarctic.\nThere are already international structures - the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) rules, the International Law of the Sea - but there is a need for something more tailored and more specific. We should build on the work of the Arctic Council. Commissioner, you should join it as soon as possible and you should help build its political capacity. At all costs, we have to avoid a retreat into old-style sovereignty, territorial claims and intergovernmentalism. A new style of governance is needed for this fragile area of our globe in which every citizen of the world feels they have an interest or a stake.\nWe also have to prove our credentials for Arctic involvement, and our record as Europeans is not good. Our sailors and traders devastated the Arctic environment in the 17th and 18th centuries with the so-called 'rape of Spitsbergen'. It is our industrial emissions that have led directly to acute climate change in the region, and we now threaten to impose our values and our traditions on the peoples of the Arctic at this very sensitive moment. We have to listen to them and work with them because, quite frankly, their record of protecting their environment is better than ours. Our group will not therefore support the 50-year moratorium.\nGodfrey Bloom\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Mr President, I live on a lovely island - a beautiful island - which has been systematically destroyed by the European Union over the last 15 years. I have seen the European Union Landfill Directive, which has had industrial waste - laughingly called 'compost' - thrown upon the land. I have seen hundreds of thousands of fish dumped in the North Sea. Near my own village, I have seen what used to be wonderful fields of wheat and barley and dairy cattle being turned over to things like miscanthus and all sorts of other biofuels, wrecking our environment and pushing up the cost of food.\nThe European Union wants us to meet our objectives of renewable energy. Thirty-five thousand wind turbines the size of jumbo jets, the biggest desecration of my beautiful island since the Industrial Revolution. And now you are looking for a remit over one of the last wildernesses in the world, the Arctic. Well, Mr President, colleagues, let me tell you that I agree with Mrs Wallis. Your record is appalling and the answer has got to be, for goodness' sake, keep your nose out of this.\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, yes, the Commissioner is right. The Arctic is quite different in many ways from the Antarctic, and it was only a few months ago, on 8 October 2008, that I spoke to this House on this very topic.\nThe Arctic, as I said then, plays an increasingly important geostrategic role in our world, and over the past decade several critical issues have emerged in this region. We are now faced with the opening of hitherto closed seaways, a direct result of climate change. This comes as no surprise, since the Arctic is warming at a much faster rate, with an increase of two degrees in the last hundred years, compared to an average of just 0.6 degrees in the rest of the world.\nThis highly vulnerable ecosystem is coming under increasing pressure from resource-hungry nations which wish to exploit its potential without having due regard to its fundamental importance as a stabilising force in the world's climate.\nI agree with Mrs Wallis's point that a call for a 50-year moratorium on any exploitation is neither practical nor reasonable, but I think a limited moratorium on new exploitation - pending fresh scientific studies - is something all civilised nations could perhaps agree to.\nApart from this, the EU counts amongst its Member States no less than three Arctic nations along with two other EEA neighbours, accounting for more than half the numeric membership of the Arctic Council. This is reason enough for us to be able to assert ourselves, in the best sense of that word, on the global stage on this issue.\nThe Arctic is critical for global climate, and for this reason alone we must be part of a new style of governance for this beautiful and - as the previous speaker said - one of the last wildernesses of our world.\nMart\u00ed Grau i Seg\u00fa\n(ES) The Arctic region is one of the most fragile on our planet. The consequences of unrestricted exploitation of its natural resources would be catastrophic, not only for the surrounding area and the indigenous population, but for the world as a whole.\nThe thawing of large areas has made those risks a reality, creating the need for a new global regulation to protect the Arctic, similar to the existing one for the Antarctic, while bearing in mind the differences that have already been highlighted in the debate.\nWe need an international treaty between all parties involved, which no doubt includes the European Union, in order to protect the unique Arctic environment, to ensure the full sustainability of all kinds of human activity and to implement multilateral regulation of shipping in new sea lanes that become accessible.\nIn the years since it was created, the Arctic Council has been a model of cooperation in managing shared problems. In these times of difficulty or uncertainty, we should take that spirit and understanding to a higher level so as to avoid neighbouring States or other international players becoming involved in geostrategic arguments and forgetting what should be our common goal: preserving a great shared heritage.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\nMr President, today we are discussing the protection of the Arctic, which is a very hot topic - not only in the European Union.\nFirstly, because the Arctic region is thought to contain huge energy resources - as much as 20% of the world's undiscovered technically recoverable reserves - the temptation to exploit these resources is irresistible. Secondly, the Arctic environment is exceptionally fragile. The whole of the international community stands to be affected by many of the changes that are already taking place. Thirdly, territorial disputes hang over the Arctic. We risk triggering major conflicts between countries wanting to protect - including by military means - what countries in the region consider their national interests.\nIt is time for the European Parliament to make its position clear, as it has taken almost no part in this debate until now, with the exception of our resolution, passed in October last year, calling for an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic. It is important to mention that EU Member States and the EEA associated countries comprise more than 50% of the membership of the Arctic Council. As it is for the United States, the Arctic should be a strategic priority for the European Union.\nI fully support our draft proposal that the Commission and the Council should work towards establishing a moratorium on the exploitation of the geological resources in the Arctic for a period of 50 years, pending fresh scientific studies. We, the European Parliament, should call on the Commission to initiate negotiations with the Russian authorities on a number of important issues which are listed in our draft resolution. It is time to include the Arctic on the agenda for the forthcoming EU-Russia Summit.\nChristian Rovsing\n(DA) Mr President, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark with significant responsibility under Home Rule. The Arctic is not uninhabitable. It is not an unregulated landmass like the Antarctic. On the contrary, the landmasses are part of the Arctic countries and four million people already live there, a third of these being indigenous people. These people and their nations have a legitimate requirement to exploit the resources and the opportunities found in the area. It is only the sea in the middle that has international status and in this regard the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) forms the relevant legal basis. This approach was also confirmed by the Arctic coastal states in the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration. In addition to UNCLOS, there are a large number of other relevant international and regional instruments. There is scarcely any need for more governance. At most there is a need to adapt the instruments already in place. Denmark has submitted a proposal to the Arctic Council to examine the existing agreements with a view to updating them. This will and should happen in cooperation with the Arctic states and the Arctic peoples.\nCharles Tannock\nMr President, the Antarctic Treaty serves as a shining global example that territorial claims by littoral states can be set aside in the interests of peaceful cooperation and scientific research. As the world confronts the issue of global warming impacting on the melting of the two caps and causing rising sea levels, and as frozen Arctic maritime passages re-open to navigation, it is important that an analogous arrangement be found for the frozen - or should I say thawing - North of the Arctic. The scramble for sovereign claims and Arctic mineral resources, as evidenced by the melodramatic planting of the Russian flag on the sea bed, must be rejected.\nThe EU should try and convince the five Arctic littoral states - the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark - of the wisdom of such an approach.\nJohannes Lebech\n(DA) Mr President, as a Dane involved in tabling this motion for a resolution together with Mrs Wallis in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I am not necessarily very popular. However, I think that the main approach taken by the resolution is a good one. It is good that the EU is focussing on the Arctic region. It is also good for the small nations of Denmark and Norway that the EU is involved in this matter, so that we do not only need to play with the big boys of the area, the US and Russia.\nHowever, I would like to say that I am unable to vote in favour of the moratorium that has now been included in the resolution. Firstly, it is quite unrealistic. Russia and the US will not accept it under any circumstances. In addition, however, I also think that we need, as Mr Rovsing said, to take account of the people who live in the region and the people of Greenland naturally expect, and naturally have the right, to be able to utilise the natural resources on their territory, just as every other nation can on its territory.\nMarie Anne Isler B\u00e9guin\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would simply like to remind you that it was the polar bears on the ice floes who showed us how much chemical pollution was affecting the whole of the world. DDT was found in their fat, and we all know very well that that is not a substance that is used on the ice floes.\nIn any case, I would like to thank the Commission for the proposal it made after the discussion we had here in Parliament, because it is really urgent, on account of climate change, to protect the only area that is sheltered from human predation. We must remember that.\nThere is, of course - and here I am taking up what Mrs De Keyser said - political urgency, because, after all, we are forced to do something for the Arctic. Indeed, some of the owners of part of this continent have designs on it. We know very well that Russia, which we spoke about recently, wants to establish its frontiers beyond its maritime area and extend them over the continental shelf. It is therefore an urgent matter for us, because Russia also wants to place its flags there and install military units, just as Canada does.\nWhat is missing from your proposal, perhaps, is what we asked for last time, that is, an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic, which will allow us to ensure its protection once and for all.\nAlojz Peterle\n(SL) We are witnessing both natural and human crises taking place in the Arctic. Our efforts should be directed towards ensuring that they are not followed by a political crisis or a crisis of any other sort. The call for a responsible approach towards the Arctic is an SOS and an issue of global governance. I welcome, in particular, any effort which respects the indigenous people of this region.\nPaul R\u00fcbig\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, who has cooperated really very closely with the European Parliament and is certainly the hardest-working Commissioner in this field: I really do appreciate it. She was also present at our meeting with the European Economic Area last week: after all, the Nordic dimension is particularly important here, and Diana Wallis, too, has repeatedly stressed that Europe bears a very particular responsibility in this connection.\nI think that, particularly in a financial and energy crisis, it is incumbent on us to take an even greater interest in this field and also to respond to the wishes and needs of the population in this regard, because, ultimately, man and nature are not in opposition, but should complement one another. From this point of view, I think we can point to some pleasing successes, particularly in energy policy, and perhaps we will be able to intensify cooperation in this field.\nAlexandr Vondra\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I welcome this timely debate. As a result of the quest for resources and climate change, the Arctic region is on the brink of a profound change. It is not only the region itself which is likely to be affected but, as many here today have recognised, also the EU as a whole. Against the background of these developments it is important that the EU approaches the Arctic in a comprehensive and strategic manner covering a whole range of issues, such as environment, transport, biodiversity, climate change, maritime affairs, energy and research, as well as protection of the livelihood of the indigenous peoples.\nI consider that the Council is now taking this issue very seriously. It broadly supports the suggestions set out in the Commission's communication. This should constitute the basis for an Arctic policy, which needs to be developed in a comprehensive manner. To those who are talking about the new treaty, there is no Council position at the moment because the Council is only now in the process of examining the Commission proposals. I would just like to recall the Council's conclusions from December. In the conclusion we say that the objectives of the EU could only be achieved in close cooperation with the Arctic countries, and the EU should enforce its participation in conformity with the current international conventions.\nAs I mentioned earlier, the Commission proposals are now being studied in much more detail. They will, I believe, facilitate agreement on an overarching response to the many varied challenges which we face in the Arctic region. I welcome the interest of this Parliament and I am ready to come back to you to report once the Council has reached a position.\nBenita Ferrero-Waldner\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, as I underlined at the beginning of this important debate, the European Union has to play an increasing role in protecting the Arctic environment, in promoting sustainable exploitation of natural resources and in enhancing Arctic multilateral governance. We are committed to the preservation of the Arctic and, at the same time, our aim is to contribute to a cooperative system that will guarantee sustainability, as well as free and equitable access. In order to succeed in these important endeavours, we have to cooperate closely with all the Arctic states and Arctic stakeholders, as I have said.\nIn this regard, the Commission proposes to promote the full implementation and elaboration of existing obligations, rather than proposing new legal instruments in order to enhance security and stability. Strict environmental management and sustainable use of resources, as well as open and equitable access. At the same time, the EU has already highlighted that, for areas beyond national jurisdiction, the provisions on environmental protection under this Convention remain rather general, and we will continue to work within the United Nations towards the further development of some of the frameworks, adapting them to new conditions or Arctic specificities. For example, a new UNCLOS implementation agreement on marine biodiversity beyond the areas of national jurisdiction could take the Arctic into account, and we have also submitted our application to the Norwegian chair of the Arctic Council. The acceptance of the Commission's application requires the unanimous decision of all the members of the Arctic Council. This decision, which is due on 29 April - i.e. very soon - might be negatively affected by an initiative that perhaps proposes an Arctic Treaty, so we should be careful about that.\nFinally, let me say that the Arctic coastal states have a clear preference for the UNCLOS as a basis. The European Union has to take this into account when we want to develop even stronger cooperation for the benefit of the Arctic, its inhabitants and its wildlife. In this context, we should not weaken the existing frameworks for cooperation as this would not really serve our objectives and interests. Nor would it correspond to the spirit of your own draft resolution.\nIn conclusion, I consider that the conditions are not yet right for an international treaty on the Arctic, and that we should rather focus our efforts on ensuring the effective application of the existing legal frameworks, thus filling the gaps that might exist, and adapting the rules to the specificities of the Arctic. This seems much more feasible.\nPresident\nI have received six motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 2 April 2009.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":3,"2013-20":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"4. Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (\n- Before the vote:\nJoseph Daul\nMr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), I propose that the House refer Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert's report back to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in accordance with Rules 63 and 175 of the Rules of Procedure. We heard the Council and the Commission yesterday. Both asked that Parliament grant them extra time, so that they can answer the requests that we personally formulated on the interim agreement.\nParliament is right to call the Council and the Commission and the United States to account. It is our responsibility - even more so with the Treaty of Lisbon - and we must assume it. Parliament is right to put personal safety and privacy on the same footing, because there cannot be one without the other. By asking you to postpone the vote slightly, the PPE Group is not questioning Parliament's demands or authority. It is asking for the ball to be put back into the Commission's, the Council's and the US's court for a very short period of time.\nIn fact, my group proposes that Parliament limit the time granted to the Council by demanding that the required information be supplied to us next month, not in May as requested by the Council. That would enable us to reach a definitive opinion in March. That is not unrealistic, especially as we learned yesterday evening that Commissioner Malmstr\u00f6m was undertaking to propose a new negotiating mandate for the final agreement next week or by the next mini-session in Brussels, which is to say in 10 days' time. A new mandate in February and Parliament's vote in March, that is what we are proposing.\nTimothy Kirkhope\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to support the EPP's proposal for postponement on the vote. I believe that this is a sensible and rational course of action; the House may have new powers but we must exercise them in a measured and responsible way. The Council has tried to appease Parliament, perhaps not sufficiently yet, but they have also apologised for their mistakes during this process. So I think we should now take some time to cooperate and work together on moving forwards and towards a new long-term agreement as well. I believe it is in the best interests of the House's reputation, the future of our international agreements and the security of Europe that we now give ourselves this time.\nJeanine Hennis-Plasschaert\nrapporteur. - Mr President, my recommendation is to vote against postponement as conditions for postponement have not been met by the Council. This House cannot keep falling for fake promises; the ball was in the Council's court but it failed to act appropriately and effectively. The Council has known about this problem for over two years and has done nothing in that time to deal with it. By withholding our consent on the interim agreement the security of European citizens is not being compromised. Targeted transatlantic data exchange will remain possible; the rule of law is crucially important though currently our laws are being broken and under this agreement with its provisional application they would continue to be broken. Parliament should not be complicit in this.\nFinally, the last point, if the US Administration would propose to US Congress something equivalent to this to transfer in bulk bank data of American citizens to a foreign power we all know what the US Congress would say - don't we?\n(Applause from the Left)\nCecilia Malmstr\u00f6m\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission would support a postponement of the vote. It will give the new Commission a chance to create a new momentum on this difficult dossier and it would also give the European Parliament more time to see how we intend to process this further.\nThe Commission is committed to a very ambitious timetable. I would like to confirm what Mr Daul said - that the Commission will adopt the mandate for a new long-term agreement on 24 February if you agree to postpone the vote. I am ready to come to you personally the same day to present the mandate. The Council will get it the day after in Brussels in order to consider it. I am sure that the Spanish Presidency will do everything they can to agree to the mandate as soon as possible. The Commission will then immediately launch negotiations with the US to try to conclude them as soon as possible.\nWe will, within those powers, keep the European Parliament fully informed at all stages of the process. My goal is to achieve a new agreement with very ambitious safeguards for privacy and data protection. I think we can build trust on both sides of the Atlantic for tracking financing, but of course this has to be done while fully assuring the protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights.\nMartin Schulz\n(DE) Mr President, I have a supplementary question for the Commission, that is, Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m: Am I correct in my understanding, Mrs Malmstr\u00f6m, that, in your capacity as Commissioner, you support the postponement of the vote of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)? May I ask why you did not support these requests during your six-month stint as the Swedish Presidency's Europe Minister? If you had, we would not have had to discuss the postponement today.\nPresident\nWould you like to answer, very briefly?\n(The Commissioner declined to do so.)\n(Parliament rejected the request to refer back to committee the report)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Amending budget no 1\/2010: Section I - Parliament - Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year 2011 - Section I - Parliament (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe report by Mr Ma\u0148ka, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on Draft Amending budget no 1\/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I - European Parliament, and\nthe report by Mrs Tr\u00fcpel, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the estimates of revenue and expenditure of Parliament for the financial year 2011.\nVladim\u00edr Ma\u0148ka\nMany procedures are now more direct and more transparent, due to the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force. Powers are more clearly defined. The European Parliament has greater power, and the European Union has boosted its standing both externally and internally. For the first time in the history of democracy, the citizens of a number of countries have the right to influence events on a supranational level.\nIn view of the size and diversity of Europe, we must take care that all citizens, including those who are not very wealthy and do not belong to large established organisations, have recourse to all democratic means. Utilisation of these democratic means must not be dependent on the possession of large financial resources.\nThe entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has a specific financial impact on some European institutions. During the budget procedure for 2010, it was agreed that we would preferentially use an available reserve in Heading 5 for financing additional costs arising directly from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nToday, therefore, after adopting the original budget for 2010, we are addressing the corresponding additional expenditure via an amending budget. Following the submission of applications for additional resources, we took every effort to locate reserves and distribute existing resources as far as possible.\nThe Treaty of Lisbon has a direct or indirect effect on all of the European Parliament's services.\nThe amending budget of the European Parliament, which we are debating today, will secure the additional financial and human resources to enable Parliament to fulfil its new codecision-making role on an equal footing to that of the Council.\nThe net financial impact of the amending budget of the European Parliament is lower than the original demand for budgetary resources. In the conciliation proceedings with the Presidency of the European Parliament, we managed to find EUR 4 million. There was a further reduction in demand for resources as a result of the timing, as we approved the budget a month later than we originally expected.\nMost companies and institutions, not only in Europe but throughout the world, are taking advantage of the global economic crisis to improve their efficiency and competitiveness. This is the challenge for us, the European Parliament, just as it is for other European institutions.\nThe Secretary-General of the European Parliament now has further savings and efficiency improvements at his disposal, and not just for this year. The detailed functional audit at the INLO Directorate-General and in the security service unit, which we agreed on when approving the budget in December, may bring significant and sustainable savings for future budget periods as well.\nHelga Tr\u00fcpel\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament's budget for 2011 is the first real budget for our Chamber since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. That means that Parliament has more competences, we have more duties, we have more responsibility, we have more legislative duties - in other words, we need more working capacity and that means we need a bigger budget.\nAt the same time - and this is very important to me - we have to be aware that we are in the midst of the economic and financial crisis and the euro stability crisis. In Germany the debt cutbacks will kick in in 2011, high levels of cutbacks are needed in Greece and in all heavily indebted public budgets. We thus need to find a very responsible position for how we approach the increases in Parliament's budget in these difficult economic times. As rapporteur for the 2011 budget, I will reflect the majority position, although I will also set out my own green position.\nTwenty per cent for Parliament's budget, based on the administrative budget, was an upper limit that was laid down between the institutions in 1988. The majority in the Committee on Budgets believe, however, that that cannot apply to the same degree to 2011, as the reality has changed. We have enlargement, we have more competences and we have more duties, so the 20% figure must not necessarily be regarded as fixed. Despite that, it has become clear that we are aiming to stick to the area around 20% for reasons of self-discipline and responsibility.\nThe Bureau has proposed a figure of 20.46% - in other words, EUR 39 million above the figure for 2010. After some debate - and taking account of the conflict of aims - we have now agreed that we will only spend 20.32% - in other words, an additional EUR 20 million. There is consensus that we need more staff for enlargement, more staff for the library, IT and studies, that we need to give clearer priority to environmental protection here in Parliament and that it would be very positive for there to be more bikes available in Strasbourg so that less use would need to be made of the transport service.\nWhere is there controversy, however? There is controversy on the question of whether there should be more money in 2011 - EUR 1 500 - for assistants. I repeat that that is for assistants, not for Members of this House. That would total EUR 13.2 million. The majority in the Committee voted to place these increases for assistants in the reserve on the basis of the argument that this should be better evaluated and decided later in the year.\nI would like to make the green position on this point clear, which is that we need to be sensitive to the general debt problems and my group therefore believes that we should waive this increase of EUR 1 500 for the next year. We should not change the Members' statute at this point - we should instead undertake to take fewer business flights for short trips so that we actually apply environmental protection - which we repeatedly call for politically - to our own behaviour and our own Parliament. It is therefore very pleasing that we have succeeded in improving our own environmental protection data, one example being a 12.9% drop in CO2 emissions in 2008. We have reduced energy consumption by 0.8%. We would like to see a job-funded pass for local public transport, in other words, we want to prove ourselves to be responsible from both a financial and an environmental policy point of view.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Fernandes\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is advocating budgetary stringency, transparency and sustainability. We therefore welcome the work of the administration in specifying fixed and variable expenditure, as well as the fact that a medium-term strategy regarding buildings policy has been tabled. Nevertheless, we believe that these documents can be improved in the future, and we would remind you that we are advocating a long-term buildings strategy.\nWe are ambitious regarding budgetary stringency, so we want progress to be made towards a zero-based budget, in which each item of expenditure is supported by documentary evidence. To the same end, we also propose that progress be made in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of variable expenditure. We would argue that there is a potential saving and we therefore support - indeed we are ourselves suggesting this - reductions in some budgetary items.\nExcellence in lawmaking is Parliament's principle goal. We all know that not having the appropriate legislation or having bad legislation always leads to high costs; costs which, in the final analysis, are always borne by the European public. To achieve this aspiration of excellence in lawmaking in the face of the new competences resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we support the possibility of recruiting new human resources; we want these to be of a high standard; indeed, we demand it.\nI would also remind you that we are going to have 18 new Members and that these too must be in a position to properly exercise their mandate. The times we live in are very demanding and European institutions play an essential role; it is a crucial role, in which they must not fail, and they therefore need to have sufficient means at their disposal.\nWe are well aware that there can always be strong doses of populism and demagoguery surrounding budgetary issues, and we repudiate these. There are even those who insinuate that MEPs' allowances are increasing, which is not true. What we are seeking is for Parliament to have allowances sufficient for it to have the dignity that we all advocate, and achievement of the goal that the European public expects, indeed demands, of us: excellence in lawmaking.\nDerek Vaughan\non behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, it is always controversial when you discuss your own budget, and we have seen that in our discussions on the amending budget and in our own budget for 2011. However, I am pleased that most of the issues have now been resolved for 2011 within the Committee on Budgets itself. Indeed, I believe there are now very few differences between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau, apart from maybe three or four issues. One, of course, is the 20% threshold. Another is the buildings reserve, another is the posts which have now been put into reserve and another is the second tranche of EUR 1 500 per Member per month for the assistants' allowance.\nThese two tranches of EUR 1 500 per Member are controversial and would be difficult at any time, but are, of course, even more controversial in difficult economic times. This is even though we all recognise that the Lisbon Treaty has given us more responsibilities. It is because of this that a compromise has been reached to put the funding for the second tranche of EUR 1 500 into a reserve and it will remain there until the full costings of this proposal are established.\nI think the other controversial issue for us which is outstanding is the office-holders allowance. The compromise reached here was to reduce the figure allocated for office holders down from EUR 1.2 million to EUR 400 000 and, of course, documented evidence of receipts must be provided when any claims are made. I think that is an important principle and one we would all want to support. Colleagues themselves will decide whether these two compromises are acceptable to them or not. I believe the majority of the S&D Group will find those compromises acceptable to them.\nOne thing, however, has also become clear in our discussions on the 2011 budget, and that is if we are to fund extra responsibilities in the future because of the Lisbon Treaty, we must also find efficiency savings elsewhere. For the 2011 budget, some attempts at making these savings have been made. Indeed, the overall increase has come down from 6.5% to around 5.8%. That is welcome, but I believe we need to do much more in the future.\nI hope that in the future, the Bureau will come forward with recommendations and proposals, not only about spending, but also about ways in which we can make efficiency savings in the future. I would hope those savings would include changes in the way we do things, rather than just making cuts.\nI believe it is important in the future that if the Bureau does come forward - and I hope it will - with efficiency savings proposals, that it is discussed with Members at an early stage. This will give the European Parliament the chance to shape the budget, but also to shape our priorities and to identify savings ourselves, but in the meantime, we should continue to work to ensure that our budget for 2011 is acceptable to Members, to this Parliament and, of course, to the public as well.\nCarl Haglund\nMadam President, we have had an interesting debate on Parliament's own budget for this year and next year.\nI would like to start by giving particular thanks to Mrs Tr\u00fcpel, who has done a good job on the preparation of next year's budget. It is probably more balanced than was originally intended.\nThe Treaty of Lisbon brings with it new requirements of the European Parliament and, with that in mind, it is logical for Parliament to expect some increased costs, because there will be an increase in our activities.\nAt the same time, it is absolutely astonishing that we have been entirely incapable of reorganising our own activities in order to meet the new requirements. That is an area in which we need to improve.\nIn the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, we have been critical of the cost increases originally proposed by the Bureau which have, in fact, now been partly cut, as has been said. Nonetheless, I would like to say that the ALDE Group does not accept, and will not vote in favour of, a further EUR 1 500 per month increase in allowances for each Member so that they can employ further assistants. We also oppose the idea that the chairs of the committees should be given an entertainment allowance.\nIt is obvious that the two big political groups have now found a point of contact in this matter, but we in the ALDE Group will fight for our views in this Chamber. It is important that the European Parliament shows that we really are interested in the level of costs to which we give rise. I cannot really understand the logic that was presented here earlier according to which it is a matter not of cost increases, but rather of being able to perform our duties properly. That is not what it is about at all. In the final event, it is only about cost increases.\nBy extension, it is also good to remember that the greater the number of assistants employed in Parliament, the greater will be our requirements in terms of our buildings and it will become very expensive in the long term. We in the ALDE Group are highly critical of some of these proposals and will vote accordingly when the House votes.\nHelga Tr\u00fcpel\nMadam President, I would like to start with the magic word 'balance' once again, which Mr Haglund has just mentioned. I actually believe that, as we now discuss the 2011 budget, we must take as our starting point the question 'How can we find a proper and responsible balance?'\nMr Fernandes spoke of popularism in relation to Parliament's considered idea of being very responsible and self-disciplined in the 2011 budget. I completely disagree with him in this regard. I do not believe that it is popularism for us to together come to the considered conclusion that, in the light of the many cutbacks that we are demanding of other countries, we too need to examine very closely how we in Parliament must act with self-discipline. On the contrary, I believe that to be precisely the political responsibility of the European Parliament in the current circumstances. In the cutbacks that are being demanded of Greece and public budgets in general, we must have the courage, on the one hand, to legitimise the increases that we do need in order to do our work responsibly and yet, at the same time, to find a limit where we say: under present conditions, we also require a certain delimitation, as that is simply a part of the political landscape. This must be signalled according to the maxim 'We have understood!' That is important from a political point of view, and I therefore once again call on all the groups to consider what signal we will be giving the public with the 2011 budget.\nLajos Bokros\non behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, in Romania, civil servants are facing a 25% cut in their salaries, in Spain, public sector employees will see 5% to 15% of their wages disappear, and in Portugal - not to mention Greece - governments are making huge efforts to save on human resources. In the UK, the new government has already indicated that there is a need for a major package of financial savings this year.\nDoes anybody in this Parliament think that now is the time for the European Parliament to spend more on anything - to increase spending, have more staff for groups, library, committees, IT staff and an additional EUR 1 500 in assistants' allowances? We are debating the second tranche of the EUR 1 500; I say that even the first is absolutely unnecessary. It should not be a question of putting the second into reserve; we should eliminate both because this is not the time to do this. We are all aware of increased competences, but more competences do not necessarily require more spending. It requires more efficient spending, more accountability and more responsibility.\nI completely agree with Mrs Tr\u00fcpel, who said that there are ways to make additional savings. We do not need a fleet of cars here in Strasbourg. We have free public transportation. I use the tram every day. Instead of using business class tickets, we can use economy class in order to make savings. I, for one, as a matter of principle, have never flown business class when coming here from Budapest. All in all, while the discussion between the Bureau and Committee on Budgets was very useful in this respect, I think that a tremendous amount of further opportunities exist where we can make savings.\nMarta Andreasen\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, once again, I am appalled to see how the Members of this Parliament continue to demand budget increases while people in the Member countries are struggling to live through the present crisis. But today I will refer to the ethics of this House.\nIn the present situation, is it acceptable that, while they demand power to control national budgets, the European institutions want to increase their own administrative budgets, as is the case with this Parliament? Is it acceptable that the EU institutions go to the Court of Justice over the Council's decision to moderate the increase in salaries of EU civil servants? Is it ethically acceptable for Parliament to rush out its approval of the Council's 2008 accounts in exchange for the latter's approval of Parliament's budget increases?\nLet me explain: the Budgetary Control Committee has voted unanimously against approving the Council's 2008 accounts due to a lack of transparency. Coincidentally, the Council has failed to approve budget increases for Parliament. I guess that we will see Parliament voting in favour of approving the Council's accounts this week, and shortly afterwards the Council will be approving extra budget for the Parliament. These votes, ladies and gentlemen of Europe, the ones for Parliament's budget and the Council's discharge, are representative of the ethics of the institutions that aim to govern all of us.\nAngelika Werthmann\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon brought with it changes, including, and indeed specifically relating to, the importance of the European Parliament. I have already pointed out once that my 'Yes' to the amendment of the parliamentary budget is a conditional one. Of course, the European Parliament should strive for legislative excellence. Of course, strengthening Parliament's role means that it has more obligations, more responsibility and more work. That said, in times of crisis like those we are in at present - the worst economic crisis in 60 years - I would point out that, as MEPs, we, too, and indeed we, specifically, should exercise particular care with the money entrusted to us. The Council and the European Parliament are supposed to and must work together to a greater extent, and this cooperation requires a willingness to act as partners.\nIvaylo Kalfin\n(BG) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs, Mrs Tr\u00fcpel and Mr Ma\u0148ka, for their excellent work in preparing the decisions which we are discussing today. We must acknowledge that this was anything but an easy task, as witnessed by today's debate.\nOn the one hand, we must be paragons of thrift and efficiency when it comes to spending European taxpayers' money. On the other hand, however, we must give Parliament the opportunity to fulfil all its duties and responsibilities which these same taxpayers have entrusted to it through the Treaty of Lisbon.\nThe fact is that the new European Union treaty imposes the most changes and new duties actually on our institution. One of the most serious issues causing much debate was the extent to which the European Parliament is taking into account the tough economic situation in Europe and showing leadership in terms of restricting expenditure and increasing its effectiveness.\nThe parliamentary decisions which we are discussing today are relevant to the economic situation. A minimum 5.5% increase in expenditure allows us to increase the European Parliament's staff by taking on 18 new employees. We need the administration to provide specialist support for areas which have significantly increased, where the European Parliament's decisions are crucial.\nWe offer MEPs the opportunity to have more contact with their voters, to undergo specialist training in more areas and to fulfil their new duties, which were entrusted to them by the Treaty of Lisbon. We are paragons of thrift as we are accommodating all the new functions as part of an overspend of just 0.28% on the agreement reached many years ago so that the European Parliament's expenditure does not exceed 20% of the European budget's administrative costs.\nAt the same time, we must state very clearly that the old agreement needs to be renegotiated in future so that it reflects, to a large extent, the changes in the institutions' functions and, in particular, the increase in the role and, accordingly, the expectations of the European Parliament.\nFellow Members, we still have reserves available. In future, we must increase our efforts to make Parliament work more efficiently, for instance, by relying not on buildings but on new technologies, by setting an example in terms of institutional and environmental standards and by analysing closely the impact of every expense and not allowing the budget to grow automatically, as is usually the case with any bureaucracy. We must not forget that we are accountable to our voters, who are going through difficult times at the moment, for every action we take.\nAlexander Alvaro\n(DE) Madam President, in times of crisis, in particular, politicians must be able to separate their rational and emotional sides, especially when it comes to budgetary matters and money. I have the feeling that the Treaty of Lisbon and the associated budgetary issues are a little bit like the weather forecast - you never know exactly how things will look in the morning. The forecast says rain, so you take the umbrella, and in the end it maybe spits a little, but there is definitely no real rain.\nIt is the same with the Treaty of Lisbon: we do not know how Parliament's workload will be changed by the Treaty. I have to wonder how it was possible for Members to have worked in the committees and the presidiums in the past in such a way that there will be no change as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon.\nThe discussion about the EUR 1 500 increase in the secretarial allowance is symbolic for the issue of whether we are able to slim down our structures, save funds and make our working processes more efficient. Taking these three points into account would be of greater benefit to us than ever increasingly talking about the area of funding. Above all, it is only over the next year that we will see what impact the Treaty of Lisbon has really had on our work.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) There is no doubt that the European Parliament, which has more responsibilities and a greater role to play following ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, quite naturally must have greater financial resources to be able to fulfil this role. The previous speaker is right. We do not know how much, in practice, that role will increase, but we do know that it will increase. In relation to this, quite naturally, our voters' and taxpayers' expectations of us are greater, too. This, too, is why the request for an increase in funding, for example, for Members' assistants, is unquestionably justified both financially and politically.\nWe are aware that at the moment, there is a huge crisis in Greece and generally in the countries of southern Europe, which is obviously also a problem of a political nature, but when cutting costs, we must not amputate certain functions of the European Parliament. I am profoundly convinced that the budget of the European Parliament should be significantly increased.\nDani\u00ebl van der Stoep\n(NL) Madam President, Parliament's draft budget for 2011 is EUR 1.7 billion. That is equivalent to EUR 2.3 million per MEP per year, EUR 200 000 per month and a staggering EUR 6 400 per MEP per day; and there are 736 MEPs in this House.\nMadam President, EUR 6 400 is a huge amount of money. I can think of a hundred things it would be better spent on than this puppetry. Most importantly, however, citizens themselves must be able to take such decisions. Let us shut up shop in Brussels, Luxembourg and, primarily, Strasbourg today. Let us simply clear everyone out of the buildings, lock the door, throw away the key and give that EUR 1.7 billion back to the citizens who have earned it with their own blood, sweat and tears.\nEach Member of this House should have to get up and go to bed every day with the thought that he or she will cost, or has cost, the taxpayer EUR 6 400 that day. Each Member must also see it as his or her duty to bring that amount down every day, as everything that is spent on nonsense here is taxpayers' money that has been produced by citizens through enormously hard work.\nThat is what should happen, but it does not. In this House, more is always better. Via handshakes, like-knows-like, shadowy deals in back rooms, tens of millions are added to the budget. The elite decides, and the public coughs up. Everyone should think about this at night before going to sleep, and I would call on everyone to do so tonight: to ask him or herself, 'have I cost EUR 6 400?' If they do not do so, they should be deeply ashamed, as they are worth nothing as MEPs.\nIngeborg Gr\u00e4\u00dfle\n(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would say to Mr van der Stoep: I am worth my money, and I am standing by that position. If you are not worth yours, then you have my sympathy. All I can say is that we are doing ourselves no favours if we create working conditions for ourselves in this House that effectively make it impossible for us to work. I support the increase in the secretarial allowance - indeed for both levels - and I believe that this is highly justifiable.\nAnyone who works in this House needs staff. Those who do not want to work should not prevent those who want and have to work from doing so. No one will be forced to use the increase in the secretarial allowance - you can use it, you do not have to do so. If MEPs do not use the allowance, then all the better for the taxpayers, who will then get the money back. I, in turn, can only speak for myself when I say that I am worth the money and that the same applies to my staff. However, we must put under the microscope activities that were undertaken in the past on the basis of a surplus in this budget. We must examine whether we thus want to and are able to continue these activities. I am also thinking, in this regard, above all, about the web TV service. I think that we have to take action, that we cannot leave everything as it is.\nApart from that, we have undertaken many reforms with the Bureau and we should also allow these reforms to bite. The Committee on Budgetary Control will do everything in its power to point out where things are not working.\nGeoffrey Van Orden\nMadam President, across Europe, governments and public institutions are facing up to the need for cuts, but this Parliament continues to live in a fairytale world. I hear fine words about the need for savings and efficiency, but the budget of over EUR 1.7 billion in 2011 is an increase of nearly 6%. This is totally unacceptable. We should be talking about massive savings, not increases. There are many ways in which this could be done.\nFor a start, we should be cutting unnecessary waste and expenditure. This House should demand that Council end the Strasbourg circus and save annual costs of over EUR 200 million. A further EUR 50 million would be saved every year by closing the European Parliament offices in each of our countries. We must streamline the bureaucracy: the number of officials employed by Parliament has increased by 14% to 6 000 in just three years. Any other organisation in straitened times would meet new priorities with compensating reductions elsewhere. We seem to think that we live in a different world. We need to take the necessary steps to bring about real changes and real cuts in Parliament's budget.\nBart Staes\n(NL) I should like to come back to the idea of twice adding EUR 1 500 per month to the secretarial assistance allowance. It is true that Lisbon gives us many additional tasks, so I shall certainly not be opposing the idea of more staff for the parliamentary committees given additional tasks by Lisbon, such as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.\nNor shall I be opposing more staff for the groups, to enable them to better support that kind of task, but let us be honest, ladies and gentlemen: it is crazy, and also incorrect, to give each individual MEP EUR 1 500 more this year and a further EUR 1 500 on top next year.\nI myself have worked in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for 10 years, and I continue to do so. That committee has very many legislative tasks under the codecision, or ordinary legislative, procedure. I have always managed with three assistants, and I assume that those MEPs currently working or about to work in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs can also manage with three assistants. Your suggestion, Mrs Gr\u00e4\u00dfle - that extra staff should be given to those wanting to work but not to those not wanting to - is populism of the highest order.\nVladim\u00edr Ma\u0148ka\nI would like to thank everyone who expressed an opinion. I am pleased that you all want to perform your legislative work as well as possible, and to make the best possible use of resources. Each one of us has his or her own opinion as to where and how we might improve things. Today's debate bears witness to this. I would like to say to Mr Bokros that there is a way to achieve savings through objective methods. This way was blocked one year ago by Members of your political group, among others.\nSince January, I have been the head of a regional authority in my own country. After taking up this post, the first step was an independent external study of all the processes in my institution. This audit will eliminate duplication and reduce administrative costs by more than 15%. If we want to analyse spare capacity and reorganise existing resources to the greatest possible extent, an objective and independent external study is the best solution.\nThose who had the courage to take this step achieved the best use of resources and managed to reduce their administrative costs markedly. In the coming days, we will be debating and voting on the 2010 amending budget of the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.\nThese institutions are clearly expanding their activities, with greater powers and a greater workload. I would also like to make a request to the Council for us to be able to finalise these budgets as soon as possible, so that both institutions can carry out their responsibilities in a responsible and efficient manner in the new or expanded areas introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.\nHelga Tr\u00fcpel\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have all heard how controversial the debate about this 2011 budget is. No wonder, either, given that, in fact, it concerns real increases and cuts but also - as always in politics - symbolic issues.\nAs rapporteur, I would like to put the following on the record. You have seen the full spectrum of viewpoints here, from Mrs Gr\u00e4\u00dfle from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), which is very settled in favouring these increases - including the EUR 1 500 - in order to safeguard its ability to work, to other Members, who have said 'We do not need this' or 'We need to evaluate much more precisely how the increases can be justified and provide ourselves with an overview, including of the individual committees and working areas of this House'.\nAs rapporteur, I would like to point out that the majority of the Committee on Budgets decided to place the additional money in the reserve - it has thus not yet been agreed by the Committee on Budgets - and to demand a precise evaluation. All of that therefore still has to be done. We need to get this evaluation on the table, and then in the autumn we will once again have to very seriously get to grips with these results so that we will be able to further negotiate with the Council in October under the new budget procedure and also so that we can find a majority position internally here in Parliament. In the current state of affairs, it is important to point out that there is controversy, there are very different opinions and there is a majority opinion according to which we need to look at the figures very closely once again.\nMy thanks for your advice, and I hope that we all demonstrate prudence as we move forwards.\nPresident\nThank you, Mrs Tr\u00fcpel. However, this ends the joint debate on the budget. Thank you for your speeches. The debate is closed.\nThe vote on the report by Mr Ma\u0148ka will take place tomorrow, and the vote on the report by Mrs Tr\u00fcpel will take place today at 12.00.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nGeorgios Stavrakakis  \nThe amending budget is the outcome of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Parliament has come up against new challenges and will need resources if it is to meet its new responsibilities and challenges with success. I should like to emphasise that European citizens want Parliament to perform its duties impeccably and, in order to safeguard this, it is important for its members, its committees and its political groups to have the necessary resources. Furthermore, we believe that financial discipline and spending cuts are needed now more than ever, and European citizens quite rightly expect them of us, which is why we have prepared a budget that guarantees financial austerity and transparency.\nWe have also insisted on the need for long-term policy planning for European Parliament buildings, in a bid to safeguard satisfactory financial support both now and in coming years. We are sure that these measures will help to put us in a position to address the concerns, expectations and demands of the citizens of Europe.\nTo close, I should like to congratulate Vladimir Ma\u0148ka on his excellent report.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nLena Ek, Olle Schmidt and Lars Wohlin \nInterest subsidies designed to offset the Member States' interest charges in connection with the purchase of EU agricultural products are one of many drawbacks to EU agricultural policy, which needs to be radically transformed. In the interests of consistency, it should, however, be accepted that, where the new Member States are concerned, a certain amount of interest offsetting might take place to prevent mass unemployment from being created in the poorer parts of Europe.\nThis report concerns an extension to a regulation that has existed since 2004 and that compensates those new Member States whose interest substantially exceeds the EU average. The cost of an extension amounts to approximately EUR 10 million per year. It has been proposed that funding be obtained from savings within other budget headings so that there are no additional aggregate budget increases. The Commission also regards this extension as part of a package in which the removal of subsidies for maize cultivation is also proposed - a step that would mean a significant saving of approximately EUR 35 million in 2008 (with, according to the Commission, a total saving for 2008-2014 of EUR 617.8 million).\nIn the longer term, a 'no' vote would be in danger not only of having a bad effect on the new Member States, but also of jeopardising the Commission's proposed saving of just over EUR 600 million. I have therefore chosen, in spite of everything, to vote in favour of this report.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, although it is very difficult to give a statement of vote with all this noise going on, I would like to say that I abstained from voting on the grounds that I find this state of affairs unsatisfactory. Germany and a number of recalcitrant deficit-runners may well now be on the road to recovery, but I do not see that as an occasion for rejoicing, and all the less so in view of the fact that they, while benefiting from the surprising strong economic growth, are nevertheless considering extracting even more money from the consumers' pockets. It is for that reason that I have abstained from voting.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nin writing. (PL) I voted in favour of adoption of the report on the opinion on the Council Regulation repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2040\/2000 on budgetary discipline- C6- 0277\/2006-\nMr Lewandowski presented a good report. Council Regulation (EC) No 2040\/2000 of 26 September 2000 became redundant following implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290\/2005 and implementation of the new credit guarantee reserve mechanism for the period 2007-2013.\nRepeal of this regulation will improve the quality of Community legislation. Doing away with outdated provisions will significantly improve the transparency of our legislation, and facilitate its implementation.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) This proposal to amend a number of directives as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions aims principally at promoting cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M[amp]A) in the banking and financial sector. In other words, it aims at promoting the concentration and centralisation of capital at European level, by improving the penetration ability of foreign capital and the integration of the financial markets. Prudential assessment is thus seen as an obstacle to cross-border M[amp]A, following a Commission survey presented in November 2005 on barriers to consolidation of the financial sector within the internal market.\nApart from maximum harmonisation, among other technical details, the proposal provides for reducing the periods for prudential assessment by the competent national and banking supervisory authorities from the current 65 days to 30 days. The compromise proposal extends the period proposed by the Commission but still accepts a reduction to the current period. We therefore voted against.\nPeter Skinner \nin writing. The unanimity of agreement between the committee members who actively considered this report underlines the concerns for shareholders. Institutional shareholdings by fund managers who sought to repatriate rights to owners of those shares was critical to the success and balance of this report. Similarly the level of communications and appropriate timing has renewed the connection between share owners and boards of directors, allowing questions to be put without the 'nuisance effect' which could jeopardise effective management of shareholder meetings.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, I should like to explain why I voted against the Howitt report. The attempt is being made to compel people, under the heading of Corporate Social Responsibility, to do what small and medium-sized enterprises have always done in any case, for social responsibility is a major characteristic of small and medium-sized businesses and a permanent feature of their entrepreneurial culture. The European Union's misguided subsidies policy, though, has for years on end supported big businesses and limited companies for which the worker is no more than an exchangeable item, and which have, slowly but surely, driven small and medium-sized enterprises off the market. It is for this reason that I voted against this report.\nPhilip Bushill-Matthews \nin writing. The UK Conservative delegation voted against the Howitt report in committee, as did the EPP-ED, because it was oppressive and regulatory in tone. The UK Labour rapporteur had called for yet more EU legislation, rather than inspiring companies to choose to adopt the concept themselves.\nAs a result of my amendments in plenary this report has been completely turned around. The voluntary nature proposed by the Commission has been endorsed. Parliament has accepted that a social EU does not automatically need more EU regulation.\nAs is increasingly the case, it has been UK Conservatives setting the agenda.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) The current trend in the majority of EU countries, with the increase in insecure and badly paid jobs and the exploitation of migrant workers both from outside the European Union and from within the EU itself - as has been happening with Portuguese workers in the Netherlands and Spain, for instance, and now in the United Kingdom - goes to show that companies are accepting less and less social responsibility.\nFurthermore, the countless relocations by multinationals, even when their productivity levels are high, just because they want ever larger profits, demonstrating complete insensitivity towards the thousands of people they make redundant, are proof that most large companies practise no social responsibility whatsoever.\nIt is symptomatic that the proposals that we tabled in plenary were rejected, since they highlight the incongruence between the objectives attributed to corporate social responsibility and the employment policies put forward by the Commission, particularly 'flexicurity', designed to liberalise unfair dismissals, support the proliferation of precarious work and devalue collective agreements and employment with rights.\nTherefore, despite the positive proposals contained in the report, little is likely to change in practice until there is political will for change and a proper review of labour law and International Labour Organisation rules.\nBruno Gollnisch \nI see three fundamental contradictions in this report on corporate social responsibility. The first is the claim that this responsibility is established on a voluntary basis while there is a requirement for frameworks, standards, definitions, controls and incentives to be created that are so diverse and restrictive as to undermine the very voluntary nature of this approach.\nThe second is the claim that businesses are being encouraged to be socially responsible when all EU policies, and especially competition policy, actually encourage businesses to relocate and to look for the lowest fiscal, social, environmental and labour cost bidder, including within the EU.\nThe third is the desire to make European businesses act in a socially responsible way, without excessive international trade really being challenged and with our markets continuing to be opened up to imports from countries that practise all forms of dumping, forced labour, child labour and political prisoner labour.\nThere is a certain hypocrisy to that. Even if you deny it, you are making businesses bear the responsibility and making them suffer the consequences of your policies, your failures, your powerlessness and your defeats.\nCarl Lang \nin writing. - (FR) Corporate social responsibility is a mish-mash of a concept that, notwithstanding the imagination of the ultra-Europeans, has nothing original to it. This non-binding gimmick appeared in the United States as far back as the 1950s. In France, the notion of 'socially responsible companies' came about specifically at the time of the Sudreau report in 1975. And, in 1982, social objectives were imposed on businesses in the public competition sector in an attempt to shock the people and the executives of triumphant socialism.\nTwenty-five years later, CSR is aimed quite simply at humanising and regulating globalisation. These pious hopes in times of unemployment and social precarity against a backdrop of international instability make CSR seem like a huge con. We must clearly stop wasting our time and our money on considerations that are aimed merely at sending out polite weedy messages when we are lagging behind the world.\nLet us be responsible, first and foremost, for ourselves. Let us show respect for ourselves by implementing a Europe-wide system of preference and of Community protection for people, production and businesses. Let us increase, for instance, customs duties on imports of third-country goods that have not been manufactured in accordance with minimum European social standards.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3 \nin writing. - (PT) In a perfect market, both the economic performance and the social or environmental impact of a company would be taken into account in determining its worth and its public image. In a perfect market, consumers would choose the products that were directly best for them and indirectly best for their other interests.\nOf course, such a market does not exist. Those who follow a continually interventionist line will therefore argue for greater regulation and more legislation. That is not the route that I advocate. Even though I realise that the market is not and never will be perfect, my preference lies with market mechanisms and with solutions that bring such mechanisms to bear. Thus, measures that promote and disseminate good practice and, above all, those that foster a demanding consumer culture are preferable in my view.\nThat leaves the issue of competitiveness. I am not convinced by the idea that profit, or simply economic viability, always has to be at odds with the environment, employment and social responsibility. Profit is not an evil: it is a good thing, provided that it is gained in accordance with the rules, particularly those created within the market as a result of greater pressure from consumers. These are the rules that we must bring to bear.\nBart Staes \nNot by a long shot is it taken as self-evident, as it should be, that companies should exercise corporate social responsibility. Companies that consider themselves to be socially responsible owe it to society to reduce to a minimum the negative social and environmental effects of their activities. Meanwhile, since many initiatives have claimed the label of 'socially responsible', consumers can no longer see the wood for the trees and every inspection becomes an impossible task to the layman. Moreover, the effects of the free market and the destructive nature of the constant quest for the lowest prices is progressively becoming a matter of common knowledge. Regulations are needed in this area in order to strengthen the consumer's hand and reinforce the supporting structure of the odd well-meaning company. Europe can play a pioneering role on the social responsibility front by developing policy that creates, and enforces, standards whilst at the same time guaranteeing a level playing field.\nThis is exactly what Mr Howitt's report on 'corporate social responsibility: a new partnership' is doing. It pleads, inter alia, in favour of compulsory reporting, chain responsibility and more transparency where lobbyists are concerned. It also argues in favour of lending more weight to the social and environmental effects in public tenders. Since the report quite clearly opts in favour of sustainability, it receives my unqualified support.\nCatherine Stihler \nin writing. I welcome the rapporteur's own-initiative report. The concept of a European standard for product-labelling recognising human rights and workers' rights should be supported. There are still too many people in our world today, many of whom are children, living under modern-day slavery. With the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery being remembered on 25 March, we need to do all that we can to combat modern-day slavery. Corporate social responsibility helps us in this battle.\nThomas Ulmer \nin writing. (DE) My reason for rejecting the Howitt report is that the most essential characteristic of Corporate Social Responsibility is voluntarism rather than dirigisme. Mandatory social and environmental reporting goes against the Lisbon Strategy and militates against the reduction of bureaucracy to such an extent that I find myself unable to support it. Such dirigisme handicaps and endangers most of all small and medium-sized businesses, which were and still are the backbone of the German economy. It is out of concern at this approach that I firmly repudiate the report.\nAgnes Schierhuber\n(DE) Mr President, like the Austrian People's Party delegation as a whole, I voted in favour of the Sartori report, since we take the view - and it is a sad and lamentable fact that that view still has to be expressed - that women are no more able than they were to lead a life combining work, career, and children, that is to say, a life in every circumstance of which they determine for themselves what they shall do. We are in favour of women being given in this respect, once and for all, the freedom to choose, and of policymakers creating the conditions under which women will be able to do just that, particularly with regard to education, vocational training and equal pay for equal work.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Mr President, for clarity's sake, I should like to say that my vote against the Sartori report should not be seen as a rejection of gender equality. This is a principle I wholeheartedly endorse and regard as an important achievement of our European civilisation.\nIt is a principle that is increasingly being challenged in our society due to the mobilisation of Islam in Europe, and this mobilisation of Islam and its effects on our values and our civilisation is indeed something about which a great deal can be said. Unfortunately, the report does not breathe a word about this.\nWhat I am opposed to, though - and hence my vote against the report - is the compulsory quotas and parities in all kinds of institutions and in the political world. In fact, I regard this mandatory quota for women as an insult, and I take the view that women do not need positive discrimination in order to claim their legitimate place in society in the way, and when, they want this.\nFran\u00e7oise Castex \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the Sartori report on a roadmap for equality between women and men (2006-2010).\nAlthough gender equality is a value proclaimed by the European Union, there is still some way to go, for example regarding equal pay. In this regard, I endorse the rapporteur's proposals aimed at requesting the application of the equal pay principle so that the 15% gap between the pay awarded to a man and to a woman doing the same job is no longer the rule.\nI welcome the implementation of practical strategies aimed at promoting female entrepreneurship.\nFurthermore, I am delighted by the proposal in the report that calls on the Commission to speed up the creation of policies aimed at reconciling family and professional life, not least by actively encouraging fathers to make use of available flexible working time options and to take on household chores and family work.\nI am also delighted by the measures designed to protect women and children from all forms of violence, including slavery, honour crimes, human trafficking and polygamy.\nFinally, I am delighted by the request made to the Commission concerning the adoption of practical initiatives for promoting the emancipation and integration of migrant women.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic \nin writing. (SV) Because we think it obvious that men and women should be equal, we have voted in favour of the equality road map.\nWe also believe, however, that responsibility for most of the actions taken to achieve equality should lie with individuals. Because the measures requiring legislation come, more often than not, within the competence of the individual Member States, we have voted against a long list of separate proposals in the report. We do not, for example, believe that the EU should decide on matters such as childcare, maternity and paternity leave or abortion legislation in the Member States.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) All the proposals that we tabled to clarify the causes of the kinds of discrimination that still exist were rejected in the plenary vote. I would highlight the following:\nEmphasises the need to amend the European Union's economic policies so that all women, men and children can live with dignity and without the threat of poverty;\nUnderlines the importance of establishing Community indicators on childcare facilities and on the gap in wages and other income between men and women, by sector, not least as regards atypical work and part-time work;\nUnderlines the need to fight for the mainstreaming of gender equality in the economic guidelines, including in the accession process, with a view to avoiding the adverse effects in terms of gender equality that are generated by privatisation and liberalisation processes and cuts in public spending in social sectors, and reaffirms that high-quality public services are essential, calling for an increase in budget funding in social areas so as to prevent social exclusion and combat the trafficking of women;\nFears that policies focusing on increasing EU competitiveness may jeopardise the interests of women in other regions of the world.\nHence our decision to abstain.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren \nin writing. (SV) Gender equality and women's vulnerability in both private life and the life of society as a whole are among the greatest issues of our time. We have voted against the report, however, because we are confident that the national parliaments of the individual Member States can manage these important issues appropriately. We do not believe that the EU should express opinions on issues of this type in far-reaching reports resembling political programmes more than anything else, and we object in principle to the general trend whereby the EU institutions endeavour to achieve influence and competence within ever more areas. The role of the EU in this connection is to ensure that no existing or future Member States offend against the values pertaining to gender equality.\nAstrid Lulling \nin writing. - (FR) The fact that we are discussing gender equality 50 years after the Treaty of Rome is not an illustration of success. This principle has been enshrined in the Treaty since 1999. The legal basis for this policy is therefore sound.\nAlthough this report is useful in terms of making up time, it leaves a lot to be desired. On the occasion of International Women's Day, the main theme in my country was the tailoring of pension rights to individual needs and the dividing up of those rights accumulated during marriage in the event of divorce. I am delighted that the roadmap stipulates that social protection systems should allow people to accrue individual pension rights.\nI should like to point out that, on the basis of one of my 1991 resolutions, this House adopted a report in 1994 on the sharing out of pension rights in the event of divorce. The report made some practical proposals to the Commission, which took no follow-up action whatsoever. Why?\nThe same goes for my report and our proposals aimed at creating a framework for establishing a status for assisting spouses. All of this forms part of equal opportunities policy. We have heard enough fine words from the successive commissioners: where is the action?\nLydia Schenardi \nin writing. - (FR) Five days on from International Women's Day, the European Parliament is proposing a roadmap for equality between men and women. Is the timing a coincidence? The fact remains that women are at the forefront, if not in reality, then at least in the texts.\nThe report presented to us proposes a near exhaustive list of the measures to be taken to guarantee equality between women and men. While numerous proposals have been put forward, not least those relating to the measures aimed at better reconciling the obligations of family and professional life, it must unfortunately be said that many worrying and meaningless points feature in this report.\nI am talking, for example, about yet another attempt to introduce a system of quotas for the recruitment and participation of women in all economic and political sectors. We know that this measure can only be counterproductive in terms of the way in which women are portrayed and thought of.\nHowever, I am also talking about the pointless proposal to create a 'Ms Lisbon' in charge of ensuring that the Lisbon Strategy is implemented properly: a kind of 'European superwoman'. Proposals such as this only discredit the initiatives taken to promote women.\nMarianne Thyssen \nThe Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality has approved an ambitious report on the Roadmap for equality between women and men. Reconciling a fully-fledged job with the other things to which people aspire, such as family, social and personal involvement, is a challenge for the future for both women and men.\nThe Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has voted against certain elements of the report, either because these fly in the face of our political conviction, or because the areas involved should fall within the remit of the Member States rather than that of the European Union. As we see it, equal opportunities policy is a serious matter, and we take the view that this report, even if it does not contain any legislative commitments, is sufficiently important to take note of what is and is not included in it. Even though we do not agree with everything that is in this report from the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, we still want to send a message that, in the area of gender equality, 50 years after the Treaty of Rome, a great deal can, and indeed must, be done. Let there be no doubt about the fact that we too want equal opportunities, for we, too, are persuaded that Europe has a great deal to do in that area, and that is why our group has voted unanimously in favour of Mrs Sartori's report.\nIlda Figueiredo \nin writing. - (PT) We agree in general with the proposals included in this report seeking clarification from the Commission on the recommendation on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services. The Commission proposal has sown considerable unease in the relations among European collective rights management societies (CRMs), with divisions between the large, small and medium-sized ones.\nIt must be pointed out that the Commission recommendation would benefit the major operators and the large multinational recording publishers in the online music market and would harm both authors and cultural diversity. At the same time, it would be an open invitation to concentrate nearly all rights management in the hands of two or three enormous CRMs, which would distort the concept underlying their establishment, which is the concept that gives them legitimacy.\nWe therefore generally agree with the proposals to amend the recommendation, which aim at making it more effective and fairer, thus safeguarding cultural diversity. We believe there should be a proposal for a directive on this issue as soon as possible, in order to minimise the damage that the recommendation is causing to relations among CRMs, and between them and their various users.\nBruno Gollnisch \nWhile the introduction of competition between collective management societies may be beneficial for rightholders and music services alike, it is imperative that it be controlled.\nThe fact that rightholders may freely select the manager of their choice throughout the entire European Union, and this irrespective of their country of origin, is liable to have various consequences. In particular, it will help ensure that rights are concentrated in the hands of the largest collective management societies. It is also liable to have unfavourable consequences for the most modest rightholders, insofar as rights managers will seek to attract the most profitable rightholders, and even to compromise fair treatment for all rightholders and thus to undermine cultural diversity.\nTherefore, although the recommendation is supposed to be aimed at promoting fair competition, it is actually in danger of creating the opposite effect.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki \nI voted in favour of adoption of the report by Mrs L\u00e9vai on the Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services (Recommendation 2005\/737\/EC).\nIt should be remembered that a great deal of work was involved in preparing the aforementioned report. The rapporteur took due account of the serious nature of the problem of copyright, the dangers posed by market monopoly and the issue of protecting consumers' rights. In line with the spirit of the report, I hope that the European market in online music services will be able to enjoy freedom of development, without detriment to cultural diversity.\nI wish to say that I support the request for the Commission to undertake an in depth study of the impact of multi-territorial and multi-range licences on online music services, and for the results of the study to be submitted to the European Parliament.\nBart Staes \nThis House is now right to conclude that the Commission, with its recommendation of 18 October 2005 on 'collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services' has gone too far. Neither the music industry, Parliament, nor the Council have been consulted, and the 'soft legislative approach' proposed by the Commission has already influenced market decisions, which makes it more than a recommendation.\nAt the moment, companies that want to offer online music services in Europe must organise the rights with copyright organisations and record companies in each country individually. The Commission is right to say that this can be simplified. The recommendation, however, opens up the possibility for a completely free market, which could put cultural diversity and local repertoire at risk, as attracting the most profitable right-holders is, indeed, a more viable proposition for collective copyright managers. Moreover, the Commission rates commercial interests higher than cultural diversity.\nThis House argues in favour of controlled competition by prescribing a number of clear conditions, such as the equal treatment of authors, a fair and transparent competition structure which prevents the income of authors from going down and a fair representation of all interested parties in the management structures. This report values unity in diversity, and so it can count on my support.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna \nI voted in favour of adoption of the report by Mrs L\u00e9vai on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services.\nMrs L\u00e9vai presented a very good report to the House.\nTechnical progress and the development of our civilisation have resulted in the emergence of a new generation of cross-border commercial copyright users. These are the suppliers of Internet music services. It shows how the market in copyright and related rights is evolving and developing, which further confirms the need for the initiatives taken in this area.\nAs we conduct the debate we are engaged in we should also bear in mind the possibility of responding to future needs resulting from the nature of collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights. For that reason also, it is essential to conduct an in depth study of the impact of multi-territorial and multi-range licences for online music services and of the effects on the socio-economic situation of the rightholders and on cultural diversity.\nPresident\nThat concludes the explanations of vote.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2017-13":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote (continuation) \nAlajos M\u00e9sz\u00e1ros\n- (HU) I would like to see the ban on the use of cyanide in mining extended throughout the European Union. I would like us to be able to eliminate these technologies altogether in the future, in order to prevent further serious natural disasters, where various toxic materials enter our water sources. There has been such a case in Hungary, where almost all life in the river Tisza died out 10 years ago. Slovakia is also affected in this issue as the accident occurred near the border, and it intends to open mines in the near future where the same technology would be used for gold mining. This and similar issues are not disputes between two EU countries; it is our common interest to have a more sustainable environmental policy. This is why I voted in favour, this is why I would like to join the supporters of this measure.\nGiommaria Uggias\n(IT) Mr President, we are about to proceed with the ban on the use of cyanide mining technologies, because - as my fellow Members mentioned a short time ago - they have caused and continue to cause severe environmental effects and they pose critical dangers to human and animal health.\nOur vote was intended to express the clear desire of the Italian IDV (Italy of Values) delegation of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe not to negotiate fundamental rights like the health of citizens and the natural environment by subjecting them to the economic interests of a few system manufacturers. On this point, let me say that since this deals with systems for mining gold and certainly not potatoes, the proprietor companies could easily allocate adequate economic and financial resources to researching technologies that are compatible with the environment and health safety.\nCorneliu Vadim Tudor\n(RO) I wish to thank almost 500 of our fellow Members who voted overwhelmingly yesterday against the use of cyanide technologies in mining. The word 'cyanide' is synonymous with 'death'. This outright vote will do us Romanians, in particular, a big favour. One of the largest natural fields in the world is located in Transylvania. Experts estimate that it contains 300 tonnes of high purity uranium, 800 tonnes of gold and 2 000 tonnes of silver, not to mention huge quantities of other precious metals and elements. Greedy mafia gangs, both local and cross-border, are prowling around these treasures, continually increasing the aggressive tone of their propaganda, full of the most ridiculous lies.\nThe use of cyanide technologies would have caused a huge disaster by poisoning the environment, resulting in four mountains being blown up, nine cemeteries being destroyed and eight Christian churches being demolished. This is without mentioning the disappearance of 1 700 km of Roman galleries, with the ruins of the Roman citadel Alburnus Maior being wiped off the face of the earth, an archaeological gem described by UNESCO as a unique cultural heritage site in the world. Europe has had enough of one Chernobyl and does not need another one.\nCristian Dan Preda\n(RO) I voted against the motion for a resolution yesterday because I was asked to do so by the local communities which regard this ban as a threat to the area's development.\nIn fact, I believe that the amendment suggested by me and more than 40 of my fellow Members, which called for a study to be carried out to clarify the impact issue, would have been an honourable and reasonable gesture. Otherwise, the passions expressed here have only served to destroy certain communities' chance of development.\nJoe Higgins\n- Mr President, may I ask you why so many Members are allowed to speak loudly and rudely in private conversations when other Members are trying to express themselves?\n(Applause)\nI abstained on the resolution on Kyrgyzstan. Five years ago the people of Kyrgyzstan mobilised for the Tulip Revolution against the corrupt regime and for a better life for themselves. The Bakiyev government that came to power unfortunately dismally betrayed the hopes of a better life for the masses, instituting a corrupt and authoritarian regime. The new government is made up, unfortunately, of cronies of Bakiyev and has no credence in terms of a new life for the people of the region.\nI support my fellow socialists from the Committee for Workers International in the region who call for elections to a new parliament but make clear that nothing will change unless workers and the rural masses have their own candidates and independent working class party to reverse the disastrous privatisations of the last 20 years, to tackle neoliberal capitalism and to institute real democratic change and new institutions controlled by working people and with genuine planning of the economy and a Socialist Federation of Central Asia.\nRadvilMork\u016bnait\u0117-Mikul\u0117nien\n- (LT) I am very pleased that this document was adopted by a large majority, that is to say there was hardly any opposition to it. This in itself is quite understandable since health affects all of us and those closest to us. I also congratulate the European Parliament and all citizens of the European Union as well as the rapporteur for taking such decisions today that should advance more specific and targeted actions not only to cure those suffering from cancer, but also to ensure the prevention of cancer. Unfortunately, the prognosis in terms of cancer is really terrifying, and we must concentrate our efforts to overcome it.\nI voted for the adoption of this document, because I believe that an integrated view of cancer cases and fighting them should be regarded as particularly important as part of the health strategy of both the European Community and Member States. Collective and coordinated work by Member States is required to reduce the risk in the area of cancer cases.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n- (SK) The report on measures to combat cancer talks about the importance of prevention in the fight against this disease.\nWe know that early diagnosis of this disease will increase the chances of a successful cure. The incidence of some kinds of cancer can be predicted by genetic predisposition, lifestyle and so on. In my opinion, therefore, more extensive screening could be the first effective and rapid step towards preventing many deaths. A further important step would be the transfer and dissemination of successful methods of treatment to all countries of the European Union, including centres with less experience in the treatment of cancer, in order to improve the provision of effective treatment.\nIn any case, however, we must applaud the work of Mr Peterle in the hope that the EU will take more extensive measures in the fight against this disease.\nVito Bonsignore\n(IT) Mr President I would like to express my appreciation of the work carried out by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Peterle. This development of a partnership in the battle against cancer, on a subject as sensitive as that which we faced, honours Parliament as a whole.\nAccording to data from the World Health Organisation, around 2 million European citizens die every year from a tumour and in around 10% of the cases it was caused by being exposed to carcinogenic substances at work. I am convinced that the goal of reducing new cases by 15% by 2020 should also be pursued through joint action with the Member States. Europe must demonstrate that it is united in this area as well. In my opinion Article 66, which can guarantee the availability of medicines to everyone in every country, responds to this fundamental principle.\nMr President, that is why I voted in favour of the report.\nAlajos M\u00e9sz\u00e1ros\n- (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, in the past years we have seen an explosive development of information and communication technologies. The significant development and results seen in the ICT sector contributed to the development of other, previously stagnating sectors, such as mechatronics, nanotechnology, control and measurement technology. Therefore the initiative of the Commission to use ICT to meet EU 2020 goals should be applauded. I welcome the fact that we accepted this programme and I am glad that I, too, was able to vote for it. It is vital that we meet our planned targets by 2020, that is, we decrease carbon dioxide emissions and increase energy efficiency. The information and communication technology sector may be of strategic importance in the energy saving programme of the European Union and in increasing the competitiveness of European industry. However, in order to achieve it, support is needed for the standardisation of measuring devices as soon as possible, for starting research projects, and for passing a package of measures aimed at decreasing consumption and improving production and service supply management.\nBarbara Matera\n(IT) Mr President, I voted for and support the valuable work presented by Mr Prodi, in conclusion of the significant work carried out by the European Commission.\nI represent southern Italy, which is located in the south of Europe in the Mediterranean basin. Our people have put their faith in us and deserve not to find themselves unprepared for the effects of climate change in our regions and our countryside, which depends primarily on agriculture, fishing and tourism and is largely made up of more vulnerable communities and social groups.\nHence I believe that solidarity among the different States and areas is fundamental, not least in the response to this new strategy that we are putting into action. Obviously it is very difficult to speak with all this confusion; in any case I am finishing. I applaud the implementation of the Solidarity Fund instrument, for which I am the rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), as additional support for a prompt and effective answer to the effects of climate change. It really is impossible to speak.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n- Mr President, I support the Commission's white paper and the report by Mr Prodi. I think that such a white paper is especially needed in the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate change talks. The results that we saw in Copenhagen are definitely not enough. The non-binding document that was agreed in Copenhagen to halt global warming at +2\u00b0C would still mean a warming scenario for Europe, something that would be marked by extreme regional climate changes.\nWe need to pay special attention to the way we produce our energy. We need to make stronger efforts to set up a tangible common energy policy. We must support research into environmentally friendly technologies, but also set up clear policy frameworks on how renewable-energy technologies can be introduced and mainstreamed in our economies.\nI hope this white paper will push the EU in the right direction and will result in some tangible policy action.\nKarin Kadenbach\n(DE) Mr President, I support the motion which Mr Prodi has tabled today. However, the amendment to this report tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and, in particular, by Mr Seeber, which has unfortunately been adopted by plenary, seems to me to be more questionable. I am concerned that the conservatives are using this method to reintroduce nuclear power by the back door. Promoting low-carbon energy sources is a well-known argument used by the nuclear lobby. I would like to emphasise the fact that the Prodi report is definitely going in a different direction. As an Austrian, I do not regard nuclear power as renewable energy. It is very important for me to make it clear that I have not voted in favour of this paragraph today.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":3,"2013-20":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nPresident\nLet us now proceed to the explanations of votes.\n\nBogus\u0142aw Rogalski\n(PL) Madam President, I would like today to comment on the serious accusation which was made in this Chamber against Members of the European Parliament, and on the slander of the European Parliament uttered by Mr Martin when he said that some MEPs do not vote themselves, but send proxies, who vote using the MEPs' voting cards. This is unacceptable behaviour, because the proceedings of the European Parliament are transmitted live. The citizens of Europe are sitting in the balcony and they heard today, in an election year, something extraordinary. It is slanderous, and I would ask that at its next meeting the Bureau instruct Mr Martin to withdraw his words and to apologise to all the MEPs who sit in this Chamber.\nPresident\nMr Rogalski, you saw that I asked for it to be checked immediately whether it was true or false.\nIt is therefore on the record. It was false. It is therefore recorded in the Official Journal. I now ask for the President of Parliament to take the necessary action, and we will discuss it in the Bureau.\nGay Mitchell\nMadam President, you did indeed deal with it very speedily, but I do think that it is not acceptable that a Member should rise in his place and make such a serious allegation against other Members of the House. I hold no support for the gentlemen of the extreme right, but the President of Parliament must uphold and protect the rights of Members. We are being accused of all sorts of outrageous things, and we are entitled to proper conduct and ethical behaviour by our colleagues here in this House, and indeed outside the House.\nPresident\nIf you please, I have recorded everything that you have said. You have seen that we have tried to deal with these matters quickly, because they are important. I am entirely in agreement with you, and we will see what action is to be taken.\nChristopher Beazley\nMadam President, following that exchange and your very helpful reply, I was unable to catch your colleague's eye yesterday to report that the same Member - I decline to use the world 'honourable' - had published an article in the Austrian press naming a member of Parliament's staff. This seems to me, whether the allegations are true or false, to be yet another example of wholly improper behaviour. It may well be that the character involved would not have his credentials verified if the Austrian electorate are foolish enough to support him.\nPresident\nI have recorded what you have said, Mr Beazley. We are all in agreement that we need to be sensible here, but you are right, Mr Beazley, that in general this sort of thing always backfires on the person responsible.\n\nOral explanations of vote\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMadam President, this report was about the rights of people with disabilities, and I wanted to put on record and acknowledge the work done by Richard Howitt, a Labour Member of this House, in his fight for people with disabilities.\nI have always been a great fan of opening sporting opportunities for people with disabilities. We have all heard of the Para-Olympic movement, but this year, for the first time, the European Parliament and the Commission are recognising the magnificent work done by the Special Olympics movement for people with intellectual disabilities, run by Mr Tim Shriver. This has programmes across the globe, and one of them is now going to be part-funded by the European Union budget.\nI have been privileged to go both Summer World Games in Shanghai and this year's Winter Games in Boise, Idaho, and it is difficult to describe the range of emotions you feel when watching the athletes compete and participate. I just wanted to put on record my complete support for this resolution.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I think once again this is one of those reports that many people can welcome. In the battle for better energy conservation and more efficient energy use, I think we all want to see more energy-efficient products. But once again I have to draw attention to the fact that we should be leading by example in this House.\nWhen we talk about energy efficiency, we should make sure that we put our own House in order. The European Parliament has three buildings - two Parliament buildings and one administrative building - one in Brussels, one in Strasbourg and one in Luxembourg. That clearly shows that we ourselves are not walking the walk when it comes to energy efficiency.\nIt is time to lead by example. It is time to put the battle for energy efficiency at the forefront. We need to close down the Strasbourg Parliament, close down the Luxembourg administrative buildings and stay in Brussels.\nMichl Ebner\n(DE) Madam President, I wanted to speak because these cross border payments are very advantageous and indicate that, through a positive solution and the elimination of further barriers, the European Union is consciously relating to citizens and is establishing regulations that will make things easier for them in their day to day lives. I am firmly convinced about this report and am therefore positive that we have taken a significant step forwards here in facilitating activities within the European Union. I hope that this will set a precedent for other areas.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I hope that when I give my explanation of vote I do not provoke the same sort of petty responses that one can expect from the other side of the House.\nI think we all agree that we need to tackle tax evasion, but at the same time we need to understand that, in the case of those entrepreneurs who work hard, who create jobs and wealth for others and then are taxed heavily for doing so, it is quite understandable when they legally want to transfer their money to lower-tax regimes.\nI think we all agree that we need to fight fraud, but let us not crack down on legal transfers of money. We may think that the result of such actions will lead to the removal of low-tax regimes and that we will all have to pay higher taxes, and I know that is something that, particularly on the other side of the House, people welcome. But we also have to understand the unintended consequences of our actions sometimes, and if we seek to crack down too much on lower-tax regimes and lower-tax areas, rather than just driving money from one country to another, we will drive much-needed capital, much-needed innovation and much-needed entrepreneurship out of Europe altogether.\nAstrid Lulling\n(FR) Madam President, I did of course vote against the Hamon report, which is even worse than the Commission's proposal on the taxation of savings, because, against all logic, a majority of Parliament - although it far from represents the majority of the Members of this House - voted to abolish the system of taxation at source, which works, in order to retain only the system of exchange of information, which is costly, bureaucratic and inefficient. This is incomprehensible!\nI am happy to admit that the majority of the Members here did not have a good knowledge of the issue, otherwise they would not have been able to vote to abolish a system that is efficient, cheap, and that ensures that everyone pays tax on capital income, instead advocating exchange of information.\nMr Hamon told me that he is not interested as to whether everyone pays their taxes. Last night he told me: 'I want to know that French people...\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nGay Mitchell\nMadam President, this is on the same issue in relation to the free vote. I do not have an objection in principle to the withholding tax system, but I do think we have to put down a marker that tax evasion is not acceptable.\nI agree with the comments that have been made about tax competition being a good thing. I think it is a good thing. I think anybody who looked at this independently would say it is a good thing. People often say, well, isn't it easy for you - you have 12.5% corporation tax in Ireland, and I say, well why don't you have a 12.5% corporation tax in your country, if that is the problem? But there is an issue here, and we need to put down the marker about tax evasion. That is a criminal offence, and we really have to ensure that we do not become too close to those who practise these types of evasions.\nWe have seen in the past where bad regulation and bad practice have brought the financial world. So in principle I am not opposed to the withholding tax, but I do want to put down the marker that we do need to do something more emphatic about the whole question of tax evasion.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\nMy political group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, welcomes the result of today's vote on the Catherine Neris report on harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products.\nFirst-reading approval with the Council was not possible because some of the Member States did not agree to a compulsory statement of conformity. Today's vote establishes the European Parliament's position on some politically sensitive issues, particularly the CE mark, which should convince the Council to reach a common position followed by approval from the European Parliament and the Commission at second reading.\nMy political group, the PPE-DE, in an agreement with the Socialist Party in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the Greens\/European Free Alliance, has only supported technical improvements to the text and through our additional amendment proposals we have brought the text passed by the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection closer to the working text of the Council. The PPE-DE did not support Amendments 17 and 54 which were passed in committee, because it agreed with the Commission proposal - we are opposed to the introduction of intra-state markings, because they represent a barrier to the internal market and we agree that Member States should eliminate all national references demonstrating conformity other than the CE mark.\nI am delighted that this position received clear backing from Commissioner Verheugen in yesterday's debate. I wish the legislation success.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) This resolution certainly contains a few positive elements, such as a call to strengthen Frontex's mandate and to take initiatives for a European internal security policy, which should complement national security plans. In the end, I decided to vote against it, though, because I find it totally unacceptable that this Parliament, which, after all, is supposed to represent Europe's citizens, should tenaciously cling to the Lisbon Treaty. The appeal to submit proposals at the earliest opportunity to make the import of foreign workers easier likewise failed to meet with my approval and, in my view, warranted a 'no' vote.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMadam President, like others in this House, I welcome the new drive to revive the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the Security Council resolution to close loopholes in the existing legal framework.\nHowever, I reject the direct implication within this report that the European Union should replace the key Member States as the major actor in this particular process. I think it beggars belief for this place to try and believe that it should extend its tentacles into this area, especially considering the fact that only two Member States are nuclear weapon states, with an additional four participating in NATO nuclear weapon sharing.\nThis report is more interested in grabbing the chance of replacing Member States around the top table of international governance than paying sufficient attention to the danger of proliferation by terrorists and rogue states.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I think when we start from first principles, we can all agree that nuclear weapons are bad. I think we all agree that war is a bad thing - that is motherhood and apple pie. As the great philosopher Edwin Starr once said: 'War, huh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing'.\nBut when we look at this, we have to ask the question: should the EU really replace the two nuclear Member States in the whole process of non-proliferation, given the lack of expertise that exists outside those Member States? Is it not premature to suggest that the UK should dismantle fissile material production when there is so much of this material that can get into the hands of terrorists and other rogue Member States?\nThis is nothing but a power grab and will actually do much less in the battle against nuclear proliferation, and we should forget about power grabbing and actually tackle the problem itself.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nMadam President, a couple of weeks ago I was having one of my favourite meals, a curry, in the village of Long Buckby near to where I live, and I was hosting a group of people who are new to politics in a political discussion. Like everybody - and you all know this - as a Member of the European Parliament they immediately think a number of things. Firstly, that you are on the gravy train and you do not really care about ordinary people, and secondly that Europe is not working: there are too many regulations. Maybe in some cases they are right - there should be a cost-benefit analysis of what the regulations are - and they are badly implemented, in fact not uniformly implemented across the continent.\nThis report talks about the monitoring of Community law, and that is a good thing. If you look at the Eurobarometer web site, you will see the number of infringement cases that the Commission takes out against individual Member States. But this lack of implementation and equal implementation is one of the biggest problems that people in this Chamber who are not like me - who are Europhile rather than Euro-sceptic - have to face in the future.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I think, once again, there is room for consensus when we look at this issue, whether one is sceptical about future European integration or one wants to see their own country subsumed into a supernational state. I think we all agree, at the moment, that we are all members of the European Union and we should abide by Community law, because we have been through the due process, the debates and legal processes.\nTherefore, we need better monitoring - I think we all agree - of the application of Community law. So when I have constituents in London and cheesemongers complaining to me about the fact that they have had to invest lots of money to make sure, for example, that the facilities they use to sell cheese meet EU standards that have been gold plated by British civil servants, and then they travel across to other Member States and see cheese being sold openly in street markets and melting and they wonder about the application of Community laws in other countries, it is time for us to show that we are strict about application of Community law right across the EU.\nRichard Corbett\nMadam President, I just wondered if it was actually in order for Mr Kamall to urge the European Parliament to ignore the Treaties and ignore its legal obligations and, indeed, to increase the powers of the European Parliament in addressing the issue of the buildings in three different locations. He knows perfectly well that, unfortunately, it is the governments of the Member States who decide on the seats of the institutions and, unfortunately, under the chairmanship of the former leader of his party, John Major, at the Edinburgh Summit in 1992, they imposed a legal obligation on the European Parliament to have 12 part-sessions a year in Strasbourg.\nThat is unfortunate, but surely the answer is not to break the law. Surely the answer is to ask the governments to revise that unfortunate decision that was taken under the leadership of the former leader of his party.\nWritten explanations of vote\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the European Parliament resolution on women's rights in Afghanistan, because I believe that the new draft law on the personal status of Shiite women is unacceptable. This legislation, which was recently approved by both chambers of the Afghan Parliament, places severe restrictions on women's freedom of movement, legitimises 'marital rape' and promotes discrimination against women in the areas of marriage, divorce, inheritance and access to education. This is not consistent with international standards of human rights in general, nor with women's rights.\nI believe that the European Union must send a clear signal that this draft law needs to be repealed as its contents contradict the principle of gender equality, as enshrined in international conventions.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the joint motion for a resolution on support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, as it is vital to ensure that the perpetrators of violent crimes under international humanitarian law, notably war crimes and crimes against humanity, are punished and serve out their punishments.\nEstablished in 2000 by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone, this was the first international court to be funded by voluntary contributions, the first to be established in a country where the alleged crimes took place, and the first to indict a sitting African head of state for war crimes and crimes against humanity.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nThe residents of Camp Ashraf are one of the visible faces of the Iranian regime's oppression and of the resistance to this violence.\nThe link that people have repeatedly attempted to make between members of the Iranian resistance and terrorism is unjustified, as newspapers, politicians and courts have been able to prove. On the contrary, the situation in Camp Ashraf is in the public domain and numerous people, including members of parliament and journalists, have visited the camp and drawn their own conclusions. The residents of Camp Ashraf are protected persons under the Geneva Convention. For these reasons, the signal sent by the European Parliament is vitally important: the Camp Ashraf residents have a right to be protected and not to be handed over, under any circumstances, to the Iranian regime. This is a question of the most basic respect for human rights. We therefore hope that this resolution will bear fruit.\nFinally, I have one point to make about the Iranian regime. It is vital that the errors made at the start of and during the intervention by the United States' allies in Iraq are not now compounded by errors made on their exit. If, at the end of this process, the Iranian fundamentalist regime has reinforced its influence in the region, in particular by controlling the internal affairs of Iraq, then that region will be further away from peace and the world will be facing a greater threat.\nToomas Savi  \nin writing. - Mr President, I encouraged all my Liberal colleagues to vote against the amendments of the Greens\/EFA and the PES, as the draft resolution was well balanced already and those amendments did not accord to the spirit and essence of the resolution.\nCriticizing and accusing the PMOI, one of the most prominent opposition movements of the Iranian people with no substantial evidence looks awfully like an attempt to appease the authoritarian regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I cannot imagine how anyone could feel comfortable doing a favour to this oppressive regime by supporting the amendments that provide an opportunity for Iran to attack and weaken the opposition movement that has been advocating for human rights and democracy in Iran.\nI would like to thank all my colleagues who supported the original draft resolution that by no means threatened the lives and integrity of the people in Camp Ashraf. We must engage them to bring about a regime transition in Iran that would ensure peace and security in region that has been one of the must unpredictable and instable for more than decades.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report.\nOver recent decades the tendency to approach the issue of persons with disabilities from a right-based perspective has matured and has been widely accepted internationally.\nRespect for the rights of disabled persons has always been one of the key aspects of European social policy and in this sense the United Nations convention on human rights constitutes a step in this direction.\nThe principles of the convention are respect for dignity, autonomy, freedom of choice, independence, non-discrimination, social inclusion, respect for difference, equal opportunities, accessibility and equality between men and women.\nOf special importance, with a view to promoting social inclusion, are Articles 24, 27 and 28 on subjects connected with education, employment and social protection. I therefore hope that the convention is adopted by as many votes as possible and that all the Member States will ratify it as soon as possible.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for Mrs Jeleva's report on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, responsibility for which will, for the first time, be shared by the Community and its Member States, as it defends respect for dignity and individual autonomy and promotes non-discrimination, inclusion in society and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nI voted in favour of adoption of the Jeleva report on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These matters are especially important to me, and I have demonstrated this many times, for example at meetings of what is known as the Rehabilitation Parliament of the Voivodeship of Sub-Carpathia - there have been 18 of them.\nI constantly emphasise that people with disabilities must be treated just as people without disabilities are treated. This means not only with noble declarations and legal regulations, but above all in the practical matters of everyday life. The principles of the Convention are as follows: respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and respect for the independence of persons, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society, respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity, equality of opportunity, accessibility, equality between men and women, respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.\nIn this context I think that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are very positive. In the EU they apply to about 50 million people, and in the whole world the number is estimated to be 650 million.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The Greek Communist Party did not vote for the report on the conclusion, by the EU, of the UN Convention and Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, because it considers that the EU is not entitled to sign and ratify such agreements with the UN on behalf of the 27 Member States. The signature on the part of the EU infringes every concept of independence and sovereignty of the Member States of the EU, which are members of the UN and have the right and obligation to sign. In this particular case, the Greek Communist Party supports the Convention and Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the obligation of the Member States to apply it, despite the fact that this matter relates to the overall policy of the capitalist countries which apply an inhumane policy towards people who need special care.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - British Conservatives share to some extent the concerns in this report that there are serious civil liberties issues about some abuses in the practice of carrying out profiling in a small minority of cases, and welcomes the fact that the European Parliament is seeking to draw this to the attention of Member State governments. We believe, however, that our law enforcement authorities need to be able to use adequate tools for them to carry out their tasks effectively, of which profiling, particularly intelligence-led profiling, is one.\nWe could not, however, support this particular text, as the tone of the recitals in particular is unbalanced and overly alarmist. The rapporteur calls for the principle of proportionality to be observed, which makes it a source of particular regret that this principle was not respected in drawing up this report.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report.\nOne of the obligations to be met by any state in which the rule of law holds sway is to ensure that that prevention activities carried out for the safety of civilians are conducted not on the basis of a person's ethnic identity, but on the basis of that person's conduct.\nEthically speaking, no individual can or should be placed in detention of any kind unless there are acts that provide a basis for charging him or that provide evidence of his guilt. In order to contain the problem of immigration and terrorism, we have now reached the stage of developing 'profiles': this method has been created by police organisations and is able to identify, in advance, associations of people considered to be potential advocates of terrorist and criminal activities. One of the most effective methods of profiling goes by the name of 'data mining', and consists of seeking out persons, using computerised databases, through indicators that have been drawn up in advance and which are based on race, ethnicity, religion and nationality.\nWe must act to regulate profiling through legal parameters with the facility to guarantee the rights of any person, regardless of his or her race or religion.\nCarlos Coelho  \nProfiling is already now used in numerous areas ranging from keeping the peace to administrative and customs control of borders, and also the fight against terrorism.\nThere is increasing interest in the use of this investigation technique, based on gathering information about individuals from various sources, which may include more sensitive data such as ethnic origin, race, nationality or religion.\nHowever, the use of these techniques has developed considerably without there having previously been any opportunity to debate them and arrive at a conclusion as to how and when they might be used, and when their use might be regarded as necessary, legitimate and proportionate.\nIt is also clear that the necessary safeguards must be established to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.\nThis situation is even more worrying if we take into account that there must be cross-referencing between the various databases, such as SIS II (Schengen Information System), VIS (Visa Information System) and Eurodac.\nI therefore congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Ludford, on her initiative and on the opportunity that this has given us to start this debate, based on this report which I feel is fairly balanced and respects the commitments negotiated between us.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List supports the wording that expresses the need to address profiling carried out by automated data 'mining' in a political debate, as it deviates from the general rule that decisions relating to combating crime should be based on a person's behaviour. We are strongly opposed to ethnic profiling, which entails the arbitrary use of information by the authorities on grounds of race, skin colour, language, religion, nationality and ethnic origin, among other things, and we see an obvious risk that innocent people may be subjected to arbitrary detention.\nHowever, we do not believe that this problem is best solved at EU level. It should be solved at the international level by means of international agreements and conventions, such as via the United Nations, perhaps.\nWe support many of the wordings in this report, but, for the reasons stated above, we have chosen to vote against the report as a whole.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The report deals with the method used by repressive mechanisms and secret services in the EU, based on the standards of similar mechanisms in the USA, to standardise and classify persons as suspects of 'terrorist' and criminal activity on the basis of their ethnicity or race, their behaviour, their political, social, religious and ideological persuasions and their social action. Of course, this method is not new. The repressive mechanisms of the bourgeoisie have a rich history of criminal activity against communists and social fighters for whom this classification was used in order to label them as being dangerous to 'public order and security'. Today, on the pretext of 'terrorism', they are hauled in again from the darkest ages in the history of the bourgeoisie in Europe.\nAlthough the report takes a critical stand towards these methods, it refuses to condemn them categorically and to demand an immediate ban on them. On the contrary, it considers them legitimate methods of police investigation, provided that they are subject to strict terms and limitations. There are no guarantees and limitations on such fascist-inclined methods, nor can there be any.\nThat is why the Greek Communist Party voted against the report. It calls on the workers to raise their heads high and, with disobedience, to break and overturn the EU of repression, prosecutions, terrorism and violations of democratic rights and freedoms.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - British Conservatives support initiatives to ensure success in the fight against fraud in the context of the EU budget. In this respect, there are a number of sensible proposals contained in this report, including the strengthening of the independence of OLAF.\nWe wish to make clear, however, our opposition to the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, and therefore the proposal contained in paragraph 57 of the report.\nRichard Corbett  \nin writing. - I visited the horticulturalist producer Johnson of Wixley in my constituency last week, where they expressed concerns about some elements of the recent pesticides package, particularly the strict cut-off criteria on certain pesticides where there are, as yet, no substitutes.\nHowever, I was pleased that, in this case, the proposal seems to be less controversial. With consensus seemingly breaking out between Parliament and Council, I was pleased to be able to support the Council's text and the agreed amendments, even if the latter were, in the end, not adopted.\nRegular collection and dissemination of data on the use of pesticides should help increase awareness and control of pesticide use, and play a small but significant role in ensuring that pesticides are safe both to human health and the environment, whilst avoiding the concerns expressed about the previous package.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the amendments to the recommendation for second reading in the report on statistics on plant protection products. I believe that this report will supplement other existing initiatives on pesticides, agreed at the end of last year.\nThis report makes several important amendments, such as, for example, changing the words 'plant protection products' to 'pesticides', extending the scope to include biocidal products, and including pesticides for commercial non-agricultural uses. With this regulation, the European Union will ensure much safer use of pesticides.\nChrista Kla\u00df  \nin writing. - (DE) The Regulation concerning statistics on plant protection products is part of the review of European plant protection products policy, of which the Approval Regulation and the Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, which were successfully adopted at the beginning of the year, also form part.\nThe objective is to reduce the negative effects of plant protection products as much as possible by reducing the risks. In order to measure this we need indicators and in order to develop these indicators we need reliable data, determined by statistics, which ensure comparability between Member States. That is why I voted in favour of the report. However, we must not forget that only those who market the products in accordance with the regulations will provide data. Up-to-date reports on the Europe-wide illegal trade in pesticides indicate that this needs to be brought more firmly into our sights. The same applies to the importing of products from third countries. We need to step up our controls in this regard.\nOur stringent European approval procedure guarantees the comprehensive protection of people and the environment. Anyone who sells or uses plant protection products without approval and anyone who does not adequately check residue limits not only creates avoidable risks, but also brings the manufacturer of the product and the agricultural industry into disrepute. Existing law provides a sufficient level of protection in this regard. However, it must be complied with and monitored.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the proposal on ecodesign of energy related products as current patterns of consumption have very significant environmental impacts, principally through the emission of greenhouse gases and pollution.\nI believe it is important to change consumption and production habits, without this leading to significant additional costs for both companies and households.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products to promote the movement and use of this type of product. The use of a common technical language to indicate the performance of construction products clarifies and simplifies the conditions of access to CE marking, ensuring greater safety for users.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1  \nI am very pleased that today's plenary session has eliminated some serious shortcomings from the proposed regulation on harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products, which were inserted into this technical standard by the socialist rapporteur. The shadow rapporteur Zita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1 deserves our applause. It is thanks to her professional experience and diligence in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection that the current version is of a professional standard. Through harmonisation and the CE mark for batch production there will be simplification and reduced costs particularly for small firms. The disparate requirements of the 27 Member States will no longer apply. The CE mark of conformity for batch production provides a sufficient guarantee that products conform to European standards. Harmonisation is not necessary for prototypes and one-off products. Only if construction products are imported into countries where there is an earthquake risk, for example, will they have to fulfil the requirements for those specific conditions as well. I appreciate the Czech Presidency's support for this version.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Thank you, Madam President. I voted for the report.\nThe core subject-matter of Regulation (EC) No 2560\/2001 is cross-border transfers and cross-border electronic payment operations. The regulation was adopted on 19 December 2001 and its aim is to ensure that the cost of a cross-border payment is the same as a payment made within a Member State.\nUp until 1 January 2006, it applied only to transfers, withdrawals from automatic teller machines and to payments made with a debit or credit card up to EUR 12 500 in EU countries, whereas, from that date, the amount has been increased to EUR 50 000. This change has led to a fall in prices and greater competition on the payment services markets. Regulation (EC) No 2560\/2001 also has drawbacks, however, such as the failure to define 'corresponding payments' and the failure to include a review clause, and it is necessary to take action on these points immediately.\nI would like to conclude by saying that we are in favour of the proposals to update and amend Regulation (EC) No 2560\/2001, since it is our duty to make cross-border payment transactions easier and more economical.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the Schnellhardt report on the regulation laying down health rules as regards animal by-products not intended for human consumption, as I consider that the proposals contained in this document will substantially improve the safety of these products, particularly by ensuring traceability throughout the treatment process. Food safety and consumer protection in the EU will thus be reinforced.\nV\u00e9ronique Mathieu  \nThis report will enable the European Union to equip itself with a more precise legislative framework with which to increase the level of safety throughout the food production and distribution chain. The merits of this text are that it proposes a method that is based more on risks and controls, and makes the regulations on animal by-products and the legislation on hygiene more consistent, while also introducing additional rules on the traceability of animal by-products.\nI can also tell you that Mr Schnellhardt's previous report on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2002) had a very positive impact by making the European game sector aware of its responsibilities. The transposition of this regulation into national law has had positive effects on the ground, including by improving the training of seven million European hunters, who, as a result of working in that environment all the time, are in a position quickly and effectively to detect health crises affecting wild fauna.\nI therefore support this report, which will enable the European Union to better anticipate and react to any potential food crises linked to products of animal origin.\nRovana Plumb  \nI voted for this report because in Romania as well as in other Member States we are sometimes faced with crises which affect public and animal health safety in relation to animal products, such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, dioxin, swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease. Such crises can also have a wider adverse impact on the socio-economic situation of farmers and the industrial sectors affected, including a decline in consumer confidence in the safety of animal products. Disease outbreaks can also have adverse consequences for the environment: disposal of the bodies and biodiversity. We needed to review the regulation on animal by-products (ABP) not intended for human consumption from a legislative perspective.\nThis will therefore resolve problems linked to differences in interpretation of the scope of the regulation and the problems caused by this, such as: distortion of competition and the different levels of protection against the risks to public and animal health; ABP classification based to a larger extent on risks; clarification of derogations (e.g. impact of ABPs on research, disease outbreaks, natural disasters); reduction in the administrative burden by eliminating the duplication of permits for certain types of economic units.\nThe review upholds the principles used to regulate in the EU the use, processing, disposal, traceability and allocation of ABPs not intended for human consumption, thereby ensuring a high level of food safety and consumer protection.\nEdite Estrela  \nThis report concerns the draft European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2003\/48\/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments.\nI voted for this report on the taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments, because it reinforces the principles of transparency and fiscal justice.\nRobert Goebbels  \nThe Hamon report advocates the general use of exchange of information, which is a bureaucratic and ultimately inefficient system. I am in favour of a withholding tax, that is, enabling each citizen to pay his tax in full to the Member State of which he is a taxpayer, by paying a reasonable tax (20 or even 25%). This tax should be applied to natural and legal persons, should be collected at source by the financial body where money (securities, bonds, and so on) is managed, and should be transferred to the taxpayer's taxation department. Ideally it should be made a Community resource.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) It is crucial that we tackle tax fraud within the Member States of the EU. However, the Commission's proposal and the committee's report have been overloaded with wordings which, if they were to be given backing in this House, would only contribute to an over-regulation of EU cooperation.\nWe have voted against the report as a whole and request a thorough overhaul of the entire legislative proposal.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support this proposal on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments, with a view to closing existing loopholes and eliminating tax evasion. Experience has shown that the current directive can be circumvented allowing the wealthiest to evade paying taxes whilst those earning much less continue to pay their taxes, this proposal will start to bring an end to this process.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - This report recognises the reaction of global leaders that tax havens are a part of a global economy which should contribute positively to the wider interests. Much work has been done already on withholding taxes, and this report adds to the current interest in raising transparency of savings and transactions in such tax havens. It is particularly important to the issue of dealing with corporate and individual tax avoidance.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) It is very important to create sound systems which prevent tax fraud. This applies, in particular, to value added tax. However, we believe that, in their current form, the Commission's proposal and the report before us raise more questions than they provide answers to. The EU has a long-term ambition to reduce the regulatory burden. The Commission's proposal seems to be heading in the opposite direction and runs the risk of increasing the administrative burden, in particular for small businesses in Europe. The proposal also contains wordings which will result in large changes to Swedish legislation.\nWe have chosen to vote against this report at first reading, but nevertheless look forward to the Commission's original proposal being developed further in a constructive manner.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - The EPLP welcomes Mr Visser's report into tax evasion linked to import and other cross-border transactions. Although VAT is sometimes complex, its effects across borders may cause specific problems which this report helps to identify and clear up.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - The EPLP can support this report in terms of the wider perspective of Member State economic actions during the current economic crisis. While Eurobonds may be regarded as a clever idea which can deliver funds to governments, there seems no legal base on which this can be achieved, so it looks unlikely that this option can be exercised.\nEdite Estrela  \nI voted for the report on nanomaterials as nanotechnologies promise fantastic results, particularly in energy and the development of biomedicine. However, I feel it is important to ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market, bearing in mind that nanotechnologies involve risks that are not yet fully understood.\nAdam Gierek  \nMaterials made of particles which measure less than 10-9 m are called nanomaterials. They occur in free form or as nanoparticle emissions in a matrix of other materials, such as composites.\nThese are nanomaterials obtained with 'top-down' technology and the use of high-energy attrition.\nNanoparticles have a high surface area and significant surface energy, which give them the following characteristics:\nability to catalyse chemical reactions;\nsignificant reactivity (potential);\ncan easily penetrate living cells.\nUncontrolled release of free nanoparticles into the environment may be hazardous to health. Free nanoparticles of various materials may cause carcinogenic chemical reactions if they enter living cells, but this has not been confirmed.\nSources of nanoparticles released into the environment include:\nproducts manufactured by the 'top-down' method, for example nano zinc oxide particles used in UV filter creams, and bacteriocidal additives such as silver nanoparticles;\nunintended by-products in the form of nanoparticles, for example as a result of combustion, friction of tyres, and other uncontrolled processes which create nanoaerosols by Brownian motion.\nWill the use of nanoparticles in sun lotions, whose purpose is to block ultraviolet radiation, cause side effects on health? This can and should be investigated.\nDoes the catalytic action of the nanoaerosols which are all around us have dangerous effects on health? This, too, requires urgent scientific research, which, however, is difficult to conduct, for physical and chemical reasons.\nKoenraad Dillen\nin writing. - (NL) This resolution certainly contains a few positive elements, such as a call to reinforce Frontex's mandate and to take initiatives for a European internal security policy, which should complement national security plans.In the end, I decided to vote against it, though, because I find it totally unacceptable that this Parliament, which, after all, is supposed to represent Europe's citizens, should tenaciously cling to the Lisbon Treaty.The appeal to submit proposals at the earliest opportunity to make the import of foreign workers easier likewise failed to meet with my approval.\nFrank Vanhecke  \nin writing. - (NL) Although I voted against this resolution, I wanted to make clear that it certainly contains many positive elements, not least with regard to the reinforcement of Frontex and a better, complementary European internal security policy. The key problem for me, though, remains the fact that Parliament tenaciously clings to the Lisbon Treaty as if it were the great saviour. Naturally, we will not make any progress in this way. It remains a fight to the finish, and eventually, only democracy and the credibility of a democratic European project are set to suffer. Needless to say, I completely disagree with extending the application of the 'blue card' system. This is something I feared from the beginning, and this fear has become reality. As ever, the typical European salami policy, whereby decisions are taken piecemeal and the effects of subsequent decisions are kept secret in the meantime, must be rammed down our throats.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nThe G20 Summit and the awareness of the need for a coordinated and cooperative response to the current world economic situation are an expression of the positive side to globalisation. No longer are there solitary powers, independent economies or dispensable globalised countries. On the contrary, those countries experiencing much worse conditions than these 'victims' of the crisis, but which have not been involved in globalisation, as is the case with most of the African countries, still have their problems and remain outside the solution. That is the problem to which no solution is being given.\nThe other lesson of these times is that the only alternative to the market economy is a market economy that functions better. That is the road to be taken.\nFinally, I must underline that the capacity to respond to the crisis very much depends on whether or not there is the capacity to reform national economies and create conditions of flexibility. At the same time as responding to the financial crisis, we need to respond to the paradigm shift in the world economy. Otherwise, we will experience a deep but cyclical crisis, without solving the structural problems in our economies.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I agree with the recommendations emerging from this resolution, which comes at an urgent time to address the financial crisis.\nIt must first be said that we are not through the crisis yet and that the authorities cannot relax in the thought that it will pass.\nSeveral key aspects are important to be acted on.\nFirst, dealing with 'systemic risks': the international institutions need to be strengthened to face future threats. Inside the EU a sole authority such as the ECB must be considered for reasons of coordinating strong actions when urgently required.\nSecondly, the revamping of existing legislation and introduction of new legislation which recognises the specific needs of sectors of the financial services industry, in particular Solvency II and CRD, are vital elements which contribute to the management of risk. Also, credit rating agencies are now going to be regulated.\nOn the fiscal measures currently being envisaged by Member States, it is important to continue with sensible, balanced approaches which also do not add up to protectionism.\nWe will face rising unemployment and falling demand. Social policies, too, have to reflect the concerns of European citizens and need to be of higher concern than seems apparent from the recommendations currently known.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) The Western Balkans region has for years been the scene of the most barbarous massacres in Europe. The prospect of membership of the EU represents, as things stand, the main guarantee of stability and reform.\nSome progress still needs to be made: we should remember that neighbourhood and cooperation policies underpin the region's progress towards EU membership and that in the Western Balkans region certain bilateral issues between the various states, both Community and non-Community, are still to be resolved.\nThe influence of the EU, however, and its ability to act as a mediator, supporting the reforms underway in the Balkans, will allow those states to fully meet the Copenhagen criteria and to join the EU as fully-fledged members.\nTo support ever-increasing integration, chiefly between young people, it is our duty to back the increase in funding and the number of study grants available in the EU for students and researchers from the western Balkans within the framework of the Erasmus Mundus programme. This will not only represent another educational opportunity for many youngsters, but it will allow many young people to get to know personally other people of their own age within the EU, so that they feel themselves to be full citizens of Europe, each with his own identity, but united in diversity.\nKoenraad Dillen\nin writing. - (NL) All in all, this resolution has been drafted in balanced terms. Nevertheless, I voted against it because a 'yes' vote would imply that I support the Lisbon Treaty and the accession of all the Western Balkans countries. Both my party and the absolute majority of Europeans are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, should they be given the opportunity to vote, and to further accessions. This Parliament may ignore the wishes and lamentations of the European citizen, but I certainly do not.\nMaria Eleni Koppa  \nin writing. - (EL) The PASOK parliamentary group in the European Parliament voted in favour of the report on the Western Balkans because it is an important report, in that it clearly underlines the European prospects of the Balkans, which is the standard view taken by PASOK. At the same time, however, it notes that finding a solution to bilateral differences comes within the framework of good neighbourly relations and must be a precondition to the opening of and progress in accession negotiations.\nFrank Vanhecke  \nin writing. - (NL) Two key reasons prevented me from supporting this resolution. First of all, I think we need an absolute ban on enlargement, except for Croatia. We should first try to keep the 25 or 26 current EU Member States on track and make them run efficiently. Rushing to further enlargements and a Lisbon Treaty that has come about in an undemocratic manner is absolutely not the way forward. There is no doubt that the forthcoming European elections will once again reveal the voters' large-scale apathy where European issues are concerned. What do we expect, though, when voters see that their views are not taken into consideration anyway?\nKoenraad Dillen\nin writing. - (NL) I voted against this report. After all, the paragraph which states that European integration is in the interests of the entire population of the Western Balkans and which regrets that the politicians of Bosnia-Herzegovina state it as their objective to accede to the EU out of short-sighted and nationalistic motives indicates that a vote for this resolution would have been a vote for Bosnia's accession to the EU.\nTaking the view that Europe is in urgent need of bringing a halt to enlargement, I have voted against this resolution.\nErik Meijer  \nin writing. - (NL) Bosnia-Herzegovina is mainly inhabited by three peoples, none of whom are in the majority in that country. Some of these people feel a very strong bond with Serbia, others with Croatia and a third group would like to underline its own independent Bosnian identity. In actual fact, this is a pocket-sized Yugoslavia, a federation in which different peoples have the option of either living together peacefully or battling out internal conflict over their territory.\nSince Yugoslavia fell apart in 1992, attempts have been made to make a united state out of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but to no avail. I do not expect this to be possible in the near or distant future. Agreement among three peoples and their political leaders on effective governance is only possible when nobody feels threatened any more by the others or by the outside world.\nOnly when the EU's High Representative and foreign military have withdrawn from this country will a compromise be possible. Until then, this period of stagnation will persist. That is why I do not agree with the proposed resolution on this country, which can only lead to the continuation of the protectorate and, consequently, stagnation.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I supported the Beer report on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, including Amendments 5 and 8 that called for Europe to become a nuclear weapons free zone, because I am in favour of nuclear disarmament. I welcome President Obama's initiative in this regard. Yet the US and others are still in denial, firstly about Israel's massive nuclear weapons capacity that underpins Iran's drive to become a nuclear weapons power.\nSecondly, the world's major proliferation in the past decades has not been Pyongyang but Pakistan. A.Q. Khan and the leaders of Pakistan, supposedly allies of the West, have done more to make our world more dangerous than any of the 'states of concern' or the whole 'axis of evil' together.\nRichard Howitt  \nin writing. - Labour MEPs stand by our commitments on disarmament and the undertakings set out in Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which is the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation and disarmament regime. Labour MEPs are committed to a world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons.\nAlthough we acknowledge the proposal for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Britain is concerned that we do not risk at this time diverting attention from, or undermining, the NPT and so warmly welcome the European Parliament resolution to restate our backing as a Parliament to this Treaty. We warmly welcome President Obama's and Prime Minister Gordon Brown's recent statements calling for nuclear reductions and Labour MEPs will continue to give our strong backing to all moves to reduce nuclear stockpiles and avoid proliferation, and we will continue to hold all states accountable to their NPT obligations.\nAlexandru Nazare  \nOur legitimate desire to see a world and continent rid of nuclear weapons must be matched with proof of a responsible and mature understanding of the realities around us. It is clear that the biggest threats come from two directions: nuclear weapons that are in the hands of undemocratic regimes which are answerable to no one and the irresponsible use of civilian nuclear resources. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the right framework where we have addressed these concerns and which we can continue to build on.\nI voted in favour of Mrs Beer's report and I would like to stress that the importance of this document is due precisely to the obvious need to increase the use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes. We are well aware of the problems that arise from a lack of energy independence. We are also just as aware of the contribution of nuclear energy as a clean form of energy to the battle against global warming. Nowadays, the only way to generate clean energy on a large scale is to use nuclear. I hope that we will have the framework for using it safely in order to meet the needs of developing economies and European citizens.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - Conservatives have been consistent advocates of a strong non-proliferation regime and a multilateral approach toward nuclear-weapon reduction, firmly opposing any proposals aimed at unilateral nuclear disarmament. We welcome a new drive to improve the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including a Security Council resolution to close loopholes in the existing legal framework. However, we reject the implication that the EU should replace Member States as the major actor in the process. Only two EU members are nuclear-weapon states (NWS), with an additional four participating in NATO nuclear weapons sharing. We do not support the proposal that the UK should dismantle fissile material production facilities. The report also pays insufficient attention to the danger of proliferation by terrorists and rogue states, as opposed to retention or replacement of weapons by the existing five NWS. Several amendments would have considerably worsened the report, including the proposal that the EU should become a 'nuclear-weapons-free zone'. For these reasons, taking into account that there is much in the report we can support, the British Conservative delegation abstained.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Committee on Legal Affairs.\nThank you, Madam President. I am voting for the Frassoni report, which reminds us of the fundamental role that the European Parliament, national parliaments and national courts must play in the application of Community law.\nI agree that we must remind the Commission of the possibility of having a system that clearly indicates the various means of recourse available to citizens. This system could take the form of a joint EU portal, or of a single online contact point providing assistance to citizens.\nCitizens should have the same level of transparency, whether they are submitting a formal complaint or exercising their right to submit a petition, on the basis of the Treaty; clear information should therefore be made available to the Committee on Petitions on the state of progress of infringement proceedings which are also relevant to pending petitions. Signatories must be kept fully informed of the state of progress of their complaints, at the expiry of each predetermined deadline.\nSummaries should be be prepared and made available to the public via a single access point. Furthermore, these summaries ought not to disappear once the legislative procedure has been completed, at the very moment when they assume greater importance for the public and businesses.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":3,"2013-48":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n- (CS) One positive aspect of the recently approved budget for 2009 is the inclusion of clear priorities, such as support for small and medium-sized enterprises, climate protection and support for the poorest countries in the food crisis. Unfortunately, we do not have many options for using the budget to solve the financial crisis, not only because it is tiny compared to those of the Member States, at just 1% of their size, but also due to a lack of flexibility in the rules set out in the framework budget for the period 2007-2013. I appreciate the efforts of MEPs who have entered into discussions with the Commission to make adjustments at least in relation to global problems. The Council has unfortunately not been willing to approve greater flexibility. Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty we will have more powers in the European Parliament.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Madam President, as I am, by nature, very critical of the workings and institutions of the European Union, it goes without saying that I voted against this report on the 2009 budget. First of all, I am not at all convinced that the European institutions are spending the high level of tax funds that are passing through these institutions wisely.\nSecondly, we are, to my mind, interfering in far too many areas of policy, and subsidies that we pay out to the Member States are always considered over there as European funds of some sort that are nothing to do with them, and are, for that reason, badly and ineffectively managed by the Member States themselves.\nMoreover, I have noticed that I hardly get any answers, if at all, to my parliamentary questions about the working expenses of the EU's many sister organisations and agencies. All of this fills me with suspicion, and only strengthens me in my no-vote for this budget.\nIgnasi Guardans Camb\u00f3\n(ES) Madam President, I should like briefly to point out that I abstained from the vote on Mrs Thyssen's report on the safety of toys.\nOf course, I agree with the rapporteur and the majority of this House on the need to protect children's safety and the need to ensure consumer safety in general. It seems to me, however, that the cultural traditions of the various Member States must be respected and, above all, the safety debate must not be taken to legislative extremes that border on the ridiculous, as in this case.\nSome of the safety requirements introduced in this directive certainly border on the ridiculous. This happened especially in the debate. It was saved as a whole. One day, I think, we will pass a directive forcing children to wear a helmet when they go out or to wear gloves when it is cold. That does not make sense in my view, but we are heading in that direction.\nTherefore, although I realise that the directive includes some highly positive points, I believe it sometimes goes too far, which is why I abstained.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n- (CS) I am delighted that we have managed to pass the safety of toys directive at the first reading and that we have rejected an absurd proposal from the Greens and some Socialists for mandatory testing of all toys by independent bodies. They put forward this blocking amendment despite the fact that experience from both the USA and China has shown that toys on the European market are defective in spite of testing. Our aim is for producers and importers to bear full responsibility for safety. It is up to producers to confirm that their products meet the standards. Where such standards do not already exist, Article 18 of the directive imposes tests. The costs of external tests average around EUR 3 000 in the Czech Republic. This would put small firms in the EU out of business, while at the same time testing toys in China would not guarantee their safety. Responsibility must rest with importers and producers, but definitely not with unregulated testing centres around the world. My congratulations to parents with this gift from us.\nHiltrud Breyer\n(DE) Madam President, I did not endorse the compromise amendment on toys. Too many safety loopholes remain, particularly in the case of chemicals. Toxins do not belong in the hands of children, even in the smallest amounts. Today's decision is disappointing and, besides, lacking in ambition. In addition to there being too many loopholes, an unequivocal ban on all heavy metals and allergenic fragrances is lacking, as are clear objectives with regard to noise. It is deplorable how lily-livered we are being when it comes to the safety of our children.\nForgoing a first reading in a mad rush to reach agreement, purely to give the impression that all the toys under the Christmas tree next week will be safe, is downright absurd; a load of nonsense. Improvements have been made, but that should go without saying when we are talking about a 20-year-old directive due for revision. Taking stock, I would say: too much hype and too little substance. Responsibility cannot be delegated to industry; responsibility for clear legislation lies with us!\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n- (SK) I have voted in favour of the report of Marianne Thyssen.\nRAPEX is more than just five letters: it is a European rapid alert system which provides warnings for consumers about hazardous consumer products.\nIn 2006, thanks to the rapid exchange of information between the Member States, the system received 221 warnings about toys out of a total 924 warnings. The warnings about toys involved mainly the risk of injury to children or the danger of provoking various allergies and health problems, particularly for allergy sufferers.\nI am pleased that Parliament has today voted for the directive, since these facts show that there is clearly a great need for it. Through today's vote on this directive the European Parliament has taken an important step in the area of toy safety and health and safety protection for children by modernising a toy directive which is now 20 years old.\nI am delighted that this process in the European Parliament is also being followed by a group of visitors from Slovakia whom I warmly welcome and whom I wish a pleasant stay here at the seat of European democracy.\nKathy Sinnott\nMadam President, I was very glad to see that the vote went ahead in the Toy Safety Directive for the simple reason that, if we are going to send a strong message around the world about toys and toy safety, it has to be done at Christmas. To have put it off would have diluted the message. At this time of year people are thinking about toys.\nAgain this year, millions of Chinese toys have been taken off the market, as they were last year. The issues - which have been lead, arsenic, mercury and PCBs - are very serious, and it does not matter what a toy is for - whether it is a book or something to ride on or whatever - I know as a mother that at some point it could end up in a child's mouth. So we cannot be careful enough with toys, but I am glad that we have sent this message now.\nMilan Ga\u013ea\n- (SK) I would like to thank my colleague Mr Mann for his report. We know how important it is to establish rules and to eliminate the barriers to mobility for students and workers who are relocating in response to supply and demand on the EU labour market.\nThe European system of credits for vocational education and training will facilitate the transfer, recognition and accumulation of training qualifications. They will apply to qualifications achieved through various training routes at all levels of the European Qualification Framework for lifelong learning.\nThrough our approval we have taken a step towards broader support for lifelong learning and higher levels of employment, openness, mobility and the social integration of workers and people on educational courses. It will therefore facilitate the development of flexible, individual approaches as well as the recognition of educational qualifications that are achieved through both informal and formal education.\nMiroslav Mikol\u00e1\u0161ik\n- (SK) I would like to start by thanking Mrs Thyssen, due to whom we have achieved a commendable compromise, as a result of which our children will be protected from undesirable materials in toys and which at the same time will not cause any harm to industrial firms.\nAs you may know, I have fully supported restrictions on the use of allergens in toys - I am myself the father of four children and I did not always think about the safety of every toy that my children picked up. Parents in Europe often rely on the assumption that if a toy is in the shops then it will not be harmful to children. I am therefore delighted that we have worked together to toughen measures for ensuring that only those toys which are suitable for children will reach the shops, as children really are the most vulnerable group of consumers.\nUp to 80% of the toys on the EU market are imported, and it has to be said that during 2007 millions of toys produced in China were withdrawn from the market because they did not conform to European standards. The current circulation of goods means that we must re-examine the rules for placing goods onto the market and for checking their conformity to standards.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n- (CS) (the beginning of the speech could not be heard) deposit insurance, which the European Parliament has proposed in a very flexible way and which I have voted for, is clear. We want to harmonise a minimum level of protection for small savers by insuring deposits of up to EUR 50 000 and we want to establish a short deadline for paying out deposits, so that savers can obtain clear, timely and accurate information on the state of their bank deposits even in the middle of a crisis. This is a necessary measure, since savers are transferring their deposits in a chaotic manner out of healthy banks and into banks which saved themselves by obtaining government guarantees. This proposal is the only way to restore the confidence of small savers and to stabilise the market for banking services. I would like the guarantee to apply to small and medium-sized enterprises as well, since they perform an irreplaceable role in society throughout Europe and yet in times of crisis they are always the most threatened.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Madam President, I have voted in favour of the resolution on OLAF, because I wholly agree with Parliament's appeal to increase OLAF's independence. Something does indeed need to be done about this as a matter of urgency. At present, OLAF is, all things considered, hardly anything more than one of the Commission's directorates-general, and it is the Vice-President of the Commission who bears the political responsibility for it. This is not a healthy state of affairs. While OLAF may be independent operationally, it only has a hybrid status, and this needs to change. Good.\nMore generally, I take the view that the way in which the European institutions deal with the high levels of tax money is invariably casual. OLAF should at least have the means, the manpower and the responsibility to put a stop to the manifestly criminal aspects of this situation. As far as the generous attitude towards spending the funds lawfully is concerned, I am afraid that we will have to call a halt to this ourselves.\nFrank Vanhecke\n(NL) Madam President, I have voted in favour of this surprisingly excellent report on FRONTEX, because I can only applaud the appeal made in it for reinforcement of that institution. As far as I am concerned, the fight against illegal immigration should be the Union's top priority, and in this framework, the agreements which FRONTEX has concluded with the authorities of third states are very important indeed. It is to be welcomed that in this report, we call a spade a spade, and that the unacceptable attitude of candidate country Turkey is being criticised.\nIt should, to my mind, be made abundantly clear that the active refusal of the authorities of a third state, Turkey, which is a candidate country no less, to cooperate with FRONTEX, should have direct consequences for the political and economic relations between the Union and the state, to wit the suspension of the accession negotiations with the non-European country Turkey.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Madam President, I have voted in favour of the Moreno S\u00e1nchez report with some reservations. In all honesty, I only had modest expectations of the report, given the mood of political correctness that normally prevails in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I have to say, though, that the report is balanced, addressing, as it does, a number of painful areas, including the lack of cooperation, or should I say sabotage, by third countries, such as Libya and Turkey.\nCertainly in the case of Turkey, it is a disgrace that a candidate country should fail to meet its obligations in such a blatant manner. FRONTEX - and this is where the report leaves something to be desired - should be developed into an efficient instrument in the fight against illegal immigration, but also in the fight against international crime, as well as the drugs and arms trades.\nPhilip Claeys\n(NL) Madam President, I have voted in favour of the Susta report, because counterfeiting is, of course, a serious problem, and the text before us shows evidence of common sense.\nIn fact, I fully agree with Section 30 of the report, which reminds us that - and I quote - 'Turkey will only become a credible candidate for accession when it is in a position to take on the Community acquis and guarantee full respect for IPR'. We can only deduce from this that Turkey is not a fully-fledged candidate for accession to the EU, of which I am taking note.\nSyed Kamall\nMadam President, I think that we in this - very full - Chamber all agree on the importance of intellectual property, not only for knowledge economies but also in terms of the serious damage that can be caused to consumers across Europe, for example by counterfeit medicines, counterfeit foods and counterfeit car parts.\nI had some real reservations about the original resolution, which placed too much emphasis on consumers. We could have had the ridiculous situation in which travellers were searched at borders and had their computers, MP3 players and iPods taken from them and searched for potential counterfeit material. Thank goodness the Greens came forward with a more sensible alternative and were very willing, in the spirit of Christmas compromise, to withdraw the unwarranted amendment on the criticisms of companies. Overall, we were very pleased to vote for the resolution.\nI have now achieved my ambition of speaking to an empty Chamber, and would like to end by wishing everyone who is still here a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year!\nKathy Sinnott\nMadam President, I would like to wish you Merry Christmas as well. You are not in a completely empty Chamber.\nI voted for the L\u00f3pez report on the protection of adults, especially with cross-border implications, because I know from experience the necessity of this, but also because I hope this is going to be one step closer to the day when we can see true mobility in Europe. In this we are dealing with adults who in some way are attached to a court situation. In many cases these are often very vulnerable people and in some cases they are wards of court or people with disabilities. But, if we can take this further, the logic of this would be to get one step closer to the day when social welfare recipients can bring their supports with them, so that they too can move around Europe the way employees do.\nKathy Sinnott\nMadam President, I voted against the Deva report on development perspectives for peace-building and nation building in post-conflict situations because of one section, the one that states we should be able to take preventive as well as reactive initiatives that can even involve the use of coercive military force as an absolute last resort.\nThis is the Bush doctrine; perhaps the other people in the Chamber did not recognise this as the Bush doctrine that took us into Iraq, but it is. Sarah Palin was criticised because she did not know what the Bush doctrine was, but I wonder whether MEPs have understood that we have just voted for the Bush doctrine today.\nLuisa Morgantini\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not normally make use of this democratic instrument of the explanations of vote, I am doing so for the first time today on behalf of my group.\nTo explain, I regret to say that we have voted against a report that I myself helped to draw up, both as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and as a member of the Committee on Development. This truly is a good report, and I would like to express my warmest thanks to Mr Deva and the Development Committee for the work they have done.\nIn fact we do agree with the vast majority of the text: integrating conflict analysis into cooperation, support for civil and local society, combating the proliferation of light arms, the need for a code of conduct for soldiers and the police, references to reproductive health, transparency in the use of natural resources and support for refugees. In particular, too, the report emphasises mainstreaming in gender policies. So why vote against it? The reason is simple: because in certain sections it tries to bring a military component into development aid.\nThis Parliament, the Committee on Development and the Mitchell report did in fact state very clearly when introducing the regulation and the Development Cooperation Instrument, that development funds must not be used to finance military spending. Hence in the context of Country Strategy Papers also, our Parliament has taken care to ensure that development resources are not appropriated for security operations.\nWhy should our various different resolutions contain such contradictions? Development funds should be used for development; for education, health, agriculture, local communities and women's organisations. Cooperation resources are too few to eliminate poverty, injustice and to build peace; therefore the military cannot be included.\nWritten explanations of vote\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The EU has decided to create a 'new facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries (the \"Food Facility\")', and has approved a total amount of EUR 1 billion over three years.\nInitially it was proposed to finance the 'Food Facility' from the margin of heading 2 (Agriculture) of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and then through the revision of the ceiling of heading 4 (External Actions) of the MFF. However, it was finally decided that it would be financed through the Flexibility Instrument, the Emergency Aid Reserve and redeployment within heading 4 from the Instrument for Stability.\nTo finance this initiative, the Interinstitutional Agreement is to be modified in order to increase the funds available in the Emergency Aid Reserve for 2008 to EUR 479 218 000 (in current prices).\nWhile we regard the stated objectives of this initiative as positive, we would repeat that it should not be reduced to a mere balancing item or condition allowing the EU to impose an agreement within the World Trade Organization or Economic Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States. It should also not be used to conceal the reduction in EU development aid or the huge sums made available to relaunch the arms race and militarise international relations, as promoted by the EU.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) This new draft amending budget relates to the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (around EUR 7.6 million, to tackle damage costing EUR 176 million) for Cyprus following a period of severe drought.\nThe Commission points out, however, that 'taking into account the identification of excess appropriations in 13 04 02 Cohesion Fund there will be no need for fresh payment appropriations for financing the EU Solidarity Fund payments for Cyprus'. In other words, the financing needed to tackle this natural disaster will come from the cohesion policy.\nThe 'excess appropriations' in the Cohesion Fund have arisen (among many other reasons) due to the delay in implementing programmes in the 'cohesion' countries. As a result, instead of applying a concept of 'solidarity', which may penalise less economically developed countries, what we should have done was take decisions to prevent the continual under-implementation of structural and cohesion policies.\nWe would also draw attention, as we have done in the past, to the need to speed up the procedures for mobilising the Solidarity Fund, to ensure that regional disasters remain eligible and to effectively acknowledge the specific nature of natural disasters in the Mediterranean region, such as drought and fire.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The rise in food prices in developing countries is an extremely important issue which needs rapid EU action to counteract the harmful effects on the most needy populations. In this report Parliament therefore proposes financing a rapid response to the consequences of this situation, to the tune of EUR 420 million. Specifically, it is planned to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument provided for in the 2006 Interinstitutional Agreement. In the latter, the EU provided for the possibility of mobilising a Flexibility Instrument to allow the financing of specifically identified expenditure that cannot be financed within the ceilings available under one or more headings of the Multiannual Financial Framework.\nThe situation in question fully meets the institutional requirements and, without any shadow of a doubt, is justified under the EU's solidarity policy. As a result, no questions have been raised by the decision-makers, given the gravity of the situation.\nTime is pressing and our prompt action and response could make the difference between an accident and a human tragedy with incalculable consequences for the future development of these populations.\nDerek Roland Clark  \nin writing. - UKIP voted in favour of this report because EUR 4.9 billion of unspent appropriations will be returned to the national governments.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) In the current financial period (2007 and 2008), the Solidarity Fund has been mobilised nine times (Germany: EUR 166.9 million; United Kingdom: EUR 162.3 million; Greece: EUR 99 million; France: EUR 17.1 million; Hungary: EUR 15 million; Slovenia: EUR 8.2 million and Cyprus: EUR 7.6 million), making a total of around EUR 477.3 million compared to a ceiling of EUR 1 billion per year.\nWithout questioning the obvious need for this support - and without going into the procedure for activating and making this support available (which takes too long) - there is a question about the origin of the funds mobilised, particularly in view of the present draft amending budget.\nIn other words, while the urgent need to provide support in cases of natural disasters is in no doubt, the origin of these funds may be called into question, all the more so if they are 'deducted' from cohesion policy and not, for example, from the appropriations allocated to the EU's progressive militarisation. We believe that cohesion policy should be safeguarded.\nLastly, as we have done on other occasions, we would stress the need to make changes to the Solidarity Fund in order to speed up the procedures for its mobilisation, while ensuring that regional disasters remain eligible and effectively acknowledging the specific nature of natural disasters in the Mediterranean region, such as drought and fire.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List believes it to be possible to halve the Member States' fees to the EU. The largest part of the EU's money is spent on unnecessary or socio-economically damaging activities, including agricultural policy, the Cohesion Fund, fisheries policy and subsidies for different types of information campaigns. In addition, there are the costs of the European Parliament's commute between Strasbourg and Brussels and of institutions such as the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, which should be disbanded immediately.\nAgricultural policy is particularly objectionable. The money goes from consumers to often very rich recipients. Farmers in the poor countries of the world lose out as a result of competition from the subsidised farmers of the EU.\nThere is a constant stream of exhortations from various EU institutions to the Member States about how important it is for them to reduce their public expenditure. At the same time, this House constantly demands increased expenditure at EU level. The whole thing is absurd. Member States spend public money on schools, health care, research, infrastructure and support for vulnerable groups in society, while most of the EU's expenditure goes on a lunatic agricultural policy, misdirected Structural Funds and the financing of EU institutions that should have been closed down a long time ago.\nOur 'no' to the draft budget should be interpreted as a demand for a dramatic cut in the expenditure in the EU budget and a halving of the fee payable by Member States to the EU.\nKader Arif  \nin writing. - (FR) In the Community budget for 2009, we, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, proposed and obtained the adoption of a preparatory action for developing social tourism in Europe.\nThis project responds to the finding that many citizens are prevented from travelling for economic reasons and that this inequality needs to be corrected by guaranteeing everyone access to holidays. However, it is also useful in terms of territorial planning and local development.\nBy combining social mixing with local development and by providing access to members of the public for whom going on holiday is difficult, social tourism makes the tourism sector more profitable. It therefore provides opportunities to develop off-season tourism, particularly in regions in which this sector is highly seasonal, and encourages the creation of more permanent-type jobs in this economic sector. Thus, social and community tourism illustrates that there is indeed an intermediate sector between the leisure market and the non-creditworthy economy and that economic relevance is not incompatible with providing access to as many people as possible. The sector also helps to strengthen European citizenship by means of exchanges between European citizens.\nThis just shows how important this sector is, in terms both of economic returns and of public resources.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) While economic forecasts are pointing to recession in various Member States (some of which are already in technical recession), the Council and Parliament are adopting an EU budget for 2009 which is lower, in terms of payments, than the 2008 budget.\nHowever, if we compare the current draft budget for 2009 with the ceiling specified in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-2013 for this year - which we said at the time was inadequate to guarantee 'economic and social cohesion' in an enlarged EU-27 - the situation is even worse, as this budget falls short by around EUR 8 billion!\nThe EU budget for 2009 is the lowest, in terms of the percentage (0.89%) of Community GNI (Gross National Income), since Portugal entered the European Economic Community.\nDespite expressing 'concern', particularly about the 'possible effects of a recession on European citizens' and the 'extremely low' levels of payments and implementation of appropriations in cohesion policy, Parliament is backing this budget. At the root of this is an attempt, without questioning the basics, to improve its image among workers and people in the various countries, hopefully so that all goes to plan in the forthcoming European Parliament elections next June.\nThat is why we have voted against.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski  \nin writing. - (PL) The 2009 budget does not fully meet our expectations, and only partially addresses new challenges and current concerns. It reflects previously adopted objectives and assumptions and, in this respect, it fulfils the necessary criteria. I voted in favour of its adoption. However, I would like to draw your attention to the following issues:\n1. It is a good thing that we are increasing funding to support agricultural development in developing countries which experience food shortages. However, we should remember that, in the European Union, nearly 80 million people are threatened by poverty and 43 million citizens are at risk of suffering from malnutrition.\n2. In spite of the CAP, the incomes of farming families are considerably lower than those of families who support themselves by other means.\n3. In Europe we are witnessing the systematic collapse and bankruptcy of farms. Stocks of agricultural products are decreasing, which poses a threat to food security. Meanwhile, there are those who want to cut CAP spending.\n4. Both cohesion policy and structural policy mention territorial, economic and social cohesion, as well as aligning levels of development and creating equal opportunities for development, especially in poorer regions. In reality, areas where farming conditions are difficult and where the state of the infrastructure leaves much to be desired are becoming depopulated.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nI supported the adoption of the report drawn up by Jutta Haug and Janusz Lewandowski on the EU draft budget for 2009. It is important that, ultimately, MEPs were able to reach a compromise with the Council with regards to the funding of Parliament's priority objectives, such as combating the impact of the economic recession, and action to promote economic growth, cohesion and employment.\nParliament will increase the financial resources earmarked for social and employment policy, namely activities to promote competition and cohesion. This expenditure will cover the Social Fund, which will receive an additional EUR 135 million, as well as the Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. In the current, difficult financial situation throughout the whole of the European Union, initiatives to promote development and employment are of paramount importance, and this must be reflected in the 2009 budget. It is laudable that the budget also intends to earmark additional funds for providing assistance to SMEs.\nDeveloping countries will be able to count on financial aid to alleviate the effects of sudden increases in food prices, and an additional EUR 1 billion will also be earmarked for efforts to prevent famine in the Developing World. I also welcome the fact that Parliament intends to limit its administrative spending and to restrict this sum to under 20% of its total expenditure.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted in favour of the report by Mrs Iacob-Ridzi on the European Job Mobility Action Plan (2007-2010).\nThe desire to create a truly European job market requires us to adapt national legislation and clear the bureaucratic procedures that sometimes discourage workers' mobility. The Union has a fundamental role in the harmonisation of national social security systems and the transferability of supplementary pension rights. Furthermore, it is important that efforts are made to increase the level of information for citizens, not only through improving the EURES portal, but also through European information campaigns.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Although this report contains various recommendations that we support, these are all made in a liberal context. This is the case with defending the inclusion of the concept of labour mobility, especially in those policies concerning the completion of the internal market, ignoring the fact that such policies do not duly protect workers.\nHowever, together with these acceptable recommendations, the report stresses the economic and social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy, forgetting that this strategy contains the most neoliberal policies that the European Union has, which have already given rise to proposals such as the notorious Bolkestein Directive, so-called flexicurity and the Council's proposal on the Working Time Directive.\nAs a result, the report is yet another propaganda document which is trying to conceal the antisocial policies of the European Union and ignore the consequences of neoliberalism, despite this being a secret that has already been let out of the bag. You only have to look at the contradictions in paragraphs 15 and 16 to see why we abstained.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The problem, for the rapporteur, does not seem so much to be the lifting of the legal and administrative barriers to the professional mobility of European workers on EU territory, but, on the contrary, the fact that such mobility is not widespread and, above all, mandatory. It is the mixing of populations on a grand scale, speeding up the demise of Europe's nations, that we are being offered. It is wage competition, social dumping and the downwards harmonisation of wages that are being considered. With the creation of a European social security card with very blurred boundaries it is the undermining and dismantling of national social security systems that is being achieved.\nAsk those workers in France to whom it was proposed, a few years ago, that their jobs would be protected if they decided to drop everything to go and work in Romania for a few hundred euros a month, what they think about your mobility!\nTrying to resolve the taxation and social-rights-acquisition problems of frontier workers or workers who have pursued a career in several Member States is in fact the European Union's responsibility. However, this must not come at the cost of social uncertainty.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) Mobility of labour is among the key elements for implementing the aims of the Lisbon Strategy, and yet it is constantly being obstructed through barriers of an administrative, legal, tax-related or social nature. The administrative barriers are mainly caused by differences in intra-state laws relating to the labour market, and responsibility for this rests largely with the Member States.\nI would like to start by expressing my disappointment that some states in the EU-15 are still applying restrictions in the labour market against workers from the new Member States, despite the fact that the fears of the citizens and governments of these countries are not borne out by economic studies or statistical data.\nPeople approach me with many problems which they encounter when attempting to exercise their right to mobility outside their country of origin. They have to confront refusals to recognise experience relating to mobility within the framework of professional development and problems connected with social security and pensions, especially in small and medium-sized firms. Language barriers are also among the main obstacles to the mobility of workers and their families, and the Member States must therefore actively support foreign language teaching, especially for adults.\nI firmly believe that, through effective media campaigns, people can obtain relevant information about the EURES network, which provides a single point of contact for worker mobility in Europe, the TRESS network or the SOLVIT instrument, which helps to solve problems on the internal market and problems connected with worker mobility.\nNicolae Vlad Popa  \nI voted in favour of this report as labour mobility is a fundamental right granted by treaty to EU citizens. This makes it one of the basic pillars of the European social model, enabling the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy to be attained.\nI congratulate the report because, apart from the fact that it draws attention to the obstacles preventing freedom of movement on the labour market for workers from the new Member States, it also includes important elements to supplement the European Job Mobility Action Plan presented by the European Commission, such as support for programmes which correlate the education system with the labour market, reciprocal recognition of qualifications and extending the EURES network.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen,\nI have voted in favour of the report by Mrs Iacob-Ridzi on the European Job Mobility Action Plan for the period 2007 to 2010. I share the view that professional mobility among the Member States of the Union has made a positive contribution to European integration: examples of this are the ease, compared with the past, with which it is possible to reside and work for a time in another country and the possibilities, which are growing every day, of accessing job offers in states other than one's country of origin. At this point, we must attempt to improve the legislative, administrative, fiscal and social situations by cutting red tape in this sector. However, we should always bear in mind that the action of the European Union must take account of the socio-economic differences among the Member States.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nAt the December session of the European Parliament a vote was held on the European Action Plan for Skills and Mobility, presented by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.\nWorker mobility depends on the fundamental principle of the freedom of movement of persons within the internal market, in accordance with the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Along with security, this is one of the four fundamental freedoms to which European Union citizens are entitled.\nCommunity legislation should protect migrant workers from losing the social protection to which they are entitled. Significant progress has been made in this respect, but we must still aim to remove the administrative and legal obstacles to mobility resulting from specific legislation in force in individual Member States.\nIn fact, job mobility can serve as a tool to strengthen the economic and social scope of the Lisbon Strategy. Mobility may be an essential step towards achieving a new momentum for the European social agenda and meeting a range of challenges, such as demographic change, globalisation or technological progress.\nI support the European Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, including the concept of creating an information and advice portal, containing advice on all aspects of occupational mobility, such as job vacancies, healthcare and social insurance, and the mutual recognition of qualifications and training.\nJohn Attard-Montalto  \nin writing. - Although we have devised many strategies for lifelong learning their implementation leaves much to be desired. Levels of commitment and expenditure vary from country to country. Unfortunately positive trends in public spending on education generally have staggered. An adequate share of the budget has to be allocated to adult learning. This is necessary as adult participation in lifelong learning does not appear to be on track. Greater effort needs to be made to raise skills in the adult population and to achieve flexibility and security across the labour market.\nEmployers should be encouraged to arrange education and training for their employees. Incentives to enable low skilled workers to participate in learning programmes are recommendable. Special serious consideration has to be given to long-term unemployed, especially those from a disadvantaged social background, people with special needs, young people from institutions, former prisoners and rehabilitated drug users.\nCharlotte Cederschi\u00f6ld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar H\u00f6kmark and Anna Ibrisagic  \nin writing. - (SV) Explanation of vote in respect of the report on the implementation of the 'Education & Training 2010 work programme'.\nWe have today voted in favour of Mrs Novak's (Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, SL) initiative report on the implementation of the 'Education & Training 2010 work programme'. The report contains many constructive recommendations, particularly with regard to measures designed to facilitate mobility within the Member States for students and workers.\nOn the other hand, we do not believe that the recommendations seeking to influence the curricula in Member States are compatible with the principle of subsidiarity. The number of hours of sport in the school week and the possible introduction of media literacy onto national curricula is best decided by the Member States themselves.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - The Commissions 2007 communication entitled 'Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation' is part of a series of biennially produced progress reports on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme. As such, the report provides an overview of progress made and a review of the situation of coordination in education and training within the aegis of the Lisbon Strategy objectives of making Europe both the world's most competitive economy and one with full employment by 2010.\nThis report gives us a valuable insight into the state of play of various educational initiatives, both successful and unsuccessful, and also documents means and measures appropriate to bring about further improvement. It sets out clear objectives and solid statistical indicators and benchmarks.\nI fully support the efforts made to bring us to our agreed destination with the Lisbon strategy and give this report the support it deserves.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) This report contains some important and acceptable recommendations in calling for greater economic and social support, complementary measures and integration of migrants and minorities, in underlining the importance of sport in education and training, and in stressing the need for greater support for pre-primary education and for teachers and students, particularly in primary and secondary education. However, it supports the European Commission's proposals, including the Lisbon Strategy, and insists on applying the Bologna Process with total disregard for its practical consequences.\nBased on the Commission communication entitled 'Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation', the report accepts not only the picture of progress made and the areas where progress remains insufficient, but also proposes measures to change the situation in accordance with objectives which are not always totally appropriate, given that they accept and insist on neoliberalism being applied to education. It is therefore a political statement that can also be regarded as a roadmap for the coming years. That is why we fundamentally disagree.\nIn fact, we cannot accept, for example, that modernising higher education involves complementing the Bologna reforms and increasing sponsorship from the private sector, particularly when public higher education is being suffocated, as in Portugal.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) Yet again the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education wants to interfere in the education sector. We in the June List would like to make the point, once again, in this House that education policy is a policy area for which the responsibility rests with the Member States.\nAs always, the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education has embarked on flights of fancy in its reports. This report once again raises the issue of sport in school. Paragraph 4 of the draft report states the view that at least three teaching periods per week should be set aside in the curriculum for sport.\nThis is yet another example of how EU politicians and officials are prepared to interfere in any area and at any level of detail in their eagerness to centralise political power. Subsidiarity is hailed in grand speeches but is never respected in the policies put into practice.\nWe believe that this area is nothing to do with the European Parliament and have therefore voted against it.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) Education and vocational training is the moving force behind the Lisbon Strategy. Comprehensive strategies and instruments for lifelong learning, especially the European Qualification Framework, Europass, the Framework of Key Competences and the recommendations for mobility and for ensuring quality in higher education should be applied more consistently across all Member States. Member State governments should be playing a very dynamic role in policies focusing on education. Even though the harmonisation of a European reference system for qualifications will not happen until 2010, the accelerated implementation of the European Qualification Framework in all Member States would limit the difficulties currently encountered by EU citizens.\nMobility of students and teachers is a fundamental aspect of professional mobility. More attention must be given to initiatives such as the Bologna Process and the Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes, which make it possible to study abroad and emphasise the importance of professional mobility in the future.\nA successful education system rests above all on the quality of syllabuses and teaching. We must quickly introduce into syllabuses the teaching of European citizenship, programmes aimed at teaching foreign languages, at protecting consumers, protecting the environment and the fight against climate change. It is important for Member States to allocate adequate resources to social security for teachers and to recruiting and training particularly teachers of foreign languages.\nI firmly believe that if we fail to make the teaching profession more attractive, there will be a shortage of high-quality specialists in education.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted in favour Mrs Novak's report on delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation and, in particular, the implementation of the 'Education and Training 2010 work programme'.\nI uphold her argument that action in the field of education and training deserves systematic support from the European Union through targeted policies, above all in critical sectors that, according to the report presented by the European Commission in 2007, require improvements. These include lifelong learning, public spending and private investment in education, school drop-out rates, which are already too high at secondary school level, and the relevance of education compared with the job market. Furthermore, I would like to highlight the fact that training and education, research, innovation and the transfer of knowledge are vital to the Europe of today and of tomorrow and should therefore command joint effort at national and Community level.\nTom\u00e1\u0161 Zatloukal  \nin writing. - (CS) Madam President, I have voted in favour of the 'Education and Training 2010' report of Mrs Novak. I agree with the need to support efficiency and effectiveness in the various education systems. One effective way to provide all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the opportunity for lifelong learning, is to increase the quality of pre-school education. Subsequent primary and secondary education must support pupils and students in creative thinking and in developing the individual talents and abilities that will help them to secure employment.\nIn the area of specialised training we must increase the quality and attractiveness of the subjects on offer and above all we must link training with the economy in such a way that the training process corresponds to the needs of the labour market not only across the EU, but above all within a given region. In the area of university education I support the need to modernise the range of studies so that they fulfil current and future socio-economic requirements. Adult education programmes should concentrate mainly on supporting people who are in the least favourable position on the labour market and also on supporting employers who offer lifelong learning to their employees.\nOle Christensen, Dan J\u00f8rgensen, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen  \nin writing. - (DA) In principle, the Danish delegation within the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is in favour of certain types of toys being required to be certified by a third party to ensure that the products comply with EU rules. However, this amendment is not worded appropriately for meeting this objective and, moreover, adoption of this amendment would result in the demise of the whole compromise. We want to improve the safety requirements for toys and we believe that, on the whole, this will be best achieved by accepting the compromise reached by the European Parliament and the Council.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) The toy safety directive represents an extremely important step towards ensuring our children's safety. It was absolutely essential to extend the scope and clarify the legislation on such an important issue. Aspects such as increasing the responsibility of manufacturers and importers and judiciously increasing the number of prohibited substances are proof of the rigour with which this issue has been tackled.\nI must congratulate the rapporteur who, while successfully laying down rules to ensure children's safety, has taken into account the survival and stability of small and medium-sized enterprises in this sector.\nHowever, we should think about the increased responsibility of Member States resulting from this legislation. To achieve this directive's objective - namely our children's safety - the Member States must meet their obligations, which are now being increased in terms of market surveillance.\nGiven the Portuguese situation and the successive surveillance failures in this respect by the responsible agency (under state control), I urge the Member States to properly assume their responsibilities. The progress made by this directive in terms of safety must be matched by effective and responsible surveillance action by the Member States.\nG\u00e9rard Deprez  \nin writing. - (FR) Toys have to be safer than other products because children are very vulnerable consumers. Dangerous toys already exist, however, within the Union. We can therefore be pleased with the compromise reached between Parliament and the Council on a text that sets the toy industry a whole series of safety criteria to meet before a toy can be placed on the European market.\nAs with many compromises, this text provides its share of advances and disappointments.\nIn terms of advances, I would mention in particular the demand for a guarantee from manufacturers that their toys are not harmful to a child's health or safety, the increase of the limit values for toxic metals, the increased prevention of the risks of suffocation and strangulation caused by small detachable parts, and the clarification of warnings on packaging or on toys themselves.\nThese advances justify my vote in favour of the final text.\nWith regard to the disappointments, I would mention, aside from the numerous derogations from the ban on carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic substances, the abandonment of the idea of certification by independent third parties. I voted in favour of this provision, but it was not adopted, and I regret that.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - MEP Thyssen's proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys proposes to increase the safety measures involved in and restrict the use of dangerous heavy metals in the preparation and fabrication of children's toys. The proposal aims to revise the current Directive (88\/378\/EEC) and includes a total overhaul to bring it in line with the specifications outlined in the Decision on a common framework on the marketing of products.\nThe proposal aims to extend the scope of the Directive with regard to 'double use products' which are also toys, increasing the amount of products concerned by the Directive. Concretely, issues concerning choking hazards and the regulation of chemicals used in the fabrication process have been addressed to remove or reduce hazards for children. This seasonal proposal has my full support.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of Marianne Thyssen's report on the safety of toys as I feel that the compromise text adopted will allow the safety requirements for toys to be strengthened, in terms of increasing the responsibility of manufacturers and importers for the marketing of their products and also increasing the market surveillance obligations of Member States.\nHowever, I regret the rejection of Amendment 142, which required toys to be assessed by a third-party laboratory before being placed on the market in order to guarantee their conformity.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) The aim of this proposal for a directive is to introduce better toy safety requirements, mainly in connection with the use of chemical substances and electrical properties. The new legislation also brings physical and mechanical properties into line in order to reduce the risks of suffocation. It also lays down measures to reinforce market surveillance by the Member States and new obligations for manufacturers.\nThe aim is therefore to improve the existing directive, bearing in mind the new safety risks which may arise as a result of the development and marketing of new kinds of toy, possibly made from new materials.\nHowever, many questions arose in the debate and voting on this directive's proposals. The European Commission's guarantees were not available during voting, which led to a minor incident.\nFurthermore, there are experts who are worried about maintaining requirements which do not completely eliminate the use of substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (known as 'CMR substances'), although new restrictions are imposed.\nThere is also a difference of opinion about the limit values for metals, particularly arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and tin, which are highly toxic and which should not therefore be used in toy parts that children can access.\nOur Group therefore voted against.\nRobert Goebbels  \nin writing. - (FR) I abstained from voting on the Safety of Toys Directive to protest against this undemocratic procedure of confronting the European Parliament with reports negotiated during informal trialogues and thereby preventing it from carrying out its work in the usual fashion.\nWhat is more, the proposed directive demonstrates the absurdity of the precautionary principle. The legislator is creating rule after rule and ban after ban to ease its conscience, while children are making a mockery of these rules by playing.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nParliament has adopted the Toy Safety Directive. It is an excellent Directive, which improves the safety of toys that reach the hands of our children. It is a particularly important step at a time when we hear a growing number of reports about accidents involving toys, such as children swallowing parts of badly assembled toys. It is worth highlighting that a large number (around 80%) of the toys on the European market are imported from China.\nThe Directive has managed to reconcile the interests of consumer interest groups and representatives of the toy industry. I cannot but be glad that a settlement has been reached on what is for me, as a parent, such a key piece of legislation. Both sides will benefit from this Directive. Consumers will be sure that the toys which reach the European market, and which end up in the hands of their children, comply with high safety standards, are free of all toxic substances and contain clearly legible warnings that can be read by those purchasing the toys.\nThe toy industry has frequently highlighted the fact that we cannot compromise on the safety of our children, which is why they are in favour of the proposed changes. However, these changes should not pose a threat to the toy manufacturers' position in the European market. The negotiated agreement will grant these businesses an additional two years to adapt to the new legislation on chemical substances.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of the directive on the safety of toys because it represents a valuable improvement. On the one hand, it does more to ensure the safety of toys and hence the health of children by imposing new bans on allergenic substances and CMR, heavy metals and components that present a risk of choking.\nOn the other hand, it is also a successful and balanced compromise that takes account of the fact that a significant number of the EU's 2 000 toy makers are cautious and acknowledge their responsibility as manufacturers. They should not have to suffer because of the irresponsibility of just some importers.\nEspecially considering the time of year, the Toy Safety Directive carries a message that the Union is willing and able to protect consumers, and their most vulnerable offspring, more effectively. We should probably remember, however, that no amount of legislation can absolve parents of their responsibility. The Toy Safety Directive cannot alone be a guarantee that what is in the gift pack is good for the child.\nMairead McGuinness  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Thyssen report and was pleased to do so, even though procedural matters almost got in the way of the final vote.\nSafe toys are a must and the EU should and is leading the way when it comes to safety concerns.\nThe total ban on the use of chemical substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction is essential. Even though there is a provision for exceptions on a case-by-case basis, this should only be on the strict advice of the European Scientific Committee.\nIt is also appropriate that allergenic fragrances be banned and 55 such substances will now be removed from toys.\nLikewise very strict rules as regards heavy metals, with maximum levels imposed.\nParents buying toys this Christmas have a presumption of safety. This revised toy safety directive will improve the situation greatly, would that it were already in place for this Christmas season.\nRare\u015f-Lucian Niculescu  \nThere is no better proof than to present specific data. The Romanian press has published just today the results of an inspection carried out by the Romanian Consumer Protection Office. Inspectors noted during a recent inspection that 90% of the toys checked were non-compliant.\nSome toys did not have any user instructions and did not specify the age for which they were recommended. The inspectors also found toy guns and swords which they considered to be dangerous. Other toys included easily detachable small parts.\nAccording to the results of this inspection, China remains the main source of dangerous toys and is, nonetheless, the main supplier to the European Union. Radical measures are needed on this matter for the sake of our children's well-being.\nBart Staes  \nin writing. - (NL) Whilst this new law on safe toys is a step in the right direction, it does allow a few opportunities to go to waste. This is why I did not endorse the report.\nFor example, whilst the use of some allergenic fragrances and certain chemical substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction, amongst other things, has been curbed, they will not be banned completely, but phased out gradually. There are no binding standards for noise-producing toys either.\nWhat is positive is that, in the eyes of the law, importers of toys will be equated with the manufacturers. Less positive is the directive's half-hearted monitoring provision in respect of toy safety standards, since manufacturers themselves are held responsible for the safety aspect.\nThe directive does stipulate that Member States must carry out random tests, but I fear that this stipulation is too noncommittal.\nMonitoring safety is random and, to date, there is not really a European quality label that enables the parents to take informed decisions and, therefore, avoid toys that can be harmful to the health of their children. Compulsory certification by independent bodies could solve this problem. Both the USA and China take product safety extremely seriously, and recently voted in favour of introducing legislation that makes these checks compulsory. Why is Europe lagging behind in this?\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - The need to update existing rules on toy safety is long overdue. I welcome today's vote. Children's safety has to be our paramount consideration and I hope that the toy industry will take heed.\nBernadette Vergnaud  \nin writing. - (FR) I found the compromise on the Thyssen report too lax where safety rules and the presence of chemical substances in toys were concerned. Furthermore, the amendment calling for the conformity of toys to be monitored by independent bodies was not passed, even though it seems obvious that the safety of children should be prioritised over the interests of one or two large industrial groups. I have always been in favour of stricter monitoring of goods in general, and even more so in the case of goods designed for children. It follows that the final disappointing content of this text - it falls far short of our initial ambitions, even though it contains a few advances - has led me to abstain from the vote.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - The European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training, which aims to support and promote the transnational mobility of learners and access to lifelong learning. As an operational system, through ECVET, the transfer, recognition and accumulation of learning achievements will be improved. The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) already provides the means to 'translate' different means of assessing the variety of qualifications that exist in Europe. The ECVET provides an additional means of translation and transposition using a common methodological framework to facilitate the transfer of learning outcomes from one system to another. The importance of investing in the future of our knowledge economy in Europe cannot be under-emphasised and this transnational method of recognising educational results provides us with the material to do so. I fully support this proposal for establishing this Credit system.\nNicolae Vlad Popa  \nVocational education and training are an area which has acquired particular importance in recent years.\nIntroducing a European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training will help develop and expand European cooperation in the education sector.\nIt will also help improve the mobility and portability of qualifications at national level between different sectors of the economy and within the labour market.\nVocational education and training are a crucial part of Europe's efforts to tackle the social challenges presented by ageing societies and to realign its position in the global economy and resolve the economic crisis.\nFor this reason, I feel it is important for Member States to validate non-formal and informal education, especially at a time when the number of graduates from vocational education and training is going to fall dramatically between 2009 and 2015. At the same time, however, there will be a significant increase in the need for staff with vocational qualifications who can take up the vacancies on the labour market. Consequently, I believe that it is particularly important for European agencies to actively support the partnerships between Member States and European companies in this area, on the basis of a cost sharing scheme.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nImproving vocational training is a key means of achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy, namely economic growth, competitiveness, employment and social cohesion.\nThe proposed European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) is one of a number of initiatives at European level in the field of training. Learning outcomes vary greatly, due to the range of national education and vocational training systems. ECVET provides a methodological framework which covers acquired knowledge, skills and competences, addresses the issue of how credits are transferred and accumulated, and places them in the context of qualifications. This system facilitates the trans-border mobility of workers and makes it easier to achieve transparency with regard to professional qualifications obtained abroad.\nECVET could be a valuable instrument for adapting vocational training and education to the demands of the labour market, on condition, however, that it take into account specific national and regional circumstances. It must also meet its users' needs, namely those of workers and businesses, including SMEs and Europe's smaller workplaces. This system facilitates trans-border mobility, as well as access to lifelong learning in terms of vocational training and education. It should enable people undergoing training to choose their own career paths.\nI think that the introduction of ECVET will make a major contribution to the creation of a European labour market, as long as the associated administrative burdens are eased.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I agree with the approach as set out by the rapporteur which reflects the current concerns of so many European citizens.\nThe fact there has been coordinated European action on this issue draws attention to the fact that Europe can change people's lives for the better even in the middle of crises such as the current financial situation.\nPractical measures have been understood by the rapporteur and this has assisted in making this proposal workable.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report which simplifies the accounts process for small and medium sized businesses, reducing their administrative burden.\nNicolae Vlad Popa  \nThe action taken by the Commission to encourage the simplification and harmonisation of EU company law, with the direct aim of reducing the administrative burden by 25% by 2012, represents a necessary condition for boosting European companies' efficiency and making the Community business environment more attractive, by generating savings estimated at EUR 150 billion.\nThe initiative concerning the review of regulations featuring in the 4th and 7th Company Law Directive - in terms of waiving the obligations to disclose accounting information and draw up consolidated accounts not only for small enterprises, but also for medium-sized or parent enterprises with subsidiaries which are not considered material - also incorporates the contribution and has the support of the rapporteur, and guarantees, in the future, the stability and security of a legal framework suitable for a segment which plays a major role in creating jobs in the EU.\nI also welcome the emphasis placed by the rapporteur on the need for transparency and the provision of accurate information for all stakeholders, particularly by means of a large-scale implementation of economic and financial reporting systems based on information and communications technology.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nMrs van den Burg's report on amendments to certain disclosure requirements for medium-sized companies and obligation to draw up consolidated accounts is a good legal document.\nThe report drawn up by the Committee on Legal Affairs aims, in the short-term, to simplify the operating conditions for small European enterprises. First and foremost, it aims to relieve them of the burden of having to disclose information pertaining to formation expenses treated as assets (costs related to setting up the business), as well as the obligation to draw up consolidated financial reports in cases where a parent company only has immaterial subsidiaries.\nI believe that, within the framework of harmonising legislation concerning company law, allowing not only small, but also medium-sized enterprises to benefit from exemptions, poses no threat to transparency. In fact, I think that the opposite is true, as this move could significantly reduce their administrative and financial burden.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nin writing. - (SV) We four Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have chosen ultimately to vote in favour of Mr Moreno S\u00e1nchez's report. We share some of the concerns expressed about the direction in which Frontex is developing. We do not think that Frontex should be militarised and have therefore voted in favour of Amendment 2. Nor must Frontex result in the EU building higher walls to the outside world. Instead, it is important to us that the EU should conduct a generous refugee and migration policy. However, we welcome the discussion about Frontex that this matter has brought about in the European Parliament. It is good that the European Parliament has asked Frontex to include the fight against people-trafficking in its tasks and also that a review will be carried out to check that EU law complies with international law otherwise applicable in the area, so that the EU can take the most effective action possible to help people in need.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The FRONTEX Agency, which is responsible for the co-management of the European Union's external borders and the fight against illegal immigration, in particular, owes its existence solely to the dismantling of the internal border controls and to the desire of the Europe of Brussels and of the Member States' governments to pursue an active immigration policy. It is not a foregone conclusion that a Community agency such as this will provide real added value compared to classic intergovernmental cooperation, judging, to look at another area, from the differences between Europol and Interpol in terms of their effectiveness and usefulness.\nWhat is more, the Agency's tasks seem destined to increase, to become more complex and, in fact, insurmountable so long as the root of the problem is not tackled: on the one hand, Europe remains a social and financial Eldorado for would-be illegal immigrants, in spite of the dangers of their journey and the problems they encounter on the ground; on the other, cooperation policy, as inadequate as it is, is being threatened by the immigration of degree-holding professionals orchestrated by the EU itself. It is therefore crucial to stop the immigration suction-pump effect and the policies under way.\nLastly, I should like to stress that local associations combating illegal immigration do exist. They include, for example, Emile Bomba's ALCEC in Cameroon, and they deserve to be helped and supported.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The European Parliament could not have marked International Migrants Day in any worse fashion than by adopting a report which advocates reinforcing 'Frontex' and which 'welcomes the adoption of the European Immigration and Asylum Pact by the European Council'.\nLike 'Frontex', the inhumane 'Return Directive' is one of the central pillars of the EU's criminalising, security-focused, exploitative and elitist immigration policy.\nFollowing its adoption by Parliament, the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council adopted this directive surreptitiously and without any great fanfare on 9 December, thanks to the Portuguese Government's vote in favour.\nThe MEPs from the Portuguese Socialist Party may well try to cover up the conduct of their party and government. The truth is that the latter voted in favour of this shameful directive in the EU Council.\nIt is now essential to combat this directive in its transposition process in Portugal. This means that we must denounce its inhumanity and its breach of human rights and mobilise all those who are fighting to defend the human dignity of migrants.\nThe Portuguese Communist Party will remain in the front line of this battle, fighting to reject the ignoble content of this directive and to ratify the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.\nCarl Lang and Fernand Le Rachinel  \nin writing. - (FR) In recital B of this report it is written that 'illegal immigration is a common European challenge'. Indeed, this is all the more true since, each month, illegal immigrants in search of a European Eldorado disembark on the Italian, Greek and Spanish coasts in their thousands.\nIn the face of this challenge which, let us not forget, is principally a product of the Schengen Agreements - which abolished the controls at the internal border of the Member States - the Union's response has been to create a European external border control agency: Frontex.\nOnly yesterday just a gimmick without resources, personnel or power, it would seem that, today, Frontex's remit allows it to provide its support to joint return operations and contributes in some, albeit small, way to the daily fight against illegal immigration.\nWe should keep in mind, however, that there is no use in closing a few gaps allowing illegal immigrants to pass through if all the EU Member States do not react as one to denounce the Schengen Agreements and to re-establish real controls at all their borders, both on land and at sea.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Our markets are being flooded by a growing number of counterfeit products. They pose a serious problem for European enterprises, which operate legally and comply with safety standards, and which cannot compete with cheaper, counterfeit goods. What is worse, however, is that counterfeit foodstuffs, car parts, cosmetics, toys and especially medicines, also pose a real threat to the health and lives of consumers.\nThe current legislation contains loopholes which allow counterfeit products easy access to our markets. For example, Polish legislation contains no definition specifying the characteristics of a counterfeit medical product. Taking counterfeit medication is certainly not the same thing as using a fake perfume. If people are not aware of the problem and use counterfeit medical products, the consequences may be tragic.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I supported the report by Mr Susta. Counterfeiting can be the destroyer of jobs, the cause of ill-health and the source of funding to international criminal gangs and terrorists. Because of this it is vital that Parliament, Council and Commission take whatever steps are necessary.\nYet multinational corporations in their search to maximise profits create a climate that encourages the production of counterfeit goods and public acceptance of the process. I will give one example. The regionalisation\/zoning of DVDs sees massive price differences across regions which consumers can only access by adapting illegally their DVD players or purchasing pirate DVDs illegally, as a global single market in their product has been prevented by technological chicanery. Imagine other companies indulging their profit-seeking in similar ways across the board.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Counterfeiting is not just a problem of respect for intellectual property rights. As the rapporteur emphasises, this phenomenon kills any incentive to be innovative, causes the disappearance of thousands of skilled and unskilled jobs in Europe, and lays the foundations of an underground economy controlled by organised crime. These illegal practices can also threaten the health and safety of consumers and cause serious environmental damage.\nThe problem of the quality and dangerous nature of imported goods, the counterfeiting of which only increases the risks by misleading consumers, is more widespread. The countries of origin of these goods are clearly identified, with China being ranked first. The Union even agrees at times to open up its markets to goods that do not meet the standards that it imposes on its own producers, such as, for example, chlorinated chicken, which is cheaper to produce than chickens subject to veterinary checks.\nIn the raft of measures proposed by the rapporteur (bilateral or multilateral agreements, cooperation with the countries of origin, cooperation between the European services concerned, and so on), there are two obvious omissions: trade sanctions against states that accept these practices, and the introduction of a generalised national and European preference system.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List supports the free internal market and welcomes constructive proposals aimed at countering market-disrupting phenomena, including trademark counterfeiting.\nHowever, both the committee's report and the alternative proposal for a resolution recommend legislation at EU level that is more far-reaching than is justified to tackle the problems caused by trademark counterfeiting.\nThe June List is opposed, in particular, to proposals for the coordination of the activities of the judicial and police authorities and harmonisation of the individual Member States' criminal legislation.\nFor these reasons, we find it necessary to vote against the report in its entirety.\nVasco Gra\u00e7a Moura  \nin writing. - (PT) The growing importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) reflects an indisputable paradigm: the modern economy values and protects the knowledge on which it is based. Industries, regardless of their sector, very much depend on holding exclusive rights to use specific know-how. Counterfeiting is frequently condemned because the harm caused to legitimate industry has clear effects on employment, research and development. These effects are of particular concern in my country.\nHaving said this, the issues surrounding counterfeiting nowadays go beyond purely economic damage. The harm caused by counterfeiting has reached new boundaries: whereas previously there was counterfeit clothing, now there are fake medicinal and food products which can be harmful. The unwitting consumer does not understand the risks posed.\nWe must therefore fight this counterfeiting. That is why we need harsher penalties, coordination and cooperation among competent authorities and harmonisation of the legal principles applying in partner jurisdictions.\nIn addition to creating effective mechanisms to settle potential disputes and litigation, we now need something like the 'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement'. This is a multilateral international agreement, currently under discussion, which offers the legal innovation needed to develop efficient monitoring and punishment measures.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The resolution adopted by the European Parliament includes concerns and proposals that we support, although we disagree with some points.\nThere is no doubt that combating counterfeiting should be a priority. However, despite the resolution considering that intellectual property rights, 'including geographical indications and denominations of origin, are not always protected effectively by the European Union's trading partners', it should be underlined that the EU itself is not setting an example. The Council is currently blocking a proposal for a 'made in' regulation and has not adopted any other measure aimed at applying binding rules to imports from third countries on indicating the mark of origin of products.\nFor our part, we will continue to promote the adoption of Community measures encouraging each country to adopt and implement measures to combat counterfeiting of trade marks and smuggling, and also specific customs checks to identify products accompanied by false declarations of origin or which infringe the rules on trade mark protection.\nEach country should implement measures to protect against aggressive exports by systematically checking and monitoring imported goods and resorting to safeguard clauses whenever necessary.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of this report which plays an important part in combating counterfeiting which accounts for some 7-10% of world trade, costing 500 billion euros. The aim of this report is to put forward a concrete and consistent proposal for the EU to fight against counterfeiting, a stance which I support. Whilst respecting fundamental rights such as the protection of privacy and data, it provides a framework for universal efforts to suppress counterfeiting, therefore protecting thousands of skilled workers' jobs.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - MEP Ortega proposes a means to deal with legal instruments called authentic acts. Authentic acts are principally concentrated in Member States that come from a civil law tradition where legislation provides the primary source of law, in contrast to common law traditions (e.g. Ireland and the United Kingdom) and their reliance on customary rights and privileges. In the civil law tradition an authentic act is one established by a competent public officer or a competent authority and covers not only the act, but also its content. This content ranges from financial transactions but also the realm of public records and official documents of that kind.\nThe motion for a Parliamentary Resolution aims to promote increased legislative intervention across Member States that possess such acts by considering their mutual recognition and application in specific areas. This proposal adds additional weight to pre-existing legislation and is of potential benefit for countries from this legal tradition.\nCarl Lang and Fernand Le Rachinel  \nin writing. - (FR) This report concerning the cross-border use and the recognition of authentic acts presents risks of confusion in a variety of ways.\nIndeed, and above all, it should be specified that the concept of the authentic act does not exist in common law systems. In England and Wales, solicitors fulfil the role of notaries. There are also scrivener notaries. The latter cannot issue authentic acts and are only authorised to certify signatures.\nIn its concern to harmonise the legal professions, the Commission attaches little importance to the differences relating to the very nature of the Member States' legal systems.\nUnfortunately this political will does not contribute to legal certainty as a whole.\nEurope must protect the identity of its peoples and the values and traditions peculiar to each of its States. The biggest mistake would be for it to develop in a way that is detrimental to its peoples.\nDavid Casa  \nin writing. - (MT) This is an extremely important report and that should be considered as the basis upon which many future decisions will be built. The use of ICT in the judicial field facilitates the work of both the administration and judiciary significantly. In a Europe that is moving towards closer integration and unity, both economically and socially, we also need the necessary tools to bring us up to date with the times. The concept of e-Justice does just this.\nWe must not forget however, that the traditional systems that were used before also had their merits and, therefore, I believe that if the proper balance is struck we can work together in more harmonised manner for everyone's benefit. This goes especially for the judiciary, since using the e-Justice system will enable it to concentrate exclusively on its work without having to worry about the added administrative burden.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) The European Area of Justice has been developed (both through mutual recognition of legal judgments and through the creation of a culture of legal cooperation between competent authorities) in order to accompany the free movement of citizens throughout Europe.\nIt is estimated that around 10 million people are involved in cross-border litigation in Europe, with all the inherent challenges such as language, distance, unfamiliar legal systems and so on.\nThe use of information and communication technology in the administration of justice may offer new solutions, improve the functioning of justice (better accessibility and efficiency), help rationalise procedures and cut costs.\nThe strategy proposed in terms of e-Justice has the fundamental aim of making justice more effective throughout Europe, to the benefit of its citizens. However, the potential scope of e-Justice could be much wider, which is why the boundaries of its action must be clearly defined so that the effectiveness and credibility of the EU's actions are not called into question.\nAny changes must be made gradually and according to progress in the European Area of Justice and the development of technology.\nI support the request made to the Commission to prepare an Action Plan on e-Justice at European level and to create a European e-Justice portal.\nAvril Doyle  \nin writing. - The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council met in 2007 and adopted conclusions on the use of 'e-Justice'- regarding the cross border use of information and computer technology in the Justice Sector - and agreed that efforts towards creating a centralised system across the European area of freedom, security and justice should continue. As internet usage tips closer to saturation and the full impact of our information based society becomes clearer, the import of increased technologically based support of the justice sector is of clear benefit to all. However it is important to recognise that the levels of technological development across the Union are not uniform and that this opt-in element remains until such a time as development is more even, and advanced technical capacity is reached.\nMEP Wallis' proposal concerns the establishment of a centralised e-Justice system which details a framework for action for the creation of a European e-Justice portal where civil, criminal and commercial matters are all regrouped, for example where criminal records, land registry deeds and insolvency registers are contained and thus accessible to Member States.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nThank you, Madam President, I have voted in favour of Mr Deva's report on development perspectives for peace-building and nation building in post-conflict situations, which calls attention to the international community's responsibility towards states, or local groups, involved in conflict. I am pleased that the amendments tabled by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have led to a substantial improvement of the proposal, with reference to the need for greater coordination between the activities of peace-building, humanitarian aid and development in countries emerging from conflicts. I would like to draw attention to the situation of children in conflict zones, in particular those who have lost one or both of their parents. Moreover, in times of conflict, very often hospitals and schools are subject to attacks by troops. We must work to ensure that children can overcome post-conflict trauma, through cooperation with UNICEF, which is already present in many at-risk areas throughout the world, in order to secure a satisfactory education and a better future for these children.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin and Nils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The June List believes that peace-building and nation building in developing countries are not matters for the EU. The responsibility for these challenges rests with the UN.\nWe are highly critical of all of the wordings in the report which recommend the continued development of the EU's military capacity and have therefore voted against the report.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As it is impossible to comment on the (intentional) amalgam that this report comprises, we will concentrate on what we regard as its main objective: to downplay the interference of the EU's major powers in third countries, under cover of the 'Responsibility to Protect' concept.\nWhile underlining the sovereignty of states, the report considers, 'however, that where governments are unable or unwilling to provide such protection then the responsibility to take appropriate action becomes the collective responsibility of the wider international community'. It then notes that such action 'should be preventive as well as reactive, and should only involve the use of coercive military force as an absolute last resort'. The language clearly does not betray the intention.\nHowever, there can be no doubt in this respect as the report 'demands' that 'the principle of non-intervention yields to the international Responsibility to Protect' and believes that 'there are two phases of peace-building and state-building: the stabilisation phase where the emphasis is on security, law and order and provision of basic services; and the second phase of state-building which focuses on governance and the institutions which will deliver it'.\nThis report therefore constitutes a primer for interference and colonialism.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) I voted in favour of Mr Deva's report on development prospects for peace-building and nation building in post-conflict situations because it raised in a comprehensive way the issues that are essential for successful reconstruction. The issue is an important one as half of all countries that emerge from conflicts return to conflict within five years. Apart from the country in a situation of fragility itself, the international community is an important protagonist in the development of nation building. I believe it is especially important to consult and support local women's organisations and international networks of peace more so than before and insist on the rights and opportunities that victims of sexual violence should have to access to justice. It is also worth remembering that peace is not only the absence of war. Crucial to any successful reconstruction policy is tackling the root causes of instability by means of those socio-economic, political and cultural measures which can foster economic development and create institutional and administrative capacities.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted in favour of Mr Deva's report on development perspectives for peace-building and nation building in post-conflict situations. He has outlined an excellent course for what should be the ideal transition from a post-conflict situation to a return to normal social and economic life.\nI believe that this should be considered in the resolution of the too numerous and violent internal conflicts, above all in relation to the role of the European and international community. I agree with Mr Deva that the route to conflict resolution is easy to delineate but more difficult to pursue in practice. That does not change the fact, however, that at least as far as the European Union is concerned, our action should be focused on serious support for countries in difficulty and entirely free from hypocritical or convenient positions.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast) - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on\nthe recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position of the Council with a view to the adoption of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast) (11786\/1\/2008 - C6-0016\/2009 - (Rapporteur: Mathieu Grosch),\nthe recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96\/26\/EC (11783\/1\/2008 - C6-0015\/2009 - (Rapporteur: Silvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u), and\nthe recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) (11788\/1\/2008 - C6-0014\/2009 - (Rapporteur: Mathieu Grosch).\nMathieu Grosch\nMr President, I assume that this is a joint debate on the three reports forming part of the road package.\nI should like to thank the Council, and also the Commission staff. The work we have done over the last two years has produced good results.\nRoad and freight transport within the European area accounts for approximately 75% of transport and employs two million people. Certain new rules were called for in view of the market opening for 25 countries that is planned for May 2009. The Commission proposals were along the same lines.\nAs regards the report by my colleague Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u - whom, along with all the rapporteurs on the road package, I also wish to thank for the constructive cooperation - it is important that clear guidelines are being laid down on this for transport operators. They must prove their reliability throughout Europe, and must also have a sound financial structure. Transport managers should be able to demonstrate either many years' experience or a high level of training. Serious offences can jeopardise this reliability, which also means that Member States will be called upon to continue to perform checks and punish offences even after the entry into force of this regulation. This is often lacking in the transport sector as a whole.\nMore than half of Parliament's amendments have been accepted. I shall not go into all of them today, but I should like to highlight one result of the unofficial trialogue that is very important to me, namely the combating of 'letterbox companies'. These lead to distortions of competition and weaken national undertakings. Preventing this form of establishment means preventing social and fiscal dumping, which was also a subject in itself in the road package.\nOn the subject of market access for buses, coaches and lorries - buses and coaches in particular - this regulation mostly revolved around the '12-day rule', as agreement was reached very quickly on the other points. The reintroduction of the possibility of taking a weekly rest period after 12 days does not compromise safety. The daily driving and rest periods must be observed, and on such journeys drivers will never exceed the permitted daily driving time. In addition, these 12-day trips help European integration and, for many people, are a very economical way of going on holiday.\nThe discussion on market access was one of the most intense for freight transport, and here Parliament did not obtain everything it wanted. Yet we did reach a compromise, and it was a good one. It seems to me that, particularly for cabotage - three operations in seven days - this compromise is a good starting point. The ultimate aim is to regulate services in third countries and, in the medium term, the cabotage market should be opened. We are awaiting proposals from the Commission on this, as cabotage should also serve to avoid unladen journeys. Nor do we want to interpret the imposition of temporary restrictions on this as protectionism, however. At this particular moment, with social and tax harmonisation in the transport sector completely failing to take effect, it was a very good idea to limit it in order to avoid unfair competition. Yet we should not wait two years before applying this regulation. Six months for cabotage and the 12-day rule should suffice.\nI should also like a clear answer from the Commission as to whether countries that have already opened their cabotage markets pursuant to Article 306 of the Treaty will be prevented from continuing to do so under this regulation. I hope that the Commission will make a clear statement today on the further opening of cabotage markets and on Article 306.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nMr President, Commissioner, I would prefer to use five minutes to start with and leave one minute for my conclusions.\nThe draft regulation sets out the conditions in terms of location, character, financial situation and professional competence which a person must fulfil to be able to perform the occupation of a road transport operator. The regulation which we are discussing has also established the terms under which a company can employ a transport manager, has reinforced authorisation and monitoring procedures, has provided regulations for electronic registers and the protection of electronic data, has dealt with the issue of penalties for non-compliance with the regulation and has set up a system of mutual recognition of diplomas and prior rights.\nAt first reading, which ended with a plenary session vote in May last year, Parliament insisted that the transport manager have a proper contractual link to the company and imposed an upper limit on the number of vehicles one manager could manage.\nAmendments were also introduced to tighten the requirements for the company to have a fixed location. The company's good reputation may be lost as a result of its involvement in human or drugs trafficking.\nParliament has drawn up a list of serious infringements leading to exclusion from the profession in conjunction with removing provisions on minor infringements. Insurance has been accepted as proof of financial standing and the quick ratio of assets to debts has been dropped.\nA compulsory written examination in the country of residence has been retained as a requirement to practice this occupation, with the possibility of an exemption for 10 years' continuous practical experience.\nFinally, previous rights have been rescinded and the Commission has been asked to report on the likely impact of extending the regulation to commercial transport using vehicles with the appropriate design and equipment, intended to carry up to nine persons including the driver.\nThe Common Position has adopted in whole or in substance 70 of Parliament's 113 amendments. These include amendments on minor infringements, the definition of the link between companies and transport managers, the right of appeal of those subject to decisions on operating as a transport manager, mutual recognition of certificates, prior rights, the exchange of information between the competent authorities, as well as drugs and human trafficking as grounds for exclusion from the profession.\nConcerning the registers, both Parliament and the Council agree on a stepwise approach. In fact, the Commission will define the data structure for national electronic registers by the end of 2009, but the two institutions have proposed different timetables for implementation, with the Council requesting a longer period of time.\nThere have also been other issues where the Council's initial stance was different to that of Parliament, but after long, fruitful negotiations, an acceptable compromise was reached for both institutions.\nAs a result, Parliament has accepted a more flexible timetable for implementing and interconnecting national electronic registers (31 December 2012). It has been agreed that major infringements will only be incorporated in national electronic registers after 2015, the limit on the period of validity for authorisation to perform the occupation of road transport operator will be removed, the examination will be retained in the Member State of residence, the structure of the electronic registers will include a public and a confidential section, the references in the regulation's content to restricting licences for accessing the road transport market will be removed, where virtually all the references to the licences for accessing the road transport market are only contained in Mr Grosch's two regulations.\nI await fellow Members' comments with interest. Thank you.\nPavel Svoboda\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in today's debate I am standing in for my government colleague, the Transport Minister Petr Bendl, who has unexpectedly had to remain in Prague.\nI would like to thank you for offering me the opportunity to address you ahead of tomorrow's vote on the road transport package. The Czech Presidency considers the finalisation of this collection of legal regulations to be highly important. The package is important because of the need for a clear and harmonised approach on the current system of cabotage instead of different approaches in the various Member States and also access to the market for transport operators.\nWith the help and support of the rapporteurs the Presidency has achieved a successful result concerning this important collection of legal regulations. I know that everyone has been working hard towards this result and that everyone has had to make certain compromises. Everyone demonstrated a constructive approach in negotiations in order to achieve second-reading approval.\nThe main items arising from our discussions can be summarised as follows: a more detailed specification of cabotage rules, the possibility for drivers engaged in single occasional international passenger transport services to work for 12 consecutive days and tighter controls on transport companies. Now the road transport sector will have a set of simplified rules and control mechanisms for cabotage as well as unified and enforceable provisions on access to transport markets. There will also be clear rules preventing abuse and helping to ensure fair competition, greater efficiency and better controls in this sector.\nThe compromise on cabotage will make a significant contribution to a more transparent, more efficient and safer road haulage market. It will contribute to further improvements in the road haulage market while at the same time creating a fairer and more transparent framework for the entire road haulage sector. It will reduce numbers of journeys by empty vehicles on EU roads thereby contributing to lower CO2 emissions. The compromise also assumes that Member States will use appropriate safety mechanisms for preventing violations caused by cabotage on the road haulage market. The new rules on cabotage will come into force six months after the regulation is published in the Official Journal. In 2013 the European Commission will also consider the option of further steps relating to opening up the road haulage market and liberalising cabotage.\nI firmly believe that the new legal framework for transporting goods and passengers in the EU will make a significant contribution to rapid and sustainable economic recovery. I would like to thank Parliament for its work on securing agreement in the negotiations over this package, and I would especially like to thank the rapporteur Silvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u and the rapporteur Mathieu Grosch, whose hard work and determination have helped to secure a successful result.\nAntonio Tajani\nMr President, Mr Svoboda, honourable Members, the Commission cannot fail to be delighted with the compromise reached on the road package, since it enables us to conclude the legislative procedure at a time when the transport industry needs to have simple and effective rules and be set free from pointless red tape.\nI have to say that the decision we are taking will also help to make our roads safer, because I believe that whenever we take action in the sector of transport and especially road transport, we must always keep sight of our goal to halve the number of casualties on EU roads. The rules that Parliament is adopting do, I think, help to achieve this objective.\nWe are also happy because this is another signal the European institutions are sending to citizens on the eve of the elections, and because the legislative procedure can be concluded at second reading, just two years after three major and complex legislative proposals were tabled. They have perhaps made for difficult debate, but at the end of the day institutional and common sense has prevailed, as has the political will to meet the demands of citizens and the transport sector in general.\nI would like to take a quick look at the reports we are debating, in order to give some answers to the questions asked by the rapporteurs. I will begin with access to the international market for coach or bus transport services: it is true that cabotage represents a very limited section of the transport business as a whole, but, politically, it is a highly sensitive area. If used in a way that complements international transport, cabotage also contributes towards a better use of capacity and a reduction in unladen journeys, meaning a reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicles on the road - and you will be aware of how many road accidents involve large vehicles. This regulation will clarify the rules on cabotage, which will be applicable - and I refer here particularly to Mr Grosch's comment - in a uniform and non-bureaucratic fashion throughout the EU, without affecting existing cooperation between Member States under Article 306 of the Treaty. Furthermore, cumbersome national procedures still in force will be abolished, in order to enable transport firms to make the best use of the possibilities of cabotage. The Commission will keep a close eye on the evolution of the road transport market and will publish a report in 2013.\nIf deemed appropriate in that report and if the conditions for fair competition have been better harmonised, the Commission will propose that the cabotage market be opened up further. The Commission has made a statement to this effect, which will be sent to the Parliament Secretariat for inclusion in the reports of this debate. This statement will also be published in the Official Journal, alongside the legislative proposal.\nI now come to Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u's work on common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator. The Commission welcomes the introduction of a new 12-day rule. This is a tailor-made measure that takes account of the very particular conditions of certain types of passenger transport that allow for a longer period than six days, but do not normally require a large number of driving hours, for example school trips, skiing holidays and certain excursions. The new legislation also stipulates extremely rigorous measures so that road safety is not threatened, I can assure you. There are currently 100 different types of Community licences in force in the EU, which often makes for difficult and lengthy checks. Under the new legislation, there will be just one type and one standard format of Community licence used throughout the Union.\nI now come to the third text in question: access to the international road haulage market. In an increasingly open market, we need to harmonise the conditions imposed on the companies that compete in this market. That is the purpose of the new regulation, which replaces a directive and at the same time tightens up the conditions that companies must meet. Each firm will have to appoint a transport manager to be responsible for the efficient running of the business as a whole.\nIn addition, in order to avoid 'dummy companies', further guarantees must be supplied as regards companies' registered offices. Further still, a new electronic register will be compiled in order to step up information sharing between national authorities and to make controls more intelligent and efficient. This, too, helps to ensure road safety.\nFinally, transport businesses are today receiving a very clear message from legislators concerning the more serious failings that lead to licences being withdrawn, for example the repeated cases of tachograph tampering. This is unfortunately a practice that takes place in all EU countries, but the tampering not only constitutes a breach of the rules, it also threatens the safety of those who travel on Europe's roads, as it is clear that tired drivers are not able to respond quickly should problems arise.\nThat is why I said at the beginning of my speech that the laws about to be passed by this House make a serious and important contribution to our joint battle, as Commission and Parliament, to reduce drastically the number of road traffic casualties. I would therefore like to thank you for your willingness to adopt these laws so quickly.\nLet me repeat, this is a strong signal we are giving to European citizens, demonstrating once again that Parliament - and I say this not least because I served in this House for 15 years - has shown great efficiency and seriousness, for which I am grateful.\nGeorg Jarzembowski\nMr President, I should like to thank the Council and the Commission for their constructive cooperation with our Parliament's rapporteur. As Commission Vice-President Tajani himself said, this is a very good example of how a good result can be achieved in a short space of time even on difficult dossiers.\nHowever, I cannot hide the fact that we are not overly happy with the cabotage regime. As the President-in-Office of the Council - and you, too, Vice-President - mentioned, it is intrinsically better, on environmental and economic grounds, to avoid unladen journeys in Europe. Therefore, it would be better if the cabotage restriction could be lifted altogether sooner rather than later.\nAs an interim step, we are accepting three cabotage operations in seven days, but we are awaiting your report most eagerly, and hoping it will state that 2014 will mark the end of this restriction. After all, it is a trifling area for the transport sector, but one that wastes money and has adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, I hope that you will present a proper proposal in 2013, as a cabotage restriction is absurd in a European internal market of 27 countries.\nI should also like to thank the Council and the Commission for supporting us in the end on the reintroduction of the 12-day rule for buses and coaches. This is very important for the bus and coach industry, which, in many countries, consists of small and medium-sized enterprises, as the introduction of two drivers on such trips - which are mostly for senior citizens - has caused problems for SMEs. We are pleased that this expires in six months' time. It must be understood that there are many people, particularly older people, who do not like flying but would still like to travel as tourists in Europe and perhaps enjoy the sun in places such as Italy or Spain, hence the importance of our reintroducing the 12-day rule for buses and coaches and making it affordable and thus possible for senior citizens to travel. This is a great success for us, for bus and coach companies and for passengers, and so I am much obliged to the Council and the Commission.\nBrian Simpson\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their work on this difficult dossier. It is clear that this package, and in particular the issue of lifting cabotage restrictions, has divided opinion along national lines, but I think what we have before us now is an agreement that we can support.\nI had serious concerns about full cabotage delivered in one move without any levelling-up of social costs, or indeed running costs, for individual hauliers. Such a move, I believe, would have had a detrimental effect on the road haulage business, not only in my own country but in other Member States as well. Therefore the compromise introducing temporary cabotage is not only sensible, it is a solution that will be workable, allowing three domestic journeys after one international one. Temporary cabotage also allows us to end the environmental nonsense of HGVs travelling hundreds of kilometres empty, without distorting domestic markets.\nFinally, I am also happy to support the new enforcement measures that have been introduced via the \u0162ic\u0103u report. This has to go hand in hand with further market opening, and will allow Member States to practise tough and efficient enforcement measures.\nJeanine Hennis-Plasschaert\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) For years, emotions have run high when it comes to the phenomenon of cabotage. Current legislation, as has already been pointed out, is said to be too vague due to the term 'temporary' that has been used. For various Member States this is the perfect excuse to further protect their own market, which is what we have noticed.\nTo create clarity once and for all, the Commission has asserted that it will bring forward a proposal to solve all these issues. I have high hopes for this. Strikingly enough, though, the Commission has proposed to impose firm restraints on the scope for cabotage. This is striking because the existing rules have all this time been considered an intermediate step towards complete freedom. In 2009, we were supposed to be moving towards complete freedom, according to both the Commission and the Council.\nI consider the agreement that is now before us and on which we will be voting tomorrow a huge disappointment. Instead of more freedom, hauliers are faced with more restrictions. Of course we do need a European approach. I too could not agree more. The sector should not have to put up with all kinds of national outpourings a day longer.\nThis agreement, however, Mr President, is completely at odds with the principles and objectives of the internal market. The arguments in favour cited, such as traffic safety, the environment and a reduction in the administrative burden, hold no water whatsoever. There will not be an actual free market, Mr Tajani, and this whilst every restriction leads to more transport movement. It is anything but workable, Mr Simpson. Working on the principle that something is better than nothing is not an option for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. It does not work in this case.\nRoberts Z\u012ble\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President. Commissioner, I would certainly like to thank both rapporteurs and all those others who have been involved in finding a compromise, but I would like to say that there are both positive and negative aspects to what we have accomplished. For example, it is a good thing that we have managed, on passenger transport, to reduce the obstacles to transport in districts near borders, where there is an intensive flow of cross-border transport. At the moment, however, when in difficult economic circumstances solidarity is needed, protectionist tendencies can be seen in relation to national markets, and thanks to the concept of 'temporary' use, restrictions still serve as an excuse for many Member States to carry on protecting their domestic markets. Unfortunately, Member States will be able to make use of a safeguard clause that gives them the opportunity to use serious difficulties observed on the national transport market as grounds for approaching the Commission and passing protective measures. In addition, it should be noted with regret that they will also be able to do this after 2014, which was in the European Parliament's original position. I would like to make a similar point about international coach transport too. The provision stating that in the event that international transport poses a threat to the viability of the provision of similar services a Member State may suspend or cancel the transport operator's licence is, in my view, unacceptable in the operation of the single market. Thank you.\nGeorgios Toussas\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (EL) Mr President, the common position of the Council of the European Union, like the Commission's initial proposal for a regulation, liberalises the national passenger and freight road transport markets and grants international Community transport companies access to the internal markets of the Member States. In fact, it hands international and domestic road transport over to the large monopolies on a plate.\nThe proposals contained in the European Parliament reports move in an even more reactionary direction. They call for the immediate and full liberalisation of the markets and the removal of all barriers, restrictions and controls. The workers now understand from bitter experience the painful consequences that the charge by monopoly business groups into road transport will have on their lives.\nThe liberalisation of the internal freight and passenger road transport markets steps up the exploitation of working drivers, who will be forced to drive without breaks and without any measures for their rest and safety, sweeps away their wage, labour and insurance rights, increases the risks to road safety and imposes the concentration of transport among international monopolies, which reap huge profits, with disastrous consequences for the self-employed and small businesses trading in this sector. It results in increased freight charges, a lower standard of service and higher risks to passenger security.\nThat is why we voted against the common positions and the recommendations by the European Parliament. The working class movement is against capitalist restructurings and calls for the creation of a single public-sector transport market based on the criterion of satisfying modern grassroots requirements.\nJohannes Blokland\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (NL) Had I predicted around 1980 that the end for the cabotage restrictions would still not be in sight by 2009, there is no doubt that my audience would have had a good laugh at my expense. After all, restrictions of cabotage are, by definition, blatant violations of the rules of the European internal market.\nNow, in 2009, we are once again faced with the prospect of going home empty-handed at second reading. Needless to say, I will be supporting the amendments by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, but as the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is deliberately refusing to stand firm on this, it is delivering the future of the road haulage sector a fatal blow. I am pleased to see that the 12-day rule has been retained in the proposals, but not that this has been done at the expense of ending cabotage restrictions.\nIf Amendments 17 and 18 are not adopted, I will be voting against the end result. I refuse to put my name to a proposal that is detrimental to the environment, puts the haulage sector at a disadvantage and is very disrespectful of the workings of the European internal market.\nCorien Wortmann-Kool\n(NL) I should like to start by saying that the good news in the proposal we are now discussing is that the 12-day rule for bus transport has been abolished.\nAs far as cabotage is concerned, however, the proposal is downright disappointing. After all, back at the start of the 1990s, and even in the 1980s, it was agreed that this restriction of the free transport of goods would be temporary in nature. That is why we, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, but also Members of other groups, had submitted proposals at first reading to lift the restrictions by 2014. In recent months, though, it has become apparent that the Member States have been thwarting this proposal, despite the efforts Mr Grosch has made as a rapporteur to have a date on the table after all. The thwarting has been fierce, which is very bad news.\nProtectionism in times of crisis is the worst news for Europe, for, as Mr Tajani rightly pointed out, it is a waste of money and bad for the environment. That is why the Dutch Christian Democrats (CDA) will be voting against this proposal, even though we are aware that it is the Member States that are blocking this measure and there is nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. The content of this proposal is both wrong and unenforceable. The legislation is therefore not just bad in times of crisis, it is also symbolic.\nI should therefore like to encourage the Commissioner not to leave matters at that, and to take the initiative once more, the right of initiative he has in the next few years to abolish this restriction of cabotage yet. He will be supported by the Christian Democrats in so doing.\nGilles Savary\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to pay tribute to the sense of compromise shown by our two rapporteurs, Mr Grosch and Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u, since this is a difficult subject in the sense that, yes, we do want the single market, but the public and company directors do not understand that having the single market at times means that some of them will have to fail, that the economy will have to go into recession and that jobs will have to go.\nIn the public's eyes, it is only worth having the single market if it puts them in a win-win situation. However, we know only too well today that, on issues such as cabotage, social conditions in the various countries are such that, were it to be systematised, we could, as things stand, see a number of workers from countries with high levels of pay ejected, ousted from the market by countries with low levels of pay.\nI therefore believe that the position adopted is ultimately the right one. Cabotage should be liberalised, but it is still too soon to do so suddenly and indiscriminately. Thus, having the notion of consecutive cabotage, with an adjustment that refers us to a rendez-vous clause for a report by the Commission on the social repercussions, and, above all, not having an automatic and indiscriminate date for liberalisation, suits us very well.\nThat is why we shall vote in favour of this report, while calling on the Commission to be attentive and while expressing the wish for liberalisation ultimately to take place, but not to give rise to unfair competition or social dumping, which do so much damage to Europe's reputation and which, in a country such as mine and no doubt in that of Mrs Wortmann-Kool, prompted the sudden rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by citizens fearing the loss of their social position. Thus, I am grateful to the two rapporteurs.\nDirk Sterckx\n(NL) I should like to thank Mr Grosch and Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u for the work they have done, and I think that Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u is right to be strict about access to the market in her report. If you run a transport company, you have to observe a number of rules and, as Mr Grosch has already stated, PO box companies have to go, as they are the cause of a lot of the abuse that goes on. That is Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u's report, then.\nSo why can we not give the companies to which strict rules apply a European market to work on? Moving on to Mr Grosch's report, I would have liked to have seen a clarification, not a restriction. As such, the majority of our group cannot endorse the compromise Mr Grosch has struck.\nWe are actually taking a step backwards, in that we are once again restricting the scope of hauliers within the European market. There is no prospect of an opening up in 2014, as per Parliament's request. The Council disagrees, but I think this is one concession too many. We are, in actual fact, arranging empty journeys for lorries - something which, in this day and age, simply should not be done. I doubt whether those Member States that have now opened up their cabotage markets to each other are still able to do so under this regulation, should they wish to do this on a bilateral basis. I also wonder how Member States that claim that monitoring is difficult will now manage, because it is not that much easier. It is the same in all the countries, but it is difficult to monitor and I should like to see if the police authorities are up to this.\nIf the cost of wages and social dumping are the reason, why do I not get to see documents in which the French authorities reprimand French customers for using too many Belgian lorry drivers? They are more expensive than the French. Why do I then hear stories of Belgian lorry drivers who, for relatively minor offences, are kept under arrest in the United Kingdom? For there, too, drivers are cheaper than in Belgium. So, if social abuse is supposed to be a reason, it is certainly not the case here.\nThe upshot, in my view, is that we will be taking a step backwards in relation to the internal market. Tomorrow, we will be approving intelligent transport systems, which means that we are saying that communications technology and information technology lead to more effective freight transport. We then say, though, that we will be restricting this for political reasons. This is very unfortunate and I will therefore oppose the agreement which Parliament will, unfortunately, be approving by a majority.\nMichael Henry Nattrass\nMr President, another package of reports to keep EU committees busy, more pollution into a sea of unnecessary regulations. Winston Churchill said if you have 10 000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law. English respect is destroyed. A BBC poll shows 55% want to leave the EU and 84% want the UK to keep its powers.\nPresident P\u00f6ttering confirmed the EU makes 75% of the law. In 35 years, that is more law than England has made since King Richard III in 1485. So, here we are, making legislation to correct legislation. Where will it all end?\nThe UK will leave the EU, be good neighbours and watch you in your sea of regulations from across the English Channel, watching the EU die a death by a thousand self-inflicted truck directives.\nDieter-Lebrecht Koch\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the road transport package comprises three mutually complementary issues that have an important impact on the freight and passenger transport markets. It will benefit carriers, drivers and users, particularly in the current economic climate. At the same time, it will improve safety on our roads, increase transport efficiency and benefit environmental sustainability.\nI welcome the choice of the form of a regulation to achieve our ambitious aims. Bans on cabotage operations result in unladen journeys, which we cannot and do not want to afford, either financially or from an energy or environmental point of view. On the other hand, unrestricted opening of the freight transport market would lead to distortions as a result of unfair competition - which is why this is being tackled gradually. Cabotage is permitted provided that it does not become a permanent or continuous activity in a Member State in which the transport operator is not resident.\nUnfortunately, this initial step does not yet represent the full opening of domestic road transport markets, but it does leave this possibility open. Unladen journeys are already being reduced and the environment protected.\nWith regard to access to the cross-border passenger transport market, the main objective is bureaucracy reduction, in the interests of simple, fast procedures for the authorisation of cross-border regular services. Documents are to be harmonised and checks simplified. I very much welcome the introduction of the revised 12-day rule for organised cross-border coach journeys. This will benefit holidaymakers and bus and coach companies alike, without compromising safety. It is citizen-focused politics.\nIn future, authorisation to pursue the occupation of road transport operator will be subject to specific, transparent conditions. This will increase the status of the profession, ensure the recognition of professional qualifications and help combat dumping practices. The increase in safety and reliability will be palpable.\nSa\u00efd El Khadraoui\n(NL) First of all, I should, of course, like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Grosch and Mrs \u0162ic\u0103u, for the work they have done and for the fact that they eventually managed to thrash out a compromise on the package, one that should not last for more than a few years at the most, as it is merely a transitional measure, in my view. With regard to road transport, there are two important points I should like to make. The first one is, indeed, access to the profession. This has, in my view, been structured in such a way as to ensure that guarantees are in place from those who want to be active in the sector.\nCabotage is clearly subject to some controversy. This is a good transitional measure that was necessary in order to define more clearly what is possible. In the past, it was stated in rather vague terms that cabotage is possible on a temporary basis. This has now been clarified as three times over a seven-day period. It is indeed logical that everything should be thrown open, but the time is not yet right, in my view.\nThe compromise that is now before us, namely that we review the social situation in the European Union in a few years' time and take further measures as necessary strikes me as a very reasonable proposal. This opening up of the market should go hand in hand with a levelling of the social bar. Meanwhile, it should be possible for a number of countries, or groups of countries, such as the Benelux countries, for example, to agree with each other that things stay the same so that open cabotage remains possible. As long as salary and working conditions are more or less the same, I personally do not have any problem with this, but this is clearly not the case yet across the board, and that is why this intermediate step is necessary.\nAri Vatanen\nMr President, when we leave this place this evening, most of us will take a black car. These are quality cars and quality drivers, and we know that those drivers are very professional. It is a known quality. They meet the criteria.\nAlthough I partly agree with the English gentleman a while ago when he complained about too much legislation - sometimes it is true that we do produce too much legislation - I still regret that EU access to professional rules was not extended to taxis, because we all use taxis in the various Member States and their quality differs a great deal. When you take a taxi, reliability is very important, as is quality: knowing what to expect. It is also a question of safety. You are very often alone in the car in strange surroundings. The taxi is also, for many of us, the first contact we have in a new country, so it would make sense for the drivers to meet certain European criteria. It also means that, if they were professional, well educated and knew where they were going, we would not have to be afraid of overcharging.\nThere are countries like Germany, Sweden, Slovenia and Finland where the national rules are very stringent on this issue and the taxi profession works well. London taxis are also known for their quality. We should share these best practices. But, in the mean time, while we are waiting for this legislation on criteria for the taxi profession, maybe we should legislate for us to give good tips to those drivers who take us home in the evenings.\nPavel Svoboda\nPresident-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the various contributions put forward during this debate. I would like to assure you that the Council is fully determined to strengthen and complete the single market. The Presidency therefore believes that, precisely for this reason, an adjustment is required in existing Community legal regulations. The Presidency also fully shares the aim of boosting the competitiveness of the road haulage sector in the EU by rationalising and simplifying the existing legal framework and thereby helping to curtail market violations. However, opening up domestic transport markets fully would expose our transport operators to unfair competition and would impair the functioning of the market because there are still significant fiscal and social differences between the Member States. This must be avoided, particularly in a time of economic crisis when the economy as a whole requires a careful and considered assessment of the best methods for stimulation and recovery. It is clear that by 2013 at the latest the Commission will assess the situation on the market again with a view to further liberalisation. This compromise version represents a fair and balanced way to combine the various interests.\nOur common aim is to make road transport more efficient and sustainable. These legal regulations will make a significant contribution towards reducing breaches of economic competition rules and improving compliance with legal regulations in the social area as well as road transport safety regulations on the part of road transport operators. It will also bring about a significant reduction in the administrative burden both for road transport operators and for supervisory bodies. It should also provide the sector with a legal and administrative framework aimed at deriving further benefits from the common market. I firmly believe that this important collection of legal regulations will support and facilitate road transport and will help stimulate economic recovery. I would like to thank you once more for the excellent cooperation which has made it possible for us to reach a joint compromise on achieving these objectives.\nAntonio Tajani\nMr President, honourable Members, I believe that what Parliament is about to adopt is a good compromise, reconciling the Council's demands, the demands of the majority of MEPs and the European Commission's proposals.\nObviously, when a compromise is needed, each must take a step back so that others can do the same, and I therefore think that Mr El Khadraoui's words were wise: we have done the best we could under the circumstances. As I said in my earlier speech, as far as cabotage is concerned, the Commission intends to assess the situation and see if it might be possible to reach an agreement - it will depend on how things stand - it may be that we can open the sector further and so take the direction many Members have called for, but we must of course gauge the situation at the time.\nTo repeat, I believe that this is a good compromise, and I would like to address Mr Sterckx, who has the courtesy and good will not just to criticise, but then also to listen to the reply, unlike many Members, who have made criticisms and then are unfortunately unable to listen to the Commission's comments in response to what they have said. I would like to reassure Mr Sterckx, who is rightly concerned about the existence of prior agreements concerning his country of origin and the other Benelux countries.\nIt is my belief, however, that this legislation, as it is to be adopted, will not - as I said earlier - have any negative repercussions for existing agreements. They will remain in force, because the new legislation will broaden the situation but will not affect, and therefore not prejudice, bilateral or trilateral agreements that already exist. Thus I believe I can reassure Mr Sterckx that as I see it, which I believe is the correct and effective interpretation, there will be no negative repercussions for the agreements that chiefly - I repeat - concern Benelux.\nI also wanted to reassure Mr Blokland and Mrs Wortmann-Kool about the concerns they voiced: we do not intend to stop here, we are looking - I repeat - to see how the situation develops, in 2013 we will prepare a report to assess the state of the art, how things have evolved, and if it is possible, if we deem it necessary, we will again propose to Parliament and the Council a possible extension of the situation and further liberalisation of the cabotage system. We are very aware though, that many EU countries hold a different view, and so in order to obtain approval from the Council it has been necessary to take a step back on other matters.\nNonetheless, I would say again that I think it is a very good thing that we have reached an agreement relatively quickly, an agreement that - I would also reassure Mr Jarzembowski - could always be improved; every law can be improved, but too often the best is the enemy of the good. I believe we are doing the right thing and I do not think it necessary to leave the European Union when we talk about these subjects, as Mr Nattrass suggests, because I think that good rules are useful to the European Union.\nEven an authoritative British newspaper, the Financial Times, has speculated that Great Britain will re-think the need for stricter rules; certainly, during the crisis Europe has withstood the economic and financial crisis better than other regions, precisely because it has based its economic system on clear rules.\nI believe, perhaps because I was born in Rome, that the history of Roman law and the Napoleonic Code has demonstrated the importance of having rules that guarantee society's development. I do not know which side of Hadrian's Wall Mr Nattrass was born on, but judging by his speech I would say he was born on the far side of the wall, and his ancestors therefore had no way of knowing Roman law.\nLadies and gentlemen, allow me to thank you again for your cooperation, and the Council for its work, and express my thanks once more in this House to the Commission staff of the Directorate General that I have the honour to lead, because without their valuable contribution it would not have been possible to reach a compromise that I believe to be positive for all EU citizens.\nPresident\nMr Sterckx, do you wish to speak on a point of order?\nDirk Sterckx\n(NL) Mr President, I just wanted to let the Commissioner know that Mrs HennisPlasschaert is no longer here, as she had to attend another meeting. I am the listening ear on behalf of everyone in our group who is involved in this subject. I simply wanted to inform you of the fact that she did not simply disappear.\nPresident\nThank you, Mr Sterckx.\nI believe that was not a point of order, but a matter of courtesy.\nMathieu Grosch\nMr President, I should like to start by thanking the Commission for its very clear answers. I would emphasise that the restriction on cabotage is a transitional arrangement, that the study is being carried out and that, depending on the result, market opening will also be in prospect.\nAnother very important aspect is that Article 306 applies here - including, quite clearly, to the Benelux countries, Mr Sterckx, which means that your request is superfluous and we no longer need to support it.\nThe other thing I want to say here concerns cabotage itself. Following the remarks I have heard here, I think that this compromise is actually even better than I had thought, for the simple reason - and this I address particularly to my fellow Members from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and my fellow Member from the Dutch Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) - that creating a transitional arrangement does not mean that we wish to throttle the internal market - if I may use that expression - or businesses. If we bear in mind today that certain businesses use state-of-the-art vehicles but pay their drivers EUR 400 per month, whilst other businesses pay EUR 1 500 a month, it strikes me as more than reasonable to say that the social bar needs to be raised somewhat. If there is money available to meet vehicle requirements, there is also money to meet wage requirements. This bar must be raised, and only then can the market be opened. In my view, it is a faulty understanding of an open market to say we should open it and see where we go from there.\nMy last comment is that the funny thing is always that those very countries - for example the United Kingdom - who block any kind of harmonisation, particularly in the area of taxation, are today saying that there is a lack of harmonisation and so we should just let the market evolve. Some say they want to see restrictions, whilst others say we have far too many restrictions.\nIf we want to convince the European public, we cannot say that the market should be opened and everything else will sort itself out. Instead, environmental, social and tax legislation must be sorted out in this House together with the Council and the Commission. Then we shall be credible.\nPresident\nThank you very much, Mr Grosch, for a speech that has already received the support evidenced by the applause of your fellow Members.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u\nMr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Grosch, the shadow rapporteur, with whom I worked, along with the technical staff from the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the European Socialists Group, as well as my colleagues in the Commission and the Commission's staff, not to mention yourself, Commissioner, and the Presidency of the European Council which I have enjoyed very close cooperation with.\nI would like to remind you that in June 2007 the European Commission proposed amending the regulation on access to the road transport business. The proposals for the amendment have come about from the experience gained following the application of European Commission Directive 96\/26. This has resulted in some of the legislative provisions being reworded with the aim of ensuring more consistent application, by using a legal act in the form of a regulation. Here we are now roughly two years later, having a final vote on this document which has a direct impact on approximately 800 000 European enterprises and around 4.5 million jobs.\nOur common objectives are as follows: to improve road safety, reduce bureaucracy, simplify procedures and provide predictability and certainty for road transport operators. I hope that this compromise which we have reached will develop the road transport market. I thank fellow Members once again for their cooperation.\nPresident\nThe joint debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Guinea\nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Guinea.\nV\u00e9ronique De Keyser\nMr President, I believe that the level of interest in this matter far outweighs the crowd of people that have hurried into this Chamber this afternoon, which I regret once again for my group and for the others.\nMr President, Guinea-Conakry needs the support of the international community. Following the death of President Cont\u00e9, a military junta seized power. Criticised by the international community, it did, however, receive domestic support because it promised a rapid transition to a civil regime with free elections. Captain Dadis Camara, who led the junta, made a firm commitment not to stand in the presidential elections, but after a disastrous management of the country - no budget, no public tender bids, no basic services for the population - he acquired a taste for power and clung to it so tightly that he is now standing in the elections. His electoral campaign relies on all of the country's organisational, media and economic resources. In the face of this violation of the commitments formerly made by the junta, the opposition organised a demonstration, which was brutally repressed by the presidential guard. It left 150 dead and more than 1 000 injured, and many women were raped and disembowelled.\nThe reaction of the European Parliament and, I hope, of the European Union, will be clear. We call for the suspension of the European Union fisheries agreement. We call on the African Union to impose sanctions on the military junta and to organise a dialogue within a reconciliation committee. We call for the installation of a transitional government to prepare for the presidential and legislative elections, the junta being definitively outlawed by the international community.\nI hope that these reactions, which are appropriate for the tragedy that has taken place, will set a precedent, and that in other cases of flagrant breaches of human rights, the European Union will have the courage to act just as promptly.\nRenate Weber\nauthor. - Mr President, when you look into the situation of Guinea and learn about the atrocities that have taken place there in recent months, the first legitimate question to ask is why it has had so little media coverage. There have been only a few lines here and there, as though there had not been hundreds of people killed, terrible acts of torture and horrifying acts of rape aimed at annihilating human dignity.\nIt is true that various international institutions have condemned the military junta that came to power after a coup d'\u00e9tat, but I believe that much more should have been done to raise awareness among ordinary citizens, including European citizens. This is why I am pleased that at least the European Parliament, speaking on behalf of the citizens who sent us here, has an appropriate reaction and the resolution we will vote on today appropriately addresses it.\nHowever, I consider that what is of the utmost importance is not only to criticise and condemn the current regime but also to eliminate any possibility of European funds intended to help the people of Guinea being misappropriated.\nCristian Dan Preda\n28 September is an important date for the people of Guinea because it is the day when the referendum on independence took place. From this year on, however, 28 September will be a day marking the massacre perpetrated against opponents by the government installed by violence in Conakry.\nKeeping this military junta in power is not an acceptable option. In fact, during all this time, Captain Dadis Camara, who assumed power, has promised that he will drop out of the contest and not present himself as a candidate. The date for this has now expired and soon, the ultimatum given by the African Union will too.\nIt is obvious that now that the military are in power, they are lying and must not be taken at their word. This is why a democratic government is needed, based on elections, and the international community must exert pressure to this end.\nMarie-Christine Vergiat\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I already spoke in the debate during the Brussels mini-session, two weeks ago. Therefore I shall not go back over my speech.\nMy fellow Members have already made a number of points. For my part, I should like to say how pleased I am that all of the political groups within Parliament can today jointly respond to the appeal launched by Guinean civil society, by condemning the repression carried out by the military junta that has been in power since December, a repression of the peaceful demonstration staged to mark Guinea's independence.\nThis Guinean civil society is asking us to come to its aid, and it would, in fact, be totally unacceptable for the European Union to release funds as part of the fisheries agreement that we know full well today will go straight into the pockets of the military junta in power and not be used to help Guinean fishermen, as the texts intend.\nThe Guinean regime is the most corrupt regime in the world today. It is not I who says so, but the bodies in charge of monitoring the situation.\nI therefore sincerely hope that, together, we will be able to vote for the joint resolution in its entirety, including the paragraph calling for the suspension of the fisheries agreement, and I hope that we will have the support of the Council and the Commission on this matter.\nAdam Bielan\nMr President, when, at the end of last year, Captain Camara headed the military junta which took power in Guinea after the death of President Cont\u00e9, the international community unfortunately held the na\u00efve belief that Captain Camara would hold free and democratic presidential elections in which he would not take part. We now know that when, on 28 September, over 50 000 opposition supporters gathered in the national stadium to protest against Captain Camara's change of tack and broken promises, he sent the troops against them. Over 150 people died, over 1 200 were wounded, and there were numerous cases of rape.\nI am pleased that Javier Solana, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Policy and Security, was so quick to speak out. I would like to thank the French Government for suspending military cooperation with Guinea. However, three weeks have passed since the massacre, and these actions have yielded no visible results. For this reason, I believe that the European Union should focus on exerting pressure on Guinea, together with the UN and the African Union, and to apply the severest possible sanctions. Only then will we be able to talk about the handover of power by Captain Camara.\nIsabella L\u00f6vin\nMr President, I welcome the decision announced by the Commissioner for Fisheries, Joe Borg, a couple of days ago that the Commission is withdrawing its proposal for a fisheries agreement with Guinea. The Committee on Fisheries has already voted against such an agreement. We did this two days after the massacre in Conakry, when more than 150 people were shot dead by government troops controlled by Moussa Camara.\nI hope that this is the first step towards the European Union reviewing its trade policy with developing countries. We have a huge responsibility as one of the world's most important and largest players when it comes to trade and also development. There must be consistency between our trade and our relationship with this type of regime. Over the years, we have tried to improve the fisheries agreement by saying that some of the money from the agreement should go to supporting local fisheries. However, the Commission's own evaluations have shown that the money is not actually used for the purpose stated in the agreement, but instead goes directly to support this type of regime. The European Union must cease to provide this support.\nFilip Kaczmarek\nMr President, we already talked about Guinea two weeks ago. Nevertheless, the situation in the country deserves our continuing attention and response. On Monday this week, the Committee on Development heard an eyewitness report of the events of 28 September given by the former prime minister and head of the opposition UFDG party, Mr Diallo.\nIt seems to me that calling upon the junta to respect freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or human rights in general will not be enough. If the junta respected these principles, these values, it would not be a junta, so we cannot expect that it will listen to these appeals. A man of action - and Captain Dadis Camara is definitely one - will only be stopped by action, and not by words. That is why I appeal to the European Commission to act.\nPatrice Tirolien\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, Guinea is currently being rocked by tragic events that have shocked the international public and flouted the law.\nIndeed, on 28 September 2009, the military junta led by Captain Dadis Camara carried out the bloody repression of a peaceful demonstration bringing together all of the opposition parties.\nNow, the Cotonou agreements base relations between the European Union and its ACP partners on respect for human rights and democratic principles. Therefore, Captain Dadis Camara's unilateral decision to postpone the elections and to refuse to raise the issue of his candidacy for Guinean president is a serious failure to honour the commitments made to hold free and transparent elections within one year.\nThe European Union must therefore take immediate action in line with the principles and the permanent values that underpin its action so that this violence, which represents so many human rights violations, stops.\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that the compromise resolution is fully in line with our values and principles, but I am particularly anxious to emphasise here Article 10 of this text, namely the suspension of the fisheries agreement protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea until the democratic process has begun.\nI can hear people wondering whether such a decision would have disastrous socio-economic consequences for the population but, faced with the violence of 28 September, we must recognise that the Guinean Government is scarcely concerned about the living conditions of its citizens and that it leaves us with no other option than to be firm.\nSince its independence in 1958, Guinea has only ever known dictatorial regimes.\nCarl Haglund\nMr President, I will not repeat all of the intelligent and sensible things that have already been said by my fellow Members. I would firstly like to say that I am very pleased that this issue is being debated here today. I will briefly say a few words about the debate we had in the committee about the fisheries agreement on 30 September. In fact, when we debated this issue, you would have thought that the EU was in the process of entering into a trade agreement with any old Western democracy. Nowhere in the discussion or in the documents was it mentioned that the agreement in front of us was with a nation in which the situation is as it is today and which has already been described very well in this House.\nMany people perhaps thought that fisheries and human rights are completely separate issues and that we should not mix the two together. Personally, I cannot understand how, as a politician, anyone could think in that way. The fact that the votes in the committee were 11 to 9 in favour of not concluding the agreement is also very worrying. This means that there was quite a large group in Parliament that, at least at that stage, thought that it was perfectly alright to enter into a trade agreement with a country like Guinea with the sort of regime that it has. I am pleased to say, firstly, that there is now a much higher level of agreement for us taking a clear line with regard to Guinea and, secondly, that there is broad support for the Council actually having withdrawn this agreement now. I am extremely pleased about this.\nSome people may well think that those in favour of the agreement being withdrawn are not thinking about the fishermen who will be affected, but that is by no means the case. Of course, we must find a sustainable solution for them, but we cannot sweep human rights under the carpet simply because we have a number of fishing boats that need to be provided for.\nRa\u00fcl Romeva i Rueda\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. Mr President, I had the honour of participating in the meeting of the Committee on Fisheries when it voted, albeit by a very narrow margin, against renewing the fishing agreement with Guinea, precisely because of the massacres, rapes, and all the human rights violations which have taken place and have yet to be investigated.\nToday, I would like the European Parliament to adopt this resolution in plenary. This step would send a clear message, both to the European institutions and to the government of Guinea, that we are not prepared to contribute taxpayers' money to keep a corrupt government in power that is involved in criminal activities.\nI would be happy if, for once, and I hope that this will set a precedent, human lives and human rights were viewed as more important than an economic agreement. Such a move would please me all the more because the Commission has already taken that step, as has the Committee on Fisheries. It is now high time that the European Parliament also ratified this decision during its plenary session.\nThus, this is a great opportunity for us and I hope, as has already been mentioned, that article ten will remain intact.\n(Applause from certain quarters)\nTomasz Piotr Por\u0119ba\nMr President, at least 157 dead and over 1 200 wounded is the result of the Guinean army's intervention in a peaceful opposition demonstration at the stadium in Conakry in September. This is the biggest massacre since Guinea's independence in 1958.\nIn taking power in December last year, President Camara promised to tackle corruption and anarchy and then to hand over power in democratic elections. Today, the military junta continues to rule the country with no respect for the basic principles of the rule of law or fundamental rights. Gangs of soldiers are regularly involved in attacks, robbery and rape.\nAs representatives of democratic countries, we must demand the immediate withdrawal of the junta and that all responsible for the bloody massacre of civilians, shooting into crowds and the public raping of women be brought to justice. Guinea is a country with huge economic potential, yet in spite of this, it is one of the world's poorest countries and one of the most corrupt states in Africa, and further dictatorship by the military junta could lead to civil war and destabilise the situation in the whole of West Africa.\nAnne Delvaux\n(FR) Mr President, 150 deaths and countless instances of sexual degradation have been recorded today. It was an unprecedented violation of the Guinean civilian population that was carried out on 28 September. It was also a disproportionate repression by the military junta in power, and the witness accounts leave no room for doubt.\nWe must be extremely firm in the face of such barbarity, and I welcome the targeted sanctions against Captain Moussa Dadis Camara's junta that were decided on yesterday by the EU Member States. Condemning the events is clearly not enough. We must demand that the events be investigated in full by a genuine international commission of inquiry, and that the crimes that have been committed do not go unpunished.\nMoreover, I myself, would like, in the 30 seconds that I have left, to call on the Union to use all the means in its power to combat the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. This is a fast-growing phenomenon in many armed conflict zones. It is women, often the very elderly or the very young, who are the victims. In all cases, however, it is vulnerable people who are targeted.\nSupport for the rule of law and good governance must automatically be accompanied by respect for human rights, for gender equality and for protection of the most vulnerable, as minimum conditions for any type of new cooperation agreement.\nHarlem D\u00e9sir\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 28 September, the people of Guinea took to the streets to appeal for the commitments that had been made to be honoured, and for free and democratic elections to be held, as promised.\nThey have suffered the worst possible repression by a regime that was already devoid of all legitimacy and which, that day, lost all dignity. Men were repressed, women were disembowelled with bayonets, and raped, and the political opponents and trade unionists were tortured and maimed.\nThe European Union must today support the African Union, ECOWAS and the United Nations in refusing to allow this crime to go unpunished and, above all, in showing solidarity towards the Guinean population. This country, which has an abundance of assets, will never be able to use them for its development as long as corrupt dictatorships can seize them for the benefit of a clan.\nThat is why I welcome the firm approach announced by the European Commission, one which our Parliament is able to demonstrate today. We cannot weigh strict economic interests against the commitments that were made by the European Union's partners, particularly those who signed the Cotonou Agreement, concerning respect for human rights and respect for democratic principles. Today we have a commitment to the people of Guinea: to support them in their fight for freedom and democracy.\nIoannis Kasoulides\nMr President, I asked for the floor simply to make a comment on the suggestion to suspend the existing EU-Guinea fisheries protocol. I doubt whether a brutal regime which does not hesitate to dispense with the lives of 156 of its citizens and is responsible for so many other atrocities will be moved by such a disproportionately small sanction on that issue. We should also bear in mind that there are legal obligations regarding this agreement towards people employed in the fishing industry in Guinea who have nothing to do with the brutal regime. That is why the EPP is hesitant to support this suggestion.\nCharles Tannock\nMr President, the story of Guinea-Conakry follows a depressingly familiar African script: a dictatorial ruler; a military coup; one authoritarian regime replaced by another; and most of the people still living in abject poverty. Substantial mineral and oil resources could make Guinea one of Africa's most prosperous nations. Instead, the wealth fuels conflict and misery, not only in Guinea, but throughout a region that has witnessed appalling bloodshed and chronic instability in the past 20 years.\nIn the past, I have pressed the European Commission to help develop a kind of Kimberley Process for resources other than just diamonds to ensure that the activities of mining companies do not support civil war or ruthless dictators such as Captain Camara in Guinea. I am therefore especially concerned about the massive deal struck between Guinea and Chinese companies, and I hope that the Commission and Council will express to Beijing our expectations that its business activities there should neither provoke internal strife nor further undermine human rights in Guinea. However, like Mr Kasoulides, I suspect the proposals to rescind the EU fisheries agreement will only serve to punish local communities, not the military junta.\nHeidi Hautala\n(FI) Mr President, since we have been praising the Commission here for the decision it has made over the Guinea fisheries protocol, specifically on account of human rights violations, I would like to ask the Commission if it now intends to carry out a systematic survey of other similar situations, or at least prepare to act consistently and just as firmly if such serious human rights violations occur elsewhere.\nEija-Riitta Korhola\n(FI) Mr President, recently a Finnish voter asked me how I would define human rights. I said that I should not define them on my own, and that it was not worth doing so; otherwise, they would not get any further than my own front door, the idea being that human rights have already been defined and that countries are committed to a respect for them. They are binding on the international community. That is why we appeal to them.\nGuinea is a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, which requires human rights and democracy to be respected. This is a basic premise. We really must insist that a country's democratic development should get properly under way when we conclude more cooperation agreements on the basis of Cotonou. As we have heard, the situation in Guinea at this time is intolerable and calls for a swift response and possible sanctions. Guinea has important reserves of ore and, consequently, great opportunities for development. At the same time, it is one of the world's most corrupt countries. It is quite deplorable that Chinese state-owned companies and businesses that invest in Guinea do not insist on any sort of commitment to human rights.\nLeonard Orban\nThe Commission has been quick to condemn in strong terms and on more than one occasion (the President cut off the speaker) the massacres and blatant human rights violations which took place on 28 September 2009 and which have also continued since that date.\nThrough its participation in the International Contact Group on Guinea, the Commission approved the conclusions reached at the meeting on 12 October, envisaging the adoption of various measures supporting the observance of human rights.\nFirst of all, at a humanitarian level, we need every person arrested arbitrarily to be released, the bodies of the victims to be handed over to their families, and all the injured, especially women who have been raped, to receive medical care. We cannot but express our dismay and concern that it seems, for the time being, that none of these measures have been carried out.\nSecondly, the Commission welcomes the decision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up an international committee of inquiry to investigate the massacres of 28 September in order to bring to justice the perpetrators of these acts. It is vitally important for us to put an end to their impunity and to the deterioration in the human rights situation in Guinea. The international committee of inquiry and the preliminary investigations carried out by the International Criminal Court will help improve the situation in this respect.\nIn this situation, the Commission is prepared to examine the possibility of giving financial support to the International Observation Mission and offering protection so that members of the Commission and witnesses are protected against acts of intimidation and to help create a safe atmosphere among Guinea's population.\nOn the other hand, in addition to imposing a total arms embargo, the Commission is inclined to examine the possibility of supporting reform in the area of security in order to reform the army and make it professional so that stability can be restored to Guinea.\nFinally, I wish to point out that the measures required in accordance with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement were already adopted on 27 July 2009.\nI also wish to mention a point that was emphasised before. For the sake of consistency and in order to increase the pressure on the military junta, Mr Borg, the Commissioner responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, has announced the Commission's intention to withdraw the partnership agreement being proposed in the fishing sector, due to be signed with Guinea. In fact, for the time being, we are not going to pay (applause) the corresponding financial contribution.\nIn response to the question I was asked, in other instances, the Commission will certainly take action on a case-by-case basis and look at the situations which have occurred on a case-by-case basis.\nThank you.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place after the debates.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nMaria do C\u00e9u Patr\u00e3o Neves  \nThe main objective of the new partnership agreement between the EU and Guinea-Conakry is to strengthen cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea so as to encourage the establishment of a partnership to develop a policy of sustainable fishing and responsible exploitation of fisheries resources in the Guinea fishing zone, in the interests of both parties.\nThe financial contribution under the protocol is set at EUR 450 000 per year, for fishing opportunities relating to the category of highly migratory species. The entire amount is intended for establishing a national fisheries policy based on responsible fishing and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in Guinean waters.\nThe above is in line with the Portuguese Communist Party's proposal regarding fishing agreements with third countries, which is why I voted in favour of this document.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Term of protection of copyright and related rights (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Crowley, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006\/116\/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and related rights - C6-0281\/2008 -.\nBrian Crowley\nrapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to welcome Commissioner McCreevy into the Chamber and to thank all colleagues who are here this evening.\nThe extension of copyright and the term of protection has been a long and arduous journey for all of us, in particular because a huge amount of people are not fully aware of all the facts associated with copyright.\nAt the outset, let me put on the official record of the House my thanks to all of my colleagues, both those who support and those who oppose the proposal I am putting forward, for their contributions, their input and in particular for their helpful advice and guidance along the road. I should also like to thank the secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and in particular Giorgio, who has been a very strong advocate and adviser with regard to all these areas, and, finally, Commissioner McCreevy and all his staff. I would hate to name them individually, but the man sitting next to you has done Trojan work with regard to this report and this directive.\nMany lies have been told - and I use the word 'lies' guardedly with regard to what we are trying to do here. This can be condensed down very simply into four very clear areas. Firstly, the extension of the term of protection from the present 50 years to a further extension of term. We are now proposing, as part of a compromise, 70 years. That proposal for compromise is founded on some of the resistance from the Council of Ministers, and it disappoints me that the Council Presidency is not represented here tonight. In fact, all during this process I feel the Council Presidency has not been too helpful in trying to bring this issue forward. At the outset of the Czech Presidency, I advised the Prime Minister, as well as the minister with responsibility and the officials from the Czech Presidency, that this could be a great success for the Presidency as well as a success for this Parliament. But other pressures came to bear upon them, and they have taken a disinterested or semi-detached attitude with regard to trying to find solutions.\nAs well as that, other Member States in the Council of Ministers have purposely tried to block and hinder progress in this process by putting in spurious claims and spurious amendments without actually looking at the detail or the content or even engaging properly with Parliament to see how Parliament could be flexible with regard to what needs to happen.\nBut the second point with regard to what this directive is doing - and possibly the most important of all - is that for the first time it recognises the contribution of session musicians by establishing a fund to allow them to ensure that they have a return and remuneration for their work - which has been exploited by people over a long period of time - for which they may only get a one-off payment if they are lucky. This will ensure that those who are near the end of their playing careers or those who may have other economic issues with regard to them can get further protection from it.\nThirdly, with regard to the whole area of balancing the rights and the powers of those who are in negotiation between the record companies and the musicians, it gives extra rights to musicians and to others to ensure this can happen.\nFourthly, and most importantly of all, by ensuring that there is clarity with regard to how the law operates within the European Union. Many of my colleagues, particularly those from Spain and other Mediterranean countries, have put forward ideas with regard to the audiovisual sector, and we have tried to accommodate them by putting into the draft report this idea of having a separate directive to deal with the audiovisual sector, because it has different issues that relate to it and requires different solutions. Likewise, as has been discovered during the course of our debates and discussions, there is a huge area with regard to the management of the collection societies and how they best represent the rights and the collection management of the monies that are due to artists to ensure that they can come towards them.\nFinally, let me just say that people should realise that this is a creative right; this is something that an individual has created and has given to us; it is something that we should pay for - not an exorbitant amount, but a small amount. The idea of copyright today is seen to be thrown away at the wind - everybody can get everything for free. If we go down that road, in the short term it may be all great for us, but in the long term it will kill creativity, it will kill the opportunity for new musicians, new bands and new experiences to come before us all.\nIn our audience tonight we have some musicians, some producers and, indeed, some interested parties. I would say to them that this is the first step that we see on the stage towards guaranteeing that artists and musicians can take more control of what their rights are. If we succeed in this first step, you can guarantee we can move on to the next steps towards Everest.\nCharlie McCreevy\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission fully supports Parliament's compromise text which is tabled to be voted at this part-session. This very balanced compromise text will hopefully facilitate the adoption of the proposal at a single reading. Such an outcome will be a very welcome development for EU performers. It will show our appreciation for the creative contribution musicians make to our lives and to our culture.\nParliament's compromise text has four main planks, all of which we wholeheartedly support: firstly, an extension of the term of copyright protection for performers and record producers from 50 to 70 years; secondly, a new claim for session players amounting to 20% of record labels' off-line and online sales revenue; thirdly a 'use it or lose it' provision that allows performers to recover the rights after 50 years, should the producer fail to market the sound recording; and, fourthly, a so-called 'clean slate', which prevents record producers from making deductions from the royalties they pay to feature performers.\nI am especially pleased to note that the session players' fund, which operates on the basis of 20% of gross sales revenue, has to date come through the legislative process intact. Essentially this fund is tested on the fact that, contrary to all the criticism we have heard in the past year, the term extension will, on the one hand, provide income to performers in their twilight years and, on the other hand, promote the emergence of new arts.\nLet me stress that this proposal is far from a simple term extension. For the first time ever in European copyright laws there will be a scheme whereby artists participate in the labels' sales revenue: 20% of gross turnover is set aside for session artists. This is truly innovative. Mostly importantly, the 20% set aside is not revenue that accrues to a few superstars. This 20% is exclusively for distribution to the session players. Contrary to a widely-held belief, the likes of Sir Cliff Richard will not get a single penny out of the session players' fund, and record labels such as EMI or Universal, which contribute to the session players' fund, will have to make a profit on only 80% of gross turnover.\nThen there is the clean slate, a provision that ends the unfortunate practice of deducting advances from featured artists' royalties. Again, this provision is there for the lesser-known performers because it is their records which often do not recoup the advances.\nThere is also a clause allowing performers to undo buy-out contracts once their producers cease to sell their recorded performances. All of this is highly innovative and no EU proposal has ever pushed the boat out so far in favour of performers. This is not a proposal for the benefit of record labels. This is a carefully balanced approach aimed at rewarding Europe's creators.\nSome might argue that European creators are over-protected. Those who rely on copyright for their income would beg to differ. If artists stayed in the music recording business because it pays to do so, consumers would enjoy more variety as a consequence.\nWe also welcome the invitation for the Commission to conduct a separate impact assessment on audiovisual performers and to come forward with appropriate proposals during the course of 2010. We are confident that we can deliver the impact assessment within the time foreseen by Parliament.\nThe Commission agrees that the issue of managing online rights for the redistribution of TV and radio programmes merits close attention. As a corollary to the term proposal we have addressed the broadcaster's legitimate concerns on online rights. The Commission therefore proposes to make the following declaration once the proposal is adopted in Council.\nThe declaration would read: 'The Commission recognises the pressing need for the collective management of the rights of phonogram performers and phonogram producers when radio or television productions incorporating broadcasts from commercial phonograms as an integral part thereof are made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the radio or television productions from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. The Commission will take appropriate measures to facilitate the implementation of such collective management and, as a first step, the Commission will institute a structured dialogue between stakeholders with the aim of establishing a functioning licensing regime. This declaration is limited to the on-demand making available of radio or television productions and does not cover the making available of the phonogram itself.' End of the intended declaration.\nThe Commission put forward this proposal in July 2008. We are now in the midst of the worst economic crisis the world has seen in my lifetime. For many EU citizens this crisis affects their daily lives. Europe's performers often live a very precarious existence at the best of times. This proposal ensures that performers can in their later life recoup a share in the income they generate.\nParliament is being sensitive to this, and the process has shown that the impetus to act for our creators is still alive. I believe that all the fears expressed by those who are against term extension will prove unfounded.\nIn conclusion I would like to warmly thank the rapporteur, Brian Crowley, and express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of this file by the European Parliament.\nErna Hennicot-Schoepges\nMr President, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur and all the Members who have worked on this issue. I should also like to thank the commissioner for the file he submitted to us.\nPerformers have been overlooked all too often in previous legislation, and, like anyone else who helps to create intellectual property, they have a right to receive proper remuneration. This amendment has therefore extended this principle to performers, which is already a considerable step forward.\nHowever, much still remains to be done, for this compromise is only a first step. The circumstances of copyright distribution companies still vary considerably in the various countries, which have very different statuses, and, from this perspective, harmonisation is not ready to be carried out in practice.\nParliament's report calls on the Commission to perform impact assessments and to monitor this measure. The next Commission will therefore be called on to continue this work. As regards the granting of licences, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the artistic community is extremely insecure as a result of approaches such as this, since artists fear that large producers will have the upper hand over works created by small producers. Therefore, a balance will still have to be found along these lines.\nEmmanouil Angelakas\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (EL) Mr President, I too should like to add my congratulations to the rapporteur and the Commission on the compromise.\nThe main proposals contained in the directive include the extension to the period of protection for performers and producers from 50 to 70 years, the creation of a fund for musicians and the introduction of 'use it or lose it' clauses in contracts. All this is important, and was discussed by us in committee, as were the idea of the 'use it or lose it' clause, the simplification of administrative procedures and the harmonisation of rules in all the Member States.\nThese were important issues which were included in the compromise, with which we are satisfied. At the same time, we are satisfied because the 70-year period brings protection into line with the period of time for which intellectual property is protected, which is also 70 years. The extension to this period of protection will help with efforts to promote young musical producers, thereby allowing Europe to become a global source of exceptional musical talent which makes an active contribution to artistic creation and job security. At the same time, the Member States will have tax revenue and Europe will become an exporter of intellectual property.\nI consider the compromise to be satisfactory and welcome the success achieved.\nChristopher Heaton-Harris\nrapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. - Mr President, I should also like to congratulate the rapporteur and, for the first time in my 10 years in this place, to congratulate the Commission on both its proposal and on the compromises it came forward with later.\nI come from a point of view where I like copyright. I believe copyright and patents protect people, businesses and intellectual property (IP), and intellectual property is the bedrock of entrepreneurial free market economies. People and companies happily invest time and money in the hope of finding a product - in this case, music - that people will like and want to buy. Across the world societies with strong IP protection move forward. Those that have fewer entrepreneurs and fewer patents just go backwards.\nNow 38 000 session musicians in the United Kingdom have signed a petition backing these proposals. Session musicians deserve the help they will be getting from this proposal. There is one in my constituency, a guy called Ted Carroll - one of many hundreds of session musicians - who has written to me asking us to adopt these compromises. That is why I am strongly in favour of this report.\nJacques Toubon\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, this proposal being submitted to you is a positive measure for artists, for art and for culture, and our Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will support it.\nIndeed, what is before you now is a compromise that strives to take account of the various points of view and the various interests and which - and this is the interesting part - is liable to be adopted by the Council, which so far has come up against a small blocking minority.\nThis compromise improves the Commission's proposal. It makes the relationships between producers and performers fairer thanks to a clause that permits performers to exercise their rights where they are not exercised by producers. It guarantees fairer conditions for session musicians in relation to soloists. Session musicians will benefit from a permanent 20% levy.\nUnder the Spanish Presidency we are going to give thought to extending the proposal to the audiovisual sector, that is, to producers and actors. In terms of broadcasters, I am grateful to you, Commissioner, for the declaration you just made, and I believe that a very precise declaration should in fact be attached to the Council's common position so that matters relating to the radio broadcasting of music are not jeopardised.\nWe are talking here about real revenue; session musicians are going to see their income tripled, to reach up to EUR 2 000. Consumers' interests are not harmed since extending the term of protection does not increase prices. Libraries' interests are not harmed since libraries do not pay royalties to performers or record producers. They pay them only to authors, and, even then, there are many exceptions.\nThis is why I am profoundly grateful to Mr Crowley, Mrs Gill, Commissioner McCreevy and the Commission for all of this work. It reflects the state of the world, increased life expectancy and new uses for works, and this is why we must adopt this text - to try to ensure that it is made definitive at first reading.\nNeena Gill\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, this report has had a long, and at times complex, birth within Parliament, subject to intense lobbying from all sides, and with myths and counterclaims being the order of the day. Owing to the urgency and importance of getting this report adopted in this parliamentary term, the rapporteur and our fellow shadow rapporteur have worked hard to reach agreement on the key points in the Council's position. I therefore congratulate all those who have been involved in coming to a sensible, just and sustainable consensus. I am, however, disappointed that the Council has failed time and again to reach any similar agreement.\nI am pleased, though, that the report meets my main aims and the objectives of the PSE Group, and that, if we are to have an extension of the copyright term of protection, increased revenues must first and foremost benefit the performers. That is why I am able to accept the compromise amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as there are extra measures for performers.\nI would like to single out some key amendments: Amendment 58, which is a permanent 'use it or lose it' clause; Amendments 59 to 61 on a permanent claim for session players, under which labels have to set aside 20% of all sales revenue; Amendment 62 on a clean slate for featured artists; Amendment 71 on the possibility for featured artists to renegotiate better contracts; and, finally, Amendment 75 on an assessment of the impact on audiovisual performers.\nI would therefore like to ask colleagues who have reservations to reconsider and vote for this report. I recognise that it is not perfect and that there are concerns. In different circumstances I would have liked it to have addressed, especially for featured artists, the time period allowed for record labels under the 'use it or lose it' clause, which kicks in after a year rather than after a matter of months, which would have been preferable.\nTo conclude, I would ask the Council urgently to come to agreement on this issue. All the other key players have reached agreement, and performers need clarification sooner, rather than later.\nSharon Bowles\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, despite an enterprising charm offensive from the Commissioner and his services, I still cannot support this proposal to extend the copyright term.\nI know the proposal was well meant, but in the digital era, when the way in which recordings are distributed is rapidly changing, why should we make an irreversible change by extending a system that, at its core, still operates with contracts and a structure more relevant to physical distribution and sale? The only hope to rescue that situation is to address the matter of contracts that have become unfair over time, and this has not been done. We should be making it clear that assignment for life without renewal clauses is no longer acceptable, and one of the prices recording companies must pay for any extension.\nA lot of commendable work has been done to impose good conditions in return for the extension, but I fear these bolt-on additions do not render it fully fit for the purpose in the long-term future, and they also contain their own inconsistencies and unfairness because they have not addressed the matter of contracts.\nI have looked for a compromise that I could live with, and I did offer the idea of limiting the term extension to recordings published before 1975, as appears in ALDE Amendments 80 and 81, which are compatible with the main package. I admit that this is a fix for the rock-and-roll era, which is concentrating minds right now and which saw both an explosion in popular music and remarkably poor contracts. However, such an amendment would not put us in an irreversible position for all newer recordings. It would see us through to the end of the current model of recording companies, which are, when all is said and done, the main beneficiaries of, and agitators for, this extension. It would also give us time to reflect on and develop more performer- and future-oriented proposals really fit for a digital age.\nIf you come back addressing the points that I have raised, then it could be a package worth voting for, but otherwise I cannot support it.\nRoberta Angelilli\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work he has accomplished. Copyright protection currently lasts for a maximum of 50 years, and in my opinion this period is not sufficient to give fair remuneration to artists for their creative work and performance. Indeed, it is important to improve the social situation of artists through greater protection, provided by the institutions.\nIt is for this reason that we are in favour of extending the copyright protection period to 95 years, and we are requesting that the additional earnings generated by this extension be given exclusively to the artists and that, in particular, for the additional 45 years, the latter should be released from the contractual obligation requiring them to transfer part of the revenue to third parties. This measure should in fact be exclusively aimed at providing a genuine advantage for authors and performers. On the other hand, it would also be desirable for the Commission to assess the impact of and need to widen the scope of this extension to include the audiovisual sector.\nEva Lichtenberger\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, we have a problem with copyright and we have a problem with remuneration for artists. So we should and we must become proactive and do something here. However, if we become proactive, then it is important that we react to the challenges of the digital era and not flog dead horses.\nLet me explain how I arrived at this image. The proposal before us actually only honours one single promise, and that is the promise to promote the music industry. If we were to address what is actually happening with the artists and their income and calculate that, we would arrive at averages that are clearly too low for artists to support themselves and get something out of it.\nMoreover, this money does not go directly to artists. The fund is too small to achieve anything. An artist with whom I discussed this told me that a redistribution was taking place here between the quick and the dead. I had to contradict him: it is a redistribution between artists and producers, the music industry, and then only the big names.\nAll in all, Commissioner, this proposal is not appropriate. We need to find something better. We need, for example, to create something like a flat rate. Even the proposals you make in connection with the 'use-it-or-lose-it' clause are still theoretical law. Please can we do something clever and well-founded, just as the artists recommended and requested in our hearing in the Committee on Legal Affairs.\nMary Lou McDonald\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - Mr President, I believe that the intention of this initiative was genuinely about improving the social situation of performers, as Commissioner McCreevy and our colleague Brian Crowley have asserted, but it does not in fact achieve this. Unfortunately, even the changes introduced by committee do not go far enough in improving the proposal. It is a proposal which, I believe, will ultimately reward those artists that are already successful, and indeed reward the industry.\nI am baffled at the notion of extending the term of copyright, whether it is to 70 years or 95 years, and I am baffled by it not just because it is dubious and almost out of step with the digital age but also because, quite clearly, a move like that will primarily benefit industrial interests and not struggling artists.\nI believe, notwithstanding all of the hard work and goodwill, that MEPs should reject this proposal. I think the Commission needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with the right proposal, one that is not just about supporting performers and artists, but that in real and practical terms will deliver precisely that.\nManuel Medina Ortega\n(ES) Mr President, unlike the two previous speakers, I am in agreement with the majority of the Members who have spoken on this point.\nThis is a good directive, in fact an excellent directive, which is designed to protect performing artists.\nWhen there is talk of having to find a more intelligent way of doing deals, what is actually being discussed is doing away with the concept of intellectual property. Deals can only be done if there is an established law.\nWe already have an established law at the national level. The Commission, under the leadership of Mr McCreevy, has adopted a fine initiative, a positive initiative, and I believe that the House should adopt the agreement that we have reached within the Committee on Legal Affairs thanks to the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Crowley, and the various shadow rapporteurs, such as Mrs Gill and Mr Toubon.\nI believe this is a magnificent directive, and that it will strengthen the creation of intellectual property. In addition, the directive includes several recommendations regarding further work to be done.\nI believe that the adoption of the report by this House - and I hope that the Council will align itself with the Commission and Parliament - will serve to ensure that in the next term of office the Commission will continue along this road, will make proposals to Parliament and that we will make progress within the framework of the protection of intellectual property, which is vital for the development of our European Union as a great institution based on a common culture.\nOlle Schmidt\n(SV) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Crowley is a capable MEP, who often comes up with intelligent proposals. This time, however, I find it difficult to follow his intentions. The Commission is proposing that the term of protection for music recordings be increased from the current 50 years to 95 years, which would nearly double the current term. Most would agree that this is excessive. The compromise that is now being talked about is 70 years, and this is heading in the right direction.\nSeveral questions still remain, however. Will an extension increase cultural diversity and facilitate the writing of new compositions? What effect has the copyright extension in the United States had on developments there? Has it strengthened the position of the artists or is it the music companies' that are the major beneficiaries? Can we justify an extension that increases the term of protection so dramatically? Is it not too simplistic to argue that creativity and the creative desire are directly linked to the duration of protection? In my opinion, these questions have still not been answered.\nAs a Liberal, I believe in copyright law and the purpose behind it, and I can therefore agree with several of my fellow Members here in this House. It is, of course, important to safeguard the production of new compositions and for composers to have control over their own work, including from a financial point of view. However, our legal interventions in this House must, of course, be proportionate, and I do not think that is the case in this instance.\nIn my home country, the question of access to compositions on the Internet is being debated, particularly after the prominent trial that resulted in the Pirate Bay ruling. At this point in time, when copyright is the subject of intensive debate, I therefore believe that we would be making a mistake if we approved the Commission's proposal for an extension to the term of protection for musical compositions from 50 to 95 years. Therefore, like Mrs Bowles, I am going to reject the proposal in its entirety. It is my belief that the Commission should try again. Commissioner, have a rethink, rework the proposal and come back!\nRoberto Musacchio\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that, in the face of the major changes affecting the musical and cultural sector in general, Europe risks responding with protectionist solutions and outdated schemes, promising crumbs to performers and small music companies and instead ultimately furthering the interests of the big stars who will have considerably greater opportunity to increase their profits.\nYou see, in the wake of the Swedish court's judgment against the managers of the website The Pirate Bay, who were punished for having encouraged peer-to-peer sharing of musical material, Parliament's approval of a measure of this kind would consolidate a negative and altogether inappropriate approach to the new dynamics of the current technological era and the need of entire generations for culture, communication and freedom.\nThe protection of artists' freedom of expression in fact lies in their relationship with society; the freedom to produce art and the freedom to enjoy it go hand in hand and have a common adversary in the mercantile subservience of culture that would be strengthened by this legislation.\nAthanasios Pafilis\n(EL) Mr President, the Commission proposal and the report want to make the creation of art and manmade culture permanent commodities. They are not designed to protect musicians.\nThis extension will only profit the monopoly behemoths, the multinational companies in the music, show and entertainment industry which will continue to grow rich from the creations of others. The losers will be the workers, the artists and human evolution itself because, under coercion from the multinationals, the overwhelming majority of players and performers are obliged to assign all their rights to them in return for a pittance.\nThis extension will generate profits of hundreds of millions of euros for the multinationals, but only a few dozen euros a year for musicians. At the same time, the large companies will also control intellectual production on the basis of the law of profit.\nThe Commission proposal, which is supported by the major political groups in the European Parliament, is telling proof of the nature, character and interests which the European Union defends and safeguards. In order to safeguard the profitability of capital, it is turning everything into a commodity, from water through to art, culture and the creations of man.\nJens Holm\n(SV) Mr President, the proposal to extend the copyright term to 95 years is an appalling example of how the large record companies have succeeded in lobbying for a proposal that goes entirely their way. Such a long extension to the term of protection for copyright will only hit individual consumers and it will inhibit the production of new music. We in the Confederal Group of the European United Left\/Nordic Green Left have therefore tabled an amendment in which we ask for the 95 years requirement to be removed. We also ask for the whole directive to be rejected.\nThe rights to the song Happy Birthday are supposedly owned by the North American company Warner. People who celebrate their birthday in public hardly dare sing that song in certain places in the United States out of fear of reprisals and fines. This is an absurd example of how bad it can get when we allow individual interests and the industry to govern policy. That example was from the US, where the term of protection for copyright is already 95 years. Let this not be the case in Europe. Reject the requirement for 95 years and reject the entire directive!\nI also wonder whether the Commission has carried out an impact assessment of how much of the future revenue will go to the individual artists and how much will actually be retained by the large corporations.\nManolis Mavrommatis\n(EL) Commissioner, as we heard during the debate, opinions on the legislative regulation extending the period of protection for intellectual property vary.\nI should like to highlight once again that the adoption of this specific directive will not affect consumers, nor will it cause the price of phonograms to rise. All of us are endeavouring to extend the period of protection of related rights in line with the increase in life expectancy. Intellectual property is protected for 70 years after the author's death, thereby generating a certain amount of revenue for their family. The current protection for related rights of performers, which covers 50 years from recording, is therefore very short. That is why the compromise setting a period of 70 years would be a good idea.\nI also wish to draw your attention to the study to be prepared on actors and the possible proposal for a directive which will be presented in 2010. I also consider that actors' interpretations should be protected, especially in a period in which artistic creation is important and when technological developments can be a help in safeguarding income for artists.\nTo close, I hope for the European Commission's cooperation on the proposal for the new directive.\nGlyn Ford\nMr President, let me be clear: I support the extension of copyright from 50 to 70 years. My problem is: who benefits?\nI welcome the fact that, as demanded by the Musicians' Union, session musicians are going to get 20% of the profits for distribution. The problem is the balance between the multinational record companies and the featured artists. Many of these people signed contracts 30 or 40 years ago that gave them 8% of the dealer's price, with the companies responsible for producing, distributing and collecting the money from sales. Now these selfsame multinational record companies will get a multi-million-euro windfall for doing absolutely nothing because, in this new digital age, there is nothing to do. On the basis of an industrial structure long made redundant by technological change, it is the Sheriff of Nottingham winning, not Robin Hood. These artists should have been able to reclaim their property that they alone were responsible for creating.\nChristofer Fjellner\n(SV) Mr President, let us get one thing clear: an extension to the term of protection for copyright would not result in more or better music. What 25-year old musician would honestly say 'no, I am not going to make this record, as I will only be paid for it until I am 75 and not until I am 120'? It will not even encourage poor musicians, as it is not their records that sell more than 50 years after they were made. Instead, it encourages either the large record companies or those who have already earned a lot from their recordings. I think this has completely lost all sense of proportion.\nSomeone who invents a cure for cancer today will - over and above receiving the Nobel Prize for Medicine - have his or her invention protected for no more than 20 years, whereas someone who can make a record would then have that invention, or rather the record, protected for 95 years. That is out of all proportion. I do, however, agree that 70 years is better than 95, although I do nevertheless think that the best thing to do would be to reject the entire proposal.\nCharlie McCreevy\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to think that I have learned a lot from my time here as European Commissioner. Some people might contend that I have not, but I think I have.\nBut one thing that I have learned is that anything touching on the area of intellectual property is fraught with all types of pitfalls. There have been a number of issues raised in this whole area of intellectual property in Parliament and the Council of Ministers, both in my time as Commissioner and in my time previously as an Irish government minister, and some of these issues have been around for 20\/30 years. So I have learned that any aspect of this topic gets a tremendous amount of coverage, generates a lot of debate and polarises a lot of Members of Parliament, Member States and different stakeholders.\nSo I have learned that it is exceptionally difficult to address anything in this area and try to reach an acceptable solution. During my time here as Commissioner there have been many instances where we have failed to reach any agreement in certain areas.\nThat being so, I am not the least bit surprised at the depth and sincerity of the arguments put on all sides of this debate, because any issue relating to the intellectual property area always generate this kind of argument, and people who are on the opposing side of the compromise proposal put forward by Mr Crowley will be on totally the opposite side in other areas of intellectual property.\nSo it is very interesting, in this type of debate, to see people who would take one position in other areas of intellectual property taking a different position here, because this is a very difficult area, and I accept the sincerity of the people who have contributed.\nThere is little point in my going over all the various points raised individually and debating them, because they have been debated ad nauseam in the committee. One thing that Mr Crowley and rapporteurs from other committees did is to give it a lot of time. Parliament has given this an exceptional amount of time and an exceptional degree of effort, and many of the assistants and people in my own DG worked exceptionally hard on this to try and reach what we thought would be an acceptable compromise.\nBut I will touch on some of the areas. Let me just eliminate a few points at the outset that do not relate so much to this debate as to what surrounded the earlier debate by which we came up with this proposal.\nLet me assure you that the people who asked me to go forward with a proposal here were the performers - that is where the intensive lobbying came from.\nIf there is disagreement here in the House and in Member States, I can equally say there were different views in my DG on this issue when I first came to it as to how we should proceed, and many of the differing viewpoints put forward here were reflected there as well. I think that is natural: if it generates such divided views here and in other Member States you can expect the same in the DG.\nBut I was lobbied fairly intensively by ordinary performers. Yes, the high-profile performers came and lent their support to the cause, because the ordinary performers thought that it would be better to have some of the big names in this particular area as well, but the ordinary performers - the session musicians, who most people have never heard of - were the biggest lobbyists here. I think it is significant to note that, as Mr Heaton-Harris said, 38 000 session musicians support this particular proposal.\nSo one has to make a judgement on which is the proper way to go forward. I would say that most people know the singers of their favourite four songs or records, but I doubt very much that many of them know who actually wrote them. But the writer of the song is entitled to life plus 70 years.\nIf I named six tunes here tonight out of the most popular tunes created, I doubt that there would be anyone in this Chamber who would be able to name who wrote the songs, but each one who knows a particular record would be able to say: that was sung by such and such. The writer gets life plus 70, but the performer gets only 50 years from the date of his performance.\nFrom any type of moral perspective that is unfair. Some people had one hit song when they were 21 or 22 and were then never heard of again, and they did not make an awful lot of money out of it. In their twilight years when they are approaching 70 and beyond I think it would be only reasonable that they could have a little bit of additional income. You can boil down all the technical arguments and the intellectual arguments and everything else, but on the basis of fair play I think that argument wins out.\nAs Mr Crowley and others mentioned, this was a genuine attempt to address some of these issues - and some very conflicting issues. We have done our best to get a proposal. Mr Crowley has put an extraordinary degree of work into this area in trying to reach agreements and compromises and has worked long and hard.\nI shall just refer to some of the issues raised.\nMs Gill, who is very supportive of the proposal and I thank her very much for her support, mentioned the 'use it or lose it' clause, which kicks in after a year, but, in the implementation in Member States, Member States can allow it to kick in after three months or six months if they so wish.\nMs Bowles - and I do not doubt for one moment her sincerity in this regard - feels she is not in a position to vote for this particular proposal or the compromise proposal put forward by Brian Crowley. She mentioned the matter of contracts. Well, I do not think the matter of contracts should kill the proposal. It is definitely another issue which could be the subject of another initiative if - and only if - this proposal succeeds.\nMs Lichtenberger made a fine address. I would point out to her that EUR 2 000 certainly is not peanuts for a session player. The fund, as I said earlier, is endorsed by 38 000 performers and I think they should know.\nMr Medina Ortega, from his vast experience as a politician, made a very good point, and I agree with him that we have to propose something here that has a reasonable chance of flying in the Council of Ministers as well. As he pointed out, we have to be realistic, because, with different views there as well, we have to come forward with a proposal - as Mr Crowley and others have done - that has a realistic chance of flying in the Council of Ministers, and he put that point very forcibly and well.\nMr Schmidt and Mr Musacchio made points about the existing label business models, but we are not endorsing the existing label business models. A 70-year term is open to all new innovative business models.\nMr Holm referred to the possibility of being fined, for example, for singing Happy Birthday but I think he has his ideas confused here. It is not about the song: it is only about its recording by a performer, so Mr Holm can sing Happy Birthday any time he wishes and he will not be in danger of being penalised in any way. This is about the recording by the performer, not by the writer.\nMr Mavrommatis made a number of points which we have noted but I think 70 years is the best proxy for life.\nIn conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of this file by everybody involved in the European Parliament. It has resulted in the compromise proposal put forward by Brian Crowley, and I think it demonstrates our willingness to improve the legal framework for our creative community. I think that in the future it will show that protecting those who create was the right choice, and that increasing efficiency of rights management infrastructures will prove wrong those who claim that better protection will lead to a less thriving online culture.\nI would like to thank everybody concerned with the debate, particularly the rapporteur Brian Crowley, not because he is a colleague of mine from Ireland and a long-standing friend, but because he has put in an extraordinary amount of work to try and make this compromise acceptable to as many competing interests in Parliament as possible and also facilitated a compromise which, as Mr Medina Ortega has said, has a reasonable chance of acceptance in the Council of Minsters as well.\nBrian Crowley\nrapporteur. - Mr President, I should again like to thank colleagues for their contributions to this debate. Unfortunately, despite all our discussions, proposals, amendments and further re-amendments of amendments, and the changes that have taken place, some colleagues still have not grasped the way that this situation has moved on. I must say, on a very personal level, that I can appreciate everybody's viewpoint and understand where they are coming from.\nit is difficult to do so when we get amendments from colleagues attached to which is an article in the Financial Times stating that we should vote against copyright, when at the bottom of that article it says 'copyright protected'. Even the Financial Times, which is opposed to copyright protection or extension, uses the copyright tool itself!\nLikewise, I hear consumer organisations saying that it is wrong to extend copyright because this will interfere with consumers' rights and consumer choices, again not realising or not giving credence to the fact that copyright already exists and that those rights and protection are already there.\nLikewise, I hear colleagues mentioning the imposition that this will place on innovation and creativity, but how will people create anything if they cannot protect their rights? If they cannot protect their creations, how will they do that?\nLikewise, people who speak about merchandising - or 'mercantiling', as was the translation - in the record industry should wake up and smell the coffee. This has been there since the year dot. Before recorded music ever came into being, when you bought sheet music you had to pay a certain fee that went back to the creator of that music and every time it was performed the performer got a cut from it as well.\nSo what we are talking about is putting balance and fairness into the argument, to ensure the rights of those who are weakest in contractual terms, who are weakest in enforcement terms and who are approaching the end of their musical careers, so that they can get protection and uses.\nIt is important that people recognise that the advent of new technology - which we all welcome as it is fantastic - does not mean that you have the right to take something for nothing. When in the past you went into a record store and took a label's CD or vinyl record and walked out with it you would be caught for shoplifting, and downloading music free of charge without paying a fee to somebody is equivalent to that.\nThis is about allowing for proper mechanisms to be put in place.\nI want to thank Jacques Toubon, Neena Gill and all my colleagues for their help and assistance, and am particularly grateful to Mr Medina Ortega for his useful guidance and advice in helping me out of a problem with the Spanish side of things.\nPresident\nThat concludes this item.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg  \nThe objective of this report is to support European artists by extending the term of protection of copyright of phonograms from 50 years to 70 years.\nThe document also provides for establishment of a fund for session musicians, maintained from contributions of producers equivalent to at least 20% of their annual revenues from the extension of copyright. Fifty years after publication of a phonogram, the performer will be able to terminate the contract if the producer is not marketing the phonogram.\nThese are new, although cosmetic, changes in copyright law, which urgently needs thorough revision. Copyright existed before the Internet, and refers to a different era. Now a new approach to this matter is needed.\nCurrent legislation, including Directive 2006\/116\/EC of 12 December 2006, does not fill a legal loophole which exists because of the development of new technology. Adoption of the Crowley report by the European Parliament will allow a certain multicultural protection, which will foster competitiveness in the world music industry. Parliament has also asked the Commission to make an assessment of the need for a similar extension of the term of protection of copyright to performers and producers in the audiovisual sector. No later than 1 January 2010, the Commission is to present a report on the results of this assessment to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. We still have to wait for a thorough revision of copyright law.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-18":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU economic and trade relations with Mercosur (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the report by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on economic and trade relations between the EU and Mercosur with a view to the conclusion of an Interregional Association Agreement.\nDaniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna \nrapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by informing you that Commissioner Mandelson has contacted me to explain why he is not attending this debate, and I am grateful to him for that. The reason is the Summit on India in Finland; this led to an interesting conversation with the Commissioner on the agreement with Mercosur, in which I explained to him that, as well as India or China, Brazil and the Mercosur group are also emerging powers, a view that the Commissioner certainly, and fortunately, shares.\nLet us hope that, when the bleak scenes of the Doha Round have faded away, when the elections in Brazil have taken place and when the political, economic and commercial foundations for the European Union's relations with Mercosur have been laid, which is this Parliament's intention in the report we are presenting today, we will take the definitive steps to guide the final phase of the negotiation of an ambitious European Union-Mercosur Association Agreement.\nThat is the intention of our report: to restore a political, economic and commercial priority, to establish a collection of principles, rules and guidelines that give form to a strategic political priority, and to strengthen the framework for relations between two trading blocs. If we can bring them together by means of an Association Agreement which, together with the political aspects of cooperation, involves an agreement on the creation of a free trade area, we will have taken the historic step of creating the world's largest such free trade area. At a time when new powers are emerging in the East, this would be a way to enhance the mutual interests of two blocs that are united by history and culture, with all the benefits that that would bring to our citizens on both continents.\nWe are talking about a combined population of more than 700 million inhabitants. Our report therefore calls for a full, ambitious and balanced agreement based on three pillars: a political and institutional chapter reinforcing democratic dialogue and political cooperation; a cooperation chapter promoting sustainable economic and social development; and a trade chapter establishing an advanced free-trade area with a broad agenda including, as well as reciprocal liberalisation of trade in goods and services, investment, public procurement, the protection of intellectual property rights, cooperation regarding competition and trade protection instruments, trade facilitation, and a binding dispute settlement mechanism.\nMexico and Chile are good examples of how our relations can be intensified by means of an association instrument. With Mercosur representing 45% of the population of Latin America and the region's largest market, as well as 45% of its GDP, the great potential for growth on both sides is clear. Furthermore, unlike what is happening in Latin America as a whole, where US imports are three times higher than those from the EU, in Mercosur the EU quota is about 25% compared with 20% from the United States.\nAccording to the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, the costs of not reaching an agreement are estimated to be some EUR 3.7 billion per annum in trade and goods, rising to over EUR 5 billion if one includes investment and services. The trade agreement must be wide-ranging and cover all sectors, though the specific sensitivity of certain products must of course be taken into account, as the report indicates.\nWe did not wish to look into the details of the agreement's impact on the different sub-sectors, but rather we thought it appropriate to analyse the issue as a whole, to analyse the mutual interests at stake in the negotiation altogether. Our report therefore refers both to the EU's interests in Mercosur and to Mercosur's interests in the EU, and specific sections are dedicated to such important aspects as agriculture, with references to subsidies, geographical designations, bioethanol, etc.; NAMAs, where we include a special reference to fisheries and the sensitivity of certain processed products, such as canned tuna; services, where it is essential to achieve real improvements and clear and stable regulatory frameworks; investments, which are fundamental for sustainable economic development and generating employment and prosperity; public procurement and intellectual property, as well as the clear identification of possible barriers to trade and the approximation of rules on certification, accreditation, standardisation, etc., to promote fair trade and competition; and the establishment of an agreed dispute settlement instrument.\nAs well as the strictly technical and commercial aspects, the report also covers the mechanisms necessary for the industrial, employment and social cooperation of small and medium-sized businesses and aspects relating to technology, science, environmental measures, energy and communication, as well as European Union aid and solidarity mechanisms.\nFinally, we include the necessary inter-parliamentary cooperation between the European Parliament and the Mercosur Parliament in order to make the agreement more democratically representative and bring the sometimes excessively technical aspects of the agreement more into line with the feelings of the citizens we represent, thereby giving the agreement a greater popular dimension.\nWe believe that, by means of this report, the European Parliament is making clear its support for a far-reaching and ambitious Association Agreement between the old continent and a large part of the new continent, which we want to be integrated, and we call upon the Commission to speed up the negotiations so that the agreement can become a reality as soon as possible, for the benefit of the citizens of both continents.\nI would like to end, Mr President, by thanking all of the parliamentary groups for their invaluable understanding and support. I have received much understanding and support and I needed as much of it as possible in order to achieve the broad consensus that we wanted.\nNeelie Kroes\nMr President, on behalf of my colleague Peter Mandelson, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the Committee on International Trade on the report on economic and trade relations between the EU and Mercosur with a view to the conclusion of an Interregional Association Agreement.\nThis report gives a very comprehensive picture of the current relations between the EU and Mercosur in the economic as well as the political field, and the European Commission shares most of the analysis presented in this report.\nThe European Commission very much concurs with the Committee on International Trade in its view that a conclusion of an ambitious and balanced Association Agreement between the EU and Mercosur is a strategic objective.\nThe Commission remains firmly committed to concluding the Agreement with Mercosur as soon as it is technically and politically feasible. Such an agreement would be the platform for promoting the relationship between the two regions and for promoting the common values and objectives that unite us.\nAn EU-Mercosur agreement would establish the first ever region-to-region association and the largest free-trade area in the world, covering almost 700 million people. As the INTA report points out, such an Association Agreement would enable both regions to respond more effectively to the challenges of globalisation. It would enhance the competitiveness of our economies, increase growth and thereby contribute to economic and social cohesion. Creating the world's largest market place would give an enormous boost to job creation, economic reform and productivity levels. A free-trade agreement with Mercosur is a very good example of how EU trade policy can contribute to the EU's wider approach to economic reform and competitiveness.\nA region-to-region agreement with Mercosur would also serve as an instrument to support an integration effort within Mercosur and Latin America. The accession of Venezuela to Mercosur this year implies an enlargement of the region and the European Commission also hopes that the process of broadening and deepening regional integration will continue. We know from our own European experience that the reforms and adjustments necessary for integration are not easy. But we also know that the rewards make the effort worthwhile.\nAn Agreement would also create a more transparent and stable business environment for the EU and Mercosur companies. This would contribute to attracting more investment flows. Investment - and future investment - could possibly have the biggest impact on the shape of our future economic partnership with Mercosur. Although foreign direct investment to Mercosur increased in 2004 and 2005, the relative share of the region in relation to global EU investments has been sliding ever since the 1990s. This is a source of concern, as investment means transfer of know-how, of industrialisation and jobs. This relative downward trend of the Mercosur region in relation to the rest of the world, especially Asia, is one of the challenges of the future agreement and, possibly, its main potential economic benefit.\nLet me just say a few words on the timing. In the report by the International Trade Committee, you request the establishment of a negotiating calendar which would allow us to conclude the EU-Mercosur negotiations as soon as possible. The European Commission is fully committed to concluding these negotiations as soon as is technically and politically feasible, but we have always been of the opinion that substance prevails over timing. What we want to achieve is an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced agreement which goes beyond our WTO commitments. As the INTA report points out, there is a cost to not having an Agreement. But there is also a long-term cost in missed opportunities from having a bad agreement.\nRelated to the issue of timing is the link between these biregional negotiations, the progress of the WTO Doha Development Agenda and the sequence of the two negotiations. In this respect, the European Commission fully agrees with the analysis of the report by INTA; both these processes can realise substantial synergies. They are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary.\nTo conclude, let me convey to you the following message, which I am sure that you share with me: for strategic and political reasons, the European Commission remains committed to negotiating and concluding an ambitious and balanced agreement with Mercosur.\nTrade is an important element of this agreement but not the only one. Beyond the trade negotiations, we should not lose sight of the strategic, political and economic rationale of this agreement. Let us not forget the strategic dimension of a future Association Agreement, which is to promote a relationship between regional blocs which enhances peace, stability, prosperity, social progress and democracy.\nFilip Kaczmarek \nMr President, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Varela, for his extremely successful report on economic and trade relations between the European Union and Mercosur with a view to the conclusion of an interregional association agreement. The report is an important one, and it has come out at an appropriate moment.\nAs we know, negotiations regarding the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement have a long and rather troubled history. In the current situation - the failure of the Doha talks - we need to put out a strong and clear signal that an association agreement is necessary and favourable both to Mercosur members and to European Union members. There is also a need for greater political involvement in and support for the final success of the EU-Mercosur negotiations. I believe that the rapporteur has been very successful here. The report sends out a positive signal and can play an important and positive role in mapping out the next stages of the negotiations.\nI would also like to thank the rapporteur for taking into account many submissions and comments from the report of the Committee on Development, which I represented as a draftsman. I would like to thank you for emphasising the importance of maintaining balance between trade and development in the final text of the agreement so that the sections relating to trade do not conflict with the sections on development, and for underlining the need to establish guarantees that the provisions on cooperation are effective in combating poverty and are in accordance with the EU's negotiating policy.\nThe Committee on Development drew attention to various aspects of development cooperation. It is clear that better economic and trade conditions can contribute towards resolving some of the social problems that exist in the Mercosur countries. The Committee on Development underlines the need to increase support for social development, education, reducing social inequalities, more equal distribution of income, and reduction of poverty. We also believe that we should support small and medium-sized enterprises and balance farming, tourism and infrastructure investment with protection for the natural environment. An important advantage of this report is that it provides institutional reinforcement of Mercosur. One of the ways it proposes to do this is by strengthening cooperation at parliamentary level, which would have a very positive effect.\nJos\u00e9 Ignacio Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, on the excellent work that he has done on behalf of the Committee on International Trade.\nI would also like to express my regret at the absence of the Commissioner responsible, Mr Mandelson, although at least he has had the courtesy to call the rapporteur to explain, which does not happen very often in these cases.\nIn my capacity as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr President, I would like to say that I would have liked to have obtained a firmer commitment from the Commission with regard to the timetable called for by the rapporteur in his report because ten years is a long time to be negotiating an agreement which, as the rapporteur and the Commissioner have pointed out, is an agreement on political association, economic coordination and cooperation.\nIt is clear that the European Union has not shown any lack of will; I believe that one of the Member States of Mercosur has shown clear and decisive support for the multilateral round, and the Chilean and Mexican experiences - Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna reminded us of this - demonstrate clearly that it is possible to go much further than the expectations established by the multilateral round.\nI therefore believe, Mr President, that where there is a will there is a way. Although this kind of agreement is characterised by commercial aspects, when it comes to third-generation agreements, which have contained the democratic clause, it is clear that following the Vienna Summit, following the failure of the multilateral round, we must go the whole hog.\nI believe that the European Commission must give its clear and decisive support to these association agreements, since Latin America does not need hand-outs, but opportunities, and this European Union-Mercosur Association Agreement offers an excellent opportunity for all of us to pursue our shared objectives of greater democracy, greater integration and, of course, more fluid and efficient trade, which mean peace, progress and prosperity for everybody.\nJavier Moreno S\u00e1nchez\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, on his excellent report and, as shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, to thank him for cooperating so closely since the initial exchange of views in the Committee on International Trade. That cooperation has helped to produce a balanced report containing the clear message that this House wants to address to the Commission: Commissioner, we want an association agreement to be reached between the European Union and Mercosur as soon as possible for several reasons.\nFirstly, this agreement will be much more than merely a trade instrument: it will be an instrument at the service of peace, multilateralism and dialogue that will enable both blocs to adopt policies that promote shared economic, social and geopolitical values and interests.\nIt will enshrine the first North-South intercontinental association, offering an alternative to other attempts at integration, such as the FTAA, which had more to do with a desire for trade domination.\nFurthermore, the European Union-Mercosur association will lead to the largest region of shared prosperity in the world, benefiting more than 700 million citizens, as previous speakers have said. Strengthening cooperation will make it possible to implement policies aimed at economic and social cohesion with a view to promoting development, as well as the equality and prosperity of citizens in both regions.\nFor the final report, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament considers it necessary to involve social actors more in the process of integration and to have a genuine interparliamentary dimension between the European Union and Mercosur. We hope that the other groups will support our amendments to this effect.\nCommissioner, although efforts that come to nothing may be dispiriting, the Commission must do everything it possibly can to enable the agreement to be concluded and to put an end to the sense of stagnation and pessimism recently surrounding the multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations.\nI shall end with a question, Commissioner: could you provide us with any information regarding Venezuela's process of accession to Mercosur and tell us what effect this process is having on the negotiations underway?\nHelmuth Markov\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I consider it right that the European Union is striving for beneficial and close relations with the most diverse regions of the globe and, of course, with Mercosur as well. However, it is wrong in my view if the Commission, by means of such agreements, tries to implement through the back door that which was rejected by the majority of countries during the WTO negotiations, namely, the liberalisation of international trade between partner countries with very different economic and social conditions, without taking the different situations in these countries into account. The EU - Latin America summit which took place in Vienna, as well as the alternative 'Enlazando alternativas' summit of last May afforded the opportunity of being better able to understand the wishes of the new voices in Latin America and of shaping relations in the interests of the populations of both regions in a more balanced manner, and not just for the benefit of industry and commerce.\nA few days ago, the Commission published a communication on its trade policy strategy which focussed more strongly on economic liberalisation than had previously been the case. In yesterday's debate, Commissioner Mandelson again emphasised that he shares the same fundamental position. I would not like to advocate such a fundamental position. The report contains references which I deem to be extremely important, such as emphasising the principles of 'less than full reciprocity' and 'special and differential treatment depending on the levels of development'.\nAll in all, however, the report puts forward the known liberalisation demands and even goes beyond them by approving, for instance, the area of investment as the subject of a chapter in the EU-Mercosur agreement. As a result of international protests, however, this has been deleted in its entirety from the Doha development round negotiations.\nMy group supports a fair association agreement but not the route taken to a free trade area between the European Union and Mercosur.\nKader Arif\n(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Varela's report quite rightly reminds us, and he is to be congratulated for it, that Europe and Mercosur would be well advised to strengthen their cooperation. In recent months negotiations with Mercosur have rather come to a standstill, with most of the controversial questions waiting to be sorted out at the WTO. With the recent suspension of the Doha Round, we must henceforth show an unwavering political will to relaunch these discussions.\nBilateral negotiations between regions assume a high level of economic and political integration from the two partners. Mercosur, however, seems weakened by the asymmetry of its members and by their sometimes divergent interests. Its institutions, therefore, need to be consolidated, in particular by setting up a regional parliament and a binding instrument for settling disputes. Furthermore, consideration needs to be given in view of Venezuela's membership which will give, without any doubt, a more political nature to the bloc and will alter the economic balance of power.\nSince it is very much in the interest of the European Union to negotiate with a strong partner, it has to support politically and financially the emergence of Mercosur as an integrated regional bloc. This area has the authority to reinforce alongside us the multilateral structure and the economic and social model that we hope and pray for.\nAntol\u00edn S\u00e1nchez Presedo\n(ES) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating my fellow countryman, Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, on his report and on his open and positive approach, which I hope will lead to a significant consensus in this House.\nMercosur has more than 230 million inhabitants, it is one of the five largest economic areas in the world and it is the largest in terms of food production.\nRelations between the European Union and Mercosur have deep historical roots and shared cultural foundations. The association agreement is therefore the best formula for extending our links and stimulating exchanges between us.\nI am pleased that our amendments have been incorporated into the report, stressing the democratic component of our relations, based on shared values, the parliamentary dimension and the active participation of civil society, aspects in connection with which I still believe we should be making additional efforts, as Mr Moreno S\u00e1nchez has pointed out.\nI am also pleased with the inclusion of our proposals on extending fisheries and tourism relations, creating appropriate regulatory frameworks, intensifying exchanges and increasing investments - with accounting and auditing standards duly harmonised - and dealing with the obstacles to rationalisation in the public sector.\nFinally, I would call upon the Commission to treat this Agreement as an objective of the highest political priority.\nNeelie Kroes\nMr President, I should like to thank the House for its comments. I have taken careful note of them and I will convey them to my colleague, Commissioner Mandelson, for his consideration.\nFor strategic and political reasons, the European Commission is totally committed to negotiating and concluding an ambitious and balanced agreement with Mercosur. Therefore, such an agreement remains a priority. Engaging in negotiations with other partners does not mean, by the way, that we are giving less priority to an agreement with Mercosur. The Treaty on Venezuela's accession has been signed by the Mercosur members. However, in order for Venezuela to be a full member, that Treaty has to be ratified by the parliaments. We, the Commission, do not foresee any major obstacles to the negotiation process as a result of the accession of Venezuela.\nA lot has been said here about development. The EU is by far the biggest donor. We plan to pay out about EUR 50 million for the period between 2007 and 2013.\nI believe that, for economic, cultural and political reasons, both the European Parliament and the Commission share the same view in respect of concluding an ambitious and balanced association agreement between the EU and Mercosur. It is a strategic objective.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2013-48":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Tribute\nPresident\nLadies and gentlemen, I have the sad duty of informing you of the deaths of a fellow Member and a former fellow Member.\nOur fellow Member Fausto Correia died yesterday morning. He was born on 29 October 1951 in Coimbra and was only 55 years old. He leaves a wife and three sons. An illustrious career as a barrister, journalist and then a politician in Portugal followed after he finished law school at university in his home town of Coimbra. He was for a long time a Member of the Portuguese Parliament as well as Minster of State under Prime Minister Ant\u00f3nio Guterres. He had been a Member of the European Parliament since 2004. Fausto Correia was and remains famous and well-loved in Portugal for his unremitting, life-long mission to establish democracy and his dedication to the core values of fraternity and neighbourliness. Fausto Correia will be sorely missed by his family, his friends and by us, his fellow Members.\nA book of condolences for messages of sympathy from Members and staff of the European Parliament will be open during this week's sitting on Wednesday and Thursday at the front of the Chamber.\nIt is with great sadness that we learnt of the death of our former fellow Member Christian de la Mal\u00e8ne, who was a Member of the European Parliament on two occasions - from 1959 to 1961 and from 1962 to 1994. Christian de la Mal\u00e8ne, who was also a former Minister and Senator under President De Gaulle, died on 26 September at the age of 86. As a former Chairman of the Group of European Progressive Democrats and the Group of the European Renewal and Democratic Alliance, Christian de la Mal\u00e8ne was a convinced European in heart and mind. He dedicated his long life to a strong and democratic Europe, and a political community.\nChristian de la Mal\u00e8ne was a colleague and friend who will be remembered for his humanism and his political commitment. On this note we wish to commemorate him in gratitude.\nA moment's silence, please, in remembrance of our deceased colleague.\n(The assembly rose and observed one minute's silence).","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"8. Appointment of the executive director of the European Banking Authority (EBA) (\nSharon Bowles\nMr President, I will not keep you long. Today we are voting on the resolutions to approve the executive directors of the European supervisory authorities. Issues concerning the overall procedure for the future were dealt with last month in the negotiations surrounding the appointment of the Chairs of the authorities.\nFor the Banking Authority, the proposed executive director is Adam Farkas; for the Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority it is Carlos Montalvo, and for the Markets Authority it is Verena Ross. The nominees all attended confirmation hearings in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs last week. These were webstreamed, and are therefore available on the ECON website, as are the candidates' biographies. The full committee decided by a substantial majority that we should vote in favour of these candidates, so that is the recommendation from the committee.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":3,"2013-20":1,"unknown":5}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nRenate Sommer\n(DE) Madam President, today we finally saw the introduction of a transitional period for existing nutritional and health claims on the labels of food intended for children. The Commission had forgotten that and tried to leave Parliament holding the baby. We have prevented it from doing so. We have compelled the Commission to make a statement acknowledging the need to introduce transitional periods for claims relating to children's health and development too. The only problem, however, is that the Commission's long-standing refusal to present a proposal to this effect has distorted competition. Products have already been taken off the market because the Regulation has entered into force in the meantime. It has been a seriously botched job on the part of the Commission.\nIn addition, I tabled a motion on behalf of my group for the deletion of Article 4. That was a political demonstration. We stand by our opinion that this Regulation is senseless. It is not possible to produce nutrient profiles for all foodstuffs. Almost half of the Members of this House share that view. EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has now stated that it cannot see itself being able to provide nutrient profiles for all products. Nonsensical red tape - a superfluous piece of legislation!\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Madam President, I think it is very important that we should try and have health claims on products, but it is right that we need to ensure that they are true and based on knowledge. It is not appropriate for a company to produce the research and 'commercial arguments' itself, as if that were enough to win the arguments about health. In other words, the research and knowledge must be found to be proper and correct and therefore reliable.\nIt is very important to ensure that nutrition and health claims are correct and that this would also enable someone to switch to a healthier diet. This is especially important with children and young people because we know the serious problems which there are at present in Europe with obesity, type II diabetes and other related conditions. We need to make sure that the nutritional value is good and that the health claims are true.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) Madam President, I voted against the report on the liberalisation of the secondary market in spare parts. It is an inconsistent strategy.\nOn the one hand we insist that the industry develop cars that are increasingly safe and we combat industrial piracy. However, in contradiction to this Parliament has today legalised the production of copies of spare parts, which allegedly makes them cheaper. Consumers, however, will not be guaranteed an uncompromised standard of safety in the repaired vehicle. Liberalisation supporters, mainly from the UK, affirm that SMEs will benefit from this policy. The majority of cheap copies of patent spare parts today, however, are produced in Asia, not in Europe. In spite of this, in the 10 Member States where design has not been protected to date, the cost of spare parts is 7% higher than in the remaining 17. The latter continue to protect design like Japan and other major car industry leaders. I would like to draw attention to the fact that in the case of an accident both car users and pedestrians will be now be more at risk because of non-original spare parts of a lower quality. This directive is unfortunately an example of inconsistent EU strategy.\nJan B\u0159ezina\n(CS) Madam President, I would also like to express my disagreement with limiting legal protection of industrial design for spare parts. We are witnessing an unprecedented level of interference in the area of industrial rights. If there are abuses of monopolies by industrial rights owners, ordinary legal instruments such as licence requirements can be applied. The creation of an industrial design incurs significant costs, which is why legal protection is pertinent from an economic point of view, too. Its abolition will not lead to liberalisation of the spare parts market as expected by the Commission, but in all likelihood to an increase in the price of the end product. The foreseeable reaction of producers to the presence of independent producers in the spare parts market will be to offset their losses through higher prices. It is also of concern that the lower cost of independent producers' spare parts will result in lower levels of safety and quality. What troubles me is that in the final analyses it will be the customer who will be placed at risk.\nMichl Ebner\n(DE) Madam President, I wish to say that I voted for the Castiglione report and that I believe it to be a very balanced report, particularly if we consider the way it started out, with 800 amendments tabled in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The efforts of both the rapporteur and numerous Members have undoubtedly borne fruit in a sector beset with severe difficulties; it is absolutely essential that we give winegrowers the prospect of better times ahead.\nI believe this report lays the foundations for progress, and I hope that the European Commission, acting in the spirit of the new Treaties, will take due account - full account, if at all possible - of the decisions of the European Parliament.\nAnja Weisgerber\n(EN) Madam President, today's vote on the reform of the wine market is a resounding success for the European Parliament and for the various vine-growing regions and wine producers. For example, we were able to ensure that it will remain permissible to enrich wines with sucrose. Parliament also rejected the Commission's plans to enact provisions at this stage prescribing the lifting of the ban on new planting in 2014. In this case we proposed a practicable solution whereby the decision on liberalisation would not be taken until a study had been presented in 2012. With regard to the labelling of individual wines, we also reached an agreement that takes due account of the various designation systems used in Europe. We succeeded, moreover, in incorporating a safeguard into the wine-market regulations which protects the Bocksbeutel, the specially shaped bottles used in my home region of Franconia.\nLadies and gentlemen, we have presented a very balanced framework today which will be a good basis for the forthcoming negotiations in the Council. The ball is now in the Council's court; we in Parliament have performed our task and performed it very well.\nRyszard Czarnecki\n(PL) Madam President, I am delighted that the European Parliament has supported the Committee on Agriculture's proposal, and especially the Polish Members' amendment authorising the use of sales designations such as 'fruit wine', 'apple wine' or 'currant wine'. Such wines have been produced in my country since the 13th century - for almost 800 years - and I am pleased that the European Parliament has recognised the reality and the fact.\nIn conclusion, I would congratulate the President on her excellent conduct of the proceedings, especially in today's heated - sometimes over-heated - atmosphere. Madam President, I pay tribute to you as a true representative of the British school of parliamentary behaviour.\nArmando Veneto\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the vote on the common organisation of the market in wine, I should like to point out that I voted for Amendment 294, tabled by Mr Lavarra of the PSE and of which I am co-signatory, because I consider that consumers have the right to know whether saccharose has been added to the wine they are drinking and because product traceability is now a general principle advocated by the Union and I do not see why it should not be applied in the wine sector.\nFor the same reason, I voted for Amendment 310, tabled by the UEN Group; neither has an impact on the compromise that Mr Castiglione has worked so hard to achieve. Lastly, as to the differing line that I have taken on these issues with respect to the Group to which I belong, citizens' interests mean that the only political stance which I feel I have to obey is one of accepting any proposal which protects those interests, whatever the Group from which it comes.\nDanutBudreikait\n(LT) The Commission's position on the Council regulation on the Common Market Organisation for Wine discriminates against certain countries, especially the new Member States.\nThe project to promote EU wines in third countries is intended to boost trade, but for some reason it happens to be linked to the areas of previously exploited vineyards and data on average wine production over the last three years. The Commission intends to support wine exports and certain labels. Producers and exporters in the countries supported would benefit from competitive advantage. The fact that wine producers in Lithuania and some other countries with no vineyards are not receiving any support is unacceptable.\nI voted against the report.\nZuzana Roithov\u00e1\n(CS) I supported the reform of the wine market, which will improve the quality and competitiveness of European wines. This primarily concerns Italy, where illegal vineyards should be grubbed-up and subsidies for overproduction of poor-quality wines should be discontinued. The reform, however, must not favour Southern producers over Northern ones. I am categorically against any grubbing-up of vines in Moravia, where everything that is produced is used and where traditional wine production is of great importance both culturally and for tourism in the area. I object to a ban on sugaring in Eastern Europe, including Moravia, unless wine acidification, practised in Southern countries, is also banned. I do not understand why Moravian winegrowers should buy expensive must from Southern countries, only to replace a 200-year-old tradition of sugaring, thereby changing the traditional bouquet and taste of their quality wines. This is contrary to the principles of competition in the internal market and I cannot but disagree with it. I thank those colleagues who during voting time stood behind us and in doing so let common sense prevail. The Commission will now have to conform.\nJan B\u0159ezina\n(CS) We have seen the southern European states that have a strong viticulture sector defend tooth and nail their wine surpluses. In the meantime, due to excessive subsidies, the low prices of surplus wine are pushing quality wines from other Member States out of the market. I object to the fact that while the Commission treats the European wine industry leaders with kid gloves, countries like the Czech Republic are treated in a strict and even harsh manner. How else can we interpret the proposal to maintain the frequent use of must in the southern parts of the EU, while banning the addition of sucrose. I am therefore very pleased that Parliament approached the reform responsibly and brought to it an element of equal and just treatment. By supporting the addition of sucrose, Parliament benefited the Czech Republic among other countries, demonstrating its impartiality and resistance to influences based on conflicting national interests. I understand that a reform of the wine market is necessary. I do not doubt the fundamental goals, rather the manner in which they are being achieved. I highlight the importance of maintaining the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.\nHynek Fajmon\n(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Castiglione's report like the other Members from the Czech Republic who belong to the Czech Civic Democratic Party (ODS). A reform approached in this way will be of no benefit to Czech, Moravian or, for that matter, European wine-growing. Instead of liberalisation and a reduction in regulation and the administrative burden, which would be of real help to the wine sector, there is a tendency towards more regulations, restrictions and orders. Central planning has never shown to produce positive results; nor will it do so in the wine sector. That is the reason why I did not support this report.\nDaniel Hannan\nMadam President, my constituency of south-east England is the fastest-growing wine-producing region in Europe. The consequence of climate change is that a greater acreage of England is now given over to viticulture than at any time since the reign of Henry II, during the last period of European warming.\nHome Counties winegrowers have never looked to the EU for subsidy. Kent and Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire are planted with commercially viable vineyards that stand or fall by the quality of their produce. Yet their very success now threatens to count against them as they approach the limit of permissible commercial cultivation.\nHaving remained outside the European regulatory regime and having eschewed the handouts, they now find that they are to be regulated anyway.\nJust as we do not ask Brussels for money, so we do not want Brussels restrictions. All English wine-producers ask is to be left free to compete.\nAdriana Poli Bortone\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I gave a definite 'no' to a document further impaired by the adoption of various amendments which have made it worse, and in particular because of the introduction of sugaring which we had managed to stave off for years, taking the view that sugaring is no more than a way of making up for nature.\nThe majority of this House rejected must aid which, even though it is no more than a financial measure, would nevertheless have mitigated the damage brought about by allowing sugaring. This is a victory for the countries of the North and a defeat for the countries of the Mediterranean area which have been unable to defend the highly vocational nature of their territories. This CMO is detrimental to the quality and the typical and genuine nature of products, and damaging for wine growers, producers and consumers.\nAntonio Masip Hidalgo\n(ES) Madam President, I think that it has been very positive today, the fact that we have given a charter of rights to the alliance of civilisations which were supported in their time by President Zapatero and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I believe that this is a good start.\nMoreover, I believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights which we have signed today enshrines the true nature of our civilisation and not the integrismo of those who came here today to oppose it, an attitude which is regrettable and violent. It is also regrettable and violent when Islamic radicals adopt this same dogged adherence to ingrained traditions. These two forms of radicalism, are what we need to eradicate in order to have peace and not terrorism.\nMario Borghezio\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to point out that I voted against, although in error I voted for - and I give official notification of that - the report on terrorism.\nA hypocritical report, a report which shows the cowardly attitude of the Europe of institutions towards terrorism. It does not even have the courage to call it by its name: Islamic terrorism. Then, this House voted against an amendment tabled by myself and other UEN Members in which we called Europe's attention to Al-Qaeda's infiltration of the Maghreb. We obviously tabled it a few days ago, and unfortunately yesterday's events proved us right beyond our most pessimistic forecasts. The Islamic butchery of Al-Qaeda has hit the poor people of Algiers, and also causes the Islamic butchery of those people, who are probably themselves Islamic.\nIt is shameful that this is happening at Europe's door and this House throws out an amendment which calls for retaliatory action, because Europe cannot close its eyes to the threat on its doorstep.\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) I abstained in the vote on the resolution against terrorism because, of course, I do not support the development of terrorism but I cannot support such a document either, which, to my mind, only spreads further panic among European citizens and further contributes to the attainment of the ultimate goal of terrorism, i.e. terror itself. Still, I was satisfied with the proposed amendments by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, which were adopted, stating that everything has to be treated from the cause, as the ancient proverb goes that each illness has to be treated from the cause. Therefore, if, for instance, we fail to exert pressure on Israel to stop its segregationist policy and the building of its wall separating the Arabs and depriving them of basic human rights they have, we shall contribute much more to the fight against terrorism than we could by tapping telephones and organizing surveillance of web sites. Still, the amendments proposed against by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group should not have been rejected as it called for attention to the development of terrorism inside Europe because in my country banned terrorist organizations develop under the umbrella of the ruling MRF party.\nHannu Takkula\n(FI) Madam President, I think this resolution is fine but slightly inconsistent as you get the impression in some places that one is, as it were, surrendering to terrorism. In other words, it does not seem to accept the idea that terrorism should be eliminated entirely, that it should be pulled up by the roots; and Mrs Muscardini of the UEN Group raised this point in her oral amendment. To me this is one of those issues which perhaps should have been examined in more detail when this report was being discussed.\nI think the European Union line should be absolutely clear on terrorism. We promote democracy, human rights and freedom of expression, and can under no circumstances approve of terrorism. I would also have liked to see more weight given to the importance of education when addressing its causes. For example, the fight against terrorism in the Palestinian Autonomous Territories should mainly be based on education, so that future generations can be educated and brought up free of hatred and can therefore learn to live in peaceful coexistence with their neighbours.\nHubert Pirker\n(DE) Madam President, in the fight against terrorism, we must deploy all means that are effective, available and compatible with the rule of law. If the Union wants to win that fight, it must cooperate with partners.\nI voted against this resolution because of its anti-American tone. Instead of standing up against terrorism, the author and many others take a stand against partnership with the United States in the fight against terrorism. Another reason why I voted against the draft resolution is that it calls on the Commission and the Council to bring detainees from Guant\u00e1namo to Europe. That would amount to importing terrorism into Europe. It would be a misguided act.\nThe third reason why I voted against the resolution is that it rejects measures which are demonstrably usable in the fight against terrorism, namely the extension of passenger name records to Europe and a reinforcement of Europol.\nWritten explanations of vote\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The Aviation Agreement with Morocco is the second agreement relating to the so-called 'common European airspace' and the first concluded, in this context, with a country outside the continent of Europe.\nOn a more prominent political note we regret the fact that this agreement - as also unacceptably happened in the case of fisheries - does not explicitly make it clear that 'territory under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco means territory under Moroccan sovereignty in accordance with International Law', thus ensuring respect for international law and the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Saharan people.\nMoroccan sovereignty over the territory of Western Sahara is not legally recognised under international law, as the International Court of Justice at The Hague emphasised in its opinion delivered in October 1975. Morocco, which is occupying the territory of Western Sahara illegally, consequently has no sovereignty or jurisdiction over that territory.\nMoreover, this agreement is based almost exclusively on support for two aims which we oppose: the opening of markets and the harmonization of regulations to promote competition in air transport.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) In June and July this year, the Commission received the third and fourth applications for mobilisation of this Fund. The applications related to two German undertakings and a Finnish one, all operating in the telecommunications sector, in the manufacture of mobile phones to be precise.\nBoth applications are connected with the relocation of production to third countries, causing 4 211 workers to be laid off.\nSo far, in addition to these two applications and two French requests which have already been approved, the Commission has received further applications from Italy, Malta, Spain and Portugal. These applications will have to be approved early next year.\nAs we have mentioned, the existence of this fund cannot serve to 'cushion' the unacceptable social and economic costs of relocation of undertakings and the associated redundancies.\nWe therefore insist that a regulatory framework must be established to prevent and penalise relocations of undertakings. We consider that any grant of public aid to undertakings must be conditional upon long-term commitments by those undertakings in terms of regional development and employment, and they must not be granted any aid that may be used to promote relocations. Equally, it is essential to strengthen the role of workers' representatives on the boards of directors of undertakings and in the taking of management decisions of a structural nature.\nNina \u0160kottov\u00e1  \nin writing. - (CS) The total funds taken from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund represent around 3.6% and involve only three countries. Globalisation, however, affects all human activity to a greater or lesser extent. The low level of use of these funds invites at least two questions: first, are the effects of globalisation so limit, and second, do we know how to obtain resources from the Fund? In other words, firstly we can ask whether we need this Fund. If we think we do, then, secondly, we need to provide a better definition of the potential effects of globalisation and review the rules for obtaining funding so that the Fund becomes accessible and intelligible to other countries and their more problematic regions. Indication of economic, social and other elements would also help in this regard. Justification, such as 'unexpectedness' on the part of the Commission, is difficult to accept. Based on the above doubts, I voted against the proposal.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, along with the amendment of the Interinstitutional Agreement, is an integral part of the draft Community budget for 2008.\nThus, in addition to the correction of 1 600 million in the multiannual financial framework, with the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument it is also proposed to supplement the funding for the European global navigation satellite system programmes (EGNOS-GALILEO) by approximately EUR 200 million. Moreover, through the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is also to receive a further EUR 70 million in funding.\nIt should be noted that the rapporteur emphasises that 'external actions in general, and the CFSP in particular, are not sufficiently catered for in the long term compared to the demands now identified'. He explains that the 'demands identified' include reinforcement of the EU 'missions' in Kosovo and Afghanistan. In this way, added impetus is given to the EU's increasing interference and military intervention in support of NATO operations, both in the Balkans - an example being the preparations to support the 'unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo', in violation of international law -, and in Central Asia, notably by funding these 'missions' out of the Community budget. These are political and military objectives with which we clearly disagree.\nJanusz Lewandowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, like revision of the financial perspective, is the natural outcome of the conciliation agreement of 23 November concerning the budget for 2008. The Flexibility Instrument is intended in principle to safeguard the budget plan in exceptional circumstances that are difficult to foresee. In my modest experience, however, use of this exceptional instrument rarely meets the criteria laid down in the interinstitutional agreement.\nSuch is the case with the draft budget for 2008. Both the EUR 200 million to finance the Galileo programme in 2008 and the sum of EUR 70 million under Heading IV, to cover increasing needs in the CFSP area, are solutions to problems that were foreseeable. Despite the reservations of the European Parliament delegation, which pointed to a lack of adequate funding for satellite navigation and insufficient funding in relation to the European Union's international ambitions, it did not succeed in convincing the Council of the need to increase the relevant budget allocations.\nIn its final form, the financial perspective boded difficulties that manifested themselves in preparing the budget for 2008. The truth of the matter is that, in the course of the conciliation procedure, Parliament resolved problems created by the Council. Given the misrepresentation of this situation in the media, we should draw the right conclusions for the future.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We cannot endorse a system in which taxpayers' money is used to market European agricultural products in third countries. We think that restraint should be exercised in such ventures, particularly in developing countries, since we risk damaging domestic industry. We think that the EU should be encouraging local agriculture in these countries, not undermining farmers there. Thriving local production can mean a chance for these countries to develop economically and a way forward for democratic development.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) Simplifying the European legislation on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries is most important for the development of a simpler and more manageable CAP.\nI approve the Commission's proposal to improve the system, in particular the regulatory consolidation involving the merging of the two regulations relating to the internal market and to third countries.\nI am voting for the Golik report, and would highlight the reference it makes to the need to pay more attention to the issues of information and promotion in the WTO negotiations.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, I am voting in favour of the adoption of Mr Golik's report on the proposal for a Council regulation on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries.\nThe rapporteur rightly points out that in order to make progress in formulating a simple and effective agricultural policy for Europe, the Community system of information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries needs to be simplified.\nI agree that information campaigns should serve to make consumers fully aware of sustainable CAP production, the high quality of EU agricultural products, organic farming and the health aspects.\n.\nDiamanto Manolakou  \nin writing. - (EL) In view of the fact that the discussions at the WTO and the commitments will result in the abolition of export refunds, cuts in Community aid amounting to EUR 20.1 billion, and price cuts of 48% - 73% for most EU agricultural products, there will be severe repercussions on agricultural income.\nWith the proposal for a regulation, the Commission aims to counteract the negative consequences arising in the past from GATT and the previous CAP reforms, which will be intensified to a greater degree with the WTO and expected CAP reforms. The consequences will be felt mainly in the distribution of agricultural products, both to third countries and to EU countries, since import duties and internal aid for Community agriculture will be drastically reduced at the same time.\nPromotion and information programmes are therefore being proposed. However, the funds allocated to those programmes can do nothing to counteract the consequences. The result will be an aggravation of the problems of distributing Community agricultural produce to third countries and also within the EU, a reduction in prices paid to the producer, and outright disaster for small and medium-sized farmers, who already earn only a borderline agricultural income. On the other hand, the programmes will be of benefit mainly to large agricultural enterprises with competitive production costs.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) The Common Organisation of the Market (CMO) in fisheries and aquaculture products, one of the four pillars of the Common Fisheries Policy, is to be the subject of in-depth restructuring.\nThe priorities are revision of aspects relating to consumer information on fisheries products and a more equitable distribution of the value added to the products along the whole marketing process (with special emphasis on the initial point of sale).\nThe EU is also to find solutions to counteract the 'social dumping' which is now common practice in some third countries and which is reducing our fisheries products' ability to compete.\nNational interests are protected in this report and it therefore deserves to have my vote.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) We welcome the approval of the report on the CMO in fisheries products, which sends a clear signal to the European Commission that an ambitious revision of this CMO is urgently needed in order to increase its contribution to guaranteeing incomes in the sector, improving the marketing of fisheries products and increasing the added value of these products, notably by means of a substantial increase in funding.\nGiven that the CMO should provide an effective response to the objectives for which it was established and that the insecurity of incomes in the fisheries sector is attributable largely to the form of marketing in the sector, the price formation at the initial point of sale and the irregular nature of fishing, we regret that the Committee on Fisheries rejected our proposals which really go to the heart of the matter, including among others:\nthe introduction of maximum rates of profit;\nthe need for public aid and the establishment of effective market intervention mechanisms;\nthe consideration of production costs in the definition of guide prices;\nthe introduction of financial compensation for voluntary temporary reductions in the catch or the fishing effort.\nWe shall nevertheless continue to put the case for these fair measures.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The common organisation of the market in fisheries products is intended to ensure stability in the market and security of income for those involved in the sector. These aims and, indeed, the aims set out in the EC Treaty are worthy and should have led to prosperity in Europe's fishing communities.\nUnfortunately, the past two and a half decades of centralised Brussels control in the form of the CFP have been disastrous for those communities. A thriving market with job security are not achievable within the context of the CFP, and control of fisheries management must be returned to the nations dependent on fisheries.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As we have pointed out, the national authorities have long complied and ensured compliance with the requirements in force under international agreements in the area of civil aviation. Cooperation between the EU Member States and between those states and other countries is already a reality, a reality that could be further encouraged and developed but which already ensures respect for each country's sovereignty, for workers and their rights (guaranteeing social harmonisation, in particular, by the application of the most favourable conditions), and for the rights of users.\nHowever, the powers of each Member State in the area of civil aviation are gradually being transferred to the EU, a process that is particularly negative when it occurs in an area in which there are no clearly defined limits.\nEssentially, the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency signifies another 'step' in that direction. It should be stressed that this agency will be responsible for exercising powers that are at present exercised by each of the national authorities. Basically, this is a measure designed to bring about what has been called the 'single European sky' and the liberalisation of air transport and air navigation at EU level. This liberalisation for the sake of financial profitability calls into question workers' rights, quality of services and safety levels.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The Leichtfried report marks the culmination of complex negotiations involving the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The extension of the powers of the EASA is an important development for aviation safety in Europe and my group was able to support the final compromise.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I confirm my previous vote for the Leichtfried report. The negotiations between Parliament and the Council, with the assistance of the Commission, have led to this text which, although it does not completely satisfy some of the demands which I have supported, is a good compromise. I should like to stress the important role that the European Aviation Safety Agency will play as regards the monitoring not just of aviation but also of company practices. The Agency will be responsible for renewing and issuing certificates and licences and for monitoring the application of uniform safety standards.\nIt will also be able to impose fines if safety is not properly implemented. I am therefore pleased by the compromise reached with Amendment 15 which makes the Agency fully independent and impartial, including in matters relating to the revocation of licences and the imposition of fines. I should also like to stress that staff will have a major role to play in the development and the work of this body. As a result, I fully share the rapporteur's concern to improve the status of this work, possibly by drawing on the potential offered by the European Union's Staff Regulations.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I shall be voting for this report and I must congratulate the rapporteur on what is a technical issue of great importance. I would however like to make a few points.\nRegarding cabin crew licensing, clearly this issue causes some concern in certain Member States and has resulted in a determined lobbying effort by the cabin crew trade unions. I believe the rapporteur has found a compromise that allays fears held by some Member States, yet recognises the importance of the role cabin crew play. Some airlines frankly abuse cabin crew by not only treating them as mere 'waiters in the sky' but by employing them on contracts that pay minimum rates, for maximum hours, after paying for their own training.\nSecondly it is important to recognise that EU-OPS, as approved by this Parliament, now come under EASA competence. But I would take the opportunity to remind the Commission and EASA that flight and duty times as contained in Subpart Q of the EU-OPS Regulation cannot be changed until a study into fatigue has been commissioned and the wider industry consulted.\nFinally I hope now that other aspects of aviation safety and security can be introduced EU wide, including cockpit door and baggage hold surveillance.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) As is generally the case with regulations in this area, the specific objectives of this report are based on harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States in order to promote the development of the European internal market, in this case with respect to nutrition and health claims made on foods.\nThe proposal consists of two amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1924\/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods, and the purpose of the proposal is to provide for an adequate transitional period for health claims referring to children's development and health.\nNutrition claims which have been used in a Member State before 1 January 2006 in compliance with the national provisions applicable and which are not included in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924\/2006 may continue to be used for three years after the Regulation comes into force. Health claims other than those referring to children's development and health also benefit from transitional measures detailed in Article 28(5) and (6) of the Regulation. Similar transitional measures are now provided for claims referring to children's development and health.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - I voted to approve this report because of the checks that need to be made to ensure the health and nutritional claims made. Whilst healthy eating for many is essential for a prolonged and active life it is also essential that adequate information is provided to the consumer. For too long claims made by some manufacturers of popular consumer products have led to consumers being misled over the nutritional and health properties of these products. I call on the Commission to devote as much time as needed to ensure adequate clarity for European citizens.\nBert Doorn  \nin writing. - (NL) Liberalisation of the market in car parts has been the subject of heated debate ever since 1993. I think the abolition of design rights in respect of visible car parts is long overdue. So I wholeheartedly support the Commission proposal, because at present there is no properly functioning single market in these parts.\nWhen functional items such as wing mirrors and lights have to be replaced, the parts needed to restore the car to its previous condition must be readily available. I am for European liberalisation as swiftly as possible, so I favour a transitional period that is as short as possible - five years. I shall of course be voting against amendments which make it possible for Member States to drag their feet over liberalisation during the transitional period.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) This report contains some amendments to the proposal for a directive to liberalise the secondary market in spare parts, applicable to the motor vehicle industry, the machinery industry and the capital goods and consumer goods industries.\nThe Commission proposal advocates unprotected markets, whereas this report advocates a transitional period of 5 years for countries where there is market protection, as in the case of Portugal.\nWe know that, on the one hand, protected markets lead to large undertakings having a monopoly on the trade in spare parts since, in protected markets, the consumer has to buy a replacement for a defective or damaged part from the original producer. The argument used is that the design of the product must not be altered, the best known example being that of the motor vehicle industry, although this proposal for a directive also applies to other industries. But there are practical cases where the replacement of a simple part requires a whole combination of parts, with the associated costs for the consumer.\nIn the meantime, on the other hand, there are factories in Portugal connected with the motor vehicle industry in particular, which continue to operate thanks to their production of spare parts for the well-known makes and for which the 'liberalisation' of the market could cause serious problems.\nJanelly Fourtou  \nin writing. - (FR) In the Lehne report on the legal protection of designs, I decided to support and lend my signature to an amendment proposing an eight-year transition period before complete liberalisation of intellectual property rights on component parts of complex products, such as motor vehicles, used for the purpose of restoring their original appearance. So far, impact studies have not shown any significant reduction in the consumer price of these parts in the Member States where the system has already been liberalised.\nI am also convinced that the European Union is undermining its own interests here. Other parts of the world are engaged in protecting their manufacturing by means of industrial property rights, and the European Union - while declaring its desire to protect consumers and to combat counterfeiting - is making the wrong choice.\nThe issues at stake are economic balance in the automotive sector and the safety of European vehicle users.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The directive on the legal protection of designs and models, as submitted to the House, proposes complete liberalisation of the market in component parts, notably in the motor vehicles sector.\nThe rapporteur's text alters the proposal significantly by advocating that Member States be permitted to retain legislation strictly protecting designs and models for a further five years. Retaining the manufacturers' monopoly on the production of component parts is a means of preventing the loss of Community jobs to countries like Turkey, Brazil and Korea, where production costs and quality are lower.\nOver-hasty liberalisation of this sector could also entail major risks, notably in terms of safety. If vehicle manufacturers are to have no responsibility for the production of component parts, there will be nothing to guarantee their compliance with specifications and no assurance of quality. Surely we must put vehicle users' protection and safety before any economic or political considerations.\nSo, having attacked the postal service, the railways and the energy and electricity sectors, Brussels now has vehicle manufacturers in its sights. There would seem to be no limit to the logic of ultra-globalism and forced deregulation for ideological reasons.\n(Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, the internal market is a highly complex structure that has balanced the interests of the various groups dependent on it for many years in succession.\nThe aim of this directive is to achieve complete liberalisation of the secondary market in spare parts. On the one side, therefore, we have broad groups of manufacturers of spare parts who are demanding that their rights in respect of free competition and the prohibition of a market monopoly be taken into account; on the other, we have car manufacturers (and here we are obviously focusing on the automobile industry) who base the defence of their spare parts production on the legal protection of designs.\nIn this situation, which at first sight seems insoluble, I support the approach of the rapporteur, who proposes a system under which designs would be protected for a limited period. In practice, the protection period would be closely based on the life cycle of the complex product.\nI also agree with the rapporteur that upon the introduction of a new protected design, the protection of spare parts involved in the old design should lapse. It should also lapse when a design that does not have a replacement ceases to be manufactured. That proposal seems to me the most suitable arrangement and the one that will best protect the interests of the groups involved.\nI also support the proposal for a transitional arrangement whereby Member States under whose legislation design protection exists for component parts may retain such design protection for five years after the entry into force of the directive.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I supported the compromise package and rejected those amendments seeking to extend the transitional period for the \"repair clause\".\nGary Titley  \nin writing. - I support a competitive European market for spare parts. This will help drive down costs for consumers and boost business for small and medium enterprises. As a result, I support the Commission proposal, which would open spare parts markets to competition.\nAs such, I am unable to support amendments which increase the time allowed for the market to be liberalised for up to 8 years. This would slow the progress of achieving our goal of a competitive market for spare parts.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelstr\u00f6m  \nin writing. - (SV) We vote against the report and the Commission proposal for the following reasons:\nWe had hoped that the reform would mean a saving for the Union's taxpayers and that the wine industry would be decoupled from financing through the common agricultural policy. In the long term, we think that Community subsidies for European wine manufacturing financed by taxes must cease.\nWe think that it is reprehensible to use taxpayers' money in order to market European wines. It is in conflict with Parliament's alcohol strategy, which promotes a restrictive view on the marketing of alcoholic beverages. In that context, to increase spending on marketing measures is an unfortunate reflection of double standards.\nWe are also opposed to the proposals which advocate the use of European taxpayers' money to market wines in third countries. We think that caution should be exercised in the marketing of European wines, particularly in developing countries, since it poses the risk of stifling domestic industries. The Union should not undermine local producers in developing countries but, instead, support them.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, I am voting against this report, not because of Mr Castiglione's general approach which includes some positive points such as imposing quantitative limits and environmental compatibility on grubbing-up, banning the use of must from outside the EU and extending measures which can be managed independently by the Member States. In my opinion, however, endorsing the practice of sugaring and the provision under which this practice does not have to be indicated on the information label for consumers are critical points. The passage on the so-called fruit wines is also entirely questionable, as is the report's general approach in relation to must. I hope, as an Italian, that Minister De Castro and his colleagues will be able to negotiate a legislative reference framework that is more respectful of quality and consumers' rights.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, I fully support Mr Castiglione's report on the proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the market in wine.\nThe creation of a wine market governed by simple and effective rules on production and principles of healthy competition on the Community market will not only improve the quality of European products; it will also raise the fruit farmers' standard of living.\nIt is also important that consumers should be aware of the production cycle of a given product and its precise origin.\nFurthermore, these arrangements will be decidedly beneficial for the production of fruit wine in my own country, and that is the main reason why I support the report.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We are voting against this report because it does not significantly alter the most important aspects of the European Commission's bad proposal for the vineyard and wine sector.\nAs we have always said, we disagree with this liberal position, which claims to be a move towards dismantling the common organisation of the market in the wine sector. The European Parliament itself examined this and went so far as to allow the addition of sugar and increase the possible rate compared with the levels then in force.\nBut one of the most serious aspects is the fact that it leaves the whole question of liberalisation of planting rights from 2013 open, although the rapporteur recognises that this will only serve to concentrate production in the hands of the biggest wine-growers, who already enjoy the benefit of substantial public aid and other privileges.\nEqually, we regret that the proposals we made to maintain planting rights and support the restructuring of wine-producing areas, especially family farms, small and medium-sized wine-growers and wine cooperatives were not adopted, although we note with satisfaction that some proposals were approved, notably the proposal advocating the distillation of alcohol intended for drinking.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) Although I agree with the need to reform the CMO in the wine sector and broadly speaking support the European Commission's proposal, I consider that the Castiglione report has made an important contribution, proposing some amendments which substantially improve the Commission's document.\nI note, among other positive aspects, the introduction of the possibility of continuing aid for the distillation of alcohol intended for drinking.\nI voted for Amendments 33 and 223 because I consider that the liberalisation of the sector should not be abrupt, and I rejected Amendments 314, 347, 293 and 217 because I do not agree with the introduction of the possibility of continuing the procedure of enrichment with sugar, a practice that could cause imbalances between producers, and I therefore support the European Commission's original text here.\nFran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate  \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the general thrust of this report with its thorough overhaul of the European Commission proposal, which had included, by the way, a massive grubbing-up operation affecting 400 000 hectares of vines. That proposal ignored the social realities of the wine-growing sector and would have resulted in further land lying fallow, to the detriment of the landscape. The report views grubbing-up as a potentially useful measure, to be proposed on a voluntary basis.\nAnother positive proposal concerns the possible implementation of restructuring measures in the wine industry. The European wine industry needs powerful, successful operators in order to withstand international competition.\nOn the other hand, the proposals on crisis prevention, while necessary, do not go far enough. Given the extent to which production fluctuates, the proposed measures would be merely palliative. What is lacking is a proper crisis-management mechanism that adds something new to the existing measures.\nLastly, I am sorry there is no provision for indication on the label of enrichment through the addition of sucrose: this would have been a straightforward, transparent means of information for the consumer.\nChrista Klass  \nin writing. - (DE) In the common organisation of the wine market, the Commission seeks to take account of the special characteristics of wine-producing regions by delegating more responsibility and creating more scope for initiative.\nToday the European Parliament has set down these very aims on paper. We have absolute confidence in our proposals, which were adopted by all Members of Parliament from all Member States. Viniculture in Europe is part of our heritage. The cradle of global wine production is here in Europe. Viniculture means business, income and jobs. It is not the task of the Commission to seek market balance by limiting our production or by changing the rules to make production impossible. It is, however, the Commission's task to safeguard our share of global markets and to ensure that our products enjoy the international prestige they merit. The aim must not be to restrict the market but to open up new markets. Why should we alter winemaking methods for wines that are selling well? Our winemaking methods are rooted in ancient cultures and traditions.\nToday the European Parliament has clearly reaffirmed its support for more market measures, national budgets and scope for regional initiative, for socially sensitive phasing-out of intervention measures and for the preservation of existing oenological practices, in other words the addition of sucrose and rectified concentrated must (RCM), with these additives being placed on an equal footing by means of additional RCM subsidies.\nI hope that our proposals will be incorporated into the new common organisation of the market in wine.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried  \nin writing. - (DE) In years when conditions are unfavourable for vine-growing and when there is too little sunshine, the fructose content of grapes is insufficient to produce the volume of alcohol required for fermentation. For this reason we add sugar, which does not alter the taste of the wine. The crucial point is that the sugar is added before fermentation and not afterwards, which means that it is not a matter of sweetening sour wine, and the addition of sugar is only permissible for table wines and vins de pays.\nThis should remain the case in future. The Commission's plans to replace beet sugar, which has hitherto been the standard additive, with grape must from the southern regions with production surpluses, do not stand up to scrutiny. Apart from the impassioned debate among experts regarding variations in flavour, there is also an environmental argument. It does not make sense to me to transport grape must all the way across Europe to areas that already have their own supply of sugar beet.\nNils Lundgren  \nin writing. - (SV) The amendments to the report which we had to consider in today's vote are quite ludicrous. An example: the amount of sugar to be contained in different kinds of wine should in fact be left to the consumers who buy the products themselves to decide. It should not be determined in decision-making processes between the EU institutions.\nProducers in other parts of the world have managed to produce wines which appeal to the tastes of European consumers and at the same time are cheaper than European wines. According to the majority in the European Parliament, this must be combated by pumping more money into the agricultural policy and by conducting various campaigns.\nThere is no doubt that excellent wines are produced in Europe. The question of principle is whether it is right for poorer countries to be crowded out in order to favour European wine production.\nIt is important to have a perspective which takes all factors into account, including the public health interest, when wine production is discussed. This is lacking in the report.\nFor these reasons I have voted to reject the Commission proposal and the European Parliament report on the matter. Wine producers should operate in a free market and not, as at present, receive huge subsidies from the EU.\nJean-Claude Martinez  \nin writing. - (FR) The wine-growing people of Languedoc and Roussillon - of the red-grounded Cross of Toulouse, symbolising the century of revolt that began with Marcelin Albert in 1907 and continued with Andr\u00e9 Cast\u00e9ra in 1976, the people whose land stretches from the Rhone to the Garonne - are under threat from the European Commission. It wants to remove them and plant their lands instead with colonies of retired Brits. Tea drinkers are to oust the men who live by harvesting grapes and making wine in the Minervois, in Corbi\u00e8res and Costi\u00e8res and the Picpoul vineyards.\nThis is a crime against civilisation! And it is being perpetrated under the mendacious cover of alleged over-production. But what is the truth?\nThe truth is the 150 000 hectares of illegal vineyards in Spain and Italy. It is those illegal vines that ought to be grubbed up, because what is being talked of as excess production is, in fact, excess importation - amounting to 12 million hectolitres every year.\nMoreover, for every vine that we grub up, a new one will be planted on the Pacific Rim; and when China develops a taste for wine we are likely to find ourselves with a worldwide shortage.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) With its proposal for the reform of wine production, the Commission seems to have come up with yet another pi\u00e8ce de r\u00e9sistance. On the one hand, it is trying to dry out Europe's wine lakes by giving financial rewards for reductions in the total vineyard area, while on the other hand it intends to allow vine-planting everywhere after 2013. If the growing restrictions are lifted, however, labour-intensive hillside vineyards will become unviable.\nAs if it were not enough to make these wine producers fear for their existence, the planned sugaring ban would deprive the whole of northern Europe of its harvest in years with relatively little sunshine, while the abolition of aid for concentrated grape must would ultimately make wine production impossible in southern Europe too. Add to that the mooted ban on the designation 'table wine', which would inevitably result in a surfeit of varietal wines of the lowest category, and it becomes impossible to avoid the notion that the planners of this reform simply lack the necessary expertise and sensitivity. The Castiglione report is an improvement on these proposals, which is why I have voted for it.\nPierre Pribetich  \nin writing. - (FR) My colleagues and I backed Giuseppe Castiglione's report on the common organisation of the market in wine by a large majority.\nIn particular, I supported four amendments that I consider essential not only for safeguarding the European wine-growing industry, especially in Burgundy and Franche Comt\u00e9, but also for making it more competitive.\nI voted in favour of Amendment 271, opposing the Commission plan to put an end to chaptalisation. It is, in fact, vitally important that we should maintain the wine-making traditions of chaptalisation that are carried on in many regions of Europe, including Burgundy and Franche Comt\u00e9 - which I happen to represent.\nI also supported Amendments 33 and 223, opposing complete liberalisation of planting rights from 1 January 2014: the interests of wine-growers dictate that we should wait until the end of the grubbing-up scheme, to see how effective it has been, before we contemplate liberalisation.\nFinally, I voted for Amendment 107, seeking to maintain compulsory distillation.\nIn general I am satisfied with the amendments that Parliament has made; I supported this report and I hope it will have a positive influence on the Agricultural Council on 17-19 December, where the interests of our regions will be at stake.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting for the report by our esteemed colleague Mr Castiglione. There has long been a need for a reform of the wine sector that restores the profile and competitiveness of Community wines and enables European producers to recapture former markets and capture new ones. European, especially Italian, producers are experiencing fierce competition from new producers.\nThis is due not so much to a downturn in internal consumption as to exaggerated production costs, to over-rigid and complex regulations, which often limit the possibility of adjusting production to suit changes in demand, and to over-timid promotion and marketing policies. We need to make the most of the quality of European and Italian wines. To enable the European Union to consolidate its leading position in the wine sector, the reform of the CMO in wine should focus on improving quality, and that means promoting, safeguarding and reinforcing regional, designation of origin and geographical indication wines, which represent quality European products on the world market.\nKarin Scheele  \nin writing. - (DE) In years when conditions are unfavourable for vine-growing and when there is too little sunshine, the fructose content of grapes is insufficient to produce the volume of alcohol required for fermentation. For this reason we add sugar, which does not alter the taste of the wine. The crucial point is that the sugar is added before fermentation and not afterwards, which means that it is not a matter of sweetening sour wine, and the addition of sugar is only permissible for table wines and vins de pays. This should remain the case in future. The Commission's plans to replace beet sugar, which has hitherto been the standard additive, with grape must from the southern regions with production surpluses, do not stand up to scrutiny.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I voted for this report but there are still many areas of concern that Parliament has chosen not to address, notably to make the sector more competitive against third country imports, and to improve the quality of wine produced at EU level. Sadly national and regional priorities have got in the way of a lasting reform programme.\nIn Europe we must protect our quality wine, and we must also address the issue of producing quality wines at an affordable price. There is no doubt the Commission's proposals have been watered down. Thankfully, however, my amendment to lift the de minimis criteria, and those amendments to allow chaptalisation have been accepted by Parliament. These amendments are crucial for northern countries and my own wine producers in the United Kingdom.\nThe European wine industry still faces many threats, and in the EU we are seeing our own market share disappearing to New World countries.\nBut why? It is because they can produce excellent-quality wine at an affordable price and with a marketing strategy that is based on what the consumer wants in the 21st century; not what the Romans planted in the third. We need quality, not quantity, and we need to produce wine that offers value for money.\nPeter Skinner  \nin writing. - The wine market in the EU depends upon the widest variety of choice and upon local production which is sustainable. For many, the issue of wine is as close to a cultural issue as language itself. This is why this vote today was such a contentious one.\nThe impact of sugar labelling or of denying wineries from using sugar additives would have had a prohibitive effect on wine production in northern Europe. Many excellent wines now originate from the UK and particularly in the south-east of England. This has been the case since the Romans first brought wine to the UK.\nI voted to maintain this tradition and for an open market.\nPhilip Bradbourn  \nin writing. - Conservatives voted against this resolution for the reasons that, firstly, the motion calls for more EU involvement through the proposed Reform Treaty and would thus extend the competence of the EU into the highly sensitive area of national security. Conservatives believe in a strong partnership at a global level with all those nations fighting the war on terror, and especially with our American allies. This motion fails to recognise the need for cooperation rather than harmonisation on this issue.\nMichael Cashman  \nin writing. - The British Socialist Delegation (EPLP) welcomed and voted in favour of the resolution on terrorism. Whilst the final version of the resolution adopted by the European Parliament is not perfect, we recognise the importance of sending a clear, unequivocal signal to those who threaten our way of life that we shall not succumb.\nThe EPLP is convinced that the EU can and will do all it can to defeat terrorism and that with neighbouring Member States and international allies working together we are more likely to achieve this ultimate goal than by isolationist policies.\nWe take full responsibility for our role as parliamentarians to extensively scrutinise Commission proposals in this field to ensure that any legislation which is adopted is appropriate, proportionate and respects the fundamental rights of our citizens. We will continue to be critical of allies' policy where there are policy differences, however we recognise and welcome the on-going co-operation between the EU and democratic states, especially the important relationship between the EU and the US, in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. We remain convinced that it is through co-operation with our allies not antagonism or retaliation that we will defeat those who seek to destroy our values and principles through violence and hatred.\nSylwester Chruszcz  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, the EU Member States have a duty to combat terrorism in all its forms, while remaining within the bounds of law and respect for human and civil rights and freedoms. The fight against terrorism transcends national frontiers, and the need for international cooperation is obvious.\nIt is absolutely necessary that all institutions and authorities given special powers in the fight against terrorism be subject to full democratic control by an independent judiciary.\nThe fight against terrorism must not - as the resolution adopted today attempts to do - serve to increase the police and judicial powers of Brussels at the expense of the nation states. That is why I did not support today's resolution on terrorism in the EU.\nPatrick Gaubert  \nin writing. - (FR) Terrorism has become a greater threat than ever before to the security of all European Union citizens. The EPP-ED Group has therefore made combating terrorism a priority and it had hoped to see the adoption of a resolution to that end.\nThe resolution tabled highlights how hard and how necessary it is to strike the right balance between security and respect for individual freedoms. In our European democracies we certainly do need to ensure that anti-terrorism measures are proportionate to their purpose, so that they do not compromise the personal freedoms of any of our citizens.\nAt the same time, we have to remember that the Union's primary aim is to defend the right of every European citizen to life and to security, and it pursues that aim by preventing and opposing terrorism.\nIt is unfortunate that a large number of distinctly disproportionate and, in some cases, unjustified provisions have upset the balance in this text. Despite the amendments that our group introduced, the resolution ultimately adopted in plenary reflects neither the spirit nor the letter of our position on this matter, and that is why I voted against it.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Although it contains aspects that criticise, albeit mildly, the violations of human rights committed in the name of the so-called 'fight against terrorism' - violations which we clearly and firmly condemned from the outset - this resolution does not dissociate itself from the fight or seek to challenge it when international law is flouted and State terrorism is practised in its name.\nYes, it certainly calls for criticism of the violation of the right to a fair trial and data protection, the lack of transparency and democratic control, the refusal of the Council to answer 'allegations of abuse of powers under the pretext of counter-terrorism, in particular in the case of CIA extraordinary renditions and black sites'.\nNevertheless, we cannot accept that, under cover of the so-called 'fight against terrorism', Parliament should 'warmly welcome the adoption of the new Reform Treaty' and call on 'the Member States to ratify it'; that it should highlight, once again, that 'the US is an essential partner in this field', adopting US foreign policy lock, stock and barrel; or that it should call for 'the powers of Europol to be reinforced' and for it to be accorded 'independent power to conduct investigations'.\nMary Lou McDonald  \nin writing. - I could not support today's motion for a resolution on the fight against terrorism for a number of reasons.\nFirstly, its enthusiastic welcome for the Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty) is not one I can share in. I believe the Reform Treaty will not make Europe a safer place for citizens of Member States.\nI also have concerns regarding the civil liberties aspects of this motion for a resolution. This motion for a resolution, although it has some excellent points, is unbalanced with too great an emphasis on legislation and security cooperation.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Europe has become more of a target for terrorists because it has allowed itself to be reduced to the role of an accomplice in the breaches of international law and human rights committed in the name of US foreign policy and also because it has not managed to act as an honest broker on the Palestinian question. It is high time the EU recognised that mass immigration from the Islamic world is a potential security risk, particularly since emigration to Europe has become a means of acquiring martyr status and the infiltration of the Christian West by Muslim immigrants has been declared a religious objective.\nInstead of acting accordingly and pressing for an immediate halt to immigration from Islamic countries as well as getting to grips with the repatriation of illegal immigrants, the EU is adopting a softly-softly approach to avoid vexing the Muslims who are here already. It is chiefly because this report seems to regard the EU Reform Treaty, with its disdain for democracy, as the cure for terrorism that I have voted against it today.\nCristiana Muscardini  \nin writing. - (IT) We asked the European Parliament to deal seriously with the problem of terrorism at the July part-session. Some clever person decided, however, to talk about it in September and vote in December: another five months wasted and yet more words aiming more to defend the rights of freedom of expression of terrorists, who are making increasing use of information networks, than to protect the safety of European citizens and the other countries attacked by terrorism.\nWe award the Sakharov Prize to Mr Osman and we leave him alone to fight to defend the lives of millions of people in Darfur, we continue to ignore the violence of the Islamic fundamentalists in Somalia and we weep crocodile tears for the 50 victims in Algeria.\nShame!\nFor that reason I cannot support your resolution and I shall vote against it.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nin writing. - (EL) The European Parliament resolution matches and in many respects outstrips the reactionary policy and anti-democratic measures of the EU, which, on the pretext of fighting terrorism, restricts the fundamental personal rights and democratic freedoms of workers. It calls for still greater strengthening of police and judicial cooperation between the enforcement mechanisms and secret security services of the Member States, Europol and Eurojust, and for greater effectiveness in the operation of the SIS II and VIS databases, in order to extend and increase the effectiveness of the monitoring and filing of information on workers throughout the EU. Not only does this resolution align itself fully with the new dimension which the EU is giving to its 'counter-terrorism strategy', i.e. combating and preventing so-called 'violent radicalisation', but it demands that the strategy should be fought for and that it should be aimed, amongst other things, against 'incitement to commit violent actions'. This strategy against 'radicalisation' reveals the real target of this so-called 'counter-terrorism' policy of the EU and its enforcement mechanisms: all those who resist and challenge its reactionary policy. However, no matter how many resolutions are passed by the political mouthpieces of the monopolies, they will not stop the opposition movements and the steadily growing groundswell of opinion challenging the EU itself as an imperialist inter-state union of European capital.\nColm Burke, Avril Doyle, Jim Higgins, Mairead McGuinness and Gay Mitchell  \nin writing. - The Fine Gael delegation in the European Parliament voted against paragraph 16 of the resolution on the Commission's Legislative and Work Programme 2008 as we are vehemently opposed to any EU initiative to establish a European Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). We welcome the fact that the Commission does not intend to propose legislation on this matter in its programme for next year.\nTax competition is vital for promoting growth, attracting investment and enabling Member States, especially those in the Eurozone, to manage their economy. The ECB sets interest rates and the Stability and Growth Pact sets borrowing and inflation requirements for the Eurozone, tax policy is therefore one of the most important instruments left to Eurozone Member States under the Treaty and must be safeguarded.\nThe Fine Gael MEPs believe an EU CCCTB would lead eventually to the establishment of a single tax rate in Europe and are strongly against it.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) We are voting against this resolution because the proposals expressing our serious concern over the acceleration of the process of liberalisation and deregulation, which is occurring in many sectors and which poses a threat to employment, the quality of services provided and the future of public services in the EU, were not accepted. What remains is biased against the State as a supplier of services of general interest, since the whole emphasis is on liberalisation.\nMonetary and fiscal policy in the EU has also been restrictive, the prime objective being to stabilise prices and consolidate the budget in accordance with the Stability and Growth Pact even though we know that the process of nominal convergence has an adverse effect on economic growth and employment, economic and social cohesion, real convergence between the EU Member States, and public investment.\nIt also lays emphasis on the neoliberal Lisbon Strategy, which has been the principal instrument used in the EU to promote the liberalisation and privatisation of services and public facilities, flexibility and adaptability in labour markets, wage reductions and the opening up to private interests of most social security provisions, including pensions and health.\nLidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg  \nin writing. - (PL) Madam President, the work programme for 2008 adopts a complex approach aimed at implementing a vision of Europe that meets its citizens' future expectations. The European Commission's main priorities for the coming year are activities to promote economic growth and employment, sustainable development, and the management of migratory flows. They also concern climate change, energy, future enlargement of the EU and action on the international scene.\nIt should be stressed that the work plan was elaborated in the light of detailed discussions with other institutions, including the issues discussed recently in the debate on globalisation at the Council's informal meeting in Lisbon. The programme also includes priorities in the field of communications that are a further step by the Commission in its efforts to improve the flow of information about the EU to the citizens of Europe.\nI was pleased to see the announcement of a new approach to implementation of the principle of subsidiarity and independent assessment of the consequences of proposed legislation to avoid mistakes in future. The proposals for new legislation to improve the situation of women, especially in reconciling the demands of family and working life - which is an important step towards combating the decline in Europe's natural increase rate - are also very welcome.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Among the many aspects that warrant criticism on this subject, I would like to focus on one of the priorities for 2008, described by the President of the Commission as one of the most significant: the ratification of the proposal for a Treaty on European Union.\nThe majority of the EP 'welcomes the Commission's commitment to supporting the ratification of the Reform Treaty', 'urges the Commission ... to intensify its efforts to develop a more effective communication policy in order to achieve a better understanding by citizens of EU action ... with a view to preparing the way for ratification of the Reform Treaty and the European elections in 2009' and 'calls on the Commission to set out clearly how it intends to put into practice the content of its ... priorities, particularly the priority relating to the Reform Treaty'.\nIn view of the inadmissible role played by the Commission during the referendums on the so-called 'European constitution' conducted in 2005, such intentions, long proclaimed and now reaffirmed, will, if they are carried out, represent a genuine interference in the process of ratification which is a matter for each Member State.\nWhat a contradiction on the part of the President of the Commission who, when asked about the process of ratification, replied that it was for each Member State to decide, but who specifically makes it one of his priorities to meddle with that decision!\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Since it was impossible to secure private funding, as originally planned, to supplement the financing of the 'Galileo' project, the European Union 'decided' that it should be financed entirely with public capital, notably from the Community budget.\nThis is the reason for the amendment to the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) - which established the Financial Framework for 2007-2013 - increasing the ceiling for authorisations granted under subheading 1a (competitiveness for growth) for the years 2008 to 2013 to a total of EUR 1 600 million at current prices, at the cost of under-budgeting and under-implementing the items under heading 2 ('preservation and management of natural resources', namely agriculture, fisheries and the environment) in 2007.\nWith this revision of the IIA and the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, the EU is securing the future of its great 'priority' by guaranteeing its funding. It still remains to be seen whether, once the 'Galileo' project is completed - completed, it should be noted, with public funding - it will not be 'offered' at some later date to private capital, on the basis of some public-private partnership for example, with the public party bearing the costs and private capital making the profits.\nMarian Harkin  \nin writing. - Do not support the creation of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi  \nin writing. - (RO) I am in favour of adopting the European Commission's legislative programme for next year and I believe it reflects the political priorities of the European Union very well. Nevertheless, the legislative proposals the Commission is preparing regarding the legislation of private companies and small and medium-sized companies should not affect the Member States policies that have significantly contributed to the economic growth over the last years, such as the single tax rate.\nAlso, the recent communication of the European Commission regarding the \"Health Check\" of the Common Agricultural Policy is a good basis for interinstitutional negotiation. For this purpose, the European Commission must suspend legislative proposals fundamentally amending provisions of the European Commission until the conclusion of debates between the European institutions and Member States.\nLast but not least, I regret the absence of legislative initiatives in the field of common visa policy, as regards the reciprocity of granting free movement of persons between the European Union and third countries. I remind the European Commission that 12 Member States, representing over 100 million citizens of the European Union, are still excluded from the Visa Waiver Program for the United States of America.\nGenowefa Grabowska  \nin writing. - (PL) As a member of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly, I wish to support the results of last week's EU-Africa summit meeting in Lisbon. At the Parliamentary Assembly's last session in Kigali we called for prudence and the avoidance of hasty further regulation of relations between the EU and Africa. Clearly, the Joint EU-Africa Strategy must take account of the interests of both partners, and cooperation should not take place at the expense of either of them.\nThe fact that the European Union is the African countries' most serious economic partner - and that most aid to Africa comes from Europe - also imposes a special responsibility on the Union. That was made clear in the Joint Statement of the European and Pan-African Parliaments, which rightly called for greater involvement of both bodies in shaping future relations between the two continents. The European Parliament has clearly stated its support for the Kigali Declaration of 22 November 2007, calling for extension of the deadline for concluding negotiations on a new EU-ACP trade agreement, for the agreement to be a prudent one, and suggesting that the rigorous demands of the WTO need to be relaxed. It is good that the priorities set until the next summit in 2009 refer not only to peace, security, human rights, energy, climate change and migration, but also to combating poverty through employment, investment in health care, and education.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) If there were any doubts about the EU's real intentions with regard to the free trade agreements it proposes to establish with the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group of States, agreements which are described as 'economic partnership agreements' (EPAs) and which were much in evidence at the recent EU-Africa summit because some African countries refused to sign them, a reading of the resolution that has now been approved would suffice to explain them. However, Jo\u00e3o Cravinho, Portugal's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, as President of the Council, had already made things quite clear at the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly at Kigali on 21 November.\nAlthough obliged to retreat (for the moment), the EU sought to counter the resistance by coming up with a 'proposal to negotiate' the EPAs 'in two phases, starting with trade in goods' and proceeding later 'to include other areas, such as services and investment', at the same time promising millions and millions of euros as a pledge of the ACP countries' sovereignty and independence (economic and, soon, political). That is the object of the 'General Affairs and External Relations' Council decision of 17 November 2007.\nThe majority of the EP applauds and supports the decision. As for us, we denounce and oppose such intentions and policies, by which the EU seeks to recolonise the ACP countries economically.\nKarin Scheele  \nin writing. - (DE) I welcome the fact that a large percentage of the European Parliament supports the substance of the Kigali Declaration on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which was jointly formulated in Rwanda by Members of Parliament from European, African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. I am disappointed, however, that a jointly negotiated text which was approved by the Members of the European Parliament and the parliamentarians from the ACP countries at the ACP-EU meeting in Kigali has suddenly been rejected by the EPP-ED and Liberal Groups in Strasbourg. I firmly believe this sends entirely the wrong signal in the context of negotiations on an issue which is of vital importance to the ACP countries.\nMargie Sudre  \nin writing. - (FR) EPAs must not be seen merely as free-trade agreements in the WTO sense and, above all, they must not undermine the already vulnerable economies of communities overseas.\nThese agreements must constitute proper partnerships that will make for the establishment of a new economic and trading environment to promote development in all the territories concerned.\nI am grateful to the Members of the House for adopting my amendment, which points out that the interests of overseas communities lie at the heart of these preferential, reciprocal agreements with the ACP countries. It is essential that we take more consistent account of the particular circumstances of the outermost regions in the negotiations, on the basis of Article 299(2) of the Treaty. Overseas Countries and Territories adjoining the ACP also merit special attention, in accordance with the association agreements that already link them to the Union under Article 299(3) of the Treaty.\nEven if the current discussions are problematic, especially on the issues of local markets and the list of sensitive products, I would urge the Commission to seek compromises that respect the particular interests of the outermost regions and the Overseas Countries and Territories in question.\n(The sitting was suspended at 13.50 and resumed at 15.00)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Explanations of vote\nOral explanations of vote\nTunne Kelam\nMr President, I would like to put on record that, if we call for the sending of an ESDP border mission to Georgia, then we should also consider in the near future sending an EU police mission to Georgia.\nSylwester Chruszcz\n(PL) Mr President, I cannot support today's resolution on Georgia because I consider it to be unduly biased. The situation in the Caucasus is more complex than the text of the resolution now before us suggests. I should like to remind the House that Georgia has Stalin to thank for its present borders. The latter are the result of the policy Stalin, who was himself a native of Georgia, conducted in the 1920s and 1930s. In addition, the policy conducted by the Georgians during the 1990s did a lot to make the authorities in Suckhumi wish to break with Georgia. Furthermore, I cannot understand why the same Members who only recently so enthusiastically supported the independence of Serbian Kosovo are now denying two historical nations in the Caucasus the right to self-determination. I do, however, support the international efforts to promote dialogue and the peace process in the Caucasus.\nTunne Kelam\nMr President, I would like to support the original amendment by my colleague, James Elles, who has proposed a new paragraph which declares that the EU recognises the substantial contribution to the protection of the EU from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of the European-based US missile defence assets.\nFrank Vanhecke\n- (NL) Mr President, the resolution on the EU-US Summit does, of course, cover a very large number of different topics. A number of positions from this resolution are, for me, completely unacceptable, while others are extremely valuable. I had no choice, therefore, but to abstain.\nWhat I would like to add here, however, is that this resolution should, in the first place, have included a clear passage pointing out to the United States that it should not interfere with the potential expansion of the European Union. The way in which the United States regularly intervenes to champion the unacceptable Turkish case is, in my view, unacceptable interference in a European affair. The United States must realise that there is a great difference between the interests of NATO on the one hand, and the interests of the European Union and the people of Europe on the other hand. Turkey cannot join the European Union because it is not a European country. As far as this is concerned, we are asking for no more and no less than respect on the part of the United States.\nMario Borghezio\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am taking the subject of compensation for prisoners at Guant\u00e1namo, addressed in this report, as an opportunity to recall that there is another case of civilian and military prisoners still to be resolved: it involves a Member State, indeed a founder member of the European Union.\nYesterday, Italy's supreme Court of Appeal found in favour of the Italian military and civilian detainees who were seeking compensation for the work they performed in prison camps during the Second World War. This is an unresolved moral issue, which I have attempted to draw to the attention of the President of this House on several occasions. I have also raised it with Chancellor Merkel in this House: she stated in her personal capacity that she agreed on the need to settle the matter.\nNow that the attempts of the Federal Republic of Germany to delay the decision in court have finally been thwarted, one wonders whether - more than sixty years after the end of the war - Germany will now decide to compensate Italy's military detainees.\nNeil Parish\nMr President, I would like to thank Mr Veraldi very much for his report on young farmers. I think that we live in a world now where food production is becoming very important again and we have to look to the future. One of the ways of looking to the future of agriculture is through young farmers.\nWith the reform of the common agricultural policy, we now have the health check to look particularly at things which will help young farmers, and that is reduction in bureaucracy and abolishing quotas so that young farmers can go into milk production, which is one of the ways that they have always got into farming.\nWe also have to look a little bit further towards some sort of venture capital schemes, because one of the problems facing young farmers is they have very little collateral when they want to start farming. Very often banks will not give them the necessary cash to start, so I think we have to look forward to that as well. I believe that young farmers can link into food production, they can link into niche markets, and they can produce the type of food in the regions that we want and really link into the market place. I welcome the report and I look forward to supporting young farmers.\nAstrid Lulling\n(FR) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because if there is no acceptable future for young farmers, there will be no future for European agriculture. For many reasons relating to food safety, the supply of quality products, the environment, and preserving our beautiful mountainous landscapes and vineyards, we need to implement positive actions to encourage young people to work in the agricultural sector, to take over the family business.\nHowever, above all I would like to express my satisfaction that, on the basis of my initiative in the Committee on Agriculture, the European Parliament has just added an amendment to draw specific attention to the importance of providing information about the status of partners assisting farmers. I would like to point out in this regard that in 1997 - more than 10 years ago - this Parliament adopted by a vast majority my report on the status of assisting spouses in the agricultural sector. In our resolution, we stressed in particular that Member States should ensure that all assisting spouses in the agricultural sector are eligible for insurance cover for retirement pensions. The Commission did not follow this through. We have such a system in my country: compulsory insurance. That example should be followed and we need a framework directive to achieve that.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried\n(DE) Mr President, I wish to point out that I abstained in the vote on this report, but not because I disagree with the view that young farmers need support. I strongly believe that they do indeed require support, for young farmers undoubtedly face greater problems than many other farmers.\nThe reason why I abstained had to do with the vote on paragraph 4, which makes reference to the situation of young farmers in the so-called new Member States. In my view, now that almost an entire legislative term has elapsed, it is surely time to drop the reference to the so-called 'new' Member States and treat them as full Member States of equal value, for in my opinion, they are now well-established as such.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, since the end of the Second World War we have worked hard to achieve the period of peace and stability we now enjoy. Even so, we are today threatened by terrorism, regional conflicts and international crime. The European Union's role in the contemporary world should be to spread peace, democracy, and freedom across the globe. The Union should also ensure stability, and combat humanitarian disasters and mass violations of human rights. That is the vision enshrined in the European common foreign and security policy. We are jointly responsible for ensuring security at global level.\nSecurity now involves more than resolving international conflicts and protecting borders. A wider interpretation of security is needed. We must place greater emphasis on the types of security that are not covered by the European common foreign and security policy, namely food security and energy security.\nIt ought to be borne in mind that the desired objective can only be achieved through cooperation and the exchange of best practice. Coordinated action is essential both at Member State level and between the various European institutions. There must also be collaboration with NATO and cooperation with other regional and global organisations.\nMargaritis Schinas\n(EL) Mr President, I am asking to speak because we have just voted by an overwhelming majority in favour of making EUR 90 million available from the EU's Solidarity Fund to Greece in the wake of last summer's disastrous forest fires.\nEuropean public opinion was shocked by last summer's disaster. Today's European Parliament decision is a gesture of real solidarity with the regions and citizens who were severely affected last August.\nLet me thank all my fellow Members in the Committee on Budgets, and you as well, ladies and gentlemen, for the most interesting and rapid work we have accomplished and for the very successful hearing we have organised. Allow me to make one final point, Mr President: we are perhaps the only parliament in the world which manages to stifle good news. Today we have an important decision on the allocation of money to Greek citizens. For technical rather than political reasons, we have, unfortunately, not been able to make the decision by means of a debate. I regret this, but the effectiveness of the decision is more important than anything.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n(PL) Mr President, we are facing a tremendous challenge in terms of how to encourage young people to remain in rural areas. There is also a shortage of people willing to go into farming, and to take on the farms run by their parents. Young farmers who are starting out come up against many difficulties. The latter include a shortage of suitable land, high prices, production limits, lack of start-up capital for investment, expensive loans and strict agri-environmental requirements.\nAlmost one third of Polish farmers are young people under the age of 40. As a group, they are open to change, technological progress and innovation. Young farmers are just like other entrepreneurs. They are enthusiastic and are not afraid of new challenges. They are also crucial to our future, because the food security of Europe and of the world depends on them. They need help to become better qualified, through vocational training and advice. In addition, efforts should be made to improve the financial conditions for running a business in a rural area, to eliminate the differences in the pace of development of technical and social infrastructure between rural areas and towns. Above all else, stable conditions for development must be ensured.\nWritten explanations of vote\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1405\/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands, two lines of support (aid for supply and aid for local production) were set up.\nCertain technical aspects must, however, be corrected in order to fully apply this Regulation and these two lines of support, which is why I support the Commission proposal and the Parish report.\nRichard James Ashworth  \nin writing. - We note that the PDAB 3 contains positive measures, such as: to authorise the total figure of \u20ac849m owed by Microsoft for abusing their market position; to vote through the funds under the EUSF for Greece and Slovenia; to fully fund the provision of bluetongue vaccine to combat the disease and to provide 50% of the cost of implementation per Member State and provide savings on salaries and pensions for the Institution's staff.\nHowever, we also note that the PDAB contains undesirable measures such as the salary increase for the Director of the Gender Institute as well as changes to the establishment plan of the European Economic and Social Committee.\nWe welcome the criticism of the previous two measures in the Virrankoski report and, while we are against the decision to adopt the PDAB 3 unamended, accept that the raft of positive measures outlined must be voted through this session.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the joint report by my Finnish colleagues Ky\u00f6sti Virrankoski and Ville It\u00e4l\u00e4 on the third draft amending budget of the European Union for 2008.\nIt relates mainly to: the budgeting of the revenue accruing from the Microsoft case (fine and interest totalling EUR 849 200 000); the budgeting of savings arising from the smaller than estimated increase for salaries and pensions of officials in 2007; the reinforcement of the emergency fund for veterinary measures due to the bluetongue crisis (EUR 130 million in commitment appropriations, and EUR 63 950 000 in payment appropriations); the creation of budgetary items to accommodate subsidies for four Joint Undertakings: Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), Clean Sky, ARTEMIS (embedded computing systems) and ENIAC (European Technology Platform on Nanoelectronics), totalling EUR 257.5 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 194.6 million in payment appropriations from the Seventh Framework Programme for Research; and the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for an amount of EUR 98 million (forest fires in Greece and floods in Slovenia).\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) This draft amending budget covers, among other items, mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund in favour of Greece and Slovenia. The aim is to help compensate for the damage caused by the forest fires and flooding which seriously affected the populations of these two countries in 2007.\nThe draft also aims to reinforce the emergency fund for veterinary measures due to the bluetongue crisis which has affected several Member States, including Portugal. Accordingly, in order to finance 100% of the cost of supply of the vaccine and 50% of the costs incurred in carrying out the vaccination in nine Member States, it is planned to include in the Community budget EUR 130 million in commitments and EUR 63.95 million in payments.\nHowever, we would highlight the inclusion of over EUR 257 million in commitments and EUR 194 million in payments for the creation of new public-private partnerships in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities. These partnerships cover Innovative Medicines (IMI), 'Clean Sky', European Technology Platform on Nanoelectronics and ARTEMIS for Embedded Computing Systems. At the very least, these initiatives need a public development strategy and public investment that are not dependent on private capital interests.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Finnish colleague Ky\u00f6sti Virrankoski on the fourth draft amending budget of the European Parliament for 2008. It relates solely to the inclusion in the 2008 budget of the surplus of the 2007 financial year, i.e. EUR 1 528 833 290.\nFor 2007 the difference between the revenue received (EUR 117.4 billion) and the payments made (EUR 112.9 billion) shows a surplus of EUR 4.5 billion, from which must be subtracted the payment appropriations carried over to 2008, i.e. EUR 3.1 billion. To this surplus of EUR 1.4 billion the cancelled EUR 0.2 billion of the appropriations carried over from 2006 to 2007 must be added and the negative balance of monetary exchange of EUR 0.1 billion must be subtracted, giving the 2007 surplus of EUR 1.5 billion. This surplus is primarily due to an under-spending in expenditure of just under EUR 1.6 billion.\nI am sorry that, instead of being automatically refunded to the Member States, there was no political debate on allocating this surplus, for example, to financing investment in the trans-European transport networks. I still remember the difficulties we encountered when trying to find some EUR 3.5 billion to finance the excellent Galileo project.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The aim of this amending budget is to include the surplus from the budget year 2007 in the Community budget for 2008. This surplus is over EUR 1.528 billion and is due mainly, inter alia, to the delay in approving operational programmes of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to be transferred to the various Member States.\nThe draft also includes amounts not used in 2007 under the EU's common foreign and security policy, such as the 'police mission' to Afghanistan and the so-called 'civil mission' to Kosovo. As regards the situation in Kosovo, we would highlight the illegal and illegitimate military\/'civil' operation by the US-NATO-EU - in other words, interference, destabilisation, aggression, occupation and unilateral declaration of independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo, with total disregard for international law - and the current 'stalemate in negotiations on the transfer of responsibilities from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to EULEX' (European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo) in the United Nations.\nFinally, I want to point out that the 'surplus' from 2007 will reduce the Member States' contributions to the Community budget, in particular as follows: EUR 300 million less for Germany, EUR 258 million less for the United Kingdom and EUR 233 million less for France. This is what is known as 'winning every which way'...\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of adoption of the report on the draft amending budget of the European Union No 4\/2008 for the financial year 2008 (9904\/2008 - C6-0207\/2008 -. The report by Mr Virrankoski is thorough and to the point.\nI agree with the rapporteur's stance that the balance of each year's budget should be entered in the budget for the subsequent financial year as revenue or expenditure. In the case before us it would be the budget for 2008. This should be done through an amending budget to be submitted to the Commission.\nPhilip Bradbourn  \nin writing. - Conservatives abstained on this report as it forms part of the European objective to develop an area for freedom, security and justice - instead preferring an intergovernmental approach.\nCarlos Coelho  \nin writing. - (PT) The European Union strategy on the prevention and control of organised crime indicates the need to develop a comprehensive EU policy against corruption in which all the relevant players must actively participate.\nEffective prevention and combating of corruption in Europe therefore depend on the existence of effective and efficient cooperation between the respective authorities and services of the Member States, identifying opportunities, sharing good practices and developing high professional standards.\nFor this reason I support the idea of formally establishing an anti-corruption network with contact points in the Member States, the activities of which must be fully associated (within the respective competencies) with other organisations and agencies playing a fundamental role in this fight, as is the case with OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office), Europol and Eurojust.\nI also support the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, Hubert Pirker, in particular the amendment on the need for transparency and information in relation to the activities and recommendations of this network, which must result in the presentation of an annual report to the Commission and the European Parliament.\nTitus Corl\u0103\u0163ean  \nin writing. - (RO) I welcome the Council's decision regarding the contact points network against corruption, aimed at improving cooperation between the authorities fighting against corruption in the EU.\nEuropean cooperation is an essential element in the fight against corruption, especially in the new Member States, where non-governmental organizations and European experts underline the continuing existence of some significant deficiencies, including those within the operation of the legal system.\nThe last assessment report of GRECO (The States' Group against Corruption) of the Council of Europe with regard to Romania, outlines, for the year 2007, that our country has implemented only 40% of the anti-corruption measures advised by the European institutions. On this occasion, I invite the Romanian rightist government to assume in public the failure of its programmes in the fight against corruption.\nI consider that the fight against corruption should be a major objective of the European Union in order to provide its citizens a space of freedom, security and justice. The European Commission (by means of OLAF), Europol and Eurojust should be part of this network.\nUnfortunately, in several of the new EU Member States, including Romania, the fight against corruption is rather used as an election promise and as a political weapon directed against the opposition political parties.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The establishment of a 'network of contact points' in a framework of cooperation between the various Member States, with the aim of sharing experiences and good practices, could form another asset in the fight against corruption in each country.\nAccording to the EC Treaty, the Community and the Member States are responsible for adopting measures to combat fraud and protect the Community's financial interests. At Community level there is, for example, a need to guarantee more autonomy and resources for the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).\nHowever, we dislike the fact that this measure is regarded as an embryo and will be used to promote or will be part of the more general objective of developing the so-called 'area of freedom, security and justice', in line with the 2005 Hague Programme, in particular by bringing justice and home affairs within the Community system.\nThis communitisation process is encouraged and ensured by the Treaty now known as the 'Lisbon' Treaty, by removing from the Member States' sovereignty (from their parliaments and other national institutions) those responsibilities which are at the heart of this sovereignty.\nWe therefore repeat our reservations about the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor, which is a stage in the process of establishing a future 'European Public Prosecutor's Office' based around Europol, Eurojust and OLAF.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Corruption is a widespread problem affecting every sector of our society, whether it be the economy, trade unions or the administration. After cases of corruption at Siemens that ran into billions, the newspapers are now full of articles about the scandal in the Polish football league. Even the EU hits the headlines again and again, and certainly not in a positive way, with accusations of corruption, mismanagement, mis-spending and so on.\nThe fact that the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) is there to pool the anti-corruption efforts of all the Council of Europe members is therefore welcome. We must hope that the right lessons will be learned. It is not only Bulgaria which must improve its record on combating corruption; the EU must put its own house in order as well. We still have far too lax management of EU funds, poor controls, lengthy procedures and virtually no way of recouping EU funding that is paid out incorrectly.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my French colleague Marie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Aubert, which proposes amending, via the consultation procedure, the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. It has become urgent to tackle this issue because illegal fishing is a serious problem all over the world.\nI unreservedly support this initiative, which, as the rapporteur points out, was proposed by the European Parliament in February 2007. I welcome the clarification that access to ports of Member States, the provision of port services, and the conduct of landing, transhipment or on-board processing operations in such ports must be prohibited for third-country fishing vessels except, of course, in cases of distress or force majeure.\nAs long as it is not too complex, I am in favour of catch certificates to ensure the traceability of fisheries products.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is currently one of the main problems facing the management of marine resources. It threatens the sustainability of resources and marine biodiversity and has serious economic consequences for fishermen operating within the law.\nAs the biggest consumer and importer of fish products, the European Community has particular responsibility in the fight against illegal fishing, in the adoption of solutions preventing these practices from continuing and in the pressure which must be brought to bear on the international community to adopt similar measures.\nThe European Parliament report contains 65 proposed amendments which complement the Commission proposal and go against national interests.\nIt should be noted that the proposal defines a system applicable to all IUU fishing activities or associated activities, carried out on Community territory or in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Member States, which were fully debated and defended during the period of the Portuguese Presidency.\nThis document therefore merits my support.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The sustainability of fish stocks is fundamental to guaranteeing the long-term existence of fishing activity and the socioeconomic viability of the fishing sector.\nIllegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing threatens this sustainability and calls into question the viability of the sector and fishing communities dependent on it.\nAs such, it is vital that measures are adopted to reinforce the fight against these illegal activities, in particular by reinforcing control mechanisms in each Member State.\nThis proposal, which complements measures already laid down within the common fisheries policy, introduces various provisions which aim to curb these practices carried out by vessels flying the flag of a Member State or by vessels from third countries.\nThe measures proposed therefore include greater control by the Member States at their ports, the requirement for a certificate issued by the flag State indicating that the catch is legal and the creation of a list of vessels involved in IUU fishing.\nHowever, we would reiterate that any future harmonisation of these proposals with a future revision of the Community legislation on control must safeguard the competences of the Member States, particularly for inspections. We would also reiterate that all the issues relating to penalties come under the competence of each Member State.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I welcome my colleague Ms Aubert's report on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. It is in the interests of all fishing communities that IUU is tackled and the EU has a vital role to play in this. Nevertheless, the management of fisheries resources should be the responsibility of the fishing nations and the EU must work towards the dismantling of the CFP.\nBogus\u0142aw Liberadzki  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of adoption of the report by Mrs Aubert on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing - C6-0454\/2007 -.\nThis is a sound report that provides an accurate picture of the problem of illegal fishing, which represents a real threat to the survival of marine resources. It therefore seems essential to establish a Community system to combat the aforementioned practice.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Mrs Aubert's report on the Community system against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is a report that I generally support. I agree with a number of the rapporteur's proposals. To see that Member States provide certification of the legality of the fish that their boats catch, for example, appears fair. Europe-wide action is required to counter irregular fishing practices and my vote reflects these views.\nJean-Claude Martinez  \nin writing. - (FR) Fishermen in France, Spain and Italy are telling us of their legitimate revolt, their right to make a living, their indignation. Small farmers are saying the same.\nFor a year the price of fuel has been stifling our fishermen economically. This comes on top of the bureaucratic stifling they are experiencing as a result of the quotas, penalties, monitoring and inspections that are transforming the freedom of the high seas into a liquid Soviet Union.\nIn the light of the tragedy affecting this profession, what are we proposing to these men, these regions, these villages, these local economies? Nothing! Except vague transitional aid, like palliative care.\nWhat is worse, on the day that the Mediterranean fishermen are in Brussels to demand their right to live, here we are discussing additional criminal penalties to combat illegal fishing.\nFishermen are even refused support in terms of VAT and excise duty.\nThe solution is a European debt compensation fund for fishermen to ensure that they do not have to put up with the inequality in relation to public burdens, generated by the import policy and the domination of the distribution giants.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is a growing problem which requires enhanced cooperation between the EU and the international community if it is to be efficiently tackled.\nTo a large extent this proposal by the Commission reflects recommendations made by the Fisheries Committee, specifically Ms Aubert's first report dealing with IUU. I fully support the main elements of the proposal which include a ban on the importation of IUU fish and the implementation of port controls which would prohibit access of third country vessels suspected of illegal fishing.\nUntil recently, the EU has focused solely on the regulation of its own fishermen, concentrating on making sure that they do not flout EU laws while the practice of IUU was essentially ignored. It is encouraging to see that now real efforts are being made by Parliament and the Commission to address this problem.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the report tabled by our colleague Marie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Aubert on a Community system to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Illegal fishing represents one of the worst threats to the sustainability of fish stocks and marine biodiversity.\nThe Commission's proposal is important in enabling the European Union to play a proper leading role within an ever more complex and interconnected sector. To this end, I think it desirable that the proposal should apply not only to third-country fishing vessels but also to those flying the Community flag, in order to adopt non-discriminatory measures and introduce a common policy within the European Union.\nThere can be no disputing the importance of a certification system to ensure traceability and make it possible to have a label guaranteeing the fish product, in parallel with harmonised, dissuasive sanctions and a system of checks and inspections to minimise illegal fishing activity.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - I would like to support the Aubert report and condemn illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - ?PL) Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, known as IUU, represents a serious problem. In its effort to deal with the problem actively and effectively, the European Union should benefit from the experience of countries which, although they are not Members of the Union, nonetheless have much stricter provisions aimed at combating illegal fishing. The countries concerned include Norway, Iceland and Canada. First and foremost, we must concentrate on dealing with fisheries infringements within the Union. To date, this has been a major problem. The next step should involve supporting developing countries wishing to adopt the programme to counter IUU. Unfortunately, those developing countries do not have sufficient financial resources for the purpose.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed Portuguese colleague Duarte Freitas, which, in accordance with the consultation procedure, proposes amendments to the proposal for a Council regulation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears. This draft regulation implements the United Nations recommendations of 2006 and applies to EU vessels operating in the high seas in areas that are not regulated by a regional fisheries organisation and thus require flag state regulation. Between doing nothing and banning everything, I support the third alternative proposed by the European Union: it involves strictly regulating bottom trawling by defining the conservation and management measures adopted by the regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) and laying down the discipline that flag states must apply in respect of their vessels when these operate in areas of the high seas not regulated by an RFO.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Some marine ecosystems (such as reefs, seamounts, hydrothermal vents, cold water corals or cold water sponge beds) are, by their very nature, vulnerable to the use of certain fishing gear.\nThis proposal aims to protect these ecosystems in the high seas, particularly in areas not regulated by a regional fisheries management organisation.\nWhile fundamentally agreeing with the proposal presented and with the report adopted, we would, however, reiterate that certain aspects of the proposal should be clarified. For example, as regards the definition of 'vulnerable marine ecosystem', the report highlights the need to wait for an FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) definition according to the 'best scientific information available', bearing in mind the lack of in-depth scientific knowledge of these ecosystems. In addition, we would also highlight the need to distinguish between the consequences of using different gear, by carrying out scientific fishing research to determine their potential impacts on stocks and the seabed.\nFinally, we also feel it is appropriate to reiterate that the issues of inspections or observation missions on fishing vessels come under the competence of each Member State, particularly as new federal levels to the common fisheries policy have been announced.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The Freitas report relates to vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas. The high seas fall outwith the responsibility of any nations or fisheries organisations and fishing activities have been largely unregulated. It is appropriate that the EU takes action in this area, given the international nature of the fisheries.\nThis distinguishes the high seas from coastal waters, where the most appropriate control bodies are in the fishing nations themselves, not the EU institutions.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) The EU's Maritime Policy is one of the main initiatives for which the current Commission will be remembered in a good light. This proposal for a Council regulation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears is a necessary addition to the EU's strategy.\nWhen a halt to biodiversity loss was made an objective at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, the year 2010 was set as the deadline. Now, to our regret, we have to say that that aim is not going to be achieved in two years' time. Although environmental targets have been at the top of the world's political agenda for more than twenty years now, many factors still threaten maritime biodiversity. Scientific research has shown that, in spite of the high yields associated with deep sea fishing, poorly organised fishing practices can lead to the destruction of certain species in less than 10 years.\nWe need to remember that, although such new approaches as these applied in the fishing sector are necessary, woefully little is known about the recovery of deep sea fish species, and all in all the threats to the deep sea ecosystems are much greater. This proposal for a regulation on the fishing industry is nevertheless a clear and necessary one.\nCatherine Stihler  \nin writing. - The protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems is essential in order that future generations can enjoy the marine environment.\nMargie Sudre  \nin writing. - (FR) With its vote the European Parliament is putting in place strict principles to regulate the activities of Community vessels using bottom fishing gears in the high seas, in zones not regulated by regional fisheries organisations.\nConforming to the recommendations of the United Nations General Assembly, the spearhead in this area, the Members are putting an end to the legal vacuum that allowed the irreparable destruction of our marine ecosystems to take place. I am pleased that the Members of the European Parliament have recognised that the deep-sea ecosystems are an important source of marine biodiversity and that the shift in the fishing effort towards these habitats risked destroying our heritage.\nThe ecological conscience of the Members of the European Parliament does not seek to make the already difficult work of our fishermen even more complex, nor to increase the bureaucratic pressure. From now on, fishing activities in these specific areas will require a permit and be subject to a prior assessment, which will be carried out by the Member State, to ensure that they will not cause any significant damage. The precautionary principle also comes into play here.\nPreservation of marine biodiversity will only be guaranteed if it is integrated vertically into the other Community policies, notably the EU's future maritime policy.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, I welcome the Commission's objectives of simplifying, stabilising and clarifying trade rules and procedures. Trade is a key instrument in the current international scenario, serving as a means both of improving the efficiency of international markets and ensuring social and cultural growth for the nations concerned.\nTrade agreements between countries can guarantee political stability and lay solid foundations for reasonably durable diplomatic agreements. They are therefore increasingly becoming the main factors in a world ever more dominated by economic relations which, as well as influencing the flow of cultural exchanges between peoples, help to avoid military confrontation and maintain peace.\nTrade therefore represents an extremely important vector of dialogue and an opportunity for economic and social development. Making trade less rigid means making the economic system more efficient. Given the significance of the matter in hand, I hope that this House will shoulder its share of responsibility for achieving these objectives.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Audy's report calls for the harmonisation of import and export procedures with a view to ensuring the smooth application of the European Union's trade policy and, above all, consistent application at all the entry points to the EU in order to make life easier for businesses. That might seem logical because we have been part of a customs union for more than 40 years.\nHowever, Mr Audy wants the procedures to be completely harmonised and entrusted to a single European customs service.\nThe customs authorities are responsible for monitoring the movements of goods and ensuring that they comply with the standards laid down (product safety, consumer protection, health, environment, etc.). They also have a fiscal function: they apply appropriate customs duties, of course, but they also deal with VAT, which, with all due respect, is still a national tax. Finally, or perhaps above all, they have a security role to play and they participate in the fight against trafficking of all kinds, notably drug trafficking, in close cooperation with the police services.\nIt is no surprise that the rapporteur gives priority to the first function, in the name of the virtues of international trade, and underestimates the other two. That is why we voted against this report.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I support the recommendations outlined in Jean-Pierre Audy's report 'Implementing trade policy through efficient import and export rules and procedures.' I feel it to be a well balanced report that rightly looks ahead at EC customs law after the Lisbon Treaty and the US '100% scanning law'.\nIndeed, I share the rapporteur's view that a common approach to the EC customs system would address the inherent difficulties of Member States having responsibility for customs implementation. I voted in favour of the report.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for the report regarding the efficient import and export regulations and procedures in the sector of trade policy, which ensure greater efficiency in the customs field, as well as the cooperation among the European customs agencies.\nThe European Union market is confronted with the counterfeiting and piracy phenomenon. The losses incurred by the violation of intellectual property rights amounted to EURO 62 million in Romania in 2007, according to the analysis conducted by the International Alliance of Intellectual Property. The adoption of this report by the European Parliament and the development of the plan for fighting counterfeiting and piracy on a European level will reduce this loss.\nThe report welcomes the consensus reached by the Member States and the Commission with regard to the negotiation mandate of an international agreement against counterfeiting (The Commercial Agreement against Counterfeit), as this agreement is of major importance for the EU trade strategy.\nAs the European regulations for consumers' protection, mainly the ones concerning health and the safety, are applied for all products within the EU market, the Commission and the Member States are asked to take all the necessary measures so as to effectively monitor a high level of protection for consumers.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) Over 2 billion tonnes of goods pass through the Union's air and sea ports every year. The customs services deal with in excess of 100 million customs declarations. By so doing, they are protecting the health and safety of European Union citizens.\nThe customs services are also involved in practices connected with counterfeiting goods. This is a growing and increasingly dangerous phenomenon concerning not only fashionable luxury goods but also medicines, toothpaste and skincare products. The customs services are seizing counterfeit spare parts for motor vehicles, such as braking systems. Counterfeit sunglasses can cause damage to the wearer's eyesight. Combating these practices and putting a stop to them will contribute to better health protection and improved security for the citizens.\nThe customs authorities introduced appropriate security checks to protect the internal market. Working in close cooperation with important trading partners at international level, they protect international freight transport against the smuggling of goods linked to terrorist activity.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed German colleague Reimer B\u00f6ge, which proposes approving as it stands the Commission proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to assist Slovenia and Greece, which in 2007 were affected by floods and forest fires respectively, to the tune of around EUR 98 million, which should be the subject of an amended budget adopted in parallel. In order to avoid any delay in the provision of financial assistance in the case of disasters, I support the recommendation in the report that the Commission propose amending budgets aimed solely at mobilising this Fund, use of which must not exceed EUR 1 billion per year under the current Interinstitutional Agreement.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The severe forest fires that devastated Greece in the summer of 2007 and the serious flooding in Slovenia in September 2007 justify this (second) mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for 2007.\nThis Fund has an annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion, of which around EUR 163 million has already been used at the request of the United Kingdom following the floods that hit that country in 2007. An amount of around EUR 837 million is therefore still available.\nThe proposal adopted today provides for the allocation of nearly EUR 90 million to Greece and around EUR 8 million to Slovenia. This is peanuts compared with the damage suffered by the populations of these two countries which, in the case of Greece, exceeds EUR 2 billion.\nHowever, there is at least one question that must be answered: how is it possible that it is only now, nearly one year after the disasters suffered by these populations, that EU funding is being made available? Clearly there is something wrong here...\nWe would point out that we have presented proposals to speed up the procedures for mobilising this Fund, to ensure that regional disasters remain eligible and to recognise, within this Fund, the specific nature of natural disasters in the Mediterranean, such as drought and fires.\nJanusz Lewandowski  \nin writing. - (PL) The proposal to mobilise the Solidarity Fund once again is contained in amending budget No 3\/2008. The previous application benefiting the United Kingdom (EUR 162 million) together with the application currently under consideration to benefit Greece and Slovenia (totalling EUR 98 million) leaves considerable scope for manoeuvre in the second half of 2008, bearing in mind that the annual ceiling for Solidarity Fund resources is approximately EUR 1 billion. Furthermore, other formal requirements contained in the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 have been met. The Committee on Budgets was able to obtain all necessary additional clarification at the meeting in May attended by representatives of the countries that suffered natural disasters in 2007. The countries concerned were Greece, which was affected by forest fires, and Slovenia, which was affected by floods.\nAs is customary in such cases, the only concerns relate to the time it takes for the Union's institutions to react. This issue has been raised ad nauseam. The applications by Greece and Slovenia were received in October and November of 2007. The amending budget was submitted by the European Commission on 14 April 2008. Although this does indeed indicate that the process was swifter than in the past, the pace remains unsatisfactory. There is therefore all the more reason to highlight the swift response by the European Parliament, and the good cooperation between the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Budgets, regarding favourable consideration of the proposal concerning aid for the affected countries.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome the action taken to help Greece and Slovenia recover from 2007's forest fires. In pledging EUR 89.7 million and EUR 8.3 million to Greece and Slovenia respectively the EU has shown that it is committed to fostering solidarity among its members. I therefore voted in support of Reimer B\u00f6ge's report on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer  \nin writing. - (DE) Natural disasters cause not only immeasurable suffering and numerous deaths; they also destroy essential permanent infrastructure such as electricity transmission lines, roads and bridges. Besides caring and providing for the injured, it is therefore essential to repair and remedy the damage as swiftly as possible. Given that such damage is often extensive, it was decided in 2002 that in such cases, the EU should provide the victims with financial support.\nOf course it is important to ensure that the monies are not used inappropriately, but this should not result in a 12-month delay, on average, in the disbursement of these funds, as noted by the Court of Auditors.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) The general aim of the proposal presented by the European Commission is to continue the EU-wide liberalisation of scheduled and occasional coach and bus services - in particular between the various countries within the EU and between these and third countries, including cabotage operations - as from 1 January 2009.\nThe following are some of the many aspects that we reject:\nthose aiming to limit the competence of a state to manage passenger road transport on its territory, particularly in defence of this public service (not to be confused with the so-called 'public interest service' which is privately owned, but financed with public funds);\nremoving the concept of 'working time' and solely referring to 'driving time' and 'rest periods', which aims to increase the exploitation of drivers;\nthe (re)introduction of the 'twelve-day derogation', in other words the possibility of deferring the weekly rest period for 12 consecutive periods of 24 hours which, in our opinion, could lead to situations endangering the safety of road transport professionals and passengers. Look at the situations that already occur under more restrictive rules with regard to working time and rest periods.\nHence the reason for our vote against the proposal!\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nin writing. - (PL) I should like to express my support for the report by Mr Grosch on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common rules for access to the market for coach and bus services (recast).\nThe aim of this report is to identify the best possible solution for both regular and occasional services. Its main objective is to simplify legal provisions concerning the provision of bus and coach services. At present, access to this market is governed by two Regulations, pursuant to which occasional international transport services have been liberalised.\nIn the case of regular international services, there is still a clear need for simplifying measures to be introduced regarding the issue of authorisations to provide such services in all Member States of the European Union. The legal framework should be streamlined, notably by merging the aforementioned Regulations, tightening cooperation between the Member States and introducing sensible provisions. Such measures would greatly simplify the international flow of goods and improve control, as a result of harmonisation of documentation and procedures.\nI am also pleased to note the proposed simplification measures relating to regular transport services in border areas. The matter of transit journeys by coach and bus has been dealt with well too. If such transit takes place, the competent authorities in the relevant Member State will only be informed that authorisation has been granted by those European Union Member States affected by the particular transport service.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The Grosch report is one of a series of texts on road transport activity and its rules in the European area. This recasting aims to reinforce the capacity and competence of national authorities for issuing or withdrawing licences to or from a carrier in the event of serious infringements of Community legislation. Instances of serious infringement and also the conditions for establishing non-discriminatory sanctions proportional to the seriousness of the infringement have therefore been clarified. To help with assessment, Member States will therefore have access to a register of serious infringements committed by road transport undertakings, linked to the national register of these undertakings.\nI believe that this recasting will result in more administrative simplification and greater legal security for this economic activity and also for undertakings complying with the rules. Will this mean that we can finally hope for a real road transport market for coach and bus services that is open and competitive and that guarantees the most stringent conditions in terms of road safety?\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) I am voting in favour of the report put forward by our colleague Mathieu Grosch on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the market for coach and bus services.\nI agree with the proposal to liberalise coach and bus services within the Member States, not only so as to simplify the European legislative framework in this area but also so as to enhance cooperation among EU countries.\nIn order to do this it is necessary to standardise identity and identification documents throughout the united Europe, in order to facilitate the checks that a Member State is entitled to carry out when passengers, as well as transiting through that state, engage in cabotage operations.\nTo this end, I hope that the authorities of Member States whose territory is crossed will be given prior information.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nin writing. - (RO) The new amended form of the report observes the agreement between the social partners regarding the reintroduction of derogation from the 12 resting days for coach drivers carrying out international passengers transport.\nI voted for amendment 31 establishing the conditions applicable for drivers employed in an international transport service for the delay of the weekly rest period of up to 12 consecutive periods of 24 hours which follow the period preceding the weekly rest. These conditions are: the international occasional transport service must include at least 24 hours in a Member State or a third country, other than the one in which the service started; the weekly rest period after the application of derogation must always be at least a normal weekly rest of 45 hours; a compensatory rest period of 24 hours is effectuated constantly before the end of the third week following the derogation implementation; in the case that the driving period is carried out without interruption between the hours 22.00-6.00, the vehicle is provided with two drivers or the driving period is reduced to three hours; starting with January 1st 2014, the implementation of this derogation is possible only in the case of vehicles provided with recording equipment according to the European regulations.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nWe have chosen to vote for this report. The hygiene package has given rise to debate in several Member States, including Sweden.\nIn the great majority of cases, however, the problem has not been the legislation in itself but the implementation of the legislation by the national authorities.\nKonstantinos Droutsas  \nThe EU is sacrificing public health for the sake of the profits of European monopolies, which are demanding fewer checks and restraints. A typical example of EU policy is the latest food scandal of sunflower oil mixed with petroleum, with its disastrous effects on health. Instead of taking measures to step up restraints on the uncontrolled proceedings of multinationals, the EU and the Member States' governments are merely intervening on exports of sunflower oil from Ukraine. At the same time, the EU Food Safety Directive is allowing oils and other liquid cargoes intended for human consumption to be carried by container ships transporting petroleum oils and other toxic fluids.\nOn the pretext of reducing administrative costs for small businesses, the Commission proposes to make yet another exception to the Food Safety Directive, which in itself is inadequate. Checks on food will be made even more difficult because large multinationals are using monopolies to hide behind in order to avoid any responsibility while carrying on activities that are dangerous and very damaging to public health.\nSafe food, in sufficient quantities and at low prices for the workers, is unlikely to be available unless there is a shift in EU policy that serves the interests of the food multinationals and the increase in their profits.\nEdite Estrela  \nin writing. - (PT) I voted against the Schnellhardt report on the hygiene of foodstuffs because I consider that the Commission's proposed amendment of Regulation (EC) No 852\/2004, aimed at exempting small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the food sector from the application of the HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) system, is not currently justified given that to date there is no evidence of specific problems with the application of this procedure. I consider that 2009, the date when this Regulation must be reviewed, would be the right time to propose any amendments, if they are justified.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) The European Parliament today adopted, at first reading, a report on the exemption of food business operators from the Regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs. This exemption shall apply to micro-enterprises which sell foodstuffs and not to supermarkets or franchised supermarket chains. Experience in Portugal shows that this exemption is essential both to defend traditional gastronomy and its associated habits and customs, and to protect family enterprises, which represent a large part of the workers in this sector and which are the ones facing the most difficulties given the competitive imbalance with large groups.\nFurthermore, the introduction, application and maintenance of processes based on the principles of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, which may be important for large enterprises to guarantee food safety, cannot be equally applied to large and small enterprises, particularly in the catering sector.\nWhile it is true that the legislation on foodstuffs must guarantee a high level of protection for the lives and health of people and the interests of consumers, this cannot be confused with the end of traditions and attacks on the gastronomic culture of each country and each region.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The EU's regulations on the hygiene of foodstuffs are of importance across the Member States. They have however at times proven to be somewhat burdensome on smaller businesses. I welcome the proposals to exempt micro-enterprises and accordingly voted in favour of the Schnellhardt report.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) I voted for the report by Mr Horst Schnellhardt because it will result in the reduction of bureaucratic burdens for small and medium-sized enterprises in the food industry, in particular for micro-enterprises (bakeries etc.), it will make business activities more attractive and it will create new jobs.\nThe report introduces several changes concerning small and medium-sized enterprises producing and selling food, operating on regional and local markets. These are not veterinary regulations. When considering the food hygiene package, Parliament wanted above all to ensure the highest possible level of food safety and at the same time to establish a practicable and flexible control mechanism.\nThose small and medium-sized enterprises that can prove that there are no hazards in the area of food hygiene and that the hygiene of foodstuffs is regularly controlled are exempt from HACCP procedures. The HACCP system provides a hazard analysis and a critical control point method. It was developed in the US in the 1960s by NASA, when the Agency needed to ensure 100% safety of all foodstuffs and nutritional products. In 1992 the system was incorporated into European legislation.\nThe Food Code of the Slovak Republic refers to HACCP as 'Proper Production Practice'. Preparing documentation is complicated and owners of micro-enterprises are discouraged from doing business by unjustifiable bureaucracy. Since the hygiene regulations in Slovakia are far stricter than those in the 15 old Member States, it is necessary to harmonise the hygiene rules across the entire EU.\nLuca Romagnoli  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support Horst Schnellhardt's proposal on the hygiene of foodstuffs.\nThis proposal addresses two distinct problems: firstly, reducing red tape in respect of transport costs and conditions, and secondly, adjusting the rules exempting micro-enterprises from the requirements deriving from the HACCP system, aimed at guaranteeing the maximum degree of food safety and ensuring a high level of protection for human life and health, as well as for consumer interests.\nI agree that the HACCP procedures should remain in place: their removal would lessen the likelihood of achieving these objectives, given that the procedures serve the interests of food business operators, enhance food safety standards and levels of responsibility, and guarantee fair competition and flexibility in the free movement of foodstuffs and feedingstuffs intended for consumption within the Community. This amendment should, lastly, be extended to and approved by all Member States without exception, laying down safety requirements in no uncertain terms.\nMarianne Thyssen  \nin writing. - (NL) Mr President, if we mean well toward small and medium-sized enterprises, we have to pass laws that they are also able to comply with.\nThat also applies to the hygiene regulations for the food sector. Last year the Commission presented a proposal to amend the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 852\/2004 to bring them more into line with what is achievable for the smallest enterprises.\nThe amendments proposed by the Commission are very useful because they still require small companies to meet hygiene standards but at the same time they relieve them of red tape and of the obligations that are genuinely not feasible for small businesses. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that Parliament has not completely followed the Commission. On the other hand, I voted for the final report because we have been able to make some progress towards a solution.\nI still regret the fact that the responsibility is being shifted on to the Member States. Member States will now have to take up their responsibility and allow their small and medium-sized enterprises to depart from the strict HACCP requirements.\nSilvia-Adriana \u0162ic\u0103u  \nin writing. - (RO) The Regulation No 11 on eliminating discrimination in terms of tariffs and transport conditions requires carriers to hold a transport document which should contain, among others, the distances, routes and borders passage points. In the field of transportations, the proposal aims at the reduction of certain obligations to provide statistics in the transportations field. Yet, as far as this modification is concerned, only the European Parliament has been consulted.\nI voted for amendment no. 12, submitted by the European Socialist Group, afferent to Regulation (EC) No 852\/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, in which the competent bodies are allowed to exempt economic agents in the foods sector from the implementation of one or several of the imposed measures, provided that these bodies are capable of proving that there is no risk that must be avoided, or that all identified risks are sufficiently and regularly controlled by means of application of the general and special requirements of hygiene of foodstuffs. This refers to bakeries, butcheries, fruit and vegetables shops and, mainly, to market stands. I regret the fact that this amendment did not gather the necessary majority.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nThe quality of goods and services is becoming an issue of increasing importance to European society. Quality is a factor in competition between enterprises. One way is which quality is demonstrated is through possession of the relevant certificate of compliance with quality standards. The most widespread and most respected standards are the ISO 9000 series standards.\nThe HACCP system was officially accepted by the World Health Organisation in 1975. In 1993 it was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as an appropriate tool with which to regulate the production of food. It is considered that a properly implemented HACCP system, together with a quality control system compliant with the ISO 9000 standards is the best way to ensure the provision of healthy food.\nThe fundamental aim of the method and the HACCP system based upon it is to prevent dangers throughout the food chain and ensure the safety of the final product, whilst providing for appropriate reactions should problems arise.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Directive 96\/22\/EC prohibits the use of thyrostatic substances, stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters, which are on list A of Annex II, for administration to 'animals of all species', meaning to both animals or animal products used for human consumption as well as to pets. However, the two products on list B of Annex II may be used under certain conditions. The Commission's amendment proposes:\nto exclude pet animals from the scope of this Directive, which means that prohibitions on the use of certain substances simply do not apply any more to them and they may therefore be treated with these substances;\nthat the hormone oestradiol 17 \u00df which was temporarily allowed to be used for farm animals for the treatment of foetus maceration or mummification or for pyrometer will now be banned completely. The fourth application for oestrus induction in cattle, horses, sheep or goats was granted only until October 2006 and has already expired. This substance is considered to be carcinogenic and alternatives now exist on the market so that the use of this hormone is redundant and can be banned completely.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) The Commission proposes to exclude pet animals from the scope of Council Directive 96\/22\/EC which would enable their treatment with substances having a thyrostatic action and with beta-agonists.\nThis important measure is intended to reduce the suffering of pet animals and will allow the use, for example, of substances having a thyrostatic action for the treatment of hyperthyroidism in these animals.\nHowever, the most recent developments in scientific assessment tell us that using these substances is economically unattractive in animal production for human consumption or can be replaced with alternative substances.\nIt is therefore proposed to prohibit entirely the use of oestradiol 17 \u00df and its esters in animal production for human consumption, putting an end to the various derogations that still exist today. I would point out that these hormones, when used to promote growth, can be carcinogenic to human beings and that the existing derogations can finally be ended as these hormones can be replaced with alternative substances without any problems.\nThese changes will ensure a high level of protection for consumers of meat and animal derivatives while at the same time allowing the treatment and reduction of suffering of pet animals.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski  \nin writing. - (PL) I support the report by Mrs Scheele on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council directive 96\/22\/EC concerning prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyreostatic action and of beta agonists. This report represents an effort to find an optimum solution catering both for the need to protect human beings, the consumers, and the need to ensure animal welfare. The report also takes account of scientific research in this area of veterinary science. In particular, I welcome the complete ban on the use of the hormonal substance named oestradiol 17 \u03b2 in the rearing of animals raised for meat production. I believe the ban is entirely appropriate. Priority must be given to the effort to achieve an appropriate level of food safety, especially bearing in mind that the products referred to in the Directive can cause serious cancers in human beings.\nOn the other hand, the proposed changes provide for effective treatment of pet animals, such as those suffering from hyperthyroidism or other distressing conditions. There is therefore provision for the health of both pet and farm animals.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my German colleague Helmuth Markov, adopted unanimously in the Committee on International Trade, which proposes amending, in accordance with the consultation procedure, the proposal for a Council regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending various Regulations.\nThis proposal for a regulation conforms to the 2004 guidelines on the role of the GSP for the 10-year period between 2006 and 2015, which introduced a number of new objectives, such as targeting preferences on countries that most need it, enlarging the product coverage of the GSP to products of interest for developing countries, making the graduation system more transparent and stable and introducing a new special incentive scheme to encourage sustainable development and good governance.\nI fully support the report's call for the European Parliament to be more closely involved in this GSP policy, which is crucial for the countries that need it and which costs us EUR 3.5 billion each year in loss of customs revenue.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) In a society now dominated by a globalised economic market, in a world where three billion human beings live on less than two dollars a day and more than one billion survive on just one dollar, stimulating economic development in the so-called third world by means of appropriate trade policies is a duty incumbent upon the Community institutions.\nIn order to achieve this shared goal, we must seek adequate means of both bringing about an improvement in the economic circumstances of developing countries and gradually, increasingly, integrating them into the world market.\nIn addition, over and above purely economic factors such as market share, other criteria must be borne in mind, such as the beneficiaries' levels of development and commitment to embark on the road to democracy. Encouragement should moreover be given to those products which are often distinctive of a given country's economy.\nWhile pursuing these goals, however, we must take care not to restrict the developing countries' economies to producing a limited range of goods, especially if these are low added-value products, since that would hamper - rather than foster - development and economic growth in those countries.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Markov's report on the system of preferential customs duties granted to developing countries is an act of faith in the beneficial effects of global free trade, particularly for the poorest countries.\nHowever, when I turn on the television and watch the news it seems that it is in those countries that famines are taking place. It seems that it is the choice of the major export crops, to the detriment of the local crops designed to ensure food independence, that is one of the causes of these tragedies. It seems that 38 years of preferential systems have not made much of an impact on the economic and social situation of these countries and their populations.\nIt seems that if a system takes so long to generate the benefits purported by its ideological supporters, it if leaves so many people behind, in all countries, if it accentuates inequalities and poverty, it is no longer time to modify it along the way; it is quite simply time to abandon it.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) As we have highlighted previously, the current Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is based on a logic that is in itself contradictory. In other words, development is promoted in order to liberalise international trade through a model promoting exports, regulated at world level, with a 'centre' and a 'periphery'.\nThis logic prevents fair international relations and aid for the development of the endogenous factors of less economically developed countries, without which - together with the theft of foreign debt and the imposition of the interests of large multinationals from the US, EU and Japan - these countries will continue to have a peripheral and subordinate status.\nTrade is a component of development but is far from being the most important.\nThe GSP guarantees preferential access for products originating from a very wide range of countries. The GSP applies to products of particular importance for Portugal (canned tuna, tomato concentrate, textiles and clothing).\nTextiles and clothing are particularly affected, especially due to the existence of a high graduation threshold for the sector. This and other negative aspects need to be changed, otherwise there will be serious consequences for the national productive sector which will result in social and economic consequences.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, the treatment meted out to Georgia by Russia is simply unacceptable by international standards. It is abundantly clear that Russia is exploiting its economic influence in many EU countries to see how far it can pursue its neo-imperialistic ambitions. It is doing its utmost to block all relations between Georgia and the West. I wish to stress once again that EU or UN forces should immediately replace Russia's so-called peacekeeping armed forces in Abkhazia.\nThe European Union should constantly demonstrate full support for Georgia, as has been the case in the House today. In addition, the Union should systematically strengthen cooperation and immediately introduce visa facilitation measures for Georgians, especially now that fully democratic elections have been held.\nThe resolution adopted today is an expression of precisely that kind of support for a sovereign Georgia. I am glad that it was at the initiative of Law and Justice Members that a debate was held in the European Parliament at the beginning of May. That debate resulted in today's resolution, which represents Europe's official stance on the issue of Georgia.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) Among the various important aspects that could be highlighted in relation to this resolution, I must point out the profound hypocrisy of those who are currently reiterating their full support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state when they are the same ones who instigated and supported the illegal and illegitimate 'operation' by the US-NATO-EU against Yugoslavia. This operation was an example of interference, destabilisation, aggression and military occupation and culminated in the unilateral declaration of independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo, with total disregard for international law.\nOnce again we are seeing clear signs - which we reject - of interference and reinforcement of the presence, including the military presence, of the US-NATO-EU in this region which is increasingly important in geostrategic terms.\nSee, for example, the conclusions of the recent NATO Summit in Bucharest where a political commitment was made on the accession of Georgia to this offensive military alliance. See, for example, the calls for 'deeper European involvement' and 'bolstering the international presence in the conflict zone by sending an ESDP border mission' (in other words, a mission from the EU which contains 21 member countries of NATO and in which the ESDP - European Security and Defence Policy - is the European pillar of NATO). See, for example, the initiatives to set up 'broad and comprehensive free trade agreements' between the EU and Georgia.\nFilip Kaczmarek  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of adoption of the resolution on Georgia. The people of Georgia need our support and solidarity. Solidarity is not so necessary when all is well and everyone is happy. It is very much needed, however, in times of difficulty and hardship. The people of Georgia are currently experiencing hardship. We should not only show the people of Georgia our support, but also do all in our power to protect them and their country from a conflict with potentially tragic consequences.\nThere are strong indications that Georgia and Russia were recently on the brink of armed conflict. It is our duty to convince all sides to opt for peaceful political solutions. I am convinced that even the most difficult problems can be resolved through negotiation, by seeking compromise and being guided by the principles of goodwill. I hope too that the international community will actively and effectively support the mediation process and the search for a permanent and just solution acceptable to both sides.\nIn addition, the situation in Georgia demonstrates how important our neighbourhood policy is for our policy as a whole. This is particularly true of the Eastern dimension of the neighbourhood policy.\nSiiri Oviir  \nin writing. - (ET) Georgia is undoubtedly going through a difficult period. On the one hand there is a dislike on the part of the opposition operating within the country of open dialogue with the party in power. On the other hand there are Georgia's relations with Russia because of separatism in the Georgian province of Abkhazia and the situation in South Ossetia, where Georgia's sovereignty has been threatened. Russia has unilaterally increased the presence of its military forces at the border. To my mind, the EU must start to take steps to replace Russia's so-called peace-keepers with the genuine article.\nIn my view, since the Foreign Ministries of the EU Member States supported Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity at the internationally recognised border, the EU must, through its representative, take the lead role in resolving the conflict between Russia and Tbilisi on Georgia's separatist regions, by proposing confidence-building and security measures to each party.\n.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Ries  \nin writing. - (FR) Our message is clear: we are denouncing the dangerous escalation of the conflict in this region and reiterating the EU's support for Georgia.\nThe recent developments in Georgia, and more specifically in Abkhazia, are of great concern. A deterioration of the links between Georgia and Russia could be the start of a negative spiral for the Caucasus region.\nI was part of the delegation that visited Georgia to observe the elections on 21 May 2008 and I witnessed the intense efforts being made by Tbilisi in its democratisation process. This significant progress, which I observed when monitoring 14 polling stations in the Gori area, should not obscure the difficulties that persist in the region. Much remains to be done and the EU will have to play its role, over and above observing the elections, by providing long-term support for a reform process.\nThe EU must learn from the Balkan experience: it cannot stand idly by when faced with a conflict on its doorstep. In approving this resolution, I am calling on the two sides in the conflict to refrain from carrying out any further acts that could result in an escalation of the tension. It is essential to focus our efforts on rebuilding dialogue and persuading Russia to withdraw its troops from Abkhazia.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - British Conservatives reject much of Paragraphs 6 and 8 which refer to ESDP missions. We are against ESDP in principle and do not regard the EU as the appropriate organisation to be undertaking security missions in far-off areas of potential conflict. Furthermore we are disappointed that NATO's Bucharest Summit did not extend the invitation for Georgia to join NATO's Membership Action Plan.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nWe have chosen to abstain on recital E. The CFSP and the common security and defence policy will probably require increased budgetary resources in future, but we do not want to pre-empt the forthcoming mid-term review of the long-term budget by taking a view on individual parts of it at this stage.\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my esteemed Polish colleague Jacek Saryusz-Wolski on the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), which have helped to reinforce European identity and the role of the European Union in the world. I agree that the CFSP must become more democratically legitimate by allowing Parliament to exercise real control over this policy and speak with a single voice as well and by emphasising various priorities: the causes of the current insecurity in Europe (terrorism, organised crime), energy security, fight against climate change and sustainable development, improvement in the stability of neighbouring regions, crisis management and conflict prevention\/resolution, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, migration management, and promotion of human rights and civil freedoms throughout the world. The first of the geographical priorities must be ensuring stability in the Western Balkans and strengthening the dialogue with Serbia and Kosovo.\nI support the idea that the European Parliament should put forward specific proposals on the financing and budgetary control of the future European External Action Service (EEAS).\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Saryusz-Wolski on his report concerning the European Union's common foreign and security policy.\nI agree with the rapporteur that it is not enough simply to speak of a common foreign policy. We have to prove that the European Union is prepared to adopt a common position on crucial issues. In relation to important matters such as the aggressive energy policy conducted by Russia, the events in Kosovo and the case of Tibet, the Union has recently demonstrated that the CFSP remains a distant goal. As long as the European Union allows its credibility on the international arena to be undermined, as in the aforementioned cases, and as long as individual Member States continue to act on a bilateral basis, implementation of the CFSP will continue to be merely an aim.\nThere is nothing to be gained from yet another provision on common policy if we do not begin to speak with one voice on matters of vital interest to Europe.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I will be voting in favour of this report. I did vote for Green Amendment 7 that complains of President Sarkozy's 'sales offensive on nuclear technology worldwide'. I am afraid this macho technology drives far too much of French foreign policy. The rumour is that the reason France is the only Member State not to have established diplomatic relations with North Korea is not through any concern with human rights but because of a failure in 2001 of the then South Korean Government to promise the French nuclear industry a disproportionate share of the nuclear contracts associated with the KEDO project to build two light water reactors in North Korea in exchange for the freezing of their graphite-moderated reactor at Taechon capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. France's nuclear obsession makes us all less safe.\nAnna Hedh  \nI voted 'no' because I do not want the EU's common foreign policy and armed forces to be strengthened, with all that that entails.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I fully support my own group's Amendment 7 to the Saryusz-Wolski report expressing concern at President Sarkozy's sales offensive on nuclear technology worldwide, which could lead to enhanced nuclear proliferation. The people of Scotland take a huge interest in nuclear issues, given that the UK's nuclear weapons are based on our territory. Scotland rejects the London government's plans to build a new generation of nuclear weapons and I fully support the Scottish Government's work to ensure these weapons do not come into existence.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report on the annual report on the CFSP seeks to define the common values and priorities regarding Europe's global role. With the Lisbon Treaty, the EU would have a more effective and coherent voice on international affairs and I welcome the fact that the report deals with the treaty's contribution in this domain. I voted in favour of the report.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - British Conservatives do not wish to see British foreign policy subsumed by the EU. We reject the Treaty of Lisbon, any idea of an EU 'foreign minister' or an EU seat on the UN Security Council, and any EU role in defence. We therefore voted against the Report. Of course we welcome opportunities for 27 nations to speak with one voice where this is wholly consistent with British foreign policy interests. Similarly, we support better coordinated humanitarian action, and a more robust approach in dealing with abhorrent regimes in Zimbabwe, Burma, and elsewhere.\nJan Andersson, G\u00f6ran F\u00e4rm, Inger Segelstr\u00f6m and \u00c5sa Westlund  \nWe have abstained in the vote on all parts which refer to NATO, since we come from a country which has no military alliances.\nAs regards Amendment 14, we think that it is factually incorrect to say that the Treaty does not permit military intentions. Even now EU resources are being used for military operations, but not for a common EU defence force.\nGraham Booth  \nin writing. - We generally vote against EU legislation and indeed voted against this report as a whole. However, we felt that there were a number of amendments we could vote for. We voted yes to Amendments 10 and 12, as they reject the militarisation of the EU. We too oppose the militarisation of the EU. These amendments did not call on the Commission to act, nor did they acknowledge the authority of the Commission or EU. They were simple statements that happened to agree with us on this particular question. Therefore, we could vote for these two amendments without compromising our overall stance to both this report as a whole and EU legislation in general.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) If you had any doubts about the real meaning, ambition and scope of the so-called Treaty 'of Lisbon', you would only have to carefully read the resolutions on the 'ESDP' (European Security and Defence Policy) and the 'CFSP' (common foreign and security policy), adopted by a majority of this House, for these doubts to disappear.\nThe forces promoting 'European integration' - namely the major financial and economic groups, the social democrats and the right - are trying to affirm the EU as an imperialist bloc under the control of its major powers.\nIn addition to confirming the EU's policy of interference (as seen in the 'missions' to Afghanistan, Chad\/Central African Republic, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Guinea-Bissau) and operational capability ('to undertake rapidly and simultaneously two ESDP military operations'), this report is a real guide to militarisation and militarism. Just as an example, the report highlights the following objectives: extension of the 'European Security Strategy'; military dimension of 'civil missions'; militarisation of 'development aid' and 'development' as an instrument of interference; reinforcement of means of military transport (A400M military aircraft and helicopters); increase in expenditure on 'defence' and military actions, including using the Community budget; operational capability to conduct EU military actions, and coordination of projects and the armaments industry.\nThese, among many others, are the reasons why we voted against this report.\nAnna Hedh  \nI voted against the report because I do not want the EU's common foreign policy to be strengthened. Besides, I am against the militarisation of the EU.\nRichard Howitt  \nin writing. - British Labour MEPs voted in favour of this report which looks at the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the continuing role of ESDP missions. In particular Labour MEPs welcome the emphasis in this report on the better functioning of civilian ESDP missions.\nLabour MEPs voted against the text of paragraph 39 looking at the role of Eurocorps. While the UK is not involved in Eurocorps, and this force has never been used, Labour MEPs feel it important to emphasise that there are no standing forces under permanent EU command, and we believe that there is no need for such structures.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Mr Kuhne's report on the annual report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and ESDP. I would agree with the rapporteur that the Lisbon Treaty reinforces the Union's powers by giving the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy a more important role.\nThe international nature of the security issues Member States face requires greater European cooperation. I would therefore welcome the introduction of a solidarity clause among Member States on such issues. I voted in favour of the report.\nCristiana Muscardini  \nin writing. - (IT) Europe's security needs have changed. The risk of territorial aggression, implicit in the classic conception of defence, has largely been superseded by the dangers arising at regional borders in areas adjoining the territory of the EU. Added to that there is the threat of terrorism and the huge upsurge in migration flows, the radicalisation of fundamentalists and extremists of various kinds, the increase in trafficking and the risk of a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.\nFor the European Union it is not just a matter of equipping ourselves with the means of acting independently to manage international crises, but of establishing a fully-fledged European defence system. However, in the desirable process of expanding its external action capabilities, the EU must not confine itself to the military dimension alone: it must undertake to develop, in parallel, civil crisis management mechanisms involving action by the police, civil administrators, the judiciary, civil protection officers and so on.\nThe common security policy must therefore be strengthened in order to give the Union a key role on the international geopolitical scene, a role which is distinct but not distant from that of NATO. On this optimistic note I am today voting in favour of the report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) The European Union's ambition in terms of security and defence is clearly less than its ability, and this is not just due to the traditional problem of coordinating and cooperating on external priorities. There is also a central issue that must be tackled. We know that the external dimension and the establishment of operational capabilities lack personnel, availability and cooperation. However, they also require a public perception of the need for, and usefulness of, this cooperation. We must construct this strategy based on cooperation - by specifically investing in interoperability and by creating operational capabilities on the ground - but it is particularly public support that is often missing from this dimension of our policies. Recognition of the need for, and the importance and effectiveness of, the security and defence dimension depends, to a huge extent, on public support which must be generated, and this support depends, to a large extent, on our efforts.\nFinally, I would stress the importance of remembering that the Atlantic Alliance is a basic pillar of European security and defence which must not and cannot under any circumstances be disregarded.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) The two reports put to the vote today - one on the common foreign policy and the other on the security and defence policy - have one thing in common: they take the Member States' foreign and defence policies away from them to the advantage of the civil servants in Brussels.\nDiplomacy will be in the hands of a High Representative, a real foreign affairs minister. In addition, since it is shared, there will be a single defence, under the patronage this time of the United States, via NATO and the UN, as clearly indicated in take two of the European Constitution, the Lisbon Treaty. Our military resources are reduced to their simplest expression because the bulk of the budgets is today spent by France and the United Kingdom and subject to the Stability Pact. The French and British permanent seats on the UN Security Council will no doubt be combined into one and handed over to an all-powerful European... In short, none of the EU Member States will have the political and military resources to ensure their own independence and freedom. In any case, for the most part they have already handed these over to the Eurocrats. We are completely opposed to this disastrous development.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, I supported the resolution on the EU-United States summit because in addition to matters pertaining to bilateral partnership and global challenges it refers to the visa question, which is an issue of great importance to Polish nationals.\nPolish nationals wishing to visit the United States as tourists still have to go through the complicated and costly procedure of obtaining a visa.\nApproximately 25% of visa applications by Poles are rejected. The main, and sometimes the only, reason for rejection is the consular officials' suspicion that the applicant might be intending to undertake illegal work. In fact, most Poles travel to the United States to visit relations. Some three quarters of the 10 million Poles resident in the United States hail from the Lesser Poland region of my country, which explains why there are such long queues in front of the American consulate in Krakow.\nI believe that the very existence of such a procedure in relation to a European Union Member State requires the Union to adopt a strong stance in the dialogue with the United States.\nGlyn Ford  \nin writing. - I wish to raise the issue in the context of this debate of US Missile Defence plans, particularly in respect to the Czech Republic. Two thirds of the Czech population are opposed to the building of a radar installation close to Prague as part of these plans.\nTwo Czech peace activists have been on hunger strike for three weeks in protest at the Czech Government's obstinate support for these plans, despite little evidence that they will do other than make Europe's security worse rather than better. I welcome the fact that these two are now being joined by key political figures each fasting for 24 hours.\nI agree with them that the EU needs to reach a common position on the installation of these Star War technologies in Europe. We need an urgent debate in this Chamber with the Council. I hope the President will push for this next month.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin  \nJunilistan sympathises wholeheartedly with those parts of the Resolution which deal with the treatment of American prisoners and their transportation through European countries. The United States must either bring the captives before a court or release them, in accordance with international law. The conditions prevailing at Guantanamo and other prisons are totally unacceptable.\nUnfortunately the report deals with far too many matters going beyond this problem, questions for which other international bodies, in particular the United Nations, are competent. We do not think that the European Parliament has a role to play as regards the political situation in countries which are not in the immediate vicinity of the EU, such as Iran, Kosovo or Iraq. The European Parliament should also not attempt to expand European foreign policy by calling on other countries to develop cooperation and common strategies on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. These are highly charged questions which are best dealt with from the perspectives of the Member States themselves and in cooperation with legitimate international organisations competent for these matters. Junilistan also has strong criticism for that part of the resolution which seeks to allocate large parts of the EU and United States budgets to the sponsorship of agricultural research.\nRichard Howitt  \nin writing. - British Labour MEPs are delighted to have voted in favour of this resolution in advance of the EU-US summit on the 10th of June. We hope that this resolution will aid in making this Summit a productive one. In particular Labour MEPs welcome the call made for the EU and US to work closely together on a wide range of common policy challenges; the call for the EU and US to place the Millennium Development Goals at the heart of international development policy is also one which Labour MEPs wholeheartedly support.\nBritish Labour MEPs voted to abstain on amendment 8, as we believe that this text does not offer a balanced approach to this issue. We believe that discussions must also focus on Russia's obligations, and include wider international disarmament efforts, as explicitly recommended in the successful Socialist Group amendment to the European Security and Defence Policy report, also voted today.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - The upcoming US presidential election is an opportunity to move away from the type of foreign policy practised under the Bush administration. Such a change should involve Europe and the EU should be looking to strengthen the EU-US partnership, especially when addressing global challenges such as climate change and poverty. I support Mr Wiersma's motion for a resolution.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nWe, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), are voting against the joint resolution for the following reasons:\n\u2022 it calls for the imperialist cooperation between the United States and the EU to be strengthened by boosting NATO in order to manipulate and exploit peoples and states;\n\u2022 it confirms the strategic anti-popular EU-US alliance against 'terrorism'. However many hypocritical appeals are made to respect human rights, the alliance is nothing more than a pretext for jointly waging a relentless war against the people;\n\u2022 the resolution uses the excuse of the effects of climate change on countries and peoples to prepare the way for new imperialist interventions in league with the United States;\n\u2022 through its policy of treating all sides equally, the resolution in fact supports the occupying Israeli forces and their crimes at the expense of the Palestinian people. It accepts the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and suggests practical cooperation measures between the United States and the EU in the Euro-NATO protectorate of Kosovo.\nThe resolution is yet more proof of the irreversible strategic agreement between the EU and the United States at the expense of the people. The resolution flaunts political might to show that the EU is supposedly a rival of the United States, which it feels inferior to.\nLu\u00eds Queir\u00f3  \nin writing. - (PT) One of the most surprising facts of European policy is the way in which relations between Europe and the United States are treated, particularly when compared to the methods used to present our relations with other partners who are more politically and culturally different.\nIt is clear that there are differences of opinion, disagreements, competition and interests, particularly legitimate economic interests, which put us in different places and positions. However, it is essential that we have control over the tensions and divergences between partners in the same project. It is important to recognise this so that we can act and react to whatever we are facing. In this respect, properly removing the barriers to trade which are unnecessary and unjustifiable between partners such as Europe and the US is one of the first steps to be taken. Likewise, if we truly want to respond to the threatened rise in poverty, which is an unnecessary result of increased global demand, it is important that we cooperate among ourselves and in particular with the rest of the world, to ensure that struggling countries can achieve the commercial openness needed to build their own wealth. A more prosperous world can be constructed on the basis of a solid alliance between free societies which stimulate creation.\nGeoffrey Van Orden  \nin writing. - British Conservatives are strong supporters of the Transatlantic Relationship; however, we do not agree on redefining this as a relationship between the EU and the US, particularly in defence matters, and we therefore reject much of paragraph 16.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) While clearly revealing its inter-imperialist contradictions, this resolution reaffirms the cooperation between the EU and the US and the aim of reinforcing their partnership - particularly in light of the forthcoming US presidential election - in sharing 'responsibility' in the world.\nThe resolution reaffirms the EU as a European pillar of NATO, as indicated in the 'European Security Strategy', and urges the EU and the US to 'work more closely together on a wide range of common policy challenges, notably in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Kosovo and the Western Balkans, Afghanistan and Africa'.\nLooking forward to 60 years of NATO, the resolution calls for the launch of 'a redefined and stronger EU-NATO partnership' and points to the adjustment of the 'European Security Strategy' to the new strategic concept of NATO under discussion. In line with the militarism of the Treaty 'of Lisbon', it looks forward 'to a reassessment of the security dimension of EU-US relations in the light of the outcome of the NATO Strategic Review, the update of the European Security Strategy and the arrival in office of a new US Administration'.\nIn other words, it establishes and affirms the EU as a political-economic-military bloc which hopes to share control of the world (by seeking to rebalance its relations) with the US. The world and the people who are looked after ...\nJean-Pierre Audy  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the joint resolution tabled by five political groups on the Union for the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean region and the Middle East are of strategic importance for the Union and it is essential to implement a Mediterranean policy founded on solidarity, dialogue, cooperation and trade in order to tackle the common challenges and achieve the declared objective, namely the creation of an area of peace, stability and shared prosperity. I welcome the initiative of the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, to whom this Union for the Mediterranean owes a great deal, and I wish him every success with the inaugural summit, due to be held in Paris on 13 July. I support the political proposal to give this future Union a parliamentary dimension on the basis of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly. I welcome the examples of proposed initiatives such as the coastal motorways, the linking-up of the Arab Maghreb Motorway (AMA), the de-pollution of the Mediterranean, civil protection, the Mediterranean Solar Plan, high-power solar thermal electricity generation in the North African desert, the desalination of seawater in order to facilitate access to drinking water, etc.\nPatrick Gaubert  \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the adoption of the joint resolution on the 'Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean'.\nThis resolution rightly highlights the strategic interest of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East for the European Union. Our policy towards these countries must be based on the principles of solidarity, dialogue and cooperation.\nThe Barcelona Process warrants being re-launched today in order to make it as efficient as possible. To this end, the Commission's initiative is a step in the right direction and has the merit of concentrating on specific regional projects, which will make it possible to provide an effective response to the needs of the citizens of this region.\nThe Commission proposal also recommends the establishment of a Barcelona Process co-presidency, a Joint Permanent Committee and a secretariat, which will help to improve cooperation and dialogue between the various partners.\nIn addition, it states that the main objectives of this policy must continue to be promotion of the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights and political pluralism.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is not done with disowning hyper-President Sarkozy: rejection of the proposals on fuel tax, warnings against the budgetary slides and, now, transformation of the proposed Union for the Mediterranean into a re-launch of the Barcelona Process, which has been a failure for more than 10 years.\nThis is the death of the project concerning cooperation between the countries bordering the mare nostrum, led by France. From now on the entire Union will be involved and it is the Commission in Brussels that will be at the controls. That is what was decided by the real boss: Mrs Merkel's Germany.\nThis matter perfectly illustrates two realities: Mr Sarkozy's agitation and media hype only serve to mask his powerlessness; France's interests are in the hands of the officials in Brussels and dependent upon those of the European Union.\nWe sincerely hope that Ireland, a nation that has such a great love of freedom and that has paid dearly for it in the course of its history, will be the country that delivers us from this Eurocratic construction that is increasingly unfounded and increasingly tyrannical.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) If you only read the resolution adopted today, you would tend to believe in the most genuine and benevolent intentions of the EU with regard to the 'Union for the Mediterranean'. Its careful language reveals only a few hints of interference and the omnipresent objectives of the 'establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area' and 'free trade', accompanied, of course, by 'social' and 'environmental' palliatives and rhetoric.\nHowever, the European Commission makes it clear that 'the Mediterranean region is an area of vital strategic importance to the European Union in both political and economic terms'. It talks about the 'significant progress [that] has been made towards the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area by 2010', pointing to the need for the EU's Mediterranean partners to pursue 'further and faster reforms'. The Commission puts forward a series of priorities such as transport (pointing to the possibility of setting up a concession scheme of interest to the private sector and accompanied by governmental measures to ensure free trade and abolish the various non-tariff obstacles preventing trade) and increasing the integration of the energy markets.\nThe EU wants to economically, politically and militarily control the whole Mediterranean region and is seeking to dominate its markets and exploit its immense resources.\nThat is capitalism, you fool!\nCarl Lang  \nin writing. - (FR) The very title of the resolution underlines Mr Sarkozy's failure. Not content with being the President of the French Republic, he was trying to become the designer, then the president, of a Euro-Mediterranean Union, open only to the countries bordering the Mediterranean.\nEven before his European presidency begins, his house of cards is collapsing. Germany has imposed its positions: all the EU Member States will participate in this project, designed to be a simple expansion of the Barcelona Process, managed by the Eurocrats in Brussels.\nThis fiasco illustrates the debasement of our country in the European institutions. The Europe of Brussels, far from strengthening France, as the UMP and PS claim, is making it weaker in all sectors: in the economic sector, with the destruction of our small farms, the collapse and relocation of our industries; in the military sector, with the dismantlement of our army, now required to dissolve into a Euro corps; in the demographic sector, with immigration that is threatening our national identity.\nOnly a new Europe, a Europe of nation states, founded on the sovereignty of the nations and on the founding values of our European and Christian civilisation, will enable France to become a major player once again and implement in the Mediterranean a major cooperation policy aimed, inter alia, at ensuring that the immigrant populations return to their home countries.\nErik Meijer  \nFor some time now the European Union has been working to develop special cooperative relations with the countries on the African and Asian shores of the Mediterranean Sea. This cooperation constantly raises the question of whether it means that we support the dictatorship in Syria or that we approve of the way in which Israel is delaying the creation of an equal and internationally recognised Palestinian State. The idea of the French President, Mr Sarkozy, for a special union between the EU and all the countries of the Mediterranean, calls especially for support among the public of the EU Member States that border the Mediterranean Sea. The establishment of such a union could contribute to the EU building up spheres of influence in the region with unequal partners, following the example of the traditional agreements between the US and parts of Latin America. It could also serve to legitimise the dictatorships in Tunisia, Libya and Syria, and to a lesser extent Algeria and Egypt. It would make it easier to send refugees back to such states. It would also give us the chance to upgrade contacts with Israel now, instead of waiting until after the recognition of a neighbouring Palestinian State. It is only because of these underlying problems that I am not voting for this resolution now.\nAthanasios Pafilis  \nThe MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) have voted against the joint resolution. The Union for the Mediterranean does not in the final analysis have equal, mutually profitable relations with the states of the region. Instead, it supports the EU's imperialist plans for the wider region of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The aim of this Union is to liberalise markets in order to enable them to be more easily accessed by European monopolies, whose position in the monopolistic fight for control of the markets will be improved. The energy and wealth-producing resources of the region will be plundered. The Union for the Mediterranean will be achieved by intensifying threats, blackmail, and political or even military pressure on states and the people. The resolution is also revealing. The primary objective of the Union for the Mediterranean policy is purportedly for democracy and human rights to be exported from the EU to the Mediterranean countries. This is the pretext the EU uses to justify its imperialist interventions everywhere. In fact, what is being promoted is the imperialist US-NATO-\u0395U plan for the 'New Middle East'. That is why there is no reference to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or to the genocide of the Palestinian people.\nThe people should have no illusions about the nature and aims of the Union for the Mediterranean; they should fight against it.\nAdam Bielan  \nin writing. - (PL) Mr President, the percentage of young farmers in the European Union continues to fall. Currently, only 7% of farmers are under the age of 35. In many cases, young people leave farming because of the high cost of investment, which means that it is impossible for them to compete on the market.\nWe should therefore help young farmers to draw on Union funding for this purpose. Young farmers would benefit from low-interest loans enabling them to implement their plans without running the risk of becoming heavily indebted. In addition, care should be taken to ensure that the criteria for accessing Union funding are not too demanding and do not exclude small farms focusing on specialised products rather than on large-scale production. The majority of the farms in southern Poland and in the Lesser Poland and Swietokrzyskie Voivodships fit this description.\nMr Veraldi's report deals with all these matters and I therefore voted in favour of it.\nBernadette Bourzai  \nin writing. - (FR) In the light of the difficulty in finding new generations of European farmers, the European Parliament decided to look at the ways to promote the installation of young farmers, which should guide the CAP Health Check. As the shadow rapporteur of the PSE Group, I put forward the following proposals:\nit is a priority to respond to the food, energy, environmental and territorial challenges,\nthe new farmers must benefit from support measures, especially those who do not inherit a farm and those who are based in areas with permanent natural handicaps: higher installation aid, subsidies for agricultural loans and accompanying measures following installation,\nthese support measures must be compulsory under the second pillar of the CAP and the aspect of access to agricultural property must be examined,\nliving conditions in rural areas must be improved: equal access to public services, social amenities, etc.,\nwe must develop access to vocational training (replacement during training and access to agricultural research),\nwe must promote the farming profession and the standards respected by farmers at European level.\nLena Ek  \nThe EU should not concern itself with everything. The principle of a leaner but keener EU implies that the EU should only deal with questions for which there is authority in the founding Treaty and, where demarcation problems arise, proportionality, effectiveness and relevance should be taken into account.\nI have chosen to abstain in the final vote on the report on the future for young farmers under the ongoing reform of the common agricultural policy. The report contains many proposals which improve the situation for newly established young operators as well as proposals which can contribute to the increased production of food. But at the same time the text also covers matters which are quite definitely of national significance and should be decided at national level.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) Many of the proposals contained in the report, to which we have suggested a few amendments, are on the right lines, particularly those referring to the 'continuing difficulties' facing young farmers, such as high installation costs, a heavy burden of debt and too few available holdings. We have made various proposals to which we would draw the European Commission's attention for the future, in particular:\nthe need to adopt the necessary measures to support, accompany and advise young farmers under the initial setting-up scheme with the aim of increasing the success rate and at the same time minimising or putting an end to situations where farmers give up or even become bankrupt;\nthe creation of a land bank on the basis of land freed up as a result of early retirement;\nthe need to introduce support for the joint acquisition of expensive machinery and equipment which is used infrequently by each individual farmer.\nHowever, we regard as inadequate those measures adopted to tackle the existing problems which make Portugal the EU Member State with the lowest percentage of young farmers (less than 4%). It is essential that, within the current review of the common agricultural policy, productive activity is duly valued, with fair prices for production.\nDuarte Freitas  \nin writing. - (PT) In recent decades, European rural areas have been increasingly abandoned, a trend which has been accompanied by a gradual ageing of the population.\nThis ageing of the agricultural population is worrying for the future of European agriculture. That is why I consider the Veraldi report to be very important as it looks at various aspects connected with the expectations and opportunities of young farmers who have a key role to play in the sustainable development of European rural areas.\nI believe that young farmers are particularly important to the development of a dynamic agricultural sector in order to achieve the Lisbon Strategy objectives. Under the new common agricultural policy, the generational change must therefore be regarded as one of the priorities.\nUrszula Gacek  \nin writing. - (PL) We should welcome the fact that by a large majority, the House has adopted the report on the future of young farmers under the ongoing reform of the common agricultural policy.\nThe statements on increasing European Union aid for young farmers are particularly significant. One of these statements is a declaration concerning easier access to preferential loans for this group of farmers.\nFurther practical aid is essential in terms of creating real opportunities for young farmers wishing to continue the family tradition in the Lesser Poland Voivodship to obtain a reasonable income.\nIf the promised aid has the desired effect, the situation whereby villages in Lesser Poland are inhabited solely by older people caring for their grandchildren whose parents feel that the only opportunity open to them is to seek work abroad may become less common. This report therefore has a social dimension as well as an economic one.\nYoung farmers wish to preserve traditions, but they also understand that if they do not draw on other experiences and technology they will be unable to transform their family farms into modern, competitive and profitable enterprises. Support for the development of modern methods and agricultural production tools is therefore a particularly important feature of the resolution adopted today.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin  \nAs usual, we in Junilistan note that in this case it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision on the EU's agricultural policy because, if it had, the Union would be caught in a trap of protectionism and heavy subsidies to various groups in the farming industry.\nThis own-initiative report contains a number of absurd proposals, such as yet another 'European Year', this time for 'urban-rural dialogue'. If every European Year proposed by the European Parliament were to become a reality, every year from now to the end of the century would probably be booked up in advance.\nThe affirmation in paragraph 35 that rural development measures should be aimed directly at farmers strengthens Junilistan's impression that the old, overburdened 'common agricultural policy' has now merely changed its name to 'rural development' in the EU budget.\nIt is with disquiet that we note that the European Parliament now calls for the recognition of non-trade concerns as import criteria in the WTO context. We consider that to be nothing more than a preliminary to the introduction of barriers to trade and protectionism against the rest of the world.\nI have therefore chosen to vote against the report.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The Veraldi report on the future of young farmers highlights a number of important issues which are of relevance across the EU's rural areas. The report also recognises that farming methods rooted in specific geographical areas and cultural traditions in Europe should be conserved, improved and promoted. I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments and consider that they can be applied across the EU's workload.\nMonica Maria Iacob-Ridzi  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of this report, as I consider that the measures stipulated therein are complementary to the national programmes in this field. The National Programme for Rural Development of Romania provides a measure that offers grants from the rural development funds of the European Union of up to EURO 40.000 per person. Yet, there are difficult conditions to be fulfilled and, consequently, we still have a small number of requests in this regard.\nThe report we are adopting today provides for a series of significant measures, both in terms of the financial support of young farmers, and in terms of certain essential legal aspects, like the facilitation of succession upon agricultural property or easy access to bank credits. The professional education and training component offered to young people in rural areas is also important. Thus, I consider that future legislation should provide for the huge disproportion between the younger population aged 35, active in the agricultural sector (only 8,5% of the total number of farmers in Europe) and the other age categories in this field.\nThese measures will definitely contribute to the success of the national programmes, as is the major axis of supporting the young farmers, stipulated by PNDR of Romania.\nChrista Kla\u00df  \nin writing.- (DE) What questions do young people nowadays ask themselves when deciding on a career? Do they ask about the nature of the occupation, the prospects it offers for the future, or making a fast buck? The answer to all these questions is often negative when farming is one of the options. Only 7% of farmers are under the age of 35, with the result that this occupation is an alarming state of decline. There are many young people who would enjoy farming: working in the open air and close to nature, surrounded by plants and animals. That is a given. So what deters young people? Is it the lack of prospects, or the general insecurity surrounding the profession? Once, inheriting the family farm provided a very good and very secure living, but today, the heirs are often at a disadvantage due to the many burdens and conditions imposed on them. We know that only well-trained and highly motivated farmers can guarantee our high standards of healthy food and a healthy natural environment here in Europe. However, we must also be aware of the challenges facing young farmers today. We must involve young farmers in political discussions and decision-making to a greater extent. They are the bearers of Europe's hopes! They are the ones who are facing up to the numerous economic and ecological challenges and ensuring a good and well-balanced social environment in the rural regions. They therefore need reliable policies to support them.\nRoselyne Lefran\u00e7ois  \nin writing. - (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which highlights the fundamental challenge generation change in the agricultural sector poses for the European Union.\nYoung farmers are those who are best placed to respond to the new agricultural challenges. Having benefited from the experience of their elders, they have the necessary dynamism and enthusiasm to carry out the crucial environmental, technological and economic changes that will enable tomorrow's European agriculture to retain a prime position in the world.\nWe now need to reconcile an increasing level of agricultural production with constant respect for product quality and safety, within the framework of a global approach based on the preservation of natural resources and the environment.\nHowever, these requirements mean ever-increasing financial and personal investments from young farmers. In addition, the acquisition of adapted physical and intellectual tools must receive greater support from the Union, as stated in the report, especially in the area of access to technological innovations.\nThe CAP cannot afford to neglect those who will ensure that the Community has sustainable food sovereignty that respects man and the environment.\nAstrid Lulling  \nin writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Veraldi because I fully support the initiatives aimed at ensuring the future of sustainable, competitive and productive agriculture in the EU.\nIt is essential to encourage and facilitate young people's access to the agri-food sector in order to promote generation change and ensure the dynamism of the sector.\nIn order to enable young farmers to cope with the numerous challenges and expectations, such as the production of quality food, food safety, environmental protection, and preservation of biodiversity and the countryside, it is crucial to review the amount of the setting-up premium, which has not changed for years. In addition, we need to ensure that this premium is accompanied by a business plan so as not to curb the innovative spirit of young farmers.\nNonetheless, we must also be aware that middle-aged farmers are facing the same challenges. It is important to ensure that we do not place them at a disadvantage or harm their existing operating methods.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - Encouraging young people into the farming sector is essential to guarantee the future of the farming industry. Support should be given to newcomers in the farming sector including young farmers. I support the general direction of the Veraldi report on the future for young farmers under the ongoing reform of the CAP and voted accordingly.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - Statistics show that rural populations across Europe are simultaneously decreasing and ageing. Moreover, the percentage of farms currently managed by young people is extremely low. This is a worrying trend which is affecting all Member States.\nYoung people are not considering farming as a career option because, in many cases, issues such as the succession of farms and difficulties associated with obtaining credit simply outweigh the benefits of starting out.\nThis insightful report addresses the most important issues which are deterring young people from entering into farming and suggests some practical solutions for dealing with these problems. After all, if we wish to secure the stability and development of Europe's agriculture sector, we must provide young people with incentives to enter into farming and remove the obstacles which they face.\nThe report also recognises that, like any other modern industry, farming needs to be competitive, efficient and able to respond and adapt to market demands. We need to take measures which support and encourage young people in this context, as the next generation of farmers are the key to a dynamic and innovative European agriculture sector.\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1  \nin writing. - (SK) Slovakia, just like other new EU Member States, has a high proportion of rural areas. Rural areas comprise almost 80% of the country's total area, and according to the statistics this is where more than 44% of people live.\nThe present situation in the food industry, high food prices and the production of quality food are the major challenges for European rural areas. It is good to see that young farmers in particular are interested in the ecological farming system. It gives some guarantee of the growing importance of farming aimed at promoting rural development.\nEntrepreneurial spirit in farming has its typical features and carries far greater risks than entrepreneurial spirit in other economic sectors. Many young people think that setting up a farming business is impossible because of the high costs. Introducing various incentives can help young farmers either to set up in business or (later) modernise their enterprises.\nI voted for the report by the rapporteur, Mr Donato Tommaso Veraldi, on the future for young farmers under the ongoing reform of the common agricultural policy, because I am convinced that by supporting young farmers we can significantly help to improve the employment rate in peripheral European regions and prevent young people from leaving rural areas.\nBrian Simpson  \nin writing. - I will vote in favour of this report but I must highlight that Amendment 35 is unacceptable to me and I and the British Labour delegation will vote against this particular amendment.\nSustainable rural development is the key to maintaining our countryside and the traditional way of life enjoyed by our rural communities. Indeed, on the issue of modulation, Members may recall that it was only British Labour MEPs who supported concerted efforts to change our priorities away from direct payments and into sustainable rural development.\nFarmers have a key role to play in delivering rural sustainability and development, but they are not the only people involved in that delivery, which is why I cannot support Amendment 35.\nThis Parliament has developed a habit of constantly demanding direct payments to farmers and no doubt it will do the same when we discuss the CAP Health Check in the near future. I think those of us who believe that things need to change in this regard, away from a system that rewards inefficiency at the expense of efficient agriculture, are those who truly believe in sustainable rural development.\nGeorgios Toussas  \nThe ageing of the agricultural population, the abandonment of cultivated land and the constant reduction in the number of young people working in farming are recent developments that have occurred during the past 20 years. Throughout these years the EU has failed to tackle the problems faced by small and medium-sized farmers, particularly young people. The EU's measures are part of its anti-agricultural policy, which aims to reduce production and concentrate land in the hands of a few large-scale farmers. This will result in the shrinkage of the agricultural population and the abandonment of the countryside, particularly by young people.\nThe report limits itself to findings. The measures it puts forward are within the framework of this policy, so they hide the real reason behind the problems: the EU's confrontational policy. This policy, together with the anti-farming CAP, aims to promote and increase the profits of the multinational monopolies and attack the incomes of small and medium-sized farmers. The report actively supports the partial review carried out on the CAP in 2003, the proposed CAP 'health check' measures and the inclusion of the agricultural economy within the framework of the EU's anti-popular Lisbon Strategy.\nOverturning the EU's anti-agricultural, anti-popular policy is the only solution that will enable farmers to remain on their land. It will guarantee a decent income rather than further the aims and interests of the multinational monopolies.\nGenowefa Grabowska  \nin writing. - (PL) As a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly I should like to congratulate Mr Hutchinson on his report, which I fully support. The workings of this Assembly, and in particular the opportunities it provides for direct contact between parliamentarians on both sides, do much to make the Union's presence felt in the most distant regions of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The Assembly does not focus exclusively on a rigid plan of action. It is also capable of reacting swiftly to crisis situations and to events as they unfold. After all, the Assembly adopts resolutions and makes decisions, all of which result in mobilising material and financial Union aid. Such aid is very much needed and eagerly awaited, especially in regions affected by natural disasters.\nI should like to say how pleased I am with the organisational arrangements. Meeting alternately in Europe and in countries of the ACP region in turn allows members of the Assembly to familiarise themselves with the situation on the ground and understand it better. I also support the arrangements for workshops and fact-finding and research missions associated with the Assembly. In particular, I should like to express my strong support for the idea of a forum for women as an opportunity for discussion and exchange of good practice regarding equal treatment of men and women. I believe that if the European Parliament wishes the ACP countries to perceive it as an institution promoting democracy, it cannot turn a blind eye to the injustices so often experienced by women in those regions.\nPedro Guerreiro  \nin writing. - (PT) While welcoming the involvement and participation of national parliaments and parliamentarians in the negotiations on the EU's Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, we consider that the political position adopted with regard to these EPAs must not be restricted to the 'process', with no mention being made of their contents.\nIf this approach were taken, it would represent a devious attempt to draw attention away from the fundamental issue, which is that the proposed EPAs aim to establish neo-colonial relations by setting up free trade agreements. Through these agreements, the EU, the major powers and their main financial and economic groups will force these countries to open up their markets and will be able to sell their goods and services, exploit the raw materials of these countries and impose an export-oriented production model, thus removing the sovereignty of these countries and making their development dependent on the interests of the EU.\nThis is in the DNA of capitalism...\nIn terms of reaping what we sow, our capitalist intentions will lead, for the vast majority of humanity, to price increases, unemployment, poverty, hunger and so on.\nAs a result, we need to say no to the EPAs and to neo-colonialism.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Hutchinson report. The work that this Parliament has done over the decades together with the ACP countries is something that we as an institution can regard with some satisfaction.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) I have been a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly since my first term of office. Mr Hutchinson's report on the work of the Assembly in 2007 is, I believe, a comprehensive account of both the progress made over the last year and the challenges that we have faced.\nI think that the fact that the standing committees will now also be responsible for following up resolutions is definitely a move in the right direction. It has provided an opportunity for far more in-depth dialogue than was previously available to them in the more formal follow-up that took place in plenary. Furthermore, the Assembly has had a key role in monitoring negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs): interaction between parliamentarians has fostered the transparency of the process and made it easier to take grass-roots issues into account.\nIt is because of the very nature of the work that the Parliamentary Assembly has, to my mind, become an important actor in EU development cooperation. Strengthening the parliamentary dimension and close cooperation in the follow-up process will do more and more to enable EU funds to be channelled directly to serve the needs of the people and, for example, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals on health and education.\nDavid Martin  \nin writing. - I welcome Alain Hutchinson's report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2007. Greater involvement of parliaments and civil society can improve and help intensify the ACP-EU relationship. It is through such cooperation that we can improve the quality of development assistance and its targeting. I therefore voted in favour of the report's recommendations.\nEoin Ryan  \nin writing. - (GA) I was very happy to support Mr Hutchinson's report last year on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA). I would like to refer to some aspects of this report that really impressed me.\nIt is fortunate that the rapporteur referred to the Economic Partnership Agreements(EPA). The European Union needs to keep a close watch on EPA talks and developments and the JPA has done this. As has been stated by the rapporteur, the JPAs have a central role in monitoring talks and creating links between the two sides: the EU and countries of the South.\nI would also like to praise the rapporteur for the reference he made to Somalia as 'a crisis that has been forgotten'. Somalia is not alone, however, and we in the EU and the ACP are obliged to support, help and direct attention on these regions.\nAbove all else, however, this reports highlights the good work that has been done by the JPA, work that is sometimes not respected enough.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna  \nin writing. ? (PL) The rapporteur rightly draws attention to the need to establish an appropriate framework for an open, democratic and content-based dialogue aimed at negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements between Member States of the European Union and ACP countries.\nA further important aspect is increased participation of the national parliaments and societies of individual countries in order to strengthen ACP-EU cooperation. Particular importance should also be ascribed to regional cooperation and integration. Actions aimed at strengthening peace should receive strong support too, especially in those ACP countries where the political situation remains unstable.\nBernard Wojciechowski  \nin writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the report on the activities of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. I believe it is a good idea for the standing committee of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly to follow up resolutions by meeting with Commission officials responsible for the relevant areas. To date this follow-up has only taken place in plenary sessions. The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has many tasks before it, all of which aim to promote the economic development of the ACP countries.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of this report, which makes another significant contribution to Europe's economic development. I therefore welcome the excellent work done by Mr Pittella, who has clearly spelled out the proposals and principles which should regulate this very important sector.\nHarmonisation of the credit market constitutes another step towards an extremely important goal: the completion of a truly integrated internal market which attempts to overcome the existing legislative differences between Member States. Financial services are of general economic interest, in that they play a key role both in terms of economic development and in terms of properly implementing the Schengen objectives.\nI am thinking of citizens who have huge difficulties in obtaining accurate information, and of the exit penalties - often in the form of high abandonment costs - which confront users wishing to switch from one credit institution to another.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) While there are certain positive aspects to the report adopted today, namely information on, and facilitation of, certain banking procedures for consumers, access to these services still lies within the context of a liberalised financial market where the aim, by nature, is to pursue maximum profits and not to protect consumers. That is why we abstained from voting.\nIt is not enough to guarantee the right to a bank account. We must ensure that fees or any other types of penalty are not charged to customers for any services, particularly where the people hardest hit would be those who are financially weak, those with accounts with limited funds and transactions or simply those who hold bank accounts.\nIt is essential to guarantee the public service which also exists in the financial sector, without which we will worsen social inequalities, dramatically affecting those people with fewer financial resources, social solidarity institutions and other social organisations, including small and micro-enterprises.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - The Pittella report, which I supported, highlights the importance of culture, habits and languages in consumer choices and protection for financial products. The diverse cultures, habits and languages of the EU deserve respect in all areas of the Union's work and are essential if the European Institutions' work is to gain public support.\nAlessandro Battilocchio  \nin writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the work done by the committee responsible and the rapporteur, Mr Karas, has taken our parliamentary debate a stage further and is helpful in clarifying what problems need to be tackled and resolved in this field. Furthermore, I am pleased that particular emphasis is at last being given to small operators and not just to large movements of capital.\nThe financial services sector does not just serve large companies operating at European or intercontinental level; it is likewise a vital tool for anyone wishing to take new ideas and ways of doing business beyond their own local market. High-level legislative action by the European Union will undoubtedly lead to greater competition and lower costs for consumers, with a positive impact on increased choice and wider access to such services by users.\nGiven the importance of this sector and the advantages which would stem from better legislation in this field, I am happy to see that, thanks to this report, Parliament will finally be able to put forward appropriate measures of direct benefit to consumers.\nIlda Figueiredo  \nin writing. - (PT) The liberalisation of retail financial services in the single market is the most recent proposal from the European Commission following on from the liberalisations set out in the Lisbon Strategy. The aim is to take another step towards achieving full liberalisation of services in the European Union.\nAs a result, and following on from other initiatives, the liberalisation of various retail financial services is now proposed, in particular banking products, insurance and pensions. The aim is to remove anything which might be regarded as an 'obstacle', using the old arguments of lower prices and greater choice for consumers, when experience actually shows precisely the opposite. It is the large companies which gradually increase their profits at the cost of more expensive services for consumers.\nAlthough we are pleased at the adoption of the amendment tabled by our Group, given that a particular duty of care needs to apply to the marketing of savings and old-age pension products as the decisions that consumers take in that regard are normally decisions of great importance to them and generally taken only once in a life, the fact is that most of the report is negative. That is why we voted against it.\nBruno Gollnisch  \nin writing. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as the rapporteur quite rightly points out, for there to be a market, there must be supply and demand. That does not seem to be the case for a cross-border retail financial services market, however. The report is in fact based on the premise that allowing the supply is bound to encourage the demand.\nEven though we all might like to benefit from cheaper credit or more profitable investments, it is unlikely that tomorrow an Italian will go to a Danish or Cypriot bank to get a loan to buy his house or his car. We all know why: linguistic problems, justified apprehension about the risks, uncertainty about the tax arrangements, etc. The rapporteur, who highlights the importance of the aspects of trust, proximity and personal relations for the consumer, is under no illusions.\nThis desire to artificially create such a market does not manage to conceal one of the main aims of the manoeuvre: forcing the states to harmonise their taxes and regulations so as to be prepared for all contingencies or imposing a 28th legal order, a supranational order, accompanied, for good measure, by the adoption of the euro by the countries that rejected it, thereby enabling them to participate fully in this hypothetical market.\nWe cannot support these proposals.\nIan Hudghton  \nin writing. - I voted in favour of the Karas report on retail financial services in the single market. My own country, Scotland, is home to a number of world class financial companies and they can benefit from access across the internal market. Nevertheless, respect must be had for the different financial cultures and traditions of the EU's nations and I believe that the Karas report strikes the right balance in recognising the need for subsidiarity in this area.\nRovana Plumb  \nin writing. - (RO) I voted for the Report \"The Green Card for the retail financial services on the single market\", because the access of the consumers to the retail trans-border financial services represents an important factor of the reinforcement of the single market, under the conditions of insuring a high degree of protection to consumers.\nWith united efforts on a national and European level, it is necessary to develop consumer awareness campaigns regarding trans-border financial services.\nRomania must promote consumer awareness and knowledge of the FIN-NET system, that has a key role in the coordination of information designed for the public with respect to access to legal appeal mechanisms and the alternative solutions, mainly in terms of the trans-border financial services.\nEoin Ryan  \nI fully support Mr Karas' and Mr Pitella's reports in respect of their efforts to ensure that the operation of the banking sector is more effective and accessible to individual customers and small enterprises. I agree, especially, with the article in Mr Karas' report which emphasizes self-regulation instead of introducing new legislation. Legislation is not always the answer; each case must be examined and considered carefully and the competitiveness and sustainability of each sector must be closely watched. It is often the case that something that is of benefit to the sector will also be of benefit to the customer.\nI have an enormous problem with one article in Karas' report, however, in which he refers to the differences between taxation laws in various Member States. It would appear to me that this article criticizes the principle of subsidiarity and there is no truth in it. It is up to individual countries to decide their own tax bands and these bands encourage competition in the single market and not the opposite.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":3,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-18":1,"2024-10":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"6. Upcoming EU-US summit and Transatlantic Economic Council (\nElmar Brok\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, several groups are of the opinion that we should say something about coordinating currency policy measures, following the decision made by the US Federal Reserve concerning the USD 600 billion. We simply want to add:\nCalls on the United States, in implementing its domestic monetary policies, not to exacerbate the problem of the global balance of exchange rates.\n(DE) I believe that this would be a reasonable addition, because it will definitely play a role at the summit.\nElmar Brok\n(DE) Mr President, in addition to what I have just said, I would like to ask for currency policy to be included in the recitals. I believe that this is a sentence which could gain broad agreement here:\nWhereas coordinated monetary policies should take a higher priority in the transatlantic partnership.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":2,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"EU-Japan trade relations (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on EU-Japan trade relations by Daniel Caspary and Jaros\u0142aw Leszek Wa\u0142\u0119sa, on behalf of the PPE Group, Syed Kamall, Robert Sturdy and Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group, Niccol\u00f2 Rinaldi, Metin Kazak and Marielle De Sarnez, on behalf of the ALDE Group, and Emilio Men\u00e9ndez del Valle, David Martin and Vital Moreira, on behalf of the S&D Group (O-000088\/2011\/r\u00e9v.1 - B7-0220\/2011).\nJaros\u0142aw Leszek Wa\u0142\u0119sa\nMadam President, in recent months, Japan has increased its interest in opening possible negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Union. From the point of view of the European Parliament, the most important issue should be the non-tariff barriers, which has been emphasised many times at meetings of the Trade Policy Committee. The problem is not tariffs but the numerous restrictive regulations and obstructions faced by EU companies in gaining access to the Japanese market. I am in favour of greater cooperation between the European Union and Japan, but I believe that the priority should be the removal of these non-tariff barriers which restrict the access of EU goods to the Japanese market.\nThis is why paragraph 30 was accepted in the conclusions of the European Council in March and indicates the line to be taken and presented by the European Union at the EU-Japan Summit in opening negotiations on a free trade agreement. It is quite right to make the opening of these negotiations conditional on Japan showing goodwill in reviewing, inter alia, the issue of non-tariff barriers and restrictions on public procurement. It is worth bearing this in mind, all the more so as Japan is lobbying against the loss of competitiveness in the EU market as a result of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement which is due to come into effect.\nSyed Kamall\nauthor. - Madam President, I think - I hope - that most of us in this House would agree that our preference is for multilateral negotiations and a successful outcome for the Doha Development Round at the WTO. But, given the difficulties that we all know have been encountered there, I think the Commission deserves support in negotiating some of these bilateral agreements.\nFor this reason, I think we should actually be pressing ahead with an EU-Japan free trade agreement. I recognise that there are concerns over the natural disasters that have befallen Japan, but I have spoken to many Japanese colleagues, friends and others who believe that, if we tread sensitively, an EU-Japan agreement would send a signal that Japan is back on its way and is on the road to recovery.\nIf you look at the figures, in 2009, Japan and the EU together represented more than a quarter of global GDP and more than 20% of world trade, and had a combined volume of foreign direct investment of about EUR 200 billion. Given that the EU countries and Japan face common challenges, I think it is important that we look at some of these issues and address them through trade agreements.\nDespite low tariffs, I think it is quite clear that bilateral trade volumes between the EU and Japan lag behind the bulk of the EU's trade partnerships with its other main trading partners. I think this is mostly due to the non-tariff barriers. It has been estimated that the cost of some of these barriers is actually higher than the existing tariff levels, and that most of the gains will come from removing these barriers. For companies within EU countries, there would be gains if we could tackle barriers to public procurement, to the medical devices market - where there is insufficient recognition of international standards, to services - including financial services and postal services, and access for SMEs. For the Japanese, there would be gains in the automotive and ICT sectors. But let us not forget that removing or reducing barriers to ICT products from Japan would be of benefit to the EU as well.\nI think that, overall, there is a feeling on both sides that an EU-Japan FTA has the potential to become a true win-win for both sides.\nMetin Kazak\nauthor. - Madam President, I co-signed this initiative to table an oral question and a resolution in advance of the 20th Japan-EU Summit because I believe that the European Parliament, which will be asked to give its consent to any potential free trade agreement with Japan, should have its say at the earliest possible stage.\nI believe that this opportunity should be used by Parliament to strongly support an FTA with Japan for the following reasons.\nThe European Union and Japan are industrial giants that share democratic values and together represent 38.5% of the world's gross domestic product. We share similar challenges: the rise of China, the global financial crisis, decreasing demographics and the need to access raw materials and energy sources and to achieve price stability.\nTherefore, I see great potential in further developing trade relations with Japan, our sixth largest trading partner. The economic benefits are clear. The Copenhagen Economics report concluded that the bilateral elimination of tariffs and reduction of non-tariff barriers would benefit both businesses and consumers and drive economic welfare by EUR 33 billion in the EU and EUR 18 billion in Japan.\nThe potential launch of negotiations on an FTA agreement was backed by the Council as long as Japan was willing to tackle non-tariff barriers on market access and restrictions on public procurement. I would like to reiterate that non-tariff barriers and public procurement are crucial areas for European businesses where Japan needs to make significant concessions.\nOf course, the European Parliament demands that the Commission be fully transparent in all negotiations and that we be provided with timely sectoral impact assessments. In addition, we will support bilateral safeguard measures, as was the case with the South Korea FTA, to avoid serious injury to sensitive sectors such as automotives, electronics, aviation and machinery.\nIn conclusion, I am firmly convinced that it is high time that Parliament showed its support for a future FTA between the EU and Japan, building on the establishment of a high-level group, especially in the wake of the March 2011 disaster.\nDavid Martin\nauthor. - Madam President, an EU-Japan free trade agreement clearly has the potential to create significant numbers of European jobs and to benefit European companies, and the reason for that is that EU penetration of the Japanese market is currently extremely modest by comparison with EU exports elsewhere.\nIn fact, according to the OECD, our market penetration in Japan is amongst the lowest, and the reason for this has been indicated by my colleagues. The problem is not high tariff barriers - the tariff barriers are relatively low - but rather non-tariff barriers, including regulatory complications, issues in relation to mutual recognition, poor access to public contracts, and so on.\nThe million dollar question for both the Commission and this Parliament is whether to insist that Japan continues to make progress in tackling these non-tariff barriers before we open negotiations, or to open negotiations in the hope that, by doing so, we will encourage Japan to reduce its non-tariff barriers. There is no easy answer to that question.\nHowever, I think the omens are good that Japan does want to tackle non-tariff barriers. The Japanese Prime Minister has called for an 'open Japan' policy, and that is partly because he recognises that Japanese industry is stultifying in its present environment. It is also, of course, partly because of the anticipated impact of the South Korean free trade agreement on Japanese exports, but I think that, in addition, it reflects recognition of Japan's limited experience with opening up.\nEuropean companies have had improved access to telecommunications, car manufacturing, retail and the insurance sector in Japan, and that has not damaged the Japanese economy but has, in fact, encouraged innovation and development in Japan. So I think the omens are good.\nOn balance, my group takes the view that we still need Japan to show a little more willingness before we announce the opening of free trade negotiations. We are not against an FTA but we think that Japan needs to do a little bit more to prove that the Japanese Prime Minister can deliver on his words.\nKarel De Gucht\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, the tsunami and earthquake that hit Japan last March constituted a major tragedy. The resilience of the Japanese people reassures us that Japan will be able to overcome that tragedy and to emerge from it stronger than before. The help offered and the solidarity expressed by the EU will also be instrumental in achieving this recovery.\nThis tragedy came a few months before a very important summit between the EU and Japan, scheduled for 28 May 2011, which is set to define the direction of our relationship for the years to come.\nAs you know, the previous EU-Japan Summit of April last year established a joint high-level group composed of senior officials to identify options for the comprehensive strengthening of all aspects of the EU-Japan relationship, in the political, economic and sectoral cooperation fields. On the trade side, the high-level group looked into ways of strengthening and integrating the economic relationship, addressing all issues of interest to both parties. These include tariffs, non-tariff measures, investments and procurement.\nFrom Japan's side, the clearly stated preferred option is to start negotiations on a free trade agreement which includes preferential tariffs. However, from the EU side, an agreement focusing on tariffs would clearly not be enough. The problem with Japan is, indeed, not so much tariffs but the fact that EU exporters and investors still face all sorts of non-tariff barriers. Typical examples of these include cumbersome approval processes for medical equipment and certain food products, and lack of convergence with internationally recognised standards for car parts and components.\nBarriers in these areas have been in place in the Japanese market for decades. We have raised these matters in the various bilateral dialogues between Japan and the EU over the past few years but little progress has been achieved so far.\nIn the light of this, we would need an agreement that would also tackle non-tariff barriers, increase market access for investment and open the Japanese public procurement market.\nThe focus of the high-level group's trade discussions has been on exploring how to achieve progress on these issues. A degree of progress has thus been delivered on a limited number of non-tariff measures from a list identified by the EU, namely three out of 27, but for most non-tariff measures on the list, we feel that Japan has failed to present a credible road map demonstrating how the problems should be solved. So, in the Commission's view, what has been achieved in the high-level group provides, at this stage, no more than a good basis for further discussion.\nOn 25 March 2011, the European Council reiterated the strategic importance of the EU-Japan relationship, confirming that 'the forthcoming summit must be used to strengthen this relationship and bring forward our common agenda'. In this regard, the conditions for a successful FTA should be explored on the basis that Japan can demonstrate its willingness to tackle, inter alia, non-tariff barriers and restrictions on public procurement.\nDiscussions are still ongoing with Japan. Last week, I met Foreign Minister Matsumoto precisely to discuss this matter. In my opinion, it is not yet clear how far we can progress, in the limited time before the EU-Japan Summit, with regard to fulfilling the Council's conditions. In particular, more work is needed in order to arrive at a shared level of ambition on agreeing the contents of the negotiation, as well as an ambitious but realistic outcome.\nThis could be achieved through a so-called 'scoping' exercise, which could be conducted after the summit. Once that has been done, we would examine the results and decide whether or not to launch the negotiations.\nOn the trade and economic side, the level of ambition should include, at least, aiming for the following: 100% duty and quota-free treatment for all goods; a robust and credible road map for eliminating a critical mass of non-tariff measures; an open investment regime to achieve levels of foreign direct investment into Japan comparable to those of other OECD countries; and a government procurement market with a level of openness matching those of the EU countries at all levels of government.\nI should also mention that, if the summit leaders decide to go ahead with the option of a comprehensive bilateral legal framework, this should include both trade and investment relations and political relations and cooperation.\nThis comprehensive approach, encompassing all bilateral, political and economic relations in a balanced way, is necessary in order to fulfil our targets and our ambitions for a deeper strategic partnership.\nWe are, indeed, at a crucial stage in our economic relations with Japan, and there are still some issues that need to be clarified. I therefore welcome this debate and look forward to hearing your views on how we should shape this relationship in the years to come.\nDaniel Caspary\nMadam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Commissioner for giving us an overview of the current status of the trade relations between the European Union and Japan.\nUnfortunately, I get the impression that the situation with regard to these trade relations has barely improved in the last two years. You mentioned the summit in 2009 and the high-level dialogue and I get the impression that so far in these talks, we have not succeeded in obtaining any obvious additional market access for European companies in Japan.\nNow that the first initiative, namely, this high-level dialogue, has been unsuccessful, I am very concerned that our primary concern is not the question of how we can perhaps achieve tangible success in this high-level dialogue, but instead we are already considering whether we should not negotiate a free trade agreement.\nI can well imagine that a free trade agreement with Japan would make sense, but before we enter into such negotiations, it is not too much to ask that we first wait for the results from the existing instrument, namely this high-level dialogue. I want to be very open about this and I am not saying this in order to take away any negotiating chips from Japan, but because I would genuinely like to see whether Japan is serious about intensifying trade relations with us and genuinely opening up its markets and also its attitude to our products.\nI would be very interested - unfortunately, Commissioner, you did not mention this at all just now - in how you intend to involve the European Parliament in the issuing of the mandate. I have the impression that we would have a great deal to say on the subject of Japan. With regard to the negotiations with India, Canada and also Korea, we as Parliament have repeatedly been critical of the fact that, in our view, the wrong priorities were set to some extent in the negotiations, and therefore it would be very helpful if you would involve Parliament very closely in this matter right from the issuing of the mandate.\nGianluca Susta\nMadam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council's request to open negotiations with Japan on the conclusion of a free trade agreement must be assessed very carefully. We therefore welcome the Commissioner's cautious approach to this issue and we call on Parliament as a whole to follow that approach, which inspired our group's motion for a resolution.\nThe new Japanese Government has demonstrated - at least verbally - its willingness to open up its market, one of the most closed markets in the developed world. This positive attitude must be verified in practice, especially with regard to the 27 non-tariff barriers identified by the European Union, which must be lowered so that we can open negotiations with Japan and make them one of the priorities of our trade policy. We believe that improving these relations can help make Europe more competitive, since Japan accounts for 9% of world GDP, or over 35% when its GDP is added to our own.\nToday, however, we cannot adopt resolutions unless they make the opening of free trade agreement negotiations subject to specific, binding and verifiable conditions; namely, that there will be genuine reciprocity and a proper impact assessment.\nFirstly, Japan's protectionist policy in the automotive sector concerns us, because there is an imbalance between exports and imports. Secondly, we wish to raise the issue of non-tariff barriers. I am talking about a whole range of standards, from health and plant health measures to technical standards - especially in the agricultural and automotive sectors - export subsidy rules, customs checks and factors allowing for counterfeiting and also triangular trade with China and Korea.\nTo conclude, ladies and gentlemen, we ask that before Europe declares itself willing to open negotiations on the conclusion of a free trade agreement, it resolutely defines the Community interest that it intends to protect and specifies the areas in which it will request reciprocity from Japan. We hope that the Commission will take these comments of ours on board.\nKristiina Ojuland\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, in December last year, I visited Japan and one of the concerns that was raised repeatedly by the Japanese officials was the slow progress in trade relations between the European Union and Japan. We all know that, unlike some other EU partners in the Far East, we share common values of democracy, human rights and the liberal market economy with Japan, making her a more natural partner for the European Union.\nAt the 19th EU-Japan Summit in April last year, it was agreed to establish a joint high-level group in order to analyse the progress in EU-Japan relations so far and draw up suggestions for streamlining our current activities. The importance of continuing to work on non-tariff issues was also stressed in the context of the joint high-level group and I hope that these agreements can be put into practice as soon as possible.\nI would like to speak in favour of timely and concrete steps to alleviate non-tariff barriers in order to liberalise EU-Japan trade relations. Both markets would benefit greatly from upgrading trade relations between the EU and Japan, especially keeping in mind innovation and technologies. I would also welcome further cooperation on matters relating to cyber security.\nI hope that we can improve trade relations with Japan and I look forward to further progress in these relations.\nKeith Taylor\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Madam President, it is quite desirable to review the trading arrangements that we have with other countries and it is quite understandable that Japan sees the FTA as particularly attractive in relation to the recent Korea FTA.\nThere is a lot that we can support in the EPP-ALDE-ECR resolution but I think that they are making a mistake to 'strongly support' an FTA. That is a direct quote from paragraph 2. I think that is premature support when we do not have impact assessments on the environmental and social effects of an FTA. They are predicting the answer before identifying the effects of implementing the solution. Many people have commented about the non-tariff barriers and the work that has yet to be done by the high-level group. I think that needs a positive step forward.\nWhen we bear in mind the importance of Japan as a trading partner - with bilateral trade with the EU standing at EUR 120 billion a year, and with the EU being the number three trading partner for Japan and the number two investor in Japan - I think we recognise that any bilateral agreement runs the risk of undermining multilateral agreements with the rest of the world and, in particular, with the developing countries. So I think that strong unconditional support for an FTA needs to be revised.\nFinally, I would like to say that, whilst we have every sympathy with Japan, future trade policies simply cannot be based on who has had the most recent natural disaster.\nHelmut Scholz\nMadam President, Commissioner, just one topic should be the focus of attention when the summit is held between the European Union and Japan at the end of this month: the disaster that has devastated the people of Japan as a result of earthquakes, the tsunami and continuing radioactive contamination, and the concrete role that can be played by the EU, its Member States and individual citizens in helping to deal with the resulting problems in the short, medium and long term. That is why I once again wish to express my deepest sympathies to the Japanese people.\nWe must immediately extend offers of partnership and help in dealing with this disaster - particularly in view of the debate we have just held on Pakistan. The summit must produce concrete decisions, particularly in relation to cooperation in clearing contaminated areas and joint research and development in the area of renewable energy.\nThe possible development of our trade relations and economic cooperation through a corresponding agreement should not be simply a response to the nuclear accident. For this reason, negotiations should not begin too hastily, but should be examined with due care, paying particular attention to the different traditions and lifestyle.\nIn view of the size and strength of the two economies, particular care is required when agreeing a comprehensive, bilateral trade agreement. Many issues have been raised, including intellectual property rights and public procurement, and the investment capital has reduced the scope for political action on both sides. That is why long-term impact assessments are required in relation to the relevant chapters and aspects of any economic and trade policy cooperation agreed in the future between the 27 EU Member States and Japan. For this reason, the European Parliament, as a codecision-making authority, as well as the public at large, must also be consulted.\nWilliam  Dartmouth\non behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, most people know - but many do not - that, shortly after a country becomes a member of the EU, all its trade agreements are negotiated by the Commission and, specifically, the EU Trade Commissioner. Under this arrangement, the interests of all 27 Member States need to be satisfied, which, of course, means in practice that they will not be.\nIn consequence, an EU-negotiated trade agreement is likely to be less beneficial for an individual Member State - and, I have to say, the UK in particular - than if the Member State had been able to negotiate for itself.\nNow, the rationale for all this is that the EU is a large trading bloc and because of this clout, the EU is able to negotiate a trade treaty that would not be open to a Member State to negotiate on its own. But what do we find here? The negotiations for the EU trade treaty with Japan have not even properly started, as the Commissioner said. Meanwhile, the comparatively small, but dynamic, economy of Switzerland already has a trade treaty with Japan, and has had since 2009.\nOnce again, here is further proof that the UK and the other contributing Member States would be much better off outside the bureaucratic contraption that is the European Union.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Madam President, in 2009 between them, the EU and Japan produced more than one quarter of the world's economic output and accounted for over 20% of world trade, which is why a well-conceived free trade agreement with Japan is of central importance for the EU. There are synergy effects that can be exploited, as well as shared challenges, such as competition with China and secure access to raw materials.\nHowever, bilateral safeguard clauses are also important in this agreement. I am thinking of sensitive economic sectors such as the automotive, electronics, aerospace and mechanical engineering industries. I am certain that Japan can and will be a fair and reliable partner.\nThe bottom line is that however important Japan may be as a trading partner, European citizens must be protected from any risk from radioactive contaminated products.\nJ\u00f6rg Leichtfried\n(DE) Madam President, Mr De Gucht, ladies and gentlemen, this may seem an unusual way to open a speech in the European Parliament, but I must admit that I am not sure that this is the right time to conclude a trade agreement with Japan - or indeed whether such an agreement is advisable at all.\nThere are three reasons for my uncertainty. The first question is whether we are actually undermining our attempt to establish a multilateral agreement by agreeing a large number of external trade agreements with highly significant trading partners. Are we not in danger of concentrating too much on concluding individual agreements, which may prevent us from pursuing a multilateral system with appropriate and sufficient vigour?\nSecondly, so far, I have not got the feeling that Japan is really meeting us half way in terms of market protectionism and non-tariff trade barriers. The wheels should already have been set in motion, otherwise the entire agreement is in danger of being too one-sided.\nMy third question is: what are the consequences? I do not intend to judge whether this is good or bad for us in the final analysis. However, I would like to know in advance how the social consequences are to be assessed, and how things look in terms of the environment or labour market. These are issues that I do not believe have been entirely clarified. Surely these questions should have been better assessed and researched in advance.\nAs some of my fellow Members have pointed out, if these points were to be clarified, the Commission would be well advised to consult the European Parliament when issuing a mandate. This would avoid many of the difficulties encountered with other trade agreements because we were not consulted. I would welcome such a procedure for all future trade agreements.\nReinhard B\u00fctikofer\n(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it would seem that some groups are very sure that it is right for us now to seek a very ambitious free trade agreement with Japan. As you have heard, my group is not so sure. I myself have great sympathy with this position because I believe that by strengthening cooperation in trade, we can help generate a new economic dynamism in Japan, following the disaster that has befallen the country.\nHowever, there are some fundamental questions that are inescapable. I do not intend to repeat what has been said about the need to predict the consequences in the bilateral area, or about the fact that we should avoid the mistake of first defining free trade priorities and then moulding European industrial policy to these as a dependent variable, or that the question of making a contribution to sustainability must be taken into consideration.\nI should like to emphasise something else: I believe that the effects that such a free trade agreement between two of the giants of international trade would have on the entire structure of global trade must be discussed in greater detail than has been the case heretofore. When two such mammoths of the commercial trade sector enter into negotiations on a free trade agreement, then this is not simply a bilateral matter. Until now, there has been no free trade agreement between two economic superpowers, so this would be a first. But what does that mean? What is the strategic perspective? What effect will this have?\nIt is not enough simply to say we want multilateral trade and if we do not get it, then we will stick with the bilateral dimension of free trade and wait to see what happens. We are also responsible for making the implications clear to the European public, which is why the involvement of Parliament in the issuing of the mandate, as called for by several of my fellow Members, must be central.\nGeorge Sabin Cuta\u015f\n(RO) Madam President, the economies of the European Union and Japan account for 35% of global GDP. I believe that a free trade agreement between these two economic powers could provide benefits for both sides. However, the first thing which needs to be done is to remove the difficulties which form the basis and, in practical terms, stand in the way of drafting a really profitable agreement for both sides.\nThe Japanese market is currently subject to barriers, non-tariff barriers, as my fellow Members have also mentioned, which restrict import access, thereby impacting as a whole on trade activities and investments. As part of the negotiations it is conducting, the European Commission must strive both to promote a more transparent regulatory policy, which will help European companies to understand fully the rules for conducting trade with Japanese partners, and to deregulate access to public procurement. Finally, I also think that an impact study needs to be carried out, which will examine the effects of any agreement, particularly in the area of vulnerable European industries, such as the car industry, electronics and aeronautics.\nJaroslav Pa\u0161ka\n(SK) Madam President, Commissioner, Japan shares many common interests with the European Union that are not limited to political issues, but also extend to economic and trade cooperation.\nAlthough both Japan and the European Union are mature economies, their trade cooperation has failed to exploit the opportunities presented by their economic clout. In addition to duties, more effective trade cooperation is hindered by the numerous obstructions that Japan has placed in the way of standardisation and access to public procurement and government contracts. Although I believe that it is in our interest to improve trade cooperation with Japan, we must strive to make our cooperation correct, open, balanced and beneficial to both parties. I would therefore like to express my support for the European Commission in its pursuit of this objective.\nKarel De Gucht\nMember of the Commission. - Madam President, I should just like to touch upon two points. First, the relationship between bilateral and multilateral agreements. Some Members have advanced the idea that we should concentrate on the multilateral agreements rather than the bilateral ones. We do! As you know, the multilateral negotiations for the Doha Round are in dire straits, and we are the only big trading bloc that has been making proposals recently to try to bridge the differences between the developed and the emerging economies with respect to industrial sectors. But while we are really concentrating on the multilateral aspects of trade, on the other hand, we should not neglect all our bilateral relations with important trading partners.\nSecondly, with respect to Japan, as many among you have been saying, it is really a 'chicken and egg' situation. Do you start the negotiations and then hope that in the course of the negotiations, you can resolve the non-tariff barriers that have been in place for many years, or do you rather try to do away with the majority of the non-tariff barriers as a precondition for negotiations on the free trade agreement? I think that, to a certain extent, we need that conditionality, because the real problem with Japan is not so much tariffs. Of course, the idea would be to eliminate 100% of tariffs, which normally you would not have with a developing or an emerging economy. The real problem is with respect to non-tariff barriers. We have been proposing a list of 27 non-tariff barriers which we think are crucial for our trade relationship, but in only three cases out of the 27 is there now a solution on the table which seems to be acceptable.\nThe Japanese claim that they have solutions for all the rest too, but we cannot see a solution in the proposals that they have been making to us.\nSo we believe that we need a scoping exercise so that we know what we are talking about. I hope that, in the course of that scoping exercise, we can do away with a number of non-tariff barriers, and that this will create the right climate for us to get down to actual free trade negotiations with Japan. That is how we see it. We see it, at least partially, as a precondition that we should stick to.\nPresident\nI have received four motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday, 11 May 2011.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nArtur Zasada\nI believe that a rapprochement in the field of aeronautics will create a huge opportunity for the European and Japanese economies. The European aircraft industry has long been the chief supplier of civil and military technology in the international market. Japan is also carrying out research into advanced solutions for general aviation as well as for passenger transport and cargo. It is estimated that the transport of passengers and goods by air will be one of the fastest growing branches in the coming decades. It is true that we already have examples of cooperation between partners from the European Union and Japan, including the EC 145 helicopter, designed jointly by Eurocopter and Kawasaki, but the potential for cooperation could be much greater in my opinion. I appeal for action to be taken for rapid European-Japanese cooperation in aeronautics, at company level as well as in research and development units.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Amendment of Directive 2003\/87\/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Peter Liese, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003\/87\/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community - C6-0011\/2007 -\nStavros Dimas\nMr President, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me particular satisfaction to open today's discussion on the proposal to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading, known as the ETS, within the Community.\nI should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Liese, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their efforts to date. I should also like to thank the other three committees for their participation and their contribution to the discussion.\nIt has already become widely accepted that climate change is taking place and is being caused by human activity. The measures we take over the next 10 years will determine whether we manage to bring the situation under control or let climate change reach levels so dangerous that it threatens the wellbeing and stability of our societies. The EU has the capability, the resources and the will to lead the global effort to combat climate change. This is the clear message that we will be delivering in a few weeks' time in Bali, where the Future International Action on Climate Change Network is to be discussed. This opportunity has allowed all three bodies, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, to set ambitious and binding targets for reducing emissions. To achieve these targets, all sectors, including that of international air transport, must take their share of responsibility.\nUntil now, international air transport has been relatively favourably treated compared with other branches of the transport sector. In terms of taxation and VAT, international air transport continues to enjoy privileges enjoyed when it was still a small, emerging economic sector after the Second World War. In negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol in the 1990s, air and sea transport were exempted from targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These targets affect only internal flights. Now air transport has grown considerably, and it has become the cornerstone of globalisation, as it brings peoples and economies closer together. The Commission fully recognises the importance of air transport for international trade and economic development. On the other hand, the negative impact of air transport on the environment has begun to make itself felt, the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions being a palpable example of this. The contribution of air transport to global emissions of greenhouse gases is equivalent to the total emissions of the UK or Canada. In the EU, CO2 emissions from aircraft are nearly double their 1990 total, and the forecast is for 150% growth by 2012.\nWe cannot of course allow this situation to continue without taking measures to combat it. The air transport sector must also contribute to the fight against climate change, otherwise we shall be seeing air transport favoured over other branches of the economy which are already making significant efforts to reduce their emissions. This is precisely why the Commission proposed in its communication in September 2005an overall approach to combating the impact of air transport on climate.\nOur strategy is based on policies already applied by the Community, but it also strengthens and extends them. Our current policies include research into new, cleaner technologies and further improvement in the air traffic management system in Europe through the Single European Sky and Clean Sky programmes. Yet these measures alone are not enough; further action is needed, and for this reason, in December 2006, the Commission proposed that air transport should be included in the Community system for emission allowance trading. This is the proposal we are discussing here today.\nThe Commission's approach is in two stages. Firstly, from 2011, all flights within the EU will be included in the system. In stage two, from 2012, all flights to and from EU airports will be covered. We are starting with internal flights: this shows our willingness internationally to take the lead in this effort. At the same time, we are exhorting our international partners to join the common endeavour.\nAt the last conference of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in September, we faced strong opposition from many third countries regarding our plans to include all aircraft in the trading system, regardless of nationality. The reasons vary from country to country, but it became clear that the developing countries in particular believed we should begin at home before also applying the system to flights to and from their countries, and to their airlines.\nAs a result, we must show greater determination. One of the main points of the proposal is that it must be applied to all airlines operating on the routes covered by the system, irrespective of their nationality, in order to avoid discrimination. The proposal is in line with the Chicago Convention and the bilateral aviation agreements. This position was supported by all 42 European states at the ICAO Conference. Europe registered a formal reservation on this issue, thus allowing us room for manoeuvre.\nThe ambitiousness of the Commission's proposal can be gauged by its call to stabilise emissions at the 2004-2006 average. Given the forecasts of rapid growth in air transport, this will have a considerable environmental effect. In 2020 we will be saving a total of 183 million tonnes of CO2 a year, equivalent to twice Austria's current annual greenhouse gas emissions from all sources. This means a 46% reduction in emissions compared with a situation whereby air transport would not have been included in the Community trading system.\nAs regards the allocation of emission rights to airlines, we propose a simple approach. In the period before 2013, a percentage of the air transport emission rights will be made available by auction, in line with the percentage auctioned to other sectors. The remainder will be distributed free of charge according to a benchmark, rewarding high-performance airlines. From 2013, the proportion of allowances made available by auction must be in line with the proportion agreed in the general review of the ETS. Lastly, the same harmonised benchmark methodology will continue to be applied to the distribution of the remainder.\nLadies and gentlemen, combating climate change is now the EU's highest priority. The proposal under consideration concerns one of the most rapidly increasing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. It therefore symbolises the Union's resoluteness on this issue. Through specific measures it seeks to control a difficult problem in a branch of the economy where effective policies have not hitherto been successfully developed. Europe has a duty to play a leading role, but must do so in a way that does not provoke its international partners. In view of the serious doubts expressed by many of them, we must both show our determination and adopt a sensible position. The Commission firmly believes that the proposal we are considering tonight corresponds precisely to this need.\nPeter Liese  \nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, almost everyone has realised that we must do something to prevent dramatic climate change.\nReports by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and by the former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, have made it clear that the cost of doing nothing is very much greater than the cost of doing something. Sir Nicholas even said that, if climate change continues unchecked, this could have the same negative effects in economic terms as the two World Wars. This example makes it clear that this is not a trivial matter or some line dreamt up by the Greens, but a matter of tangible economic interests and something that truly affects every individual. It was, therefore, logical that the summit of EU Heads of State or Government in March decided that the European Union would reduce its emissions by at least 20% by 2020 and, if we reach an international agreement - which we do want to do - by 30%.\nIt is therefore inconsistent for a major area of the economy not to reduce emissions at all and instead let them continue to increase unchecked. As the Commissioner said, aviation emissions have doubled since 1990. It is a good thing, then, that the Commission has made a proposal to reduce CO2 emissions in the aviation sector. However, this proposal also has flaws, and I am certain that the European Parliament will address these tomorrow with numerous amendments.\nI should like to thank all those who have made it possible for us to come to what I believe will be a satisfactory result tomorrow, especially the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Jarzembowski, the rapporteur in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, who was involved in the Hughes procedure, and all the participants from the other committees that provided an opinion. Although some positions diverged, I think that we were agreed on many important points, and shall agree tomorrow when it comes to the vote.\nWe are agreed that we want one single starting date. Both flights within Europe and intercontinental flights that take off or land in Europe should be included in the system on the same day. This is essential for reasons of competitive neutrality, and also because two thirds of CO2 emissions come from intercontinental flights rather than flights within Europe. Naturally, we must also speak with third countries, so the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety also adopted a motion that the Commission should continue to negotiate with third countries. If we can then agree on common goals and a common approach that achieves just as much as the Commission proposal, then we should also enter into negotiations with third countries.\nWe are agreed - this is a second point that I should like to highlight - that we wish to auction a much larger proportion of allowances. This is important for newcomers, but mainly to lessen the 'windfall profits' that are so prominent in the electricity sector. Electricity prices have risen even though the allowances were distributed at no cost. This is why a larger proportion must be auctioned off and the revenues given back to citizens in the form of lower taxes and charges on environmentally friendly transport; this is also what the committee decided.\nWe are agreed that the upper limit for emissions should be below 100%, because this is about reducing and not just stabilising CO2 levels. In addition, the Committee on the Environment has decided to introduce a multiplier of two, in order to take nitrogen oxide emissions into account. If the Commission makes a proposal - which is then adopted - as to an alternative way to deal with nitrogen oxides, then this multiplier can be dropped, but for now, we need it. Furthermore, it is also very important to bring in an efficiency clause, and the Committee on the Environment has also decided on this. The goals that the airlines set themselves for improving efficiency must be achieved, and the aviation industry must not be able to simply buy its way out.\nLadies and gentlemen, tomorrow there will be some very close voting in some areas. There are some points on which we do not all agree. On behalf of my group - not as the rapporteur - I can say that the Committee on the Environment has gone too far at some points. For example, we shall not support a cap of 75%, and we should still like to obtain relief for small and medium-sized enterprises. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will vote in favour of the report in any case, and I believe that Parliament as a whole will give a clear signal to the Council.\nWe should not be satisfied with merely formulating general goals to tackle climate change, but should also implement specific legislation. We shall note with great interest whether the Council puts its words into action or whether it falls short of its own targets or even weakens the Commission proposal. The European Parliament will not accept that.\n(Applause)\nAlain Lipietz  \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, I would first like to offer my warmest thanks to the Commission for having dared to break the aviation taboo, without waiting for the IATA decisions, and I congratulate the rapporteur for having supported this.\nAs draftsman for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I will concentrate on just one point: the issue of competition.\nYou mentioned, Commissioner, that this directive removes an error in the regulations that favours other modes of transport over aviation. That is an excellent point.\nIt should not be the case that the way it is applied ends up favouring certain companies over others. Practically every one of us has, at least once this year, flown with an airline that did not exist three years ago. We cannot therefore guarantee an income to the existing companies. The greater the share allocated for distribution by auction, the better the competition will be.\nSilvia Ciornei  \nRapporteur for endorsement Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (RO) Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, dear colleagues, as rapporteur for the ITRE opinion, I can tell you that the directive has been intensively debated in our committee as well.\nWe have tried to find a balance, as correct as possible, between the necessary environmental protection actions, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the necessary actions to assure the competitiveness of the European air industry and to establish equal treatment for all the airlines in the European Union.\nI am glad to find proposals also made by the Committee on Industry in Mr. Liese's report, especially regarding the simultaneous inclusion into the trading system of greenhouse gas emission shares of all arrival and departure flights in the Community and the provision of access on the market for all newly-established airplane operators.\nAt the same time, I have to say that I regret the solution found for establishing the total quantity of shares to be periodically distributed to airplane operators.\nThe 2004-2006 reporting period, accompanied by the continuous periodic decrease of the total quantity of share, does not take into consideration the fact that the aviation sector is under full development in the new Member States, thus disadvantaging the airline operators in these countries and, at the same time, it could prevent a competitive development of the European aviation sector, according to the transport requirements brought about by the economic and social development of the European Union.\nI appreciate that the variant voted by the ITRE Committee, which proposes 2008-2010 as a reference period, with the possibility to change the total quantity of shares in order to take into consideration the future developments in the sector, either increasing or decreasing, better defines the necessary framework for a correct competition between the airplane operators in the European Union and for the competitiveness of the overall European economy.\nI hope the vote to take place this week will be as close as possible to the line adopted by the ITRE Committee.\nGeorg Jarzembowski  \ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we in the committees are unanimously of the opinion that the starting date for European airlines and airlines from other countries that fly into our region must be the same, for we must consider the competitiveness of our airlines. Nevertheless, at the ICAO Conference we saw that the other countries opposed this. In this respect, there is no point in having a double deadline.\nIn the Committee on Transport and Tourism, however, we believe that the deadline should be 2012. Commissioner, you quite rightly pointed out that aviation was excluded according under the Kyoto Protocol. In this respect, 2012 is the correct year, because this allows the best chance of convincing third countries to participate after all. It provides enough time for them to join our system or to set up an equivalent system. We cannot accept your leading role and that of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which goes even further and wants to see 2010, because this completely overlooks the global dimension of aviation, the nature of the competition between airlines. We cannot disadvantage our airports, our airlines and employees in this area. Therefore, the best acceptable time would be 2011, but the date must apply to all airlines.\nFurthermore, we must strike a balance. We want to reduce the effects on the climate of aviation, but we must also keep in mind the competitiveness of our airlines, and consider the airports and passengers - especially those from remote areas - and keep prices affordable for them.\nWe therefore advocate achieving a reference period soon, and having a sensible percentage for the allocation of allowances - the Committee on Transport was in favour of 110, but just under 100 would also be feasible - and a sensible percentage for the auction. There is one thing we must not do: we must not make it too expensive for our passengers in Europe from more remote areas to travel by air - so, please, let us have a gentle introduction to emissions trading.\nJohn Purvis\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, Mr Liese has produced an excellent report. Nevertheless, as PPE-DE Group shadow on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I support my group's amendments, which seek what we think is a better balance between wish and reality.\nIn my view, the emissions trading scheme is the most cost-efficient, demand-sensitive and objective market-based instrument available for reaching Europe's greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 20% by 2020.\nThe aviation sector's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is growing fast, and I therefore fully support its inclusion in the emissions trading scheme.\nWe must have a single start date. I think 2011 is a reasonable compromise between the different dates we have before us. And with this, Europe will lead the way strongly for the rest of the world.\nThe amount of allowances allocated by auctioning should be set at a reasonably high and increasing level, in order to avoid the disadvantages for competition which are associated with grandfathering and benchmarking. Auctioning is much more economically efficient; it encourages new entrants, innovation, and the reduction of emissions through technological and operational improvements. The revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances should be reinvested in R&D in the aviation industry.\nThere is much potential for technological innovation, to reduce the sector's CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the single European sky, which the Commission mentioned, when fully implemented will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 12%, and this should be put into operation with urgency.\nIn our amendments we have highlighted the importance of giving special consideration to remote and isolated regions. Now we can only hope that the Council will respond positively to Parliament's insistent wake-up call.\nMatthias Groote\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Liese, for his fair and constructive cooperation over the last few months.\nThe inclusion of aviation in emissions trading is the first legislative procedure after the Spring Summit, at which the Heads of State or Government set some ambitious goals. We in the European Parliament have also put the topic right at the top of our political agenda by setting up the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. Experts and climate researchers have reminded us in hearings in the Committee on Climate Change that we must reverse the trend in CO2 emissions in the next 8 to 10 years. After that, emissions must not increase any further; instead, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced so that global warming can be kept to less than two degrees.\nThe starting date of 1 January 2010 that was voted on in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has central significance. We need to have 2010 as the starting date because there is no time to waste in combating climate change and the 'braking distance' in climate change matters is very long and increases with the passing of time.\nAs far as the Commission draft is concerned, that is, the distinction between flights within Europe and intercontinental flights, I must say that I am very glad - Mr Jarzembowski mentioned this - that we in Parliament are agreed that we want one single starting date.\nAs well as the time-related components, the upper limit for the emissions allowances to be issued is very significant. Here we need to proceed realistically and be ambitious. Capping emissions from aviation at 80% of the 2004-2006 figure is a good and fair approach. This capping is necessary so that the 87% increase from aviation between 1990 and 2004 does not undermine the reduction in other industrial sectors. To ensure that allowances fetch an appropriate price so that the emissions trading scheme can be effective, the proportion of allowances to be auctioned off must be much higher than the Commission has proposed.\nTherefore, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament suggests increasing the proportion of emissions allowances to be auctioned to 25%. As far as revenues from auctioning off the allowances are concerned, the Member States should use these for measures to adjust to climate change and for the fight against climate change, both within and outside the European Union.\nAnother important matter: all aircraft upwards of a take-off weight of 5.7 tonnes must be included in the emissions trading scheme. Tomorrow we shall vote on an amendment that provides for only aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of more than 20 tonnes to be included. Our aim must not be to leave business jets out of the emissions trading scheme while fully including aircraft carrying holidaymakers.\nI should like to think that tomorrow we shall be bold in moving towards more climate protection, and I hope that tomorrow we shall set it in motion.\nHolger Krahmer\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, my thanks in the first instance to the two rapporteurs on this topic, Mr Liese and Mr Jarzembowski, who evidently did not always have a smooth ride together on this topic. Together with investment in new technologies and the creation of further infrastructure, emissions trading can make an important contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions in aviation. In doing so, emissions trading must allow growth rather than hindering it. It should provide incentives to renew fleets and create more efficient, more modern aircraft.\nThe Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is making the case for including all airlines in a single starting date of 2011. In our view, the emissions from 2004-2006 should serve as a basis. This rewards those airlines that have updated and modernised their fleet in the past. My group proposes setting the cap at 90%. This is ambitious, more ambitious than the Commission's proposal, but not excessive. A maximum of 30% of the allowances should be auctioned off, in our opinion, to make it easier for new operators to enter the market.\nThe revenues from the auction should primarily be used by the aviation sector to reduce emissions. We are also in favour of increasing the take-off weight to 20 tonnes, because we want to keep the bureaucratic hurdles for small operators to a minimum. I make the case for including aviation in a trading system that is as open and efficient as possible. Limiting how credits can be used makes no sense ecologically. Just as every gram of CO2 emitted must be regarded in the same way, the reduction of emissions, too, has the same effect everywhere. There are good economic reasons for unlimited, flexible access to credits if emissions can be reduced elsewhere less expensively.\nAviation is vitally important to Europe's economic growth. Globalisation is unthinkable without airlines that are competitive. In future, people will want to fly more, not less, not only in Europe but also, in particular, to other parts of the world; we have to acknowledge this.\nThe EU is single-handedly deciding to include aviation in emissions trading and is making both friends and enemies internationally in the process. If we Europeans want to lead the way in climate politics, we have to ask ourselves not only how far we should go but also how we can take everyone else with us. This question will come up again in Bali. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to distance ourselves from insular EU solutions in climate policy.\nGuntars Krasts\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President. Greenhouse gas emission trading is the correct response for reducing gas emissions in aviation. However we need to carefully evaluate the terms for introducing quotas in order to avoid distortion of competition for the Member States' aviation companies and EU residents' travel opportunities. The majority of air carriers in the new EU Member States are lagging far behind the aviation companies in the older Member States, in terms of both the number of passengers carried and greenhouse gas emission volumes per capita. It is difficult to evaluate the extent of the future growth of air carriers in the new EU Member States, but I am in no doubt that in order to balance the mobility indicators for residents of the Member States, transport volumes in the newer Member States must grow significantly. It will hamper the equalisation of EU residents' mobility if terms are not laid down in the rules for greenhouse gas emission trading to specify how rapidly growing aviation companies will be able to continue their growth, so that the resources spent on the acquisition of emission quotas do not act as a brake on their development. Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has supported the proposal to create a reserve for new aircraft operators, and this is the right approach. However, in order to ensure that aircraft operators with varying initial positions and growth trends, are treated equally, we ought to reserve part of the quotas for aircraft operators with rapidly growing capacity. Growth that exceeds the average EU annual rate of growth in passenger numbers by a factor of at least two could be taken as an indicator of rapid growth in capacity. Both of these proposals are vital for fostering competition in the EU air carrier industry. Thank you.\nCaroline Lucas\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Liese for his excellent cooperation and congratulate him on his work.\nHowever, I have to say that I appreciated his work a lot more before he had to seek compromises within his political group, which, if adopted, would substantially weaken the position taken by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety just last month. That matters, because we have to substantially strengthen the Commission's original proposal if we are to have any real chance of seriously reducing the impact of aviation on our climate. According to the Commission's own figures, all its proposals are currently going to achieve is that, by 2020, instead of aviation emissions growing by 83% under a do-nothing scenario, they would grow instead by 78%. That reduction is the equivalent of less than one year's growth in air travel. That is not serious, it is not ambitious, it is not global leadership.\nTo achieve emission reductions via trading relies crucially on scarcity of permits. Since aviation emissions have already doubled since 1990, to call for an initial allocation equivalent to average emissions over the period 2004-2006, or even 80-90% of that, is simply too generous. I therefore urge you to support my Group's amendments for an initial allocation that is 50% of that amount. We also need 100% auctioning so that there are no windfall profits at the expense of the passenger.\nFinally, I urge you to vote against the ALDE Group's frankly scandalous amendment, which seeks to remove the restrictions on access to clean development mechanism and joint implementation project credits, not just for aviation but for all sectors in the ETS. Removing such limits provides an open invitation to business as usual. Aviation and the other industries will be able to continue to increase their emissions without constraint by merely buying up the supposed reductions made elsewhere, and, considering recent reports that up to half of reductions from CDM and JI projects are questionable, this will fundamentally undermine the integrity of the entire scheme.\nTomorrow the European Parliament faces a serious test of whether it really wants to take real action on climate change, and, if it is going to show genuine leadership, then it needs to support the Green amendments.\nBairbre de Br\u00fan\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (GA) As the shadow rapporteur for the GUE\/NGL Group, Jens Holm, is absent, please accept his apologies for the fact that he cannot be here with us for tonight's debate. It now falls to me to outline the GUE\/NGL view.\nIt is time for airlines to become involved in the efforts to combat climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation have doubled since 1990 and account for between 5% and 12% of carbon dioxide emissions in the EU as a whole.\nThe EU's leaders committed themselves in March of this year to achieving a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions - compared with the 1990 level - by 2020. We now have an opportunity to show the wider world that we will meet those targets.\nThe Commission proposal recommends that the aviation sector should not have to comply with the average for the years 2004 to 2006. That is more than 90% above the 1990 level. The Commission is also recommending that auctioning should account for no more than about 3% of the allowances. Airlines will have no incentive to lower their levels themselves if they can get their carbon emission permits free of charge. The auction percentage should be 100% - as we ourselves as well as the Greens are advocating - since this would be consistent with the 'polluter pays' principle.\nThe GUE\/NGL Group believes that the proportion of allowances to be allocated should be 20% of the average for the years 2004 to 2006; this would limit the amount of allowances that the aviation sector could buy from other sectors or under the ETS scheme; and the auction rate could rise to 100%.\nAirlines are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and throughout the world. It is time to put an end to special treatment and take into account the impact on the environment and on climate change.\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne Goudin\nMr President, climate change is a transboundary environmental problem and the EU is an important actor in the global climate work. Emissions are rising globally and time is short. The Swedish June List therefore supports the main thrust of the proposal we are debating this evening.\nIntegrating aviation into the EU's emissions trading scheme is an obvious and cost-effective step in the climate work. However, it is not the trading in itself that leads to reduced emissions, but the total emissions ceiling which we choose to establish. The scheme needs to be broadened to include other climate-impacting sectors in order to achieve the climate goals we have set ourselves.\nWe are in favour of the Committee's proposal of a single start date for the Directive. It is unacceptable that the Commission has allowed itself to be influenced by international political pressure aimed at delaying the climate work and distorting competition. The Directive should also apply to everyone. We cannot allow exceptions for particular persons or events. Our Heads of State must pay for their costs like the rest of us. Anything else would be unreasonable.\nFinally, I would like to point out that common environmental goals should not be used as a means to introduce a common tax policy. The revenues from the action should not be transferred to the EU as proposed by Amendment 14. Each Member State must be allowed to decide for itself how to use the revenues from the sale of emission allowances.\nRoger Helmer\nMr President, we propose to bring a new industry, aviation, into the European emissions trading system (ETS), yet that system is spectacularly failing. It has not reduced carbon emissions at all, yet it has created a whole new stratum of bureaucracy, administration and expense for industry. It has transferred large sums of money from countries which have been responsible with initial allocations to those which have been profligate, notably from Britain to France and Germany. Within Britain it has had the perverse effect of transferring funds from hospitals to big oil companies.\nThe ETS has created a complex web of politically influential vested interests and rent seekers who have lobbied to manipulate the system for their own ends. The Commission's plans to get tough over allocations will simply move the problem on. With lax limits on allocations bought in from outside Europe, EU funds will flow to countries like China, where regulation is minimal and records may not be accurate. So big foreign polluters will make vast profits for little effort, great damage will be done to European economies and CO2 emissions will continue unchecked. Mr President, it is quite simply scandalous that we propose to bring a new industry into this failing system. I say to you that you must put your own house in order before you think of extending it.\nRichard Seeber\n(DE) Mr President, it is always interesting to hear how some Members refuse to accept reality. I find the Commission proposal good. I also believe that Mr Liese has further improved it. This is a classic case of the internalising of external costs.\nMarkets can function only if we create the right framework conditions. We have all undertaken to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, but this also means that those who bring the costs into being must also pay the price. This means including all costs, and that includes the environmental costs brought about by the CO2 emissions of aircraft. I also believe that we must bring more courage and ambition to this matter. We all know that for all of us, including many people in the United Kingdom, doing nothing in this case would be much more expensive than taking this step.\nHowever, we must also be fair. All sectors must contribute to this system. We know that CO2 emissions at a great height have a much more damaging effect than CO2 emissions on the ground. This must also be taken into account when we are talking about including these aircraft emissions. In addition, this is a sector that is characterised by very high growth rates. Secondly, we must also say that we have the potential to introduce various management measures to further limit these CO2 emissions. That must also be taken into account.\nThe Community has an obligation to function as a role model in the international arena. We cannot expect other countries to get on board if we are not setting a good example. I also believe that we have significant opportunities here to build on the competitive advantage in this particular sector that we already have to some degree, so we should provide innovative companies, in particular, with the support they require.\nDorette Corbey\n(NL) Mr President, first of all, my compliments to Mr Liese, who has prepared a superb report. My compliments also to our shadow rapporteur, Mr Groote.\nAviation, like other sectors, must make a contribution to the fight against climate change. We cannot achieve the climate objective of a 20 or 30% reduction by 2020 unless everyone makes a contribution. The aviation industry is utterly opposed to receiving excessively tough action, but we hear this from all sectors, and if we appease everyone, absolutely nothing will come of our climate policy.\nThus, it is a good thing that the Commission wants to bring aviation within the ETS, but it has been rather too generous in terms of the number of emission allowances it plans to allocate to the sector. In my opinion, 80% of emissions should really be the upper limit. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rightly wants to see a gradual decrease in this ceiling, in line with the European climate objective of a 20 or 30% reduction.\nAircraft operators have promised a 50% increase in the efficiency of aircraft engines. The Committee on the Environment intends to hold them to this, and that is a good thing: the more economical the better.\nA third important point concerns the auctioning of allowances. In my view, as many as possible should be auctioned: 25% is really the minimum. The proceeds of the auction must go towards combating climate change and, in particular, to adapting developing countries to climate change. The least developed countries make hardly any contribution to climate change but have to suffer its gravest consequences. This legislation enables us to do something about this.\nChris Davies\nMr President, I have here a letter from General Motors complaining about Parliament's position on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars. I have another letter from British Airways - another bit of special pleading - complaining about this measure and how the extra costs will mean it will be more difficult for them to invest in the lower carbon technology in planes that they wish to have.\nI do not believe a word of these letters! Just special pleading from one industry after another. Have none of these executives read the United Nations report? This report says that, within 20 years, up to two billion people will face severe water scarcity, partly because of climate change. We have to do something about this. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair may be the unacceptable face of public relations for the airline industry, but he speaks a lot of truth when he says, very clearly, that he does not give a toss for the environment so long as he can stuff his pockets and those of his company full of gold.\nWell, we have to provide some balance. We have to ensure and facilitate the position of our constituents who enjoy travel, but we also have to make sure that the concerns for the environment are properly addressed.\nNow, this measure here goes a small way towards slowing the spectacular growth of the airline industry. It will encourage the industry to invest in abatement measures. It will ensure that at least the basic principle that the polluter pays should be incorporated into our approach.\nBut above all we have to ensure that we have a cap which encourages measures to be taken, a cap which, I think, must be at least a little bit more ambitious than that currently proposed by the Commission.\nMieczys\u0142aw Edmund Janowski\n- (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, may I thank all the rapporteurs. We are faced with a complex problem. On the one hand we have environmental considerations relating to our atmosphere, while on the other we have to contend with the development of air travel, an important source of economic activity, embracing transport and tourism and operated in a very competitive market.\nDecisions on this matter must be prudent and unambiguous, but in no case should they discriminate against European carriers, including those from the new Member States. This could be very damaging to European aviation without achieving the goal of a reduction in harmful gas emissions. It is obvious that the earth's atmosphere knows no borders. Inclusion of carbon dioxide emissions from civil aviation in the EU scheme must therefore be recognised as legitimate.\nIn addition, I am of the opinion that we should take account of emissions of other gases too, such as toxic oxides of nitrogen. I feel that the most important actions are those that will effectively restrict harmful gas emissions through the use of innovative solutions in the aircraft engine sphere, the design of aircraft with better aerodynamic parameters, and a radical improvement in air traffic control that limits unnecessary time spent airborne. I see emissions trading at this time as something of a substitute. I would see it as sensible today to accept a baseline period of 2007-2009, to set an emissions ceiling at a level of between 5 to 10% over 100% in view of the rising interest in flying, and to include in addition non-EU carriers operating within the EU.\nUmberto Guidoni\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, climate change is one of the most serious problems we face. If we want to safeguard our future, we can no longer ignore the environmental question and we must be ready to change our lifestyles, particularly in terms of mobility.\nTransport is one of the sectors that contributes most to energy consumption and the one that relies most on the use of fossil fuels. Within this sector, aviation is playing an increasing role. In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft in the EU rose by 87% compared with 1990. Europe is responsible for around half of CO2 emissions from aviation. This trend is no longer sustainable and it is essential that we take proper measures, for example by cancelling the tax benefits for this industry.\nI believe that the Commission's proposal for a directive on emissions quotas for aviation is a vital tool for tackling head-on the problems relating to climate change and we welcome the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety that reinforces the original directive.\nHowever, and it is important to underline this, we need to maintain some qualifying points in the debate and vote that will be held tomorrow. Of these, I think the Community emissions trading system should apply to all flights, both to and from the EU. This cannot be put off until after 2010.\nIt is also important that a significant proportion of quotas are allocated by auction and the proceeds of these must be used to subsidise the cleanest forms of transport, for example by abolishing taxes on environmentally-friendly transport, in order to create low-cost tourism that uses less polluting forms of transport such as trains. We also need to encourage research into more efficient aircraft engines and more effective air traffic management.\nI hope Parliament will not devalue the compromise put forward, which will allow Europe to become a leader in the fight against climate change.\nBastiaan Belder\n(NL) Mr President, I am speaking here on behalf of my colleague Mr Blokland.\nThe proposal to incorporate aviation into the emissions trading scheme should be a clear signal from the European Union of the need to contribute to the ambitious reduction targets agreed at the start of this year. In the light of this, the parliamentary committee responsible has endorsed the Commission proposal and even pushed for it to be tightened up.\nLast week it seemed we were on course to reach an agreement at first reading. This hope was reinforced by the Council Presidency but proved to be unfounded, as no mandate could be obtained from the Council.\nThis week it is important, in my opinion, that we do not settle for a dilution of the Commission proposal but strive for a proposal with clear ambitions in order to be consistent with the course charted this spring with regard to emission reduction. Thus, I wholeheartedly support the course charted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.\nReinhard Rack\n(DE) Mr President, I agree with the points that almost all the other Members made. I say 'almost' all the Members, and will concentrate, therefore, on three formal aspects.\nPoint 1: We do it over and over again in this Parliament, and today we are doing it again: we relegate important legislative proposals to the evening sitting. That way, we ensure that as few people as possible are listening and that, with only a very few exceptions, there is nobody sitting in the visitors' gallery, and we ensure that journalists, who should be reporting all this, are most likely already giving their attention to other things in the evening.\nSecondly, we are always hearing, and we have heard in this debate too, that we, the European Parliament, have to stick our necks out at first reading and take particularly demanding positions, as the Council will subsequently put the brakes on anyway, and in the end we shall not get where we want to go. I caution against this position: it was true for a long time but is increasingly no longer the case. We saw it in relation to the air-quality regulations, for example, where there have been and still are initiatives where the Heads of State or Government, and even the Ministers for the Environment, have gone a long way with us even at first reading. With the results we have decided upon, that will mean that in 10 to 15 years, in Central Europe, we shall have to cordon off all cities between Nuremberg and Bologna because we cannot keep within the values that have been set.\nThirdly, here in the European Parliament, we must implement a viable working relationship to achieve sensible joint solutions. In what has occurred in relation to this Directive over the past weeks and months, I see a successful path and a successful attempt to do that. Environmental, transport, economic and industrial matters are not yet included in a wise compromise, but they will be, I believe, after the result of tomorrow's vote. Now all we have to do is persuade the rest of the world to join in and do something for the environment.\nEluned Morgan\nMr President, first of all, I would like to say that it is lovely it is to see Mr Dimas back.\nIt is pretty much accepted that the carbon emissions in relation to aviation are currently a very small proportion of the overall carbon emissions of the EU. But you would have to be a fool not to see the incredible growth in the sector in recent years and to recognise that the industry's own plans for expansion are enormous. Currently, the technology for alternative, less polluting fuels are limited in relation to aviation. This is why it makes absolute sense to accept that aviation is likely to continue to grow, but we need to ensure that this growth is offset in other sectors of the economy which do have alternatives in terms of reducing carbon emissions. That is why it is essential that aviation is brought into the emissions trading scheme (ETS).\nI would also like to underline the point that the EU has a principle that it is the polluter who should pay. Under the current ETS, far from the polluter paying, we have seen many polluters making windfall profits thanks to the ETS. This has to stop. It is right, therefore, that many of these carbon creators should be auctioned, especially when the wholesale reform happens.\nPerhaps one of the most interesting aspects of this debate is the question of where ETS auction money should be spent. In the forthcoming ETS review, there is potentially EUR 200 billion which could be raised if we went for full auctioning. I am sure many of us could think of countless ways to spend that kind of money, but I believe it would be sensible if we could steer this money via the EU budget, if possible, to spend on climate change initiatives which could include transfers of finance to the developing world including, for example, to pay for reforestation in developing or emerging countries.\nBut, also, there needs to be recognition that even in our own Member States we are likely to see a huge increase in terms of energy poverty. Perhaps we should think about steering the money in this direction as well. So the decisions we make tomorrow will give an indication of where we should go, in terms of the ETS reform as a whole.\nJeanine Hennis-Plasschaert\n(NL) Mr President, instead of all manner of ineffectual taxes and charges, the Commission is proposing the present market-based instrument; a choice I endorse wholeheartedly. It is environmentally effective, economically efficient and eminently suitable for broader application; at least, it has the potential to be all of these things.\nIt became clear quite early on that opinions in this House are somewhat divided. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety ended up diametrically opposed to the Committee on Transport and Tourism. My colleague Mr Krahmer has said all that needs to be said about that. Compromise amendments have now been drawn up, and tomorrow's vote will show whether or not emotion leads the way.\nClimate issues are hot, and voting Green is extremely sexy. There is not so much wrong with that in itself, but as I see it, a stranglehold on the European aviation sector and the associated employment cannot be the intention.\nI consider it counterproductive to attempt to artificially diminish one particular mode of transport, in this case aviation, in favour of another. All the evidence suggests that demand for high-speed transport outstrips supply. We need all modes of transport; we really cannot manage with trains and buses alone.\nThe aim was to develop a model that was as workable as possible and could be extended and\/or copied worldwide - and, yes, if we really want to be environmentally effective, the latter is of vital importance.\nIf not, our efforts will remain just a tiny drop in the proverbial ocean, and that is what I should like to avoid. Mr Rack put it so aptly when he said just now that, to be effective, we have to persuade the rest of the world, as only then will our action be of any use.\nS\u00e9rgio Marques\n(PT) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a Member elected for one of the seven outermost regions, I must inform this House of the immense concern in those regions regarding the implementation of the directive under discussion. That is for one simple reason: the outermost regions are almost exclusively dependent on air transport and any increase in the price of that service, which would inevitably arise from the implementation of the directive, will make access more difficult, increasing their isolation, which was a determining factor in granting the outermost regions special status at European level, as enshrined in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty.\nOn the other hand, the increase in air transport costs will result in an even greater competitive disadvantage for those regions, penalising tourism, the main economic activity for the majority of them. We can expect a reduction in the number of tourists and\/or in the amount each of them spends, which could lead to a drop of at least 2% in GDP according to studies carried out by the Government of the Canary Islands. Yet improving the accessibility of outermost regions to reduce their isolation, and promoting their competitiveness, are two of the three major EU policy priorities for the outermost regions set out in the Commission communication, 'A stronger partnership for the outermost regions', which Parliament fully supported. We have to highlight how contrary to and inconsistent with those priorities the implementation of this directive will be.\nI think that, for the first time we have before us an EU legislative act which would have the effect of increasing the isolation of these regions. Certainly Amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats following a compromise between the rapporteur, Mr Liese - whom I must congratulate on his excellent work - and Mr Jarzembowski and Mrs De Veyrac, do to some extent offset the effects of the directive, but they are not enough. I therefore call on the three institutions to try to find better solutions, in the next stages of the legislative process, to lessen the impact of this directive on the outermost regions.\nUlrich Stockmann\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the rapidly growing aviation sector must be integrated into the emissions trading scheme as quickly as possible. That will mean that this form of transport also starts making a contribution to the reduction of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.\nFrom the point of view of transport policy, our legislative task now is to refine the framework conditions. These framework conditions must be defined in such a way that the possible impetus for savings is provided via an appropriate price per tonne of CO2, without drastically limiting the number of flights. To achieve this, when the airlines are first issued with allowances, for example, this must be done in such a way that the lack of such allowances can be realistically balanced out on the market, otherwise flights would have to be cancelled, and I do not know how much of that we and our society could cope with. Even if airlines were issued with 100% allowances upon entering the scheme - and none of us is asking for that - an annual growth in aviation of 5% would require an equally high volume of savings in terms of CO2 emissions. That is no small challenge.\nThe greatest potential for reduction is in the realisation of the Single European Sky, which means that it depends on the political will of the Member States. The airlines' only option for the time being, therefore, is to update their fleets, if there is sufficient capital left over for this purpose after the planned auction sums are taken into account. That will hardly be the case for regional airlines.\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, bearing in mind that politics is the art of the possible and that sometimes the best can be the enemy of the good, I would like to thank my colleague Mr Liese for the tremendous effort he has put in to reach a position - an agreement - not least amongst all of us in the PPE-DE Group but also with colleagues across this House.\nInternational aviation is outside Kyoto obligations, and the complete lack of progress in ICAO over the 10 years that they have been mandated to address emissions makes it important that the EU takes the lead. The proposed emissions trading scheme should apply to all flights, including from third countries, from a common start date for competitiveness reasons.\nI would now like to concentrate the remainder of my two minutes on one point that I do not think any other colleague has raised. It is a point that is a very serious national problem for Ireland.\nUnder the proposal, fungibility or convertibility of aviation allowances to Kyoto allowances free of charge is proposed. An airline may demand conversion of its aviation allowances to these Kyoto-backed allowances, and the issuing Member State must comply. This is a huge problem for us in Ireland, because, if airlines were to convert free of charge, we would have to replace these Kyoto allowances by those that the Irish state would have to buy on the market at full market price.\nThe Irish registry will carry a disproportionate share of flights on our books due to the size and geographic spread of some airlines, as the airlines, particularly Ryanair, are registered with the Irish Aviation Authority for all of their EU operations. The success of Ryanair means that they have 20 operational bases across the EU serving almost 130 destinations and, yes, increasing. But they operate only a small proportion of those flights in Ireland.\nI would like the Commission specifically to say whether it will accept Amendment 47, which deletes those particularly difficult sentences.\nThe polluter-pays principle cannot be interpreted to mean that the Irish taxpayer pays for pollution in our fellow EU Member States.\nRiitta Myller\n(FI) Mr President, urgent action is needed to fight climate change and, just as has been said here, all industries that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have to be involved in that action. Aviation cannot be given a free ride. The greenhouse gases from air traffic are increasing fast. This is important to remember, as it is often said that air traffic only accounts for two or three per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. As said before, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation have increased by as much as a half since 1990.\nThe idea now to include air traffic in emissions trading is specifically an EU proposal. The purpose is also to establish a global system over the longer term, one where air traffic also shares the burden. We might now learn a lesson from the drawbacks of the general emissions trading directive and increase the proportion of auctioned allowances in the initial allocation of rights. The initial allocation, and the system as a whole, must encourage a reduction in emissions, so that short air journeys are replaced with train journeys, and that would suit especially well those regions with a dense urban network and population. On the other hand, we have problems in areas where there are fewer inhabitants and which are a long way from urban centres, and it is important that the European system should take account of remote areas in a balanced way.\nCorien Wortmann-Kool\n(NL) Mr President, by introducing emissions trading into aviation, Europe shows ambition, the ambition to tackle CO2 emissions and combat climate change. After all, nowhere in the world to date - not even in California - has such an ambitious approach been proposed. Even compared to the emissions trading scheme for industry, this is a very ambitious plan.\nHowever, what did our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety do? It tightened up this proposal considerably on the key points, and thus we have flown past our objective. Europe must show leadership, but leadership means not only taking the lead, but also persuading others, winning them over - and this in the extremely competitive environment of international aviation. Therefore, the new regime should on no account lead to high costs and bureaucracy, particularly for Europe's airlines, but there must be a gain for the climate. A net climate benefit must emerge, preferably worldwide.\nI am pleased, therefore, that amendments have now been tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and also by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which I expect to steer us onto a realistic course tomorrow. This is necessary in order to promote cleaner flying in practice, too, as having to go through the bureaucratic mill of an auction - even with clean aircraft - is hardly salutary. As regards the number of available allowances, too, I look forward to a more realistic outcome tomorrow.\nHowever, this proposal alone will certainly not suffice. The Commission and the European Parliament must stand shoulder to shoulder to bring about the Single European Sky, as five times more environmental gain is to be achieved from that.\nMr President, I hope that we can step up the pressure on Member States in this regard, too, as only then can we make a real difference to the climate.\nRobert Evans\nMr President, tonight, for once, Parliament really can lead the way in protecting the environment. I think, as Mr Belder said, the Commission was really a bit timid in its original proposal. The European public, I think, will be looking to this Parliament to set the highest standards and ambitious targets.\nAs a member of the Committee on Transport, and along with my colleagues in the PSE Group, I did not support Mr Jarzembowski's line that was pushed through with, I regret to say, the support of the Liberal Group, the ALDE Group. We wanted to strengthen the original proposal, not to water it down.\nSo I say congratulations to Mr Liese for his report, and I quote, 'we do not just inherit this planet from our ancestors, our parents, we borrow it from our children'. And, like Ms Lucas, I appeal to all the groups in this Parliament to think about how they vote tomorrow; be prepared to compromise, be sensible, be realistic, but above all, be positive, because Parliament has a chance to be at the forefront of protecting the environment for 500 million citizens and their descendants.\nThomas Ulmer\n(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, many thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Liese, for his good report, and to Mr Jarzembowski. I believe that, overall, the compromises are very workable. Politics often depends on symbols, and we are sending a clear signal here: it is the first legislative proposal since the Spring Summit. Thus we are beginning actively to implement climate protection.\nThe seven key points of this report - the commencement of emissions trading, the reference period, the number of permits, the use of the proceeds, exceptions for smaller aircraft and the method of calculation - have, in my view, been sufficiently and reliably addressed in the compromises. I do not wish for any derogations, although I do believe a special additional arrangement for the outermost regions is required, so that these areas are not disadvantaged.\nI believe that the proposal is very good and that competition has been sufficiently acknowledged. We should not forget: even if 100% of the allowances are auctioned - purely theoretically, as we have just heard - that is a sum of EUR 2 billion, definitely a manageable sum for the airlines, which will, no doubt, have an effect on the setting of prices. However, I do not envisage any problems with this, including in connection with the large number of flights.\nI should like to see the EU push further ahead with this in the context of climate protection, and I hope that we can convince all the other major competing airlines to join this agreement.\nGyula Hegyi\nMr President, civil aviation seemed to be a luxury in the past, when mostly the rich and the so-called jet society used the advantages of quick flights. Nowadays, at least in the European Union, civil aviation is a necessary part of our life, without which the Parliament and the Council simply could not work. If the distance from Brussels is more than 1 000 km, there is no realistic alternative to flights in the absence of rapid trains.\nWith the accession of the new Member States and the boom in low-fare airlines, we have two or three times more flights than before the enlargement of the EU. International aviation is not yet covered by the Kyoto Protocol. However, direct emissions from aviation account for about 3% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, and this is increasing fast. I think that the quantity of the three allowances should have been based on the emission rate per capita of greenhouse gases in the different Member States, as there are large differences between them. I feel that it is unfair that western European countries have the right to emit around three times more greenhouse gas from aviation as Hungary and other new Member States. I think this principle should be applied in other environmental policies requiring a total amount of decrease instead of a percentage decrease. Otherwise, those who polluted less in the past will be punished.\nChristofer Fjellner\n- (SV) Aviation must pay for its environmental costs, and therefore this proposal is good. Aviation cannot be exempt from environmental costs which other means of transport pay. But I have a problem with the frenzy against aviation permeating this debate as if it were the greatest environmental villain and the best thing would be if we stopped flying completely. That is quite simply not true. Aviation accounts for five per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. A full aircraft uses less fuel per passenger kilometre than a car. It can and must be made even better, but through us making tough demands on the aviation industry which drive developments forward, not through us stopping flying.\nTravelling and meeting people from other parts of the world is important. I am convinced that Ryanair has done more for understanding among the peoples of Europe that the EU's cultural projects together. Less travel must therefore not be an end in itself. Isolating people takes us back in history to a dark period.\nThe Commission's proposal is heading in the right direction, but it has a cynical perspective - that it is someone else who should fly less. An attempt has been made to exempt flights by Heads of State or Government, while at the same time citizens are required to act responsibly. Proposals like this cause politicians to be held in well-deserved contempt, and I am glad that we on the Committee on the Environment have removed these particular formulations.\nEqually cynical is how a number of Left colleagues are demanding that we reduce aviation by more than half in only a matter of years. Those who make such proposals are unlikely themselves to take the train from, for example, Stockholm to Brussels. It is as if their own journeys are invaluable but others travel just for fun.\nWith that kind of irresponsible proposal it will be ordinary people who are forced to pay, not politicians and corporate executives, where someone else picks up the bill. It will be students who can no longer afford to study abroad in order to go out and see the world. It will be grandmothers up in Norrland who will not be able to see their grandchildren in the city so often. It takes us back to a time in the 1980s when an SAS cabin consisted only of corporate executives, politicians and union bosses.\nInstead we shall vote tomorrow for tough but realistic demands on the aviation industry which force them to pay for their environmental costs, which force the development of better and more environmentally friendly aircraft technology, but which above all make it possible to prioritise, to compare aviation with the real carbon dioxide villains, like coal-fired power stations. The important thing is that emissions are reduced, not flying.\nEmanuel Jardim Fernandes\n- (PT) Mr President, whilst agreeing with the Commission's and the rapporteur's proposal, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that it is not in line with Parliament's objectives set out specifically in the report on reducing the climate change impact of aviation; I would draw attention especially to the situation of the most isolated territories which are particularly dependent on air transport, especially the outermost regions.\nNor does it follow the line of the question raised by the Commission itself in its communication of last September on a 'Strategy for the Outermost Regions'. I quote: 'What measures are needed to prevent the aim of reducing emissions from adversely affecting the accessibility, economy and citizens of the ORs?' In voting for Amendments 99 and 100 supported by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Parliament will be addressing the issues raised through possibly setting up an impact assessment and suitable mediating measures to ensure that the outermost regions are included in the emissions trading scheme in the future - a necessary step that must be done in an appropriate way and guarantee environmental and economic sustainability and mobility in those regions, which are totally dependent on air transport due to their geographical situation.\nMa\u0142gorzata Handzlik\n- (PL) Mr President, today we are discussing a draft resolution on the inclusion of European civil aviation in the EU's emissions trading scheme. In my view, this very important draft was drawn up in haste, without proper consultation with the aviation industry, especially representatives of the new Member States, and without analysis of the economic and social consequences of its introduction, as well as from the aspect of environmental protection and of the consequences for civil aviation and the threat to Europe's economic development, for example in the sphere of tourism, which is the main source of income for very many regions.\nThe draft also constitutes a threat to the competitiveness of airlines and may cause a radical deterioration in the already difficult financial situation of many European aviation companies. I therefore think that the earliest start time for inclusion of the aviation sector in the scheme for all communications is 2012.\nI definitely support the scheme's so-called broad geographical scope, in other words the inclusion of all flights from and to the EU, regardless of the national attribution of the carrier. This is the only solution that guarantees that the required environmental effect is achieved and that does not expose European carriers to a drastic fall in competitiveness.\nIn my view, the total number of allowances allocated to the aviation sector should be set at Community level by reference to mean emission levels arising from aviation, at least for the years 2005-2007, while the emissions limit should be set at a level of 100%.\nBearing in mind the diverse positions presented during the course of our discussion and the fact that this project relates both to the environment and to the economies of all EU states, as well as to our citizens, we should take decisions that are both measured and good.\nAlexander Stubb\nMr President, I guess I come from one of those ultra-peripheral regions, in this case called Finland. If I was not able to fly here, it would probably take me two days to get here. This is not by bike: it is by boat, car and train. That is just by way of introduction.\nI think there are really six points here, and I would like to focus on one - but I will go through all six. Point number one: entry into force - I would go for the EPP-ED compromise, in other words, 2011. Caps on emission rights: for me, 95%. Reference, yes, for me: 2005-2007; auction, for me: 25%; profits: partly back to the airlines, and then partly to other good climate change causes. But for me the big issue is number 6: the allocation basis; in other words, ATK versus RTK. Now, I realise that this is a difficult issue for many, but for me it is not an environmental issue in that sense. Really, the cap has already been set. What we are talking about with ATK and RTK is the allocation between the different airlines.\nNeither system is perfect, but we cannot be in a situation where airlines coming from the more peripheral areas will be punished and unequally treated in comparison to those airlines which might be based in Frankfurt, Berlin, London, Brussels or Paris. Train is not an option for us: it is that simple. The way in which climate change is going, I am afraid the only place where we are going to have snow in the winter in the future is going to be Lapland. I know that those flights might be full going up there, but they may not always be full coming down, so we have to be very careful that we do not make this into a race to the bottom. So I would urge all of my friends and colleagues tomorrow to vote on ATK rather than RTK. It is a life and death issue for the peripheral areas, but I know it is not a life and death issue for those coming from the middle.\nPresident\nIt remains to be seen whether Father Christmas's sleigh will be included in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community.\nBogus\u0142aw Sonik\n- (PL) Mr President, I fly here from Krak\u00f3w, where it was white over yesterday and snow had covered the entire city, so it is not so bad yet.\nProtection of the natural environment and countering negative climate changes have become a challenge for the whole of humankind. As an EU citizen, I highly value involvement in the protection of the European Union's environment. However, we should never forget the impact of legislation in this area on the European economy.\nIn discussing the directive on CO2 emissions in aviation today we have run up against this problem. Air transport is currently experiencing a sharp increase. This concerns the new Member States in particular, where this market is developing exceptionally rapidly, providing an increasing number of jobs. On the macro scale, this is leading to a rise in GDP.\nIt is consequently my view that the new Member States should have the opportunity to adapt the level of development of aviation to that of the old Member States, which could be achieved by having a very long introductory period for the directive. The new directive in its proposed form may hinder the development of this sector, which would be contrary to the policy of creating a level playing field in the Community.\nA further hazard is a loss of competitiveness among European companies compared with third countries, so it is a matter of importance that the new regulations are accepted globally, not just by the European Union.\nI would like to avail myself of the opinion held by scientists and comment that no development of new technologies capable of effectively reducing CO2 emission levels in aviation is anticipated. It is therefore of exceptional importance to seek restrictions on gas emissions wherever this is feasible. One effective tool is the modernisation of air traffic control, where, according to analysts, fuel consumption savings of between 6 and 12% may be achieved.\nTo conclude, I would like to emphasise that in conducting a pro-environment policy we should bear in mind its impact on each Member State. The baseline period should therefore, in my opinion, cover as far-reaching a period as possible, in other words the years 2007-2009.\nStavros Dimas\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank all the speakers in tonight's debate for their positive contributions and I would like to turn to the details of some of the amendments.\nThere are many amendments that are acceptable, at least in part or in principle. For example, the Commission accepts that it would be useful to require aircraft operators to develop monitoring and reporting plans. Operators in the current scheme must also do this to obtain a greenhouse gas permit. This will facilitate credible verification and thus safeguard the environmental integrity of the scheme by preventing fraud.\nOther examples include the exemption of certain activities such as humanitarian or firefighting flights. However, while I fully agree that we need to get started as soon as possible, a 2010 start date would be very challenging. There would be insufficient time to complete the preparatory work and, in particular, to complete the allocation process which requires more lead time than the process used in the current system.\nRegarding the scope, I have already explained why the Commission still believes a two-step approach would be helpful to convince third countries that the European Union is ready to take the lead, consistent with our special obligations as a region of developed countries.\nRegarding the call for more auctioning, I am well aware that this is in line with the growing consensus about the advantages of auctioning and I expect we will soon discuss this a lot more in the context of the general ETS review. However, in the period before 2013, aviation should be treated as much as possible like other sectors.\nThe share of allowances auctioned should therefore be the average percentage of auctioning applicable to other sectors, as laid down in the national allocation plans for 2008-2012. What happens after 2012 should depend on the general review of the ETS.\nFinally, I will share with you some concerns we have regarding amendments that relate to limits on the use of non-aviation credits, to the use of a multiplier for non-carbon dioxide effects and to an additional energy efficiency factor. These amendments all have the effect of limiting the possibility of aviation operators to use allowances, other than aviation allowances, to cover their emissions. This is not consistent with the fundamental idea of open emissions trading, which is what ensures cost-effective solutions. Moreover, these changes would complicate the scheme significantly.\nThe Commission's proposal already provides aircraft operators with extra incentives to improve fuel efficiency. There is, in our view, no need for additional features that will just make it more complicated.\nIn summary, the Commission can support 27 of the 100 proposed amendments fully, in part or in principle. I will give Parliament's secretariat a list detailing the Commission's position on the amendments, including Amendment 47 for which I would like to say that the Commission will maintain the provisions which foresee a change of the registry regulation, but is open to consider ways to ensure that conversion of aviation allowances does not burden Member States' compliance with a Kyoto target.\nCommission's position on amendments by Parliament\nLiese report\nThe Commission can support fully, in part, or in principle 27 amendments: Numbers 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, 26, 29, 30, 36-38, 40, 45, 47, 49, 51-53, 57, 65, 70, 76, 79.\nThe amendments which the Commission cannot support are Numbers 2, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-25, 27, 28, 31-35, 39, 41-44, 46, 48, 50, 54-56, 58-60, 61-64, 66-69, 71-75, 77, 78, 80-100.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place tomorrow, from 11.30 a.m.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nChristine De Veyrac  \nin writing. - (FR) The need to act quickly and effectively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an obvious fact that can no longer be denied. Within this context, reducing the impact of transport on global warming will play a decisive role. The text we are discussing is one of the measures taken to achieve this, and I support this initiative.\nThis legislation, however, will only be a success if we manage to reconcile the environmental objective with the objective of mobility for citizens, while respecting countries outside the EU.\nIt is therefore essential that we achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions at the lowest possible cost for passengers. What is demanded of aviation should be sufficient not to compromise the reductions achieved by other sectors but balanced enough not to penalise the growth of the aviation sector.\nThat is why I believe that targets for reducing CO2 emissions that are too rapid and too harsh, though laudable from a purely environmental point of view, are out of touch with reality and are in danger of having a counterproductive effect.\nI hope our vote tomorrow will take account of these different parameters.\nEija-Riitta Korhola  \nin writing. - (FI) We are to introduce a unique system, with air traffic having its own climate policy instrument. Emissions trading in the area of air traffic involves risk factors, and I appeal to you all to pay attention to one or two important issues.\nAlthough we are, with good reason, worried about increasing emissions from aviation, air traffic itself is nonetheless the future. I might even say it is inevitable for the environment. For example, according to the highly regarded MIPS survey on the overall incidence of environmental pollution, air traffic has its own benefits and would appear to be a solution for the future. Completely emissions-free aviation would thus solve the problems of emissions from transport, and that should be our priority objective.\nFor that reason, in the building of compromises I wanted to channel revenue from emissions trading specifically into research and development in the area of aviation. If the growth in emissions is really worrying, the available resources should be spent specifically on the development of emissions-free transport. Hopefully, the Council also understands how important this is.\nOn the other hand, the directive should also ensure that the Union's peripheral regions are able to compete fairly in the emissions trading system. This is especially relevant in the matter of non-auctioned rights in the allocation system. The ATK ('available tonne kilometre') model, which is based on an aircraft's maximum capacity, would be the best way to guarantee fairness in emissions trading, and would ultimately be better for the climate. This is true because the system where non-auctioned emissions rights are allocated by volume of goods and passengers would encourage the use of connecting flights and flying via cities with massive volumes of passengers.\nA system meant to protect the climate should encourage a system where air fares tend to be determined more on the actual number of kilometres flown. At the moment it is frequently the case that longer, and therefore more climate-damaging flights, which also make a stop en route, are cheaper. That is not rational as far as the environment is concerned.\nMarian-Jean Marinescu  \nin writing. - (RO) The inclusion of aviation into the European emissions trading scheme is a positive action, emphasizing Europe's pioneering work in combating climate changes.\nThe aviation emissions trading should not cause a decrease in the number of flights and an increase in prices, negative consequences for passengers, for the aviation industry and for the sustainable development of transports. Under these conditions, it is important to solve the technical causes.\nThe reduction in emissions can be achieved by manufacturing engines with a new design, which would ensure more efficiency in the fuel consumption, by improving the aircrafts' aerodynamics, using new metallic alloys and composite materials for building fuselages.\nWe also have to take into consideration research in the field of alternative fuels. NASA has announced the launching of a programme to find solutions for improving kerosene.\nTherefore, it is necessary to supplement financial resources for research and development and to encourage private investments in this field, while the funds obtained from bids within the scheme should be used in the fields of research and aeronautical innovation, which are capable of providing concrete solutions.\nI also ask the Council and the Commission to continue their efforts in negotiation with the international bodies and the partner third countries in order to obtain all the necessary agreements as to avoid any international litigations in the case of enforcing these legal provisions.\nJames Nicholson  \nin writing. - Aviation should be brought within the scope of the Emissions Trading Scheme. The ETS has shown its worth since being set-up two years ago. It should be a useful means of ensuring that the aviation industry plays its part in the fight against climate change. However we also need to reform the scheme so that it can fulfil its role effectively.\nOf course, none of us believes that this development alone is the answer to the emissions problem but it does represent a significant step in the right direction. Furthermore, it shows that the political will is there to take difficult decisions for the benefit the planet and its inhabitants. What we must also see is essential reforms of the way the emissions trading scheme works.\nIn all of this we must ensure that the consumer is not unfairly burdened with huge rises in the cost of flying and consider looking at other ways in which CO2 emissions from the aviation industry can be reduced. I am aware that EU Transport Ministers are currently doing this by examining ways of modernising air traffic control and introducing new systems of landing fees related to greenhouse gas emissions.\nP\u00e9ter Olajos  \nin writing. - (HU) An ever-increasing proportion of the population of the developed world understands the threat posed by climate change. However, we need to take drastic steps if we are to reduce our emissions by 20% over 13 years.\nUnfortunately, we are hardly seeing any steps to take us in this direction. It doesn't matter which of the emitting areas we investigate, there will always be 'voices' that want to protect the very industry we are talking about now.\nAt the same time, we know that we can only meet the target that has been set if we involve every affected area in reducing emissions. If we make an exception for one, we will have to make up for it somewhere else. Which one will be the odd one out?\nAir travel today is a tiny area, but one that is growing dynamically. Its growth is closely linked to the global price of raw materials, on which it does itself have great influence. We as politicians will truly support European businesses from a strategic perspective if we create an environment for them that encourages innovation.\nNone of this affects passengers, since the measures taken towards reducing CO2 will increase the ticket price for routes within Europe by a sum of no more than approximately EUR 1. This is a fraction of what we have to pay for anti-terrorism security measures! Together with this, however, a good-quality railway of 1000 km must compete with aviation and, to achieve this, the airlines must bear the costs to which they give rise, to the same extent as we expect it of railways and road traffic.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2017-13":1,"unknown":6}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Tragic situation in Burma (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Council and Commission statements on the tragic situation in Burma.\nJanez Lenar\u010di\u010d\nPresident-in-Office. - (SL) We are all still shaken by the human suffering that the destructive cyclone Nargis caused to the poor and oppressed population of Burma, or Myanmar.\nWe expressed the European Union's deepest sympathy in numerous statements published in the aftermath of the disaster. Moreover, the European Union immediately promised urgent funds in aid of humanitarian needs. So far the Union's commitments have exceeded the sum of EUR 60 million. At the same time it should be emphasised that the amount that has been promised will top up the already existing aid provided by the European Union, which is not a small amount.\nIn spite of this, the key issue continues to be the access to areas that have been affected, and how to distribute help quickly. Last Tuesday the Presidency, in cooperation with the Commissioner Louis Michel, convened an extraordinary session of the European Union Council. On that occasion the development ministers agreed that there was a danger of an even greater tragedy if the Burmese authorities were not ready for a better cooperation.\nThe situation is still critical. This is why the European Council urged the Burmese authorities to introduce urgent measures facilitating access to help for people who are in dire straits. The Council welcomed the efforts made by the Commissioner Louis Michel to convince the authorities in Burma\/Myanmar that the humanitarian help is urgent and neutral. At the same time we regret that the Burmese authorities were not prepared to make use of all the help that the European Union and the international community are prepared to provide.\nIn addition, the Council has expressed its full support to the UN General Secretary and to all the initiatives given by the UN bodies that would help to meet humanitarian requirements. We also welcome the UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon's visit to Burma, scheduled for tomorrow.\nThe Council has raised the issue of the situation in Burma at all political meetings that have been recently held with its Asian partners. The Asian countries have been invited to influence the Burmese authorities and to convince them that the nature of the international humanitarian aid is neutral and unbiased.\nOn 19 May the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Member States met in Singapore. The European Union had previously presented this group with a demarche asking the countries in the region to influence the Burmese authorities to open the borders to humanitarian aid and humanitarian aid workers.\nOn Monday, 26 May, the General Affairs and External Relations Council will have a debate on the humanitarian situation in Burma, and on the denial of access to humanitarian aid experts and the delivery of aid to the affected area.\nBurma, or Myanmar, also continues to be a priority topic in the Council's debates because of the political situation in that country. The fact that, in spite of the huge scale of the humanitarian disaster, the Military Junta has not cancelled the national referendum is a cause for concern. We believe that this may lead to irregularities in the new constitution's adoption procedure.\nWe are also concerned due to reports of escalating intimidation during the period of preparations for the referendum. I should emphasise that the European Union is also disappointed because the authorities have not paid any attention to the calls of the United Nations for a more inclusive and more legitimate transition to democracy. I should like to affirm that the European Union will continue to support the endeavours of the United Nations.\nFinally, please take note that on 29 April the European Union revised the common position adopted back in November 2007. This position, which was adopted as a response to suppression of peaceful protests, from now on includes firmer restrictive measures against Burma.\nLouis Michel\nMember of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first and foremost I wish to thank you for placing Burma on the agenda for this sitting.\nIn view of the scale of the catastrophe caused by Cyclone Nargis on 2 May, we suggested the Presidency call an extraordinary meeting of the Council of EU Foreign Affairs Ministers. The Council meeting was convened as soon as possible by the Slovenian Presidency, who I wish to thank, and was held on 12 May.\nAt the meeting the EU called for increased cooperation by the Burmese authorities to allow access and distribution of international humanitarian aid. I decided to follow up the call directly by visiting Burma on 15 and 16 May. During my mission, which I made clear was strictly humanitarian and non-political, I was able to meet the Burmese authorities and the representatives of humanitarian organisations in Burma, and I made a visit on the ground to the areas affected around Yangon. I had two and a half hours of quite intense meetings and discussions with the Minister for Planning - who obviously held most authority and was certainly the most authoritarian of the three I met - the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Health.\nWhat emerged very clearly from my mission was that the Burmese authorities are still extremely reluctant to create the operational conditions normally required to provide an international humanitarian response to meet local needs. It is equally clear to me that an approach seeking to impose international humanitarian aid on the Burmese authorities, in due consideration of our current means, is doomed to failure and could even be counterproductive. All the humanitarian organisations in Burma told me this, and confirmed that the problem is obviously not the lack of organisations on the ground, or even a lack of funds, since a lack of means also certainly depends on access to international experts and professionals, but rather lack of access.\nMy mission certainly made a modest contribution to opening up a tiny window to gradually create a minimum humanitarian space for international humanitarian aid. The Burmese authorities provided a partial response to various specific demands: for example, visas for experts working for the Commission were extended by two weeks. They had been issued with three-day visas and these were extended for two weeks. We had requested one month.\nWe also clarified a situation that appeared genuinely serious. At certain locations, the local authorities were demanding a permit, and therefore written authorisation, even for local workers, meaning people employed by our agencies, by the UN or by NGOs, and in most cases this was of course impossible. This was clarified, and obviously no authorisation is required for local workers. Authorisation is also no longer required to enter the disaster areas, in particular Pathein airport. I also asked for a second airport to be opened up for planes arriving with equipment, in other words Pathein airport which is a military airport. I was told that this was not possible because the technical standards used by the control tower differed from international standards and, in any case, that this would not make the work any easier since the roads between Rangoon and the delta, the area worst affected, were in much better condition and much easier to use. Unfortunately I had no authorisation to check this kind of information for myself.\nI feel it is important for international pressure to be maintained, both by neighbouring countries and by the international community as a whole. I ought to say that, in my discussions with the authorities, I also made a specific request - I made, in fact, five specific requests which I will tell you about in just a moment - that doctors and medical staff from neighbouring countries be allowed to deploy in the areas worst hit, and they obtained authorisation for this on the day I left. This means that 140 doctors were deployed and also medical staff from Laos, Cambodia, India, Bangladesh and Thailand. They were thus able to visit the areas worst hit. The role to be played by neighbouring countries is crucial, and I was also able to have quite a long discussion with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon while waiting for my plane to return to Bangkok. I passed on all this information to him, told him my feelings on the issue, and also how the mission had gone.\nThe UN Secretary-General agreed with this analysis, but had two specific suggestions to make himself: to deploy a joint UN\/ASEAN humanitarian aid coordinator, and to quickly organise a donor conference co-presided by the UN and ASEAN on 24 and 25 May in Bangkok. Following on from the recent visit by the United Nations humanitarian aid coordinator John Holmes, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is visiting Burma tomorrow to discuss how to channel international aid.\nIn relation to needs, the humanitarian situation in Burma remains dramatic. There is a danger that the first catastrophe caused by the cyclone could be worsened by a second humanitarian disaster: the risk of famine, since harvests were destroyed, and also epidemics among survivors whose living conditions are deplorable. There is a risk of epidemics. When we were there, the World Health Organization did not see identify risk of cholera, but large numbers of children were suffering from diarrhoea and so on. This meant there was a risk of epidemic caused by water pollution. There is also a risk of famine. The region stockpiles large amounts of rice, and all food in storage has been destroyed.\nThere is one practical problem: this land ought to be sown to ensure a harvest in October. The timeline is therefore a maximum of three to four weeks. A number of people at the temporary camps, as they call them, do not wish to return to their own areas for all sorts of reasons, while others do wish to return, but need special kinds of seeds since all the soil has been salinated, and therefore they need much stronger plants, and also fertilisers. I thus attempted to engage in constructive, practical dialogue with the authorities on this matter. It was thought that the UNDP micro-credit scheme could be used as a finance mechanism. We are still discussing this at present. I must tell you it is no rapid process.\nThe Commission provided a rapid response, with an emergency decision of two million euros adopted on 5 May. As you know, I am authorised to release three million euros right away with no official procedures. Of course, since we had no identification, we began by releasing two million. We subsequently decided on an envelope of five million euros in food aid, and also an additional emergency envelope of ten million euros. We are, of course, willing to do more on the basis of needs assessments and assurances in terms of aid monitoring.\nWhen I left after my two and a half hours of discussions with the authorities, I sent them a specific written note of the various requests I had made. My first request concerned visa extensions for those working temporarily on the mission, namely the Commission staff. We were given a two-week extension.\nI also asked for final clarification, and for them to notify our local authorities that Burmese workers at our agencies and other operators no longer require official authorisation or a travel permit. This point has obviously been clarified.\nI asked for multiple-entry visas for six months to allow the EU-financed NGOs working there to triple their international personnel. When I left Burma there were one hundred or so visa applications outstanding for UN agencies, and just over one hundred NGO applications. I asked to be informed regularly. Some have been issued since, but it is a far cry from what was requested.\nI also requested visas and travel permits to visit the delta and to ensure that sufficient personnel could be mobilised. As I said, I then asked for permits to be issued rapidly to doctors in the area and local medical staff. It would appear they understood this point perfectly.\nAs for Pathein airport, which could have acted as a kind of redistribution hub for products arriving in planes sent by the international community, the answer here was an outright no. The reason was, according to them, that the control equipment and means were not in line with international standards, and that it was much easier to go via Rangoon. I doubt this because, when I was there, Rangoon was already overwhelmed and had a number of problems which were subsequently rectified to a certain extent. I am not sure that these were sorted out thanks to me. It was simply that they could not find a way to operate Rangoon airport either. I also feel that operations were handled in this manner for reasons relating to institutional comfort.\nAll in all, it was an extremely frustrating mission, I can tell you. I feel there is total distrust of the international community. There are some very deep-rooted a priori concerns in the country. One occasionally has the distinct impression that nobody is listening to anyone else. It is extremely difficult to reach the conscience and mindset of the person we are talking to. The talks went well because for two and a half hours we had a genuine discussion, all quite courteous but firm too, because one nagging question persists: why say no to the international personnel that is so necessary to assist with operations?\nI also mentioned the responsibility to protect, in this way in particular, and even this led to a problem of principles. At that point I was told that certain questions required no answers. That was how the mission went. Obviously I was sad I had not secured anything more specific, but I cannot pretend I was not glad to return to Europe.\nHartmut Nassauer\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commissioner has provided us with a persuasive and graphic portrayal of the way in which the ruling military government in Burma is cynically and brutally betraying its own people.\nI wish to address myself here to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Member Countries. For many years, the European Parliament has maintained friendly relations with the parliamentarians of the ASEAN countries. Not too long ago, those countries signed a new ASEAN Charter in which they explicitly affirm their adherence to the principle of respecting and protecting human rights. It goes without saying that ASEAN bears some responsibility for Burma, which is one of its Member Countries, and that the global reputation of the ASEAN countries will suffer if it continues to let the Burmese military junta act as it is acting at the moment.\nI appeal to the Member Countries of ASEAN, in their own best interests and for the sake of their good and friendly relations with the European Union, to do whatever they can to persuade the Burmese military junta that it must let the outside world help its country's population. As I have indicated, this lies within the power and responsibility of the ASEAN countries. They will be asked how they are exercising this responsibility, and whether or not they use their scope for action in this matter will influence our relations with ASEAN. They need not act by means of public appeals - there are other ways - but the European Union expects that Burma's neighbours in particular will do whatever they can to change the attitude of its ruling regime.\nJan Marinus Wiersma\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) I shall begin by complimenting the Commissioner on behalf of my Group. Today he has stated clearly that he is doing what he can, in very difficult circumstances. He himself referred to a dialogue of the deaf. We must note that the situation in Burma takes bizarre forms. It is nearly three weeks now since the cyclone hit the country, and the government is still letting in hardly any outside aid. The authorities themselves seem to be remaining rather passive. The country has been closed to aid workers, experts and media for weeks. It is almost Kafkaesque that the junta did let a referendum designed to strengthen its own position go ahead a week and a half ago.\nAccording to a number of sources, the official death toll is around eighty thousand. Tens of thousands are still missing and the number displaced is over two million. These are gradually becoming Pol Pot proportions, or at least we believe so, because there is just as little information coming out of the country as there is aid going in. Former UN coordinator Jan Egeland said at the beginning of this week that refusing to allow aid in is murder. The Burmese Government is turning its responsibility to protect into a farce. The contrast with China, tragically struck by a violent earthquake last week, is remarkable. The widespread devastation was not covered up and could be seen on TV everywhere, including in China itself, and the Chinese Government issued an international appeal for help.\nThe image of the Burmese Government can no longer be damaged much more. It has more or less reached an all-time low. China is in a position to do much more to urge the Burmese Government to accept help. So area Russia and India which must put pressure on the junta either in the UN or in ASEAN. I agree with the comment by Mr Nassauer on that point.\nLast Monday agreement was reached within ASEAN on international aid to Burma. All aid is to be coordinated through ASEAN. This is a step forward, but direct aid from the West is still ruled out. A donor conference is to be held next week. I appeal to Europe to contribute generously and wholeheartedly, but that is only if guarantees are given that our contribution will actually go to the right place and that journalists will also be allowed into the country, so that we can get a proper picture of the situation there.\nJules Maaten\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) How many times have we stood in this House before talking about Burma? Several times a year we stand here and still the case remains hopeless.\nHowever, the situation in Burma has become even worse than last time we spoke about it. One point four million victims have still not received any help. Thirty thousand children are suffering from acute malnutrition. Hundreds of thousands are homeless and at risk of cholera, pneumonia and infectious diseases. I understand that this morning as many as eight foreign doctors from M\u00e9decins Sans Fronti\u00e8res have been allowed into the disaster area.\nI should like in any case to back the appeal that Mr Nassauer has made to ASEAN. It must now finally show determination, because it is clear that the junta is more interested in the survival of its own regime through the referendum that is not worthy of the name - Mr Wiersma calls that 'Kafkaesque' - than the survival of its own people. The generals think that foreigners coming into the country would threaten the survival of the military regime.\nIt is clear, though, that M\u00e9decins Sans Fronti\u00e8res, Oxfam, the British, French and US ships are bringing aid goods, not regime change, however much I might wish for that myself. However, we can apparently not convince the junta of that, so we have to look for alternatives. I think the best alternative is the Security Council. Europe and the United States must insist that the situation in Burma is put on the agenda. All the United Nations Member States have signed up to the following two principles: accepting responsibility for the protection of citizens and, if a country is no longer able or willing to do that, the right of the international community to intervene in disasters.\nThe United Nations has to act. I understand the problems and I am proud of Commissioner Michel who, instead of wringing his hands and convening working groups, just got down to it with the motto 'deeds, not words'. That impresses me. I also think the support promised by the European Union is exemplary. I believe the French Minister, Mr Kouchner, is right in saying that the junta is guilty of a crime against humanity. I do wonder why we, the other 26 EU Member States, are not listening hard.\nMr President, aid must be brought to the Burmese people, with or without the consent of the junta. Withholding essential support is a crime against humanity. I would like to see the European Union take the initiative in getting the United Nations and the Security Council to refer this case to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Enough is enough, patience has run out. I would say, drag the junta into the International Criminal Court. That is what we want. The way the situation is now, they are the ones who belong behind bars, not the dissidents in Burma!\nDaniel Cohn-Bendit\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (FR) Madam President, I feel we ought to be slightly more precise in the way we talk about this issue; for example, the concept of neutrality. We are not neutral. If we are for the people of Burma, this means we are against the military junta. Since the military junta has no intention of helping the people of Burma, we are against the military junta. We must not support it, and this is exactly how we are perceived.\nLouis Michel held discussions for two and a half hours. The entire story has a surrealist ring to it: he says he went there, he talked to them for two and a half hours, he was told that such-and-such an airport could not be mobilised in 24 hours, whereas technical facilities were provided to open an airport in Sarajevo. This is not really the problem.\nIt is therefore obvious we are at an extremely specific juncture, and I agree: the responsibility to protect means the military junta is committing a crime against humanity, against its own population. This is a fact. We will see what becomes of this state of affairs in the public debates to follow. It is, however, true that this obvious case must be submitted to the International Court of Justice. What is most interesting is that in doing this we are addressing the Security Council, and Burma's protectors, the Chinese, are in fact talking a rather unintelligible language.\nWe could say, in fact, that China may have done the right thing by opening up its borders, but at the same time it continues to protect Burma, and continues to protect a government that is massacring its own people.\nThus I feel that in this situation it is obvious nobody can impose food. We must nevertheless exert pressure, all the pressure we can. Even a possible solution involving assistance manu militari would give us and countries in Asia some chance of putting pressure on Burma. I think Louis Michel's speech to us today was quite explicit: talk to me honey, talk to me, I'm listening, but I couldn't care less. That is what he told us in his diplomatic way, for which I have the utmost respect.\nToday, however, the authorities in Burma are deaf. They will not listen, they are not interested in a constitutional referendum, as has been mentioned. They are laughing at us all. Henceforth, therefore, pressure must be stepped up to the maximum, and we must ask for the consequences to be submitted to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court in The Hague.\nBrian Crowley\nMr President, nearly three weeks have passed since cyclone Nagris hit Burma destroying the harbours and the deltas of the Ayeyarwady. It destroyed houses and towns killing thousands of people and leaving thousands of others homeless.\nHistory has taught us that, unless we react immediately when people suffer, their suffering is bound to increase by multiples and factors way beyond our conception.\nIn many ways, the failure of the Burmese regime is a reflection of what we have been saying in this Parliament over the last number of years concerning the military junta that is presently in place in Burma. However, despite our objections to that military junta, we must find mechanisms - however they are arrived at - to deliver aid directly to the people. I welcome the fact - and little did I think I would be saying this today - that the military junta has now allowed in five United Nations helicopters to distribute food, despite the fact that a French naval vessel and American naval vessels are in the bay waiting to deliver food and medical aid to the people.\nIt is incumbent on all of us to guarantee that we can make the best possible efforts to assist human beings when they are suffering. Indeed, with regard to those great defenders of Burma, the Chinese, Burma could learn from the way in which the Chinese reacted to their most recent natural disaster by appealing for international aid and assistance from Japan and other countries. Hopefully among these different alliances we can create conditions whereby the aid and succour can be delivered.\nThe issue with regard to the International Criminal Court is a matter for another day. Our first and most immediate aim and task, following what Louis Michel has already said, is to guarantee that we put in place the mechanisms to deliver that aid, to rebuild the infrastructure, to rebuild homes and, most importantly of all, to prevent the continuing suffering of the Burmese people.\nJim Allister\nMadam President, a regime which wantonly allows its own citizens to needlessly suffer in pursuit of its own xenophobic paranoia is not just amoral but evil, and sadly such a junta rules in Burma. Unmoved as it is by the plight of its own people, it is unlikely to be influenced by what is said in the European Parliament, but in the name of humanity we must speak out.\nWe are not trying to control Burma, we are just trying to help its people, though the reality is that without regime change little will improve in the long term for the Burmese. Yes, we must maximise humanitarian aid, considering food and supply drops as a necessary tactic; but ultimately the restoration of democracy is how this once-thriving country will reclaim its position and put the people's needs before the junta's preservation.\nUrszula Gacek\nMadam President, firstly let me express my heartfelt sympathy for all the Burmese people who have been bereaved or injured by the effects of Cyclone Nargis. The people of Burma are in the thoughts and prayers of many Europeans. However, our condolences are not enough. We must discuss practical measures and see how we can implement them so that we alleviate the suffering of the survivors.\nMany countries and international organisations are both willing and able to provide immediate humanitarian aid; they have been for a matter of weeks now. Unfortunately, the ruling military authorities consider the preservation of their own power as of prime importance; the suffering of their own people seems to be of little consequence. They fear any kind of foreign involvement in Burma, even if this is of aid workers. The Commissioner's first-hand account of his discussions with the Burmese military authorities makes for sobering listening and there is not much hope that the Burmese authorities will change their position. So while we talk and wring our hands in dismay over the impossibility of getting the Burmese authorities to accept help and over the impotence of ASEAN, hundreds of thousands are suffering.\nThe UN Security Council can and should call on its principle of responsibility to protect and provide aid without the consent of the Burmese authorities. I would strongly urge the UK Government - which currently holds the Presidency of the Security Council - to sanction immediate airdrops of aid. The Burmese authorities are responsible for a crime against humanity, but we cannot sit by passively allowing them to continue in this crime. And while I agree that an airdrop is not the ideal way of getting aid into a country - for we would rather have trained aid workers distributing help - it is better than nothing, so, please, let us get some help in and let us get it in now.\nLibor Rou\u010dek\n(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I want to add my voice to those who have expressed their sincere sympathies with the bereaved families of the tens of thousands of victims of the deadly Cyclone Nargis in Burma (Myanmar). I also want to express my full solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost, as a result of this natural disaster, their livelihoods and roofs over their heads. I welcome the speed with which the European Commission's humanitarian aid was offered and I also appreciate Commissioner Michel's quick action. Unfortunately I cannot approve of the behaviour of the Burmese Government and the Burmese authorities. It was inhuman and cruel how they were preventing their own people, victims of this horrible disaster, from receiving foreign humanitarian aid. Consequently I want to call on the Burmese Government and on the Burmese senior officials to fully open the borders to foreign aid, and to allow the goods and the workers of foreign humanitarian organisations to enter the country. I also call on China, India, Singapore and other countries in the region, including the ASEAN Member Countries, to use their influence to persuade Burma to open up to foreign aid. No country in the world is capable of coping with a natural disaster of this magnitude on its own.\nMarios Matsakis\nMadam President, the situation in Burma following the recent catastrophic cyclone is tragic and is getting worse every day. Those civilians who survived when the cyclone first struck now face illness and death by hunger, lack of shelter and appropriate medical care. Yet the military dictators ruling Burma remain largely apathetic to the urgent need to allow proper help to reach the victims.\nThese heartless military generals care much more about clinging to power and far less about the destiny of the disaster survivors. The way the Burmese regime has acted and continues to act is unacceptable and criminal. The international community, and the EU in particular through Commissioner Michel, has done its best to convince the junta of Burma to listen to reason but, alas, without the desired effect.\nI think there is now no other way but to proceed with some form of forced aid delivery to the affected region. Such an undertaking can be launched with urgent approval from the UN and with the necessary logistics provided by appropriate military delivery systems in close coordination with other countries such as the USA.\nThis is truly a last-resort, exceptional measure, but is absolutely necessary in my view in order to save thousands of innocent lives. We just cannot remain inactive and watch the suffering and demise of the Burmese people go on any longer.\nFrithjof Schmidt\n(DE) Madam President, the scale of the crisis in Burma is horrific: 100 000 deaths, 200 000 people missing and more than two million homeless in a country of 54 million inhabitants. The Irrawaddy Delta is Burma's largest rice-producing region and plays a key role in food production. The tidal wave swept inland for 22 miles, flooding fields and leaving many of them heavily salinated. In other words, the present humanitarian disaster is set to be compounded in the medium term by a food production crisis in the Irrawaddy Delta.\nThe people of Burma urgently need immediate as well as long-term help from the international community. That help, unfortunately, must be forced through against the will of the generals, come what may. A government blocking emergency aid is a scandal without precedent in the history of international relations. The victims of the cyclone are being held hostage by a paranoid and murderous band of soldiers that has ruled Burma for several decades.\nLast September the popular pro-democracy movement led by Buddhist monks was brutally crushed. Thousands were killed or abducted, and now tens of thousands are dying because the government is not letting aid through. Its refusal to accept aid for the people is killing them. This murderous regime belongs at the very top of the United Nations' blacklist, and the members of the junta belong in the dock at the International Criminal Court.\nHanna Foltyn-Kubicka\n(PL) Humankind has not yet learnt how to prevent the tragic consequences of natural disasters. These consequences are even more dramatic in the case of countries governed by dictators. The plight of the Burmese nation is a contemporary example of this. The people of Burma have suffered both as a result of the cyclone and as a result of the behaviour of the military regime in power there. It became evident how heartless the ruling Burmese generals were when they refused international aid to save the Burmese people, even though the generals themselves were unable to do so. That decision amounted to a premeditated crime against the entire nation. Despite widespread international condemnation, the Burmese generals are maintaining their criminal course of action. Humanitarian aid seems to be ending up in the hands of the military and their families, or is being traded. At the same time it is ever more urgently needed, due to the spread of hunger and disease.\nParticular attention should be paid too to the situation of Burmese orphans. There are more and more indications that people traffickers are turning to these orphans in their search for sex slaves for brothels the world over.\nRespect for human rights does not just mean that national authorities should refrain from torture, murder and arrests. Failing to assist disaster victims or deliberately hindering assistance amounts to committing genocide.\nColm Burke\nMadam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his work to date on this matter. It is now clear that over 125 000 people have died as a result of the cyclone which hit the southern regions of Burma on 2 and 3 May. The United Nations estimates that in excess of 2.4 million people have been directly affected by this tragedy. Many are severely injured and it is likely that there will be an outbreak of disease due to lack of food and clean water. It may already have taken hold in the area.\nThe policies of the military junta in preventing humanitarian aid workers from getting access to the affected areas are unprecedented. These aid workers and the agencies that they work for have the expertise to put in place a comprehensive relief operation which would bring assistance to a large number of people in a short period of time. Will another similar number have to die before the military regime allows the aid agencies in?\nThe combined efforts of the EU, China, India, all of the South-East Asian nations and the UN have the power to force the Burmese authorities to remove the restrictions. It is by working together that we can change the mindset of this corrupt government. In particular we must bring China and India on board to force the change.\nIt is now 18 days since the cyclone hit the region. The international community must continue to work so that every person affected by the disaster receives food, clean water, the necessary medical care and shelter. Let us continue to keep the pressure on the Burmese leadership and force them to allow the international aid agencies to carry out their work. Let each country within the EU, and the EU itself, continue to apply diplomatic pressure. This is where immediate action is required. We must not allow another 18 days to pass before action is taken. The time for removing the restrictions is now.\nThijs Berman\n(NL) Two weeks after the disaster, some of the Burmese people have finally received rice, beans and medicines, but that aid is still not reaching a quarter of all victims and is arriving criminally late through the fault of the junta. The UN World Food Programme says that it was able to give rice and beans to 212 000 of the 750 000 people who are the worst affected. Therefore a special UN aid fund is needed, as the Social Democrats are also asking. I am grateful to the Commission for all its valuable efforts in Burma and also from Brussels.\nHowever, millions of people are being abandoned to hunger, thirst and sickness. That is a form of torture, that is murder and a total failure of the duty to protect. These are actions verging on genocide. Therefore the army is responsible for crimes against humanity. For our Group and tomorrow for this Parliament, that is a matter for the International Criminal Court. The Security Council has to have an investigation opened into the crimes of the regime. What is the view of the Commission on that?\nAs rapporteur on Burma, I ask myself when do you reach the limit of respect for the sovereignty of a country? The limit was, after all, somewhat closer in the case of Iraq. When does respect for fundamental human rights become inviolable for the same international community? Now the credibility of human rights is tarnished all over the world by the refusal, mainly of neighbouring countries, to deal with the Burmese Government, and the unwillingness to come to the aid of the people without the consent of the generals. Sovereignty does not entitle you to throttle your own people.\nHence the request to the Council of the European Union, and particularly to the United Kingdom as current President of the Security Council, for the situation in Burma to be discussed again in the Security Council. China and Russia must understand that the situation there now is even more criminal, even more serious, than shortly after the cyclone.\nThomas Mann\n(DE) Madam President, 130 000 dead and more than two million homeless: that is the bitter reality in Burma. In addition, widespread famine is threatening. The floods are causing diarrhoea pathogens, such as Salmonella, to spread like wildfire. There is a high risk of illnesses such as typhoid, cholera, malaria and dengue fever. Children, who have weaker immune systems and whose bodies dehydrate faster, are particularly endangered. The survivors of the disaster need clean drinking water, which cannot be provided on a sustainable basis without good treatment plants. They need emergency accommodation, not least to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases.\nThe military junta remains unwilling to admit Western aid workers, as Commissioner Michel just confirmed in his powerful speech. It is thereby jeopardising the existence of tens of thousands of people. What is the responsible approach? Exerting pressure by petitioning the Criminal Court in The Hague? Absolutely! However, is there also a need to amend international law so as to restrict national sovereignty in the event of a humanitarian crisis? That would be difficult to achieve, and the Chinese would be sure to veto it in the UN Security Council.\nChina is one of the few allies of the Burmese dictators. It must, however, make every effort - and so must the Member Countries of ASEAN, as Hartmut Nassauer stated - to ensure that the international teams of experts and aid materials, which have been in place for some time now, are allowed to enter the country. One of the reasons why Myanmar is blocking the numerous aid operations mounted by the international community is evidently a desire to influence the donors' conference in order to obtain multimillion sums and be able to use them as it sees fit.\nLike the Burmese regime's contemptuous and brutal treatment of peaceful demonstrators during the Buddhist monks' revolt in September 2007 and its subsequent imposition of a news embargo lasting several months, this is a totalitarian act which is directed against the interests of the population. This alleged exercise of national sovereignty is entirely unstatesmanlike and totally inhuman.\nAna Maria Gomes\n(PT) Over 63 000 people dead and missing and two and a half million homeless is now the combined result of the cyclone and the cruelty of the Junta which is mismanaging and oppressing Burma and which has prevented international aid from reaching those in need. What a contrast to the openness and promptness of China in helping the survivors in Sichuan!\nThe UN Security Council can no longer refrain from holding the Burmese Military Junta responsible for the protection of its people, by allowing international humanitarian NGOs and agencies to access the country in order to help the abandoned population of the Irrawaddy Delta. It also cannot refrain from bringing the Burmese Military Junta before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.\nThis Parliament hopes that the European governments will bring immediate pressure to bear on the UN Security Council. It is time that all members of the Council, including China which has supported the Burmese dictatorship, accept their responsibilities towards the sacrificed people of Burma.\nLaima Liucija Andrikien\n(LT) Today we are talking about the tragic situation in Burma in the aftermath of the cyclone that swept across the country at the beginning of the month. The disastrous consequences of the tragedy are that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, injured, sick and lost, with huge numbers losing their homes and in need of food and water. Every day on TV we witness haunting scenes from a country ruined by this cyclone and it is impossible to remain indifferent.\nIt is true that humankind still remains powerless in the face of natural disasters, especially when they happen without warning. However, the recent situation in Burma is different, as we are aware of the fact that the Indian Government warned Burma's leaders of the impending cyclone two days before it reached the country, so they had been informed.\nNevertheless, the cyclone hit the country's people with all its might, because the generals in charge of the country could not be bothered to warn their people about the disaster that was imminent. Such a government is worthy of condemnation, as its recent actions demonstrate absolute inefficiency and indifference towards citizens, which is an obvious breach of human rights. The generals in charge are to blame for having given their blessing to this natural disaster developing into a catastrophe of such proportions.\nThe list of criminal acts committed by Burma's leaders, which will never be forgotten, comprises forbidding international aid workers to enter the country, refusing to assist those seeking help and showing total disregard for the international community's efforts to help the suffering. The generals' shameful attempts to hold a referendum on the constitution in such circumstances only add to this list.\nI truly believe that the European Union must pursue every possible avenue - I repeat: every possible avenue - of cooperation with the governments of India, China and other Asian countries and make use of all the institutions in the United Nations network to ensure that the people of Burma receive the maximum possible help.\nJ\u00f3zef Pinior\nMadam President, in today's debate I would like to raise three issues. First, the problem of a new constitution. The Myanmar junta announced that a pro-military constitution has won overwhelming support in the referendum which was held despite widespread criticism and the needs of a national tragedy. Human rights groups have dismissed the vote as a mockery. A referendum conducted in those conditions has to be of dubious credibility. Probably it will be impossible to hold the second round of voting in most areas of the Irrawaddy delta on 24 May.\nSecond, there is a more general problem about sanctions, particularly EU sanctions. Do they really work? The people most affected are the population at large. Some observers - seasoned journalists, diplomats, former EU ambassadors in South-East Asia - say that isolating Burma in this way does not help.\nThird and last but not least, the time has come for the UN Security Council to act. The United Nations Security Council should insist that aid deliveries and humanitarian workers be given unfettered access to Burma. The EU countries delivering aid should insist on monitoring to ensure that aid reaches the cyclone victims most in need.\nAlessandro Battilocchio\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the few seconds available I would like to draw the House's attention to the cry of alarm which has reached me from volunteers working for the international organisation Save the Children, informing us of the imminent risk of a tragedy to compound the tragedy.\nRescue crews have reported that, in the marsh area of the Irrawaddy Delta, over 30 000 children are dying through want, children who have survived Cyclone Nargis and, in many cases, their own parents, who are now the victims of hunger and thirst, ill with dysentery and exhausted by rain and the cold.\nCommissioner, in this context, the policy of refusing aid adopted by the regime of Than Shwe and his military coadjutants is madness. There is no time to lose! With malnutrition already present, a lack of drinking water, the spectre of disease and the absence of aid, these children will not survive long: either we intervene immediately or we will be responsible fair and square for not having done enough!\nNeena Gill\nMadam President, I would like to thank and commend the action taken by Commissioner Michel. We have heard today that Cyclone Nargis has brought devastation to two and a half million Burmese people and, as the Commissioner said, the situation has been exacerbated by the regime's intransigence in denying foreign aid, so that only a quarter of those in need of urgent help have actually received it. This is unbelievable and a heartbreaking denial of the Burmese people's most basic human right. But it is also verging on criminal negligence.\nRecently we have heard about some limited flexibility by the junta but I urge the Commission and Council to exercise caution towards this softening, because this is the regime that ruthlessly repressed its own pro-democracy movement. I would stress that it is vital to keep up the pressure on the junta so that all UN agencies with the experience and logistical know-how to deal with the situation are allowed in. I am especially concerned that, as the Commissioner stressed, it is the children who are suffering the most. Accordingly UNICEF needs to be allowed in, to alleviate the threat of disease and malnutrition.\nFinally, I call on those who have influence with Burma, namely the neighbours and EU partners - India, China and the ASEAN countries - to encourage the junta to accept relief from others. I also call on the Commission and others to take steps to make it clear to the junta that democracy and engagement with the outside world are the only viable ways out of the crisis. I hope that Commissioner Michel will provide an answer to the questions 'Where do we go from here?' and 'How do we move forward?'\nMario Mauro\n(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the very failure of the mission described by Commissioner Michel, who I do, however, thank for his utmost sincerity, gives us an understanding of how at this moment in time it is appropriate to focus on the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to foster not only relations with the Burmese authorities, but also with the Chinese authorities who are currently demonstrating a different kind of sensitivity in light of the serious disturbances and disasters which have also occurred in their country.\nFocusing on relations with the Chinese may serve to open windows for humanitarian intervention which may move from establishing a no-fly zone for direct aid drops to the opening of a genuine humanitarian corridor.\nI have a question for the Council too: the European Union appointed a representative to Burma; while thanking Commissioner Michel for his dedication and for visiting what he has called an area of frustration, what is the representative's purpose? What is he seeking to achieve?\nTunne Kelam\nMadam President, there is one human priority: to get international humanitarian aid to the millions of human beings who have been pushed to the verge of extermination. It is a military junta that bears responsibility first for failing to warn their population in time about the approaching cyclone and secondly for refusing to let humanitarian aid enter the country.\nNow I think it is time to take this gang, which has committed crimes against humanity, to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, but this needs a concentrated international effort. In the mean time, all possible pressure should be put on the Burmese rulers and their allies, including China, to engage first in the humanitarian relief phase before starting the self-proclaimed reconstruction phase.\nGlyn Ford\nMadam President, the tragedy of Burma has been only compounded by the refusal of the military junta to allow the delivery of aid and assistance. They have refused more than token assistance from a US task force, home-based in Okinawa, which was fortuitously deployed off Thailand. While hundreds of thousands have died in the initial disaster, this can only be multiplied massively with the refusal to receive aid and therefore control the outbreak of disease. Oxfam have estimated that up to two thirds of a million people may be threatened in the current circumstances.\nWe have to urge everyone - the Chinese, the European Union, other neighbours - to put as much pressure as possible on the regime to moderate its position and open its doors to aid and aid workers currently parked in Bangkok and Thailand.\nJanez Lenar\u010di\u010d\nPresident-in-Office. - (SL) I should like to thank all the participants in this debate, which leads me to believe that there is, in this Parliament, a wide consensus regarding some essential elements which are also the essential components of the Council's approach to the situation in Burma.\nWe are extremely concerned, first of all by the humanitarian situation in Burma, and secondly about the responsibility of the Burmese authorities for countering the effects of the disastrous cyclone, and in this context about their responsibility for securing access so that the humanitarian aid can reach those who need it.\nI should like to emphasise that the European Council is determined to continue its efforts to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it. And to that end it will use all means, all possible mechanisms at its disposal. In the first instance our own; again, on behalf of the Council, I would like to recognise and support the efforts made by Commissioner Michel.\nOn the other hand, the European Union will continue its efforts within the United Nations Organisation and the regional organisations such as ASEAN. I should emphasise that before the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN member states, which was held the day before yesterday, the European Union served a demarche to the ASEAN states, in which it stated its expectations and proposals regarding the situation in Burma. And on 19 May, following the ASEAN meeting in Singapore, a statement was received containing some encouraging elements. I shall list just a few.\nFirstly, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers have agreed to establish a humanitarian coordination mechanism under the auspices of ASEAN. Secondly, the authorities of Burma, that is Myanmar, have agreed to accept help in the form of medical teams from other ASEAN countries. And thirdly, the Burmese or Myanmar authorities have expressed their willingness to accept the expert assistance of the international and regional agencies to counter the effects of this disaster.\nI should also mention the joint decision of the ASEAN countries and the United Nations to launch a call for a donors' conference, which is to be held on Sunday, 25 May in Rangoon.\nI should like to conclude by expressing my gratitude for the views I heard during this debate. I assure you that they will be very useful in our preparations for the debate, which is expected to take place during the session of the General Affairs and External Relations on Monday.\nThank you.\nLouis Michel\nMember of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I obviously comprehend and fully share the general sentiments expressed in the House - sentiments of criticism and frustration, of course.\nAlmost all the speakers mentioned resorting to the Security Council, the concept of the responsibility to protect, the right to interfere to a certain extent, the boundaries of national sovereignty, and sanctions in general. This is, in fact, what we are dealing with. However, I wish to speak on the means available to the international community to take all the courses of action you mention and to ensure respect for all these principles. This issue is slightly more difficult for it basically raises the serious matter of respect for international humanitarian law, a subject the European Commission and Parliament have already decided to discuss in relation to specific cases in September. Thus there is broad consensus as to the analysis: we all agree it is unacceptable, we all agree it is inhumane, and we all agree there must be better access and so on.\nWhat I do wish to suggest - this is obviously a personal opinion - is that we make a bid in the short term to capitalise on or at least to extract maximum advantage from whatever emerges from the donor conference arranged on the initiative of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, with the donors being the European Union and ASEAN, and, within the framework of this initiative or proposal, to appoint a joint EU\/ASEAN coordinator. This is in the very short term.\nIt will obviously be a difficult task. If the international community wishes to ensure a certain degree of coherence, if no results emerge from the two initiatives, it will be difficult to act as if there were nothing else to be done, and at that point the international community, whether this be the UN or other institutions, ought to focus on slightly different means.\nI say this because - and I am finishing up now - what is evidently the most frustrating thing of all to some extent, which discredits or at any rate weakens the moral duty to intervene and the very concept or application of the concept of the responsibility to protect, is that, beyond the declarations of principle we are all led to make, because this is the way we feel, this is our culture, this is our view of democracy and human rights and so on, there are means available to us, or means we are politically capable of implementing.\nThis is the truth of the matter. This is the political courage that must be sought. For it is all too easy to say: 'we must do something, we must send this, we must force them, we must do this and that'. Yes, fine, but where are the means? Are our countries able and willing politically to accept the ultimate consequences - of using force, if necessary - and do we have the ability to act in this way? That is the real question.\nI agree with everything that has been said here, but conclusions must be drawn from our generous positions. I wish to explain why I feel that there are two parts to this debate. There is the general debate on which we all agree, and there is the immediate issue. I think the latter consists of providing full support and placing a Secretary-General at the best location for dialogue to make sense, and allowing him to extract the best possible advantage from his two initiatives. This is more or less what I would suggest.\nI doubt that any statements, threats or tough talk, here and now - even if it is necessary - can change the situation. Unfortunately, I do not think so. I therefore feel that we ought to go along with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's two initiatives, and back them to the hilt.\nPresident\nI have received six motions for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Thursday.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nZita Ple\u0161tinsk\u00e1\n, in writing. - (SK) I am shocked by the terrible tragedy that has befallen the Burmese people. It is despicable that the generals who have a firm grip on the country will not be swayed by the vast number of victims of the destructive Cyclone Nargis, the number of whom may still increase due to the lack of drinking water, food and medical help. I do not understand the kind of people who ignore their nation's misfortune and keep Burma completely isolated, although it is clear that the country cannot cope on its own. The arrogance of power probably has no limits. In such an extraordinary crisis situation, the question of state sovereignty is an absolutely inhuman concept.\nThe humanitarian organisation Oxfam has warned that, unless help gets quickly to those affected, the number of victims may reach as many as 1.5 million. According to the UN, the disaster has affected up to 2 million people who need help. These are alarming voices and we have to adopt a clear standpoint quickly. We cannot keep waiting, watching helplessly as hunger kills more victims.\nI will vote for the European Parliament resolution on the tragic situation in Burma. I am convinced that the EU must not be indifferent. It must make use of all available means to help the Burmese people. Considering the huge scale of this disaster, the EU must also use enforcement measures as 'national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from genocide, war crime, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity'.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Mr Dumitrescu, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome 1).\nFranco Frattini\nMember of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, I am delighted that the negotiations have produced such an excellent outcome. We support the compromise that is currently on the table. If you give your approval, ladies and gentlemen, we will be bringing the curtain down on two years of discussions that have clearly shown just how important this subject is for the European judicial area and the internal market. I would particularly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Dumitrescu, whose efficient approach has been so helpful in achieving a successful outcome here, and also the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups.\n2007 has, I believe, been an important year for the Community harmonisation of private international law in the field of civil and commercial obligations. The Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction, which covers both contracts and torts\/delicts, will now be supplemented by the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to torts\/delicts, which resulted in the first conciliation procedure in the 'justice and security' sector in May this year, and by the Rome I Regulation.\nThe compromise found for Article 5 represents a step forward for consumers. The article is also compatible with the Brussels I Regulation, under which a consumer may not be prosecuted before courts other than those of his country of residence. I would also confirm that the Commission has undertaken to submit to the co-legislator, as part of the report on the application of the Rome I Regulation, studies on two important issues on which the compromise was unable to harmonise rules at Community level: the assignment of claims and insurance contracts. Here, appropriate measures are to be taken later, if they prove necessary. The general report will also cover Article 5 on consumer contracts, and particularly whether it is consistent with the rules of private international law applicable to consumer contracts. I would point out, however, that the report will not deal with substantive consumer law.\nAs regards insurance contracts, both the Commission and the Council have felt it necessary to issue a statement spelling out that the inclusion of special rules in the Rome I Regulation must not delay work on the Solvency II proposal. Parliament may also support this statement if it wishes.\nTo highlight its right of initiative in the area of external competences, the Commission has, as you know, issued a second statement, on recital 16b. I would point out that we intend to propose a horizontal mechanism allowing the Member States to conclude bilateral agreements with third countries in areas where there are Community responsibilities. The Commission has nevertheless accepted recital 16b to avoid preventing agreement at first reading.\nLastly, I would like to point out that we share Parliament's views on the importance of alternative methods for resolving disputes concerning contracts concluded over the internet. This is why we have actively promoted the development of such methods, through the mediation directive and by setting up a European network to help consumers wishing to bring extra-judicial proceedings in another Member State.\nI therefore hope that Parliament will today confirm the agreement negotiated with the Council so as to enable the Council to adopt Parliament's amendments at its meeting next week on 6 and 7 December 2007.\nCristian Dumitrescu\nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are about to vote on a second private international law instrument, the future regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, which is that rare thing in Community law: a document on a purely legal issue.\nDespite its technical nature, however, this regulation is hugely relevant for Europe's citizens. Contractual law lies at the heart of all economic and social life, and in the Single Market contracts increasingly tend to be between actors resident in different Member States. This is why this instrument, which lays down uniform rules on the law applicable, is so important. The solutions ultimately adopted in the amendments we have put before you for the vote are the result of cordial, ambitious and innovative cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs Mr Gauz\u00e8s, Mrs Wallis and Mrs Frassoni, and with the Portuguese Presidency and the political group coordinators in the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Medina Ortega and Mr Lehne. I also owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Mrs Maria Berger, who preceded me as rapporteur.\nAt the beginning the problems seemed insurmountable, particularly for an MEP from one of the newest Member States. I must point out that in seeking to replace the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, the European Commission claimed, perhaps rather naively, to be trying to communitise an existing instrument, whereas it was actually making radical changes. This led to widespread criticism that the Commission had failed in its duty to carry out an impact assessment.\nBefore I look at Article 5, which was the biggest problem we had to solve, I will briefly describe the main points we have achieved. The crux of this regulation lies not in Article 5, but in Article 3, which sets out the basic principle that the parties are independent, and Article 4, which contains the rules on the law applicable in cases where the parties have not chosen which should apply. The Council has followed the approach adopted by the Legal Affairs Committee here. It has to be said that Parliament and the Council took the lead in this codecision procedure by extending the scope of the future regulation to include insurance and carriage of goods contracts and by clarifying the rules on overriding mandatory provisions and mandatory rules.\nReturning now to the contentious question of Article 5, it has to be said that Parliament won an outright victory here, reflecting the close and friendly cooperation between the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs. The problem was that the Commission proposal departed from the Rome Convention by saying that, apart from certain exceptions, it is the law of the consumer that should apply to contracts between consumers and professionals. The problem with this version of Article 5 proposed by the Commission was that traders, particularly electronic traders, would have had to draw up terms and conditions tailor-made for each EU Member State. This would have been impossible for small and medium-sized businesses, which do not have the same resources as the big multinationals, and the result would have been an enormous barrier for SMEs wanting to conduct e-commerce within the Single Market. The rapporteur is all too aware that SMEs are the driving-force behind Europe's economy and create jobs and innovation. The smaller Member States were also worried that they would be excluded from the e-commerce market.\nThe solution adopted in the end was to return to a simplified version of Article 5 of the Rome Convention. The new Article 5 sets out the principle that the law of the consumer should apply, but allows the parties to choose the law applicable. In practice, given that most contracts between consumers and professionals are standard, take-it-or-leave-it contracts, this means that traders will make their law applicable. However, since Article 5 provides that the choice of law is subject to the mandatory rules of the consumer's country of residence, it offers a solution that is very much in consumers' favour. The new Article 5 that we are proposing therefore provides a win-win solution in which the consumer is guaranteed maximum protection and SMEs will be free to offer their goods and services on the internet on the basis of contracts governed by their own law.\nLastly, I must draw your attention to a short recital which provides that the Community may, in future, adopt standard terms and conditions for electronic contracts between consumers and professionals. The final major step forward is the inclusion of insurance contracts, which has been the subject of lengthy negotiations between the Member States - Commissioner Frattini referred to this - and the inclusion of contracts for the carriage of goods.\nThe last thing I absolutely have to mention is that the UK, which had initially decided not to be involved in the adoption of the regulation following its reservations about the Rome Convention, has now apparently decided to take part after all, in the light of the wording produced by the negotiations.\nWe therefore commend this text to the House. In our view it constitutes a very positive result for consumers and businesses, and is an eloquent demonstration of the highly effective contribution that Parliament can make in the codecision procedure, even on very tricky issues such as this.\nThe Council President has assured us that if the amendments in the first group on the voting list are adopted, we will have agreement at first reading. That would be an outstanding and unexpected success for Parliament and the Presidency, and as the rapporteur from a new Member State, Romania, I am delighted to have played my small part. As I reach the end of my term of office as a Romanian MEP, I have to say that I am also very proud.\nPresident\nI would like to take this opportunity, Mr Dumitrescu, to wish you every success and happiness in your pursuits when you eventually leave the seat which you have occupied with such dignity all these months.\nKlaus-Heiner Lehne\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the PPE-DE Group is content with the outcome of this process. This is primarily due to the fact that the rapporteur, by dint of consummate bargaining skill, great patience and dogged persistence, managed to negotiate and seal a compromise which the entire Committee on Legal Affairs was ultimately able to endorse. May I therefore express my very special thanks to our rapporteur.\nIt was clearly evident from the outcome that patience had been the best policy. Rather than take snap decisions at a single reading, it was right to opt for further negotiations with the Council and the Commission, because this was precisely the sort of matter that lent itself to treatment at one reading with a view to resolving all the complex issues rather than burning the midnight oil two years hence at meetings of the Conciliation Committee, which would have had to discuss the same problems we are examining today.\nAs I see it, Article 5 is the core of this regulation, and we are delighted that we have managed to alter the substance of Article 5 to reflect the original intention of the Rome Convention, namely to balance the interests of consumers with those of providers. Had the Commission's proposal been approved, we know that it would have had quite serious repercussions on e-commerce and on small and medium-sized businesses, and this would have impacted adversely on the supply of goods and services to consumers.\nWe have constantly criticised the fact that the Commission, in spite of the Interinstitutional Agreement of December 2003, has failed to carry out an impact assessment in this case. We confidently assume, however, that this is the last such omission and that the same mistake will not be repeated in future legislative proposals from the Commission.\nLastly, I merely wish to observe that the whole debate about consumer contracts, about the country-of-destination principle and the country-of-origin principle and about the relationship between providers or suppliers and consumers has only reinforced Parliament's repeated message that, in the long run, we need an optional instrument for the law of contract governing cross-border trade, and we are pleased that this requirement is set out in the recitals of the motion for a resolution before us.\nManuel Medina Ortega\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I believe that this is a good example of the proper functioning of the European institutions. Despite our institutional complexity, the Parliament, the Commission and the Council are all working well on this matter and I hope that, with a satisfactory vote at this Parliamentary session, we can achieve a resolution at first reading, without any further delay.\nI am grateful to Mr Frattini for facilitating the outcome and to the rapporteur for all his hard work in arriving at this agreement.\nAs has been said more than once, the focus of our discussions here has been Article 5, which relates to the protection of consumer rights. In contractual matters, the consumer is not in a situation of equality; normally he is at a disadvantage. To give a simple example, take a person who has to sign a car rental contract at an airport: the consumer is not able to read the content of the contract, he is unaware of the law to which the contract is subject and, unless he has legal protection he is completely in the hands of the person offering the contract.\nThis proposal for a regulation aims, without sacrificing the principles governing choice of the applicable law, to secure a system of protection for the consumer and this is now reflected in the formula - suggested by the Council - whereby the choice of law may not entail for the consumer the loss of the protection provided under the inalienable contractual provisions of the law which, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable under paragraph 1.\nGenerally speaking, the main problem here in the European Union is the lack of harmonisation of substantive law. These formulae applying the law of conflict are merely subsidiary formulae and we hope that the Commission will pursue its legislative drive by proposing texts offering the consumer material protection which is uniform throughout the European Union, thereby removing the need to resort to these complicated conflict-of-law provisions.\nKatalin L\u00e9vai\n(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this document before us is of great significance from an economic, social and political point of view, and its main objective was to harmonise the content of the Brussels I Regulation and the legislative work connected with Rome II, creating appropriate balance between the two. A good compromise solution has emerged, as we have also heard from the remarks by our fellow Members, and this is indeed due to the fact that there has been exemplary cooperation between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Union has taken as its objective the creation of an area based on freedom, security and the rule of law, and this requires the compromise solutions we see here, and it signifies serious progress for consumers. A consumer may only be brought for court proceedings in his home country, so this kind of solution for contractual law, which is so important for economic life, points the way forward whatever happens. Thank you very much.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna\n(PL) Mr President, may I begin by thanking the rapporteur for his contribution to the drafting of a regulation that is so important for the future of the European Union. We must remember that the Rome Convention is the only legal instrument in the field of international private law at Community level that is currently in the form of an international treaty.\nThe Convention needs amending to take account of the current and future needs of the European Union's internal market. For that reason too, the proposed regulation is politically highly sensitive, especially in terms of the protection of consumers and the possibilities for small and medium-sized enterprises to offer products and services via the internet.\nThe report before us strikes a compromise between providing possibilities for consumer protection and facilitating the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises on the EU common market. It also broaches the important issue of the standardisation of clauses in contracts covering transactions conducted via the internet. I agree that the European Commission had to take appropriate action in this field. It has done so, and I welcome the compromise that has been reached. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur once again and to support adoption of the regulation.\nPresident\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place at 11 a.m.\n(The sitting was suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.).","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-22":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Cross-border payments in the Community - The business of electronic money institutions (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the joint debate on:\nthe report by Mrs Starkevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community - C6-0352\/2008 -, and\n- the report by Mr Purvis, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, amending Directives 2005\/60\/EC and 2006\/48\/EC and repealing Directive 2000\/46\/EC - C6-0350\/2008 -.\nMargarita Starkevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117\nrapporteur. - (LT) Today, as the European Union's economy experiences a period of recession, it is very important to stimulate economic growth. One of the sources of the European Union's economic growth is the expansion of the common market, which is still very fragmented, especially in the area of financial services. The proposal before us should help solve this problem and establish a common European payment area. In English this is called the Single Euro Payments Area.\nThis document already has some history. As soon as the euro was introduced and the currency exchange rates were abolished in euro zone countries, it became clear that prices for cross-border payments still differed from prices for local payments. For this reason Regulation (EC) No 2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in euro was adopted and entered into force at the end of 2001. It set equal charges for corresponding local, national payments and cross-border payments and strengthened this principle. The aim of this was to reduce prices for consumers and ensure greater competition in the payment services market.\nImplementing this regulation reduced payment fees; for example, a cross-border transfer of EUR 100 used to cost an average of EUR 24 in the European Union, now it costs EUR 2.50. On the other hand, the document revealed certain deficiencies. For this reason it was decided that it should be revised.\nThe document before us is an improved version of Regulation No 2560. What is new in the document? Firstly, the principle of equality of charges for cross-border and corresponding domestic payments has been extended to include direct debit. This was not previously available. Once the SEPA had been created and the Payment Services Directive had been adopted, the payment environment in Europe changed; therefore, it is important that from November 2009 it will be possible to use the popular electronic payment method, direct debit, on a cross-border basis. In order to help create that common direct debit model, the regulation states that in the absence of a bilateral agreement between the payment service providers of the payer and the payee, the level of the default interim Multilateral Interchange Fee for a direct debit will be set at EUR 0.08 for a transitional period until 2012.\nThe document also outlines how to improve the defence of consumer rights and remove obstacles to business. It is proposed that Member States appoint competent authorities to supervise the implementation of this regulation, and those authorities should also actively cooperate across nations, so that there are fewer obstacles to business; they could also lay down guidelines on how to assess procedures for determining compliance with the principle.\nAnother novelty the revision of this document offers is the proposal to gradually abolish obligations imposed on banks in certain states to provide balance-of-payments statistics and the laying down of other procedures for providing balance-of-payments statistics.\nI am very sorry that an agreement with the Council could not be reached on this point and for the time being the balance-of-payments revision procedures and implementation procedures have still to be defined. Parliament and the Commission have declared that a strict deadline would be set.\nJohn Purvis\nrapporteur. - Madam President, this directive responds to the growing importance of electronic commerce and of electronic money and the need for a clear legislative framework. Its aim is to facilitate the use of electronic money for on-line payments accounts, pre-paid mobile phone accounts, top-up travel cards and gift vouchers.\nE-money is no different from other forms of money in that it stores monetary value and provides a convenient means of exchange. But, unlike account-based payment instruments, such as credit and debit cards, it works as a pre-paid bearer instrument. It is used to cover payments - usually of relatively small amounts - to undertakings other than the user, thus differentiating it from single purpose pre-paid cards like telephone cards. There is no need of a bank account in order to use e-money, so it is particularly relevant to those in society who do not, or cannot, have bank accounts.\nIt was all of eight years ago that a Benjamin Cohen, in his article, 'Electronic Money: New Day or False Dawn?', stated that the era of electronic money will soon be upon us. Sadly, this prediction was both over-optimistic and premature - for Europe, at least. Electronic money is still far from delivering, in Europe, the full benefits which were expected when the first e-money directive was adopted in 2001.\nProbably this was because of the high initial capital requirement and other over-cautious restrictions. The number of e-money institutions differs remarkably from one Member State to another. For example, the Czech Republic has over 40 EMIs, or Electronic Money Institutes, while France and Germany between them have a grand total of 12. In fact, two German EMIs were even constrained to move to the UK jurisdiction because of major differences in regulation, even under this directive. In August 2007 - two years ago - outstanding electronic money was only EUR 1 billion, and that compares with EUR 600 billion of cash in circulation.\nSo, clearly, e-money has a long way to go to become a serious alternative to cash. However, it is growing significantly, despite the restrictions, and this new directive should enable new, innovative and secure electronic money services to operate, to provide market access possibilities for new players and to foster real and effective competition between market participants. New and smaller operators will have an opportunity to enter the market, as the amount of initial capital needed will be reduced from EUR 1 million to EUR 350 000. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would certainly have preferred less.\nProviders can extend the outlets where e-payments can be made, for example the customer paying for his metro ticket with e-money could also purchase a coffee, a newspaper or a bunch of flowers at the station kiosk, as is already - and very successfully - the case in Hong Kong, for example.\nWe have been rushed through the legislative process for a first-reading agreement in order to get this measure enacted before the European elections. I thank most warmly Ivo and Melanie from the Economic Committee staff, the Socialist and Liberal shadows, Mr Pittella and Mrs Raeva, the Commission services and the Czech Presidency, notably Tom\u00e1\u0161 Trnka and his team, for their very positive cooperation. None of us achieved all we would have wished, but I believe we will have made a significant step forward, and I would very much welcome Parliament's support for this project.\nAntonio Tajani\nVice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to express the Commission's appreciation of the speed with which Parliament has dealt with these two issues, which are so important, and on this point I would like to thank both the rapporteurs and Mrs Ber\u00e8s, chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, for making a crucial contribution to the speed of the work.\nWe are now only a couple of months away from the final deadline for transposition by the Member States of the directive on payment services. These two measures, alongside the noteworthy efforts of the payments industry to develop SEPA products, constitute a crucial and timely step towards the completion of the single market for payments. These measures, together with the directive, will complete the legal basis which is indispensable in providing clarity, certainty and stability to the market. The negotiations that have been conducted in recent weeks have made it possible to obtain a very rapid agreement concerning these two issues.\nWith regard to the revised regulation on cross-border payments, I am pleased to announce that the Commission endorses the proposed amendment, which has come about as a result of a compromise. The Commission is particularly pleased by the inclusion in its original proposal of articles governing the matter of the multilateral interbank fee for direct debit transactions. The market was looking for these provisions and we consider them to be vital for a timely launch by European banks of the SEPA direct debit.\nThese rules will give the payments industry three years to put forward a long-term commercial model for automated debits that abides by competition rules. In a spirit of compromise, the Commission is willing to replace the unconditional removal of these obligations with a review clause, as proposed by Parliament and the Council.\nWith regard to the revised directive on electronic money, this is a particularly ambitious piece of legislation that will offer a well-received second chance for the establishment of a market in electronic money that will be genuinely useful. The directive aims to provide the market with a clear and balanced legal and prudential framework, removing unnecessary, disproportionate or excessive barriers to market entry and making the business of issuing electronic money more attractive.\nThe new directive should promote genuine and effective competition between all market participants, and at the same time ensure equal conditions for all payment services providers and a high level of consumer protection. The compromise reached establishes an excellent balance, fully protecting our initial objectives and at the same time providing an appropriate response to the legitimate concerns expressed during the adoption process. We therefore fully support this proposal.\nAloyzas Sakalas\ndraftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Madam President, the Legal Affairs Committee supports the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community.\nThe aims of the Commission initiative are as follows: firstly, to replace the existing regulation in order to adapt it to market developments; secondly, to advance the protection of consumer rights and to provide an adequate legal framework for the development of a modern and efficient payment system within the EU; and thirdly, to achieve an internal market for payment services in euro.\nThe Legal Affairs Committee was appointed to submit an opinion to the lead Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In the opinion it was proposed that Member States may appoint existing institutions to act as competent authorities and to utilise or extend existing procedures concerning cross-border payment services. It is important to apply and improve already existing measures and redress bodies to deal effectively with complaints and disputes regarding this proposal.\nIt is important to point out that the principles of proportionality, subsidiarity and especially the extended principle of equality of charges for cross-border payments should comply with the EC Treaty, Article 95(1). Cross-border payments in euro require a Community-wide approach because the applicable rules and principles have to be the same in all Member States in order to achieve legal certainty and a level playing field for all European payments market stakeholders.\nJos\u00e9 Manuel Garc\u00eda-Margallo y Marfil\non behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Madam President, I am going to comment only on the regulation on cross-border payments and the report drawn up by Mrs Starkevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117.\nThe regulation, as she has explained very well, responds to the needs that have been perceived as a result of the introduction of the euro, and lays down a relatively clear principle: charges must be the same for domestic payments as for cross-border payments. This is a common-sense rule in an internal market, but one that was far from being adhered to prior to this regulation.\nThe regulation has thus become a launch-pad for the Single Euro Payments Area, to which the rapporteur also referred, and I therefore have some additional observations.\nWith time, this regulation has become outdated and it has been necessary to revise it in order to adapt it to the changes on the financial markets and also to the directive on payment services.\nThe Commission set itself three goals in this revision: firstly, to include cross-border direct debits within the regulation's scope; secondly, to establish procedures for the out-of-court handling of problems that might arise from the application of the regulation; and, thirdly, to ease the balance-of-payments statistical reporting obligations.\nThe European Parliament has, on the whole, agreed with this approach, but it has made three significant changes: a clarification to the legal definitions laid down by the regulation, a warning or reminder to the Member States that they should comply with the regulation more effectively than they have done in the past and, thirdly, a call for significant cooperation between the Member States.\nMy concern was the issue of balance-of-payments statistical obligations, which has been resolved by agreement between the separate institutions. I can therefore say that I am fully satisfied with the result achieved.\nPervenche Ber\u00e8s\nMadam President, I would like to talk about the report by Mr Purvis on electronic money.\nFirst of all, I think that if we consider the reasons why electronic money is less developed here than in Hong Kong, it is undoubtedly because European citizens have become used to using their bank cards much more easily.\nThis Parliament has had two concerns in drawing up this legislation: firstly, at a time when the issue of supervision is on everybody's lips, we do not want to deregulate the supervision of electronic money institutions solely because of the latter's lobbying. This is why the European Parliament has above all insisted that these institutions that issue electronic money and manage electronic money should be subject to genuine supervision, and I think that we have obtained a number of guarantees in this area. I welcome this.\nIn the same way, we were anxious to take into account the interests of citizens and those who use electronic money, particularly when they want to end their contracts, so that they did not have restrictions and fees imposed on them by the institutions managing electronic money that we would have seen as excessive.\nThis is the spirit in which we have supported this proposal, in the hope that it would make our fellow citizens' lives easier through the use of electronic money, but that this would not result in excesses, particularly in terms of supervision mechanisms.\nMariela Velichkova Baev\u0430\nThe proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community, which aims to replace the current applicable regulation, is linked to the creation of an integrated European payments market. The proposal is also aimed at increasing the protection of consumers' interests and rights and easing the burden with regard to reporting statistics.\nArticle 5 on the balance of payments and Article 12 relating to the review clause are the subject of a compromise which our rapporteur, Margarita Starkevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117, is aiming for and is supported by Bulgaria. The compromise offers an opportunity for a timely, adequate assessment.\nThe current global financial crisis focuses attention on the need for relevant statistical data. Bulgaria is in favour of removing settlement-based reporting obligations on payment service providers for balance of payments statistics under a threshold of EUR 50 000.\nBulgaria supports the removal of Article 5(2) as the reservations which have been expressed are made in the context of the potential loss of information and a deterioration in the quality of the balance of payments statistics, as well as to do with the need for a technical period for implementing the switch to the direct reporting system.\nAntonio Tajani\nVice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, once again I would like to express my appreciation for the way in which Parliament has managed these two issues. It means that the new regulation on cross-border payments will enter into force as scheduled on 1 November this year, and the e-money market will thus have a second chance to take off.\nIn parallel with the directive on payment services, these two pieces of European legislation will make it possible to create a modern, comprehensive legal framework for the Community market in payments and will smooth the path so that the European payments industry will be able to fully develop the Single Euro Payments Area project. This project will offer European consumers and firms a fully integrated payments market that is efficient in terms of costs and is of the highest quality.\nThe Commission therefore thanks - and I do so with particular pleasure - the European Parliament for this latest sign of its commitment to the SEPA.\nNils Lundgren\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, electronic money that can be used across borders represents considerable progress. It is important for the EU to improve the internal market in this way by promoting its use. However, I would like to take the opportunity to recall what it is that we are actually talking about.\nWhen we introduced the euro in a large number of European countries, it was based on the analyses carried out on the value of a monetary union. The value is that we reduce the costs involved in exchanging money as well as other transaction costs. We reduce information costs by having a common currency. The price that we pay for this is to have more unstable economies. It is more difficult for us to maintain even and high rates of employment and to maintain stable state finances. We are seeing this right now as everything is going pear-shaped in this regard in countries such as Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece.\nTake note, then, that the victims should be counterbalanced by the benefits gained in lower transaction costs as a result of a common currency, but the benefits are continually diminishing precisely because progress with regard to the payment system is so rapid. Within a short time, we will be in a position where we find that we have such an effective payment system that the costs have become negligible. Then we will have a common currency that actually only guarantees us instability in our European economy. This is something I have said before and now you can see it happening. I urge you all to reflect on this.\nMargarita Starkevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117\nrapporteur. - (LT) I would like to say that the text before us is a compromise, which has been reached through complex negotiations between the Council, the Commission and Parliament.\nHowever, it is a positive result and I would like to thank the Council representative Mr Trinka and the Commission representatives for their cooperation, and would also like to thank staff of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who helped to prepare this document. It will answer those questions which were raised by Mr Lungren, that is, it will help to bolster the whole euro area, because the procedures for euro transactions will be strengthened. As a representative of a country, which is not in the euro zone, I am delighted that this regulation can also be applied, if non-euro zone Member States wish, to payments in national currency, which in Lithuania would be the litas.\nFor the time being, in our countries prices for cross-border payments and prices for domestic payments in the national currency still differ. This is partly determined by the fact that we are not euro zone Member States. I think that the first step and one of the steps towards the euro zone would be for us, non-euro zone Member States, to begin to apply this principle to national currencies. The other important thing is that the fostering of cross-border payments by this regulation opens the way to modernising the European banking sector, because banks have a transition period of three years to prepare a new business model, which would make payments more efficient.\nThis is very important as we often talk about innovations, new initiatives and modernisation. This document creates exactly the right conditions for all this.\nJohn Purvis\nrapporteur. - Madam President, just to satisfy the prudential concerns mentioned by Mrs Ber\u00e8s, I would point out that we have insisted in this directive and report that e-money funds are not deposits; credit cannot be created upon them. We have opened the door for e-money only a bit wider.\nThe basic capital requirement is reduced to EUR 350 000; the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would have preferred EUR 200 000. The own-funds requirement is to be 2% of outstanding e-money funds; we would have preferred 1.6%, but with the 20% flexibility up or down that is allowed, the more liberal Member States can go down to 1.6% and the conservative Member States can go up to 2.4%.\nIt is not ideal that we still have the prospect of such an uneven playing field in the European Union, especially when we have insisted that e-money users' funds will be fully safeguarded and there are also other important user-friendly protections, for example in redemption, as Mrs Ber\u00e8s mentioned. Because of the level of capital required, the waiver level has also had to be set for purely national e-money operators at EUR 5 million instead of EUR 2 million.\nAll in all, this is a very cautious step forward. It is not perfect. Compromises seldom are. Almost certainly it will have to be revisited in three or four years' time and, by then, I hope more operators will have entered the business. Users and merchants will be clamouring for more choice. The more doubtful regulators, banks, Mrs Ber\u00e8s - and even the European Central Bank - will have become reconciled that this is a beneficial, user-friendly service which holds no risks to the European economy. We in Europe can at last take up all the opportunities which e-money offers.\nPresident\nThe joint debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place today.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":9,"dup_dump_count":6,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Quality of statistical data in the Union and enhanced auditing powers by the Commission (Eurostat) (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Mr Karas and Mrs Bowles, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the quality of statistical data in the Union and enhanced auditing powers by the Commission (Eurostat) - B7-0314\/2010).\nOthmar Karas\nauthor. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Rehn, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate is an important political signal that the European Parliament wants to send in these times. The tabling of this oral question in the midst of the process of redesigning Eurostat and drawing up the European Parliament's statement to the Commission is also a sign of our determination.\nIn submitting a separate resolution, we are demonstrating that the European Parliament needs and wants Eurostat to act independently and comprehensively. This is the first direct response by the legislature to experiences in and with Greece. At the same time, we should not forget that in 2005, the Council rejected Commissioner Almunia's Five Point Plan and thereby prevented the Commission from being equipped with the necessary instruments. We are catching up with what we could have done, and needed to do, long ago. Consequently, I would like to remind both the Commission and the Council that the political will exists to evolve all the instruments needed to ensure that the euro is supported not only by the pillar of monetary union, but also by the pillar of economic union. I call on the Council not to block, not to delay, not to prevent, but rather to give the Commission this opportunity.\nWe also want to know whether any investigations are being made into where Eurostat and\/or the Member States have acted incorrectly in recent years, since it is only once we have a clear analysis that we can know which corrections and additions need to be made.\nWhat does the European Parliament want? We want independence, we want comparability - and therefore minimum standards for collecting statistics, minimum standards for the institutional structure of the authorities and cooperation with the ECB. We want all actions to be able to be checked, which is why Eurostat must be able to carry out unannounced checks at any time. We want its powers to be extended because we want insight into all the data - including that at regional and municipal level and for social security. We want seamless cooperation, we want to strengthen the coordination function and we want the Commission to tell us before we conclude our report whether everything that has been agreed with the Council so far is sufficient. We do not think so. We are talking about a minimum declaration, catching up with what has not been done, taking the next step towards greater independence and more comprehensive powers.\nSharon Bowles\nauthor. - Mr President, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is consistent and united in its view that Eurostat has to be strengthened and we have, for a long time, been in pursuit of establishing higher quality statistical data.\nWe know the history as Mr Karas has already referred to it. In 2005, the Council brought shame on itself and sowed the seed of the current sovereign debt problems by weakening the Stability and Growth Pact and simultaneously denying audit powers to Eurostat. With that history, it takes time to regain trust, and lack of trust contributed to why, in the recent troubles, Member States had to put a lot of cash on the table. Words and political commitments by the Ecofin Council were not enough.\nSoon, we will at last have audit power for Eurostat, all the more important now because it is the key that can make other plans about economic surveillance effective. A tool to get a grip on an outturn is so much better than just a grip on promises.\nWe want the quality of data to be improved, for it to be timely, and we want to be able to examine upstream input to national accounts, and we ask: is the new power given to Eurostat sufficient? Even now, the Ecofin Council has added in some conditionality to the new auditing power, actually less restricting than many of us feared, but has it undermined the possibility for really early investigation and intervention?\nThe European Parliament's report favours unconditional rights for Eurostat to do so-called methodological visits. Of course, resources must be targeted where needed, but investigation needs to happen at the time of suspicion, not after the event.\nFinally, when will we know that like is truly compared with like? What progress is being made to ensure that accounting procedures are standardised and sufficiently transparent to capture off-balance-sheet activity and any other innovative practices?\nOlli Rehn\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first thank Mr Karas, Ms Bowles and others for raising these very important issues concerning the quality of statistical data and Eurostat. Let me also welcome the support expressed in your draft opinion for the Commission proposal to amend the Regulation on the Application of the Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP).\nLet me point out that this is the very first legislative proposal of Mr Barroso's second Commission in February. I am glad that it will soon be adopted, I trust, and we will then have it in our arsenal. We needed it a long time ago, as Ms Bowles said.\nThe original proposal to this effect was made in 2005, but it was then rejected by the Member States. Times have changed and now we have broad support for this in the Council.\nAs regards this proposal, the general approach agreed upon by the Ecofin Council on 8 June last week confirms the importance of ensuring high quality statistics on government debt and deficit and acknowledges the role of the Commission and Eurostat for that purpose.\nThe regulation being finalised preserves the main objective of the proposal put forward by the Commission, namely, granting more audit powers to Eurostat when a significant risk or problem with the quality of data has been identified. The Commission can, therefore, accept the compromise text.\nThe Commission intends to take several further steps with regard to strengthening the quality of European statistics for the EDP. There will be an immediate reinforcement of staff resources dealing with this work, mainly by internal redeployment within Eurostat. Member States will be visited more regularly than at present in the so-called EDP Dialogue Visits.\nThe Commission will ensure the integration of more information on source data for compiling statistics into the EDP inventories foreseen by the regulation. Should there arise an exceptional case where significant risks or problems with respect to the quality of the data have been clearly identified, Eurostat will use all the relevant powers at its disposal under the new rules, including, of course, the audit powers.\nBefore concluding, let me say a few words about Greece on some topical issues. I wish to use this opportunity and maybe take a minute more of your time. As is well known, the Commission has undertaken in-depth work on Greek statistics over several years. The amended regulation should, in future, better mitigate the risk of fraud or manipulation of statistics, or of any other kind of irregularity.\nYesterday, there was a new development concerning Greece. You will know that Moody's decided to downgrade Greek bonds yesterday. I have discussed this also with my colleague Michel Barnier and the Commission President. I must say that the timing of Moody's decision is both surprising and highly unfortunate, coming after the agreement on a macro-economic adjustment programme between Greece and the Commission, the ECB and the IMF.\nThe measures taken by the Greek Government illustrate their commitment to implement the strategy to reform the statistical system, to stabilise their public finances and to restore long-term sustainable economic growth. This decision of Moody's seems inconsistent with the evolution of Greek sovereign bond deals and CDS spreads, which have narrowed significantly since the agreement on the programme. This again raises issues relating to the role of credit rating agencies in the financial system and prudential regulation.\nThese issues and others will be taken into consideration in the Commission's thinking on the future of credit rating agencies. In particular, the Commission will look in the coming months at the issues of the level of competition in this sector - highly concentrated for the time being - as well as at the transparency regarding methodology and the conflict of interests, since the system remains based on the payer-issuer model.\nLet me conclude by saying that it is of absolute importance that we have accurate and reliable statistical data on national accounts. It is one of the cornerstones of a properly and effectively functioning economic and monetary union, as was underlined for instance by Mr Karas. Hence, this amendment on Eurostat's powers is part and parcel of reinforcing economic governance in Europe, which is indeed a necessary objective.\nEdward Scicluna\non behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, I am glad that the Commission has provided legislative proposals to bolster Eurostat that are currently being scrutinised by the ECON Committee.\nThe quality of statistical governance lies at the heart of the crisis in the eurozone. There is no doubt in my mind that Eurostat should have wider powers, in particular, to make on-site inspections in Member States. But such inspections should not just be with officials from the Member State's Finance Ministry or with national statistical authorities or even with state-owned corporations: they should include, if the work deems these relevant, academic economists, trade unions, NGOs, etc. This is something which rating agencies, or even IMF delegations, do as a matter of fact.\nSecondly, we must have a common system of accounting - used by all Member States, based on a standardised and internationally accepted method of accounting, and agreed between the Member States, Commission and Parliament. This should not apply just to financial reports as provided to the Commission but they should also be used in the Member States' public sectors themselves.\nOver a decade after the creation of the eurozone and the introduction of the euro, we have discovered basic flaws in the system that are causing damage. These flaws we ignored, ironically, because of the false sense of security created by a successful euro. We must ensure that in the future, markets trust governments' economic forecasts and statistics. We must correct these flaws, and fast.\nI therefore urge the Commission to continue to work closely with Parliament and Council to resolve these problems as a matter of urgency.\nSylvie Goulard\nMr President, Commissioner, the current crisis in the euro area cannot, of course, be attributed to the shortcomings of the common statistical system. Nonetheless, these shortcomings have had serious consequences. There are the economic consequences, and we have heard a great deal about them, but there are also consequences in terms of the credibility of the European Union. Here we are broaching what is, in my view, one of the major problems with the way in which the Union operates today. Governments make promises to their citizens, and rightly so; they say that mutual undertakings will be strictly monitored, that the criteria will be examined down to the very last decimal point - in the original German, that equates to drei komma null - but these very same governments have, year after year, refused to give Eurostat the resources it needs to do its job. All this is to the detriment of the common good, as anything that weakens the Commission weakens us all.\nThat is why we wholeheartedly support this resolution, which calls for the Commission, Eurostat, to be granted investigative powers, and common standards to be strengthened. Without this effort to ensure rigour in the use and compilation of data, the promises of rigour will not be kept. Europeans will feel increasingly at sea and it will be the European Union that loses face.\nFranz Obermayr\n(DE) Mr President, the debate on enhanced powers for Eurostat does not really address the problem. We must never again find ourselves in a situation in which a Member State plays tricks with its budget data and lives beyond its means for years at the expense of others; where there are reasons to doubt data, the data must be verified. However, the EU must not use Greece and the current euro crisis as an excuse to completely remove powers of budgetary sovereignty from the Member States. Rather, the problem must be rooted out.\nThe socio-economic structures of the Member States vary greatly in some instances. Even Eurostat, which juggles the figures for the EU, must realise this. An unemployed person in London is not the same as an unemployed person in Paris, because different criteria apply. The differences in socio-economic realities between the traditional hard currency and soft currency countries are even more striking.\nEurostat must not maintain this myth of comparability at any price; rather, the comparability of the euro area countries must be fundamentally rethought.\nAnni Podimata\n(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by expressing my total satisfaction about the comment you made earlier about yesterday's sudden and unwarranted decision by the Moody's credit rating agency to downgrade Greece's credit rating, a decision which you called unfortunate and erroneous, thereby confirming that our decision to proceed with a radical review of the operating framework of these firms in European territory and to seriously examine the possibility of creating a public European credit rating agency was correct.\nAs regards today's debate and the proposal to review the regulation on the quality of statistical data within the framework of the excessive deficit procedure, we all know that this follows on from the so-called 'Greek affair' in terms of false statistics.\nAs a Greek MEP, I obviously do not feel happy that Greece is used as an example to avoid in such a debate. However, I wish to remind the House - as you did Commissioner - that Greece, the current Greek Government, was the first to recognise the problem and immediately took radical decisions to deal with it, first of all by converting the National Statistics Office into a fully independent authority supervised by Parliament and, secondly, by taking steps to set up an examining committee to investigate and apportion blame to those involved in this unacceptable procedure.\nNonetheless, we must recognise that this debate is belated at European level, as there have been adequate statistics which should have galvanised us into action since 2005.\nDimitar Stoyanov\n(BG) I wish to steer the debate in a more practical direction because last week, the Commissioner declared that there will be a special audit carried out by Eurostat on the statistical data which the Commission has received from Bulgaria.\nUnfortunately, however, it was not clear from Mr Rehn's statement why such an audit was necessary. This is why I wish to take this opportunity now to ask him a question.\nWhich criteria singled out the most stable Member State in the Balkans when all the other Member States in the Balkans are experiencing great difficulties? What were these criteria which determined that an audit should be carried out specifically in Bulgaria? Is this not also a sign of some inertia on your part, coming from your previous area of responsibility, enlargement?\nYou also just said that it is highly unfortunate that Moody's has downgraded Greece's credit rating. However, do you realise that by bandying about such statements in the public domain, Bulgaria's credit rating too may be downgraded next? You cannot then get angry at Moody's. You will only have yourself to get angry at in that case.\nOlle Ludvigsson\n(SV) Mr President, there are simple measures that need to be taken to create economic stability within the EU. One of the simplest but, at the same time, important measures is to increase the quality of the economic statistics. In this area, it is perfectly possible to achieve significant improvements relatively quickly. I therefore welcome the positive signals sent out by both the Commission and the Council. My hope is that it will be possible to quickly reach agreement on effective packages of measures that will take the quality of the statistics to a higher level.\nI believe that we need to strengthen the role and powers of Eurostat. Eurostat must also continue to cooperate with the national producers of statistics, but the hierarchy and levels of decision making need to be made clearer. Eurostat must be able to demand to see correct national data and must be able to make use of both sanctions and special inspections if the quality is not good enough.\nGreater resources are needed if the statistics are to improve. It is important for us to realise that higher quality requires greater investment in this regard. We need to establish a plan for Eurostat. Its capacity must be increased and we need to ensure that the budget provides room for this increase in capacity. I am concerned that so far, the statistics have not been a priority within this area in the ongoing decision-making discussions. I hope that we will see this increased investment.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, we are all aware that the amendment of the regulation as regards the quality of statistical data in the context of the excessive deficit procedure is a particularly important and urgent measure in view of the present problems in most of the national budgets of the Member States. Without precise, clear data, it is difficult to decide on and establish further measures. To this extent, a control mechanism needs to be put in place that allows the data submitted by the national authorities to be verified in good time. In any event, we must never again find ourselves in a situation - such as we did with Greece - in which it is only in retrospect that it becomes apparent that decisions with wide-ranging implications were taken on the basis of incorrect or falsified data. We must also consider penalties for those states that deliberately communicate incorrect data or statistics. The enhancement of Eurostat and its expansion into an independent authority should therefore be considered in any event. This is not interfering with the budgetary sovereignty of the Member States at all, but rather is about having effective checks on data.\nLiisa Jaakonsaari\n(FI) Mr President, I think the Commission should be thanked for making such speedy headway with regard to these issues. Only a few months ago, for example, looking into a country's statistical data was felt to be an intrusion with regard to national sovereignty. At the time, it was considered to be virtually impossible and now we have obviously come a long way. It is excellent that Eurostat's powers are to be increased. Europe would have drifted into a sort of moral crisis, if people had, as it were, merely noticed out of the corner of their eye that the statistics were being distorted.\nI agree with my colleague, Mrs Podimata, that people should now stop ridiculing Greece in this way. Greece should be respected for taking some very tough decisions. The people there should also have better access than before to statistical data and general information on the economy.\nOlli Rehn\nMember of the Commission. - Mr President, let me thank you for a very substantive debate and your support for this proposal to reinforce Eurostat's powers. I must say that I agree with Mrs Jaakonsaari that we have seen a sea change - a real cultural change - as regards the attitudes concerning economic policy coordination in Europe in recent months.\nThe adoption of this proposal is one of the cornerstones of our efforts to reinforce our economic and monetary union. There were several points made concerning Greece and Bulgaria, and I would like to clarify and respond to some of the issues that were discussed today. On Greece, I will not go into the whole long history of this saga. I agree with those who say that it is not fair to continue this 'Greece bashing', because Greece is now on track and its programme is being implemented effectively. Greece deserves credit and support, not 'bashing'. As regards the statistical reforms, we are working together with the Greek authorities. We have made numerous visits in the course of this winter and spring and have recently agreed on an action plan which aims at enhancing the capacity of the Greek statistical system and improving Greece's public finance statistics.\nOn Bulgaria, our concerns relate mostly to two aspects of the budgetary forecast. I trust that at least the Bulgarian Members of the European Parliament are listening to my clarifications concerning Bulgaria's excessive deficit procedure and statistical problems.\nFirst, the Commission was only belatedly informed by Bulgaria about the sizeable revisions in the budgetary outlook, in violation of treaty obligations. Secondly, we lack information on why Bulgaria revised its planned budget for 2010 from a balanced budget to a deficit of 3.8% within just a few weeks, even though the macro-economic scenario remained unchanged or even improved. Consequently, the Commission is currently not in a position to undertake an assessment of the Bulgarian budgetary plans for this year.\nThe planned mission by Eurostat to Bulgaria foreseen for the second half of this year will not address the differences and questions concerning the 2010 outlook. This is not a statistical issue. Instead, Eurostat will focus on potential risks to past data on the excessive deficit procedure for the year 2009 relating to previously undeclared government contractual commitments.\nI am very grateful for this attention to these important issues, which may have also some implications concerning Bulgaria's standing in the markets. According to the information obtained from the Bulgarian authorities, the conclusion of their internal budget audits will only be completed by mid-summer. The outcome of such audits will be used by Eurostat in the context of the planned EDP visit to Bulgaria. Depending on the speed of the adoption of the revised regulation, which grants stronger powers to Eurostat, Eurostat may draw on these powers, as necessary, in its work.\nLadies and gentlemen, once again, thank you for your attention and especially for your broad and strong support for our proposal, which is the very first legislative proposal of the second Barroso Commission. Indeed, its adoption is essential for the effective functioning of economic and monetary union.\nPresident\nThank you, Commissioner, and thank you also for your generous comments about us; we did not listen to them carefully enough. I find it regrettable when a person is speaking in this House and there are demonstrations, such as rounds of applause, which have nothing to do with the subject matter and the speech being made during our debate.\nThe debate is closed.\nThe vote will take place on Wednesday, 16 June 2010.\nWritten statements (Rule 149)\nEnik\u0151 Gy\u0151ri\nin writing. - (HU) The European Parliament must take a stand on a very important issue in today's debate, namely, the direction the statistical information system currently operating under the authority of Eurostat should take in order to avoid situations similar to the Greek scandal in the future. Let me remind you that the fraud perpetrated by the Greek authorities had already come to light in 2004, and around the same time, the Socialist-led Hungarian Government's finances were shady as well. Despite this, the EU has still not taken any steps to reform the statistical information system. Although I believe that the Commission's plan to grant audit rights to Eurostat is a step in the right direction, I am convinced that we will have to do more, as the future of the common currency is now at stake. What do I think we should do next? In my opinion, in excessive deficit procedures, sanctions should not only be imposed on Member States repeatedly failing to comply with their obligation to meet the 3% Maastricht budget deficit criterion, but also on those who have provided false statistical data for years, misleading investors and the EU and jeopardising the stability of the euro area. I agree with the approach of making the officers of national statistical offices personally responsible for the quality of data provided to Eurostat. This is why I propose that, taking into account the work being done by the Council's working group under the direction of Herman Van Rompuy, we ask the Commission to work out a more stringent system of sanctions to replace the one currently in place.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":10,"dup_dump_count":7,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-18":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"9. Nutrition and health claims made on foods (vote) \n- Report: Adriana Poli Bortone\n- Before the vote:\nMargot Wallstr\u00f6m\nVice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission makes the following declaration. The Commission, sharing the views expressed by Parliament, acknowledges the urgent need to have a scientific evaluation of children's health claims already on the market. Therefore, it will give priority to the necessary procedure to allow for a rapid decision on claims referring to children's development and health and will also ask the European Food Safety Authority to give priority to processing the evaluation of such claims. Furthermore, the Commission confirms that, pending the establishment of nutrient profiles, the process of evaluating such claims can start without delay.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":1,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2024-26":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"9. 2008 annual report on the CFSP (\nHeidi Hautala\nMr President, this report deals with the common foreign and security policy in 2008. However, it does not mention what happened on 10 March 2008 when Tibetans raised a peaceful protest against the repression of their culture and religion. Today, we have a guest from Tibet, Mrs Namdrol Lhamo, a nun who was confined to Drapchi Prison for 12 years because she had taken part in a peaceful demonstration and then recorded songs in prison. We should pay tribute to her and to the other courageous Tibetans living under the occupation.\nI met with the Dalai Lama quite recently, and we came to the conclusion that there is an urgent need for an independent international investigation into what happened in that uprising in Lhasa on and around 10 March 2008, because for as long as there is no such investigation, China will keep accusing the Tibetan Government in exile, and the Dalai Lama, of instigating that uprising and its violent aftermath.\nAccording to the Tibetan administration in exile, at least 220 Tibetans died, many as a result of indiscriminate firing by the police, ill-treatment or torture in prisons. Many more are missing.\n(Sustained applause)\nAdrian Severin\non behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, we have an amendment here.\nNormally, our group would vote against but, in order to let us vote in favour, we would like to delete the words: 'that entails an end to the Israeli blockade'.\nThis is because the Israeli blockade is too complex an issue, and I believe there is no clear link between the preceding lines and these words. If we can delete these words, I think we could be comfortable with the rest of the amendment, and we could vote in favour. It is a small change, but it would allow us to vote in favour.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"1. Gender mainstreaming in EU external relations (\n- Before the vote\nLibor Rou\u010dek\nrapporteur. - Mr President, the EU and its Member States have committed themselves to pursuing gender equality and women's empowerment as one of the key priorities of the international agenda.\nYet, closer inspection reveals that the practical implementation of gender mainstreaming in the EU's external policies is still weak. For instance, only eight of the 27 Member States have adopted national action plans on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325.\nFurthermore, women are still seriously underrepresented in high-level posts in the Commission and the Council. In fact, there is not a single female EU special representative at the moment. For this reason, the report stresses that the EU needs to fully implement its commitments in this field. For instance, the Commission should speed up its work on an EU action plan on gender equality. I am convinced that this is key to strengthening the gender dimension in EU foreign policy.\nLet me conclude by saying that women's rights are part of the broader concept of human and civic rights. Without addressing gender equality and promoting women's rights in the EU's foreign policy, that policy cannot be effective.\n(Applause)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":4,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"8. Pakistan (vote) \nJoint motion for a resolution:\n- Before the vote on paragraph 1:\nRobert Evans\non behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, as Chairman of the Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia, I led negotiations on this compromise text. I recognise that it is a sensitive issue and it is important that we all recognise the situation in Pakistan. I think the whole House will want to send a strong, unified message to General Musharraf.\nIn the spirit of compromise and, I hope, to win the support of the whole House, I would like to propose the following oral amendment. In recital A, we refer to President Musharraf 'suspending the Constitution and the rule of law and replacing them with martial law'. I would like to propose that we say that he has replaced them 'by the state of emergency, de facto martial law'. Then, in line with the suggestions made by other colleagues, in three other places, paragraphs 1, 10 and 11, we should replace 'martial law' with 'the state of emergency'. I hope that will command the full support of the House.\n(The oral amendment was accepted)","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":6,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-48":2,"2013-20":3}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Transatlantic relations (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the Council and Commission statements on transatlantic relations.\nG\u00fcnter Gloser\nMr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, as the European Security Strategy affirms, 'the European Union and the United States of American can, through their common action, be a powerful force for the good of the world'.\nStrengthening common trans-Atlantic action and building on our relationship with the USA are core elements in our presidency, in the political and economic spheres as much as in energy security and in addressing climate change, and it is intended that this message should go out from the EU\/USA summit to be held in Washington on 30 April.\nIt is good that we have the chance to discuss things here today, just a few days before the Summit, so that this important signal may go out from the European Parliament.\nYour House is playing an active role in trans-Atlantic relations, not least - to mention just one example - through the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue, which is a significant part of the network of bilateral links establishing connections across the Atlantic at many different levels, and I should like expressly to thank you, Mr President, and the whole European Parliament for this commitment.\nThe USA is still the partner with which the EU's relations are closest and most diverse. The trans-Atlantic relationship rests on a solid foundation derived from common historical experiences, very similar interests and, above all, shared values - freedom, democracy, the rule of law and tolerance. Those experiences have shown that this foundation, which is sometimes severely tested, can withstand a great deal, and so it is all the more important that trans-Atlantic relations be continually renewed and made fit for the future. I regard practical common action as the most sustainable way of underpinning the significance of transatlantic cooperation, both for now and for the future.\nThe transatlantic partnership is not restricted to bilateral issues, but has a strong global dimension. In scarcely any crisis - from Afghanistan to Iran to Kosovo - do the transatlantic partners not come together to try to find possible solutions. Whilst we are largely agreed in our analysis of the key dangers and challenges and on our fundamental policy objectives, the EU and US have had, and still have, differing stances on the priorities, as well as on instruments and methods. That will continue to be the case, and it would be unrealistic to expect us always to be of one mind.\nRather than ignoring difficult issues, we pursue an intensive dialogue with the US on the subject of them, and, in so doing, we will not deviate from our position that measures taken to combat terrorism must comply fully with our international obligations, including human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law, and be taken on the basis of our shared values. Your House has repeatedly taken a very clear position on this, and we will continue to address these questions in talks with our American partners.\nWhat is crucial is that we do not allow ourselves to be divided by these issues, for a close partnership between the EU and the US is indispensable for both sides, and this message, too, is to go out from the forthcoming EU\/USA summit on 30 April in Washington.\nOn that occasion the focus will be not only on political and security-related issues, but also on the strengthening of transatlantic commerce and on closer cooperation on climate protection and energy policy.\nIn the margins of the summit, we will be signing the EU-US air transport agreement, a further important step on the way towards more liberalised transatlantic markets, to the benefit of the public and business alike.\nIt strikes me that the mobility of our citizens is an important factor in this as well, because, as you are aware, the citizens of 12 EU states still require visas even for brief visits to the United States. The presidency is urging the US to allow all EU citizens to enjoy what is known as the US Visa Waiver Programme, and this, too, will be discussed at the summit. That is something I would like to re-emphasise at this point, since there has, over recent days, been a degree of irritation in certain Member States in the belief that the presidency did not perhaps want that, and, together with our successors in the Presidency, I should like to stress that we do indeed want all Member States included in the US Visa Waiver Programme.\nThe United States and the EU are already the most closely intermeshed economic areas in the world. We believe - and I know a large number of you think likewise - that our potential for economic cooperation is far from exhausted. Different approaches to regulation in the EU and in the USA give rise to unnecessary transaction costs, and so a further dismantling of non-tariff barriers to trade is urgently called for. It is for that reason that we want to use the EU-US Summit as a springboard for launching strengthened transatlantic commerce. At the heart of this initiative is a mutual political commitment to deepen cooperation with a view to achieving regulatory convergence and even closer economic links, and we want to try to use this initiative to re-energise cooperation on a whole array of fronts, for example, on conditions for investment, in the regulation of financial markets, in new industrial technologies and intellectual property.\nWe expect to be able to put together an ambitious package that will give renewed impetus.\nOne thing I would like to stress is that this initiative is not being undertaken in opposition to multilateral efforts towards trade facilitations; on the contrary, it is intended to complement them and to support the successful conclusion of the Doha round.\nAnother focus of the Summit will be the topics of energy security and climate change, which the presidency sees as key transatlantic issues for the future. At the EU Spring Summit on 8\/9 March we agreed on far-reaching climate protection goals and an energy action plan. In the light of these decisions, we want to use the EU\/USA Summit to develop closer cooperation with the USA in these areas.\nI do not need to make a particular effort to remind your House that there have, over recent years and decades, been recurrent differences of opinion between the EU and the USA on climate change issues, some of which have been about the fundamental issues involved, but I do believe we can rely on the impression that a lot of things are changing in the States, particularly as regards cooperation in research and technology, where the Americans, too, are very interested in stepping up cooperation with the EU. Not least because this is a major market for the future, we must aim at pooling our energies and radically shortening the innovation cycles for new processes and technologies, and it is in our own most intrinsic interest that our transatlantic partners must take a lead here. That I say not least with my eye on the research community in Europe and the influence your House has on it. I am persuaded that energy security and climate change will be among the transatlantic projects of the twenty-first century.\nSecurity and prosperity in Europe and America depend to a fundamental degree on peaceful and stable development throughout the world, and so one thing for which we want to use the EU\/USA summit is to send out a signal of the broadest possible agreement on foreign and security policy issues.\nIn the Middle East conflict, by way of the revival of the Quartet, we have - and I will be very cautious in what I say on this point - re-opened the door to a solution, at least to some small extent. In our dealings with Iran and its nuclear partners, we have managed to preserve the united front presented by the international community, which is, I do believe, a precondition for the reaching of an agreed solution with Iran. We are working closely together with NATO and the United States in the civil and military stabilisation of Afghanistan, and we want to further step up this cooperation, especially as regards the training of the police; the same goes for the planned ESDP mission in Kosovo.\nThese are but a very few of the international issues on which close cooperation across the Atlantic is necessary.\nPerhaps I might conclude by referring once more to the European Security Strategy, which states that, 'no single country is able to tackle today's complex problems on its own' - a statement that is true of the EU, and also of the United States. It is only if we are able to harness the influence, experience and potential of Europe and America, and to mobilise their best forces and ideas, that we will be able to find viable responses for our common future and the future of subsequent generations.\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nI should like to begin by apologising for the absence of my fellow-Commissioner Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, who has had to go to the funeral of the former President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin.\nMr President, honourable Members, the EU\/USA summit on 30 April is a new opportunity to strengthen our political and economic ties with the United States of America, and so let me say something, briefly, about this Summit's objectives.\nFirstly, we will be working towards economic convergence across the Atlantic, for, accounting as they do for 40% of the world's trade volume, economic relations between the United States and the European Union are among the most important in the world, yet, even so, they need an injection of new political vigour, and the dismantling of obstacles to trade and investment would be a major gain for our consumers and entrepreneurs.\nIt is for that reason that the Commission welcomes the initiative taken by Chancellor Merkel, who has spoken out in favour of a new and ambitious economic partnership between the European Union and the United States, one in which lawmaking institutions and regulatory bodies are to have their parts to play, with the participants in the summit exercising important supervisory and leadership roles.\nThe summit will see us mapping out specific policy areas in which we can achieve sustainable progress, including, inter alia, regulatory cooperation on industrial goods, energy, innovation, financial markets and investments.\nSecondly, in foreign policy, we will explore a number of key areas in which we have common ground with the United States, with which we will continue to cooperate closely in working towards stability, prosperity and the rule of law in Kosovo and in Afghanistan.\nAs members of the Middle East quartet, the European Union and the United States are working together in a constructive manner for the revival of a political process involving both the Israeli and Palestinian Heads of Government, and our willingness to negotiate with the government of national unity in order to support it will depend not only on that government's policy, but also on whether or not it acts in accordance with the quartet's principles.\nThe Commission has a particular part to play in the development of an international aid machinery for the Palestinian people, with the objects of supporting them and improving the way in which they are governed.\nAnother high-profile event at the Summit is to be the signing of the recently-concluded, and historic, open aviation agreement between the European Union and the United States, which will - on both sides of the Atlantic - yield economic benefits estimated to amount to EUR 12 billion and create something like 80 000 new jobs. At the same time, we shall be reiterating our commitment to the second stage of negotiations on a comprehensive agreement on air transport services, which will add to the economic benefits of the liberalisation of this important sector.\nPreparation for the summit have not yet been completed, and core issues in it are to include climate change and energy. Our aim is to get the United States to commit itself to a policy founded upon market mechanism and clean technologies as goals and on a global approach, and European endeavours to that end are founded upon the consensus achieved at the 9 March 2007 European Council, according to which global action is needed on our part in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.\nThe intention is that the forthcoming summit meeting should see European cooperation with America in this area advanced, and it is my hope that the declaration emerging from it will prepare the way for unambiguous positions to be taken by the G8 and by the UN conference on climate in Bali in December this year. We will also be discussing issues relating to energy security and energy efficiency and discovering common goals for the development of clean technologies and their short and medium-term applications.\nOn visa policy, we will, at the EU\/USA summit, be calling on President Bush to push for all EU citizens to be allowed to enter the United States without a visa, in the same way as US citizens no longer require a visa in order to enter the European Union; we would very much welcome it if the USA were to extend the waiver of visas to all the EU's Member States and thus put an end to the de facto discrimination against EU citizens.\nWe will also be urging the United States to agree to a solution for the forwarding of air passenger data to the United States that would satisfy the most stringent data protection requirements in a new framework that would replace the present transitional arrangements.\nNot least on our agenda, of course, is to stress the need for closer cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and in doing this we will refer to our commitment to ensuring that such efforts will not conflict with our commitments to international law, for that is crucial if the measures we take together in this area are to have any credibility.\n(Applause)\nJoseph Daul\nMr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, born as I was 60 years ago in the region of Alsace, I am part of a generation that, having lived through these times, can testify to the great debt that Europeans owe to Americans.\nThe very strong transatlantic links that unite our two continents are based on millions of personal stories just like mine. They have helped to shape our history and our common values.\nDuring the recent celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats paid tribute to the key role played by the United States in laying the foundations for what was to become the European Union, as, without the support of the Marshall Plan and without the decisive role played by the United States and Canada within the framework of NATO, the reconstruction of Europe would no doubt not have been possible. Even in times of difficulty, we have always believed in the crucial importance of the transatlantic partnership, a partnership founded on dialogue and respect.\nWithin the European Parliament, our group is the most determined supporter of close transatlantic relations. That is why I wanted the first visit outside the Union to be a visit to Washington. The European Parliament must develop stronger links with the US Congress and the US Administration so that it can cooperate further upstream on subjects of common interest. I should like to propose, in this House, that the President of Parliament invite the new Speaker of the House of Representatives to speak in plenary.\nI was pleased to learn that, like us, the US Congress has set up a temporary committee on climate change. I hope that these two committees can cooperate closely together.\nLadies and gentlemen, the creation of a transatlantic common market by 2015 is one of our priorities. We must reduce the burden of regulations, stimulate competition and harmonise the technical standards on both sides of the Atlantic. Let us provide ourselves with a compulsory road map, accompanied by a precise timetable with 2015 as the cut-off date for the launch of an unrestricted transatlantic market.\nThe European Parliament must be deeply involved in this process but, as friends, we also have the right to speak quite frankly to each other, and even to express criticism.\nAs President Kennedy observed in 1963, let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to the means by which those differences can be resolved. I should also like to stress my concern regarding the risks of stricter US customs controls turning into hidden trade barriers.\nWe must continue being vigilant without undermining fair trade. In the same way, US legislation on personal data protection still allows some doubt to remain about whether the protection of private life and of civil liberties is being complied with fully.\nEurope is determined to fight against terrorism and organised crime, but this fight must be founded on appropriate legal bases. Respect for fundamental rights will only strengthen our work and our influence in the world.\nWe also share the commitment to create the conditions of stability, peace and prosperity in the neighbourhood of the European Union. We have already cooperated positively in Belarus, Ukraine and Kosovo. However, we must also act in Africa. It is our moral and historic duty to restore hope to the world's poorest people.\nThe genocide in Darfur and the tyranny in Zimbabwe show that we are not a match for what is at stake. We must also persuade other nations such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa to support our efforts within developing countries.\nFurthermore, the Doha Development Agreement must be brought to a successful conclusion because it is a development round for the poorest countries. Europe and the United States must reach a global agreement as quickly as possible.\nTo conclude, our group believes in the possibility of a safer world. Nuclear proliferation has made the world more dangerous. We support a negotiated solution in connection with the Iranian nuclear programme. Europeans and Americans share common roots that have largely shaped our world. We must maintain our position in what has become a multi-polar world. As Jean Monnet said, Americans and Europeans together defend a common civilisation.\n(Applause)\nJan Marinus Wiersma\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I think it is clear to us that a different wind is blowing in Washington - one that is opening up opportunities, not least for cooperation with the European Union. First of all, of course, there is the victory of the Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, on which we would like congratulate them once again, but there are also perceptible changes in the Bush administration. The tone has changed, and we can tell that the State Department's authority and Condoleezza Rice has grown enormously. More cooperation is being sought, and this is something to which we must respond.\nLast week, I was with the delegation in Washington where a tangible change is underway. First of all, there is increased support for something that has always been very important to us, namely effective multilateralism. There is growing support for this, and also for the quest for cooperation with the European Union in this area. They realise that the approach taken in Iraq has failed, and that other ways of cooperating must be found in order to address security issues.\nAfghanistan is mentioned by many as an example; as we see it, there is no reason why, in the context of NATO, the European Union and EU countries could not join forces with Americans in projects that involve both security and reconstruction. In fact, a debate is currently being held at that very level on missile defence. Whilst we are struck by the fact that more dialogue is being sought with the Europeans and Russians, we remain critical of the outcome of this process.\nAnother important point we raised is that on the Middle East conflict. We would like to emphasise once again - and we hope that the Presidency will take note - that we must ensure that the new government of national unity in Palestine is not left out in the cold, and that we look for ways of supporting this new development.\nAnother thing that struck us is that the Democrats, in particular, are looking for a new social agenda for the United States where the focus is on the problem of healthcare, but also on Doha. What can we do together to ensure that the environment and working conditions take centre stage in the trade talks?\nThere are, of course, also areas of criticism which we mentioned in the context of renditions and secret prison camps, but also where agreements on data protection are concerned. These are areas that need to remain at the forefront of our minds. In the final analysis, after everything has been said and done, there is an important agenda for cooperation, based on the common values that have already been mentioned.\nI should like to finish off with a minor point, which is that it is to be hoped that the presidency can also put the Wolfowitz case on the summit agenda, should this prove necessary, because in our view, given the important role the World Bank has to play in the fight against corruption, his position as Director of the World Bank has become untenable.\n(Applause from the Left)\nGraham Watson\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, after 9\/11 Le Monde announced: 'Nous sommes tous Am\u00e9ricains'. Times have changed.\nOn economic, environmental and ethical grounds the United States Government has been shredding the values for which America enjoyed our respect. The challenge for the EU Member States is to resist US moves towards unilateralism, whether on trade policy, over Kyoto or in respect for international law. This will require the frank, forthright, and sometimes fraught, transatlantic dialogue on issues like the visa waiver scheme, extradition and 'open skies', which our Member States have thus far resisted. Indeed, President Bush succeeds in 'divide and rule' of Europe at least as well as President Putin.\nThis summit is a time for some home truths. Removing regulatory barriers and harmonising standards between the world's largest trading partners must be our top priority. However, it should not come at the expense of securing a successful Doha round before Mr Bush's mandate expires on 1 July.\nWe must also use the summit to force recognition of the greatest security threat of the modern age - climate change - and to make the Americans agree to stabilise and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The UN Security Council debated the issue for the first time last week, underlining the seriousness of the situation.\nBut we must insist, too, that the administration clarify its position over allegations of torture, secret prisons and extraordinary rendition in the conduct of the war on terror. Not only is it the right thing to do but it is the only thing to do to restore America's reputation.\nIn the long term, only wider democratic scrutiny involving this House and the US Congress and Senate, perhaps under a transatlantic Schengen-style system, can strengthen our strategic relationship and prevent the kind of legal limbo that we are experiencing with passenger name recognition data or with SWIFT payment transactions.\nSuccess in the war on terror rests on balancing freedom and security, not sacrificing our civil liberties.\nThe turmoil in Iraq is proof of what happens when we get the balance wrong. The US and the European Union should be helping to repair the damage and showing solidarity with Iraq's two million refugees. The Americans have taken exactly 466 Iraqi refugees since 2003. We know that they do not want to acknowledge a flight of refugees that is a symptom of their failure, but we need a clear and comprehensive aid budget and an agreement on sharing the burden of asylum claims.\nFinally, our negotiators must not be afraid to take the initiative. Paul Wolfowitz has undermined the World Bank's moral authority. Our message to them must be that it is time for him to go.\nIn conclusion, I owe to an American poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson, the thought that there is no such thing as history, only biography. Europe's leaders should bear in mind that they will be judged as individuals for the courage they summon up in Washington.\nAngelika Beer\non behalf of the Verts\/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will - together and as one - be adopting a resolution condemning the brutal treatment meted out to the demonstrators by the Russian armed forces, and our expectation is that there should be similar plain speaking during the EU\/USA summit. Yes, of course, we want new economic relations, with a stronger trans-Atlantic relationship on a new footing, but it must be founded upon unequivocal values, the democratic values that the European Union has itself undertaken to defend.\nAfter Guantanamo, after the torture and abduction of innocent people, we need a bridge, and what other bridge can there be than that we press the US administration to adopt, in future, a policy guided by democratic principles? When we talk about a moratorium on the death penalty - which we have done in recent weeks, and will do again in future - we do so not only in order to save potential victims in Iran from such a death, but also in the expectation that the Americans will agree to one.\nWhen we talk about the war on terror, we likewise expect that fundamental values will be redefined on all sides and that parliamentary control will be extended, not only in the national parliaments, but also in this one, for what we have seen happening is something we cannot accept as really fighting terror, in that we are thereby cutting back fundamental freedoms for Europe, for people, and for societies.\nAs regards Afghanistan and Kosovo, I urge both sides that strategy change in Afghanistan needs to be paid more than mere lip service, but also needs to be put into practice; Operation 'Enduring Freedom' has no legal standing any more, and must be changed, but we Europeans, too, must come up with more money in order to make peaceful development in Afghanistan possible at all, specifically in the fight against drugs, in educating and supporting democratic citizens there, and women in particular.\nThe same applies in Kosovo; we cannot wait for the Americans to loosen this knot for us. I appeal once more to the European Union and to the foreign ministers to now give Kosovo its independence, in order that it may escape another war.\nAs for Iran, the time has come to abandon the idea of regime change to which Bush is still attached; that, together with negotiations, is the only way to prevent the next war, and I hope that the EU will unambiguously commit itself to that.\nFrancis Wurtz\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (FR) Mr President, what exactly does the transatlantic economic partnership have in store for us?\nAccording to Mrs Merkel, it will not mean free trade or a common market, but the regulation of markets, the protection of patents, the harmonisation of rules and cooperation aimed at improving the world's economic governance. Her Secretary of State, Mr W\u00fcrmeling, was more direct in stating that the aim was to move in the direction of an unrestricted transatlantic market. The Chancellor herself did, incidentally, imply that the experiment of the European single market could serve as a model for this new area.\nDo I need to remind you of the definition of this single market provided by the Commissioner in charge of monitoring it, Mr McCreevy? As he pointed out, the single market 'is by far the greatest deregulation exercise in Europe's recent history'. Is it indeed this experiment, then, that we should replicate across the Atlantic?\nThe question deserves all the more to be asked because this project already has a turbulent history. It was in March 1998 that the then figurehead of liberal Europe, Commissioner Leon Brittan, launched the New Transatlantic Market project, modelled on the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. At the same time, top secret negotiations were taking place at the OECD on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI, which was already designed to track down any legislation perceived by investors as an obstacle to their ever-expanding financial operations.\nThese two projects caused such an outcry among Europeans that they had to be abandoned. Since then, however, lobbies such as the Transatlantic Business Dialogue have continually brought this strategic project up for discussion, albeit in a new form. The adoption, last year, of the US accounting standards and, more recently, the buyout of the European Euronext exchange by the New York Stock Exchange are part of this disturbing trend.\nFar from the image of constructive cooperation being sold to us, we are indeed talking here about a major front in the battle over the way in which Europe's future is to be conceived. What are at stake are both Europe's model of society and its democratic identity. I would point out that the report adopted on this subject last June by our Parliament regretted that 'the EU-US relationship is overshadowed to a considerable extent by political conflict and is quite often characterised by rhetoric'.\nFor the sake of the common values of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, are we going to have to keep quiet about the war in Iraq or about Guantanamo? About the death penalty or the International Criminal Court? About Kyoto or GMOs? About personal data, the SWIFT affair, or CIA flights? At a time when the process designed to lead to a new European treaty is under way, the nature of the relations between the European Union and the United States is a crucial issue that will need to be handled with great clarity.\nGodfrey Bloom\non behalf of the IND\/DEM Group. - Mr President, I would like in the very short time allocated to me to make one or two observations, offering perhaps some words of caution. In the last couple of years I have seen that there is something of an addiction to gesture politics here, which is something we must be extremely careful to avoid in our relationships with the United States of America. The impact of legislation, for example, is completely global. Everything we do has a global dimension. The serious GDP growth is in the Pacific rim, India and China, notwithstanding other parts of the Pacific and Japan, so we must be extremely careful not to burn any bridges when dealing with the United States, which also has a very serious protectionist element in its society. As the British know, the United States is the UK's biggest trading and investment partner and has been for some years. It is a shame that the British have been forced, against their will, to abandon the imperial measure, which of course we share with the United States of America, and which gave us a particular advantage there. However, that is something that must wait for another day.\nFrank Vanhecke\non behalf of the ITS Group. - (NL) Mr President, I share the hope of many in this House that the Summit of 30 April and the new transatlantic partnership will be a success, although we should add, of course, that this new partnership must be based on reciprocity and on respect for mutual key interests. Accordingly, the Americans and their diplomats will, for example, need to learn that Turkey is not a European country and cannot become an EU Member State, irrespective of what the American interests are in this matter.\nOur trade relations with the United States will be the subject of talks in Washington in April, when energy and climate change will be discussed, but I also see it as an opportunity to think more about the common fight we must wage against international terrorism and looming Islamic fundamentalism, in particular. Let us not forget that this fight is about the Western values that we share, and that it is these Western values that Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism have in their sights. This is something that is often overlooked, not least by this House.\nUS foreign policy is very often deserving of criticism, but the one-sidedness with which this criticism is often levelled in this House is hardly constructive. The one-sided activities of the CIA activities temporary committee in Europe and the one-sided conclusions it arrived at, as well the issue of personal data, spring to mind as examples. Let us, whatever we do, not mistake our enemy. Despite the many misunderstandings and different opinions we may have, it is good to remind ourselves of the fact that the USA is not an enemy, but an ally.\nBrian Crowley\nthar ceann an Ghr\u00fapa UEN. - A Uachtar\u00e1in, t\u00e1 an gaol eacnama\u00edochta idir an tAontas Eorpach agus Meirice\u00e1 ar an ngaol eacnama\u00edochta is t\u00e1bhachta\u00ed ar domhan. Is dh\u00e1 ch\u00f3ras pholaiti\u00fala sinn, le haidhm l\u00e1idir a chinnt\u00edonn caomhn\u00fa agus cur chun cinn an daonlathais ar fud an domhain. B\u00edonn \u00e1r naimhde ag iarraidh aird a tharraingt ar an difr\u00edocht pholaiti\u00fail at\u00e1 idir an d\u00e1 r\u00e9imeas. N\u00ed m\u00f3r d\u00f3ibh cuimhneamh, \u00e1fach, go bhfuil i bhfad n\u00edos m\u00f3 nithe com\u00f3nta eadrainn n\u00e1 mar at\u00e1 difr\u00edochta\u00ed.\nIn particular when we consider the links that there are between Europe and the US with regard to the action that we can take on the global stage, it is even more important now to move forward, despite the difficulties and differences we have had in the past.\nJust take a look around the world. In Afghanistan, we have to work with the US not only to ensure a stabilisation of the situation there, not just for the sake of the country itself, but also because 90% of the heroin being used in Europe at the moment comes from Afghanistan. Likewise, in South America we must take joint action to ensure that alternative crops can be found for its farmers, because huge amounts of cocaine come from there.\nIf we look at Darfur in particular, we see the failure of the international community to act and react to the genocide that is taking place there. It is incumbent on us in Europe to bring the US along in order to take further and stronger action. Likewise, as today we celebrate World Malaria Day, the actions that we can take collectively are far greater than those we can take individually.\nMost importantly of all are the actions of world trade, however, in order to ensure a fair and more equitable society for all. I call on the Commission and others here to no longer rescind our agreements with other countries in order to protect and assist the poorest in the world. Together we can achieve more than that which divides us, and in that way we can overcome our political differences on small issues.\nRoger Helmer\nMr President, here in this House we love to boast about our green credentials and to criticise the USA and President Bush for their environmental vandalism. After all, we signed the Kyoto Protocol and they did not.\nLet us pause for a reality check. In fact, the US did sign the Kyoto Protocol but they did not ratify it. Here in Europe we ratified, but we are not delivering. Despite the Commission spending the last 10 years trying to fudge the Kyoto baseline figures, it still seems that perhaps only two Member States will actually hit their Kyoto targets.\nWe say that the US is the world's biggest polluter, but only because it is the world's biggest economy. Since Kyoto has been in place, the US trend on CO2 emissions has been better than ours! I repeat, for Mr Graham Watson's benefit, that in recent years the US trend on emissions has been better than the EU's trend. The energy intensity of the US economy is similar to our own and, based on current trends, the US economy will be greener than that of Europe by 2010. The USA has a vast biofuels programme. They are investing in green technology and their AP6 Partnership engages China and India, without whom no global programme can succeed. Commissioner \u0160pidla calls for the US to adopt a global approach, but it has already done so.\nIt is time that we in this House stopped our moral posturing and started to treat our American ally with a little more courtesy and respect.\nJos\u00e9 Ignacio Salafranca S\u00e1nchez-Neyra\n(ES) Mr President, I believe that it is important that we remove the ideological baggage from this debate on transatlantic relations.\nI do not know whether, as the joint resolution negotiated states, the President of the World Bank should resign or not, but what I do believe to be important is that the European Union begin to develop its strategic positions and become a mature player on the international stage. I know that Commissioner Ferrero dedicates all of her efforts - which are not inconsiderable - to this field.\nI believe that this must not lead us to forget that the transatlantic link is not written into the European Union's genetic code and also that the United States - perhaps as a result of our incapacities - have been the guarantors of security in Europe and that, when it comes to security, there is currently no alternative to the transatlantic link.\nMr President, I believe that, if we want the European Union to become a European power, that cannot be done in opposition to the United States, but rather with the United States, as two partners which have mutual respect, which share a set of values and which share a vision of the world.\nThis does not of course mean that we must give the United States a blank cheque, and the European Union must affirm its principles in relation to the issue of the death penalty, the issue of the International Criminal Court, the issue of the Kyoto Protocol and the issue of extraterritorial laws.\nThis also means that the United States must learn to respect the European Union, which is currently a force for stability in the world, and which plays a fundamental role by exerting its influence in many regions.\nOn a previous occasion in this House, Commissioner Patten said that, in order for the European Union to achieve its objectives - one of the more important of which is for human rights and fundamental freedoms to be respected in all regions of the world - the cooperation of the United States was essential, and likewise the United States' objectives could only be achieved with the cooperation of the European Union.\nIf the European Union and the United States work together, Mr President, the situation in terms of prosperity, stability and security in the world will be better, and I believe that those are the objectives to which this Transatlantic Summit must contribute and on which it must cooperate.\nPoul Nyrup Rasmussen\nMr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner and Mr Gloser for their statements on US-European relations.\nI feel that the United States' mood and strategy is gradually and tentatively changing from unilateralism to multilateralism. Just six days ago I, my good colleague Mr Wiersma, the vice-chairman of our group, and other colleagues visited the United States Congress and Senate and it is quite clear that the mood is changing. This provides a new opportunity for the European Union.\nI have three reflections to share with you. Firstly, I think that a precondition for progress on the WTO negotiations is that we somehow incorporate the 'Decent Work Agenda'. Let us face it: it is not possible to obtain new and substantial progress without it.\nSecondly, it is time to realise that the financial markets and the recent developments in hedge funds and very large and powerful private equity funds are not fully compatible with the Lisbon goals and our long-term investment and financing needs. This observation is not just a European one but is also being increasingly made by the Democratic Party, which holds the majority in the US Congress and Senate. We therefore hope that this signal will be clear and that the issue will be discussed at the forthcoming G8 meeting in Heiligendamm.\nThirdly, on the Middle East, we should not be naive and expect major changes in American policy in the next two weeks. However, it would be worthwhile to step up our dialogue with our American friends and colleagues and to insist on backing the Palestinian unity government. If that government fails, the winners will be Hamas and nobody wants that.\n(Applause from the left)\nSarah Ludford\nMr President, on a parliamentary visit to Washington last week, we learned more about the high-level contact group on security than we did in Brussels. Thank goodness for the freedom of information culture in the United States! We also learned about renewed transatlantic discussions among officials on the legal basis for rendition. Congressmen and MEPs must not only be informed but also included in that debate.\nThe tactics of the Global War on Terrorism have failed, according to Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism chief. He said yesterday that al-Qa'ida had not only survived the six-year onslaught, but possessed momentum.\nWe must certainly seek to build a common transatlantic justice and travel area in which there is maximum information-sharing. However, we must also insist on maximum safeguards and respect for fundamental rights. If the information shared is based on dubious profiling or data-mining exercises, or if it is tainted by torture, what value does it have? As one of the officials in Washington said in that refreshingly direct American manner, 'garbage in, garbage out'. The potential damage to individual rights is enormous.\nWe must have more cooperation between the US Congress and the European Parliament in order to bring about democratic accountability and the desired goal of a transatlantic Schengen-type zone.\nKonrad Szyma\u0144ski\n(PL) Mr President, of all Europe's most important political and economic problems, not a single one could be resolved without dialogue and cooperation with the United States. Only a European-Atlantic common market can put us in a position to compete with China and India. Only American-European cooperation will help bring success in stemming the threat to our security posed by Iran, which today is the greatest threat to world peace, a nuclear power and sworn enemy of Western civilisation. Only together will we be able to stop Korea from uncontrolled aggression. And, keeping things in proportion, only together will we be able to restrain Russia from abusing its military and energy clout in Europe and neighbouring countries. Today we have the opportunity to act in a more pragmatic way. It is not just a question of a change of government in Washington, but also in Paris and Berlin. I live in the hope that we will succeed, and that European identity will never again be reduced to a cheap, trumped-up and harmful confrontation with the United States in the face of such serious threats to our security and to our values.\nJohannes Voggenhuber\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, partnership is based on mutual respect, which itself begins with respect for one another's laws and for the values that both parties have in common. Not a few of the invocations of trans-Atlantic harmony in this debate today would, no doubt, cause Austrians to be greatly astonished and seriously disconcerted.\nPublic opinion in Austria is occupied and perturbed by two things. A major bank was bought by an American fund and was, overnight, compelled to get rid of its Cuban clients - without notice and for no cause other than their nationality, which is contrary to international law, European law, and Austrian criminal law. Now a major minerals company is to be forced to stop doing business with Iran - and that is against Austrian law, European law, and international law too.\nI am quite astonished that this crucial matter has gone unmentioned in this debate. If our partners recognise our legal order and values, then a partnership is what we have; if they do not, then the relationship is one of master and servant. The Commission's response to these two events in Austria, which have received a great deal of publicity and been the occasion of great disquiet, does nothing to build public confidence in its ability and willingness to defend and enforce European law, yet it is on that that partnership is founded.\n(Applause)\nMiguel Portas\n(PT) Mr President, in an area of Baghdad, the US army is currently building a wall that, in the name of security, will separate Iraqis from Iraqis. It is doing so despite protests from inhabitants of the area and criticisms from the Prime Minister of Iraq. The Bush Administration loves walls; it builds them in Iraq, in Palestine and on its border with Mexico. The European point of view must be different. The wall that fell in Berlin ought to have been the last.\nEuro-Atlantic relations should therefore be higher up the political agenda. For the Europe of economic liberalism, politics means business, even though the depreciation of the dollar, the environmental dumping practised by a country that has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and the imbalance in social rights demonstrate the danger of blindly scrapping capital trade barriers in a world of walls.\nBastiaan Belder\n(NL) Mr President, today, the European Union and the United States are at level pegging where the immense issues in world policy are concerned. First of all, there is the danger of Islamic terrorism that is lurking in every corner. What could be more obvious than facing up to shared threats in unison? It is not that easy, though, and has not been for years within transatlantic relations, and it would be too easy to point an accusing European finger at America. Time and again, stereotypical anti American reflexes make themselves felt within the European Union, and are at risk of paralysing transatlantic cooperation. Let us bear in mind that the issue concerned is nothing less than crucial survival strategy.\nThis is why I should like to wish the Council and Commission every success in creating a favourable transatlantic working climate. This effort on our part challenges the American idea of us being unmanageable exotic Europeans. The joining of transatlantic forces will in any event produce a constructive working relationship, and that, surely, is something that is, after all, at stake in any transatlantic summit.\nAndreas M\u00f6lzer\n(DE) Mr President, before Iraq was invaded, Europe had had the chance to let go of the USA's dubious coat-tails and carve out for itself an independent role as a mediator motivated by reason, and, even as late as the business with the CIA's rendition flights and secret torture prisons, we should have put clear blue water between ourselves and the activities of the George Bush Gang, which were inhumane and contrary to international law, and ought to have denounced them instead of trying to get Europe's taxpayers to cough up for the Americans' belligerent policies.\nWere we, as is planned, to impose more stringent sanctions on Iran, we would once more be blindly obeying Washington's orders, and it could not fail to cause us to be perceived, by the Islamic world, even more as its enemies than we already are; that much is made clear by previous terrorist acts and by the latest threats against Germany and Austria. No doubt in the hope of making the USA\/EU summit go well, the position of mediator, which we have worked so hard to keep in our sights, is being abandoned without further thought; so much, then, for our independent and assertive foreign policy.\nTime and time again, the Americans have shown that they have but little interest in the EU as a partner, and would rather see it weakened by over-extension, internal problems and crisis hotspots on its borders, which is precisely what would result from Turkish accession. The idea is that disputes should make the EU impotent, and that is precisely where the planned anti-missile systems fit in.\nPolitical powers have no friends, but only interests. The Americans are trying to secure their interests, ruthlessly, and even at the cost of the Europeans who are supposed to be their friends.\nJana Bobo\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1\n(CS) Mr President, I fully support the agreement on economic partnership between the Union and the United States.\nCommon standards and rules for industry and finance not only simplify trade but also save billions of dollars and euros. I feel that the removal of visas for EU citizens is an obvious part of such an agreement.\nTransatlantic relations, however, cannot be narrowed down to just visas and trade. We must put forward different approaches to solving the Iraq situation and work together to develop energy sources that will not pollute the planet and that will deliver lasting, sustainable development.\nLadies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that the era of serious rivalry between the EU and the USA is over. Putting on boxing gloves in a ring built on the foundations of our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law brings no added value to EU citizens.\nIn my view, a far more pressing priority is a joint response to the challenge posed by India and China, which are beginning to outstrip us in terms of economic and political development. These powers are based on different environmental and social values from ours. The EU and the USA have social systems built on past experience.\nWe face the difficult task of ensuring that the competitiveness of our shared cultural model and the living standards of our citizens are sustained over the long term and are not lowered. I therefore feel that the biggest challenge facing transatlantic relations is to defend the position of the leading culture on the planet. Thank you.\nCharles Tannock\nMr President, the next EU-US Summit will prove a historic one, and I fully support the German Presidency's initiative for an extensive economic partnership between the EU and the United States, which now represents some 40% of world trade, and in particular Chancellor Merkel's ambitious aim for a transatlantic market without barriers by 2015 through mutual recognition of the same norms for various industries and services, particularly in the financial sector.\nSome in this House would regrettably call this a transatlantic 'rivalry' rather than a 'partnership', because they view the EU as being in competition with the United States. If that is indeed the case, then America is clearly winning. The healthy long-term prospects of its free-enterprise economy are in sharp contrast to the EU's gradual decline in a sea of over-regulation, which we must remedy before it is too late. EU-US relations, like EU-India ones - and I especially welcome the visit to our Parliament later on today of President Kalam of India - are a partnership built on our common values of democracy, human rights, freedom and security.\nOn the world stage we should be grateful to the US that it is willing to bear a disproportionately large burden in fighting global terrorism, with its uncompromising stance on Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb, which now demands a similar response from EU governments. The US has led the way in calling for sanctions on Sudan with regard to the genocide in Darfur and has opposed arms exports to China. America is also helping make Europe more secure through its deployment of missiles and missile shields, and it is now working with the EU to defend the Quartet principles for a lasting Arab-Israeli peace. Its engagement with countries like Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine in an effort to resolve frozen conflicts is also most welcome.\nFinally, we must together urge Russia to behave as a reliable energy supplier and uphold its commitments to democracy and human rights.\nErika Mann\n(DE) Mr President, I would just like to address a few aspects of relevance to the idea of the trans-Atlantic market. One gets the recurrent impression, when listening to Members of this House, that relations between Europe and the United States are remarkably tense, with the expectations of it evoking permanent frustration on one side and constant enthusiasm on the other, and that is no sound basis for a relationship; what we need is healthy realism, and so I should like to congratulate the German Presidency of the Council on having taken up the idea of the trans-Atlantic market, which this House had set out in numerous resolutions and, over many years, done a great deal of work on with the Americans, and also, of course, with many Council Presidencies and the Commission, and I would like to thank all those who were involved in this work.\nIt is this healthy realism that we will need in future, together with a model, a regulatory environment, in which economic cooperation between both sides can be enhanced, in which they can work together more and look together to the future, but the object of this is not coherence; rather, it is that the two economic areas and societies continue to develop along autarkic lines. The future will bring disputes between us, but that is part and parcel of our not being a single economic area, but having differences in many areas. What we need, though, is this healthy pragmatism, and I hope that the future Presidencies of the Council and the Commission will all roll their sleeves up and put some effort into cultivating it in many areas.\nIt is also clear that this is not just about the economy; this model has received repeated endorsement in many dialogues on subjects ranging from consumer protection to trade unions, and it is broadly supported across society. I would also argue that it is only reasonable that Members of this House be involved in the work of cooperation, and, indeed, that this is indispensable if a model fit for the future is to be developed. I do not believe that there is any basis for the concern voiced by some Members that the developing countries could be harmed by this; that is nonsensical, because, on the contrary, we will, through cooperation, be helping them rather than dividing them.\nSophia in 't Veld\n(NL) Mr President, the EU is right to be critical of the method applied by the Bush administration in the fight against terrorism, but this is not a sign of anti-Americanism as some hollow and cheap swipes made in this Chamber suggest, because the criticism of the Bush administration, and of the way in which it is riding roughshod over human rights, is far greater in the United States itself than here in Europe. However, it is not enough to complain of the United States imposing its policy on Europe or to express our disapproval in this respect. Rather than whining and whinging, the European Union should finally speak with one voice, because only in that way can we see our own principles through. We must be a strong and credible partner in dialogue with the United States, because protesting with 27 squeaky voices will make no impression whatsoever. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is the United States itself, rather than the Europeans, that has denounced the CIA rendition scandals, the SWIFT scandal, illegal wiretapping, or the FBI's misuse of National Security Letters.\nFinally, I am in favour of joining forces with the Americans, as long as this is not done in small, cloak-and-dagger, undemocratic groups, of which the High Level Contact Group is an example, but simply by following democratic procedures.\nMario Borghezio\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the German Presidency has ushered in an improved climate in transatlantic relations and a very strong commitment to fight terrorism. All that is in contrast, for example, to one Member State's policy, that is to say the foreign policy of the Prodi-D'Alema Government, which is a dubious, extremely dangerous and perhaps even suicidal policy. This is a government that is friends with Hezbollah and talks to Hamas, not to mention the support it gives to Hugo Ch\u00e1vez and Evo Morales, or the dubious negotiations it conducted with the Taliban to secure the release of a journalist. All that is in conflict with the improvement in transatlantic relations and also makes European policy appear ambiguous.\nI believe that the Europe of the peoples that we try to represent certainly does not want to be subservient to the United States in every field, such as with regard to GMOs, trade policy and the affair with Turkey, which we call on the United States to reconsider. Instead, I think that Europe's relations with the United States should form part of a policy of complete solidarity, mutual trust and loyalty, in line with Edmund Burke's vision, because what he has left us are the deeply felt values that we share with that deeply rooted, authentic America, which is anchored in its traditions and in its historical, religious and cultural values.\nGeorgios Karatzaferis\n(EL) Mr President, it was not that long ago since Bush, referring directly to Europe, said: 'Those who are not with me are against me'. Not even Hitler had said that.\nNow we forget the words of this blackmailer and run after him begging for cooperation? Has the Congress voted a similar resolution for us? Can it be that we have forgotten the conduct of this person and this nation with its secret flights over Europe? What kind of cooperation are we seeking for the European industry and economy when America is ruthless? Our industries abide by the Kyoto regulations, while the American ones fail to do so. How will there be any cooperation? How will there be any cooperation when we have an 'expensive' currency and cannot export anything, while Americans can?\nIf we want to achieve cooperation, in a transatlantic trade environment, we have to adjust the two currencies. We cannot afford this luxury. Only US products are sold around the world. If we really want to see the dreams of Europe come true, that is freedom, democracy and international relations, we should be calling for the resignation of Wolfowitz and Bush.\nJonathan Evans\nMr President, as chairman of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, on Tuesday last week I had the honour of leading Parliament's delegation in briefing Congress in Washington on the findings of the Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners. We received a robust response from the chairman of the International Organizations Subcommittee, Congressman Delahunt of Massachusetts, who not only gave us his support but also thanked Parliament for its work on this issue.\nThis was the first time such a meeting had been held, in this case of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, under the umbrella of the TLD and on the floor of Congress. As our rapporteur, Mr Fava, told our American colleagues, it reflected great credit on Congress that they were the first parliamentary body to ask Parliament's committee to share and discuss its findings. Our criticisms have also been directed at European governments and national parliaments, which have to date failed to follow the Congressional lead.\nAs I told Congress, we are allies who share common values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, but in promoting these values elsewhere in the world we must ensure that they are maintained in our own countries. I hope that this Congressional initiative, under the umbrella of the TLD, will be taken up by other committees of this House in the weeks and months to come.\nThis weekend I will be leading a small delegation from Parliament, which will be in Washington for high-level discussions on the margins of Monday's EU-US Summit. I know that the Council and Commission give high priority to significantly improving the depth and regularity of dialogue between transatlantic legislators. In preparation for this summit a number of ideas have been floated. We will have to wait until Monday to see how many are successful. But it is crucial that the summit declaration clearly spells out the need for closer dialogue.\nI conclude by saying that it is worth remarking that the three presidents, that is Mr Barroso, Mr Bush and Mrs Merkel, will be holding a formal briefing session with the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue and global corporate CEOs but have not yet scheduled any such meeting with either US or EU legislators. I hope that they will put this omission right at future summits.\nPresident\nGood luck with your delegation, Mr Evans.\nHannes Swoboda\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I still remember well one of Mr Barroso's first speeches, in which he said that we had to deal with the United States as with our equals, and I think that is absolutely right; an economic partnership is what is needed. I am all in favour of creating a common market that acknowledges the generally-accepted international rules, such as the WTOs.\nWhat is not acceptable, though - and reference has been made to this already - is that America, or the Bush administration at any rate, should attempt, from time to time and recently more frequently, to bypass United Nations resolutions and other rules in bringing pressure to bear on European businesses and telling them how to go about things.\nReference has already been made to one specific instance of this in Austria, where the new owners of BAWAG, a major Austrian bank, are being compelled to break off all business dealings with Cubans, and that is scandalous; it is not for the American Government to decide how European banks are to conduct their business, any more than it is for us to impose similar decisions on their American counterparts, and I expect the Commission or the Council to speak out clearly on this.\nI have in fact had a perfectly clear answer about another, related matter from the Commission, but the response from the Council Secretariat was somewhat vague. What is needed here is a clear and unambiguous stance so as not to fan the flames of anti-Americanism, but instead to maintain a good and proper relationship between Europe and America.\nI might add that I believe that Mr Wolfowitz should stand down; those who fight corruption must have no dirty laundry hidden away, and that is something else to be sorted out by the European Union and America together.\n(Applause from the left)\nAnneli J\u00e4\u00e4tteenm\u00e4ki\n(FI) Mr President, it is a good thing that it is recognised on both sides of the Atlantic that bridges of cooperation need to be rebuilt. A common set of values and a shared history have up till now remained the basis for Transatlantic relations. We need to recognise, however, that we cannot survive on past commendations and achievements.\nDuring World War II and after it we were united by a common view of human rights. Today, I think we have to ask what has happened to that common view. If the fight against terrorism is to be a success we should not sacrifice the rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens, and I hope that this too will be discussed at the summit.\nThe congressional elections held last autumn heralded a new mood, and the idea proposed here that Nancy Pelosi should be invited to speak here in Parliament is, I think, well worth supporting. It would strengthen the bridges of cooperation between the European Parliament and Congress.\nMiloslav Ransdorf\n(CS) Thank you, Mr President. The current situation in Iraq demonstrates how right the US thinker Santayana was when he said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.\nWhen it came to attacking Iraq, some countries such as France, Germany and Belgium refused to have any part in the venture. Defence Minister Rumsfeld at the time divided Europe into new and old, and took a dim view of countries like France and Germany. In reality, the countries that supported the attack on Iraq were the countries of the old Europe. They were the countries that in fact adhered to the traditions of colonial wars and the arrogance of the powerful.\nI feel that the new Europe is based on ideas of tolerance, dialogue and mutual understanding between civilisations, without losing sight of the great achievements of our continent. I feel that if today the EU is the voice of reason and human dignity in the world, we can hope that the USA too will ally itself to the voice of reason and human dignity following the next presidential elections in that country.\nPaul Marie Co\u00fbteaux\n(FR) Mr President, what we have been hearing since this morning about so-called transatlantic relations - a specious expression since our capitals' relations with the United States differ greatly - does not reassure us.\nIn reality, this expression does a bad job of disguising a relationship of subordination - subordination that I feel is increasing. In every area, we are giving way. Whether it is the transmission of personal data for various motives; whether it is these surprising - and shameful for the whole of Europe - relinquishments of sovereignty that are the secret CIA prisons and other, all too quickly forgotten, affairs of this kind; whether it is our willingness to accept the very term 'international community', which means little other than the imperial power and its accomplices; or whether it is the general position - about which, I might add, too little is known - occupied by the US Embassy in the central bodies of the Union, these relations do a poor job of disguising different interests, different principles and different views of the world.\nIn relation to Washington, I call on the Member States to do as France is attempting to do - admittedly, with mixed results - and show a little more dignity and independent spirit for the good of Europe as a whole.\nAlexander Radwan\n(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak today on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in particular, and on the subject of the financial markets, in which we Europeans have already, and for a very long time, been caught up in an international, and trans-Atlantic, network of relationships, and so I will also be speaking, as one who has practical experience of these matters, on a project of economic cooperation involving Europe and America, one that we welcome and support.\nParticularly where lawmaking is concerned, we do have some reservations and some experience, which I might sum up by mentioning Basel II and AFAS, and I would like to address my remarks to the Council in particular, for I can tell Mr Gloser that we must take care, in dealing with this, that this House's prerogatives and Europe's rights are treated as equal with those of the Americans when it comes to laying down the rules, for what happened with Basel II was that the Americans ended up deciding not to implement the package.\nWe also have to consider the issue of regulation, of which regulation is applied, and where; need I mention 'Sarbanes-Oxley'? We have, on repeated occasions, raised with the Commission the consequences of the incursion of the 'newest stock exchange' into Euronext. Will the regulations be American? To date, the Commission has said that the capital market will decide the matter.\nBAWAG gives us a contemporary example of how American regulation intervenes directly in the European market in order to detach it from European rules, and the Commission must make its opposition to this unambiguously clear and ask them what they think they are doing. The same, my dear Mr Gloser, does of course apply to the Council, and I would remind you of SWIFT; there, too, European regulation has been forced to make way for its American counterpart.\nI urge the Commission to at last do something about hedge funds, where an American invasion is in progress, and discussion is going on at the national level. It is a global issue; it is being moved forward; the Commission maintains deep silence on the subject, and the Commissioner responsible regularly says, 'that's how the market is'.\nWhen international cooperative efforts merge together, it is particularly important that parliamentary control is not eaten away, and I am thinking of the Council in particular when I say that. I am thinking of the comitology debates and the anti-democratic behaviour of the foreign ministries in Europe when I say that I would like to insist on this House being consulted in due time on future projects of this kind, rather than being presented with a fait accompli.\nMartine Roure\n(FR) Mr President, last week the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs sent a delegation - which proved to be most useful - to address visa waiver and data protection issues, not least regarding the negotiation of a PNR agreement and, of course, regarding the problems posed by SWIFT. It is regrettable that we had to go to Washington in order to obtain answers to questions that we had asked our institutions, to no avail.\nFor the European Parliament, it is vital to distinguish the negotiations on the visa waiver scheme from those on the PNR. States that have been excluded from the visa waiver scheme are being blackmailed. No bilateral negotiations are acceptable on either of these issues. Only agreements at EU level can be considered. US citizens are protected by European data protection legislation, but US legislation excludes Europeans and does not permit them any means of redress.\nTherefore, Europe must, in my view, propose the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement with the United States on the exchange and protection of personal data. It is our duty to protect our citizens' data.\nJerzy Buzek\n(PL) Mr President, today the EU Member States are wavering between two extremes: stand-offishness and distance towards the USA, or wholehearted support which overrides European interests. Neither of these are the right way. The answer to the eternal question - more competition or more collaboration with the USA - is clear. In today's world, informed and wise cooperation is the only option both for the USA and for the EU.\nLet us begin with wholehearted and clear-cut cooperation in business and technology. There is no need to repeat research that has already been done on the opposite side of the Atlantic - we are more advanced in renewable energies, for example, and the USA in clean coal technologies.\nLet us completely open our markets to each other and to technology exchange. Let us collaborate more broadly in the seventh European Framework Programme and the American National Science Foundation. Let us not compete so stubbornly for oil and gas markets. Let us agree to act together. Diversification is important for both sides of the Atlantic.\nAndrzej Jan Szejna\n(PL) Mr President, relations between two important world powers such as the USA and the EU have always aroused a great deal of emotion not just because of their effect on the international order, but also because of their complexity and the range of issues they affect.\nAll the issues raised in the resolution should be considered important and should be debated widely at the coming summit. The involvement of both partners in joint cooperation to strengthen the transatlantic market is a very positive aspect. I also agree that these relations need a fresh impetus, and one way in which this can be done would be to update the new agenda.\nWe live in a time of a huge increase in international competition from countries such as China, India and Russia. For this reason improving our trade and business cooperation by establishing a common methodology and by avoiding legal discrepancies is in the interests of the economic development both of the EU and of the USA.\nI would also like to draw attention to what is currently a major sticking point in EU-USA relations, which is the missile defence shield. We need to settle publicly whether the issue of the missile defence shield should not be subject to a joint political decision between NATO and the EU within the framework of a common foreign and security policy. Whilst I agree that we must support the US in their fight against terrorism and in protecting world security, that does not mean we should allow new lines of division to appear in Europe. And such divisions continue to operate within the European Union, for example in the visa regime. Citizens of the new Member States and Greece are still discriminated against when it comes to travel to the USA. I call for the principles of loyal cooperation and non-discrimination to be respected.\nBogdan Klich\n(PL) Mr President, for several years now we have been demanding that the United States remove visa restrictions on the citizens of some Member States. However, the lack of progress has aroused understandable frustration in the countries affected, of which Poland is one. US visa policy should not create first and second-class citizens in Europe by allowing one group to travel to the USA without visas, while others are forced to patiently wait in line for visas.\nSince last December, however, the USA has shown a willingness to make changes in the Visa Waiver Program. We have heard this both from Capitol Hill and from the Departments of State and Homeland Security. We must seize this opportunity and urge the USA at the coming summit to take real action and waive visa requirements for all EU citizens. I appeal to the presidency and the Commission to do this. At the same time we have to make sure that the exchange of personal data of people travelling to the USA does not violate the rules of data protection.\nHelmut Kuhne\n(DE) Mr President, I want to pick up on the announcement by the President-in-Office of the Council that a demand will be made at the summit for the visa waiver programme to be extended to all citizens of the European Union. That is a very important announcement, for if that happens, all the EU's citizens will be able to experience the practical effects of European policy, and the division that exists among them in that regard, to which you referred, can be done away with.\nMoving on to security policy, we Europeans can very definitely take pride in the way that the political approach that we raised as an option - with its combination of diplomacy, pressure and offers to Iran - has now become the policy agreed on by the European Union and the United States and it was this approach that brought the world community together, while others had driven them apart from one another.\nIf, though, there is a policy on which all agree, one question arises naturally in connection with the anti-missile programme to which many have already referred, for, if we are persuaded that this joint approach promises success, then the issue to be settled before any debate on the stationing of the missiles and on who is to be involved in it is why, if it is possible to get Iran, by peaceful means and negotiation, to renounce nuclear armaments, it is so necessary that a decision on the positioning of these rockets be taken right now, and, since I have not, so far, heard anything from the participants in this debate on security policy that settles the matter, I would be very happy if this question were to be put on the agenda.\nAvril Doyle\nMr President, as Mrs Merkel has said, we need a new ambitious economic partnership between the US and the EU, but it must go hand in hand with a new ambitious environmental partnership.\nThere was transatlantic accord at the recent G8 Environment Ministers' meeting, when they agreed with the peer-reviewed scientific report of 2 500 world scientists that human-induced climate change is accelerating and that climate change has consequences not only for the natural environment but also for economic growth and development, global poverty levels, international security and energy supplies. It was unanimously agreed that climate change requires 'prompt action' and 'swift and determined policy responses'. There was, however, less accord, regrettably but not surprisingly, on what those policy responses should be. Paragraph 16 of our motion for a resolution notes the disappointment that the United States has refused to move on issues such as emissions targets and the creation of global carbon-trading schemes.\nHowever, with the Stern report, recent elections in the US, the IPCC report and the increased demands from citizens on both sides, I feel that transatlantic dialogue and cooperation on climate change is increasing, and will and must lead to an agreement for the post-Kyoto 2012 period that includes the United States.\nAdrian Severin\nMr President, I come from that part of Europe where America was, and still is, seen as a European power.\nThere is no global problem, from the Middle East and the Balkans to energy and climate change, which could not be solved if the European Union and the United States acted together. This should be the main principle on which the transatlantic partnership is built.\nThe democratic concepts and rhetoric of the United States and the European Union often differ, but they are simply two dialects of the same language, and this language is rooted in the same basic values. We must build on that, and during the summit must insist that our American friends return to the principle of 'together when possible, alone when necessary', and abandon the burgeoning principle of 'alone when possible, together when necessary'.\nOne of the problems of the transatlantic dialogue is that we do not speak with one voice. A parallel problem is that we do not recognise often enough the existence of differing schools of thought in America. We have to encourage those who want to return to realism and discourage the continuation of neoconservative unilateralism.\nIf we are to succeed in this attempt, we must act to eliminate asymmetries and disparities in terms of research, technological improvement and security spending.\nFinally, we must commend the German Presidency's ambitious ideas on a transatlantic partnership. It is time to work for a transatlantic free trade area that can open the way towards institutionalised transatlantic cooperation. We need more partnership and less rivalry.\nGeorgios Papastamkos\n(EL) Mr President, it is widely known that the European Union and the USA are key players in the global trade policy. As a member of the Committee on International Trade, I would like to say that the understanding between the two partners, as well as a harmonious and functional relationship does not only lead to bilateral positive results. It is conveyed to the general multilateral trading system, affecting the trade balance on a worldwide scale, not in terms of political power, but in terms of economic interdependence.\nThe more we strengthen the trade-political convergence, the more visible the effects of international economic and political cooperation will become. Voices against the multilateral trading system under the WTO, only leave room for the fragmentation of the world trading system and leave no other option but a return to bilateralism.\nLadies and gentlemen, would the disciplines of the WTO tolerate a liberated major Euro Atlantic market, which currently takes up 40% of world trade? What would the consequences be for other countries, especially the developing ones?\nRichard Falbr\n(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, throughout their history, Czech firemen have come into conflict with two concepts in US foreign policy, namely the concept of the lighthouse and the crusader concept. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the actions of Roosevelt in 1904, in other words the right to intervene and the actual interventions in the Caribbean - Haiti, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Guatemala - are meaningful illustrations of a century-old doctrine that has now been resurrected. Since the momentous NATO summit in Washington at the time of the bombing of Serbia, it has been clear that the USA can carry on without the Security Council and NATO.\nThe globalisation of military intervention has emerged, alongside economic globalisation. The Bush Administration has thus gone back a hundred years. This cannot continue. The USA must instead be reminded that 'international law does not belong in the dustbin, torture is an instrument that does not yield credible results; and democracy cannot and must not be exported through the use of bayonets.'\nI say yes to transatlantic relations, but on a level playing field, without the kind of servile behaviour typically shown by some of the new Member States.\nAntonio Tajani\n(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Italy today we are celebrating National Liberation Day, the end of dictatorship and of the war. We could not remember 25 April 1945, however, if thousands and thousands of young Americans had not also laid down their lives. After Nazism, Europe would not have been able to defeat communism either, without the commitment of the United States.\nWhen we talk about transatlantic relations, we must not forget the country that fought for our freedom because it shares the fundamental values of our western society. That is why our relations with the most important democracy in the world should be a key element in Europe's policies, from security and the fight against terrorism to the fight against drug trafficking, and from the search for energy security to the issue of climate change.\nIn this context, Europe should support the Merkel proposal to create a transatlantic free trade area. I am also convinced that the future creation of a European army must not come into conflict with NATO, which is a useful tool for the United Nations and for the security of us all.\nJust as Europe needs the United States, however, the United States cannot do without a strong Europe that is capable of being a loyal, credible and reliable interlocutor as well as an essential protagonist in upholding the shared values on which our democracies and that of the United States are based.\nG\u00fcnter Gloser\nMr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, although I would like, in view of the lateness of the hour, to keep my remarks very brief, I would like to express my gratitude to you for this lively and frank debate.\nOne essential point that has emerged from it is that it is better to talk with one another than about one another. It is evident from the way in which contact is maintained between Members of this House and Members of the US Congress that talking with one another is the only way to learn from one another and to better understand one another.\nRelations across the Atlantic were important in the past and will be important in the future, particularly in view of the challenges that we in the European Union find ourselves facing together, in the shape of issues relating to energy and climate change, but also, for example, the fight against international terrorism. Our relations with other major economic actors show that we can do all these things only together and not in opposition to one another. Earlier on, Mrs Mann said that neither open enthusiasm nor frustration are of any use in this, and the pragmatism to which you have referred is the right way to go about things, because pragmatism is vital in any ongoing dialogue with the United States.\nA number of points of criticism have been made, not only of security issues of interest to the United States, but also matters of interest to the European Union, for example data protection standards, passenger data and the issue of SWIFT; these issues are being addressed openly rather than being evaded, and the Commission and the Presidency have already made it clear that all of them will be raised with the Americans. I would like to highlight once more the waiver of visas. Within the European Union, there must be no differences of treatment when it comes to deciding who will be able to travel to America without a visa; that opportunity must be open to the citizens of all the Member States of the European Union, for it is with the European Union that America has to deal.\nPerhaps I might be permitted to discuss some other critical comments. I believe that the European Union has, in certain international conflicts, managed to abandon unilateralism and move towards a form of multilateralism, and it is in this way that the European Union has succeeded in involving America in its initiatives with respect to Iran, something that also involved consultation and partnership with China and Russia. Important steps have been taken in the same way. I know that Members of your House can never be satisfied with what has been achieved to date as regards the Middle East, but, in the aftermath of the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, there was much enthusiastic advocacy of the re-mobilisation of the Middle East Quartet, and addressing these issues in tandem with America makes an important contribution. I hope that this joint summit involving both the European Union and United States will lead to the establishment of a sustainable basis for the future discussion of critical issues. An alliance or a relationship is not to be regarded as impaired merely because there are disputes within it.\nVladim\u00edr \u0160pidla\nMr President, honourable Members, this debate did of course go into some depth, and I will take the liberty of speaking a little longer than usual. A very large number of interesting lines of argument have emerged, and I think it would be good to answer them properly.\nI welcome your House's view that we should work together with the United States in order to find multilateral solutions to the challenges we have to face together, and I endorse it unreservedly. I would like to assure you that we are working very hard to ensure that the statement emerging from the EU\/United States summit expresses in abundantly clear terms our shared determination to strengthen the hand of the United Nations and to equip it with the tools it needs to perform its tasks.\nAt the EU\/USA summit, we will continue to urge the USA to have recourse, as a matter of preferential choice, to the United Nations in resolving crises such as those in Iran, in the Sudan and in Afghanistan and, of course, to follow the Quartet's approach in the peace process in the Middle East.\nYet another example is climate change, in contending with which the multilateral approach is the only way of acting effectively. At the summit, we will be endeavouring to secure American support for the inception of negotiations on a global framework in the course of the talks called for by the United Nations in Bali (Indonesia) in December.\nThe Commission has repeatedly supported the efforts of the individual Council Presidencies to make it clear to the United States our obligation to unconditionally endorse the application of international law to humanitarian matters and to human rights issues. I would remind your House that it was the EU, at the 2006 Summit, that prompted President Bush's statement to the effect that he wanted to see Guantanamo closed down and that the inmates remaining there would have to be either brought before a court or set at liberty. The concerns to which you have given voice were among the main reasons for the initiation of the EU troika's dialogue with the US State Department's legal advisor.\nI also welcome the idea of enhanced dialogue between Members of your House and Members of the United States Congress. Dialogue between parliamentarians on both sides is an important pillar in the relationship between the EU and the United States. The Commission has been unstinting in its endeavours towards securing the closer involvement of the legislative institutions in trans-Atlantic relations, and it was the Commission, in particular, that set in motion the trans-Atlantic dialogue between them. Members of these institutions would be able to put themselves in an even stronger position if they were to hold the annual Top Level Domains meeting immediately before the EU\/USA summit, as is the practice with the trans-Atlantic economic dialogue.\nAs it always does, the Commission has, this year, endeavoured to move our American hosts to involve the legislative bodies in the events on the margins of the summit; as far as I am aware, the Americans' current plan is to invite the TLD representatives to a briefing of senior officials from the European Union and the United States on the afternoon following the summit.\nOur aim is that, under the new policy agreement on the promotion of bilateral economic relations, a political figure from each side should be appointed to move the EU\/USA summit process forward, and we have suggested to the United States that these persons, or contacts as they are termed, should be advised by a small informal group composed of people chosen from legislative bodies, business associations and consumers' groups.\nOur shared objectives in terms of the development and use of environmentally-friendly energies cover, in the medium term, and will be restricted solely to the promotion of, largely emission-free coal use, the development and use of renewable energy sources - biofuels in particular - and the promotion of energy efficiency, in every one of which areas we will endeavour to set qualifiable targets for both the European Union and the United States. The EU will be working on the basis of the sound policy platform agreed at the meeting of the European Council on 9 May.\nTurning to the visa issue, I have to emphasise that the US administration's undertaking to reform the system is something to be welcomed, although, as it would be premature, at the present time, to adopt a position on the reform of the USA's visa programme, we must wait to see what is in the final document, which the US Congress might well adopt even before the summer, and only when it has done so will the Commission be in a position to judge whether the new programme represents an advance in terms of greater reciprocity between the EU and the United States.\nOur position, which has been clear from the very outset, is that all EU citizens should be able to enter the United States without a visa, in the same way as US citizens are allowed to enter the EU without one. We have repeatedly raised these issues at all levels with the United States and have demanded that the visa waiver scheme be extended to all EU Member States, thus ensuring equal treatment for all the EU's citizens.\nNegotiations on airline passenger data began in Washington on 26 February, and we expect to be able to conclude them by the end of July, that is to say by the time the current agreement on PNR data is due to expire. We had further constructive talks with the United States last week, about which Vice-President Frattini may be able to give you more detailed information.\nWe also aim to secure similar security measures for SWIFT in order to ensure that European citizens' data is suitably protected in the United States, and are continuing to work with the USA on agreeing for the long term a series of general data protection principles. Dialogue between experts on both sides has so far been fruitful, but we have not yet got far enough to be able to negotiate a formal agreement.\nReference has also been made to the missile shield issue. I endorse what Mr Solana told your House on 29 March on this subject, namely that the EU is not a defence alliance and that, in accordance with the treaties, sovereignty in this area remains with the Member States, although it has to be said that that does not mean that the EU is wholly unaffected by this matter; in view of the fact that the EU possesses a common foreign and security policy and a security and defence policy and that matters of common interest, among them the relations between the EU and Russia, might be affected, it strikes me as important that the opportunity be found for a debate on this subject at EU level.\nThe BAWAG case is an interesting one, but the Commission does not as yet have any information to the effect that BAWAG has actually taken such action; had it taken a decision to do so, the Commission would have had to have been informed of it, since this sort of extraterritoriality is not acceptable under our laws. The facts of the case are as yet unclear, but European Union regulations do not, generally speaking, permit such measures or an extraterritoriality of that kind.\n'Economic contacts' must not be taken to mean mere deregulation, but rather the arrangement of matters of common concern in such a way that real use can be made of economic potential on both sides of the Atlantic.\nI am quite certain - and this has also been reflected in this debate - that relations between the United States and the European Union, and the matters of common interest that they share, are of great importance and that there are no other relations of greater significance to Europe; there is practically no major issue in which Europe and the United States do not have a common interest and involvement, and so - as was also clearly articulated - we should address the Americans as equals and engage them in a truly rational dialogue, but must not, in so doing, lose sight of our common European values.\nPresident\nCommissioner, thank you for your efforts to shorten what was evidently a much longer speech.\nI have received seven motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.\nThe debate is closed. The vote will take place later today.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nPedro Guerreiro \nin writing. - (PT) One of the notable events of the start of the German Presidency of the EU was Mrs Merkel's trip to the USA, the purpose of which was to renew Germany's proposal for a strategic partnership between the EU, Germany and the USA aimed at 'shared world leadership', this at a time when the Bush Administration is in considerable trouble and looking increasingly isolated.\nIn the context of the rivalry\/conciliation between the major European capitalist powers - with Germany at the helm - and the USA, the current state of affairs can be characterised as an attempt to relaunch what are termed transatlantic relations. The EU-USA summit set to take place on 30 April is the result of attempts to overcome differences, to put disagreements to one side and to realign the political, economic and military agendas of the two sides of the North Atlantic.\nOne of the priorities on the agenda for debate singled out by Mrs Merkel is the strengthening of what is referred to as the 'New Transatlantic Economic Partnership' with the aim of setting up a 'barrier-free transatlantic market' in the years ahead.\nThese endeavours - led by Mrs Merkel and her right-wing\/social democrat coalition - come at a time when the USA is strengthening its military roots in Europe with the creation of new military bases and with its plans to install anti-missile systems, which represent fresh threats to peace.\nImperialist machinations ...","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":8,"dup_dump_count":5,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2015-11":1,"2015-06":1,"2014-10":1,"2013-48":1,"2015-18":1,"unknown":2}}},"subset":"europarl"}
{"text":"Organic production and labelling of organic products (debate) \nPresident\nThe next item is the report by Marie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Aubert, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products - C6-0032\/2006 -\nMariann Fischer Boel\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions.\nWith 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside.\nIt is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year.\nIn 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication.\nParliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board.\nWe have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament's wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue.\nBut let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production.\nAlthough the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these.\nParliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation.\nOn our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011.\nLinked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed.\nFinally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production.\nI am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail.\nPresident\nCommissioner, the Commission is free to speak for as long as it likes and to say as much as is necessary.\nMarie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Aubert \nrapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the circumstances of organic farming are somewhat paradoxical today. On the one hand, there is growing demand for it because it is a method of farming that creates jobs, protects the environment, biodiversity and, ultimately, everyone's health. On the other hand, organic farming still accounts for only slightly more than 1% of European agricultural production and slightly more than 3% of usable agricultural area - in other words, little. I believe that it is our responsibility to help develop organic farming within the European Union.\nThis is perhaps only a small issue in terms of quantity, but a huge issue in political and symbolic terms because organic farming is also a kind of breakthrough, in that it refocuses the common agricultural policy on a far more sustainable form of farming, which is what is required.\nThroughout 2006, we worked on the basis of a Commission proposal that has caused a great deal of concern and given rise to many protests, and a certain hastiness, too, since we were initially asked to give our verdict in two months on a proposal that had not really been developed thoroughly. However, I readily admit that the work has been constructive and that the discussions have taken place regularly, with both the Commission and the Council, to improve the initial proposal. Through all these exchanges, all these discussions and comings and goings, what did this Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development ultimately hope to do? You have pointed out the key elements.\nFirstly, it hoped to extend the scope of this regulation to non-food products such as textiles and cosmetics, but also, and above all, to mass catering, because mass catering is an extraordinary lever for developing organic farming in our countries. We would be quite wrong not to use it. That is also why we want a dual legal basis - Articles 37 and 95 - which relate to both the internal market and consumption. It would seem that you have nothing but praise for our work, for our contribution and, thus, for the fact that the European Parliament has become far more involved - not to mention codecision, in general, for farming, because that is another debate that we have yet to hold.\nIt therefore seems to me that, if we want to pursue this work, if we want MEPs really to have the right to inspect these famous decrees that are going to play a vital role in the application of this regulation, you should accept this dual legal basis, and we will pursue this debate.\nSecondly, as you pointed out, we have requested - from what was a vague text - far more precise definitions of what is meant by inspection, certification, products authorised or unauthorised in organic farming practices, the link to the soil, animal conditions, and so on. Next, you raised the very sensitive point of the lack of genetically modified organisms in organic farming. There must be a total absence of these organisms, just as there must be a total absence of pesticides and synthetic chemicals.\nOn the subject of genetically modified organisms, we are absolutely set on confirming to consumers that organic farming does not contain any GMOs, from seed to distribution. The current threshold of 0.9%, which is a labelling exemption threshold, causes confusion. Therefore, in our opinion, we need to return to this issue so that we opt for the detection threshold for both conventional crops and organic farming and also so that, no matter what happens, we take all the measures necessary to prevent any contamination, even adventitious, of biological crops by GMOs.\nYou say that it is not possible to accept the stricter measures that the Member States might take. Well, in our opinion, the specifications of both private and public authorities, which already exist and with which consumers are well acquainted, should be able to stay. In any case, this is what we want, and, if there is any flexibility, harmonisation must be upwards, not downwards, the latter being something that we fear.\nYou have given us a number of answers. I believe that this debate will continue, no doubt beyond tomorrow's vote.\nFinally, I should like to conclude by saying that this regulation is not the be-all and end-all, either, and that it is not going to settle all of the issues concerning organic farming. Within the context of the common agricultural policy, we also need far greater support for organic farming than we have at present.\nRoberto Musacchio \ndraftsman for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the work done within my committee, for which I was the draftsman, was very careful, and the result was adopted unanimously in committee.\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is obviously deeply concerned with protecting the environment but in this specific case we have focused on how the environment can also be protected through the laws of the market. I say this because the key point of the opinion I have presented is precisely this: for those producing, selling or buying organic food it must be clear with the utmost certainty and without any room for error that this food is in fact organic and not, for instance, contaminated by GMOs. I think that it is vital for us to have this 'zero threshold' of contamination immediately; it cannot be postponed to later measures. Anyone selling a product - for example, a luxury automobile - cannot tolerate the product containing a single bolt not belonging to that automobile.\nThat is, therefore, the key point of the recommendation made by my committee, which we would like to see included clearly in the final text.\nAgnes Schierhuber\nMr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mrs Beer very much for her very committed report. Organic farming is of great interest to the public; its manifestations are very diverse and its significance varies greatly across the Member States. Consequently this is a controversial and emotive issue to debate. In this context, genetically modified organisms always constitute a major problem in organic farming. That is why I support the limit value of 0.0% for organic farming, because what we identify as GM-free must also be GM-free. Coexistence and liability are fundamental issues here, issues that also still need to be resolved, Commissioner, and I know that you are on our side in this respect.\nThe future of organic farming lies above all in the hands of consumers. They decide whether they are prepared to pay more for food that is natural and GM-free. The increase in sales of organic products in recent years clearly confirms that the public values this quality. But it is precisely in this respect that it is important for the purchaser to know where the food comes from. We have to ensure that the European organic labels are only used for products from the Member States that meet these criteria. The future use of logos, the intention to label products more precisely and the related possibility of tracing are measures that I very much welcome, because they will also enable more effective checks to be carried out. We need to ensure that equal account is taken of the interests of producers and consumers. Joint, coordinated measures will bring additional gains both for European farming and for consumers, while still safeguarding subsidiarity. The 197 amendments that have been tabled prove, however, that we are actually not yet able to vote on the report at the present time. I therefore support the rapporteur on Amendments 37 and 39.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nMar\u00eda Isabel Salinas Garc\u00eda\non behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) The organic production sector is asking us for - or rather demanding of us - clear and simple legislation that responds to the needs of a market that is clearly growing.\nEuropeans are consuming increasing quantities of organic products and we must establish an appropriate framework as soon as possible in order to meet those needs, protecting the interests not just of consumers but also, at the same time, the interests of the sector and environmental interests in general.\nWith a view to achieving that objective, the report that we are currently debating and which has been facing difficulties since its negotiation, is a good starting document. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, on the great work she has been doing. I say that I believe this to be a good report because, for example, it takes account of the specific characteristics of the different European regions, it better stipulates the competences of each of the authorities and bodies involved in the control of organic products and it establishes a single obligatory logo, which is also something that I have insisted on during the negotiation in committee.\nIn this same vein, I also believe that it stipulates that, in order to be marketed as organic in the European Union, products from third countries must conform to rules equivalent to the European legislation.\nIn conclusion, I believe that the report is intended to promote organic production and consumption, seeking to consolidate this growing sector as the \u00e9lite sector of our agriculture, since organic agriculture is destined to be characterised by its higher quality products.\nHaving said that, I believe that another debate is now opening up which until recently we had not taken into account: the possibility is being proposed of the European Parliament acquiring more of a say in decision making, taking a step further by means of the codecision procedure, calling for a twin legal basis for this Regulation.\nI would like to make it clear that, as passionate Europeans, we are always in favour of greater decision-making powers for this Parliament, which is the European Union's highest democratic expression. We will therefore vote accordingly tomorrow.\nNevertheless, I would also like to stress that this Regulation is a social demand both from the sector and from consumers, and therefore the subsequent steps that we must decide upon after tomorrow must not be delayed much longer, but rather, for the sake of the legal certainty of producers and the confidence of consumers, we must continue to work quickly in order that we may have a Regulation that the European sector has been calling for for a long time and which distinguishes this clearly organic agriculture, for the sake of consumer safety.\nKy\u00f6sti Virrankoski\non behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Marie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Aubert, for an excellent report. Organic production is one sector of agricultural production. Its importance in the future will probably be marked, because consumers are paying more attention to the quality of food rather than to its price. Organic production is a way to improve the quality, taste and preservability of produce, thus creating added value on farms and boosting their profitability. Organic production, however, is a difficult agricultural sector, which calls for earnest devotion to farm management. Even tiny mistakes are hard to put right, as there are no opportunities for conventional production.\nThe EU's agricultural policy is generally characterised by the complexity of rules and bureaucracy. With organic production there may be fears of an even greater burden. The farmer has to be extremely familiar with both EU and national legislation. The proposal for a regulation before us will mean more laws. In itself, the aim is sound, as it is consumer confidence that one is trying to safeguard, but if there are too many laws it may well lead to a slow down in the increase in organic farming and many farmers will simply give up. This would result in harm being done to the sector as a whole.\nMt President, agriculture and the food industry together form a huge sector of European production. There is room within it for different methods and trends. Organic production may offer very tempting opportunities, especially in the regions with the harshest natural conditions. Hopefully, this regulation will strengthen our continent's food economy and boost its success in global competition.\nRoberta Angelilli\non behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as an Italian, I would like to mention that worldwide Italy is the fourth-ranked producer of organic products, while in the European Union it is in first place. We therefore endorse the changes made by this report to the regulation: the changes regarding its scope, flexibility for the Member States, checks and the free movement of organic products within the European Union.\nWith regard to labelling, on the other hand, we believe that there must be an absolute guarantee that products are organic and that therefore there must be no accidental contamination by GMOs at any stage of the production process. The regulations in force allow a threshold of accidental contamination by GMOs of 0.9% for organic products, which unfortunately is equal to that laid down for conventional agricultural products.\nTo conclude, in order to avoid a collapse in consumption as a result of a crisis in trust concerning foods chosen and purchased precisely because of their characteristics and their natural methods of production, it is necessary to lay down a threshold of accidental contamination by GMOs for organic products.\n(The President cut off the speaker)\nFriedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf\nMr President, Commissioner, the rapporteur has tabled a good report and Parliament must insist that the Commission and the Council do actually use this good report. In other words we need codecision, particularly as all of the new substance of this regulation is related to the internal market. The agricultural issues were of course already legislated on previously and could essentially be imported into the new regulation. That is one reason for the dual legal base; the other, as you rightly established, is that many of the details should be resolved in the implementing provisions. Parliament, just like the Council, must reserve the right to be consulted on these implementing provisions. As you are aware, we now have a ruling. If we had the constitution this issue would be resolved anyway. In the coming months we will have to fight this out.\nOn the issue of GMOs, I am pleased that you have established that 0.9% is not a contamination threshold. It is a labelling threshold; there is no right to contaminate. Our group is concerned, however, that the technical means that we have at our disposal to prevent contamination are not being fully utilised and that as a result the 0.9%-threshold is being set too high. We would like it to be lowered, because we say that for organic products any contamination must be completely ruled out. I hope that you understand this and will take the necessary measures.\nVincenzo Aita\non behalf of the GUE\/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the provision under examination can be significantly improved by Parliament during tomorrow's vote in the Chamber. In fact, a provision such as this one, which lays down a threshold of contamination of 0.9% for organic products, namely a threshold equal to that for conventional products, is of no help either to organic producers or, particularly, to consumers.\nEven the figures provided to us by the Commissioner show that this is a provision that could cause significant damage to the organic sector. In fact, laying down the same threshold for conventional products and for organic products would create confusion for consumers, who might no longer choose organic products, and this would also be detrimental for the agricultural production system, which in recent years has grown considerably in this sector.\nI therefore believe that Parliament should return to the zero tolerance threshold in order to make these products even more attractive, ensuring that they are consumed in increasing quantities and providing ever more protection for consumers. An organic product where a 0.9% threshold is allowed makes no sense and, equally, consumers would see no point in buying and spending more money on a product which no longer gives them the necessary guarantees and is not free of pollutants.\nLuca Romagnoli\non behalf of the ITS Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I reject the attempt to remove a clear indication of the country of origin from product labelling, in favour of an EU label that would solely serve to hamper traceability. The Commission is trying, in its usual manner, to standardise rather than to harmonise. Organic products enjoy advantageous market positions in terms of advertising, thanks to the 'organic' label, and respectable turnover as compared with other products, despite the greater retail costs.\nUntil now the labels used have given satisfactory results in terms of differentiation of supply and demand. This would be compromised if a common EU label were to undermine consumer awareness. The regulation ought to offer a guarantee of independence to certification bodies, particularly with regard to relations with operators from non-EU countries.\nWe need an accreditation system based on strict, transparent rules, but this is what the Commission does not want. To conclude, the idea of imposing an EU organic logo on products from non-EU countries, without the indispensable indication of the products' regional and national origin, should most definitely be rejected.\nIoannis Gklavakis\n(EL) Mr President, Community legislation on organic products has been applied in the European Union for over 15 years with a fair degree of success, one might say, to judge from the results. Of course, they could be even better because, if in the Europe of the 25 1.4% of all agricultural holdings are organic and account for 3.6% of farmland, this means that there is a considerable margin for further development.\nHow can we persuade consumers to opt for organic products and spend more on food, so that the resultant increase in demand encourages more farmers to work in this sector? Obviously through constant and strict quality control, by ensuring they are free from genetically modified organisms and, most importantly, through proper labelling, which will strengthen consumer confidence. We should highlight here the very important issue which usually shakes consumer confidence, by which I mean imports of allegedly organic products from third countries. We must be strict on imported organic products. Only if they have been produced using production methods similar to Community methods should they be entitled to be labelled as 'organic', because we all know that the cost of producing organic products in third countries is usually lower. If organic production rules are circumvented, then these imported products would not be organic - meaning that we would be deceiving consumers - and would be competing with European farmers who comply with all the terms and conditions.\nMarc Tarabella\n. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by expressing my satisfaction. This report on organic production and labelling of organic products has finally arrived for debate in plenary at an important time, since the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on 27 February, coincided with a demonstration by agrobiologists, who were rightly complaining about the new specifications for organic farming, which aimed and still aim at allowing 0.9% of contamination, which is the level allowed in conventional farming.\nThis report, which is the result of the unrelenting efforts of Mrs Aubert, to whom I pay tribute, is therefore terribly important for the entire sector and provides Parliament with a unique opportunity to distance itself from the Council and the Commission. It is truly vital, particularly now, to send out a strong signal with the aim of protecting organic farming.\nTo this end, I, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, have tabled Amendment 170, worded as follows: 'the Member States shall provide themselves with an appropriate legislative framework, based on the precautionary principle and on the 'polluter pays' principle, in order to exclude any risk of organic products being contaminated by GMOs. It shall be incumbent on operators to take every precautionary measure necessary to exclude any risk of adventitious or technically unavoidable contamination by GMOs. The presence of GMOs in organic products shall be limited exclusively to unforeseen and technically unavoidable volumes up to a maximum value of 0.1%.\nIn short, just as it is crucial not to change the very essence of organic production by allowing overly high levels of adventitious contamination, it is important to keep a minimum rate that is acceptable and accepted by the sector, so as not to penalise adventitiously contaminated organic farmers, who would see their production totally devalued if a zero tolerance policy were applied.\nFurthermore, we support the use of natural nitrogen mineral fertiliser, as well as any other natural mineral fertiliser, and therefore propose, via Amendments 168 and 169, to delete the passage in Article 8(1)(d) that aims at prohibiting the use of nitrogen mineral fertiliser.\nFinally, I fully support Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs' decision to apply the dual legal basis - Articles 37 and 95 of the Treaty - because there are two advantages to referring to the competence of the internal market, too. Firstly, this report, voted for in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs, would be extended to the entire mass catering sector - caterers, institutional catering, canteens, restaurants - and to some products such as food supplements. Secondly, as a result of the competence of the internal market, we would shift from a consultation procedure to a codecision procedure, which would give us the crucial right to inspect the drafting of this regulation, which will directly affect the quality of Europeans' diet.\nCzes\u0142aw Adam Siekierski\n- (PL) Despite the widespread interest in organic farming, both among consumers and among producers and the media, the sector's development continues to be slow. What are the reasons, and what can be done to increase the consumption, and therefore also the production, of organic food?\nIn my opinion, the most important thing is to ensure stable conditions for development, and the support that goes with it. This includes appropriate certification, labelling and monitoring, including the monitoring of imports from third countries. In other words, we need good legislation.\nThe small scale of the organic sector makes the distribution of organic products excessively expensive, which therefore makes it not as attractive to major retailers. It would therefore be a positive step if external subsidies were to be given to this part of the organic food production chain, and if farmers involved in producing this kind of food were to be organised.\nIt would also be good for the importance of organic farming to be stressed more within the field of education and for the sector to be better promoted.\nBernadette Bourzai\n(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Aubert on the excellent work she has done since the start of the mandate, firstly on the European action plan for organic food and farming and then on this proposal for a regulation. The task was not easy because the proposal undermined the strong and credible identity of organic farming.\nWe can be satisfied with the progress made within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on several points: a stricter definition of the use of phytopharmaceutical products, veterinary treatments and national derogations; increased monitoring at the certification stage, including monitoring of imported products; and an extension of the scope of the regulation and the consolidation of regulatory committees. I also support the dual legal basis, which will move us on to codecision.\nHowever, I remain very worried about the issue of GMOs being present, even adventitiously, in organic products. Indeed, the regulation states that a product cannot be labelled 'organic farming product' if it contains GMOs, but it does nonetheless accept an adventitious contamination threshold of 0.9% of GMOs, which is inadmissible.\nThat is why I would ask you to endorse Amendments 170 and 171, tabled by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, which request that the presence of GMOs in organic products be limited exclusively and that the term not be used.\nG\u00e1bor Harangoz\u00f3\n(HU) We must ensure that environmentally-aware consumers who are concerned about and anxious to protect their health are able to use products that are free of chemicals or of contamination by genetically modified organisms. We must, therefore, clearly indicate if a product has its origin in organic production. We must guarantee that products bearing the European Union's organic indicator have been prepared 100% in accordance with the basic principles of organic production.\nIn this area we cannot make any concession, just as we cannot with regard to consumer information. We must also ensure that it is possible, when using public information services, for people to decide whether to choose organic foods. This is not only a question of consumer protection but has great significance from the perspective of agrarian strategy and market protection as well.\nA well formulated, universally recognised European standard and corresponding certification, along with harmonised European labelling, will strengthen consumer confidence, increase demand and guarantee the producers' livelihood. Because of the different circumstances and traditions among the various Member States, however, we need to make sure that it is possible for them to regulate the matter even more strictly.\nMariann Fischer Boel\nMember of the Commission. Mr President, first of all I have enjoyed the dedicated discussion we have had on this very important topic. I also appreciate your support for the main thrust of these ideas. On some of the more difficult points, I hope that I have been able to explain that we can, to a certain extent, accommodate many of your ideas.\nI would like to make some comments on three different issues. Firstly, on labelling. It is important to realise that when the European Union's logo is used, an indication of the place where the raw materials were farmed is compulsory. This is also the case for imported products and it must be crystal clear that they have to comply with the same rules as domestic production.\nThe issue of co-existence was raised. It is very important that Member States make their own decision nationally to legislate on the rules for co-existence and the rules for liability. Once these GM products are in a Member State, then there must be rules on distances and cleaning machinery when going from one field to another. The decision has to be taken in the individual Member States, owing to the differences between production in northern and southern Europe. I can only encourage Member States to put in place this legislation.\nOn the threshold mentioned seemingly by all of you, it is necessary to underline that the Commission proposal does not change the current rules regarding the unavoidable presence of GMOs. However, it does clarify the organic operator's responsibility for avoiding the presence of GMOs.\nAgain, the important thing is that the use of GMOs and their derivatives is and was strictly banned in organic production, so they must be kept completely out of all organic production. We are also making the rules on the tests on each and every batch of organic products sold less restrictive than at present.\nOn mass catering, also an issue raised by many of you, it is today possible, and will be in future, for mass catering companies to produce goods, under national legislation, which they can label as organic. This is crucial. We could not accept an EU ruling or legislation on this issue.\nI can accept amendments 20, 31, 35, 56, 71, 75, 99, 101 and 120. Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, 68 of the amendments are acceptable partially or in principle. I cannot accept the other amendments in the light of the discussions that we have had and I refer specifically here to the amendment proposing a double legal basis. However, the fact that 77 of your amendments are either totally or partially accepted clearly indicates that we have more common ground on this issue than you might think at first glance.\nThank you for a passionate debate.\nPresident\nThank you, Commissioner. That concludes the debate.\nThe vote will be tomorrow at 11.00.\nWritten statements (Rule 142)\nKathy Sinnott\n, in writing. - Some things are black and white. Organic and genetic modification are opposites.\nA food cannot be called organic if it is genetically modified.\nTo pretend GM food contaminant can be labelled organic is so ludicrous that we have to ask why this possibility is allowed for in this directive.\nIs it because the Commission knows that co-existence will not work? If we carry on with the Commission's GM coexistence policy, organic farms will inevitably be contaminated. Is it because the Commission realises that if GM agriculture goes ahead it will destroy organic farming unless we redefine 'organic'? This would be a gross injustice and deception of organic farmers, sellers and consumers.\nTherefore I would like to ask colleagues to support amendments 166\/167, 170\/171, 175 and 194, and to oppose the inclusion of any genetic contamination threshold, which means to oppose the AGRI Committee's amendment 41 and any others with this effect.","meta":{"language":"en","dup_signals":{"dup_doc_count":7,"dup_dump_count":2,"dup_details":{"curated_sources":1,"2013-20":1,"2024-30":1,"unknown":4}}},"subset":"europarl"}